Articles

Under Law No. 7201 on Notifications (the Notification Law), service is made at the addressee’s last known address.

If it emerges that the last known address is not suitable for service, or if service cannot be effected, the residence address registered in the addressee’s Address Registration System (i.e. the official place of residence) is treated as the last known address, and service is made to that address.

Article 21/1 of the Notification Law governs the situations where the addressee “is not present at the address” and “refuses to accept service.” In these cases, the reason for the addressee’s absence, or the grounds for the refusal to accept, must be investigated by the serving officer.

Article 30 of the Regulation on the Application of the Notification Law imposes on the serving officer the duty to “investigate” why the relevant person is not present at the address. Only where it is declared and substantiated that the addressee, although residing at the service address, is temporarily absent for a short or long period and will return after the distribution hours, may the steps of delivering the notification to the muhtar against signature, affixing form No. 2 to the door, and informing a neighbour of the situation be carried out.

The investigation is conducted by inquiring of a neighbour, the building manager, the doorman, the muhtar, or law-enforcement officers. The statements of these persons are recorded in the official report (mazbata) and their signatures are obtained; if they refuse to sign, this too is separately noted in the report.

Where the person has temporarily left the address for a short time (such as being at work or having gone to the market), it will be procedurally proper for the notification to be left with the muhtar provided that this is recorded in the service report and a neighbour, the doorman, or the building manager is informed.

Service carried out under Article 21/1 of the Notification Law without first investigating and clarifying the reason for the addressee’s temporary absence and whether they will return after the distribution hours is invalid.

In Summary

If the investigation reveals that the addressee resides at the address but is temporarily absent for a short period, the notification may be left with the muhtar. In that case, all of the following steps must be completed:

• The notification must be delivered to the muhtar against signature.

• The notice slip (form No. 2) must be affixed to the addressee’s door.

• A neighbour, the doorman, or the building manager must be informed of the situation.

As the date of service, the date on which the notice (notice slip) was affixed to the door is taken as the basis. For this date to be considered valid, the serving officer must have carried out and documented the investigation described above in full.

A Frequently Debated Point in Practice

A frequently debated issue in practice is whether the statement recorded in the report is sufficient to prove temporary absence. The 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has set an important criterion on this matter: if the service report includes a statement that the addressee “is at work” or “has gone to the market,” this is sufficient to prove a short-term, temporary absence. In that case, the serving officer is not additionally required to investigate whether the addressee will return after the distribution hours.

By contrast, if no investigation has been carried out at all, or no statement has been recorded in the report, the service is deemed improper. In that case the date of service is corrected to the date on which the addressee in fact became aware of the notification. (The date on which the document was read via the UYAP Citizen Portal is also accepted as the date of learning.)

Under Article 21/2 of the Notification Law, service made to the muhtar acquires validity only when the procedure prescribed by law has been fully complied with. Where the serving officer fails to conduct the investigation, fails to record the temporary absence in the report, or fails to affix the notice slip to the door, the service is improper, and this may be raised as an objection before the court.

Article 21/2 and the MERNIS Address

Article 21/2 of the Notification Law governs the situation where a notification sent to the last known address is returned. In that case, the notification is reissued to the MERNIS address under Article 21/2, with an annotation reading “MERNIS address.”

The fundamental difference between Article 21/2 and Article 21/1 is this: even if the addressee has never resided at that address or has permanently moved away from it, the serving officer may deliver the notification directly to the muhtar without fulfilling the investigation obligation required under Article 21/1; affixing the notice to the door is sufficient. Because the legislator accepts the MERNIS address as the person’s last and valid address in the legal sense, no separate investigation at that address is required.

However, for Article 21/2 to apply, a notification must first have been duly issued to the last known address and that notification must have been returned. Issuing service directly to the MERNIS address with the Article 21/2 annotation, without ever having sent any notification to the last known address, is procedurally improper and deemed invalid.

⚠ Important Warning

The date of service determines the start of the time limits for objections, replies, appeals to the regional court (istinaf), appeals to the Court of Cassation (temyiz), or applications relating to enforcement proceedings in many legal processes. For this reason, if you encounter a notification that you believe was made improperly, we recommend that you consult a lawyer without delay in order to avoid any loss of rights.

Phone

+90 542 208 06 65

E-mail

guneyatilgan@hotmail.com

Address

150 Evler Mahallesi, 29 Mayıs Caddesi, Metin İş Merkezi No:7/4, Ayvalık, Balıkesir