The ultimate goal of enforcement proceedings is the satisfaction of creditors by liquidating the debtor's assets. However, in cases where the sale proceeds are insufficient to cover all claims, the legal order seeks a balance between the principle of “first in time, first in right” and the principle of "equality of creditors." This balance is embodied in the ranking schedule regulated under Article 140 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (“EBL”) No. 2004.

Nature and Preparation of the Ranking Schedule

 If the sale proceeds cannot cover all debts, the enforcement officer ex officio prepares a ranking schedule. This schedule serves as a distribution plan outlining the ranking and the proportional share of each creditor's payout.

Legal Remedies Against the Ranking Schedule

Should the ranking schedule be prepared without regarding privileged claims or attachment ranks, or if it includes fictitious debts, creditors may seek legal remedies to rectify these errors. Turkish legislation provides two distinct paths depending on the nature of the dispute: complaints and objection lawsuits.

The Complaint Procedure (EBL Art. 142/3)

Objections regarding the procedure of preparing the ranking schedule, the ranking itself, or technical errors committed by the Enforcement Office are submitted to the Enforcement Court via complaint. The complaint must be filed with the Enforcement Court to which the Enforcement Office is attached within 7 days of receiving the ranking schedule. This complaint is directed against the Enforcement Office.

Objection Lawsuit Against the Ranking Schedule (Objection to the Merits)

If there is a dispute regarding the existence, amount, or priority of a claim included in the ranking schedule, the objecting creditor must file an objection lawsuit. In practice, the allegation of a "collusive claim" is the most frequent ground for such lawsuits. Additionally, this action may be brought due to an incorrect claim amount, expired statutes of limitations, or other reasons that extinguish the debt.

The action for objection is heard before the Civil Courts of First Instance under general provisions, or before the Commercial Courts of First Instance if the matter is of a commercial nature. In this litigation, the plaintiff is the creditor objecting to the ranking, and the defendant is the creditor whose claim is disputed (the one to whom a share has been allocated).

Burden of Proof and Procedural Rules

In the Complaint Procedure: The burden of proof rests upon the complainant creditor. This is because the complaint (EBL Art. 16) is not a "substantive law" lawsuit but a process of reviewing whether the enforcement officer's action complies with the law, procedure, and facts of the case.

In Actions for Objection: Contrary to the general rule, the burden of proof lies with the defendant creditor. The defendant must prove with proper evidence (especially through commercial books and concrete payment documents) that their claim is genuine, not collusive, and that the amount is accurate. The plaintiff creditor merely asserts that the defendant’s claim is fictitious or unjust.

Conclusion

The ranking schedule is the culmination of enforcement proceedings. A procedural error made at this stage, or a collusive claim that is not challenged within the statutory period, leads to a loss of rights for other creditors. Therefore, monitoring the preclusive periods following the notification of the ranking schedule and applying to the correct legal remedy is critical for the recoverability of the claim.