A prohibition against forced execution between spouses does not prevent them from filing a lawsuit against each other.
Republic of Turkey
Court of Cassation, 14th Civil Chamber
Case No: 2003/8009
Decision No: 2004/895
Decision Date: 17.02.2004
Following the hearing held on February 17, 2002, following a petition filed by the plaintiff’s attorney against the defendants requesting the cancellation and registration of the title deed, the plaintiff’s attorney requested that the Court of Cassation review the decision dated April 16, 2003, dismissing the case, and it was deemed necessary (…).
The case concerns a request for the cancellation and registration of the title deed based on the allegation that the immovable property in question, acquired through joint earnings during the marriage, was sold to a third party through collusion.
The court dismissed the case on the grounds that the marriage was still valid, that the regime of shared property separation between the spouses under Article 244 of the Civil Code was not accepted, and therefore, the plaintiff lacked standing to file an active feud.
The plaintiff appealed the judgment.
The property in question was acquired before Civil Code No. 4721 entered into force on January 1, 2002, and the regime of property separation continues in relation to the property in question.
While Article 165 of Civil Code No. 743 prohibits forced enforcement between spouses, it does not specify that they cannot file a lawsuit against each other due to their legal relationship. Similarly, there is no prohibition on filing a lawsuit under Civil Code No. 4721.
For the reasons stated above, the spouses have the opportunity to file a lawsuit regarding their legal transactions with each other. While a decision should have been rendered based on the outcome of the case after examining the merits and gathering all evidence, the fact that the judgment was rendered in writing was deemed inappropriate and necessitated reversal.
Result: For the reasons stated above, it was unanimously decided on February 17, 2004, to accept the plaintiff’s appeals and REVERSE the judgment. There was no need to review other issues based on the grounds for reversal, and to refund the prepaid appeal fee to the depositor.