Republic of Turkey
COURT OF APPEALS
18TH CIVIL DIVISION
19. 2012/13948
20. 2013/2247
21. February 21, 2013
ADMINISTRATION (A minor over 15 years of age may be granted adulthood by the court upon his/her own request and the consent of his/her guardian – the minor’s request shall be recorded in the record, and the case shall be accepted if the request is affirmative)
REQUEST FOR AN JUDGMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (A minor over 15 years of age may be granted adulthood by the court upon his/her own request and the consent of his/her guardian – the parents have given their consent through signed statements taken at the hearing / the minor’s request shall be recorded in the record, and the case shall be accepted if the request is affirmative)
OVER FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE MINORS (Can be granted adulthood by the court upon their own request and with the consent of their guardian/No findings of physical or mental illness in the forensic medical report – Parents and guardians consent to a decision of adulthood/Decision to be made based on the minor’s request being recorded in the record)
4721/Article 12
SUMMARY: This case concerns the granting of adulthood. A minor over the age of fifteen can be granted adulthood by the court upon their own request and with the consent of their guardian. The Forensic Medicine Institute report states that the minor is currently 15 years of age or older, within 16 years of age, shows no signs or symptoms of any physical or mental illness, no signs of mental retardation, and that his psychological development is consistent with his age. Given that his parents, through signed statements obtained at the hearing, consent to a decision of legal adulthood, the minor’s request should be recorded in the record. If the request is approved, the case should be accepted.
CASE: The petition requested a decision of legal adulthood. The court dismissed the case, and the plaintiffs’ attorney appealed the decision.
After determining that the appeal was timely, all documents in the case file were read and considered:
DECISION: In the petition, the plaintiff’s attorney stated that U., born on October 1, 1996, is currently an 11th-grade student and will take the 2012 KPSS exam. A decision declaring U. the adult before the exam date is required as a condition for taking the exam. Therefore, he requested that U. be declared an adult before September 23, 2012. The court rejected the request.
The case concerns the recognition of adulthood.
According to Article 12 of the Turkish Civil Code, a minor over the age of fifteen may be recognized as an adult by the court with his or her own request and the consent of his or her parent.
The report numbered 2012/23084, dated September 19, 2012, of the Forensic Medicine Institution Branch Directorate, which is included in the file, states that U. was born in 1996, has developed in accordance with the civil registry, is currently 15 years of age but within 16 years of age. There are no signs or symptoms of any physical or mental illness, no signs of mental retardation, and his psychological development is consistent with his age. His parents, with their signed statements taken at the hearing, stated that they consented to a decision of juvenile delinquency. However, considering that U.’s request should have been recorded in the record, and if his request was approved, the case should have been accepted, but the rejection on the grounds of inappropriate justification was not deemed appropriate.
CONCLUSION: In this regard, rendering a written verdict without considering the principles explained above is inappropriate. Since the appeals are valid for these reasons, they should be accepted and the verdict should be reconsidered in accordance with Article 428 of the Civil Procedure Code. Pursuant to Article 10 of the Constitution (REVERSED), it was unanimously decided on February 21, 2013, that the advance appeal fee be refunded to the appellant upon request.
T.R. COURT OF APPEALS
2ND CIVIL DIVISION
E. 2004/14068
K. 2004/15983
D. 29.12.2004
• PERSON UNDER GUARDIANSHIP IS AN ADULT (AFTER THE GUARDIANSHIP AUTHORITY’S PERMISSION, THE SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY’S PERMISSION IS ALSO REQUIRED)
• PERSON UNDER GUARDIANSHIP IS AN ADULT (AFTER THE GUARDIANSHIP AUTHORITY’S PERMISSION, THE SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY’S PERMISSION IS ALSO REQUIRED)
• PERSON UNDER GUARDIANSHIP IS AN ADULT (AFTER THE GUARDIANSHIP AUTHORITY’S PERMISSION, THE SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY’S PERMISSION IS ALSO REQUIRED) )
4721/M.12,463
SUMMARY: According to Article 12 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 4721, a minor over the age of fifteen may be granted adulthood by the court with their own request and the consent of their guardian.
Article 463 of the same law regulates the situations in which the permission of the supervisory authority is required after the permission of the guardianship authority, and the situation of granting an adult status to a person under guardianship is listed among these situations. Accordingly, it is unlawful and unlawful to grant a minor the age of majority without the permission of the guardianship and supervisory authorities.
CASE: Following a letter from the Ministry of Justice, the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation requested the reversal of the local court’s verdict in the interest of law. The documents were read, discussed, and considered as necessary:
DECISION: It is understood that the lawsuit filed by plaintiff Ersin Yirik on September 28, 2002, requesting that he be granted legal representation, was accepted by the court, and the verdict became final without appeal.
According to Article 12 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, a minor over the age of fifteen may be granted legal representation by the court upon his own request and the consent of his guardian.
Article 463 of the same law regulates the situations in which the permission of the supervisory authority is required after the permission of the guardianship authority, and the situation of granting the guardianship authority an adult status is listed among these situations.
The court’s decision to grant the minor an adult status without obtaining the permission of the guardianship and supervisory authorities is contrary to procedure and law.
RESULT: The Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor’s request for reversal in the interest of the law, based on Article 427/6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was accepted for the stated reason, and the judgment was REVERSED without effect on the final outcome. It was unanimously decided on December 29, 2004.
Republic of Turkey
COURT OF APPEALS
2ND CIVIL DIVISION
E. 2004/1635
K. 2004/2614
D. 3.3.2004
• MAKING AN ADULT (MINOR OVER 15 YEARS OF AGE – REQUIRED BY HIS OR HER MOTHER’S CONSENT/WHEN ONE OF THE SPOUSE’S REQUIRED ARE NOT SUFFICIENT)
• MAKING AN ADULT (MINOR OVER 15 YEARS OF AGE – REQUIRED BY HIS OR HER MOTHER’S CONSENT/WHEN ONE OF THE SPOUSE’S REQUIRED ARE NOT SUFFICIENT)
• MAKING AN ADULT OF PARENTS TO EXERCISE JOINT CUSTODY (MINOR OVER 15 YEARS OF AGE – REQUIRED BY HIS OR HER MOTHER’S CONSENT/WHEN ONE OF THE SPOUSE’S REQUIRED ARE NOT SUFFICIENT) – ONE SPOUSE’S REQUEST IS NOT SUFFICIENT)
• CUSTODY (CONFIRMATION OF A MINOR 15 YEARS OLD OR OVER AS AN ADULT/REQUIREMENT FOR MOTHER AND FATHER TO USE THEM TOGETHER – ONE SPOUSE’S REQUEST IS NOT SUFFICIENT)
4721/Art.12, 336, 342
SUMMARY: A minor over the age of fifteen may be declared an adult by the court upon his or her own request and the consent of his or her parent.
The existing civil registration record in the case indicates that the plaintiff’s spouse, ……., is alive.
The court should have given the plaintiff time to submit his or her spouse’s consent to participate in the case, to appear at the hearing, or to submit a document attesting to this consent, and then rendered a decision based on the outcome. However, finding one spouse’s request sufficient and rendering a decision is contrary to procedure and law.
CASE: The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Cassation, following a letter from the Ministry of Justice, requested the reversal of the local court’s decision in the interest of the law. The documents were read, discussed, and considered as necessary.
DECISION: In the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff dated February 11, 2002, the plaintiff requested that his son, born on October 1, 1984, under his custody, be recognized as an adult. The minor’s mother was not permitted to participate in the case. The court accepted the case, and the judgment became final without appeal.
According to Article 12 of Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, a minor over the age of fifteen may be recognized as an adult by the court upon his own request and the consent of his parent.
Article 336 of the same law states, “As long as the marriage continues, the mother and father shall exercise joint custody.” This article does not grant priority or superiority to either spouse. Article 342 also establishes the principle that both parents shall represent the child without discrimination within the framework of their respective custody rights.
These mandatory provisions apply to all lawsuits filed by both parents on behalf of the child within the context of the exercise of custody within the marital union. Accordingly, although the primary requirement is for the spouses to file a lawsuit jointly, it is sufficient for the other spouse to subsequently provide their consent and express their affirmative will in the case filed by one of them, as joint custody will be established. A case where the other spouse’s participation or consent cannot be obtained must be dismissed.
The current civil registration copy in the file under review indicates that the plaintiff’s spouse, ………, is alive.
While the court should have given the plaintiff time to participate in the case, to attend the hearing and submit their consent, or to submit a notarized document demonstrating their consent, and to render a decision based on the outcome of this decision, it is unlawful and unlawful to render a judgment based on the request of one spouse.
RESULT: It was unanimously decided on 03.03.2004 that the request of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals to overturn the case in the interest of law based on Article 427/6 of the Code of Civil Procedure was accepted for the reason explained and the judgment was RE VERSED without affecting the outcome.