Supreme Court Decision Regarding Breach of Engagement
Article 4 of Law No. 4787 on the Establishment, Duties, and Procedures of Family Courts stipulates that all cases concerning matters regulated in Articles 118 to 395 of the Turkish Civil Code, with the exception of the third part of the second book of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, shall be heard in family courts.
Since Article 122 of the Turkish Civil Code concerning the return of engagement gifts is included in Book 2 of the Turkish Civil Code, such cases must be heard and decided by family courts in places where independent family courts exist, and by Civil Courts of First Instance designated as family courts by the HSYK in places where independent family courts have not been established. (Supreme Court of Appeals, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, November 16, 2005, 2005/2-673 E. 2005/617 K.)
Jurisdiction is a matter of public order and must be taken into account by the court ex officio at every stage of the proceedings.
In this case, considering that the issue of jurisdiction is a procedural rule related to public order and must be taken into account ex officio even if not raised by the parties, the court should have decided that the case should be heard by the Family Court or, in places where there is no Family Court, by the Civil Court of First Instance acting as a Family Court. However, as a result of an erroneous assessment, the trial continued without considering the issue of jurisdiction in the capacity of the Civil Court of First Instance, and a decision was made on the merits of the case, which was found to be contrary to procedure and law, and this issue had to be overturned.
According to the grounds for dismissal, it was deemed unnecessary to examine the defendant’s counsel’s appeal objections at this stage.
CONCLUSION:
The written decision rendered without considering the above-mentioned principles is unfounded, and the appeals are therefore well-founded. Consequently, the decision is REVERSED pursuant to Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and it is decided that the appeal fee shall be refunded to the appellant upon request. This decision was adopted unanimously on March 19, 2015.