HD., E. 2016/12231 K. 2018/2059 T. 5.3.2018
COURT: FAMILY COURT
As a result of the court’s decision on the material and moral damages case between the parties, upon the appeal filed within the time limit regarding the decision to partially accept the case by the defendant’s representative; after the appeal petition was accepted, the documents in the file were read and the necessary examination was made:
SUPREME COURT DECISION
The plaintiff stated that she met the defendant in 2005, that they gradually became emotionally close, that they decided to marry by mutual consent, that she introduced the defendant to her sister and brother-in-law, that a traditional engagement ceremony was not held because she did not have parents, that she set the wedding date after making long-term marriage plans, had wedding favors and invitations made, and distributed the dowry to the defendant’s home, but claimed that the defendant did not attend the wedding and that his personal rights were violated, that his excess rights were reserved, and that the dowry he spent for the engagement and partnership was transferred to …
T he court ruled that the defendant should pay 1,000 TL in material damages and 50,000 TL in moral damages based on today’s values, that the goods should be returned as they were, provided they had not been used, or, if return was not possible, that their value should be refunded.
The defendant argued that there was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and that the plaintiff had paid for the goods brought by …
The court ruled that the price of the goods should be refunded in full; if the goods cannot be returned in full, the claim for moral damages should be partially accepted; the defendant should pay 15,000 TL in damages to the plaintiff; and the remaining claims should be dismissed. Th e defendant appealed the ruling.
1- The case concerns a claim for material and moral damages. Pursuant to Article 4 of the Law on the Establishment, Duties, and Trial Procedures of Family Courts, cases and matters arising from family law within the scope of the second book (excluding the third part) of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 and the Law on the Enforcement and Application of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4722 are heard in family courts.
As emphasized in the Supreme Court’s Decision No. 15/6 dated 04.06.1958, it is the parties’ responsibility to explain the material facts of a case, characterize these facts legally, research the applicable legal provisions, interpret them correctly, and apply them. In other words, the description of the material facts in a case belongs to the parties, while the legal characterization belongs to the judge (HMK. m. 33). According to the above-mentioned legal regulation, since the duty of clarifying the case belongs to the court judge, the legal characterization regarding the resolution of the dispute must be made.
The court ruled on the merits of the case, stating that the dispute arose from a breach of engagement based on Article 121 of the Turkish Civil Code.
Engagement is a promise made by the families and close friends of a girl and a boy who have reached marriageable age that they will be married in accordance with the customs and traditions of the region.
The engagement is a family law contract, regulated by Article 118 of the Turkish Civil Code, and no specific formality is required. For the engagement to be legally valid, it must be performed within a specific ritual framework, announced (publicly declared), and witnessed by family members.
Although the plaintiff claimed in the petition that his/her personal rights were violated due to the breaking of the engagement and sought material and moral damages, this issue was also accepted by the plaintiff since there was no traditional engagement ceremony between the parties.
In the present case, the parties met informally at regular intervals, and therefore it is not possible to speak of an engagement or a legally protected relationship. Since it is clear from the file that the parties were not engaged, the relationship between them must be assessed according to the rules of the law of obligations, in particular the provisions relating to tort, rather than according to the principles of family law.
The rules of jurisdiction relate to public order, and the court’s jurisdiction is within the scope of the case pursuant to Article 114/1-c of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court must automatically assess whether it has jurisdiction at every stage of the proceedings.
In this case, since the subject matter of the case is not a claim for compensation based on engagement, a decision of lack of jurisdiction must be issued due to tort, and the file must be sent to the Civil Court of First Instance.
In light of all these explanations, considering that the dispute does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, a decision of lack of jurisdiction should have been rendered, and it was incorrect to establish a written ruling on the merits of the case, which should be annulled.
2-Based on the grounds and form of the annulment, it was not deemed necessary to examine the defendant’s appeal objections at this stage.
CONCLUSION:
The judgment rendered without considering the principles explained in the first paragraph above is erroneous, and the decision is REVERSED pursuant to Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As explained in the second paragraph, there is no need to examine the defendant’s appeal objections at this stage, and the advance appeal fee shall be refunded to the defendant within 15 days from the notification of the decision, pursuant to Article 440 of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon request. LMASINA, upon request, by filing an appeal on March 5, 2018, was unanimously decided.