Supreme Court Decision – 3rd Civil Chamber, Case No: 2016/10999, Decision No: 2017/18314, Date: 12/27/2017
The main and consolidated case concerns the return of gifts and the claim for material and moral damages due to the termination of the engagement.
1-
Considering the documents in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the compelling reasons provided for in the law, and especially the absence of any inaccuracy in the evaluation of the evidence, all appeals filed by the defendant’s attorney in the consolidated case are unfounded, except for the following points relating to the main case.
2-
The plaintiff in the consolidated case filed a claim for material damages as an unspecified claim. Following the expert report, it was deemed incorrect for the court to issue a written judgment when it was required to complete the missing fees in accordance with Article 32 of the Fees Law and continue the proceedings after the fees were completed.
3-
According to Article 122 of the Turkish Civil Code, if the engagement ends for a reason other than marriage, the engaged couple may request the return of gifts given to each other that are contrary to the law. No fault is sought in cases concerning the return of gifts contrary to the law due to the termination of the engagement.
Upon termination of the engagement, gifts that are contrary to custom and practice shall be returned in kind or, if they no longer exist, their value shall be refunded or their value shall be refunded in accordance with the provisions on unjust enrichment. The fact that gifts were given but not returned may be proven by any means of evidence.
Traditional gifts refer to items that wear out and are consumed through wearing or use. As a rule, items that wear out and are consumed through wearing or use (clothing, shoes, etc.) cannot be returned.
The expenses and items subject to material compensation, other than the wedding dress, various fabrics and garments, invitations, and donations mentioned in the expert report, remain in the plaintiff’s possession and are used by the plaintiff; therefore, the plaintiff’s claim in this regard must be rejected, and it is not considered appropriate to accept the claim for material compensation for these expenses and items.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons explained in the first paragraph above, the defendant’s appeal regarding the consolidated case has been rejected, as have all other appeals regarding the main case. For the reasons explained in the second and third paragraphs, the decision in the consolidated case has been REVERSED in favor of the plaintiff pursuant to Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon request, the advance appeal fee shall be refunded to the appellant. Pursuant to Provisional Article 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 and Article 440 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086, the decision is subject to review within 15 days of its notification. The decision was rendered unanimously on December 27, 2017.