{"id":5990,"date":"2021-07-23T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-07-23T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.efeshukuk.com\/?p=5990"},"modified":"2021-08-16T21:29:14","modified_gmt":"2021-08-16T18:29:14","slug":"esler-arasi-cebri-icra-yasagi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/efeshukuk.com\/en\/esler-arasi-cebri-icra-yasagi\/","title":{"rendered":"Prohibition of Forced Execution Between Spouses"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"E\u015fler
Prohibition of Forced Execution Between Spouses<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Prohibition of Forced Execution Between Spouses | Izmir Family Law Attorney<\/strong> Attorney Mustafa Yolcu<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

Prohibition of Forced Execution Between Spouses<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The prohibition of compulsory enforcement between spouses can be defined as the inability of spouses to initiate enforcement proceedings against each other due to debts owed to each other. This prohibition is regulated in Article 165 and subsequent provisions of the old Civil Code; It was abolished with the new civil code currently in force.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

New Turkish Civil Code<\/a> Article 193\u201cUnless otherwise stipulated by law, either spouse may enter into any legal transaction with the other spouse and with third parties.<\/em>\u201dIt is structured as follows:.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supreme Court 14th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2003\/8009, Decision No. 2004\/895.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following the proceedings initiated upon the request for cancellation and registration of the title deed filed by the plaintiff's attorney against the defendants on February 17, 2002, and the subsequent judgment of April 16, 2003, dismissing the case, the plaintiff's attorney requested a hearing before the Supreme Court of Appeals. (\u2026) The matter was considered. The case concerns a request for 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 fraudulently sold to a third party. The court dismissed the case on the grounds that the marriage was still ongoing, that the separation of property regime between spouses was not accepted pursuant to Article 244 of the Civil Code, and therefore the plaintiff lacked active standing to sue. The judgment was appealed by the plaintiff. The immovable property in question was acquired before January 1, 2002, the date on which the Civil Code No. 4721 came into force, and the separation of property regime continues with respect to the immovable property in question. While Article 165 of the Civil Code No. 743 regulates the prohibition of compulsory execution between spouses, it does not include a provision prohibiting them from filing lawsuits against each other due to legal relations. Similarly, there is no prohibition on filing lawsuits in the Civil Code No. 4721.<\/strong>. For the reasons stated, spouses have the right to file a lawsuit regarding legal transactions they have made with each other. While a decision should have been made based on the merits of the case and all evidence gathered, the written judgment rendered is deemed incorrect and necessitates reversal. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, the appeal of the plaintiff's attorney is accepted, the judgment is REVERSED, and there is no need to examine other matters in light of the reason for reversal. The advance appeal fee paid by the appellant shall be returned. The decision was made unanimously on February 17, 2004.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For legal advice on this matter, please contact our expert team. Contact<\/span> <\/a>page.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similar articles that may interest you;<\/mark><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n