{"id":6705,"date":"2021-10-25T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-10-25T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.efeshukuk.com\/?p=6705"},"modified":"2021-10-25T09:22:26","modified_gmt":"2021-10-25T06:22:26","slug":"sebepsiz-zenginlesme-nedir","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/efeshukuk.com\/en\/sebepsiz-zenginlesme-nedir\/","title":{"rendered":"What is unjust enrichment?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Sebepsiz
What is unjust enrichment?<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

What is Unjust Enrichment? | Lawyer in Izmir<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unjust Enrichment<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The concept of unjust enrichment, Turkish Code of Obligations<\/a>Article 77 of the law stipulates that "Anyone who unjustly benefits from the property or labor of another is obligated to return that benefit." This obligation applies to material gains. based on an invalid, unfulfilled, or expired reason <\/strong>He\/She is born in that situation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A person who voluntarily performs an obligation for which they are not indebted can only reclaim it if they prove that they did so believing themselves to be indebted. Unjust enrichment resulting from the performance of a time-barred debt or the fulfillment of a moral obligation cannot be reclaimed. Other legal provisions regarding the reclaiming of an obligation paid when no debt was owed remain in effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The unjustly enriched party (debtor) is obligated to return all gains except those which he proves to have been lost at the time of the claim for restitution. If the enriched debtor disposed of the gains not in good faith, or if he should have considered the possibility of having to return them in the future, he is obligated to return the entire gain. (Turkish Code of Obligations, Article 79)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the enriched debtor is acting in good faith during this process, they may claim reimbursement from the party demanding restitution for necessary and beneficial expenses incurred. If the enriched debtor is not acting in good faith, they may only claim reimbursement for necessary expenses and, of their beneficial expenses, only the increase in value that exists at the time of restitution. Regardless of whether the enriched debtor is acting in good faith or not, they cannot claim reimbursement for other expenses. However, if no compensation is offered, they may separate and retain any additions they combined with the item that can be separated without harm before returning it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Situations Where Gained Wealth Cannot Be Reclaimed<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Something given with the intention of achieving an outcome contrary to law or morality cannot be reclaimed. However, in a lawsuit filed, the judge may decide that the item should be transferred to state ownership. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Statute of limitations<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The right to claim a debt arising from unjust enrichment is subject to a statute of limitations of two years from the date the creditor became aware of the situation, and in any case, ten years from the date the unjust enrichment occurred. If the enrichment occurred through the acquisition of a right to claim, the other party may always avoid fulfilling this obligation, even if the right to claim has become time-barred.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supreme Court Decisions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS, 23RD CIVIL CHAMBER, CASE NO. 2012\/2873, DECISION NO. 2012\/4261<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

\u201c"There is no default requirement within the scope of unjust enrichment."\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

-The case concerns a claim for receivables based on an allegation of unjust enrichment, and there is no legal provision requiring a separate notice from the creditor for default in restitution obligations arising from unjust enrichment. The issue should be resolved within the framework of the legal structure and characteristics of the concepts of unjust enrichment and default, general principles of law, and scholarly opinions. The general principle of common law, "The usurper is always in default," is still applied today. According to this principle, since the perpetrator of the wrongful act and the unjustly enriched party are always in default, the creditor does not need to give them a separate notice to ensure the default that has already occurred. Default interest should accrue from the date of the wrongful acquisition. (The decisions of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 17.11.1997, no. 7469\/8241; 08.10.2001, no. 4464\/7553; 17.06.2002, no. 2756\/6224; 23.07.2007, no. 960\/3318; and the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 13.11.1991, no. 11-303\/567; and 17.12.2003, no. 13-787\/774 are in this direction.) In legal doctrine, it is generally accepted that in cases of unjust enrichment, interest can be claimed from the moment of enrichment to the moment of restitution, and that this interest falls within the scope of "restitution in case of enrichment" as stipulated in Article 63 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this specific case, since the plaintiff, who is entitled to interest from the moment of unjust enrichment, does not need to put the defendant in default with a notice, interest should have been awarded from August 18, 2003, the date of payment when the unjust enrichment occurred. However, the decision to start the interest from the date of the lawsuit without providing a justification is deemed incorrect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS, 3RD CIVIL CHAMBER, CASE NO. 2011\/12926, DECISION NO. 2011\/18158<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

As a rule, according to Article 62 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, a person who voluntarily pays something that is not owed can demand a refund if they prove they made a mistake. The mistake mentioned in this article relates to performance and is an error indicating that the person making the payment did not have the intention or desire to make a donation. In other words, it means that if the plaintiff administration had not made a mistake, it would not have made the payment to the defendant.
The Supreme Court of Appeals, in its decision dated December 5, 1984, numbered 1982\/13-387 E \u2013 1984\/997 K, clarified that purely erroneous payments not based on any conditional agreement can be reclaimed by the administration according to the unjust enrichment rules of the Turkish Code of Obligations. In this case, the court should investigate the amount the plaintiff is entitled to receive due to the overpayment made to the defendant through an expert witness, and make a decision based on the report obtained.
The decision to dismiss the case with a written justification, without discussing whether a purely erroneous payment, not based on any conditions or savings, could be claimed under the unjust enrichment rules of the Law of Obligations, necessitates reversal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Here are some other works that might interest you:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n