Supreme Court Decision – 3rd Civil Chamber, Case No. 2016/10999, Decision No. 2017/18314, Date: 27.12.2017
The main and consolidated case concerns the return of gifts due to the annulment of the engagement and a claim for material and moral damages.
1-Based on the documents in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the compelling reasons required by law, and in particular the absence of any inaccuracy in the assessment of the evidence, all of the appeals filed by the defendant’s attorney in the joined case are unfounded, except for the following points relating to the main case.
2-The plaintiff in the consolidated case filed his claim for material damages as a claim for an uncertain debt. After the expert report, the court should have completed the missing fees in accordance with Article 32 of the Fees Law and continued the proceedings once the fees were completed, but it was not considered correct to issue a written judgment.
3- According to Article 122 of the Turkish Civil Code, if the engagement ends for a reason other than marriage, the gifts given by the engaged couple to each other that are outside the norm may be requested back. No fault is sought in lawsuits regarding the return of gifts outside the norm due to the breaking of the engagement.
In the event of the termination of the engagement, gifts that are not customary are returned in kind, or if they no longer exist, their equivalent is requested to be returned or their value is requested to be returned in accordance with the rules of unjust enrichment. The fact that the gifts were given and not returned can be proven by any means of evidence.
Customary gifts refer to items that wear out and are consumed through wearing or use. As a rule, no decision can be made to return items that wear out and are consumed through wearing or use (such as clothes, shoes, etc.).
Since the expenses and items subject to material compensation, other than the wedding dress, various fabrics and clothing, invitations, and donations mentioned in the expert report, remain in the possession of the plaintiff and are being used by the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s claim should be rejected in this regard, and it is not considered correct 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 is rejected, as are all other appeals regarding the main case. For the reasons explained in the second and third paragraphs, the judgment is REVERSED in favor of the plaintiff in the consolidated case, pursuant to Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The advance appeal fee shall be refunded to the appellant upon request. Pursuant to Transitional Article 3 of HMK No. 6100 and Article 440 of HUMK No. 1086, the decision is subject to review within 15 days of its notification. The decision was rendered unanimously on December 27, 2017.
