{"id":6247,"date":"2023-10-10T21:13:09","date_gmt":"2023-10-10T18:13:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gndolegal.com\/?page_id=6247"},"modified":"2023-10-10T23:23:26","modified_gmt":"2023-10-10T20:23:26","slug":"constitutional-court-decision-on-disposition-deemed-as-gift-under-law-no-6183","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/gndolegal.com\/en\/constitutional-court-decision-on-disposition-deemed-as-gift-under-law-no-6183\/","title":{"rendered":"6183 Say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun Kapsam\u0131nda Ba\u011f\u0131\u015flama Say\u0131lan Tasarruflara \u0130li\u015fkin Anayasa Mahkemesi Karar\u0131"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n <\/div> \r\n <\/div> \r\n <\/div> \r\n <\/div>\r\n<\/div> \r\n\r\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\r\n
\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n

\r\n Constitutional Court Decision on Disposition Deemed as Gift under Law no. 6183 <\/span>\r\n <\/h2>\r\n \r\n \r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\r\n
\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n

\r\n 20 September 2023<\/span>\r\n <\/h2>\r\n \r\n \r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Constitutional Court Decision on Disposition Deemed as Gift under Law no. 6183 <\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Summary: <\/strong>In the action for annulment of disposition against immovable property share transfer between first-degree blood relatives, the Court concluded that the rule subject to objection was against the Constitution, and applied to the Constitutional Court through objection on the grounds that subparagraph (1) of the first subclause of Article 28 of Law no. 6183 on Collection Procedure of Public Receivables contradicted with Articles 13, 35 and 36 of the Constitution. In consequence of its norm evaluation, the Constitutional Court concluded that the article conflicted with the Constitution.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Our Explanations:<\/strong><\/p>

Constitutional Court Decision no.<\/strong> E.2022\/134, K.2023\/116 dated 22\/06\/2023<\/strong><\/p>

In the relevant dispute, the trial court concluded that disposition between claimants, who were father and son, should be deemed as gift as per Article 28 of Law no. 6183; however, the article did not allow any research on whether the disposition in dispute was made to make collection of public receivables impossible, and the expression “Onerous dispositions between blood relatives up to (including) third-degree and between spouses and relatives by marriage up to (including) second-degree” in Article <\/em>28\/1-1 of Law no. 6183 disturbed the balance between public interest and personal interest, and led to unmeasured restriction of property rights and right to legal remedies. The Constitutional Court was applied through objection on the grounds that the rule contradicted with Articles 13, 35 and 36 of the Constitution.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>

In consequence of its norm evaluation, the Constitutional Court concluded as follows:<\/p>