Istanbul Law Review

SUBMITINFORMATION
EnglishTürkçe

Research Article


DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0003   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0003    Full Text (PDF)

Protections for the Portion Reserved Against Marital Property Agreements and an Evaluation of the Amendments Relevant to the Swiss Civil Code

Kemal Erdoğan

According to Paragraph 1 from Article 202 of the Turkish Civil Code (TCC), the shared re-gime in acquired property is essential. However, spouses may accept one of the types of marital property regimes legally regulated through a marital property agreement, or they may make changes to the provisions of these limited number of regimes. In this case, the issue comes to the fore of whether priority should be given to the marital property agreement or to protecting the reserved portion. The basic principle accepted by Turkish legislation is that any marital property agreement concluded between spouses takes precedence over the interests of heirs with a reserved share. While Section II under Article 237 of the TCC protects the reserved share of non-common children and their descendants against marital property agreements in which a different principle regarding the shares of the residual value have been accepted, Section III under Article 276 of the TCC protects the offspring family’s reserved shares against property regime agreements regarding any other manner of distributing a partnership property. Both provisions have been criticized doctrinally on the grounds that they disrupt equality among heirs with reserved shares. On the other hand, a revision was made in the field of inheritance law in Switzerland, and these provisions entered into force on January 1, 2023. The revision amends and supplements part of the provisions included in Article 216 and 241 of the Swiss Civil Code (SCC). In light of these changes, the need has arisen to reconsider the issue.

Keywords: Marital Property Agreement, Protections for Reserved Shares, Action in Abatement, Non-Common Child, Swiss Inheritance Law Revisions
DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0003   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0003    Full Text (PDF)

Mal Rejimi Sözleşmelerine Karşı Saklı Payın Korunması ve İsviçre Medenî Kanunu’nda Yapılan İlgili Değişikliklerin Değerlendirilmesi

Kemal Erdoğan

Türk Medenî Kanunu’nun 202’nci maddesinin birinci fıkrasına göre, eşler arasında edinilmiş mallara katılma rejiminin uygulanması asıldır. Ne var ki, eşler evlenmeden önce veya sonra yapacakları bir mal rejimi sözleşmesiyle kanunda düzenlenen mal rejimi türlerinden birisini kabul edebilecekleri gibi, sınırlı sayıdaki bu rejimlerin hükümlerinde kanunun izin verdiği ölçüde değişiklikler de yapabilirler (TMK m 203). Yapılan mal rejimi sözleşmelerinin terekenin belirlenmesine, dolayısıyla da mirasçıların miras ve saklı paylarına, ciddi orada etkisi bulunmaktadır. Bu durumda, mal rejimi sözleşmesine mi yoksa saklı payın korunmasına mı öncelik verilmesi gerektiği gündeme gelmektedir. Türk kanun koyucusunun kabul ettiği temel ilke, eşler arasında akdedilen mal rejimi sözleşmelerinin saklı paylı mirasçıların menfaatlerinden önce gelmesidir. Temel ilke bu olmakla birlikte, iki istisnai hâlde (TMK m 237/II ve TMK m 276/III), mal rejimi sözleşmelerinin bazı mirasçıların saklı payını zedeleyemeyeceği öngörülmüştür. TMK m 237/II hükmünde artık değere katılmaya ilişkin farklı bir esasın kabul edildiği mal rejimi sözleşmelerine karşı ortak olmayan çocukların ve onların altsoylarının saklı payları koruma altına alınmışken; TMK m 276/III hükmünde ortaklık mallarının farklı bir biçimde paylaşılmasına ilişkin mal rejimi sözleşmelerine karşı altsoyun saklı payı koruma altına alınmıştır. Her iki hüküm de saklı paylı mirasçılar arasında eşitliği bozduğu gerekçesiyle öğretide eleştirilmektedir. Öte yandan, İsviçre’de miras hukuku alanında bir revizyon yapılmış olup, bu hükümler 1 Ocak 2023 tarihinde yürürlüğe girmiştir. Revizyon kapsamında değişiklik ve ek yapılan hükümler arasında ZGB Art 216 ve ZGB Art 241 hükümleri de bulunmaktadır. Bunlardan ZGB Art 216 hükmü, TMK m 237 hükmüne; ZGB Art 241 hükmü ise, TMK m 276 hükmüne karşılık gelmektedir. Bu değişiklikler ışığında konunun yeniden ele alınması zarureti doğmuştur.

Keywords: Mal Rejimi Sözleşmesi, Saklı Payın Korunması, Tenkis Davası, Ortak Olmayan Çocuk, İsviçre Miras Hukuku Revizyonu

EXTENDED ABSTRACT


According to the Turkish Civil Code (TCC), a shared regime regarding acquired property is valid between spouses. However, spouses may also choose a different marital property regime regulated by law or make changes to the provisions of these regimes. The death of a spouse is one reason for terminating any type of marital property regime. In this case, the marital property regime that had been valid between spouses must be liquidated. Under Turkish Law, the surviving spouse can receive both the shared claim arising from the liquidation of the property regime as well as the inheritance right regarding the estate, which includes the remaining portion of the residual value in accordance with the characteristics of a tangible case. This is because the idea that the division of a property should be made only according to the provisions of the inheritance law in the event of the dissolution of a marriage by death is not accepted under Turkish Law. Therefore, both the choice of a different marital property regime and an amendment of the provisions of the existing marital property regime may affect the estate and thus the shares reserved for the heirs.

The basic principle accepted by Turkish legislation is that marital property agreements concluded between spouses take precedence over the interests of heirs with reserved shares. Although this is the basic principle, two exceptional cases in Section II from Article 237 of the TCC and Section III of Article 276 of the TCC stipulate that marital property agreements must not adversely affect the reserved shares of specific heirs. Both provisions have been doctrinally criticized on the grounds that they disrupt the equality among heirs with reserved shares.

Due to Swiss legislation having abolished parents’ reserved shares, the criticism that no discrimination must occur among heirs with reserved shares became unfounded under Section III of Article 241 of the Swiss Civil Code (SCC) and related to Section III in Article 276 of the TCC. Within the scope of the revision, a new paragraph was added to Article 241 of the SCC, and this paragraph regulates that agreements on a different method of division do not apply in the case of the death of a spouse when divorce proceedings are pending that would result in the surviving spouse losing their right to claim the statutory entitlement.

On the other hand, the amendment to Article 216 of the SCC is incapable of finalizing any discussions doctrinally. The Draft Law stipulates an increase in the surviving spouse’s share claim arising from a marital property agreement should be added to the hypothetical estate while calculating the reserved shares. Accordingly, the reserved shares of both the common and non-common children are to also be calculated over the same estate. However, legislation makes a distinction again in terms of the possibility of filing an action in abatement for children who are unable to obtain their reserved shares. This amendment could be stated to be fairer compared to the previous situation but to also still be inadequate compared to de lege ferenda. However, during the enactment of the provision, an amendment was made at the last moment that accepted a contribution of more than half of the residual value to not be added to the estate when calculating the reserved shares for the surviving spouse, common children, and their descendants. According to this final version of the provision, which is currently in force, the reserved shares are to be calculated over two different estates.

Moreover, legislation regarding Article 532 of the SCC counts an increase in the shares claim among inter vivos legal transactions and subjects it to abatement in the first place among the other inter vivos legal transactions. This situation is consistent with other legal regulations. On the other hand, recognizing the right to file an action in abatement against this acquisition for only certain persons would not be proper. While granting the right to file an action in abatement to non-common children against the same legal transaction, to deny this opportunity to one spouse’s children would be inequitable. In order to protect the non-common children against their parents and the other spouse, increasing the percentage of their reserved share by making a somewhat positive discrimination would be more appropriate.


PDF View

References

  • Acabey MB, Evlilik Birliğinde Yasal Mal Rejimi (Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Yayınları 1998). google scholar
  • Acar F, Aile Hukukumuzda Aile Konutu - Mal Rejimleri ve Eşin Yasal Miras Payı (6. Baskı, Seçkin 2021). google scholar
  • Acar F, Eşin Yasal Miras Payının Belirlenmesi (2. Baskı, Seçkin 2004). google scholar
  • Akçaal M, ‘Sağ Kalan Eşin Katılma Alacağı ve Bunun Mirasın Tasfiyesine Etkisi’ (2020) 6(2) İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 231-247. google scholar
  • Akıntürk T ve Ateş D, Türk Medenî Hukuku, Cilt II, Aile Hukuku (23. Baskı, Beta 2021). google scholar
  • Aksoy M, Mukayeseli Hukuk Açısından Karı Koca Mal Rejimi ve Miras Hukuku ile Bağı (Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi 1964). google scholar
  • Aldemir İB, Edinilmiş Mallara Katılma Rejiminde Taraf İradelerinin Etkisi (On İki Levha 2018). google scholar
  • Antalya OG, Marmara Hukuk Yorumu, Cilt III, Miras Hukuku (5. Baskı, Seçkin 2021). google scholar
  • Arbek Ö, Miras Hukukunda Ölüme Bağlı İşlemlerde İrade Serbestisi Sınırları ve Müeyyidesi (Yetkin 2013). google scholar
  • Ayan M, Miras Hukuku (10. Baskı, Adalet 2020). google scholar
  • Birinci Uzun T, ‘Artık Değere (TMK md.237 f.2) ve Ortaklık Mallarına (TMK md.276 f.3) Katılma Anlaşmalarıyla Saklı Pay Kurallarının Bertaraf Edilmesi: Bir Medenî Hukuk Anomalisi’ (2018) 9(1) İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 105-132. google scholar
  • Brückner C, Weibel T und Pesenti F, Die erbrechtlichen Klagen (4. Auflage, Schulthess 2022). google scholar
  • Ceylan E, ‘Türk Hukukunda Boşanmanın Hukuki Sonuçlarında Arabuluculuk’ in Güllüoğlu Altun Y (ed), Arabuluculuk Zirvesi- II (On İki Levha 2020) 181-182. google scholar
  • Çabri S, Miras Hukuku Şerhi (TMK m. 495-574), Cilt I (2. Baskı, On İki Levha 2022). google scholar
  • Çakır AC, Sağ Kalan Eşin Mirasçılığı (On İki Levha 2018). google scholar
  • Çekin, MS, ‘Mal Rejimi Hukukunda Gerçekleştirilen Tasarrufların Miras Hukukuna Etkisi’ (2017) 4(2) İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 189-207. google scholar
  • Demir Ş, ‘Edinilmiş Mallara Katılma Rejiminde Artık Değerin Hesaplanması ve Paylaştırılması’ (2014) (1) Ankara Barosu Dergisi 246-269. google scholar
  • Dural M ve Öz T, Türk Özel Hukuku, Cilt IV, Miras Hukuku (17. Baskı, Filiz 2021). google scholar
  • Dural M, ‘İsviçre’de Eşcinsel Hayat Ortaklığının Düzenlenişi’ (2013) 8(Özel Sayı) Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi 927-936. google scholar
  • Dural M, Öğüz T ve Gümüş MA, Türk Özel Hukuku, Cilt III, Aile Hukuku (16. Baskı, Filiz 2022). google scholar
  • Eggel M, ‘Vermögensplanung unter Ehegatten im Spannungsfeld der Eheauflösung durch Scheidung oder Tod’ (2019) Aktuelle Juristische Praxis (AJP) 90-102. google scholar
  • Eitel P, ‘Familienbilder und das neue Erbrecht’ in Liegenschaften, Unternehmen, Vorsorge und Unterhalt in der Familie Planungsmöglichkeiten - 11. Symposium zum Familienrecht 2021 (Schulthess 2022) 31-62. google scholar
  • Erdem M ve Makaracı Başak A, Aile Hukuku (Seçkin 2022). google scholar
  • Eren F ve Yücer Aktürk İ, Türk Miras Hukuku (4. Baskı, Yetkin 2021). google scholar
  • Ertaş Ş, ‘Edinilmiş Mal Rejiminin Tasfiyesi, Mirasın Paylaşılması, Tenkis Hakkı’ (2013) 71(1) İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası 1365-1367. google scholar
  • Ertaş Ş, ‘Eski Medeni Kanun Zamanında Evlenen Kişilerin Mal Rejimi Tasfiyesinde Bazı Hukuki Sorunlar’ (2013) 2(Özel Sayı) Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi (Prof. Dr. M. Polat Soyer’e Armağan, Cilt 2) 915-932. google scholar
  • Fankhauser R und Jungo A, ‘Entwurf zur Revision des Erbrechts vom 29. August 2018: ein Überblick’ (2019) recht 1-11. google scholar
  • Forni R und Piatti G, ‘Vor Art. 522-533 ZGB’ in Geiser T und Wolf S (Hrsg), Basler Kommentar, Zivilgesetzbuch II, Art. 457-977 ZGB, Art. 1-61 SchlT ZGB (6. Auflage, Helbing Lichtenhahn 2019). google scholar
  • Genç Arıdemir A, ‘Evlilik Birliğinin Boşanma ile Sona Ermesi Halinde Çocuğun Hukuki Durumu’ in Elçin EG ve Genç Arıdemir A (edr), Çocuk Hakları Çalışmaları I (On İki Levha 2017) 139154. google scholar
  • Gençcan ÖU, Mal Rejimleri Hukuku (4. Baskı, Yetkin 2017). google scholar
  • Genna GS, ‘Art. 241 ZGB’ in Kren Kostkiewicz J, Wolf S, Amstutz M und Fankhauser R (Hrsg), ZGB Kommentar, Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch (4. Auflage, Orell Füssli 2021). google scholar
  • Gümüş MA, Teoride ve Uygulamada Evliliğin Genel Hükümleri ve Mal Rejimleri (TMK m. 185281) (Vedat 2008). google scholar
  • Hatem H, Miras Hukuku (5. Baskı, Vedat 2014). google scholar
  • Hausheer H und Aebi-Müller R, ‘Art. 181-251 ZGB’ in Geiser T und Fountoulakis C (Hrsg), Basler Kommentar, Zivilgesetzbuch I, Art. 1-456 ZGB (6. Auflage, Helbing Lichtenhahn 2018). google scholar
  • Hausheer H, Reusser R und Geiser T, Das Familienrecht, Band II, 1. Abteilung, Das Eherecht, 3. Teilband, Das Güterrecht der Ehegatten, 1. Unterteilband, Allgemeine Vorschriften Artikel 181-195a ZGB, Der ordentliche Güterstand der Errungenschaftsbeteiligung Artikel 196-220 ZGB (Stampfli 1992). google scholar
  • Hegnauer C und Breitschmid P, Grundriss des Eherechts (4. Auflage, Stampfli 2000). google scholar
  • İmre Z ve Erman H, Miras Hukuku (11. Baskı, Der 2015). google scholar
  • İmre Z, ‘Mirasın Taksimi Sözleşmesinin Şekil Şartı ve Türk Medeni Hukukunun Buna İlişkin Meseleleri’ iç Onar Armağanı (Fakülteler 1977) 395-435. google scholar
  • İnan AN, Ertaş Ş ve Albaş H, Türk Medenî Hukuku, Miras Hukuku (11. Baskı, Seçkin 2022). google scholar
  • Jakob D, ‘Art. 196-220 ZGB’ in Büchler A und Jakob D (Hrsg), Kurzkommentar, Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch (2. Auflage, Helbing Lichtenhahn 2018). google scholar
  • Jungo A, ‘Art. 216-217 und 241 ZGB’ in Breitschmid P und Jungo A (Hrsg), Handkommentar zum Schweizer Privatrecht - CHK, Personen- und Familienrecht - Partnerschaftsgesetz, Art. 1-456 ZGB -PartG (3. Auflage, Schulthess 2016). google scholar
  • Karamercan F, Katkı- Değer Artış Payı & Katılma Alacağı Davaları (7. Baskı, Seçkin 2022). google scholar
  • Kılıçoğlu AM, Aile Hukuku (6. Baskı, Turhan 2022). google scholar
  • Kılıçoğlu AM, Katkı-Katılma Alacağı (3. Baskı, Turhan 2013). google scholar
  • Kılıçoğlu AM, Miras Hukuku (11. Baskı, Turhan 2021). google scholar
  • Kocayusufpaşaoğlu N, Miras Hukuku, 2. ve 3. Basılara Ek Kitap (Filiz 1992). google scholar
  • Kuru Ö, ‘Bir Mesleğin İcrası veya İşletmenin Faaliyeti Sebebiyle Doğan Edinilmiş Mal Olması Gereken Malvarlığı Değerlerinin Sözleşme ile Kişisel Mal Haline Getirilmesi (TMK 221/1)’ (2016) 2(3) İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 113-136. google scholar
  • Midyat NA, Edinilmiş Mallara Katılma Rejiminde Değer Artış Payı (On İki Levha 2017). google scholar
  • Nar A, ‘İsviçre’deki Miras Hukukuna İlişkin Revizyon Çalışmaları ve Türk Hukukuna Olası Yansımaları’ (2019) 14(2) Erciyes Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 333-370. google scholar
  • Nar A, Türk Miras Hukukunda Tenkis (On İki Levha 2016). google scholar
  • Nuspliger I, ‘Art. 216 ZGB’ in Kren Kostkiewicz J, Wolf S, Amstutz M und Fankhauser R (Hrsg), ZGB Kommentar, Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch (4. Auflage, Orell Füssli 2021). google scholar
  • Oktay Özdemir S, ‘Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Katkı Payı Kavramı, Talep Koşulları ve Hesabı’ iç Prof. Dr. Şener Akyol’a Armağan (Filiz 2011) 597-618. google scholar
  • Özdamar D, Toker AG, Kayış F, Yağcıoğlu B ve Akgün Toker A, Yasal Mal Rejimi ve Tasfiyesi (7. Baskı, Seçkin 2022). google scholar
  • Öztan B, Aile Hukuku (6. Baskı, Turhan 2015). google scholar
  • Öztan B, Miras Hukuku (12. Baskı, Yetkin 2021). google scholar
  • Özuğur Aİ, Mal Rejimleri (3. Baskı, Seçkin 2006). google scholar
  • Sarı S, Evlilik Birliğinde Yasal Mal Rejimi Olarak Edinilmiş Mallara Katılma Rejimi (Beşir 2007). google scholar
  • Serozan R ve Engin Bİ, Miras Hukuku (8. Baskı, Seçkin 2022). google scholar
  • Steck D und Fankhauser R, ‘Art. 216 ZGB’ in Fankhauser R (Hrsg), FamKommentar, Scheidung -Band I: ZGB und Band II: Anhange (4. Auflage, Stampfli 2022). google scholar
  • Şeker M, Bilimsel Çalışmalar ve Güncel Yargıtay Kararlarıyla Edinilmiş Mallara Katılma Rejimi ve Bağlantılı Konular (On İki Levha 2022). google scholar
  • Şenocak Z, ‘Edinilmiş Mallara Katılma Rejimince Artık Değere Katılma ile İlgili Mal Rejimi Sözleşmeleri ve Tenkisi’ (2009) 58(2) Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 377-411. google scholar
  • Şıpka Ş ve Kaplan HA, ‘4721 Sayılı Türk Medenî Kanunu’na Göre Eşlerin Artık Değere Katılma ve Paylaşma Oranı ile İlgili Olarak Yapacakları Mal Rejimi Sözleşmelerinin Altsoy’a Etkisi’ iç Prof. Dr. Necip Kocayusufpaşaoğlu İçin Armağan (Seçkin 2004) 263-274. google scholar
  • Şıpka Ş ve Özdoğan A, Yargı Kararları Işığında Soru ve Cevaplarla Eşler Arasındaki Malvarlığı Davaları (2. Baskı, On İki Levha 2017). google scholar
  • Şıpka Ş, Türk Hukukunda Edinilmiş Mallara Katılma Rejimi ve Uygulamaya İlişkin Sorunlar (On İki Levha 2011). google scholar
  • Tuor P, Schnyder B, Schmid J und Rumo-Jungo A, Das Schweizerische Zivilgesetzbuch (12. Auflage, Schulthess 2002). google scholar
  • Wolf S und Doıjee-Good A, ‘V. Die einzelnen, insbesondere die Rechtsgeschaftsplanung betreffenden Punkte der ersten Revisionsetappe / E. - G.’ in Wolf S (Hrsg), Das neue Erbrecht - insbesondere Rechtsgeschaftsplanung, Fragen aus der notariellen Praxis und internationales Erbrecht (Stampfli 2022). google scholar
  • Wolf S, ‘Das neue Erbrecht - eine Übersicht über die auf den 1. Januar 2023 in Kraft tretenden Ânderungen’ (2022) 158 Zeitschrift des bernischen Juristenvereins (ZBJV) 417-443. google scholar
  • Yılmaz S, Medeni Hukuk, Cilt IV, Miras Hukuku (Yetkin 2022). google scholar
  • Zeytin Z, Edinilmiş Mallara Katılma Rejimi ve Tasfiyesi (5. Baskı, Seçkin 2021). google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Erdoğan, K. (2023). Protections for the Portion Reserved Against Marital Property Agreements and an Evaluation of the Amendments Relevant to the Swiss Civil Code. Istanbul Law Review, 81(2), 377-410. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0003


AMA

Erdoğan K. Protections for the Portion Reserved Against Marital Property Agreements and an Evaluation of the Amendments Relevant to the Swiss Civil Code. Istanbul Law Review. 2023;81(2):377-410. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0003


ABNT

Erdoğan, K. Protections for the Portion Reserved Against Marital Property Agreements and an Evaluation of the Amendments Relevant to the Swiss Civil Code. Istanbul Law Review, [Publisher Location], v. 81, n. 2, p. 377-410, 2023.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Erdoğan, Kemal,. 2023. “Protections for the Portion Reserved Against Marital Property Agreements and an Evaluation of the Amendments Relevant to the Swiss Civil Code.” Istanbul Law Review 81, no. 2: 377-410. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0003


Chicago: Humanities Style

Erdoğan, Kemal,. “Protections for the Portion Reserved Against Marital Property Agreements and an Evaluation of the Amendments Relevant to the Swiss Civil Code.” Istanbul Law Review 81, no. 2 (May. 2025): 377-410. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0003


Harvard: Australian Style

Erdoğan, K 2023, 'Protections for the Portion Reserved Against Marital Property Agreements and an Evaluation of the Amendments Relevant to the Swiss Civil Code', Istanbul Law Review, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 377-410, viewed 3 May. 2025, https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0003


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Erdoğan, K. (2023) ‘Protections for the Portion Reserved Against Marital Property Agreements and an Evaluation of the Amendments Relevant to the Swiss Civil Code’, Istanbul Law Review, 81(2), pp. 377-410. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0003 (3 May. 2025).


MLA

Erdoğan, Kemal,. “Protections for the Portion Reserved Against Marital Property Agreements and an Evaluation of the Amendments Relevant to the Swiss Civil Code.” Istanbul Law Review, vol. 81, no. 2, 2023, pp. 377-410. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0003


Vancouver

Erdoğan K. Protections for the Portion Reserved Against Marital Property Agreements and an Evaluation of the Amendments Relevant to the Swiss Civil Code. Istanbul Law Review [Internet]. 3 May. 2025 [cited 3 May. 2025];81(2):377-410. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0003 doi: 10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0003


ISNAD

Erdoğan, Kemal. “Protections for the Portion Reserved Against Marital Property Agreements and an Evaluation of the Amendments Relevant to the Swiss Civil Code”. Istanbul Law Review 81/2 (May. 2025): 377-410. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0003



TIMELINE


Submitted14.01.2023
Accepted31.07.2023
Published Online17.10.2023

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE



Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.