Bağışlamanın Geri Alınmasında “Ağır Suç” Kavramı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme
Cüneyt PekmezTBK m. 295 I b.1’de bağışlamanın geri alınması sebepleri arasında düzenlenen bağışlananın bağışlayana veya yakınlarından birine karşı ağır suç işlemesi sebebi içerisinde ifade edilen “ağır suç” kavramından anlaşılması gerekeni belirlemek için ikili ayrım yapmak gerekecektir. Birinci ayrım “suç” ifadesi ikinci ayrım ise “ağır” ifadesidir. Bu ayrım salt teorik bir ayrım olarak görülmemelidir. Zira bağışlamanın geri alınması bakımından bağışlanan tarafından işlenen hukuka aykırı fiilin ceza hukuku anlamında bir “suç” teşkil etmesi gerekecektir. Hukuka aykırı fiilin suç olup olmadığının, ceza hukuku bakımından değerlendirilmesinin yeterli olduğu, bu kapsamda hukuka aykırı fiil suç teşkil ediyorsa TBK m. 295 I b.1’de yer alan sebeple bağışlamanın geri alınması bakımından ilk unsuru sağlayacağı söylenebilir. Hukuka aykırı fiilin suç teşkil etmesi, ağır suç işlenmesi sebebine dayanılarak bağışlamanın geri alınması bakımından objektif şartı teşkil eder. “Ağır suç” kavramı bakımından incelenmesi gereken ikinci husus “ağır” ifadesidir. Bağışlamanın ilgili sebebe dayanılarak geri alınabilmesi bakımından suç teşkil eden hukuka aykırı fiilin ağır olup olmadığı özel hukuk kurallarına göre belirlenecek olup, ceza hukukunda yer alan hususlar bu bakımdan etkili olmayacaktır. Sübjektif unsur (“ağır”) bakımından hakim şu üç unsurun mevcut olup olmadığını incelemelidir: Suçun şükransızlık-minnetsizliğin varlığını haklılaştırması, suç nedeniyle bağışlayanın derinden sarsılması ve bu sarsılmanın objektif açıdan haklı görülmesi.
“Serious Crime” in Terms of the Withdrawal of the Donation
Cüneyt PekmezTo understand the concept of “serious crime” based on the Turkish Obligation Code (TOC) 295 I 1, a dual distinction must be made to express the reason for a donee committing a serious crime against a donor or one of his/her relatives. The first distinction required is “crime” and the second is “serious.” When a donation is withdrawn, the offense committed by the donee is characterized as “crime” in terms of criminal law. To evaluate whether the offending act is a crime or not with reference to criminal law is sufficient. The second distinction required is to define the term “serious.” Whether a crime can be characterized as serious is determined in accordance with the regulations of private law in relation to the withdrawal of donations. When determining the subjective component of seriousness, the judge should examine the following three elements: whether the crime justifies the existence of ingratitude, any damage caused to the donor because of the crime, and the objective justification for this damage.
Our study examines the concept of “serious crime” that leads to withdrawal of donation. This may be due to the donee committing a serious crime against the donor or one of the donors’ relatives, which can be a reason for the withdrawal of donations, regulated by the Turkish Obligation Code (TOC) art. 295 I b 1. We refer to “severe crime,” as defined in the Turkish Civil Code art. 510, which regulates the grounds for debarment from inheritance. However, evaluations of severe crime that lead to debarment from inheritance may not be valid when considering the grounds for withdrawal of donation. In case of debarment from inheritance, the person whom the legator is debarring from his/her inheritance may be the heir according to the legator, yet there may be no such relationship between the donor and the donee. The proximity between the donor and the donee may not be as intense as in inheritance law. How can the concept of “serious crime” then be interpreted in terms of the withdrawal of donation? Is it possible, in this case, to deploy the assessments of criminal law? In the context of our study, we attempt to find answers to this question. To not exceed the scope of our study, we evaluate the concept of severe crime only with reference to withdrawal of donation. To gain an understanding of the concept of “serious crime” based on the TOC 295 I 1, a dual distinction must be in place to express the reason for a donee committing a serious crime against a donor or one of his/her relatives. The first distinction is “crime,” and the second distinction is “serious”. This distinction should not be regarded as purely theoretical because when withdrawing a donation, the offense committed by the donee is characterized as “crime” in terms of criminal law. When a donation is withdrawn, the offense committed by the donee is characterized as “crime” in terms of criminal law. To evaluate whether the offending act is a crime or not, referring to criminal law is sufficient. The fact that the offense is characterized as “crime” serves as an objective condition for the withdrawal of a donation when it is a serious crime. The second distinction required is to define the term “serious.” A crime is characterized as “serious” based on private law regulations in relation to the withdrawal of the donation. The criminal law issue will not be effective in this regard. The private law judge evaluates two types of issues when determining the concept of “serious crime”: objective and subjective. When determining subjective issues, the judge examines the following three elements: whether the crime justifies the existence of ingratitude, any damage caused to the donor because of the crime, and the objective justification for this damage. The judge should examine the nature of each specific case type, the extent of the donation, the motivation of the donor to donate, the motivation of the donee in relation to the offense, whether the donor is at fault or not, and whether these three elements exist together.
