Research Article


DOI :10.26650/JPLC2019-0022   IUP :10.26650/JPLC2019-0022    Full Text (PDF)

“Serious Crime” in Terms of the Withdrawal of the Donation

Cüneyt Pekmez

To 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 When a donation is withdrawn, the offense committed by the donee is characterized as “crime” in terms of criminal law.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.

DOI :10.26650/JPLC2019-0022   IUP :10.26650/JPLC2019-0022    Full Text (PDF)

Bağışlamanın Geri Alınmasında “Ağır Suç” Kavramı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme

Cüneyt Pekmez

TBK 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.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


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.


PDF View

References

  • Artuk E, Gökçen A, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (11th edn Adalet 2017). google scholar
  • Alşahin E and Çakir K, Balthasar B, Basler Kommentar Zivilgesetzbuch II Art. 457- 977 ZGB in Honsell, Vogt and Geiser (3th edn, Helbing-Lichtenhahn 2006). google scholar
  • Bekar E, Türk ve Amerikan Ceza Hukukunda Zorunluluk Hali (Seçkin 2013). google scholar
  • Bekar E, ‘Kabahatler Kanunu’nun Genel Hükümlerinin Değerlendirilmesi’ (2011) (1-2) İÜHFM 1033-1050. google scholar
  • Çubukgil A R, ‘Mirastan Adi Iskatin Hukuki Mahiyeti ve Sebepleri’ (1950) (3) Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 441-467. google scholar
  • Demirel M, Amirin Emri (On İki Levha 2014). google scholar
  • Dendorfer-Ditges R and Wilhelm P, ‘Nomos Kommentar zum Bürgerlichesgesetzbuch, Schuldrecht’ in Barbara Dauner-Lieb and Werner Langen, (3th edn, Nomos 2016). Demirbaş T, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (14th edn, Seçkin 2019). google scholar
  • Escher A, Zürcher Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch, Band II Das Erbrecht, 1 Abt.: Die Erben Art. 457-536 (3th edn, Schulthess 1959). google scholar
  • Gehrlein M, Beck’scher Online Kommentar Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch 8. Abschnitte, 4. Teil, §516-534, (50 th edn Beck 2019). google scholar
  • Gubser M, Strafenterbung de lege lata-de lege ferenda, unter Berücksichtigung des deutschen und österreichischen Rechts ( 2001). google scholar
  • Gümüş M A, Borçlar Hukuku Özel Hükümler (3th edn, Vedat 2018). Heizmann R, Strafe im schweizerischen PrivatrechtPhänomenologie und Grenzen gesetzlich begründeter Strafsanktionen des Privatrechts (Stӓmpli 2015). google scholar
  • Kelep Pekmez T, AİHM İçtihatları Bağlamında Türk ve Anglo Sakson Hukukunda Kolluğun Silah Kullanma Yetkisi (On İki Levha 2015). google scholar
  • Koca M and Üzülmez İ, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (12th edn, Seçkin 2019). google scholar
  • Kocayusufpaşaoğlu N, Miras Hukuku (3th edn, Filiz 1987). Koch J, Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch Band 4 Schuldrecht Besonderer Teil I §§433-534 (8th edn, Beck 2019). google scholar
  • Kutluay E, Bağışlama Sözleşmeleri (Turhan 2016). google scholar
  • Mahmutoğlu, F S, ‘Suç-Kabahat Ayrimi İdari Ceza Hukukunun Temelleri’ in İlhan Ulusan, Funda Başaran Yavaşlar (eds), İdari Ceza Hukuku Sempozyumu (Seçkin 2009) 27-49. google scholar
  • Özbek V. Ö., Doğan K. and Bacaksiz P, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (10th edn, Seçkin 2019). google scholar
  • Özgenç İ, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (12th edn, Seçkin 2016). google scholar
  • Öztürk B and Erdem M R, Uygulamalı Ceza Hukuku ve Güvenlik Tedbirleri Hukuku (18th edn, Seçkin 2018). google scholar
  • Tandoğan H, Borçlar Hukuku Özel Borç İlişkileri vol 1/1 (4th edn, Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Araştirma Enstitüsü 1985). google scholar
  • Türkmen A, Bağışlamanın Geri Alınması (Adalet 2019). Serozan R, Sözleşmeden Dönme (2th edn, Vedat 2007). Schönenberger B, ‘CHK - Handkommentar zum Schweizer Privatrecht Ver-tragsverhältnisse Teil 1: Innominatkontrakte, Kauf, Tausch, Schenkung, Miete, Leihe Art. 184 - 318 OR’ in Markus Müller-Chen, Claire Huguenin, (3th edn, Schulthess 2016). google scholar
  • Vardar Hamamcioğlu G, Bağışlama Sözleşmesi (Adalet 2016). Vogt N P and Vogt A, Basler Kommentar Obligationenrecht I Art. 1- 529 OR’ in Honsell, Vogt and Wiegand, (6th edn, Helbing- Lichten-hahn 2015). google scholar
  • Weimar P, Berner Kommentar Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch, Das Erbrecht, Die Erben, Die gesetzlichen Erben; Die Ver-fügungsfähigkeit, Die Verfügungsfreiheit, Die Verfügungs-arten, Die Verfügungsformen, Art. 457-516 ZGB (Stämpfli 2009). google scholar
  • Weingart D, OFK-OR Kommentar Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht, in Jolanta Kren Kostkiewicz, Stephan Wolf, Marc Amstutz, Roland Fankhauser (3th edn, Orell Füssli 2016). google scholar
  • Yağci K, Cezai Mirasçılıktan Çıkarma (Cezai Iskat) (On iki Levha 2013). google scholar
  • Yilmaz M, Bağışlamanın Sona Ermesi (On İki Levha 2011). google scholar

Citations

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


EXPORT



APA

Pekmez, C. (2019). “Serious Crime” in Terms of the Withdrawal of the Donation. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, 7(2), 213-232. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2019-0022


AMA

Pekmez C. “Serious Crime” in Terms of the Withdrawal of the Donation. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology. 2019;7(2):213-232. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2019-0022


ABNT

Pekmez, C. “Serious Crime” in Terms of the Withdrawal of the Donation. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, [Publisher Location], v. 7, n. 2, p. 213-232, 2019.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Pekmez, Cüneyt,. 2019. ““Serious Crime” in Terms of the Withdrawal of the Donation.” Journal of Penal Law and Criminology 7, no. 2: 213-232. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2019-0022


Chicago: Humanities Style

Pekmez, Cüneyt,. “Serious Crime” in Terms of the Withdrawal of the Donation.” Journal of Penal Law and Criminology 7, no. 2 (Jul. 2022): 213-232. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2019-0022


Harvard: Australian Style

Pekmez, C 2019, '“Serious Crime” in Terms of the Withdrawal of the Donation', Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 213-232, viewed 4 Jul. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2019-0022


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Pekmez, C. (2019) ‘“Serious Crime” in Terms of the Withdrawal of the Donation’, Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, 7(2), pp. 213-232. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2019-0022 (4 Jul. 2022).


MLA

Pekmez, Cüneyt,. “Serious Crime” in Terms of the Withdrawal of the Donation.” Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, vol. 7, no. 2, 2019, pp. 213-232. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2019-0022


Vancouver

Pekmez C. “Serious Crime” in Terms of the Withdrawal of the Donation. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology [Internet]. 4 Jul. 2022 [cited 4 Jul. 2022];7(2):213-232. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2019-0022 doi: 10.26650/JPLC2019-0022


ISNAD

Pekmez, Cüneyt. “Serious Crime” in Terms of the Withdrawal of the Donation”. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology 7/2 (Jul. 2022): 213-232. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2019-0022



TIMELINE


Submitted27.09.2019
Last Revision10.12.2019
Accepted23.12.2019

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.