Legal Consequences of the Concept of Implied Consent in terms of the Cases of Legal Right of Pre-emption, Mesne Profits and Semen of Intervension
Nagehan KırkbeşoğluThere is a limit in the provisions of the legislation regarding the use and disposal of shareholders and stakeholders in joint and shared ownership. Indeed, according to Article 693 of the Turkish Civil Code No 4721, “each of the stakeholders can benefit from and use the shared property to the extent that it is compatible with the rights of the others”. According to TCC Art 689/I, “stakeholders may, by unanimous agreement among themselves, make regulations different from the provisions of the law on matters related to utilization, use and management.” A similar provision also exists in joint ownership. Indeed, according to TCC 702/II, “unless there is a contrary provision in the law or contract, the shareholders must decide unanimously for both management and disposition transactions”. The situation becomes even more complicated when stakeholders/shareholders allocate an area that the other stakeholder/partner can use more or less. Because the law does not regulate concept that emerges as the de facto division phenomenon in practice. In every case where it is accepted that implicit consent has been given, the condition of prohibition of usufruct in terms of retaliation is required, and the use of the legal right of pre-emption and the semen of intervension is prevented. Therefore, it is necessary to say that the burden of declaration is placed on the stakeholder/shareholder who is considered to have given implicit consent to the de facto use. In this study, the issue of how the concept of implicit consent, which causes these deprivations of rights, how it should be formed and proven, has been examined separately under the title of each right and finally under the title of concept of implicit consent with a general evaluation.
Örtülü Rıza Kavramının Yasal önalım, Ecrimisil ve El Atmanın Önlenmesi Davaları Bakımından Doğurduğu Hukuki Sonuçlar
Nagehan KırkbeşoğluPaylı ve elbirliğiyle mülkiyetinde paydaş ve ortakların kullanım ve tasarruflarına ilişkin mevzuatta bir sınır getirilmektedir. Gerçekten 4721 sayılı Türk Medeni Kanunu’nun 693. hükmüne göre “paydaşlardan her biri diğerlerinin hakları ile bağdaştığı ölçüde paylı maldan yararlanabilir ve onu kullanabilir”. TMK 689/I’e göre ise “paydaşlar, kendi aralarında oybirliğiyle anlaşarak yararlanma, kullanma ve yönetime ilişkin konularda kanun hükümlerinden farklı bir düzenleme yapabilirler”. Benzer bir hüküm elbirliği mülkiyetinde de mevcuttur. Gerçekten de TMK m 702/II’ye göre, “kanunda veya sözleşmede aksine bir hüküm bulunmadıkça, gerek yönetim gerekse tasarruf işlemleri için ortakların oybirliği ile karar vermeleri gerekir”. Bu anlaşma açık rızaya veya örtülü rızaya dayanabilir. Açık rızaya dayalı fiili kullanımlarda uygulamada herhangi bir sorunla karşılaşılmamaktadır. Uygulamaya göre taşınmazda özellikle paydaş/ortakların bizzat kullandıkları alanın bulunması halinde fiili taksim olgusunun gerçekleştiği açıktır. Ancak yine uygulamada paydaş veya ortakların diğer paydaş veya ortaklar tarafından oluşturulan fiili kullanımlarına örtülü rıza vermeleri durumuna yasal önalım hakkının kullanılmasının, el atmanın önlenmesi ve ecrimisil taleplerinin önlenmesi gibi hukuki sonuçların bağlandığı görülmektedir. Bu durum paydaş/ortakların diğer paydaş/ortağa az veya çok kullanabileceği bir alan özgülemeleri ile daha da karışık hale gelmektedir. Zira uygulamada fiili taksim olgusu olarak ortaya çıkan kavram kanunla düzenleme altına alınmamıştır. Örtülü rızanın verildiğinin kabul edildiği her durumda ecrimisil bakımından intifadan men şartı aranmakla beraber, yasal önalım hakkı ile el atmanın önlenmesi talebinin kullanılması engellenmektedir. Dolayısıyla fiili kullanıma örtülü rıza verdiği kabul edilen paydaş/ortağa bu kullanıma beyan külfeti yüklendiğini söylemek gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmada, mülkiyet hakkından doğan hak mahrumiyetlerine sebep olan örtülü rıza kavramının nasıl oluşması ve ispat edilmesi gerektiği meselesi her bir hak başlığında ayrı ayrı ve son olarak genel bir değerlendirme ile örtülü rıza kavramına ilişkin başlık altında incelenmiştir.
If stakeholders and shareholders create de facto use of the real estate without obtaining the explicit consent of other stakeholders/shareholders, various legal consequences arise if this use remains silent for a long time. Especially if the stakeholder/partner is left with a small or large portion that he can use and if the stakeholder/shareholder remains silent for a long time, according to the decisions of the Supreme Court, it is possible to prevent semen of intervension, with the legal right of pre-emption and to be deprived of mesne profits demands. This situation is achieved in practice by citing the honesty rule in TCC.Art.2/c.2. On the other hand, the shareholder / shareholder who is not left with a part that she can use more or less, or who is left with it, is deprived of the claim for mesne profits unless she fulfills the condition of prohibition from usufruct. In order to examine whether this solution method is appropriate or not, our opinions on the formation of a valid implicit consent are stated by including the opinions in practice and doctrine under the title of each right. Undoubtedly, it is also important to determine the legal position of the stakeholder/shareholder who make de facto use vis-à-vis the stakeholder/partner who is considered to have given implicit consent due to remaining silent for a long time.
In order to prevent the use of the legal right of pre-emption, the concept of de facto division formed by implicit consent must include parts used by the plaintiff and the defendant stakeholder. On the other hand, there is no need to include parts that other stakeholders need to use. Accordingly, while the de facto division defense of the shareholder who was given a small amount of space to use is heard, the de facto division defense of the third party who took over the share of the shareholder for whom no usable space was given is not heard. Thus, the stakeholder who does not participate in the de facto division and does not use the land corresponding to his share or less, or does not allow it to be used, is considered to have given implicit consent to the de facto division, and his interest in not allowing a foreigner to enter the joint ownership is not protected. On the other hand, the interest of the stakeholder who does not participate in the de facto division and is not allocated a place corresponding to his share, and of the other stakeholder/s in not allowing a foreign person to enter the joint ownership, is protected against this stakeholder. However, both gave implicit consent from the Supreme Court’s perspective. In such a case, by creating a difference between the two situations, the stakeholder in the first situation is prevented from exercising the legal pre-emption right without a valid implicit consent.
The reason that the stakeholder does not object because it is based on the obligation of other stakeholders not to use the law that is incompatible with their rights and that there will be a legal sanction for their use is against the natural flow of life, as stated in practice, also needs to be questioned. It should also be noted that the burden of declaration, which must be made in a short time against actual use in practice, is imposed. It should also be noted that the stakeholder/shareholder who does not fulfill the declaration obligation is deprived of the most important rights based on property, since he gives implicit consent to the de facto use. However, the obligation to declare can only arise from the law and honesty principle. In order to talk about a valid implicit consent, first of all, a notification must be made to the stakeholder/shareholder by the stakeholder/shareholder who will make actual use in order to obtain consent, and no response should be received within a reasonable time. However, in this case, the silent stakeholder’s exercise of its legal right of pre-emption, semen of intervension and requests for mesne profits can be prevented through TCC art.2/c.2. The concept of remaining silent for a long period of time, which is accepted as implicit consent in practice, is not clear and undermines legal security. The issue that the stakeholder/ partner must object to the de facto use within the period specified in the law is also discussed in this study. In this article, we touched upon the issue of in which situation the concept of implicit consent can be considered a valid consent. We examined whether the losses of rights that occur in cases where implicit consent is accepted to be given in practice are appropriate or not, separately for each right where implicit consent creates legal consequences. While doing this, we benefited from current Supreme Court decisions and opinions in doctrine.
