The Constitutional Court Ruled that the Classification of Remunerative Transactions Between Adoptive Parents and Adopted Children as Donations Violates the Right to Property and the Freedom to Seek Legal Remedies

The Constitutional Court’s (“Court”) decision dated May 9, 2024, and numbered 2024/103 (“Decision”), was published in the Official Gazette dated October 22, 2024, and numbered 32700.

The Constitutional Court found the classification of remunerative transactions between adoptive parents and adopted children as donations to be in violation of the right to property and the freedom to seek legal remedies. This decision underscores the need to observe the principle of proportionality in restrictions imposed on individuals’ property rights and led to the annulment of the relevant provision of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law.

In the application subject to the Constitutional Court’s decision dated May 9, 2024, and numbered 2024/103 (“Decision”), published in the Official Gazette dated October 22, 2024, and numbered 32700, it was argued that the phrase “…adoptive parents and adopted children…” in Article 278/1 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (“Law”) is in violation of Articles 13, 35, and 36 of the Constitution, and the annulment of the relevant provision of the Law was requested.

Article 278 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 regulates the invalidation of certain gratuitous (non-remunerative) transactions to prevent debtors from concealing assets from creditors. The annulled third paragraph of this Article treated certain transactions between adoptive parents and adopted children as donations, thereby allowing for the cancellation of asset transfers made by the debtor through this means.

In its evaluation, the Constitutional Court stated that remunerative transactions conducted by the debtor with close relatives are directly deemed as donations without any additional conditions, and the parties involved are not granted the right to claim or prove otherwise.

The Court acknowledged that the provision has a legitimate aim, such as facilitating proof for creditors. However, the Court further assessed that in cases of transactions that do not constitute a donation, situations where the full or excess payment has been made for the asset in question would also serve the creditors’ interests. The Court determined that imposing a limitation that does not allow the parties to present claims, defenses, or evidence, information, and documents regarding these matters is disproportionate. It concluded that this constitutes an excessive interference with the right to property and the freedom to seek legal remedies. Therefore, the Court ruled that the phrase “…adoptive parents and adopted children…” in subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph of Article 278 of the Law is unconstitutional with respect to Articles 13, 35, and 36 of the Constitution and decided to annul it.

You can access the full text of the Decision here. (Only Available in Turkish)