Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles

Turkish Supreme Court rules spousal consent not required in avals

Dec 3, 2018, 17:11 PM
Turkish Supreme Court rules spousal consent not required in avals
Slug : turkish-supreme-court-rules-spousal-consent-not-required-in-avals
Meta Title : Turkish Supreme Court rules spousal consent not required in avals
Meta Keywords : Turkish Supreme Court rules spousal consent not required in avals
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : Yes
Prioritise In Trending Articles : Yes
Date : Oct 30, 2018, 02:54 AM
Article ID : 117427

The Turkish Supreme Court (Yargıtay) has ruled that obtaining spousal consent is not required for avals, write Baker McKenzie's MUHSIN KESKIN and ERDI YIDRIM.

Pursuant to the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (TCO), a married person can provide a surety (kefalet - a kind of Turkish personal security) only upon his/her spouse's consent unless the surety is issued for the issuer's commercial enterprise's obligations or the obligations of a company where the issuer is a director or shareholder.

Under Article 603 of the TCO, provisions regarding the formal requirements, the legal capacity for being a surety and spousal consent are also applicable to other agreements in which individuals assume liability for third parties’ liability (e.g., guarantees).

An aval is a special type of suretyship, regulated under the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (TCC), securing, wholly or partly, the payment of a bill of exchange (poliçe) or a bond (bono). However, there are certain differences between an aval and a suretyship, making it uncertain whether spousal consent is required for avals as per Article 603 of the TCO. Accordingly, both legal doctrine and Supreme Court decisions have differing opinions.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court Unification Decision states that due to the following reasons, spousal consent will not be applicable to avals:

  • Suretyship imposes a dependent ancillary obligation, whereas an aval imposes a primary and independent obligation.
  • Under the TCO, spousal consent is a formal requirement for the validity of a suretyship, except for certain exemptions. However, the TCC, which sets forth the formal requirements for aval, does not require such consent.
  • Aval is not an “agreement”, but a unilateral undertaking and thusly does not fall in the scope of Article 608 of the TCO.
  • If spousal consent is required for an aval, the marital status of the aval provider must be provided in the bill itself, which is not possible unless the aval provider's civil registry extract is attached to the bill. Attaching such information is neither functional nor practical in commercial life.
  • If the spouse of the aval provider signs the face of the bill, they might be considered an aval provider themselves, as any signature on the face of the bill is considered a valid aval under Turkish law. Hence, spousal signature on the face of the bill could cause unintended issues.
  • Requiring spousal consent for an aval does not comply with the circulatory power of commercial bills.


The Supreme Court Unification Decision clarifies the problematic question of spousal consent for avals and ends the ongoing debates and uncertainties in both legal doctrine and Supreme Court decisions.

Categories :
  • Articles
  • News
Tags :
  • Divorce
  • Marriage
Provider : LexisNexis
Product Bucket : Divorce
Load more comments
Comment by from