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
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
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