Reversal decision for the sake of law was published in
the Official Journal, dated 30.12.2025 and bearing the issue number 33123, with
the ruling of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, dated
30.09.2025, bearing the Basis number 2025/3440, and the Decision number 2025/4430.
In its decision, the Court of First Instance found
that the lease agreement dated 15.02.2021, with a term of one year, which
formed the basis of the debt enforcement proceedings and was relied upon in the
judgment, had been signed by the plaintiff as a guarantor, and that the
agreement did not specify either the duration of the guarantor’s liability or
the maximum amount for which the guarantor would be held liable, and that,
therefore, the guarantor’s liability was limited to the term of the lease
agreement, and that the rental amounts sought to be collected related to May
2021 and June 2021, which fell within the lease term. On these grounds, the
court ruled that the plaintiff guarantor was liable for the rental amounts
subject to the debt enforcement proceedings and dismissed the case.
The lease agreement dated 15.02.2021, with a term of
one year, which formed the basis of the action and was relied upon in the
judgment, was signed by the plaintiff in the capacity of the guarantor. Article
583 of Law Nr. 6098 provides that “A guarantee agreement shall not be valid
unless it is executed in writing and specifies the maximum amount for which the
guarantor shall be liable and the date of the guarantee. The guarantor must
state, in her or his own handwriting in the guarantee agreement, the maximum
amount of liability, the date of the guarantee, and, where acting as a joint
and several guarantor, that the obligation has been assumed in such capacity or
by using any expression to that effect.” As the lease agreement subject to the debt
enforcement proceedings did not comply with the formal requirements set forth
in the aforementioned article, the guarantee agreement was deemed invalid;
moreover, the fact that the rental receivables subject to the debt enforcement
proceedings fell within the term of the lease agreement does not affect the
outcome.
In view of these circumstances, the Court of First
Instance should have ruled in favor of the plaintiff guarantor, taking into
account that it is legally impossible to hold the guarantor liable for the
rental receivables subject to the debt enforcement proceedings. However, since
the court rendered a decision to the contrary in writing, which is contrary to
procedure and law, the Ministry of Justice’s request for revision in the
interest of the law was accepted.
Please note that this news, originally written in
Turkish, has been translated with the support of AI-based tools and then
reviewed and edited by human editors.
Source: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/12/20251230-26.pdf
