Constitutional Court Found Indefinite Poverty Alimony Unconstitutional

According to the decision published in the Official Gazette, the Constitutional Court found the indefinite alimony regulation in the Turkish Civil Code unconstitutional. The court annulled the phrase "indefinitely" in Article 175 of the Law.

Accordingly, the cancellation provision will come into force nine months later, on June 30, 2027.

NOTABLE REASON FOR AGAINST VOTE

On the other hand, the following statements were included in the decision as 'justification for voting against':

"The majority opinion asserts that indefinite alimony binds the alimony obligor for life. However, the current law provides sufficient tools to balance this burden. In accordance with Article 176 of the Turkish Civil Code, the alimony amount can be reduced or completely eliminated in case the conditions change. In cases where the alimony creditor remarries, lives as if he were actually married without marriage, his poverty is eliminated, or a fundamental change occurs in the financial situations of the parties. The alimony obligation can be terminated or redetermined. Therefore, it is not possible to say that the rule puts the alimony obligor under an absolute obligation that does not end under any circumstances. The problems that arise in practice concern the effectiveness of the adaptation and review mechanisms, not the constitutional legitimacy of the principle of indefiniteness.

When Articles 175 and 176 of the Turkish Civil Code are evaluated together, it can be seen that the legislator has established a balanced system that, on the one hand, protects the spouse who falls into poverty and, on the other hand, protects the interests of the alimony obligor. First of all, the regulation in Article 175 does not necessarily require indefinite alimony to be ordered in every concrete case. The said provision allows the alimony creditor to request indefinite alimony; The judge decides by evaluating the characteristics of the concrete case, the social and economic situations of the parties, whether poverty conditions are met, and the requirements of equity."

"THE DECISION DOES NOT MAKE ALIGNMENT MANDATORY TO BE TERMINATED IN EVERY CASE"

In the evaluation made on the subject by the Lawyer Rights Group, the following statements were used: "The decision does not require that alimony be temporary in all cases; the new regulation requires a clear and predictable framework in which the judge can evaluate the conditions of the concrete case."