Legal Analysis Of Unjust Enrichment Under Turkish Law

Introduction

Unjust enrichment is a foundational concept in Turkish law that addresses situations where one party benefits at the expense of another without a valid legal basis. This legal remedy, deeply rooted in principles of fairness and corrective justice, serves to rebalance economic disparities that arise without contractual or statutory justification. Unjust enrichment is articulated in the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO, TBK) Articles 77 to 82 and operates as one of the principal sources of obligations alongside contracts, torts, and statutory obligations. This article provides a comprehensive and original analysis of the doctrine of unjust enrichment in Turkish law, its legal framework, practical implications, and its distinction from other closely related legal concepts.

Unjust enrichment, as regulated under Articles 77 to 82 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, is defined as the enrichment of one party from the assets or labor of another without a valid legal cause. The doctrine's primary aim is to prevent and rectify the transfer of wealth or value that lacks a lawful foundation, thereby ensuring distributive justice between parties.

The core elements of unjust enrichment are as follows:

• Enrichment: An increase in one party's assets or the avoidance of a loss.
• Impoverishment: A corresponding decrease in the other party's assets or labor.
• Causal Link: There must be a direct connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment.
• Lack of Legal Basis: The enrichment must occur without a valid legal reason, such as a contract or statutory provision.

Suppose Party A mistakenly pays a sum of money to Party B, believing B is a creditor. There is no underlying debt or contractual relationship. B's assets increase (enrichment), and A's assets decrease (impoverishment), and this transfer has no legal justification.

Unjust enrichment has its origins in Roman law and evolved to fill gaps where neither contract nor tort law provides a remedy. Its function is corrective—to restore the balance between parties when wealth changes hands without justification. The principle operates as a subsidiary means of recovery: if another legal ground, such as contract or tort, can remedy the situation, unjust enrichment is not available.

A claim based on unjust enrichment is a personal right enforceable only between the parties involved (the impoverished and the enriched) or their universal successors—not against third parties.

Unjust enrichment claims are secondary. If the loss can be remedied through contract, tort, or another primary source of obligation, unjust enrichment cannot be invoked. This is reflected in Turkish Supreme Court (Yargıtay) decisions, such as Yargıtay HGK 2020/338 E., 2022/1194 K., which emphasize that unjust enrichment applies only if the loss cannot be recovered by another legal means.

The claim does not require the parties to possess contractual or delictual capacity; even minors or legally incapacitated persons may be claimants or defendants.

Claims for unjust enrichment are generally subject to the rules governing obligations, especially regarding performance and default, unless otherwise provided in Articles 77-82 TBK.

Enrichment may manifest as either an actual increase in the enriched party's assets or as the avoidance of an expected loss (negative enrichment). This includes:

• Asset Increase: Receipt of money, property, or benefits without justification.
• Expense Avoidance: Saving expenses that the enriched party would have otherwise incurred (e.g., using someone else's property without payment).

If a person uses public transport without paying the fare, they save the expense they should have incurred, resulting in enrichment at the carrier's expense.

Turkish law requires a direct causative link between the enrichment and the impoverishment. The transfer must not be incidental but should result directly from the actions or property of the impoverished party.

The enrichment must occur in the absence of a legal basis. This includes situations where the legal ground has never existed, has ceased to exist, or when a performance is made in error.

1. Performance-Based (Edim Yoluyla) Enrichment: Where a party performs an obligation in the mistaken belief that it is owed, or where a contract is later found to be invalid.
   Example: Payment under a contract later declared void for lack of form or capacity.
   
2. Non-Performance (Edim Dışı) Enrichment: Arises from unauthorized use or interference with someone else's property or rights without any contractual or legal relationship.
   Example: Cultivating another's land without permission and retaining the crops.
   

The amount that can be recovered is limited to the extent of the actual enrichment, not exceeding the impoverished party's loss. If the enriched party no longer possesses the benefit at the time of the claim and was in good faith, their obligation to return is limited to what remains.

• Good Faith (İyiniyet): The enriched party who was unaware of the unjust nature of their enrichment is only liable to the extent that they are still enriched at the time of the claim.
• Bad Faith (Kötüniyet): If the enriched party knew or ought to have known of the lack of justification, they are liable for the full extent of the enrichment, including any benefits derived therefrom.

Restitution can be in kind (return of the specific item) or by payment of its value if return in kind is impossible. This principle ensures the restoration of the status quo ante as far as possible.

In Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2023/495 K. 2023/1875 (08.06.2023), the Supreme Court confirmed that the return obligation is limited to the benefit actually received, emphasizing the principle of corrective justice.

According to TBK Article 82, the claim for unjust enrichment must be brought within two years from the date the claimant learns of the enrichment and in any event within ten years from the date of enrichment. If the enrichment results in the acquisition of a claim right, the defendant may always refuse performance on the grounds of unjust enrichment, regardless of limitation periods.

• Payments made by mistake: Overpayment or duplication of payment.
• Invalid or non-existent contracts: Transfers made under contracts later declared void.
• Mistaken performance: Payment made to the wrong person or account.
• Unauthorized use of property: Occupation or exploitation of another's land or assets without permission.

• Check the legal basis for any transfer of assets or value.
• Act promptly upon discovering unjust enrichment to avoid limitation issues.
• Retain evidence of both the enrichment and impoverishment, such as receipts, contracts, and correspondence.
• Consider the good faith of the enriched party when assessing the likelihood of full recovery.

• If you accidentally pay a sum to the wrong account, immediately notify the recipient and your financial institution.
• If you receive a benefit without a legal cause, consult legal counsel to assess your obligation to return the benefit.
• In commercial transactions, ensure all transfers are supported by valid contracts to prevent unjust enrichment disputes.

Negotiorum gestio involves managing another's affairs without authority, whereas unjust enrichment focuses solely on the transfer of value without legal cause. The two remedies are mutually exclusive unless the requirements for negotiorum gestio are not met, in which case unjust enrichment may apply subsidiarily.

• Negotiorum gestio requires the intention to act in another's interest and may impose an obligation to perform or restore benefits.
• Unjust enrichment is indifferent to intent and is triggered by the objective increase in assets or avoidance of loss.

Restitution actions, especially in the context of enforcement proceedings, enable a debtor to reclaim payments made under compulsion when no debt was actually owed. If the payment occurred outside of enforcement proceedings, unjust enrichment is the appropriate remedy.

• Jurisdiction: As a claim for a personal right, unjust enrichment lawsuits are generally heard in civil courts of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi), unless commercial or other specialized jurisdiction applies.
• Competence: The competent court is usually that of the defendant's domicile.
• Burden of Proof: The claimant must prove the enrichment, the impoverishment, the causal link, and the absence of legal basis.
• Nature of the Claim: The claim is a debt action—an eda davası—seeking the return of the unjust benefit.

Unjust enrichment plays a vital role in Turkish obligations law by providing a corrective mechanism where traditional sources of obligations are inapplicable. It serves to redress imbalances created by transfers of value lacking legal justification, thus upholding substantive fairness and legal certainty in private law relations. However, as a subsidiary remedy, its application is tightly regulated and subject to strict conditions, including the absence of other remedies and a clear causal link between enrichment and impoverishment.

Those facing issues of unjust enrichment, whether as claimants or defendants, should carefully consider the legal grounds, the nature of the enrichment, and the retention or dissipation of the benefit. In all such cases, timely action and documentary evidence are crucial to protect or assert one's rights.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.