Right to Financial and Moral Compensation for Broken Engagement

Right to Financial and Moral Compensation for Broken Engagement. Within the systematic framework of Turkish Family Law, engagement is accepted as the precursor to the marriage contract, a sui generis (unique) family law contract with its own specific legal consequences. This report comprehensively analyzes the material and non-pecuniary compensation claims arising from the breach of engagement, the problematic issue of the return of gifts, and the procedural law dimensions of these processes. The analysis is conducted in light of the provisions of the Turkish Civil Code (TCC) No. 4721, established Court of Cassation precedents, and doctrinal discussions, from an expert legal perspective aimed at a depth of 15,000 words. The primary objective of the report is to analyze the legal mechanisms triggered by the termination of the engagement institution, going beyond a mere repetition of legal articles to include reflections in judicial practice and sociological projections.

1. Legal Nature and Structural Analysis of the Engagement Institution

Engagement is the first legal step taken towards establishing a family, the fundamental building block of society. According to TCC Article 118/1, “Engagement occurs with a promise to marry.” This brief definition brings with it doctrinal debates regarding the legal nature of engagement, such as the “contract theory,” “institution theory,” and “pre-contract theory.” The dominant view and the practice of the Court of Cassation accept engagement as a unique family law contract established by the mutual and congruent declarations of will of the parties, but whose performance (marriage) cannot be litigated or enforced.

1.1. Promise to Marry and the Issue of Legal Bindingness

Unlike general contracts in the law of obligations, the engagement contract imposes a debt on the parties to marry, but it does not allow for the enforcement of this debt. TCC Article 119/1 states, “Engagement does not give a right of action to force marriage,” thereby protecting personal freedom and the freedom of the will to marry as the supreme value. This provision is the most concrete reflection of the “freedom of will” principle of modern law in family law. If engagement gave a right to force marriage, parties would be forced to marry under legal pressure rather than their own free will, which would lead to a result contrary to public order and general morality.

However, while protecting the freedom to marry, the legislator has not ignored the damages arising from the abuse of this freedom or the frustration of the trust created in the other party. Therefore, although the path of a performance lawsuit (forcing marriage) is closed, the path of “compensation” (secondary right of claim) remains open. With engagement, a “duty of loyalty” and a “duty of assistance” arise between the parties. The violation of these duties raises compensation liability, similar to tortious acts.

1.2. Acquisition of Engagement Status and Proof

It is not mandatory to perform a specific ritual (ceremony, wearing rings, etc.) to establish an engagement relationship. The essential element is the mutual declaration of the parties’ will to marry. However, in practice and especially in terms of the law of evidence in compensation lawsuits, facts such as engagement ceremonies, photographs, witness statements, and the acquaintance of families are evaluated as presumptions proving the existence of the engagement relationship. According to Court of Cassation decisions, ceremonies held with the participation of the parties’ families are considered the strongest evidence of the will to be engaged. If only a romantic relationship or a de facto cohabitation exists between the parties without a promise to marry, this relationship cannot be qualified as “engagement,” and the general provisions (Code of Obligations torts) apply, not the special compensation provisions of the TCC regarding engagement (Arts. 120-122).

2. Termination of Engagement and Legal Consequences

The engagement relationship may end for various reasons other than marriage. The manner of termination directly determines the scope of compensation and return obligations.

2.1. Grounds for Termination

Marriage: The natural aim of engagement. In this case, compensation or return of gifts is not in question; property law and matrimonial property regime rules apply.
Death and Absence: The death of one of the parties or a decision of absence regarding one of them automatically terminates the engagement. In this case, compensation cannot be claimed, but the return of gifts (unjust enrichment) may be raised.
Mutual Rescission (Agreement to End): The termination of the engagement by the mutual will of the parties. As a rule, compensation does not arise, but the return of gifts can be requested.
Impossibility: The marriage becoming legally (e.g., discovery that parties are siblings) or factually (gender reassignment, etc.) impossible.
Unilateral Breach (Breaking the Engagement): The situation forming the basis of compensation lawsuits, where one party terminates the engagement with a declaration of will. The legal dispute centers on whether this breach is “justified.”

2.2. In-Depth Analysis of Fault and Just Cause Concepts

In compensation lawsuits arising from the breach of engagement, the concepts of “fault” and “just cause” are the cornerstones determining the fate of the case. TCC Articles 120 and 121 base the liability for compensation on the principle of fault.

2.2.1. Existence of Just Cause

Just cause is any fact that makes the continuation of the engagement relationship unbearable for one of the parties pursuant to the rule of honesty (TCC Art. 2). If the party breaking the engagement has a “just cause,” this person cannot be held liable to pay compensation; on the contrary, they may claim compensation from the other party (the faulty one) who caused this just cause to arise.

Just Causes Accepted in Court of Cassation Precedents:

Infidelity and Trust-Shaking Behaviors: Sexual intercourse with another person, flirting, or emotional intimacy are classic examples of infidelity. However, today, the Court of Cassation considers inappropriate correspondence via social media, “like” interactions, or communication with an ex-partner as “trust-shaking behavior” even without physical contact, and deems this a just cause for breaking the engagement. Such digital infidelities are evaluated in comparison with acts shaking the foundation of the marital union (adultery, leading a dishonorable life).
Illness: One of the fiancés contracting a disease that would seriously endanger the marriage or common life, is impossible to cure, or is permanent (especially contagious or sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, etc.), or the emergence/learning of such a disease after the engagement is considered a just cause.
Economic Collapse: Radical economic changes that would endanger the future of the family, such as the fiancé going bankrupt or falling into insolvency.
Violence and Maltreatment: Physical, psychological, or economic violence, insults, humiliation.
Family Reasons: Severe disrespect by the fiancé towards the partner’s family or unacceptable attitudes of the family towards the fiancé.
Character Error: Severe deviations in character traits that were concealed or emerged later, such as the fiancé committing a crime or being found to be addicted to alcohol or drugs.

2.2.2. Absence of Fault or Lesser Fault

The party claiming compensation does not need to be “faultless” or “less faulty” than the defendant in the breach of engagement; the text of the law focuses explicitly on the defendant’s fault. However, doctrinal discussions and the equity review of the Court of Cassation take into account the “contributory negligence” principle (Code of Obligations Art. 52) in determining the amount of compensation. If the plaintiff also prepared the ground for the breach of engagement with their behavior, a reduction in compensation may be made.

3. Material Compensation Lawsuit: Compensation for Negative Interest (TCC Art. 120)

TCC Art. 120 states: “If one of the fiancés breaks the engagement without a just cause or if the engagement is broken due to a cause attributable to one of the parties; the faulty party is obliged to pay an appropriate compensation to the other for the expenses made and material sacrifices endured within the framework of the rules of honesty and for the purpose of marriage.”

3.1. Protected Interest: Negative Interest

The most critical legal distinction in breach of engagement cases is that the damage to be compensated is “negative interest,” not “positive interest.”

Positive Interest (Expectation Interest): The difference between the situation the person’s assets would be in if the contract were performed properly (if the marriage took place) and the current situation. For example; expectations such as benefiting from the spouse’s assets upon marriage, inheritance rights, loss of support. Positive interest cannot be claimed in engagement. Because this indirectly implies forcing marriage and is contrary to TCC Art. 119.
Negative Interest (Reliance Interest): The damage suffered due to the “trust” felt in the validity of the engagement contract and that the marriage would take place. It is based on the logic “If the engagement had never happened, these expenses would not have been made.” The aim is to restore the plaintiff’s assets to the state before the engagement (status quo ante).

3.2. Categorization of Compensable Items

Court of Cassation practice and doctrine have detailed which expenses fall under the scope of negative interest. The expenses must have been made “in accordance with the rule of honesty” and “for the purpose of marriage.”

Table 1: Expense Items within the Scope of Material Compensation

Expense Category	Scope (Claimable)	Out of Scope (Not Claimable)	Legal Basis
Engagement Ceremony Expenses	Engagement venue rental, photographer fee, hairdresser cost, food and catering costs.	Money pinned and taken back during the ceremony, the portion of extravagant and luxury expenses exceeding reasonable limits.	TCC Art. 120, Rule of Honesty
Marriage Preparations	Wedding venue deposit, invitation printing, wedding dress/groom’s suit fitting and payments, honeymoon reservation cancellation fees.	The value of jewelry that would have been worn if the wedding took place, gifts expected after the wedding.	Negative Interest Principle
Household Goods and Dowry	Furniture, white goods, curtains purchased for the common home. (Note: If the goods remain with the plaintiff, only the loss in value/second-hand difference is claimed).	Current market value of the goods (If the goods remained with the plaintiff, only the damage is compensated to avoid unjust enrichment).	Balancing Justice
Housing Expenses	Rent for the house leased (reasonable period), real estate agent commission, painting-whitewashing costs.	Ownership of the house to be lived in during the marriage or long-term rent expectation.	Actual Loss
Material Sacrifices	Moving costs incurred to move to the fiancé’s city, concrete losses resulting from the disruption of the existing order.	–	Causal Link

3.3. Damages Suffered Due to Quitting a Job: A Critical Distinction

One of the most frequently encountered and legally debatable issues in practice is the compensation claim of the party who left their job upon the request of the fiancé or due to marriage preparations.

General Rule: The Court of Cassation rules that future salaries (loss of earnings) to be obtained due to quitting a job cannot be claimed as compensation. This is because future salaries are perceived as a situation that “would have been obtained or preserved if the marriage had taken place” and are seen as being in the nature of positive interest. Furthermore, quitting a job can be evaluated as the person’s own voluntary disposition.
Exception (Material Sacrifice): However, in some decisions of the Court of Cassation (e.g., 3rd Civil Chamber), it is accepted that concrete monies “paid out of pocket” due to quitting a job, such as notice pay paid, penal clauses, or education expenses, can be the subject of material compensation under the scope of “endured material sacrifice.” In other words, one can claim “indemnities lost/paid,” not “salaries not earned.” Nevertheless, there are decisions by the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stating that awarding compensation for the loss of income suffered by a minimum wage worker as a result of quitting their job is contrary to TCC 120. Therefore, claims for compensation for quitting a job carry high risks in litigation.

3.4. Plaintiff Status: Rights of Third Parties

TCC Art. 120/2 does not limit the right to compensation only to the fiancés but also grants the right to sue to the “parents of the party entitled to claim compensation or persons acting like them.”

Mother and Father: According to Turkish customs and traditions, a significant part of wedding and engagement expenses are covered by families. The legislator, observing this social reality, has regulated that the faulty party is responsible not only to their fiancé but also to the fiancé’s family.
Persons Acting Like Them: If the parents are not alive or financial support was provided by others (grandparents, siblings, guardians, etc.), these persons can also claim the expenses they made (dowry, venue money, etc.) from the faulty fiancé, provided they prove them.

4. Non-Pecuniary Compensation Lawsuit: Protection of Personality Rights (TCC Art. 121)

While material compensation aims to correct economic balances, non-pecuniary compensation (TCC Art. 121) aims to alleviate the pain of the party whose spiritual integrity has been damaged by the breach of engagement and to provide a sense of satisfaction. However, not every breach of engagement requires non-pecuniary compensation.

4.1. Conditions and the Court of Cassation’s “Attack” Criteria

The law seeks the condition of an “attack on personality rights” for non-pecuniary compensation. According to the established precedents of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation; natural sadness, disappointment, and sorrow felt from the breach of engagement are not grounds for non-pecuniary compensation on their own. These are the natural consequences of every separation (objective damage). To award non-pecuniary compensation, the existence of an additional element (subjective attack) that damages the honor, dignity, and reputation of the plaintiff beyond the separation is required.

4.2. Example Cases Requiring Non-Pecuniary Compensation

Situations reflected in Court of Cassation decisions and considered violations of personality rights include:

Severity of the Manner of Abandonment: Abandoning the fiancé on the wedding day, leaving them at the wedding table, disappearing without reason after invitations have been distributed, ending the relationship by humiliating the fiancé in front of others. For example, in a Court of Cassation decision; the plaintiff being battered and left at a dormitory by the defendant, their belongings being sent the next day, and the pregnant plaintiff being abandoned were evaluated as a severe violation of personality rights.
Attack on Chastity and Honor: Deceiving the fiancé with a promise of marriage to engage in sexual intercourse (attack on sexual integrity) and then abandoning them. Especially in conservative circles, the social pressure created by this situation is an element that increases the amount of non-pecuniary compensation.
Cheating (Infidelity): The fiancé having a relationship with someone else is a severe violation of the duty of loyalty and is a direct attack on personality rights. The trauma experienced by the deceived fiancé upon learning this is compensated.
Slander and Insult: Accusing the other party of theft, unchastity, or bad habits while breaking the engagement.
Disclosure of Private Life: Sharing secrets or images related to the privacy of the engagement with third parties.

4.3. Determination of Compensation Amount

While determining the amount of non-pecuniary compensation, the judge observes the principle of equity in TCC Art. 4. The criteria considered are:

Social and economic status of the parties (Should not be a means of enrichment, but should be deterrent).
Severity of fault (Intentional malice or negligence?).
Severity and duration of the attack.
Purchasing power of money.
Degree of pain felt by the plaintiff.

The Court of Cassation requires that the awarded amount should “neither be so little as to be ineffective nor so much as to unjustly enrich the plaintiff.”

5. Return of Engagement Gifts: Distinction between Customary and Non-Customary (TCC Art. 122)

When the engagement ends for a reason other than marriage, parties may ask for the return of the gifts they gave each other. This is a return obligation based on “unjust enrichment” at the intersection of property law and obligations law.

5.1. Scope and Conditions of Return

According to TCC Art. 122, the conditions for return are:

The engagement must have ended for a reason other than marriage (breach, death, impossibility).
The item requested to be returned must legally be in the nature of a “gift” (donation).
The gift must have been given on the occasion of engagement (within the engagement relationship).
The most critical condition: The gift must be “unusual” (non-customary).

5.2. Concepts of “Customary” (Usual) and “Non-Customary” (Unusual) Gift

The law aims to preserve the naturalness of social relationships and prevent petty reckonings from being carried to courts by stating “customary (usual) gifts cannot be asked back.” So, how is it determined what is customary and what is non-customary?

Customary Gifts (Not Returned): Clothing items (dress, shoes, shirt), cosmetic products, consumable food and drink (chocolate, cake), daily use items. These are things that wear out or are consumed by use, and demanding their return is contrary to equity.
Engagement Ring: Although controversial in the Court of Cassation and doctrine, according to the generally accepted view, classic engagement rings (promise rings, etc.) are considered “customary gifts,” and their return cannot be requested as they are spiritual symbols. However, rings with very high material value (solitaire diamond, special design, etc.) may be considered non-customary according to the economic status of the parties, and their return may be requested.
Gold and Jewelry (Non-Customary – Returned): The clearest and economically most significant precedent of the Court of Cassation is on this subject. According to established decisions of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation; all gold, bracelets, necklaces, sets, Republic gold coins, and valuable jewelry other than the engagement ring are accepted as “non-customary” (unusual) gifts and their return is mandatory. The Court of Cassation views gold not as an “ornament” but as an “economic value” and “investment vehicle.” Even if it is considered the “bride’s right” in local customs and traditions, its return is required as it would constitute unjust enrichment when the engagement is broken.
- Exception: If the parties are very wealthy and the gold given remains very “simple” for that circle (e.g., a small gold necklace for a billionaire family), it may be considered customary with the judge’s discretion; however, the general tendency of the Court of Cassation is towards the return of jewelry.

5.3. Method of Return and Calculation of Value

Return in Kind: If the gift (gold, jewelry) is available, it is returned in kind.
Return by Equivalent (Mislen): If it is not available in kind (cashed out, sold, lost), its equivalent (new one of the same type and quality) is given.
Return of Value: If return in kind or by equivalent is not possible, its value is paid according to unjust enrichment rules.
- Determination of Value: According to Court of Cassation practice, when calculating the value of jewelry, market values at the date of the lawsuit are taken as the basis. Although the value differences between the “date of breach of engagement” and the “date of lawsuit” are sometimes a subject of discussion, since the purpose of return is to take back the enrichment, current values are determined (via expert examination).

Important Precedent: In the lawsuit for the return of gifts, who presented the gift is important. The Court of Cassation accepts jewelry presented by parents as if presented by the fiancé, ruling that the return lawsuit should be heard between the fiancés. However, parents can also personally claim the gifts they gave as parties to the lawsuit.

6. Procedural Law: Competent Court, Jurisdiction, Statute of Limitations, and Proof

Strict adherence to procedural rules is required to obtain material rights.

6.1. Competent Court: Family Court

All lawsuits arising from the breach of engagement (material-non-pecuniary compensation, return of gifts) fall within the jurisdiction of the Family Court pursuant to Law No. 4787. In places where there is no Family Court, the Civil Court of First Instance hears the case in the capacity of a Family Court.

Important Distinction: If there is no engagement containing a promise to marry between the parties, but only dating or an unofficial union, in this case, the competent court is not the Family Court but the general Civil Court of First Instance. Because there is no “family law contract.”

6.2. Jurisdiction

According to the general jurisdiction rule (Code of Civil Procedure Art. 6), the court with jurisdiction is the court of the defendant’s place of residence. Furthermore, since compensation lawsuits have a nature similar to torts, it is argued in the doctrine that the court of the place where the damage occurred (place of tort) may also have jurisdiction (Code of Civil Procedure Art. 16), but there is no absolute jurisdiction rule.

6.3. Statute of Limitations: 1-Year Critical Period (TCC Art. 123)

TCC Art. 123 prescribes a special and short statute of limitations for rights of action arising from the termination of engagement: “Rights of action arising from the termination of the engagement are barred by the statute of limitations after one year has passed from the termination.”

Start of the Period: The period begins to run from the date the engagement is broken. The date gifts were requested back or the date the return was refused is not essential; the date the engagement relationship ended is essential. If the engagement ended de facto rather than by a court decision (e.g., determination within a paternity suit, etc.), the date of de facto separation is taken into account. The Court of Cassation requires this date to be determined definitively by witness statements.
This period is a statute of limitations, not a forfeiture period. Therefore, if the “statute of limitations defense” is not put forward by the defendant, the judge does not take it into account ex officio. However, in practice, lawyers invariably use this defense, and cases can be dismissed due to time limits.

6.4. Burden of Proof and Evidence

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Art. 190, the party making a claim is obliged to prove their claim.

Plaintiff’s Burden of Proof: Must prove the existence of the engagement relationship, the unjust breach (or the other party’s fault), their damage (expense documents, invoices), and the causal link.
Defendant’s Burden of Proof: Must prove that they had a just cause to break the engagement or that they were faultless.
Types of Evidence:
- Documents: Invoices, receipts, credit card statements, bank receipts (for expenses).
- Visual Records: Engagement ceremony photos and videos (the most important evidence for determining gold. Experts count jewelry and appraise value via these images).
- Witness: Witness statements (including relatives) are heard regarding how the engagement was broken, the fault status, jewelry presented, and expenses.
- Digital Evidence: WhatsApp correspondence, social media posts, SMS records, voice recordings (if obtained legally). These evidences are decisive especially in allegations of infidelity and insults.

7. Key Principles Derived from Court of Cassation Practices and Sectoral Insights

In this section of the report, “insights” analyzing the Court of Cassation’s approach to events and practical trends beyond mere legal rules are presented.

7.1. Insight 1: “Gold is an Investment” Approach

The Court of Cassation evaluates gold and jewelry not merely as a gift but as an economic transfer. It is accepted that the customary law stating “bridal jewelry belongs to the bride” would lead to unjust enrichment in case of breach of engagement (since the marriage did not take place). Therefore, it is assumed that gold presented by engaged persons was not “donated” (gifted) but given on the condition that the marital union be established. When the marriage does not take place, the condition of the donation (causa) is not realized, and return is required (condictio causa data causa non secuta).

7.2. Insight 2: Work Life and Marriage Balance (Positive Interest Rigidity)

The Court of Cassation persists in not viewing quitting a job due to engagement as a compensable damage. Although this sometimes contradicts the realities of modern business life, the Court of Cassation’s logic is that “the person left the job of their own free will” and “money (salary) to be earned if the marriage took place is positive interest.” This rigid attitude can victimize the party who left their career for their fiancé. The only way to remedy this victimization is to claim concrete compensations paid (if any) due to quitting the job.

7.3. Insight 3: Digital Loyalty and “Virtual Fault”

With the development of technology, the concept of “fault” has also evolved. It is no longer necessary for the fiancé to cheat physically; exhibiting “flirtatious” behaviors on social media, using social media constantly and secretly, neglecting the other party are accepted as “trust-shaking behavior” and considered grounds for compensation. This precedent developed by the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation in divorce cases is also applied to breach of engagement cases (for fault determination under TCC 120-121) by analogy.

Conclusion

Breach of engagement is a complex legal process with serious financial consequences in addition to being an emotional devastation. The Turkish Civil Code and Court of Cassation precedents have tried to establish a delicate balance between “freedom” and “responsibility of trust.” On the one hand, no one can be forced to marry (freedom); on the other hand, no one can unjustly frustrate the trust they created and cause damage to the other party (responsibility).

In this context, the party claiming compensation must;

Document their damage (material compensation),
Concretize the attack on personality rights (non-pecuniary compensation),
Prove the fault of the other party,
Show that the gifts were non-customary,
And do all this within the 1-year statute of limitations.

The most critical point for legal practitioners is the correct collection of evidence (especially digital and visual) and the formulation of claims within the limits of “negative interest” (without straying into positive interest).

Table 2: Critical Periods and Competent Authorities in Breach of Engagement Lawsuits

Subject	Rule	Basis
Competent Court	Family Court (If unavailable, Civ. Court of First Inst. as Fam. Court)	Law No. 4787 Art. 4
Jurisdiction	Court of Defendant’s Place of Residence	CCP Art. 6
Statute of Limitations	1 Year from the breach of engagement	TCC Art. 123
Appeal	Appeal and Cassation paths are open according to monetary limits	CCP

Our Latest Articles

« Previous Post