Remarriage Restriction for Woman of 300 Days in Türkiye: Review of the ECtHR’s Nurcan Bayraktar v. Türkiye Judgment

Candan Yılmaz

Makale detayları

Remarriage Restriction for Woman of 300 Days in Türkiye: Review of the ECtHR’s Nurcan Bayraktar v. Türkiye Judgment

Yazarlar:

Candan Yılmaz

Yayıncı:

Ankara University

Ana Başlıklar:

Aile Hukuku | Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.73 Issue 3, pp.2091-2117

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2024

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001330911

pISSN:

1301-1308

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Abstract On 27 June 2023, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously declared that the complaint of Nurcan Bayraktar was admissible and held that there has been a violation of Article 8 and Article 14 in conjunction with Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The violation arose from the application of Article 132 of the Turkish Civil Code which imposes a 300-day waiting period on divorced women to remarry, unless they lodge an application to a Family Court to lift the waiting period by proving with a medical report that they are not pregnant. The Court concludes that obligation to produce medical evidence to prove that the applicant was not pregnant - which can only be obtained by means of medical examination - constituted an interference with the applicants exercise of her right to respect for her private life, considering that it was not necessary in a democratic society. Moreover, the Court found that the obligation imposed on divorced women, due to the possibility of pregnancy, to wait 300 days amounts to direct discrimination on grounds of sex, which cannot be justified by the aim of preventing uncertainty as to the parentage of an unborn child. This study aims to summarise and review this judgment, which was delivered in French, in English for a wider audience, by providing a background information on Article 132 of the Turkish Civil Code.

 Abstract On 27 June 2023, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously declared that the complaint of Nurcan Bayraktar was admissible and held that there has been a violation of Article 8 and Article 14 in conjunction with Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The violation arose from the application of Article 132 of the Turkish Civil Code which imposes a 300-day waiting period on divorced women to remarry, unless they lodge an application to a Family Court to lift the waiting period by proving with a medical report that they are not pregnant. The Court concludes that obligation to produce medical evidence to prove that the applicant was not pregnant - which can only be obtained by means of medical examination - constituted an interference with the applicants exercise of her right to respect for her private life, considering that it was not necessary in a democratic society. Moreover, the Court found that the obligation imposed on divorced women, due to the possibility of pregnancy, to wait 300 days amounts to direct discrimination on grounds of sex, which cannot be justified by the aim of preventing uncertainty as to the parentage of an unborn child. This study aims to summarise and review this judgment, which was delivered in French, in English for a wider audience, by providing a background information on Article 132 of the Turkish Civil Code.

 Abstract On 27 June 2023, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously declared that the complaint of Nurcan Bayraktar was admissible and held that there has been a violation of Article 8 and Article 14 in conjunction with Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The violation arose from the application of Article 132 of the Turkish Civil Code which imposes a 300-day waiting period on divorced women to remarry, unless they lodge an application to a Family Court to lift the waiting period by proving with a medical report that they are not pregnant. The Court concludes that obligation to produce medical evidence to prove that the applicant was not pregnant - which can only be obtained by means of medical examination - constituted an interference with the applicants exercise of her right to respect for her private life, considering that it was not necessary in a democratic society. Moreover, the Court found that the obligation imposed on divorced women, due to the possibility of pregnancy, to wait 300 days amounts to direct discrimination on grounds of sex, which cannot be justified by the aim of preventing uncertainty as to the parentage of an unborn child. This study aims to summarise and review this judgment, which was delivered in French, in English for a wider audience, by providing a background information on Article 132 of the Turkish Civil Code.

 27 Haziran 2023 tarihinde Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi oybirliğiyle Nurcan Bayraktarın şikâyetinin kabul edilebilir olduğuna ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesinin 8. maddesi ile 12. maddesiyle bağlantılı olarak 14. maddesinin ihlal edildiğine karar vermiştir. Boşanmış kadınlara hamile olmadıklarını doktor raporuyla kanıtlayarak bekleme süresinin kaldırılması için Aile Mahkemesine başvurmadıkları sürece yeniden evlenmek için 300 günlük bekleme süresi getiren Türk Medeni Kanununun 132. maddesinin uygulanması, ihale sebebiyet vermiştir. Mahkeme, demokratik bir toplumda, başvurucunun hamile olmadığını kanıtlamak için yalnızca tıbbi müdahale yoluyla elde edilebilecek bir kanıt sunma zorunluluğunun gerekli olmadığını göz önünde bulundurarak, bu müdahalenin başvurucunun özel hayatına saygı gösterilmesi hakkına aykırı olduğu sonucuna varmıştır. Ayrıca Mahkeme, hamilelik ihtimali nedeniyle boşanmış kadınlara getirilen bu 300 gün bekleme zorunluluğunun, doğmamış bir çocuğun ebeveynliği konusundaki olası bir belirsizliği önleme amacıyla haklı gösterilemeyeceğine ve bunun cinsiyete dayalı doğrudan ayrımcılık olduğuna karar vermiştir. Bu çalışma, Türk Medeni Kanununun 132. maddesi hakkında bilgi sunmayı ve Fransızca olarak verilen bu kararı daha geniş bir kitleye ulaştırmak için İngilizce olarak özetlemeyi ve incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Makale detayları

Remarriage Restriction for Woman of 300 Days in Türkiye: Review of the ECtHR’s Nurcan Bayraktar v. Türkiye Judgment

Yazarlar:

Candan Yılmaz

Yayıncı:

Ankara University

Ana Başlıklar:

Aile Hukuku | Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.73 Issue 3, pp.2091-2117

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2024

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001330911

pISSN:

1301-1308

European Court of Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights

Waiting Period To Remarry

Right To Marry

Prohibition of Discrimination

Right To Respect For Private and Family LifeAvrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi

İddet Müddeti

Evlenme Hakkı

Ayrımcılık Yasağı

Özel Hayata ve Aile Hayatına Saygı Hakkı

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Candan Yılmaz

Yayıncı: Ankara University

Ana Başlıklar: Aile Hukuku | Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi: Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.73 Issue 3, pp.2091-2117

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 10/2024

Belge Dili: İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.): 2001330911

pISSN: 1301-1308

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Candan Yılmaz

Yayıncı:

Ankara University

Ana Başlıklar:

Aile Hukuku | Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.73 Issue 3, pp.2091-2117

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2024

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001330911

pISSN:

1301-1308