Engagement, which constitutes one of the first and most significant stages of the process leading to marriage in society, is not merely a social and traditional phenomenon. Although it is often perceived in society solely as a social and customary bond, engagement is an institution profoundly regulated under the Turkish Civil Code and connected to specific legal consequences. Under the Turkish Civil Code, engagement is regulated as a ‘promise of marriage’; the establishment of such promise, its termination, and the consequences attached to such termination are all subject to specific rules. In fact, although engagement does not impose upon the parties an obligation to marry, it may nevertheless give rise to certain legal responsibilities for the parties within the framework of the principle of good faith.
Pursuant to Article 118 of the Turkish Civil Code, an engagement comes into existence through the parties’ mutual promise to marry. The legislator has accepted engagement not as a contract in the classical sense, but as a special legal relationship directed toward marriage and possessing a unique legal character. For this reason, engagement is not subject to the rules of performance and compulsory enforcement specific to the law of obligations. No formal requirement has been prescribed by law for the validity of an engagement. To this end, an engagement may be established through written or oral declarations of intent, as well as through traditional engagement ceremonies. In all cases, however, the parties’ intentions must be serious, free, and directed towards marriage. Statements made in jest, temporary relationships, or ambiguous expressions does not give rise to an engagement relationship. What is essential is that the parties’ mutual intentions be clear and coincide in favor of marriage.
The Concept of a Promise of Marriage
The fundamental element of engagement is the promise of marriage. A promise of marriage consists of declarations of intent by which the parties express their intention to marry in the future. In this respect, engagement is a legal relationship established not by a unilateral declaration of intent, but by the clear and mutual declarations of both parties directed toward marriage. However, a promise of marriage does not create an obligation compelling the parties to marry. Pursuant to Article 119 of the Turkish Civil Code, neither fiance(e) may be forced to marry; if marriage is avoided, only the legal consequences expressly provided by law may arise.
The Commencement of Engagement
Engagement begins with mutual and corresponding declarations of intent by the parties. Such declaration of intent is not required to be made through any particular ceremony. In practice, although engagement ceremonies, the exchange of rings, or the gathering of the families are frequently observed, such formal elements are not legally required for an engagement. It is also sufficient, for the existence of an engagement, that an intention to marry be clearly inferred from the parties’ conduct. However, a merely emotional relationship or the abstract expression of a thought of marriage is not deemed sufficient to establish an engagement. The parties’ conduct, statements, and the attitude they display toward third parties are likewise important in determining the existence of an engagement. In numerous decisions, the Court of Cassation has accepted that the existence of an engagement may be proven by all kinds of evidence.
Age and Other Related Requirements for Engagement
The Turkish Civil Code does not prescribe an explicit age limit for engagement. However, in doctrine and judicial decisions, it is accepted that, since engagement constitutes preparation for marriage, the minimum requirement is the capacity for discernment. Although no specific age limit is set forth by law, doctrine requires that the person have reached puberty. What is meant by puberty is that the person to become engaged must have entered adolescence and be capable of understanding the provisions and consequences of engagement. In other words, the rules applicable to marriage apply, a fortiori, to engagement as well. Engagements entered into by persons lacking the capacity for discernment are not legally valid. Although the engagement of minors is not expressly prohibited by law, engagements entered into without parental consent are of a controversial nature.
Engagement in Light of Legal Capacity
Persons with full legal capacity may become engaged freely. As regards persons with limited capacity, since engagement is regarded as a strictly personal right, the permission of the legal representative is, in principle, not required. However, in view of the legal consequences that may arise, the importance of the representative’s consent is taken into consideration in practice. A minor or restricted person may not become engaged without the consent of his or her legal representative (TCC Art. 118/II). Engagement is possible only between persons of different sexes. Persons of the same sex, or persons whose marriage is legally prohibited, may not become engaged. For example, engagements between ascendants and descendants, siblings, or persons suffering from mental illness are invalid.
Impediments to Engagement
The law enumerates impediments to marriage (TCC Arts. 129-134), and it is accepted in doctrine that these impediments are likewise applicable to engagement. Marriage impediments are divided into absolute and non-absolute impediments; absolute impediments to marriage, such as being of the same sex, mental illness, kinship (such as ascendants and descendants or siblings), and the existence of a current marriage, also constitute impediments to engagement. Non-absolute impediments to marriage (for example, the waiting period arising where a woman becomes pregnant while unmarried) do not prevent the formation of an engagement agreement.
Double Engagement
It is not legally possible for a person to be engaged to more than one person at the same time. Where a situation of double engagement arises, the factor sought in determining which engagement is legally valid is the parties’ intention, in the relevant engagement relationships, to assume the obligations and responsibilities of engagement. If the person’s intention in entering into the second engagement is to terminate the first engagement, the second engagement shall be deemed valid. However, if the person intends to maintain both engagements simultaneously, the prevailing assessment in practice is that the earliest engagement by date will be regarded as valid; accordingly, the first engagement is valid and the second is invalid. Furthermore, if the state of double engagement occurs in a manner contrary to the rules of good faith, severe consequences may also arise for the person whose fault caused such conduct when his or her liability in relation to the termination of the engagement is assessed.
Engagement of a Married Person
The engagement of a married person is legally invalid. This is because making a promise of marriage while an existing marriage continues is contrary both to morality and to law. As a rule, it is likewise not possible to claim compensation on the basis of such engagement. If a married person who is in divorce proceedings becomes engaged, the engagement remains in suspense. If the divorce is finalized, the engagement becomes valid retroactively from the outset; if the divorce does not occur, the engagement is invalid from the very beginning.
Sham Engagement
Where the parties’ true intention is not to marry, but they merely create the appearance of an engagement in order to mislead third parties, this is referred to as a sham engagement. A sham engagement does not give rise to legal consequences; no claim for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages may be based on such a relationship. However, in concrete cases, the determination and proof of sham intent is not easy.
Formal Requirements of Engagement
No formal requirement is prescribed by law for engagement. It is not mandatory to execute the engagement in writing or to hold an official ceremony. However, for ease of proof, particularly where a dispute is likely, evidence demonstrating the existence of the engagement (witnesses, messages, photographs, ceremony records, etc.) is of importance.
Termination of Engagement
Engagement is, in itself, an independent agreement and bears the character of a preliminary agreement made for the purpose of marriage. For this reason, engagement gives rise to certain obligations for the parties: preparations for marriage (expenditures for the wedding, household goods, etc.) and the duties of loyalty and assistance come to the forefront. During the engagement, the parties must act toward one another loyally and in accordance with the principle of good faith. A breach of these ancillary obligations may constitute a just cause for breaking off the engagement and may lead to compensation. On the other hand, unless otherwise provided by law, no action may be brought to compel marriage; break-up compensation or a penalty clause is deemed invalid. Engagement may terminate in various ways. Marriage is the most natural cause of termination; once the marriage takes place, the engagement relationship ceases automatically. Engagement may also terminate through the parties’ will or for reasons beyond their will:
1. Termination by Will
Engagement terminates where one of the parties breaks off the engagement, where the engagement is terminated by mutual agreement, or where the parties marry. Termination based on a just cause is likewise a termination of engagement by declaration of will. Examples of just cause include contagious disease, one fiance(e)’s stringing the other along, and psychological or physical violence.
2. Termination Without Will
Engagement terminates independently of the parties’ will in cases such as the death of one of the parties, a declaration of absence, or the permanent loss of the capacity for discernment. The engagement also terminates automatically if it is discovered after the engagement that the conditions required for a valid engagement were not fulfilled. This may occur as a result of reasons such as sex reassignment or the subsequent emergence of impediments to engagement.
Actions Arising from the Termination of Engagement
1. Action for Pecuniary Damages
Pecuniary damages (TCC Art. 120): The party who breaks off the engagement ‘without just cause’ or who is at fault in the breakdown of the engagement is obliged, within the framework of the rules of good faith, to compensate the other party to the extent of the expenses incurred and material sacrifices made for the purpose of marriage. This generally includes such expenditures as wedding expenses, household goods purchased, and expenses made for a joint life. Even engagement expenses are included within the scope of compensation. The right to claim compensation is available not only to the injured fiance(e), but also to persons such as parents who have made expenditures in line with the purpose of the engagement. In an action for damages, the burden concerning fault rests on the defendant; the defendant must prove that there was no unjust termination. Pursuant to TCC Art. 2/I, the action is brought and adjudicated in accordance with the principles of good faith and proportionality. In such compensation actions, the forfeiture period is also one year pursuant to TCC Art. 123.
2. Action for Non-Pecuniary Damages
Non-pecuniary damages (TCC Art. 121): If, as a result of the termination of the engagement, one party’s personal rights, such as honor and reputation, have been harmed, that party may claim an appropriate amount of non-pecuniary damages from the other party who is at fault. In order for non-pecuniary damages to be claimed, there must be an interference with personal rights and extreme distress must have been suffered. Mere sadness following the termination of the engagement does not, by itself, constitute grounds for bringing an action. For example, where profound sorrow and intimidation have arisen due to the party who unjustifiably broke off the engagement, the injured party may bring an action based on TCC Art. 121. The purpose of non-pecuniary damages is to alleviate, at least partially, the pain and sorrow suffered. Here too, severe non-pecuniary harm resulting from the termination and the fault of the other party are required. The burden of proof again lies with the claimant. The limitation period for a claim for non-pecuniary damages is one year (TCC Art. 123), and if this period is exceeded, the claim becomes time-barred.
3. Return of Gifts
Return of gifts (TCC Art. 122): Gifts given to the fiance(e)s by the fiance(e)s themselves or by their parents shall, upon the termination of the engagement, be returned only if they are ‘outside the ordinary.’ Gifts outside the ordinary are valuable items and expenditures which, according to engagement customs, are not regarded as usual, such as jewelry, clothing, household goods, and substantial sums of money. Whether a gift is customary or extraordinary is determined according to the circumstances of the concrete case. For example, an engagement ring, a necklace, and sometimes the engagement trousseau may fall within this scope. According to the Court of Cassation, all gifts except the engagement ring are returned. The statutory condition of ‘for a reason other than marriage’ means that if the marriage has been concluded, no action for the return of gifts may be brought. The gift shall be returned in kind or, if possible, by an equivalent; otherwise, it shall be returned by value (TCO Art. 61 et seq.). If the gift was given not to the fiance(e)s but to their family, it cannot be reclaimed under the Turkish Civil Code. However, its return may be sought under the Turkish Code of Obligations pursuant to the rules on donation agreements. The claim for the return of gifts is a personal right, and pursuant to TCC Art. 123, the time limit for filing the action is one year.
Pursuant to TCC Art. 123, rights of action arising from the termination of engagement become time-barred upon the expiration of one year from the date of termination. This period begins to run from the date on which the engagement was broken off and does not depend on the subsequent discovery of the matter by either party. This one-year period applies to actions for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as well as to actions for the return of gifts. In disputes of this family-law nature, the competent court is the Family Court. In places where there is no Family Court, the Civil Court of First Instance hears the case in its capacity as a Family Court. As stated by the Court of Cassation, since the legal consequences of engagement fall within the scope of Family Law, Family Courts are likewise deemed competent pursuant to TCC 4/3. The court with territorial jurisdiction is the court of the defendant’s domicile. In actions for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages arising from the termination of engagement, it is necessary to prove the existence of the engagement, determine fault, and establish a causal link between the damage and the fault. In other words, fault is required in such actions. However, fault is not required in actions concerning the return of gifts. Such an action may be brought without fault on the part of either one or both parties.
Conclusion
Engagement is a special agreement established by a promise of marriage and confers upon the parties the status of being engaged. For the validity of an engagement, a mutual promise of marriage, sufficient legal capacity of the parties, and the absence of impediments to marriage are required. While the period of engagement imposes obligations such as loyalty and support upon the parties, it also prevents compulsion to marry (TCC Art. 119). Engagement may terminate for various reasons other than marriage; in such cases, actions may be brought for the return of gifts and for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. Actions relating to these consequences must be brought within one year, and the Family Court at the defendant’s place of domicile has jurisdiction. Although engagement is not a relationship that creates an obligation to marry, it is not, from the standpoint of Turkish Civil Law, entirely devoid of legal consequences. The establishment of a relationship of trust between the parties gives rise to certain obligations within the framework of the principle of good faith. Where the engagement is unjustifiably broken off, consequences such as liability for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and the return of gifts may arise. Thus, although engagement does not constitute a binding legal tie compelling marriage, it remains an important institution of family law that creates certain expectations between the parties and gives rise to legal consequences. Claims for compensation and restitution arising upon the termination of engagement must be evaluated within the framework of the principle of good faith and the principle of fault. In this respect, engagement is subject to a balanced legal regime aimed at protecting both the individuals’ freedom and their mutual relationship of trust.
For further detailed information on the subject, you may contact us here.
You may obtain detailed information regarding our Office’s work in the field of Family Law from our website.
Duru TOPCU
Uçar Law & Consultancy Office
Editor: Baver UÇAR (Attorney at Law)
References:
- Akıntürk, T., & Ateş, D. (2024). Family law (25th ed.). Beta Publications.
- Aygün, G. Ç. (2023). An evaluation of the provisions concerning the termination of engagement and the consequences attached thereto in the 1917 Family Law Decree. Anadolu University Law Faculty Journal, 9(1), 39-56, https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/andhd/article/1229245
- Çağrı, G. Z. (2022). Return of gifts as one of the legal consequences of the termination of engagement. Sakarya University Law Faculty Journal, 10(1), 81-103. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/shd/article/1103408
- Dural, M. (2025). Turkish private law, vol. 3: Family law (20th ed.). Filiz Bookstore.
- Erdem, M., & Makaracı Başak, A. (2024). Family law (2nd ed.). Seçkin Publishing.
- Ertekin, O. (2024). Engagement from emotional and legal perspectives. Journal of Civil Law, 1(1), 27-68. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mhd/article/1423936
- Kılıçoğlu, A. M. (2025). Family law (8th ed.). Turhan Bookstore.
- Öztan, B. (2022). Family law. Turhan Bookstore.
