Published on 3 August 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 25795/21
Elif Cemre BEŞGÜR
against Türkiye
lodged on 6 May 2021
communicated on 29 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the annulment of an adoption order twelve years after it had been issued, on account of non-compliance with the procedural requirements concerning the representation of the adoptive father during the adoption proceedings.
On 6 June 2006, at the age of thirteen, the applicant was adopted by a married couple who were seventy-eight and seventy-one years old at the time. The couple had no other children. The applicant’s biological parents were alive and consented to the adoption.
On 25 March 2015 following the death of the applicant’s adoptive parents, the applicant’s aunt (the adoptive mother’s sister) brought an action seeking the annulment of the applicant’s adoption. According to the applicant’s claims, her aunt’s objective was to prevent her from inheriting from her adoptive parents’ estate. Her aunt claimed that the adoptive father lacked legal capacity at the time of the adoption, as he had been diagnosed with several mental illnesses, including dementia. Moreover, she submitted that, on 10 April 2003, the adoptive father had granted a general power of representation to the adoptive mother who then appointed a lawyer on 28 March 2006. However, the adoptive father had not conferred a special power of attorney expressly authorising representation in the adoption proceedings.
On 27 October 2015, the family court dismissed the case, having regard to the time elapsed since the adoption, the weight of the applicant’s interests, and the fact that no fault could be attributed to her. The family court further noted that, pursuant to Article 319 of the Turkish Civil Code (TCC), a five‑year limitation period applied to actions seeking the annulment of an adoption.
On 26 April 2017, when the applicant was twenty-four years old, the Court of Cassation quashed the decision and remitted the case to the family court on account of the procedural irregularities concerning the adoptive father’s representation in the adoption proceedings. It further noted that the five-year limitation period prescribed under the TCC had been annulled by a judgment of the Constitutional Court delivered on 27 December 2012.
On 31 May 2018 the family court annulled the applicant’s adoption in accordance with the Court of Cassation’s findings.
On 6 November 2020 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaints under Article 8 of the Convention inadmissible for being manifestly ill‑founded.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the annulment of her adoption twelve years after it had been granted amounted to a breach of her right to respect for private and family life.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life on account of the decision to revoke the adoption, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Zaieţ v. Romania, no. 44958/05, §§ 34-51, 24 March 2015)?