Turkish Inheritance Law for Foreigners: Heirs and Shares

Short Answer

Where an estate has a foreign element, Turkish law does not give one answer. Article 20(1) of Law No. 5718 makes succession subject in principle to the national law of the deceased, but carves out immovable property situated in Türkiye and subjects it to Turkish law. One estate can therefore be governed by two legal systems at once.

Once Turkish law applies to the Turkish property, the questions that follow are questions of the Turkish Civil Code, and this is where foreign families are most often surprised. The surviving spouse takes one quarter alongside children, not one half. A will cannot override the reserved share. A foreign grant of probate will not be recognised for the Turkish property. A certificate of inheritance cannot be obtained from a notary by a foreigner. And the heirs must act together.

The conflict-of-laws framework and the property-ownership limits that sit around it are set out in property acquisition by foreigners. This article deals with what happens once Turkish inheritance law applies.

The Court Cannot Skip the Conflict Rule

A common shortcut runs: the property is in Türkiye, so Turkish law applies, so the Civil Code can be applied directly. The Court of Cassation rejects that reasoning even when the destination is correct.

Yargıtay 8. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2013/23629, K. 2014/18556 — the court must apply the conflict rule first

“Türk mahkemelerinde açılan ve yabancılık unsuru taşıyan miras davasında, mahkeme, doğrudan Türk Medeni Kanunu (TMK)‘ndaki miras hükümlerini uygulayamaz.”

(Yargıtay 8. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2013/23629, K. 2014/18556, T. 17.10.2014 — BOZULMASINA)

Unofficial translation: “In a succession case brought before the Turkish courts and carrying a foreign element, the court cannot directly apply the succession provisions of the Turkish Civil Code.”

The court must first determine, under Law No. 5718, which country’s law applies, and only then apply it. In the case before the chamber the deceased was a Norwegian national who died owning a flat in Antalya. Both connecting factors led to Turkish law for that flat, yet the step could not be skipped; omitting it was a ground for reversal.

Who Inherits Under Turkish Law

Turkish law organises statutory heirs in classes. The first class is the descendants:

4721 sayılı Türk Medenî Kanunu m.495 — Altsoy

“Madde 495- Mirasbırakanın birinci derece mirasçıları, onun altsoyudur. Çocuklar eşit olarak mirasçıdırlar. Mirasbırakandan önce ölmüş olan çocukların yerini, her derecede halefiyet yoluyla kendi altsoyları alır.”

Unofficial translation: “The first-degree heirs of the deceased are their descendants. Children inherit in equal shares. The place of children who died before the deceased is taken, at every degree, by their own descendants by way of substitution.”

If there are no descendants, the estate moves to the second class:

4721 sayılı Türk Medenî Kanunu m.496 — Ana ve baba

“Madde 496- Altsoyu bulunmayan mirasbırakanın mirasçıları, ana ve babasıdır. Bunlar eşit olarak mirasçıdırlar. Mirasbırakandan önce ölmüş olan ana ve babanın yerlerini, her derecede halefiyet yoluyla kendi altsoyları alır. Bir tarafta hiç mirasçı bulunmadığı takdirde, bütün miras diğer taraftaki mirasçılara kalır.”

Unofficial translation: “The heirs of a deceased person without descendants are their mother and father. They inherit in equal shares. The place of a mother or father who died before the deceased is taken, at every degree, by their own descendants by way of substitution. Where there is no heir at all on one side, the whole estate passes to the heirs on the other side.”

The surviving spouse does not belong to any class. The spouse inherits alongside whichever class applies, and the share changes with it:

4721 sayılı Türk Medenî Kanunu m.499 — Sağ kalan eş

“Madde 499- Sağ kalan eş, birlikte bulunduğu zümreye göre mirasbırakana aşağıdaki oranlarda mirasçı olur: 1. Mirasbırakanın altsoyu ile birlikte mirasçı olursa, mirasın dörtte biri, 2. Mirasbırakanın ana ve baba zümresi ile birlikte mirasçı olursa, mirasın yarısı, 3. Mirasbırakanın büyük ana ve büyük babaları ve onların çocukları ile birlikte mirasçı olursa, mirasın dörtte üçü, bunlar da yoksa mirasın tamamı eşe kalır.”

Unofficial translation: “The surviving spouse inherits from the deceased in the following proportions according to the class alongside which they inherit: 1. where inheriting alongside the descendants of the deceased, one quarter of the estate; 2. where inheriting alongside the class of the mother and father of the deceased, one half of the estate; 3. where inheriting alongside the grandparents of the deceased and their children, three quarters of the estate, and where those do not exist either, the whole estate passes to the spouse.”

The practical consequence is usually unexpected. Where there are children, the spouse takes one quarter and the remaining three quarters are divided equally among the children. The spouse’s share grows only where there is neither a descendant nor a surviving parent class. The common assumption that the Turkish property simply passes to the widow or widower does not hold for an asset governed by Turkish law.

The Reserved Share: A Will Does Not Decide Everything

A will that is valid in form does not mean its contents apply without limit. Certain heirs are entitled to a statutory minimum:

4721 sayılı Türk Medenî Kanunu m.506 — Saklı pay

“Madde 506- Saklı pay aşağıdaki oranlardan ibarettir: 1. Altsoy için yasal miras payının yarısı, 2. Ana ve babadan her biri için yasal miras payının dörtte biri, 3. (Mülga: 4/5/2007-5650/2 md.) 4. Sağ kalan eş için, altsoy veya ana ve baba zümresiyle birlikte mirasçı olması hâlinde yasal miras payının tamamı, diğer hâllerde yasal miras payının dörtte üçü.”

Unofficial translation: “The reserved share consists of the following proportions: 1. for descendants, one half of the statutory share; 2. for each of the mother and father, one quarter of the statutory share; 3. (Repealed: 4/5/2007-5650/2) 4. for the surviving spouse, the whole of the statutory share where inheriting alongside the class of descendants or of the mother and father, and three quarters of the statutory share in other cases.”

⚠ The repeal of the third subparagraph is visible in the text of the article itself: the reserved share of siblings was abolished in 2007. Sources written before that date still describe it, which is a recurring source of error.

Where the reserved share is encroached upon, the remedy is an action for abatement:

4721 sayılı Türk Medenî Kanunu m.560 — Tenkis davası

“Madde 560- Saklı paylarının karşılığını alamayan mirasçılar, mirasbırakanın tasarruf edebileceği kısmı aşan tasarruflarının tenkisini dava edebilirler. Yasal mirasçıların paylarına ilişkin olarak tasarrufta yer alan kurallar, mirasbırakanın arzusunun başka türlü olduğu tasarruftan anlaşılmadıkça, sadece paylaştırma kuralları sayılır.”

Unofficial translation: “Heirs who do not receive the equivalent of their reserved shares may bring an action for the abatement of the dispositions of the deceased exceeding the portion of which they could dispose. Rules contained in a disposition concerning the shares of statutory heirs are deemed to be mere rules of distribution, unless it appears from the disposition that the intention of the deceased was otherwise.”

The Court of Cassation sets both the order in which abatement is applied and the figure against which it is measured:

Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2024/4725, K. 2025/2611 — the order of abatement

“Tenkis, saklı pay tamamlanıncaya kadar, önce ölüme bağlı tasarruflardan, bu yetmezse, en yeni tarihlisinden en eskisine doğru geriye gidilmek üzere sağlararası kazandırmalardan yapılır (TMK.md.570).”

(Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2024/4725, K. 2025/2611, T. 14.05.2025 — BOZULMASINA)

Unofficial translation: “Abatement is applied, until the reserved share is made up, first to dispositions upon death and, if that is insufficient, to lifetime dispositions, working backwards from the most recent to the oldest (Civil Code Article 570).”

Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2024/4725, K. 2025/2611 — calculated on the net estate

“Mirasbırakanın, saklı payı zedeleyip zedelemediği “net tereke” üzerinden hesaplanır. Net tereke ise, terekenin aktifinden terekenin pasifinin indirilmesi ile bulunur.”

(Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2024/4725, K. 2025/2611, T. 14.05.2025 — BOZULMASINA)

Unofficial translation: “Whether the deceased has encroached upon the reserved share is calculated over the net estate. The net estate is found by deducting the liabilities of the estate from its assets.”

For an heir abroad this has a concrete consequence: the value of the Turkish flat on its own does not show whether the reserved share has been encroached upon. The assets and liabilities of the whole estate have to be established before any abatement calculation can be built.

The Certificate of Inheritance, and Why a Notary Cannot Help You

Nothing moves at the land registry without a Turkish certificate of inheritance, the veraset ilamı or mirasçılık belgesi. The Civil Code allows two issuing authorities:

4721 sayılı Türk Medenî Kanunu m.598 — Mirasçılık belgesi

“Madde 598- Başvurusu üzerine yasal mirasçı oldukları belirlenenlere, sulh mahkemesince veya noterlikçe mirasçılık sıfatlarını gösteren bir belge verilir.”

Unofficial translation: “Upon their application, a document showing their status as heirs is issued by the civil court of peace or by a notary to those who are determined to be statutory heirs.”

The Notary Law closes one of those two channels for foreigners:

1512 sayılı Noterlik Kanunu m.71/B — Uygulanacak usul

“Mirasçılık belgesi verilmesinin yargılamayı gerektirmesi, nüfus kayıtlarının mirasçılık belgesi verilmesi konusunda yeterli olmaması veya mirasçılık belgesinin yabancılar tarafından talep edilmesi durumunda, mirasçılık belgesi noterler tarafından verilemez.”

Unofficial translation: “Where the issuing of a certificate of inheritance requires adjudication, where the population registry records are not sufficient for issuing a certificate of inheritance, or where the certificate of inheritance is requested by foreigners, the certificate of inheritance cannot be issued by notaries.”

The provision lists three situations, and one of them is simply that the applicant is a foreigner. A Turkish citizen can often obtain the certificate from a notary within a day. A foreign heir must go to the civil court of peace. This is not administrative slowness; it is the channel itself, and a realistic timetable has to be built around it from the start.

Within the court channel the competent forum is settled:

Yargıtay 14. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2016/18909, K. 2017/3212 — the competent court

“Öte yandan genel hüküm niteliğinde bulunan TMK’nun 598/1. fıkrasında da, mirasçılık belgesinin sulh hukuk mahkemesince verilmesi öngörülmüştür. 6100 sayılı Kanunun çekişmesiz yargı işleri başlığını taşıyan 382/1-c kısmının 6. bendine göre, mirasçılık belgesi verilmesinin sulh hukuk mahkemesinin görev alanına girdiği ve çekişmesiz yargı kapsamına alındığı belirlenmiştir.”

(Yargıtay 14. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2016/18909, K. 2017/3212, T. 19.04.2017 — BOZULMASINA)

Unofficial translation: “On the other hand, Article 598(1) of the Civil Code, which is a general provision, also provides that the certificate of inheritance is to be issued by the civil court of peace. Under subparagraph 6 of section 382(1)(c) of Law No. 6100, headed non-contentious judicial matters, it has been established that the issuing of a certificate of inheritance falls within the jurisdiction of the civil court of peace and is included within non-contentious jurisdiction.”

Because the matter is non-contentious, it is not structured as a dispute against an opponent, which usually makes it faster than an ordinary action.

Will a Foreign Grant of Probate Work in Turkey?

This is the question foreign heirs ask most often and the one most often answered wrongly. A family holding an English grant of probate or a German Erbschein naturally assumes it can be taken to the Turkish land registry. It cannot.

Yargıtay 8. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2013/23629, K. 2014/18556 — foreign certificates cannot be recognised

“Bu nedenle Türkiye’de bulunan taşınmazların intikali için yabancı ülke mahkemelerince verilmiş mirasçılık belgelerinin, Türk mahkemesi münhasıran yetkili olduğundan; Türk mahkemelerince tanınması mümkün değildir”

(Yargıtay 8. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2013/23629, K. 2014/18556, T. 17.10.2014 — BOZULMASINA)

Unofficial translation: “For this reason, since the Turkish court has exclusive jurisdiction, certificates of inheritance issued by foreign courts for the transmission of immovable property situated in Türkiye cannot be recognised by the Turkish courts.”

The reason is jurisdictional rather than qualitative. Because Article 20(1) of Law No. 5718 applies Turkish law to immovable property in Türkiye, the Turkish courts hold exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes, and a foreign judgment given in a field of exclusive jurisdiction cannot be recognised. The quality of the foreign document is not the issue.

That does not make the document useless:

Yargıtay 8. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2013/23629, K. 2014/18556 — usable as discretionary evidence

“Ancak bu şekildeki yabancı mirasçılık belgesinin tanınması istemi reddedilmiş olsa bile;Türkiye’de yeniden açılacak bir mirasçılık belgesi verilmesi davasında “takdiri delil” olarak kullanılmasına yasal bir engel bulunmamaktadır”

(Yargıtay 8. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2013/23629, K. 2014/18556, T. 17.10.2014 — BOZULMASINA)

Unofficial translation: “However, even where the request for recognition of such a foreign certificate of inheritance has been refused, there is no legal obstacle to its being used as discretionary evidence in a fresh action for the issuing of a certificate of inheritance brought in Türkiye.”

The correct sequence therefore runs the other way round from what most families expect. Rather than presenting the foreign document at the land registry, a fresh action for a certificate of inheritance is brought in Türkiye and the foreign document is filed in that case as evidence.

Opening a Will, and Service on an Heir Abroad

Formal validity is one question; the procedure by which a will takes effect is another. The Civil Code ties the opening to a period and a forum:

4721 sayılı Türk Medenî Kanunu m.596 — Vasiyetnamenin açılması

“Madde 596- Vasiyetname, geçerli olup olmadığına bakılmaksızın tesliminden başlayarak bir ay içinde mirasbırakanın yerleşim yeri sulh hâkimi tarafından açılır ve ilgililere okunur. Bilinen mirasçılar ve diğer ilgililer vasiyetnamenin açılması sırasında diledikleri takdirde hazır bulunmak üzere çağrılır. Mirasbırakanın sonradan ortaya çıkan vasiyetnameleri için de aynı işlemler yapılır.”

Unofficial translation: “A will is opened and read to the interested parties by the civil court of peace judge of the deceased’s domicile within one month of its delivery, irrespective of whether it is valid. Known heirs and other interested parties are summoned so that they may attend the opening if they wish. The same procedure applies to wills of the deceased that come to light later.”

The provision that matters most to an heir living abroad is the next one:

4721 sayılı Türk Medenî Kanunu m.597 — İlgililere tebliğ

“Madde 597- Mirasta hak sahibi olanların her birine gideri terekeye ait olmak üzere, vasiyetnamenin kendilerine ilişkin kısımlarının onaylı bir örneği hâkim tarafından tebliğ edilir. Nerede olduğu bilinmeyenlere vasiyetnamenin kendilerine ilişkin kısımları ilân yolu ile tebliğ olunur.”

Unofficial translation: “A certified copy of the parts of the will concerning them is served by the judge on each person having a claim in the estate, at the expense of the estate. The parts concerning persons whose whereabouts are unknown are served on them by way of public notice.”

An heir whose address is not known to the Turkish authorities may therefore be served by publication. Time limits can begin to run without that heir ever having seen a document. Keeping a current address on file, or appointing someone in Türkiye to receive service, is a practical safeguard rather than a formality.

The chamber treats service as a precondition of the opening itself:

Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2025/3957, K. 2025/4101 — service is a precondition

“Bu hâlde; 6100 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 27. maddesinde hükme bağlanan “Hukuki Dinlenilme Hakkı” gereğince mirasçılara tebliğ işleminin yapılması suretiyle vasiyetnamenin açılmasında ön koşulun sağlanması (TMK 596, 597, 598) ve TMK’nın 596/2. maddesi uyarınca vasiyetnamenin murisin bilinen tüm mirasçılarına okunması gerekir.”

(Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2025/3957, K. 2025/4101, T. 06.10.2025 — BOZULMASINA)

Unofficial translation: “In this situation, pursuant to the right to be heard laid down in Article 27 of Law No. 6100, the precondition for the opening of the will must be satisfied by effecting service on the heirs (Civil Code Articles 596, 597, 598), and under Article 596(2) of the Civil Code the will must be read to all known heirs of the deceased.”

At this stage the judge does not examine whether the will is valid. The task is to open it, serve it, issue a certificate of inheritance on request, and provisionally hand over or place the estate under official administration.

When Does the Time Limit to Challenge a Will Begin?

If the will is to be challenged, the period does not run from the death:

Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2024/3670, K. 2025/1885 — one year from the opening decision

“O hâlde, Mahkemece; vasiyetnamenin iptali için bir yıllık hak düşürücü sürenin “vasiyetnamenin açılıp okunması” kararının kesinleşmesinden itibaren işlemeye başlayacağı gözönünde bulundurulup işin esasına girilerek, yapılacak inceleme neticesinde oluşacak sonuca göre bir hüküm kurulması gerekirken, yazılı şekilde hak düşürücü süre yönünden davanın usulden reddine karar verilmiş olması doğru görülmemiş, bozmayı gerektirmiştir.”

(Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2024/3670, K. 2025/1885, T. 10.04.2025 — BOZULMASINA)

Unofficial translation: “Accordingly, whereas the court should have taken into account that the one-year preclusive period for the annulment of a will begins to run from the finalisation of the decision on the opening and reading of the will, and should have proceeded to the merits and given judgment according to the result of the examination to be carried out, its dismissal of the action on procedural grounds by reason of the preclusive period was not found correct and required reversal.”

Years having passed since the death does not by itself extinguish the right to challenge. The measure is the date on which the opening decision became final.

Disclaiming the Inheritance: Three Months, and What Comes After

A Turkish estate transmits debts as well as assets. The Civil Code gives heirs a way out, and a deadline:

4721 sayılı Türk Medenî Kanunu m.605 — Mirasın reddi

“Madde 605- Yasal ve atanmış mirasçılar mirası reddedebilirler. Ölümü tarihinde mirasbırakanın ödemeden aczi açıkça belli veya resmen tespit edilmiş ise, miras reddedilmiş sayılır.”

Unofficial translation: “Statutory and appointed heirs may reject the inheritance. Where the insolvency of the deceased was manifest or officially established at the date of death, the inheritance is deemed to have been rejected.”

4721 sayılı Türk Medenî Kanunu m.606 — Ret süresi

“Madde 606- Miras, üç ay içinde reddolunabilir. Bu süre, yasal mirasçılar için mirasçı olduklarını daha sonra öğrendikleri ispat edilmedikçe mirasbırakanın ölümünü öğrendikleri; vasiyetname ile atanmış mirasçılar için mirasbırakanın tasarrufunun kendilerine resmen bildirildiği tarihten işlemeye başlar.”

Unofficial translation: “The inheritance may be rejected within three months. For statutory heirs this period begins to run from the date on which they learned of the death of the deceased, unless it is proved that they learned later that they were heirs; for heirs appointed by will, from the date on which the disposition of the deceased was officially notified to them.”

Read closely, the article does not give heirs abroad any automatic extension. Being outside Türkiye does not postpone the three months; what postpones them is proof of later knowledge of the status of heir. In files where service has to be effected abroad, that distinction often decides the outcome.

The second paragraph of Article 605 opens a separate route, and the Court of Cassation has described both its scope and what it does not depend on:

Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2025/314, K. 2025/3943 — rejection by operation of law is not time-barred

“Türk Medeni Kanunu’nun 605/2 hükmü gereğince mirasın hükmen reddine (terekenin borca batık olduğunun tespitine) ilişkin talepler, süreye tâbi olmayıp mirasçıların iyiniyetli ya da kötüniyetli olmalarının bir önemi bulunmamaktadır.”

(Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2025/314, K. 2025/3943, T. 30.09.2025 — BOZULMASINA)

Unofficial translation: “Pursuant to Article 605(2) of the Turkish Civil Code, requests concerning rejection of the inheritance by operation of law (the establishment that the estate is insolvent) are not subject to a time limit, and it is of no importance whether the heirs are in good faith or in bad faith.”

For an heir who has already missed the three months, this is the remaining door. The same decision fixes the date on which insolvency is measured:

Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2025/314, K. 2025/3943 — insolvency measured at the date of death

“Murisin ödemeden aczi ölüm tarihine göre belirlenir. Ölüm tarihi itibarıyla, murisin tüm malvarlığı terekenin aktifini, tüm borçları ise terekenin pasifini oluşturur. Terekenin pasifinin aktifinden fazla olması terekenin ödemeden aczini ve dolayısıyla da terekenin borca batık olduğunu gösterir (TMK m. 605/2).”

(Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2025/314, K. 2025/3943, T. 30.09.2025 — BOZULMASINA)

Unofficial translation: “The insolvency of the deceased is determined as at the date of death. As at the date of death, all assets of the deceased constitute the assets of the estate and all debts constitute its liabilities. The liabilities of the estate exceeding its assets shows the insolvency of the estate and therefore that the estate is over-indebted (Civil Code Article 605(2)).”

⚠ The measure is the date of death, not the date of the action. Changes in value occurring after the death do not affect the assessment.

The Heirs Must Act Together

Once the certificate is in hand, the property stage begins, and here the rule that most obstructs families scattered across countries comes into play. Where there is more than one heir, the estate is held jointly:

4721 sayılı Türk Medenî Kanunu m.640 — Miras ortaklığı

“Madde 640- Birden çok mirasçı bulunması hâlinde, mirasın geçmesiyle birlikte paylaşmaya kadar, mirasçılar arasında terekedeki bütün hak ve borçları kapsayan bir ortaklık meydana gelir. Mirasçılar terekeye elbirliğiyle sahip olurlar ve sözleşme veya kanundan doğan temsil ya da yönetim yetkisi saklı kalmak üzere, terekeye ait bütün haklar üzerinde birlikte tasarruf ederler. Mirasçılardan birinin istemi üzerine sulh mahkemesi, miras ortaklığına paylaşmaya kadar bir temsilci atayabilir.”

Unofficial translation: “Where there is more than one heir, upon the passing of the estate and until partition a community arises among the heirs covering all rights and obligations in the estate. The heirs own the estate jointly and, subject to powers of representation or administration arising from contract or from law, dispose together of all rights belonging to the estate. Upon the application of any one of the heirs, the civil court of peace may appoint a representative to the community of heirs until partition.”

In litigation the consequence is strict:

Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2025/2695, K. 2026/287 — heirs are necessary joined parties

“Elbirliği mülkiyeti gereği miras yoluyla terekeye dahil olan varlıklar ile ilgili mirasçıların bir kısmı tarafından dava açılması halinde, mirasçılar kendi açtıkları bu davayı yalnız başına yürütemeyeceğinden davanın bütün mirasçılar ile birlikte yürütülmesi gerekir.”

(Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2025/2695, K. 2026/287, T. 21.01.2026 — BOZULMASINA)

Unofficial translation: “By reason of joint ownership, where an action concerning assets forming part of the estate by inheritance is brought by some of the heirs, since those heirs cannot pursue the action they have brought on their own, the action must be pursued together with all the heirs.”

The way out is set in the same decision:

Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2025/2695, K. 2026/287 — consent or a representative

“Eğer diğer mirasçılar davaya katılmaz ve yazılı muvafakat da vermezler ise bu durumda davayı açan mirasçıların terekeye bir temsilci tayin ettirmesi gerekir.”

(Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2025/2695, K. 2026/287, T. 21.01.2026 — BOZULMASINA)

Unofficial translation: “If the other heirs neither join the action nor give written consent, then the heirs who brought the action must have a representative appointed to the estate.”

Where heirs live in different countries, collecting written consent is often impractical, so the representative route is the ordinary solution rather than an exceptional one. Its legal character is settled:

Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2022/6830, K. 2023/971 — the representative is a special curator

“Miras ortaklığı temsilcisi (TMK m. 640) özel kayyım niteliğindedir.”

(Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2022/6830, K. 2023/971, T. 20.02.2023 — REDDİNE)

Unofficial translation: “The representative of the community of heirs (Civil Code Article 640) has the character of a special curator.”

Applications to appoint a representative go to the civil court of peace; objections to the person appointed are examined first by the guardianship authority and then, if not accepted, by the supervisory authority.

Inheritance Tax

Once the applicable law is settled, the tax question follows, and its connecting factor is again the location of the asset:

7338 sayılı Veraset ve İntikal Vergisi Kanunu m.1 — Verginin mevzuu

“Madde 1 – Türkiye Cumhuriyeti tabiyetinde bulunan şahıslara ait mallar ile Türkiye’de bulunan malların veraset tarikiyle veya her hangi bir suretle olursa olsun ivazsız bir tarzda bir şahıstan diğer şahsa intikali Veraset ve İntikal Vergisine tabidir. Bu vergi, Türk tabiiyetinde bulunan şahısların ecnebi memleketlerde aynı yollardan iktisabedecekleri mallara da şamildir. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti tabiiyetindeki bir şahsın Türkiye hudutları dışında bulunan malını veraset tarikıyle veya sair suretle ivazsız bir tarzda iktisabeden ve Türkiye’de ikametgahı olmıyan ecnebi şahıs bu vergi ile mükellef tutulmaz.”

Unofficial translation: “The transmission from one person to another, by inheritance or in any gratuitous manner whatsoever, of property belonging to persons of the nationality of the Republic of Türkiye and of property situated in Türkiye is subject to Inheritance and Transfer Tax. This tax also covers property acquired in foreign countries by the same means by persons of Turkish nationality. A foreign person who acquires, by inheritance or otherwise gratuitously, property situated outside the borders of Türkiye belonging to a person of the nationality of the Republic of Türkiye, and who has no domicile in Türkiye, shall not be liable to this tax.”

The article reads in two directions. Property situated in Türkiye falls within the scope of the tax irrespective of the nationality of either the deceased or the heir, so a foreign heir acquiring the Turkish flat is within it. The final sentence draws a narrow boundary in the other direction: a foreign person without a domicile in Türkiye is not liable in respect of property located outside Türkiye acquired gratuitously from a Turkish national.

The logic mirrors the conflict rule in Article 20 of Law No. 5718: the connecting factor is not the person but the asset.

Common Mistakes

• Assuming one law governs the whole estate. Succession follows the national law of the deceased in principle, but immovable property in Türkiye follows Turkish law; two systems operate on one estate (Law No. 5718, Article 20).
• Applying the Civil Code directly because the property is here. The court must apply the conflict rule first, even where the answer is Turkish law (8th Civil Chamber, E. 2013/23629, K. 2014/18556).
• Taking a foreign grant of probate to the land registry. It cannot be recognised for Turkish immovable property; a fresh Turkish action is needed and the foreign document goes in as evidence (same decision).
• Going to a notary. Where a foreigner requests the certificate of inheritance, a notary cannot issue it (Law No. 1512, Article 71/B).
• Assuming the spouse takes half. Alongside descendants the spouse takes one quarter (Law No. 4721, Article 499).
• Relying on a sibling’s reserved share. That subparagraph was repealed in 2007 (Law No. 4721, Article 506).
• Calculating the reserved share on one asset. It is measured on the net estate (7th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/4725, K. 2025/2611).
• Giving up because three months have passed. Where the estate was insolvent at death, rejection by operation of law is not time-barred (7th Civil Chamber, E. 2025/314, K. 2025/3943).
• Acting alone. Heirs are necessary joined parties; without consent, a representative must be appointed to the estate (Law No. 4721, Article 640; 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2025/2695, K. 2026/287).
• Assuming no news means no deadline. An heir whose address is unknown may be served by public notice (Law No. 4721, Article 597).
• Counting the challenge period from the death. The one-year period runs from the finalisation of the decision opening the will (7th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/3670, K. 2025/1885).

Summary

For an estate with a foreign element the question is not which law but which law for which issue. Article 20 of Law No. 5718 assigns succession in principle to the national law of the deceased, carves out immovable property in Türkiye for Turkish law, and assigns the opening, acquisition and partition of the estate to the law of the place where the estate is located. A Turkish court may not shortcut that analysis even when it ends at Turkish law (8th Civil Chamber, E. 2013/23629, K. 2014/18556).

Once Turkish law governs the Turkish asset, the Civil Code decides the rest. Descendants form the first class and share equally; the surviving spouse inherits alongside the applicable class and takes one quarter where there are children (Articles 495, 496, 499). A will operates only up to the reserved share (Article 506), and an heir who does not receive it may sue for abatement, calculated over the net estate and applied first to dispositions upon death (Article 560; 7th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/4725, K. 2025/2611).

Procedurally, three points decide most files. The certificate of inheritance must come from the civil court of peace where the applicant is a foreigner, because the notary channel is closed to them (Law No. 1512, Article 71/B; 14th Civil Chamber, E. 2016/18909, K. 2017/3212). A foreign certificate cannot be recognised for Turkish immovable property, though it may be filed as discretionary evidence in a Turkish action (8th Civil Chamber, E. 2013/23629, K. 2014/18556). And the heirs must act together, failing which a representative is appointed to the estate (Article 640; 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2025/2695, K. 2026/287; 7th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/6830, K. 2023/971).

Two time limits deserve a diary entry. The inheritance may be rejected within three months, running from knowledge of the death rather than from any later event, unless later knowledge of the status of heir is proved (Article 606). Where that period has passed and the estate was insolvent at death, rejection by operation of law remains available and is not time-barred (7th Civil Chamber, E. 2025/314, K. 2025/3943). A will is opened within one month of delivery, served on each interested party and, where an address is unknown, by public notice (Articles 596 and 597), so an heir abroad can be time-barred without ever having seen a document.

Finally, the tax follows the asset rather than the person: property situated in Türkiye is within the scope of Inheritance and Transfer Tax whatever the nationality of the parties (Law No. 7338, Article 1).

Related reading: property acquisition by foreigners in Türkiye · how to get Turkish citizenship · Turkish citizenship by investment