Unjust Enrichment Under Turkish Law: Recovering Money Paid Without Legal Cause

If you paid money in Turkey by mistake, twice, to the wrong account, or under a contract that turned out to be invalid, Turkish law lets you claim it back through the doctrine of unjust enrichment (sebepsiz zenginleşme), governed by Articles 77 to 82 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. You generally have two years from the day you discover the claim, and in any event ten years from the payment, to act. This guide explains what you must prove, how much you can recover, the deadlines foreigners keep missing, and the cross-border issues that arise when the money came from abroad.

What Is Unjust Enrichment in Turkish Law?

Unjust enrichment arises where one party gains a benefit at the expense of another without a valid legal cause. It is a standalone source of obligations under the Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu, Law No. 6098), sitting alongside contract and tort as the third pillar of the law of obligations.

For foreigners, this is one of the most practical remedies in Turkish civil law. It is frequently the legal basis for recovering a deposit, a double payment, a transfer sent to the wrong IBAN (payment to the wrong account), or funds advanced under a deal that never completed. Where the money is owed but not voluntarily returned, recovery typically moves into formal enforcement under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İcra ve İflas Kanunu, Law No. 2004) — see our debt collection and enforcement service.

The Four Elements You Must Prove

A successful unjust enrichment claim under TBK requires four cumulative elements. If any one is missing, the claim fails.

1. Enrichment: the other party's assets increased, or they avoided a loss or expense they would otherwise have incurred (so-called negative enrichment).
2. Impoverishment: a corresponding decrease in your own assets, value or labour.
3. Causal link: a direct connection between your loss and the other party's gain — the benefit must flow directly from your property or actions, not arise incidentally.
4. Lack of legal basis: the transfer had no valid justification. This covers cases where a legal ground never existed, has since ceased to exist, or where performance was made in error (the classic condictio indebiti under Article 78 TBK).

Types of Unjust Enrichment

Turkish doctrine and Yargıtay (Court of Cassation) practice distinguish two broad categories.

Performance-based enrichment (edim yoluyla)

This is the most common situation for foreigners. It arises where you perform an obligation believing it was owed, but it was not — for example, paying under a contract that is later declared invalid, paying twice, or transferring funds to the wrong person or account. Money paid under a void or unconcluded agreement is recoverable on this basis. Because unjust enrichment is a backup remedy, if the dispute is really about a defective contract you should first consider the contract route; our team advises on invalid or unconcluded commercial contracts where that primary claim may apply.

Non-performance enrichment (edim dışı)

This arises without any performance by you — typically from interference with another's property or rights, an expense saved at your cost, or a payment that should be passed on (rücu). Examples include someone using your property without permission and keeping the proceeds, building on your land, or a third party benefiting from value that originated with you. The category is wider than a single farming example suggests, and is the basis for recovery where there is no contract or other legal relationship between the parties.

How Much Can You Recover? Good Faith vs. Bad Faith

The scope of restitution turns largely on whether the enriched party acted in good faith. This is one of the most important — and most misunderstood — features of the doctrine, and it is set out in Article 79 TBK.

Good faith (iyiniyet)

An enriched party who genuinely did not know, and was not expected to know, that the enrichment was unjustified is liable only to the extent they are still enriched at the time of the claim (elinde kaldığı oranda). If a good-faith recipient has already spent or lost the benefit, recovery may be reduced or unavailable.

Bad faith (kötüniyet)

A party who knew, or should have known, that the enrichment was unjustified faces full liability, including any further benefits or fruits derived from it. Acting promptly and putting the other side on formal notice helps fix the date from which bad faith — and interest — can run if they keep the money after being told.

Interest and recoverable expenses

On top of the principal you can usually claim default interest (temerrüt faizi). For a good-faith recipient, interest and fruits generally run from the date they are put in default (temerrüt), normally by a demand; a bad-faith recipient is accountable from the moment of enrichment. Under Article 80 TBK, a recipient who has incurred necessary or useful expenses on the thing may set those off when returning it.

Form of restitution

Restitution is made either in kind (returning the specific item) or, where return is impossible, by paying its value, restoring the position that existed before the transfer (status quo ante). Recovery is capped at the actual extent of enrichment and cannot exceed your own loss.

When You Cannot Recover: The Illegal-Purpose Bar

Not every payment without a contract can be reclaimed. Article 81 TBK blocks recovery of money paid to achieve an unlawful or immoral result. If you knowingly paid to bring about an illegal or immoral outcome, the courts will generally refuse to help you get it back.

This is exactly why the legal characterisation of a payment matters before you file. Take advice early so a recoverable claim is not accidentally framed as an unrecoverable one.

Time Limits: Act Within Two Years

Unjust enrichment claims are subject to strict prescription periods under Article 82 TBK.

There is one important exception. Where the enrichment itself produced a claim or right against you, you may raise unjust enrichment as a defence to refuse performance even after the limitation periods have run (Article 82, final paragraph TBK).

How Unjust Enrichment Differs from Related Claims

Unjust enrichment is a subsidiary remedy. As the Yargıtay General Assembly of Civil Chambers (HGK) has repeatedly stressed, it applies only where a loss cannot be recovered through a contract, a tort, or another primary source of obligation. Choosing the wrong legal basis is a common reason claims fail.

Versus negotiorum gestio (vekaletsiz iş görme)

Negotiorum gestio, regulated in TBK Arts. 526 et seq., concerns managing another person's affairs without authority and requires an intention to act in that person's interest. Unjust enrichment is indifferent to intent — it is triggered purely by an objective, unjustified shift in value. The two remedies are generally mutually exclusive.

Versus a restitution action (istirdat davası)

A restitution action under İİK No. 2004, Art. 72, lets a debtor reclaim a payment made within enforcement proceedings when no debt actually existed, but it must be brought within one year. Outside enforcement, or after that year, the route is an unjust enrichment claim. The strict timing here is part of a wider pattern — see our note on procedural strictness in Turkish execution law.

Where claims are heard

These claims are usually brought as debt actions (eda davası) before the civil courts of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi), with jurisdiction normally at the defendant's domicile under HMK No. 6100, unless a specialised court applies (for example a consumer or commercial court).

Cross-Border Claims: Which Law Applies and in What Currency?

When the payment crossed a border — a transfer wired from abroad, a refund owed by a Turkish company to a foreign buyer, or a deposit paid into a Turkish account from overseas — two extra questions arise.

Which law governs the claim?

The governing law of a cross-border unjust-enrichment claim is determined under the Turkish Act on Private International Law (Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun, MÖHUK No. 5718). As a general rule, an enrichment arising from a relationship between the parties is assessed under the law that governs that underlying relationship; otherwise the law of the place where the enrichment occurred may apply. Because the analysis is fact-specific, the applicable law should be settled before filing.

In what currency do you recover?

Whether you recover in Turkish lira or the original currency depends on the currency in which the value moved and the rules on foreign-currency debts. Currency choice can materially affect the sum recovered given exchange-rate movement, so it is a point to resolve at the outset, not after judgment.

Worked Examples for Foreigners

These short scenarios show how the elements play out in practice. They are illustrations only, not predictions of any particular result.

A deposit that was never returned

You paid a deposit on a property or a lease, the deal fell through, and the other side kept the money with no legal basis to do so. The transfer and the failed agreement are documented, so the enrichment and lack of cause are usually straightforward; the live questions are good versus bad faith and interest. Deposits on property transactions in Turkey are a frequent source of these claims.

A transfer sent to the wrong IBAN

You meant to pay supplier A but the funds reached account B, who has no claim to them. This is textbook condictio indebiti under Article 78 TBK. The contest is rarely about the law and almost always about evidence — proving the mistake and identifying the recipient — and, where the recipient has spent the money, the good-faith limit on recovery.

An advance on a deal that collapsed

You paid an advance toward a transaction that never closed. If a valid contract governs the advance, the contract route comes first (subsidiarity); if the agreement was never concluded or is void, unjust enrichment is the vehicle to claw the advance back.

Procedure, Cost and Practical Steps

If you believe you transferred money or value without a valid legal basis in Turkey:

• Check whether any contract, statute or other ground actually justified the transfer — and whether a primary claim (contract or tort) applies first.
• Act quickly: the two-year limitation period runs from the date you discover the claim.
• Preserve all documentary evidence — bank transfers, transfer references, invoices, contracts, messages and emails.
• Assess whether the other party acted in good or bad faith, as this affects how much you can recover.
• Take Turkish legal advice before sending a demand, since the wrong legal basis can defeat an otherwise valid claim.

What the process involves

Court fees are usually proportional to the sum claimed (nispi harç), so the amount you sue for affects the filing cost. The court will weigh your documentary evidence and may appoint an expert (bilirkişi) to value the enrichment where the figure is disputed. If the debtor still does not pay after judgment, recovery moves into formal enforcement. Timelines vary widely with the court's workload and whether the facts are contested, so treat any estimate as indicative only.

One caveat: overpaid tax or public charges are not reclaimed through TBK unjust enrichment. They follow a separate administrative route, so the remedy here does not apply to wrongly paid public dues.

Lexin Legal acts for foreigners, expats and investors across Turkey in restitution and recovery matters, working entirely in English. To discuss your situation, contact our team.

Frequently asked questions