Drafting a will is the most secure and legally recognized way to ensure that an individual's assets are distributed according to their wishes after their passing. To protect the testator's genuine intentions and prevent exploitation, the Turkish Civil Code (TCC) binds the process of drafting a will to strict formal requirements. Failure to satisfy these conditions can render the will completely void (annulled) upon a legal challenge.

1. Types of Wills under Turkish Law

The Turkish Civil Code recognizes three distinct types of wills:

  • Official (Official Public) Will: Prepared by an official public officer (notary public or peace court judge) in the presence of two witnesses. This is the most common form, carrying the highest evidentiary weight and being the hardest to challenge successfully.
  • Holographic (Handwritten) Will: A will written entirely by the testator’s own hand, including the exact date (day, month, year) and signed personally by the testator. Wills typed on computers or typewriters and merely signed are legally void.
  • Oral Will: An exceptional method permitted only under extraordinary circumstances (imminent risk of death, war, isolation, epidemic) when drafting an official or holographic will is practically impossible.

2. Validity Requirements of an Official Will

An official public will must strictly conform to statutory procedures to be valid. The core requirements include:

  1. Mental Capacity (Discretionary Power): The testator must possess the capacity to make rational decisions at the time of drafting. For elderly testators or those suffering from cognitive conditions, obtaining an official medical board report confirming "capacity to make transactions" from a state hospital is highly recommended to secure the will against future capacity challenges.
  2. Disqualification of Witnesses: The two witnesses who attest to the will must not be direct relatives of the testator. Specifically, the spouse, parents, children, grandchildren, siblings, or the spouses of these individuals cannot act as witnesses.
  3. Procedural Formalities: The testator must read the draft, sign it in the presence of the officer, and state to the witnesses that the document represents their final wishes. The witnesses must then write a declaration confirming that the testator was competent and that the declaration was made in their presence, and sign the document.

3. Lawsuits for the Annulment of a Will

Under Article 557 of the TCC, heirs or legatees whose rights are affected can file a lawsuit for the annulment of a will on the following limited grounds:

  • The testator lacked mental capacity at the exact time the will was drafted.
  • The will was drafted under duress, threat, fraud, or error.
  • The contents or conditions of the will are contrary to law or public morality.
  • The will was prepared in violation of mandatory formal requirements.

An annulment lawsuit must be filed within 1 year from the date the plaintiff learns of the invalidity grounds and their heirship status, and in any event within 10 years of the opening of the will.

4. Reserved Shares and Abatement (Tenkis) Lawsuits

A testator does not have absolute freedom to leave all their assets to anyone they choose. Under Turkish law, certain legal heirs (descendants, parents, and the surviving spouse) possess reserved shares (saklı pay). If a will violates these reserved shares, the will does not become automatically invalid. Instead, the affected heirs can file an abatement (tenkis) lawsuit to reduce the testamentary dispositions to the legally permissible limit.

Frequently Asked Questions

For detailed information and legal consultation, you can visit our Family & Inheritance Law page, or request an appointment via our Contact page.

Is there an age limit to make a will in Turkey?

Yes. Under the Turkish Civil Code, any person who has completed the age of 15 and possesses mental capacity (discernment) can make a will.

Can a will be changed or revoked later?

Yes. A testator can revoke or amend their will at any time during their lifetime, either by drafting a new will, destroying the existing one, or declaring revocation before an authorized official.

What are the validity requirements for a handwritten will?

For a handwritten (holographic) will to be valid, it must be written entirely in the testator's own handwriting, must explicitly state the exact date (day, month, and year), and must be signed by the testator. Computer printouts are not valid as handwritten wills.

Turkish Supreme Court Precedents on Wills

Below are three major decisions from the Turkish Court of Cassation highlighting procedural requirements, capacity tests, and the limits of abatement:

1. Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber Precedent: Full Medical Records and an Institute of Forensic Medicine Report Are Required to Establish Capacity

Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber – File: 2016/20661, Decision: 2019/2194 (Date: 18.03.2019, unanimous)

Summary:Determining whether the deceased had the capacity of discernment on the date of the will requires specialist and technical knowledge beyond the judicial function; in addition to the parties' evidence, all of the deceased's medical reports, records and imaging must be obtained in full, and a report must be sought from the most competent medical board. Finding that the health board report which had led to the deceased being placed under guardianship shortly after the will was never examined in the forensic medicine reports, the Court of Cassation QUASHED the dismissal of the action in the claimants' favour.

"…In these circumstances it is mandatory that all the evidence to be adduced by the parties be collected, and that the doctors' reports, medical documents and imaging films belonging to the person alleged to lack capacity be obtained in full. In addition, although under Article 282 of the Code of Civil Procedure the experts' 'opinion and assessment' does not bind the judge, determining psychological grounds such as the absence of the capacity of discernment or mental weakness very often requires special and technical knowledge falling outside the judicial profession. […] To make a will, one must possess the capacity of discernment. […] in order to establish beyond all doubt, clearly and precisely, whether the deceased possessed legal capacity as at the date the will was drawn up, the health board report dated 19/03/2002 must also be examined by the […] General Assembly. […] it was not correct to render judgment as written, in the principal action, without remedying this deficiency on the basis of an erroneous assessment, and this warranted quashing…"

(Translated excerpt; Turkish original is authoritative)
View Full Decision (Turkish)

2. Court of Cassation General Assembly Precedent: A Missing Phrase in the Witnesses' Endorsement and the "Interpretation in Favour of the Will" Principle

Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers – File: 2023/1001, Decision: 2024/577 (Date: 27.11.2024, unanimous, final)

Summary:In an official will made by an illiterate testator (Article 535 of the Civil Code), even if the witnesses' endorsement omits the phrase that "the testator's declaration was made in their presence," the will is upheld under the principle of interpretation in favour of the will (favor testamenti) where the process as a whole was completed before the witnesses without interruption. The General Assembly QUASHED the Regional Court of Appeal's decision annulling the will on the basis of that omission alone. By contrast, fundamental defects, such as the absence of the official or the failure of two witnesses to participate, cannot be cured by favourable interpretation.

"…The principle of interpretation in favour of the will may also be applied in cases of formal defect in the will. Of course, such interpretation must not extend so far as to render the formal rules meaningless. There is no doubt that a formal defect arising because the official will was not drawn up by an official, or because two witnesses did not participate in the process, cannot be cured within the scope of the principle of favourable interpretation. […] As for the other formal conditions, an assessment appropriate to the purpose must be made on the basis of each concrete case. […] accordingly, the will-making process was completed as a whole, before the witnesses and without any interruption in time; that being so, the official will, drawn up in conformity with the principle of unity of the transaction, must be interpreted favourably, and in the present case — where it is clearly apparent from the will as a whole that the testator's declaration was made in the presence of the witnesses — there is no doubt that the will is valid…"

(Translated excerpt; Turkish original is authoritative)
View Full Decision (Turkish)

3. Court of Cassation General Assembly Precedent: Infringement of Reserved Shares Does Not Void the Disposition Entirely: It Is Subject to Abatement

Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers – File: 2022/1177, Decision: 2023/1237 (Date: 13.12.2023, final)

Summary:An action for abatement (tenkis) brought by heirs whose reserved shares have been infringed is a constitutive action that reduces the deceased's inter vivos or testamentary dispositions to the statutory limit; the disposition is not rendered wholly void, but only void to the extent that it exceeds the reserved share. Where the heirs can obtain their reserved shares from the estate outside the transfer, no action for abatement may be brought. On the facts, the General Assembly held that the deceased's gift of the bare ownership of the property constituting most of his estate was made with intent to defeat the reserved-share rules under Article 565/4 of the Civil Code, and QUASHED the contrary decision in favour of the heirs.

"…The action for abatement, governed by Article 560 et seq. of the Turkish Civil Code, is a constitutive action which brings the deceased's inter vivos or testamentary dispositions that infringe the reserved share down to the statutory limit. By the judgment rendered in such an action, the dispositions made by the deceased become void — with effect from the date the succession opened — to the extent that they exceed the reserved share. […] Accordingly, an action for abatement may be brought where the deceased has exceeded the disposable portion and the heirs have been unable to obtain their reserved shares. If the heirs are able to obtain their reserved shares from the estate outside the transfer, no action for abatement may be brought…"

(Translated excerpt; Turkish original is authoritative)
View Full Decision (Turkish)