Interim Injunction in an Action for the Liquidation of the Matrimonial Property Regime

Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, 12th Civil Chamber, 24.09.2026, E. 2026/1462, K. 2026/1577

In an action for a receivable arising from the liquidation of a matrimonial property regime terminated by death, I had requested an interim injunction over immovable property so that the receivable that might later be awarded would not be left unsecured. The court of first instance rejected the request to stop the sale of the immovables by public auction. My appeal against that decision was accepted; the Chamber set aside the rejection and sent the file back to the court for a fresh assessment of the injunction request.

The approach adopted in the decision can be summarised under the following headings.

• In actions for the liquidation of the matrimonial property regime, the fact that the right claimed is a monetary receivable does not categorically exclude an interim injunction.
• The sale of immovables that are not the direct subject of the receivable must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and the principle of proportionality.
• An interim injunction does not require the case to be proven conclusively; prima facie proof under Article 390 of the Code of Civil Procedure is sufficient.
• The possibility that the probable liquidation receivable will be left unsecured once the immovables are sold and the proceeds distributed must be taken into account.
• A request for an injunction cannot be rejected on purely formal grounds; the concrete danger, the need to protect the receivable and proportionality must be assessed together.

The law should not content itself with establishing that a right exists; it should also secure that the right remains usable and obtainable. A case won after many years does not provide the expected legal protection if the receivable awarded cannot actually be collected.