How Much Must a Co-owner Pay to Exercise Pre-emption in Turkey?

Short answer

Do not assume that a co-owner exercising statutory pre-emption will only deposit the price written in the sale deed. Article 734 now uses the share’s court-determined market value and the buyer’s title costs. A decision dated 25.03.2026 explains the majority’s approach to the valuation date in pending cases, while recording disagreement on that reasoning.

The anonymised dispute

A co-owner sought cancellation of shares transferred to outside buyers and registration in the co-owner’s name through statutory pre-emption. The claimant alleged that the recorded sale price had been inflated to frustrate the right. That allegation must be distinguished from what the court actually established.

The trial court ordered payment of an additional court fee, then removed the case from its active list when the fee was not paid. After the case was not renewed, it was treated as not filed. The regional appeal court upheld that outcome. The claimant challenged the calculation and sought a valuation of the property.

Two separate reasons for reversal

Yargıtay first identified an error in the trial court’s fee calculation: it included seller-side title fees and revolving-fund amounts as well as the sale price and buyer-side title costs. The court found that the procedural outcome based on the erroneous order was not justified.

The second issue was the amendment effective on 25.12.2025. Article 734 requires the judge to determine market value without delay. The claimant must deposit that value and the buyer’s title costs in cash at the designated place, to earn returns, within the fixed time allowed. The transitional provision applies the amended valuation rule to actions already filed.

The majority reasoned that valuation should use the filing date for actions brought after the amendment and 25.12.2025 for actions already pending then. It relied on balancing the parties’ property interests because the amended provision does not expressly specify the valuation date. The trial court was to collect evidence, obtain the necessary expert valuation and require the appropriate deposit.

The separate opinion matters

The decision was unanimous on reversal but not on all reasons. A separate opinion preferred a sale-date market-value approach, with the relevant accrual calculation, and disagreed with using the amendment’s effective date for pending cases. This distinction should remain visible: the majority’s approach is a judicial interpretation, not a valuation date expressly written into the statute.

The published materials consulted include a subsequent official decision applying the 25.12.2025 approach to a pending action. That supports describing the approach as more than an isolated sentence. It does not establish that every possible valuation dispute or future development has been resolved.

What this decision does not establish

Yargıtay set aside the regional appeal decision and reversed the trial judgment. It did not finally award the shares to the claimant, find the alleged inflated price conclusively proved or dispense with the claimant’s other requirements. The statement that the cassation decision was final does not turn the remand into a final ownership judgment.

Court fees and the substantive amount deposited to exercise pre-emption are also different matters. Correcting one calculation does not establish that the other can be ignored. A party must examine the specific orders and procedural dates in its own file.

Practical assessment for co-owners and buyers

The funding needed for a pre-emption action may differ materially from the deed price. An owner abroad considering proceedings should obtain the transfer documents, identify the relevant dates and assess the possible valuation evidence before assuming the claim is affordable at the historic figure.

Current Article 733 separately provides a three-month period from notarial notification and an outer one-year limit after sale. Its transitional rule preserves the previous provisions for sales made before 25.12.2025. This differs from the rule applying the amended Article 734 to pending cases. A current deadline cannot safely be calculated from an old article stating only a two-year outer limit.

Obtain the current register and official sale document.
Identify the sale, notification and action dates.
Keep court fee and deposit orders with their service records.
Preserve valuation evidence, expert reports and objections.
Check any waiver, relevant ownership structure and other conditions of the asserted right.

The above is a practical assessment, separate from the court’s findings. To discuss a share sale or pending pre-emption claim, use the contact page.

Decision citation

Yargıtay, Civil Chamber 7, 25.03.2026, E. 2026/476, K. 2026/1553. Outcome: reversal and remand. The subsequent final result of the ownership claim has not been established.

Sources and currency

Sources checked on 17 October 2026. Editorial responsibility: Muhammet Emre Nas. This article provides general information; its application depends on the documents and facts.