Newsletter-21

280 NEWSLETTER 2016 have to pay the purchase price, and the lessor will be under the obliga- tion to transfer the title of the leased property. It is essential to point out that within the framework of the provi- sions of Civil Law (“CL”) the transactions in relation to the transfer of the title of the leased property can be carried out with the unilateral request of the lessor. It is clear that as per Article 763 of the CL, the transfer of a movable property can be effected by the transfer of the possession of such property. Further, in order for the proper transfer of the possession of a movable property, the parties must have agreed to such transfer. Except for the ships that are registered with the shipping registry, the registration of a movable property with its relevant regis- try does not constitute a disposable act regarding the transfer of such movable. As regards to a financial lease agreement, the lessee already holds the possession of the leased property, and as such, the transfer of the title of such movable can be carried out by way of direct delivery ( kısa elden teslim ) of the same. As the lessee already holds the pos- session as explained, above, in reality, there is no actual transfer of possession of the movable, but rather, such transfer of the title of the property is realized by way of the mutual agreement of the parties to this end. Article 23/2 of the FFFL, however, sets out that even with the lack of such mutual agreement of the parties, the transfer of the title of the movable occurs by the unilateral request of the lessor to be made to the relevant registry. In any case, it is also important to point out that even when all conditions stipulated under the Article are realized, the movable is not deemed as being transferred to the lessee. In this respect, the wording of the Article as “… the lessor can carry out all relevant transaction for the transfer of movable to the lessee, ” clearly indicates that the lessor can transfer the movable without any involve- ment or consent of the lessee; however, it would be incorrect to say that the such transfer occurs even with the lack of the request of the lessor to this end. This Article 23 of the FFFL is criticized in doctrine because of changing one of the main rules of the CLwithout indicating any justification for such deviation. There are essential differences between the FFFL and the Code of Obligations regarding the obligation of the lessee to return the leased