On a dark navy blue matte background, gold foil Arabic calligraphy 'Mecelle-i Ahkâm-ı Adliye' above a modern abstract geometric scale symbol representing global trade.

Article 20 of the Mecelle: Legal Analysis of the Principle “Damage Shall Be Removed”

by with No Comment Mecelle Series

1. The Maxim, Its Essence, and Islamic Foundations

The Maxim: الضرر يزال Damage shall be removed (Zarar izale olunur)

The Essence of the Maxim: This maxim dictates that a damage that has occurred cannot be left uncompensated legally; to establish justice, that damage must absolutely be removed (eliminated). The grievance of the injured party must be addressed, and the equilibrium that existed before the unlawful situation must be restored.

Islamic Foundations: This principle is derived from the Hadith “There is no harming and no reciprocating harm” (Lâ darara ve lâ dırâr), which forms the bedrock of Islamic tort law. As the great jurist Ali Haydar Efendi points out in his commentary Dürerü’l-Hükkâm (Vol. 1, p. 79), there is a subtle distinction between def-i zarar (preventing damage before it occurs) and izale-i zarar (removing damage that has already occurred). Article 20 focuses specifically on the compensation (daman/tazmin) of damage that has already materialized.

2. Strict Liability, Conditions, and Practical Examples

Ex Lege Effect (Liability Arising Without Explicit Contractual Terms): The most striking legal consequence of this rule is that the obligation to remove damage arises spontaneously from the mandatory nature of the law (ex lege), without needing to be explicitly written in the contract between the parties. Even if commercial parties forget to include an indemnity clause, this maxim fills the contractual silence when a tort or breach occurs.

Strict Liability (Absence of Fault): A critical aspect of this maxim is that it does not strictly require “fault” or “negligence” to trigger compensation. In Islamic law, tort liability is generally based on strict liability (objective responsibility). For instance, Mecelle Article 92 states that a person who directly destroys another’s property is liable for the damage even if it was not intentional. The focus is on the material loss suffered by the victim, not the mental state of the perpetrator.

Practical Examples:

  • Option of Defect (Khiyar al-Ayb): A hidden defect in a purchased good that emerges later constitutes a damage to the buyer. As Ali Haydar Efendi indicates, this damage must be removed. Even without a specific warranty clause, the buyer automatically gains the right to return the good or demand a price reduction proportionate to the defect.
  • Prevention of Interference: Physical damage to one’s property or unjust occupation is immediately halted, and the destruction is compensated, regardless of any prior agreement.

3. Legal Philosophy and the “Certainty” (Yaqin) Barrier

The limits of the “Damage is removed” maxim are drawn by another fundamental philosophical pillar of the Mecelle, Article 4: “Şek ile yakîn zâil olmaz” (Certainty is not dispelled by doubt).

For a damage to be legally removable (compensable), it must have actually occurred, its boundaries must be clear, and it must be certain (yaqin). While the Mecelle clearly states that damage shall be removed, it underlines that this damage must be an actual, certain one. The compensation of future, unrealized damages whose occurrence depends on probability (such as future lost profits) is fundamentally not possible. This principle is one of the pillars of Islamic law, prioritizing certainty and refusing to reward uncertainty (gharar/shakk). The Mecelle refuses to disrupt the certain material status quo for the sake of a doubtful future scenario.

4. Projections in Modern Law, Consequential Losses, and Arbitration

While Western legal systems and Turkish law theoretically allow for the recovery of lost profits (lucrum cessans) and similar items under “positive damages,” these systems, recognizing that this may contradict natural justice, have subjected forward-looking damages to a series of heavy criteria.

The Complexity of Proof and Calculation in Turkish Law: Although the compensation of “lost profit” (as positive damages) is possible in Turkish law, its method and calculation are subject to highly complex procedures.

  • Definition of Positive Damages: The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Supreme Court of Appeals (Yargıtay HGK, E. 1990/13-392, K. 17.01.1990) defined positive damages as arising when the creditor waives performance and demands compensation, noting that the contract is not terminated; rather, the right to performance is replaced by the right to compensation for positive damages.
  • Contractual Rescission (Dönme) Situation: In construction contracts, if the contractor fails to perform, the employer may rescind the contract (Turkish Code of Obligations Art. 473). Because this involves rescission, the recoverable damage is “negative damage” (menfi zarar), meaning the employer generally cannot claim positive damages. Conversely, if performance becomes impossible due to a reason attributable to the employer (TCO Art. 485/2), the path is opened for the contractor to claim positive damages upon rescission (as supported by the 15th Civil Chamber, Yargıtay 15. HD, E. 2014/3199, K. 2015/1875).
  • The Calculation Labyrinth: The formula for calculating lost profit is virtually a labyrinth. The Yargıtay (HGK, E. 2010/244, K. 2010/260, T. 12.05.2010) formulated lost profit as: “found by deducting from all the probable income the injured party would have earned had the contract been fulfilled, all the mandatory expense items… the rights saved due to the premature termination, and the total amount of earnings the party made (or deliberately avoided making) from other work during this period.”

US and Anglo-Saxon Law: Expectancy Damages: In US contract law, positive damages are referred to as “expectancy damages,” consequential damages and lost profit is a fundamental component of this compensation. The legal system aims to close the gap between the creditor’s current position and the position they would have been in had the breached contract been fully performed. However, to legitimize this compensation, strict criteria are applied:

  • Proving Lost Profits: Courts require that the profit be calculable with “reasonable certainty”; abstract or speculative estimates are rejected.
  • The Foreseeability Rule (Hadley v. Baxendale): If the breaching party could not have reasonably foreseen this loss of profit at the time the contract was formed, the damage cannot be compensated.
  • Duty to Mitigate: The injured party is obligated to minimize the damage by making reasonable efforts.

The Middle Eastern Context: Saudi Arabia and Iran: The Mecelle’s cautious approach to future damages remains highly relevant in modern Middle Eastern jurisdictions.

  • Saudi Arabia: Historically, consequential losses have been rejected. With the Saudi Civil Transactions Law (CTL) enacted in 2023, the principle of pacta sunt servanda (freedom of contract) has been strengthened. Courts strictly adhere to contractual provisions where parties exclude consequential damages.
  • Iran: In the Iranian legal system, damages must be direct and certain. The recovery of consequential losses and lost profits is highly restrictive, aligning with traditional Islamic legal principles.

Industry Practice: The Relevance of Mecelle’s Provisions: Today, in almost all energy, infrastructure, and EPC contracts globally, parties deliberately insert “Exclusion of Consequential Loss” (ECL) clauses. International corporations voluntarily waive these rights to avoid the protracted litigation and complex calculations caused by the uncertainty of “lost profits.” This proves that the Mecelle’s “only actual and certain damage is removed” approach is de facto applied through contracts in modern mega-projects and is accepted as the most reliable risk allocation method.

5. The Long Road Leading to the Same Conclusion and the Practicality of Liquidated Damages

Western legal systems have attempted to solve the “uncertainty (future profit)” that the Mecelle wholly rejects by navigating a long judicial road, but in most cases, they have reached the exact same conclusion (rejection). After all, how much profit will be made is a forward-looking uncertainty (shakk).

Particularly, the practical counterpart of the “foreseeability” rule put forward in the Hadley v. Baxendale decision in US law remains quite weak. While it might seem logical in one aspect for parties to explicitly consult and draft potential future damages and lost profits from the outset, in practice, it is nearly impossible to transfer this to a contract. It is difficult to draw the boundaries of such a clause that could be added as a “guarantee of mistrust,” and it is hard to find a counterparty who will accept these conditions; even if found, such a speculative risk would need to be insured, and its massive costs would ultimately be reflected back to the employer. Ultimately, in the event of a dispute, claiming compensation based on this clause will often not be directly possible and will require a long, complex trial filled with expert reports.

Therefore, instead of trying to design and impose hypothetical lost profits in a contract; setting a clear and calculable liquidated damages clause to achieve the goal of running the contract smoothly within the specified time is seen as a much fairer, more practical, and more certain solution in commercial life.

References

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, The recovery of damages under Saudi law: understanding the basics.

Ali Haydar Efendi, Dürerü’l-Hükkâm Şerhu Mecelleti’l-Ahkâm, Vol 1.

Yargıtay HGK., E. 2010/244 K. 2010/260 T. 12.05.2010.

Yargıtay HGK., E. 1990/13-392 K. 17.01.1990.

Yargıtay 15. HD., E. 2014/3199 K. 2015/1875.

Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO), Articles 473 and 485/2.

CMS Expert Guide to Consequential Loss Clauses in the Energy Sector: Iran.

CMS Expert Guide to Consequential Loss Clauses in the Energy Sector: Saudi Arabia.

DLA Piper, Overview of the new Saudi Arabia Civil Transactions Law (August 2023).

Hadley & Anor – Baxendale & Ors [1854] EWHC J70

On a dark navy blue matte background, gold foil Arabic calligraphy 'Mecelle-i Ahkâm-ı Adliye' above a modern abstract geometric scale symbol representing global trade.

Article 5 of the Mecelle: Legal Analysis of the Principle “The Fundamental Principle is That a Thing Shall Remain as It Was”

by with No Comment Mecelle Series

The Maxim, Its Essence, and Islamic Foundations

The Maxim: الأصل بقاء ما كان على ما كان The fundamental principle is that a thing shall remain as it was (Bir şeyin bulunduğu hâl üzere kalması asıldır)

The Essence of the Maxim:

Unless there is definitive evidence to the contrary regarding a right, ownership, or any legal situation, its current state is legally presumed to continue. The burden of proof falls on the party alleging that the current situation has changed. This principle is a fundamental procedural rule that prevents the established order from being disrupted by unfounded claims.

Islamic Foundations: In Islamic legal methodology, this principle is formulated through the doctrine of “Istishab” (the presumption of continuity). Meaning “association” or “seeking a link” lexically, istishab is used as a term to mean the continuation of the existence of something that previously existed, and the continued non-existence of something that did not exist. In a general sense, istishab is defined as the continued validity of a legal ruling that existed in the past, unless there is legal evidence to the contrary.

Regarded as the last of the Sharia evidence, istishab is resorted to only when no other evidence is found. Despite being viewed as a weak proof, istishab provides jurists with latitude in doubtful situations and helps them resolve matters quickly and easily. As Dr. Ahmet Akman points out, istishab serves a protective function for the indication of the previous evidence regarding the existing ruling. In this sense, among the Hanafis, istishab has an averting (protective) nature rather than a proving one, and it does not make a positive contribution to the acquisition of new rights.

2. Causes, Limits, Conditions, and Practical Examples

Istishab is not an absolute material reality, but a procedural shield valid until proven otherwise. As stated in Osman Şahin’s study, five basic principles have been derived from the istishab rule.

Limits and Conditions:

  • Requirement of Certainty (Yaqin): The principle that “certainty is not dispelled by doubt” is directly related to istishab. It means that the absence of a thing whose existence is known with certainty cannot be decreed due to subsequent doubt and hesitation unless there is contrary evidence.
  • Limit of Defense (Averting): While istishab is accepted as a proof for leaving what exists as it is, it is not accepted as a proof to establish something or a right that does not exist.
  • Collapse by Contrary Evidence: Istishab is resorted to only as long as there is no other contrary evidence.

Practical Examples:

  • The Missing Person (Mafqud): Regarding the rights belonging to a missing person whose status of being alive or dead is unknown, the rulings applied to the living are applied unless there is evidence of their death, and their assets are not distributed among the heirs. However, the missing person cannot benefit from istishab in acquiring a new right (proving), such as inheriting from someone else.
  • Absence is the Original State for Accidental Attributes: If a customer who buys an animal on the condition that it is free of defects later claims that the animal is sick and the seller denies this, the burden of proof is on the customer because the illness is an accidental attribute.

3. Legal Philosophy and Universal Logic

The philosophical core of this maxim is the concept of legal certainty. If there were no presumption of protecting the status quo, every right in commercial and social life would constantly be shaken by baseless claims. Under the principle of “freedom from liability is the original state,” which is derived from the rule, it is fundamental that people are born free of liability and debt. It is mandatory for the claimant to present evidence for a person to be indebted or liable. Through this mechanism, the law protects the system against unfounded claims.

4. Projections in Civil Law

The principles derived from istishab constitute the cornerstones of modern law.

  • Presumption of Possession: A person who physically holds a movable property (possessor) is presumed to be its owner until proven otherwise. It is fundamental that the actual state of the property continues.
  • Freedom of Contract: The rule that “the original state in things is permissibility” corresponds to the principle in modern law that everything not prohibited is free. Unless there is evidence that it is legally corrupt or void, the validity of every transaction or contract made is decreed.

5. International Trade and Judicial Applications: The Debate on Arbitration and Interim Measures

In cross-border trade and international arbitration, it is essential to protect existing ownership or possession under the rule that “the fundamental principle is that a thing shall remain as it was.” However, decisions on interim (provisional) measures are a judicial intervention that constitutes an exception to this istishab principle. An interim measure obtained by a claimant—who asserts that a right belongs to them but the property is under the counterparty’s control—before fully proving their claim can prevent the possessor from benefiting from the current situation (istishab). The limits of this exceptional intervention and how the damages will be compensated are a matter of debate in arbitration rules.

Security and Discretion within the Framework of the ICC and International Arbitration Act (MTK):

  • According to Article 6/II of the International Arbitration Act (MTK) of Türkiye, the arbitrator or arbitral tribunal may make the issuance of an interim injunction or interim attachment conditional upon the provision of appropriate security.
  • Similarly, Article 28/I of the ICC Arbitration Rules stipulates that the arbitral tribunal may make any interim or conservatory measure subject to appropriate security being furnished by the requesting party.
  • However, in the ICC Rules, no other conditions (such as rightfulness, urgency, etc.) are mentioned for the arbitral tribunal to grant interim legal protection measures other than security. The absence of any regulation in this regard has been a conscious choice so that the arbitral tribunal can decide according to each specific case. When determining these conditions, ICC arbitral tribunals generally take precedent decisions given in previous proceedings (urgency, risk of significant harm, prima facie case, etc.) as an example.
  • Criticism: It is debatable whether claims of being right at first glance (prima facie) and irreparable harm are sufficient to change a main principle like “the continuation of the existing state” (istishab). Leaving these conditions solely to precedent decisions may undermine the principle of legal certainty. Therefore, it would be beneficial to explicitly state the objective conditions required for granting interim measures in the text of the ICC Arbitration Rules.

ICSID Rules and the Lack of Security:

  • According to Article 47 of the ICSID Arbitration Rules dated July 1, 2022, the arbitral tribunal may recommend provisional measures to protect the rights of the parties, preserve the status quo until the dispute is resolved, or restore it.
  • However, the term “security” is not even included in the relevant ICSID rules (Article 47).
  • Criticism: If an interim measure turns out to be unjustified, the damage suffered by the party whose status quo is disrupted and whose commercial activity is wrongfully halted can reach massive proportions. While the istishab principle (protecting the existing right) is suspended by the interim measure, the failure to secure damages is a deficiency. It is considered that the lack of explicit provision for security practice in the ICSID rules constitutes a contradiction to the istishab principle used to protect the state of possessing an existing right.

Recommendation:

Security is a highly critical insurance for compensating unjustified damages that may arise as a result of interim legal protection measures. We believe that arbitration rules (such as ICC, ICSID, etc.) should set the necessary conditions for granting interim measures—which change the status quo by breaking the istishab presumption—so clearly that it leaves no room for interpretation, including making a certain amount of security mandatory.

References

[1] Akman, Ahmet, “İstishab (Serahsî Özelinde Usûl-Füru’ Karşılaştırması)”, İslam Hukuku Araştırmaları Dergisi, issue 32, 2018, pp. 105-124.

[2] Şahin, Osman, “İslâm Hukuk Metodolojisinde İstishab”, O.M.Ü. İlahiyat Fakültesi, pp. 489-516.

[3] Sarıgül Ata, Bersun, “ICC ve ICSID Tahkim Kuralları Uyarınca Geçici ve Koruyucu Tedbirler”, BÜHFD, Vol. 10, Issue 2, July 2024, pp. 397-418.