The decision 2000/7383 o f the 19 h Chamber o f the Court o f Appeal dated 2 November 2000, has a special importance regarding that a recent highly sensitive issue o f Turkish doctrine is debated before a judicial body. The decision is the outcome o f a process, where guarantor o f a cash-loan issued by a local bank is prosecuted on the grounds that the debtor did not pay the loan installments.The 'piercing the veil' theory, which also exists in American law as well as in some other legal systems in the world, has been discussed in the Turk- ish doctrine for the last eight years but recently argued before the courts. In this article, not only the above-mentioned decision by the Court of Appeal but also some other cases incorporating the element of non- citizenship will be analyzed or referred to. 

The decision 2000/7383 o f the 19 h Chamber o f the Court o f Appeal dated 2 November 2000, has a special importance regarding that a recent highly sensitive issue o f Turkish doctrine is debated before a judicial body. The decision is the outcome o f a process, where guarantor o f a cash-loan issued by a local bank is prosecuted on the grounds that the debtor did not pay the loan installments.The 'piercing the veil' theory, which also exists in American law as well as in some other legal systems in the world, has been discussed in the Turk- ish doctrine for the last eight years but recently argued before the courts. In this article, not only the above-mentioned decision by the Court of Appeal but also some other cases incorporating the element of non- citizenship will be analyzed or referred to.