A Unification of Judgments Decision on Whether a Claim Not Included in the Statement of Claim May Be Introduced into the Proceedings by Way of Partial Amendment
Introduction
The Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the Court of Cassation (the “Assembly”), by its Decision dated 8 May 2026, numbered 2021/8 E. and 2026/1 K. (the “Decision”), examined the divergence in case law as to whether a claim not included in the statement of claim, in civil proceedings, may be introduced into the proceedings by way of partial amendment (kısmen ıslah).
As a result of its examination, the Assembly held that a claim not included in the statement of claim may not be introduced into the proceedings by way of partial amendment in civil proceedings and, in this way, resolved the divergence of opinion that had existed among the chambers of the Court of Cassation for many years.
Pursuant to Article 45/5 of the Court of Cassation Law No. 2797, decisions on the unification of judgments are binding upon the General Assemblies, the chambers of the Court of Cassation and the instance courts with respect to similar legal issues.
The Decision is noteworthy not only in terms of ensuring uniformity in case law, but also from the perspective of practice, owing to the assessments it sets out regarding the procedural framework adopted under the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (the “CCP”) and the institution of amendment.
Divergence in Case Law and the Concept of Amendment
The subject of the unification of judgments concerns whether in civil proceedings, a claim not included in the statement of claim may be introduced into the proceedings by way of partial amendment.
It is understood from the Decision that a divergence of opinion regarding this issue had existed for many years between the Civil General Assembly and various chambers of the Court of Cassation, and that differing practices had continued.
Under Turkish law, amendment is defined as the complete or partial correction of a procedural act performed by one of the parties.[1] The institution of amendment is regulated under Articles 176 to 182 of the CCP. Accordingly, each party may, only once and until the conclusion of the evidentiary stage, partially or completely amend the procedural acts it has performed. Pursuant to Article 179 of the CCP, amendment gives rise to the consequence that all procedural acts are deemed not to have been performed from the point to which the party making the amendment extends it.
An amendment that gives rise to the consequence that all procedural acts, including the filing of the statement of claim, are deemed not to have been performed is referred to as a “complete amendment” (tamamen ıslah), whereas an amendment that gives rise to the consequence that procedural acts are deemed not to have been performed from the point to which the party making the amendment extends it is referred to as a “partial amendment” (kısmen ıslah). [2] Since only the claimant may ensure that all procedural acts, including the filing of the statement of claim, are deemed not to have been performed, the right to completely amend the proceedings belongs exclusively to the claimant.
It is understood that, in the disputes brought before them over the years, the Civil General Assembly and various civil chambers of the Court of Cassation gave different answers to the question of whether a claim not included in the statement of claim could be sought by means of a petition of amendment.
In this context, the views of the Civil General Assembly and various chambers of the Court of Cassation on the issue are first set out in the Decision.
From the views presented, it is understood that certain chambers of the Court of Cassation accepted that a claim not included in the statement of claim could not be asserted by means of a petition of amendment, whereas certain other chambers adopted the view that a claim not referred to in the statement of claim could be introduced into the proceedings by way of amendment and that this approach would, in particular, serve the principle of procedural economy. Furthermore, it is observed that, in certain chambers, there was no consensus even among their members on this issue, whereas certain chambers rendered decisions in different directions over the years. This situation resulted in the same legal issue being resolved differently by different chambers and made it necessary for the divergence to be resolved through the unification of judgments.
Assessment of the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments
The Assembly began its assessment by first addressing statutory regulation, concepts and institutions relating to the subject of the unification of judgments. Within this scope, comprehensive explanations are provided regarding the principles governing civil procedure under Turkish law (particularly, due to their relevance to the issue, the principle of disposition, the principle of party presentation, the principle of being bound by the relief sought, the principle of procedural economy and the right to be heard), the procedural framework adopted under the CCP, joinder of claims and the concept of amendment. In the Decision, the views expressed by the legal scholars regarding the subject of the unification of judgments are also set out in detail.
In this context, it is emphasized in the reasoning of the Decision that, when preparing the statement of claim, the claimant is required to consider all of its claims, to clearly declare, without leaving room for doubt, its intention as to the matters in respect of which it seeks legal protection, and to present such intention in a systematic manner. According to the Decision, civil proceedings constitute a process structured upon certain procedural rules and procedural stages, and the statement of claim is the declaration of intent that draws the boundaries of the proceedings and determines the framework of the legal relationship. Accordingly, a claim that is not included in the statement of claim, or an item that is not claimed, has not become the subject matter of the proceedings.
It is stated in the Decision that amendment constitutes an exception to the prohibition on the extension or amendment of claims and defenses, and that claims and defenses may be extended or amended through amendment. According to the Decision, where the claimant seeks to extend or amend the relief sought, it should resort to partial amendment, whereas where it seeks to assert an entirely new claim based on new facts, it should resort to complete amendment.
In this context, according to the Decision, a matter that has not been made the subject matter of the proceedings may not be introduced into the proceedings or made the subject matter of the proceedings by way of partial amendment. This is because what is involved is not the increase or extension of an existing claim, but rather the addition of a new claim that has never previously been made the subject matter of the proceedings. In this regard, it is pointed out in the Decision that making a claim not included in the statement of claim the subject matter of the proceedings by way of partial amendment would, in technical terms, amount to using the institution of amendment in such a way as to produce the result of bringing a new action, or a second action, within the existing pending proceedings, and that the law does not permit this.
It is also emphasized in the Decision that the procedural framework was fundamentally restructured by the CCP, that the institution of preliminary examination was introduced, and that the institution of preliminary examination introduced by the CCP performs an important function in determining the boundaries of the proceedings. Accordingly, the subsequent addition, by way of partial amendment, of a claim that is not included in the statement of claim would give rise to the consequence that the boundaries of the evidentiary stage would subsequently be expanded due to a new claim falling outside the framework of the dispute determined during the preliminary examination stage. It is assessed in the Decision that such a situation is manifestly contrary to the procedural framework adopted under the CCP on the grounds that it would render the institution of preliminary examination ineffective.
The Assembly further considers that the introduction, by way of partial amendment, into the proceedings of a claim that has not been asserted in the action may impair the defendant’s right of defense; that a newly added claim may fundamentally alter the proceedings; that this may cause unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings; and that it may constitute an obstacle to the right to be tried within a reasonable time. In addition, it is stated in the Decision that allowing the introduction of a new claim that had not originally been made the subject matter of the proceedings would also be contrary to the principle of equality of arms, as it would require the defendant, who had prepared its defense and litigation strategy on the basis of the claims set out in the statement of claim, to defend itself against a surprise claim. It is further noted that such a situation is also incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and predictability, which constitute indispensable components of the right to a fair trial.
Consequently, as a result of its assessment, the Assembly concluded that a claim not included in the statement of claim may not be introduced into the proceedings by way of partial amendment. Nevertheless, it should be particularly noted that the Decision was rendered only with respect to partial amendment.
Conclusion
The Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the Court of Cassation, by its recent Decision, held that, in civil proceedings, a claim not included in the statement of claim may not be introduced, by way of partial amendment and, in this way, resolved the divergence of opinion that had existed among the chambers of the Court of Cassation for many years.
Notwithstanding the views expressed in legal scholarship and adopted by certain chambers in favor of allowing a new claim to be asserted within the same proceedings, particularly on the basis of the principle of procedural economy, the Assembly unified the case law in the direction that a claim not included in the statement of claim may not be introduced into the proceedings by way of partial amendment. In this context, it will no longer be possible for a claim not included in the statement of claim to be asserted subsequently by way of partial amendment. In line with the Decision, particularly in actions where multiple claims are asserted together, determining the relief sought completely before commencing the action has become even more important for practitioners.
- See Kuru, Baki / Aydın, Burak: Medeni Usul Hukuku El Kitabı, Vol. 2, Ankara 2021, s. 1195.
- Detailed explanations regarding the concept of amendment, the legal nature of amendment, its subject matter, the manner in which it is effected, its types and its effects are set out in the Decision at p. 22 et seq.
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
One of the fundamental elements of the right to a fair trial is the right to access a court. The right to access a court encompasses not only the ability of individuals to bring a dispute before a court of first instance, but also their ability to effectively pursue…
In disputes between company shareholders, the determination of jurisdiction constitutes a contested area in both doctrine and practice, particularly with respect to the scope and limits of the exclusive jurisdiction rule set forth in Article 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure…
Mediation was introduced into the Turkish legal system in 2012 as a voluntary dispute resolution mechanism and has produced successful outcomes over time.
As of 1 January 2018, mediation became a mandatory precondition to litigation in certain disputes arising from labor law; as of 1 January 2019…
The Court of Cassation General Assembly on Civil Matters (“General Assembly”), by its decision dated 08.10.2025 and numbered 2024/572 E. and 2025/607 K. (“Decision”), in the dispute brought before it, prior to examining the merits of the matter, discussed and assessed as a preliminary issue whether the…
Article 326 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (“CCP”) stipulates that, where the parties are each partially successful in the proceedings, litigation costs shall be allocated between them in proportion to their respective degrees of justification…
One of the most significant safeguards afforded by the right to a fair trial is the right of access to a court. Moreover, one of the essential components of the right of access is the ability of individuals to make effective use of appellate and other legal remedies…
The Turkish Constitutional Court (“TCC”), in its decision dated 17 June 2025 and numbered E.2024/237, K.2025/137 (“Decision”), decided that significantly reshapes civil procedural law. The Court annulled the phrase “…and this decision shall be binding on the other court” contained in Article 166(1) of the Code...
With its decision dated 22.05.2024 and numbered 2022/31465 E. (“Decision”) published in the Official Gazette dated 22.10.2024 and numbered 32700, the Constitutional Court examined the claim that the decision to deem the case as not filed due to the failure to complete the addresses and identification numbers...
Under the principle of “procedure precedes substance” prevailing in Turkish law, the correct determination of the period for filing a lawsuit is crucial. In its decision dated 02.05.2024 numbered 2020/13187 E. and 02.05.2024 K. (“Decision”), the Constitutional Court examined the claim that the right of access...
The Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) regulates the judicial procedure in our jurisprudence and foresees prescription periods at each stage. Prescription periods constitute a form of sanction that causes the loss of the use of the right for the party who does not comply with the time limit...
The concept of intervention has fundamental differences in administrative trial procedure compared to civil procedure. These differences are critically important in terms of the intervenor’s right to seek legal remedies in the administrative trial procedure. As is known, there are two ways to become a plaintiff in an...
With its decision dated June 8, 2023 on the application numbered 2019/17969, the Constitutional Court, as published in the Official Gazette numbered 32331 on October 6, 2023 (“Decision”), considered the rejection of a lawsuit for an unquantified debt related to the payment of labor dues due to the absence of a legal...
The Grand General Assembly of the Unification of Jurisprudence ("GGAUJ") ruled with the Decision of the Grand General Assembly of the Unification of Jurisprudence dated 28.04.2023 numbered 2021/5 E. 2023/2 K. ("Decision") that if the legal remedy period is erroneously indicated longer in the decision in...
The issue of proving damages in cases related to the excess damages is frequently subject to the examination and evaluation of both the Supreme Court and different chambers of the Court of Cassation. With its decision dated 29.03.2022 and numbered 2021/928 E. 2022/401 K., the Court of Cassation General...
Under Turkish law, the term “limits of certainty” refers to monetary limits to the rights of appeal and cassation. While it is possible to appeal to a higher court against the decisions of the courts of the first instance and the courts of appeal where the amount of the claim or the value of the case is above these...
The Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers and the Chambers of the Court of Cassation both issued opinions on whether a lawsuit filed for not due receivables should be dismissed with or without prejudice by the court on the grounds that the time of performance has not yet come, and whether the...
In general terms, the amendment of pleading is accepted as an exception to the prohibition of expanding and amending claims and defenses. With the amendment of pleading, the parties can partially or completely correct or amend the procedural actions that they could not perform due to the prohibition...
The possibility of appellate review of questions of fact, as well as of law, was introduced into Turkish law with an amendment made in the abrogated Civil Procedure Code No. 1086, through Law No. 5239 dated 26.09.2004. However, the Regional Courts of Appeal, which are the courts...
Recently, the requirements of unquantified debt lawsuits have been subjected to the examination and review of the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers, in its decision dated 07.07.2021 and numbered 2021/485 E. 2021/971 K. (“Decision”), examined whether...
In a state where the rule of law prevails, legal remedies are indispensable to eliminate judicial errors through the supervision of court decisions. However, legal disputes must be settled at some point and decisions must be finalized. In this Newsletter, appellate procedures against final court decisions will be...