ERDEM-NEWSLETTER-2018-metin

274 NEWSLETTER 2018 Decision of the Court of Cassation General Assembly on the Unification of Judgments holding that an Amendment cannot be filed after Reversal of the Verdict* Att. Piraye Erdem In civil procedural law, a ban on the expansion and alteration of a claim and defense comes with two exceptions; the other party’s con- sent, and “the amendment”. The parties may completely or partially amend their proceedings prior to the end of the investigation phase. Provided that the legal requirements are fulfilled, an amendment may be filed without the consent of the other party or the court, since it is a unilateral and express declaration of will directed at the court 1 . For instance, the parties may amend the value of the claim, or claim compensation, instead of payment in kind for defective goods. However, the Decision on Unification of Judgments dated 04.02.1948 and numbered 1944/10 E., 1948/3 K. (“DUJ”), prohibits the amendment after reversal of the verdict, by addressing the grounds as the law’s explicit provision, the acquired rights, and the functions of simplicity and promptness aimed for through the amendment. On the other hand, an application was brought to the Court of Cas- sation General Assembly (“CCGA”) on the Unification of Judgments claiming that the elimination of discrepancy between the opinions of several chambers of the Court of Cassation was required since Article 177/1 of the current Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) numbered 6100 that entered into force on 01.10.2011, and which abrogated the former Code of Civil Procedure (“fCCP”) numbered 1086, foresees that the * Article of May 2018 1 This point is emphasized in various Court of Cassation decisions: Supreme Court Assembly of Civil Chambers, 7.6.2017, 2017/17-1093 E. 2017/1090 K., 13th CC of Court of Cassation, 27.4.2017, 2016/6529 E. 2017/5198 K., 3rd CC of Court of Cassation, 16.9.2015, 2015/10100 E. 2015/14303 K.