ERDEM-NEWSLETTER-2018-metin

275 LAW OF CIVIL PROCEDURE amendment may be filed prior to the end of the investigation phase. For this reason, the case may be converted to the investigation phase after reversal of the verdict by the Court of Cassation, the Article 177 has been misinterpreted, and that the DUJ has lost its topicality to the CCP. This article examines the decision of the CCGA dated 06.05.2016 and numbered 2015/1 E. 2016/1 K. that was taken follow- ing the aforementioned application. Opinions of Supporters on a Change of the DUJ These opinions are as follows: • It is inexplicable to allow the expansion and alteration of claim with the other party’s consent, meanwhile, prohibiting an amendment. • After reversal of the verdict, the case may be reversed to exchange of petitions, preliminary examination, investiga- tion, oral proceedings or decision phase, according to the content of the reversal. If the case reverts to the exchange of petitions, preliminary examination or investigation phase, it is requisite to make the filing of an amendment possible. An amendment shall not be filed where the case reverses to the oral proceedings or decision phase since making an investi- gation is not possible at those stages. In the current situation, the plaintiff may use the amendment right in repeated proce- edings where the dismissal of a claim on procedural grounds was subject to an approval from the Court of Cassation. It is then inexplicable that the plaintiff cannot use the amendment right in repeated proceedings where the dismissal of a claim on procedural grounds was subject to a reversal. Therefore, any reversal on procedural grounds shall result in the forfei- ture of the plaintiff’s unformed amendment right. • To ban the right of amendment, which may only be used once during the proceedings, without any supporting legislation, is against the right to legal remedies set forth in Articles 36 and 14 of the Constitution.