ERDEM-NEWSLETTER-2018-metin

277 LAW OF CIVIL PROCEDURE his appeal has been accepted and the verdict is reversed due to incorrect fault determination, the court follows the higher court’s ruling, obtains an expert report, and determines a hig- her compensation amount with the cause of the defendant’s reduced fault rate. In this case, the plaintiff cannot increase the value of the case after reversal of the verdict, even tho- ugh he is the one who appealed the verdict and receives a decision in his favor. • It is clearly impractical to acquire the right through filing an additional case after the reversal. There is a possibility that the additional case may face a plea of prescription, and since it is a new case, the civil procedure is to be applied from the very beginning. The additional case overburdens the plain- tiff, and this is contrary to the CCP’s principle of procedural economy. • Even though it is alleged that completely amending a cla- im results in disruption of the plaintiff’s case and endless litigation, such amendment would cause nothing other than prolongation, which is at the discretion of the plaintiff. In fact, no plaintiff wishes to prolong his own case. Besides, the legislator will levy fines in the case of malicious amendment. Opinions of Supporters of the DUJ These opinions are as follows: • It is clear that the conditions for an amendment on the DUJ have not yet been established. After the judgments’ unifica- tion date of 1948, no legislation was made to annul the DUJ. To the contrary, the CCP has brought similar provisions as did the fCCP regarding amendments. • There is no way to ascertain whether the investigation will continue after the reversal. The Decision on Unification of Judgments dated 28.04.1959 and numbered 1957/13 E., 1959/5 K. which is the basis of this assertion, rules that the decision of non-jurisdiction may be given at every stage. De- cisions as to the unification of judgments are explanatory on