By its decision dated 08.05.2026, the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the Court of Cassation explicitly ruled that a claim not initially included in the statement of claim cannot subsequently be introduced into the action by way of “partial amendment”.

The decision has significant implications particularly in labor law, commercial law, and compensation disputes with respect to the frequently encountered practice of introducing into the action, by way of amendment, a matter that was not originally asserted in the statement of claim, namely the practice of “subsequent addition of claims.” Accordingly, the limits of the institution of amendment have been redrawn, once again emphasizing the importance of formulating the relief sought accurately and comprehensively at the time the action is filed.

WHAT IS THE INSTITUTION OF AMENDMENT?

Amendment, regulated under Article 176 and the following articles of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, is a legal institution that allows the parties, after the initiation of the action, to wholly or partially correct their procedural acts regarding the cause of action, subject matter, evidence, and other related matters.

In practice, in particular:

  • increase of the claim amount,
  • correction of procedural acts,
  • completion of incomplete explanations,

and is frequently used for these purposes.

Amendment, which constitutes the most significant exception to the prohibition on the expansion of claims and defenses, is a legal mechanism that may be carried out either in writing or orally until the end of the evidentiary phase during the course of proceedings, and it is recognized under Turkish law in two forms: full amendment and partial amendment.

Full amendment of the action ARTICLE 180 – (1) A party who declares that it has fully amended its action shall be required to submit a new statement of claim within one week as of such declaration. Otherwise, the right of amendment shall be deemed to have been exercised, and the proceedings shall continue as if no amendment had been made.

Partial amendment ARTICLE 181 – (1) The party resorting to partial amendment shall be granted a one-week period to carry out the procedural act subject to amendment. If the amended act is not performed within this period, the proceedings shall continue as if no amendment had been made.

In the case of full amendment, failure to comply with the one-week period results in the amendment right being deemed exercised; therefore, missing this deadline may lead to a loss of rights, which requires particular attention. In partial amendment, although failure to comply with the one-week period does not result in the right being deemed exercised, the proceedings continue as if no amendment had been made, which may also lead to loss of rights. The effect of amendment on proceedings is explicitly regulated under Article 179 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that: “Amendment results in the consequence that, from the point it is extended to by the subject matter of the case, all procedural acts are deemed not to have been performed.”

AMENDMENT IN JUDICIAL DECISIONS

As amendment is an institution capable of directly affecting the parties’ claims and relief sought during the course of proceedings, and also serves a facilitating function for the parties in practice, it has frequently been a subject of discussion in judicial decisions.

The decisions of the Court of Cassation to date have predominantly held that a matter not requested in the statement of claim cannot be introduced into the action through amendment; however:

Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber, Case No. 2021/3750, Decision No. 2021/8031, Dated 20.12.2021:

“Accordingly, as a rule, after the filing of the action, it is possible to correct procedural acts related to the cause of action, subject matter, evidence and other matters through amendment, and it is also possible to amend the subject matter of the action. Indeed, Article 185/2 of the former Code of Civil Procedure (HUMK) also recognizes that the plaintiff may, without the consent of the opposing party, change the nature of the action by way of amendment.

However, all the provisions explained clearly indicate that what is meant by amendment is the expansion or alteration of matters that are already the subject of the action.

There is no legal possibility of introducing into the action, and turning into a subject of the action, something that was not originally claimed, by way of amendment.”

Although rarely, there are also decisions of the Court of Cassation holding that a matter not requested in the statement of claim may be introduced into the action through amendment; therefore:

Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2019/2848, Decision No. 2020/1413, Dated 17.02.2020:

The action concerns a recourse claim arising from an operating rights transfer agreement. The plaintiff’s counsel, in the statement of claim, requested the recovery from the defendant of TRY 101,895.04 and TRY 8,859.67 together with default interest accruing from the respective payment dates, while expressly reserving the right to claim in excess; subsequently, by way of an amendment petition, the plaintiff also sought recovery of TRY 67,060.00 as expropriation compensation and TRY 1,734.00 corresponding to appeal fees and expenses incurred in the underlying recourse proceedings, based on the same cause of action.

The regional court of appeal held that there is no legal possibility of introducing into the action, or turning into a subject of the action, a matter not originally claimed by way of amendment, and on this basis rejected the claim for TRY 67,060.00 expropriation compensation and TRY 1,734.00 appeal fees and expenses, concluding that their inclusion in the action through amendment was not legally permissible.

Article 176 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, in force at the time of the amendment, provides that “each of the parties may partially or completely amend the procedural acts they have performed.” In light of the legal provisions, it is possible for the plaintiff to fully amend the action and submit a new statement of claim, as well as to increase the claim amount through partial amendment. Accordingly, the regional court of appeal should have, in principle, accepted that the plaintiff’s amendment request complied with procedural requirements and rendered a decision based on the outcome to be reached; instead, the rejection of the claim for expropriation compensation and appeal fees on the grounds stated above was found incorrect, and the judgment was therefore reversed in favor of the plaintiff.

In order to ensure consistency in practice as well as legal certainty and predictability, a need arose for the issuance of a unification of judgments decision. Accordingly, with the decision forming the subject of this bulletin, the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the Court of Cassation ruled that a claim not included in the statement of claim cannot subsequently be introduced into the action through partial amendment.

The Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the Court of Cassation, in its decision (YİBBGKK), in summary reached the following conclusion:

An independent claim that was not included at all in the statement of claim cannot subsequently be introduced into the action by way of partial amendment. In other words, it is not possible to add a new claim that was never asserted in the statement of claim at a later stage of the proceedings; in such a case, the claimant must file a separate action.

CONCLUSION AND ASSESSMENT

With the YİBBGKK, it has been conclusively and bindingly established that a new claim not included in the statement of claim cannot be added to the action through partial amendment. For this reason, the legal assessment and structuring of claims at the stage of filing the lawsuit will carry greater importance than ever in terms of preventing potential loss of rights, and in practice, particularly in complex compensation and receivables cases, each head of claim must be properly and duly presented in the initial filing.

Furthermore, since claims that cannot be added later through amendment must be pursued by filing a separate action, limitation periods applicable to such rights and claims must also be carefully taken into consideration.

In particular, in cases conducted on the basis of the “reservation of rights to claim in excess,” for example:

  • employment receivables cases,
  • pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation cases,
  • commercial receivables cases,
  • insurance disputes,
  • construction-for-land-share and contract for work disputes,

it will be of particular importance to pay attention to these issues.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  • YİBBGKK Case No. 2021/8; Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, Case No. 2021/3750, Decision No. 2021/8031, Dated 20.12.2021; Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2019/2848, Decision No. 2020/1413, Dated 17.02.2020