1. INTRODUCTION
In civil
procedure, the subject matter of the proceedings and the relief sought are
determined by the parties’ will. In civil litigation, the scope within which
the court adjudicates the dispute is, as a general rule, limited to the claims
submitted by the parties and the facts relied upon in support of those claims.
This is a natural consequence of both party disposition and legal certainty.
However, civil
procedure law has introduced certain mechanisms to mitigate the excessive
formalism of procedural law and help reduce the loss of rights that such
formalism may cause. One such mechanism is amendment, which allows the parties
to correct, in whole or in part, procedural acts they have previously
undertaken. This is because parties may make errors in their claims and
defenses, or their claims and defenses may be incomplete. In such
circumstances, parties may suffer a loss of rights if they fail to set out
their claims and defenses fully and accurately. [1] Nevertheless, the scope of
amendment, particularly whether a claim that was not included in the statement
of claim at all may subsequently be introduced, remains a matter of debate in
legal doctrine and practice.
While the
General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation and several
chambers of the Court of Cassation had adopted the view that a matter not
included in the subject matter of the proceedings could not be introduced by
way of amendment, certain chambers had held, particularly on the grounds of
procedural economy and the right to seek judicial remedies, that new claims
could be introduced by way of amendment under certain circumstances. Indeed,
following an application prompted by this divergence in case law, the Grand
General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the Court of Cassation
considered the issue and definitively resolved the dispute. The decision
concerned the question of “whether a claim not included in the statement of claim
may be introduced into civil proceedings by way of partial amendment.”
2. THE CONCEPT
OF AMENDMENT AND ITS FUNCTION IN CIVIL LITIGATION
Amendment is an
important mechanism of civil procedural law, regulated under Articles 176 et
seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure Nr. 6100, which allows the parties to
remedy deficiencies or errors in certain procedural acts performed during the
proceedings. Pursuant to Article 176 of the Code of Civil Procedure, each party
may amend, in whole or in part, the procedural acts it has undertaken. Through
this provision, the legislature sought to prevent the loss of rights that may
arise from the strict application of procedural rules.
Two types of
amendment are contemplated: “amendment of the entire proceedings” and “partial
amendment of the proceedings”. The Code of Civil Procedure does not specify the
circumstances in which a complete or partial amendment may be made; rather, it sets
out only the procedural steps to be taken, and the legal consequences attached
to each type of amendment. [1]
Complete
amendment is a type of amendment that allows the plaintiff to modify all of the
procedural acts undertaken in the proceedings. In the case of complete
amendment, the plaintiff is entitled to revise all procedural acts previously
performed, with effect from the outset. For example, changing the type of
action or entirely abandoning the relief sought in the statement of claim and
asserting new claims may be regarded as complete amendment. However, it is
accepted that the statutory right to complete amendment does not confer
unlimited authority on the plaintiff and must be exercised within the statutory
limits, particularly with regard to fundamentally altering the subject matter
of the proceedings and the underlying facts.
Partial
amendment, on the other hand, is a form of amendment whereby the parties modify
or correct only a specific procedural act. In such cases, the parties do not
alter all of the procedural acts they have undertaken, but only a particular
part thereof. For example, increasing the amount of a claim set out in the
statement of claim or correcting a specific procedural act may be considered
partial amendment.
The fundamental
difference between complete amendment and partial amendment lies in the scope
of the amendment. While complete amendment affects the entirety of the
procedural acts undertaken in the proceedings, partial amendment brings about a
change only with respect to a specific procedural act or claim.
Decision,
bearing the Basis number 2021/8, the Decision number 2026/1 and dated 08.05.2026,
of the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the Court of
Cassation reads as follows:
“Amendment is
divided into two types: complete amendment and partial amendment. In the case
of partial amendment, pursuant to Article 179 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a
claim set out in the statement of claim may be increased/expanded or modified.
In the case of complete amendment, by contrast, the cause of action or the
subject matter of the proceedings is modified and a new statement of claim is
submitted. Although the amended action is not entirely unrelated to the original
action, it acquires a new character. Accordingly, where the plaintiff seeks to
expand or modify the relief sought, partial amendment should be used; where the
plaintiff wishes to assert an entirely new claim based on new facts, complete
amendment should be used. Complete amendment effectively takes the proceedings
back to the beginning. Pursuant to Article 179 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
since the effects of the amendment extend back to the commencement of the
proceedings, the procedural acts previously performed become ineffective.
Partial amendment, on the other hand, takes effect from the time the amendment
is made and therefore does not invalidate the procedural acts performed from
the commencement of the proceedings; the proceedings continue from the point
they have reached.” [2]
Under the
decision of the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the
Court of Cassation under review, the issue arises as to whether a new claim
that was not included in the statement of claim at all may be introduced into
the proceedings by way of partial amendment. In other words, the dispute does
not concern the modification or increase of the amount of an existing claim,
but whether an independent claim that was not originally made the subject
matter of the proceedings may be added to the proceedings through partial
amendment. Accordingly, what is significant for the purposes of the decision is
not the existence of the mechanism of amendment itself, but rather where the
boundaries of partial amendment begin and end.
The primary
purpose of amendment is to enable the parties to remedy procedural errors or
deficiencies arising during the proceedings. In this respect, amendment is
regarded as one of the means of overcoming the prohibition on the expansion or
modification of claims and defenses.
However,
whether amendment grants the parties an unlimited power to modify their claims
remains a matter of debate. According to a view adopted by certain chambers of
the Court of Cassation, amendment should be limited to modifications made
within the existing subject matter of the proceedings. Accordingly, a new
action cannot be brought within pending proceedings by way of amendment, and
therefore an additional claim cannot be added to the relief sought through
amendment. In such a case, what is involved is no longer the correction of an
existing procedural act, but the assertion of a new claim. [3]
By contrast,
another view adopts a more flexible approach, particularly with respect to
claims arising from the same legal relationship. According to this view, where
the material facts have been set out in the statement of claim but a claim
arising therefrom has been inadvertently omitted, allowing such omission to be
remedied by way of amendment, provided that the opposing party’s right to
defense is preserved, would better serve procedural economy.
3. THE
STATEMENT OF CLAIM, THE RELIEF SOUGHT, AND THE PRINCIPLE OF CONFORMITY WITH THE
RELIEF SOUGHT
In civil
litigation, the plaintiff is required to clearly set out in the statement of
claim the legal protection sought. Indeed, pursuant to the principle of party
disposition set forth in Article 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, one of the
fundamental principles governing civil litigation, the court may not examine or
adjudicate any case ex officio without a request from one of the
parties. Likewise, under the principle of conformity with the relief sought,
set forth in Article 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court is bound by
the relief sought by the parties and may not award more than what is sought or
grant relief on a matter different from that sought.
These
principles governing civil litigation clearly demonstrate that the subject
matter of the proceedings is determined by the parties’ will. The court cannot
render a decision on a matter that has not been requested by the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the subsequent assertion, by way of partial amendment, of a new
claim that was not included in the statement of claim must be assessed directly
in light of the principle of conformity with the relief sought.
On the other
hand, pursuant to the principle of procedural economy set forth in Article 30
of the Code of Civil Procedure, which plays an important role in civil
procedure, the court is required to ensure that the proceedings are conducted
within a reasonable time and without unnecessary expense. Accordingly, methods
that enable the dispute to be resolved within a single set of proceedings are
of particular importance in civil litigation.
4. DIVERGENT
APPROACHES IN THE CASE LAW OF THE COURT OF CASSATION
The fundamental
issue addressed by the decision on the unification of judgments was the
divergence in practice among the different chambers of the Court of Cassation.
Some chambers
of the Court of Cassation and the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the
Court of Cassation have adopted the view that a claim not included in the
statement of claim cannot be added to the proceedings by way of amendment.
According to this approach, amendment is intended to correct procedural acts
within the scope of the existing proceedings; the addition of a claim that has
never been made the subject matter of the proceedings, however, constitutes a
new action. In other words, although the plaintiff may increase or expand the
relief sought along the same line, a claim that was not originally made the
subject matter of the proceedings cannot be brought within the scope of the
action by way of amendment. [4]
By contrast,
certain chambers have adopted a different approach. Particularly in disputes
involving multiple claims arising from the same legal relationship, such as
employment receivables, it has been accepted that a claim inadvertently omitted
from the statement of claim may be subsequently asserted by way of amendment.
The principal grounds underlying this approach include procedural economy and
the right to seek judicial remedies.
Indeed, the 9th
Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has held that where the facts have been
set out in the statement of claim but certain heads of claim have been
inadvertently omitted, it should be possible to assert such claims by way of
amendment. According to the Chamber, such an approach would reduce the need to
bring a separate action and contribute to the more efficient conduct of the
proceedings.
5. DECISION OF
THE GRAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE UNIFICATION OF JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF
CASSATION
The Grand
General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the Court of Cassation,
having considered the divergent views outlined above, concluded that a claim
not included in the statement of claim cannot be introduced into the
proceedings by way of partial amendment.
Decision,
bearing the Basis number 2021/8, the Decision number 2026/1 and dated 08.05.2026,
of the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the Court of
Cassation reads as follows:
“… In light of
the nature of amendment as explained in detail above, it is not possible to
introduce into the proceedings, by way of partial amendment, a matter that was
not originally made the subject matter of the action and thereby make it part
of the proceedings. The issue here is not the increase or expansion of an
existing claim, which the law permits by way of amendment, but rather the
addition of a new claim that has never previously been asserted or made the
subject matter of the action. However, given that partial amendment is intended
to correct omissions or errors in the statement of claim and that, following
partial amendment, the proceedings remain the same action that was originally
brought, allowing a new claim that was not previously made the subject matter
of the action to be introduced by way of partial amendment would, in effect,
amount to bringing a second action.
In other words,
subsequently making a claim that was not included in the statement of claim the
subject matter of the proceedings by way of partial amendment would,
technically speaking, amount to using the mechanism of amendment in the pending
proceedings in a manner that results in the initiation of a new/second action.
This would, so to speak, transform partial amendment into a means of bringing
an additional action, which is clearly not permitted under the applicable
statutory provisions.
…
Following the
deliberations conducted in light of all the foregoing considerations, it was
decided that, in civil litigation, a claim not included in the statement of
claim cannot be introduced into the proceedings by way of partial amendment.” [2]
The fundamental
approach adopted in the decision is that amendment is intended to correct
existing procedural acts and cannot, however, be used as a means of introducing
a new subject matter into the proceedings.
The most
significant consequence of this approach is that a claim not expressly set out
in the statement of claim cannot subsequently be asserted by way of amendment.
This preserves the connection between the subject matter of the proceedings and
the relief sought, while reinforcing the principle that the scope of the
court’s adjudicatory authority is determined by the parties’ will.
The decision
also clearly makes an important contribution to legal certainty. The defendant
knows from the outset of the proceedings which claims it is required to defend
against and can prepare its defense accordingly. The subsequent introduction of
a new claim may give rise to certain issues concerning the defendant’s right to
be heard.
However,
according to the views opposing the decision, particularly with respect to
claims arising from the same legal relationship and based on the same facts,
requiring a separate action to be brought would prolong the proceedings and
conflict with the principle of procedural economy.
6. GENERAL
ASSESSMENT OF THE DECISION
The decision of
the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments sets out an
important and systemically consistent approach with respect to the fundamental
principles of civil procedure law. The determination of the subject matter of
the proceedings and the relief sought at the outset is essential both for
enabling the parties to anticipate their legal positions and for defining the
scope of the proceedings.
However, a
strictly narrow interpretation of the mechanism of amendment may, in certain
cases, make it more difficult to obtain substantive relief. Particularly in
disputes involving multiple claims arising from the same legal relationship,
requiring a party to bring a separate action merely because one claim was
inadvertently omitted may raise concerns from the perspective of procedural
economy.
7. CONCLUSION
In civil
procedure, the subject matter of the proceedings and the relief sought are
determined by the parties’ will, which is a natural consequence of the
principles of legal certainty and party disposition. At the same time, the
legislature has introduced the mechanism of amendment to remedy deficiencies in
procedural acts and prevent the loss of rights.
Amendment
allows the parties to modify, in whole or in part, procedural acts they have
previously undertaken, but it does not confer an unlimited power to make
changes. In particular, partial amendment is intended to correct specific
procedural acts within the scope of the existing proceedings and cannot result
in the introduction of a new claim that was not included in the statement of
claim at all.
The decision of
the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the Court of
Cassation dated 8 May 2026 likewise held that a claim not included in the
statement of claim cannot be added to the proceedings by way of partial
amendment. This approach may be regarded as sound in terms of the principle of
conformity with the relief sought, the principle that the parties must
introduce the factual basis of the proceedings, and the protection of the
defendant’s right to be heard. Indeed, asserting a new claim outside the
subject matter of the proceedings by way of amendment could exceed the
boundaries of the existing action and effectively result in the initiation of a
new action.
However, with
respect to certain claims arising from the same legal relationship and based on
the same facts, it remains open to debate whether requiring a separate action
to be brought is compatible with the principle of procedural economy.
Therefore, the application of the mechanism of amendment requires a balanced
approach between legal certainty, the right to seek judicial remedies, and
procedural economy.
In conclusion,
the decision on the unification of judgments has resolved the divergence of
views in practice by defining the limits of partial amendment and has
established an important precedent for preserving the subject matter of the
proceedings in civil litigation.
Alperen Furkan Balat, Legal Intern
References:
1. Medeni Usul
Hukuku (Civil Procedure Law), Prof. Dr. Murat Atalı, Prof Dr. İbrahim
Ermenek, Prof. Dr. Ersin Erdoğan, Yetki Publications, p. 439
2. Decision,
bearing the Basis number 2021/8, the Decision number 2026/1 and dated 08.05.2026,
of the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the Court of
Cassation
3. Research
Assistant Dr. Alper Tunga KÜÇÜK, “Medenî Usûl Hukukunda Davacının Talep
Sonucunu Genişletmesi veya Değiştirmesi” (“Expansion or Modification of the
Relief Sought by the Plaintiff in Civil Procedure Law”), Journal of the
Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, Year 9, Issue No: 18, December 2025, p. 229.
4. Elif AKSOY, “Objektif
Dava Birleşmesi” (“Objective Joinder of Claims”), TBB (Union of Turkish Bar
Associations) Journal, 2015 (117), p. 217
