The Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the Court
of Cassation has put an end to a significant debate in civil proceedings,
ruling that a new claim not included in the statement of claim cannot be
introduced into the proceedings by way of partial amendment.
In civil procedural law, the claims with which the parties apply to the
court are regarded as one of the fundamental elements defining the scope of the
proceedings. In this context, the judge is bound by the relief sought by the
parties and cannot rule on a matter that has not been asserted in the statement
of claim on their own initiative.
The amendment procedure, set out under Article 176 et seq. of the Code
of Civil Procedure Nr. 6100 and intended to allow parties to remedy
deficiencies or errors in certain procedural acts performed during the
proceedings, enables the parties to modify their procedural acts in whole or in
part. In practice, however, differing views had emerged, particularly regarding
the limits of partial amendment.
At the heart of the debate was whether a claim that was entirely absent
from the statement of claim could subsequently be asserted by way of partial
amendment. Some chambers of the Court of Cassation argued that this should be
permitted, particularly for claims arising from the same legal relationship, on
the grounds of procedural economy and the right to seek judicial remedies. The
opposing view, however, maintained that such an approach would effectively
amount to bringing a new action.
In its decision addressing the divergent approaches, the Grand General
Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the Court of Cassation held that
partial amendment is intended to remedy deficiencies in the existing
proceedings, and that a new claim that had never previously been the subject of
the action cannot be asserted by this means.
The decision aims to preserve the boundaries between the subject matter
of the action and the relief sought. According to the Court of Cassation, it is
important, in terms of legal certainty and the right to be heard, that the
defendant knows from the outset what claim they are facing and can prepare
their defense accordingly.
The decision is expected to have significant implications in practice,
while also drawing criticism in certain respects. In particular, it has been
argued that requiring a separate action to be brought for claims arising from
the same legal relationship and based on the same facts could prolong the
judicial process and conflict with the principle of procedural economy.
In conclusion, with the decision of the Grand General Assembly for the
Unification of Judgments of the Court of Cassation dated May 8, 2026, it has
been definitively established that a new claim not included in the statement of
claim cannot be added to the proceedings by way of partial amendment. The
decision is regarded as an important precedent in civil proceedings with
respect to preserving the subject matter of the action, the principle that the
court is bound by the relief sought, and the legal certainty of the parties.
