Under the Application numbered 2022/34110 and filed by Mustafa Yıldırım, the Constitutional Court held that the dismissal of a supplementary lawsuit following an unquantified claim case due to pending proceedings constituted a violation of the right of access to the court under Article 36 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court decision dated 14.10.2025 was promulgated in the Official Journal on 11.02.2026.
Summary
of the Case
The applicant, an employee, filed an unquantified claim lawsuit for overtime pay based on an amount of TRY 100.00.-. During the proceedings, the expert report determined that the actual claim amounted to TRY 15,688.14.-. However, since no request to increase the claim was made, the court issued a final judgment only for the initial amount of TRY 100.00.-. The applicant filed a supplementary lawsuit for the remaining claim determined under the expert report, amounting to TRY 15,000.00.-. The court of first instance dismissed the supplementary lawsuit due to pending proceedings, noting that the initial case had been filed as an unquantified claim, and that no request to increase the claim had been made during the investigation stage, and the Regional Court of Justice upheld this decision.
Legal
Assessment of the Constitutional Court
Emphasizing that for the concept of pending proceedings to apply, the previous case must still be ongoing, the Constitutional Court determined, in this present case, that the initial case had become final in terms of its amount, and the second case was filed after this finalization. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the condition of pending proceedings did not apply. The Court further assessed the final judgment requirement as a procedural cause of action and concluded that the amount of TRY 100.00.-, awarded in the initial case, and the amount of TRY 15,000.00.-, claimed under the second case, did not fall within the same subject matter. Therefore, the conditions related to a final judgment were not met in the present case.
The
Constitutional Court regarded the dismissal of the lawsuit due to the pending
proceedings requirement as a misapplication of the law and ruled that the
applicant’s right of access to the court had been violated.
