The Turkish Constitutional Court recently examined and rejected
a cancellation request regarding Article 150(1) and 150(4) of the
Civil Procedural Law (decision dated 5 May 2016, numbered 2016/36).
These provisions allow cases to be ceased when parties do not
attend hearings, as well as to be renewed within three months. The
applicant claimed the provisions prolong law suits and are often
used in bad faith, breaching the right to a fair trial.
A first instance court requested the Constitutional Court to
consider Article 150(1) and Article 150(4) of the Civil Procedural
Law numbered 6100. Article 150(1) provides that a file can be
ceased if the parties fail to attend hearings. Article 150(4)
allows a case to be renewed within three months after ceasing the
The lower court claimed these provisions prolong proceedings,
especially in complicated cases, causing a long waiting period to
obtain a judgment and preventing courts from fulfilling their
obligation to complete proceedings within the minimum time and
expense practically possible. It claimed parties could use the
procedural rules in bad faith to cease cases. Accordingly, the
lower court argued that these provisions contradicted the
constitutional right to a fair trial and should be cancelled.
The Constitutional Court rejected the lower court's
application. It held that the provisions met the "commission
principle", which indicates that the parties are competent to
decide whether or not to file a case and/or attend the case. The
Constitutional Court also held that the provisions met the
"right to be heard" principle, which indicates that the
parties must submit related facts and evidence to the court. The
Constitutional Court held the provisions do not cause prolongation
of the case, but rather accelerate proceedings and serve
Please see this link for full text of the Constitutional
Court Decision (only available in Turkish).
Information first published in the MA | Gazette, a fortnightly legal
update newsletter produced by Moroğlu Arseven.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In a judgment harking back to the principles in Donoghue v Stevenson, the Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court's decision that the manufacturer of a defective product installed to prevent fire was not liable...
A year-long arbitration pilot scheme to provide a cost-effective, straightforward and quick method of solving legal disputes between claimants and participating members of the press commenced on the 26th July 2016.
Welcome to the Summer edition of Scots Law In Practice. The first three cases contain a common thread – the pursuer in each had a valid claim on the face of things, but in each one, faced legal difficulties in obtaining a remedy.
Each year businesses around the world face a growing number of risks that could potentially jeopardize hundreds of billions of euros.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).