The 12th Judicial Package Has Entered Into Force

Law No. 7589 on Amendments to Certain Laws for the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary (the "Law"), publicly referred to as the "12th Judicial Package," entered into force upon its publication in the Official Gazette dated 31 July 2026 and numbered 33326. The Law introduces significant changes across a broad range of areas, from enforcement and bankruptcy proceedings to administrative and judicial proceedings, criminal justice, and the law of obligations. The object of the Law is to ensure a faster and more efficient functioning of the judiciary and to address issues frequently encountered in practice. Below, we summarize the key amendments comparing the previous and the new provisions while highlighting the changes.I. ENFORCEMENT AND BANKRUPTCY LAW NO. 2004 (Article 114) – Dissolution of Co-Ownership of Inherited Real Property

 What is changing? From now on, only the heirs will be able to participate in the first auction held for the dissolution of co-ownership of inherited real property. Under the previous framework, the auctions were open to everyone, the minimum bid was set at 50% of the appraised value, and no administrative fine was imposed on a purchaser who failed to pay the purchase price.


Now: In cases where real property is owned exclusively by the heirs, with no third party holding any ownership interest, the first auction will, as a one-time exception, be held only among the heirs, and the minimum bid will be increased to full (%100) appraised value. An administrative fine equal to 5% of the bid amount will be imposed on any purchaser who fails to pay the purchase price within the specified period. The Treasury, however, will be exempt from the requirement to provide security.
Why is this important? The amendment aims to prevent inherited family real property from being sold to third parties at prices significantly below its market value: heirs will now be able to acquire the property among themselves at the first auction without falling below its appraised value. If the property is not sold at the first auction, the second auction will remain open to all bidders. For auctions announced before the Law entered into force (before 31 July 2026), the previous provisions will continue to apply; the new rules will apply only to auctions announced after that date.II. NOTARY PUBLIC LAW NO. 1512(Article 55) – The Confidentiality of Documents and Registers

What is changing? Notarial documents may now be transmitted to courts and prosecutors electronically, free of charge and in a faster manner. Under the previous framework, the documents and registers of the notary public’s office could be examined by courts, examining magistrates and public prosecutors, while the removal of documents from the notary public’s office required a court order or a decision of the examining magistrate.

Now: The term “examining magistrate” has been replaced with “criminal peace judgeships.” In addition, notarial documents and registers may also be examined by official public bodies and by persons specifically authorised to conduct an inquiry at the notary's office, not only by courts, criminal peace judgeships and public prosecutor's offices. Upon request for the original document, the notary public will prepare a copy and send the original to the competent authority; where a certified copy is requested, the notary public will scan the document electronically, sign it with a secure electronic signature and transmit it on the same day. No registry number will be assigned for these processes, and no fees, taxes or valuable paper charges shall be collected, except for postage and transportation expenses.

Why is this important? This amendment enables the secure and fast transmission of notarial documents, thereby shortening procedures and reducing the physical document traffic.III. THE LAW ON COUNCIL OF STATE NO. 2575 (Provisional Article 27) – Reduction in the Number of Divisions and Election of Members

What is changing? The period for reducing the number of divisions of the Council of State is extended from ten years to fourteen years. Under the previous framework, the President's Board was required to reduce the number of divisions to the number prescribed by the Law within ten years from 23 July 2016 (i.e., by 23 July 2026).

Now: The period has been extended to 23 July 2030. In addition, the provision requiring the election of one member for every two vacant memberships until the number of Council of State judicial members is reduced to ninety will not apply until 23 July 2030.

Why is this important? The amendment aims to provide a longer transitional period for the gradual reduction in the number of divisions of the Council of State to better accommodate its workload and institutional needs. This provision entered into force on 23 July 2026.IV. REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS, ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS AND TAX COURTS LAW NO. 2576 (Article 7) – Cases to Be Heard by a Single Judge

What is changing? Both the monetary threshold and the scope of administrative and tax cases to be heard by a single judge are significantly expanded. Under the previous framework, only annulment actions and full remedy actions involving a specific monetary claim not exceeding TRY 25,000 were adjudicated by a single judge; the same monetary threshold also applied before the tax courts.
Now: Except for actions filed against regulatory acts, annulment actions and full remedy actions with a subject matter not exceeding TRY 486,000 will be heard by a single judge. In addition, the following cases will also be heard by a single judge: student disciplinary sanctions (excluding suspension/expulsion), grade promotion, grade determination, dormitory, student loan and scholarship matters; public officials' temporary assignments, travel allowance, public housing and leave matters; actions against warning sanctions, disciplinary sanctions imposed by professional organizations (excluding those preventing the exercise of the profession), and disputes concerning the 65-year-old pension allowance. The same TRY 486,000 threshold will also apply before the tax courts.
Why is this important? The amendment aims to reduce the number of cases that must be heard by a panel and to shorten the duration of judicial proceedings. The amendments will apply only to cases filed after the date on which this provision enters into force.V. ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION PROCEDURES LAW NO. 2577 (Article 45) – Appellate Review What is changing? The powers of the Regional Administrative Courts ("RAC") to reject an appeal application and to remit a case file to the first-instance court are expanded. Under the previous framework, where the RAC found the first-instance court's judgment unlawful, it would revoke the judgment and render a new judgment on the merits. Remitting the case file to the first-instance court was limited to exceptional circumstances, such as lack of jurisdiction, lack of competence, or the participation of a disqualified or successfully challenged judge.  Now: The RAC may reject an appeal, changing the reasoning of the first-instance court's judgment, even where it upholds the outcome of that judgment. The cases to which a case file may be remitted to the first-instance court have also been expanded: in cases where the court should have rejected the petition but instead rendered a judgment on the merits, heard the case against an incomplete or incorrect defendant, failed to rule on all claims, failed to conduct the required on-site inspection or expert examination, or rendered a judgment without holding a hearing where one was required, the RAC will be able to definitively accept the appeal and remit the case file to the competent court for a new judgment. However, where the deficiency relates to an on-site inspection, expert examination or hearing, the regional administrative court may remedy the deficiency itself and render a judgment.VI. ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION PROCEDURES LAW NO. 2577 (Article 46) – Cassation Appeal
What is changing? The categories of cases excluded from cassation appeal are expanded, ensuring that lower-value disputes become final at the regional administrative court stage. Under the previous framework, cases with a subject matter exceeding TRY 270,000 but not exceeding TRY 920,000, where the RAC set aside the first-instance judgment and rendered a new judgment (Article 46/1-c), were also subject to cassation appeal.
Now: Article 46/1(c) has been repealed. Instead, in cases falling outside the scope of the first paragraph, judgments rendered by the RAC after setting aside the first-instance judgment may be subject to cassation appeal before the Council of State within 30 days from the date of notification. However, a cassation appeal is no longer available for cases heard by a single judge and cases on Farmer Property, Possessory Rights in Immovable Property, and the Law on Foreigners and International Protection, as well as decisions concerning only attorney's fees/litigation costs. In addition, where the difference between the regional administrative court's judgment and the first-instance judgment does not exceed the appeal threshold (TRY 55,000 for 2026), no cassation appeal may be filed.

Why is this important? The amendment aims to reduce the workload of the Council of State by expanding the categories of cases excluded from cassation appeal. As a result, lower-value disputes will become final at the regional administrative court stage. These amendments will apply to judgments rendered by the regional administrative courts after the date on which these amendments enter into force.VII. STATUTORY INTEREST AND DEFAULT INTEREST LAW NO. 3095 (Article 1) – Statutory Interest Rate
What is changing? The fixed 24% statutory interest rate is replaced by a dynamic rate that varies in line with market conditions. Under the previous framework, the statutory interest rate, effective as of 1 June 2024, was fixed at 24% per annum.
Now: The statutory interest rate will be determined at 80% of the rediscount rate applied by the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye (CBRT) to short-term lending transactions as of 31 December of the preceding year. If, as of 30 June, the rediscount rate differs by 5 percentage points or more from the rate applicable on 31 December of the preceding year, the statutory interest rate applicable during the second half of the year will be 80% of the rate determined on 30 June.Why is this important? This amendment strengthens the protection of creditors during periods of high inflation while allowing for a more reasonable interest rate in favor of debtors when interest rates are low. It should also be noted that, by its decision dated 22 July 2025 (No. E.2024/24, K.2025/164), the Constitutional Court annulled this provision with respect to non-contractual obligations. The annulment will enter into force on 1 September 2026; accordingly, a new regulation will be required to determine the interest rate applicable to non-contractual obligations as of that date.VIII. TURKISH CIVIL CODE NO. 4721 (Articles 440 and 444) – Sale of Movables and Real Estate of Persons Under Guardianship
What is changing? The sale of movables and real estate belonging to persons under guardianship will no longer be conducted physically but electronically. Under the previous framework, movables were sold by public auctions upon the instructions of the guardianship authority, while real estate was sold by public auction conducted by a person appointed by the guardianship authority, in the presence of the guardian.

Now: The sale of movables and real estate will be conducted by auction through the electronic sales portal integrated with the National Judiciary Informatics System (UYAP). In the sale of real estate, the auction will be completed upon the approval of the guardianship authority, and the approval decision must be rendered within ten days from the date of the auction. This amendment will enter into force three months after its publication in the Official Gazette.


Why is this important? By reaching a broader range of participants through the electronic sales portal, the amendment aims to enhance transparency and accessibility in guardianship proceedings, thereby ensuring more effective protection of the interests of persons under guardianship.IX. COUNCIL OF FORENSIC MEDICINE LAW NO. 2659 (Article 26) – Term of Office of the Chair and Members of the Specialized Boards of the Council of Forensic Medicine

What is changing? A fixed term of office and appointment criteria are introduced for the first time for the chairs and members of the Specialized Boards of the Council of Forensic Medicine, as well as the heads of groups and departments. Under the previous framework, no separate provision governing the term of office of these officials existed, as Article 26 of the Law had been repealed in 2018.

Now: Appointment as a chair or member of a Specialized Board of the Council of Forensic Medicine will require at least a specialist qualification in medicine or dentistry or a doctoral degree in the relevant field. The term of office of the chairs and members of the Specialized Boards, as well as the heads of the forensic medicine groups and specialized departments, is set for four years. Those whose terms of office have expired will continue to serve until their successors assume office.

Why is this important? The amendment aims to strengthen task rotation in the Specialized Boards of the Council of Forensic Medicine and reinforce the merit-based appointment system. Under the transitional provision, the term of office of those who have already served four years or more on the date the Law enters into force will end, while those who have served for a shorter period will complete the remainder of their terms.X. JUDGES AND PUBLIC PROSECUTORS LAW NO. 2802 (Articles 10 and 63) – Assistant Judges and Assistant Public Prosecutors; Reprimand Penalty

What is changing? These amendments mainly consist of updates to article numbering and cross-references; the substance of the assistant judge and assistant public prosecutor procedure and the disciplinary regime remains unchanged. Previously, Article 10 referred to the provisions on being deemed unsuccessful as the 'sixteenth paragraph,' while Article 63 did not provide for seeking an expert opinion in matters requiring expert examination.


Now: The reference in Article 10 has been updated to the "nineteenth paragraph". A new subparagraph (f) has been added to Article 63(2), immediately after subparagraph (e), introducing 'seeking an expert opinion in matters that can be resolved with the legal knowledge required by the profession' as a new ground for a reprimand penalty. The former subparagraph (f) has been renumbered as subparagraph (g).XI. TURKISH CRIMINAL CODE NO. 5237 (Article 158) – Aggravated Fraud

What is changing? The punishment for the act commonly referred to as "IBAN leasing" is reduced by half.Now: Pursuant to the newly added paragraph (4), if participation in the offences of fraud under Article 157 or this Article is limited to providing another person with payment instruments, such as a bank or credit card, or the mandatory information or tools enabling the use of an account maintained with a bank, brokerage firm, payment service provider, or crypto-asset service provider, with the intent of securing an unjust benefit for oneself or another, the punishment to be imposed will be reduced by half.
Transitional period: For defendants who were convicted before the Law entered into force and whose cases are still pending on appeal, the judgment will be set aside and the case file will be sent back to the first-instance court. Convicted persons at the enforcement stage may benefit from the effective remorse provisions under Article 168(2) of the Turkish Criminal Code if they fully compensate the victim’s loss within six months from the date of the notice (ihtar) issued by the court. During this period, the execution of the sentence may not be postponed or suspended until the loss has been fully compensated. Judgments that had already been rendered by the date this Article entered into force but became final only because no appeal was filed shall also be covered by this transitional provision.XII. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE NO.5271 (Article 80/f.2) – Confidentiality of Genetic Examinations Results
What is changing? The results of genetic analysis will no longer be destroyed immediately; they will be kept for a specified period after being anonymized. Under the previous framework, the outcomes were destroyed immediately in the presence of the Public Prosecutor upon the expiry of the time limit for opposition to a decision on no ground for prosecution, the dismissal of such opposition, or the finalization of a judgment of acquittal or a decision on no ground for punishment. No systematic mechanism for recording or retaining such data existed.Now: Following the Constitutional Court's decision dated 25 December 2025 (No. E.2025/141, K.2025/274), which annulled the relevant provision because it did not provide adequate safeguards for the keeping and destruction of genetic data, the outcomes of genetic analysis shall be recorded in a dedicated system after being anonymized. A copy shall also be transmitted to the authorities conducting the investigation or prosecution to be kept in the case file as evidence. The data shall be destroyed immediately upon the finalization of a judgment of acquittal, a decision on no ground for punishment, or a decision on no ground for prosecution. In all other cases, the data shall be destroyed twenty years after the conviction becomes final. The person concerned may request the deletion of the data where justified grounds exist. The records may be used only in an ongoing investigation or prosecution upon the decision of a court, a judge, or the Public Prosecutor. The procedures and principles governing the implementation of these provisions shall be laid down in a regulation to be issued jointly by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Interior.XIII. Code of Criminal Procedure NO. 5271 (Article 231) – Deferral of the Announcement of the Verdict (HAGB)
What is changing? The categories of offences for which the delaying of the pronouncement of the judgment may not be applied are expanded.
 Now: While the fundamental conditions governing HAGB remain unchanged, in line with the reasoning of the Constitutional Court's decision dated 10 July 2025 (No. E.2024/98), the scope of the exclusion is extended to cover not only the offences of torture and torment, but also offences committed by public officials in connection with their duties that may constitute ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 17 of the Constitution.XIV. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE NO. 5271 (Article 247) – Fugitive Accused
What is changing? A new right of defense is introduced for fugitive accused persons against the imposition of a security measure. Under the previous framework, prosecution may be conducted against the fugitive accused. However, if the fugitive accused had not been previously interrogated, a judgment concerning his conviction or a decision on no ground for punishment could not be rendered, and in case of an imposition of a security measure, no specific right was granted to the accused.Now: In addition to the existing rule, where a security measure is imposed, the fugitive accused or his/her defense counsel may request the reopening of the proceedings by declaring that the right of defense is to be exercised.XV. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE NO. 5271 (Article 308) – Power of Opposition by the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation
What is changing? The scope and time limit of the power of opposition of the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation are expanded. Under the previous framework, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was entitled to file a motion of opposition against a decision of one of the penal chambers of the Court of Cassation within one month from the date on which the judgment was handed over to him.
Now: All decisions, except those concerning the determination of jurisdiction and decisions of lack of jurisdiction, are now included in the scope of opposition. The time limit has been extended from one month to three months, and the starting point has been changed from the date on which the judgment was handed over to the date on which the case file was delivered. The newly introduced fourth paragraph also expressly identifies the persons who have the right.XVI. TURKISH CODE OF OBLIGATIONS NO. 6098 (Article 55) – Compensation for Bodily Harm and Loss of Support
What is changing? The rules governing the commencement of interest and the deduction of payments in compensation for loss of support and bodily injuries are clarified by the law for the first time. Under the previous framework, there were no specific regulations on these matters, and the applicable principles had been developed through case law.Now: Legal interest on compensation for loss of support or bodily injuries shall accrue from the date of the tort/event giving rise to the damage for the period in which the income of the injured person or the person providing support is known, and from the date of the judgment for the period in which such income cannot be determined. Any amount paid for the purpose of performance before the commencement of the proceedings shall be deducted proportionately from the compensation, based on its value as of the date of payment. This amendment resolves the long-standing inconsistencies in case law regarding the commencement of interest and introduces a proportional deduction mechanism for liability insurers that make early payments. The amendment will apply only to torts or other events giving rise to damage occurring after its entry into force; previous events will remain subject to the former rules.XVII. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE NO. 6100 (Articles 107 and 109) – Action for Unquantified Claim and Partial LawsuitWhat is changing? Action for unquantified claim is abolished, while the scope for increasing the claim in partial lawsuits is expanded. Under the previous framework, unquantified claim may be filed where it was impossible to determine the exact amount or value of the claim at the time of filing the lawsuit. (Article 107). In partial lawsuits (Article 109), any increase in the claim was subject to the prohibition on the expansion of the claim.
Now: Unquantified claim lawsuit (Article 107), which had given rise to significant uncertainty and inconsistent case law in practice, has been abolished. However, the former provision will continue to apply to actions filed before its repeal. In partial lawsuits (Article 109), the newly introduced fourth paragraph allows the plaintiff to increase the claim once in the same action until the end of the examination phase, without being subject to the prohibition on the expansion of the claim. For the increased portion of the claim, the statute of limitations shall be deemed to have been interrupted as of the date on which the lawsuit was filed.XVIII. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE NO. 6100 (Article 147) – Intervals Between Hearings What is changing? A maximum interval between hearings is introduced for the first time. Under the previous framework, there was no statutory limit on the period between hearings.
Now: The period between two hearings in civil proceedings may not exceed three months; in cases where the expert examination is prolonged, rogatory letters are required, or another necessity arising from the nature of the case exists, the judge may determine a longer period by stating the grounds. The amendment is intended to contribute to the timely conclusion of proceedings.XIX. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE NO. 6100 (Article 149) – Participation in Hearings through SEGBİS
What is changing? Persons participating in hearings through the Audio and Video Information System (SEGBİS) are exempt from the requirement to provide a handwritten signature. Under the previous framework, there was no specific provision governing the signature requirement for persons participating in hearings via audio and video transmission.
Now: Accordingly, except for confession, the taking of an oath, consent to the withdrawal of the lawsuit, waiver, acceptance, and settlement, the provisions governing handwritten signatures shall not apply to persons participating in hearings through SEGBİS. This amendment shall enter into force three months after its publication in the Official Gazette, on 31 October 2026.XX. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE NO. 6100 (Articles 166 and 168) – Consolidation of Cases and Legal Remedies
What is changing? The legal remedies available against consolidation and separation of cases are differentiated, and the binding effect of a consolidation decision is made subject to its finalization. Under the previous framework, a consolidation decision was rendered by the court where the second case was filed and became binding on the other court immediately upon its issuance. Decisions on the consolidation and separation of cases within the same jurisdiction could be appealed only together with the final judgment.Now: The court where the first case was filed shall be bound by the consolidation decision upon its finalization. A consolidation decision concerning cases pending before civil courts of the same level and status within the same jurisdiction may now be challenged only by appeal. Appeal may be sought against separation of cases decisions rendered by first-instance courts, whereas consolidation and separation of cases decisions rendered by the Regional Courts may be challenged by appeal before the Court of Cassation only together with the final judgment.
Why is this important? By allowing direct appeal against consolidation decisions, the amendment enables erroneous consolidation decisions to be corrected at an early stage. Making the binding effect of such decisions subject to their finalization also enhances legal certainty.XXI. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE NO. 6100 (Article 362) – Non-appealable Decisions
What is changing? An explicit threshold for appeal is introduced for the first time in respect of decisions rendered by the Regional Courts after allowing an appeal and deciding on the merits. Under the previous framework, there was no specific statutory provision governing this matter.Now: The monetary threshold for appeal to the Court of Cassation under Article 362 has been updated to TRY 682,000 for 2026. Where the Regional Court, by wholly or partially granting the appeal, renders a new judgment on the merits, a further appeal to the Court of Cassation may be filed if the amount accepted or dismissed exceeds the monetary threshold for appeal under Article 341(2).However, a further appeal to the Court of Cassation shall not be available where (a) in decisions falling below the cassation appeal threshold, the difference between the decisions of the Regional Court and the first-instance court does not exceed the monetary threshold for appeal to the Regional Court (TRY 50,000 for 2026), or (b) the decision relates solely to litigation costs and/or attorney’s fees.

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.