The Law No. 7550 on the Enforcement of Criminal and Security Measures and on Amendments to Certain Laws — commonly referred to by the public as the "10th Judicial Reform Package"—was published in the Official Gazette dated June 4, 2025, No. 32920 (1st Repeated Issue). The amendments introduced under this legislative reform were largely driven by the annulment rulings of the Constitutional Court. This article examines the procedural law amendments brought by the 10th Judicial Reform Package, as well as the related changes made to various other laws.
You may be interested in: You may be interested in: New Criminal and Enforcement Law Regulations under the 10th Judicial Reform Package
Amendments to the Law on Private International and Procedural Law
Article 27, paragraph 1 of the Law on Private International and Procedural Law was previously annulled by the Constitutional Court's decision dated November 5, 2024, numbered E. 2023/158 and K. 2024/187. Under the 10th Judicial Reform Package, the annulled provision has been reinstated with minor revisions.
According to the revised text, employment contracts shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties, provided that the employee retains the minimum level of protection afforded by the mandatory provisions of the law of the habitual place of work. However, excluding the mandatory provisions of the law in force at the place of performance at the time of performance, if the employment contract is more closely connected with another legal system, the law of that closer connection may also apply. This amendment is intended to prevent the application of less protective foreign laws to Turkish employees working abroad under contractual choice of law provisions. For instance, under the previous regime, if an employee periodically working in the Middle East had an employment contract stipulating that the applicable law would be that of the place of employment, then that foreign law would apply. Under the new framework, if Turkish law offers broader protections and the mandatory application of the foreign law is not required, Turkish law may be applied instead.
In its annulment application, it was argued that applying the law of the employee's habitual place of work in disputes regarding claims by employees working at foreign branches of Turkish employers deprived such employees of their constitutional rights. Specifically, Turkish employees working at overseas branches of companies registered in Turkey were unable to benefit from the same rights enjoyed by their counterparts working within Turkey due to the application of foreign law. This discrepancy was said to conflict with the principle of equality, result in legal uncertainty, and enable employers to circumvent protective labor laws through contractual choice of law, all of which were deemed unconstitutional.
The Constitutional Court held that the employee, being the weaker party to the contract, has only limited bargaining power with respect to choice of law, and in principle, lacks a real opportunity to negotiate for the application of a more favorable legal regime. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the significant challenges in identifying the content of foreign law, stating that if, despite all efforts, the applicable rule cannot be established, Turkish law must be applied—and that such a legal inquiry cannot reasonably be expected of the employee.
The Court concluded that the ability of the employer to avoid obligations imposed by the law of closer connection through contractual choice of law may leave the employee unprotected and deprive them of rights they would have otherwise enjoyed in the absence of such a choice. Ultimately, the Constitutional Court held that permitting a loss of rights to the detriment of the employee through choice of law disrupts the fair balance in employer–employee relations and is incompatible with the State's positive obligation to protect employees.
Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure
The Additional Article 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been amended to clarify that, for the purposes of appellate monetary thresholds, the determinative value is that which was in effect on the date the lawsuit was filed. Previously, paragraph 2 of this article had been annulled by the Constitutional Court's decision dated December 4, 2024 (E. 2023/182, K. 2024/203), with the annulled provision scheduled to enter into force on October 30, 2025. However, prior to the effective date of the annulment, the provision was amended under Law No. 7550, commonly known as the 10th Judicial Reform Package.
In the annulment application submitted to the Constitutional Court, it was argued that the monetary thresholds for appellate and cassation review, which are revised annually based on the revaluation rate, may change between the time a lawsuit is filed and the dates of decisions issued by the first-instance or appellate courts. As a result, a dispute that was eligible for cassation review at the time of filing might fall below the monetary threshold by the time the appellate decision is rendered. This inconsistency was said to contravene the right of access to court, the right to request judicial review of a judgment, and the principle of the natural judge. Furthermore, it was noted that the relevant provision created uncertainty regarding whether the decisive date for determining the monetary threshold for cassation is the date of filing or the date of the appellate court's decision. Such uncertainty was considered to be inconsistent with the principles of legal certainty and foreseeability. It was further pointed out that, due to differences in the duration of judicial proceedings, cases filed on the same day may result in differing appeal rights depending on how quickly the proceedings conclude, thus violating the principle of equality.
In its decision, the Constitutional Court stated that updating the monetary threshold for appellate review without also updating the value of the subject matter of the case shifts the entire burden of inflation onto the parties. As a result, the restriction on the right to request judicial review imposed by the contested provision was deemed disproportionate, as it disturbed the balance between the burden imposed on the parties and the legitimate public interest. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the provision violated the right to judicial review and annulled it.
Amendments to the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law
The Additional Article 1 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law was similarly amended to clarify that the monetary thresholds for appellate and cassation review shall be determined based on the value in effect on the date the case was filed. Under the previous version of the law, the determinative amount was that in effect at the time the judgment was rendered. However, the Constitutional Court annulled paragraph 2 of Additional Article 1 by its decision dated March 6, 2025 (E. 2025/61, K. 2025/46), with the annulment scheduled to take effect on March 4, 2026. Nonetheless, before this annulment entered into force, the provision was amended by Law No. 7550.
In the annulment application, it was argued that, under the contested provision, a lawsuit that was eligible for appeal at the time of filing might, due to updates made over the course of a year, fall below the increased threshold and thereby become ineligible for appeal. This was said to violate the principles of legal security and foreseeability, as parties could not reasonably anticipate the monetary threshold applicable to appellate review at the time of filing. Therefore, basing the threshold on the date the lawsuit was filed, rather than the date the right to appeal is exercised, was asserted to be more consistent with the right to a fair trial and the principle of legal certainty. On these grounds, the provision was alleged to be in violation of Article 36 of the Constitution.
Referring to its earlier ruling on the analogous provision of the Code of Civil Procedure (E. 2023/182, K. 2024/203, dated December 4, 2024), the Constitutional Court reiterated that updating the monetary threshold for appeal while leaving the value of the subject matter unchanged places the burden of inflation entirely on the parties. Consequently, the restriction imposed on the right to seek judicial review was found to be disproportionate, as it upset the balance between the burden placed on the parties and the public interest derived from a legitimate aim. The Court thus found the provision to be unconstitutional.
Amendments to the Administrative Procedure Law
With the amendment made to Additional Article 1 of the Administrative Procedure Law, it has been clarified—consistent with other laws—that the monetary thresholds for appellate and cassation review in administrative proceedings shall be determined based on the date the lawsuit is filed. The Constitutional Court, by its decision dated February 11, 2025 (E. 2025/39, K. 2025/35), annulled the phrase in the second paragraph stating that "for determining whether a decision is subject to appeal or cassation under Articles 45 and 46, the determinative date shall be when the final decision is rendered by the first-instance or regional administrative court." The Court also ruled that this annulment would enter into force on December 6, 2025. However, prior to the effective date of this annulment, the relevant provision was amended under Law No. 7550.
In the annulment application, it was argued that it is impossible for plaintiffs—either at the time of filing the lawsuit or at the stage of amending their claims—to anticipate the revaluation rates to be determined in future years, and therefore they cannot foresee the monetary thresholds in effect at the time of the decision. Consequently, in cases where proceedings are prolonged, a judgment that was subject to appellate or cassation review at the time of filing might become non-reviewable—especially during periods of high inflation. It was also emphasized that lawsuits of similar nature filed on the same date could reach finality at different procedural stages due to the contested provision. This disparity was said to violate the principles of legal certainty, foreseeability, and the right to a fair trial, and the provision was alleged to be unconstitutional under Articles 2 and 36 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court held that while the monetary threshold for appellate or cassation review is updated in accordance with inflation, the value of the subject matter of the case is not adjusted accordingly. Particularly in protracted proceedings, this could mean that a judgment which was open to legal remedy at the time the case was filed may later become non-reviewable due to inflation-adjusted thresholds. The Court concluded that this violated Articles 13 and 36 of the Constitution and annulled the contested provision.
Conclusion
Law No. 7550, widely known as the 10th Judicial Reform Package, has introduced significant amendments across several core legal codes in response to annulment decisions rendered by the Constitutional Court. Notably, the amendments made to the International Private and Procedural Law (MÖHUK) align with the principle of protecting employees and enable workers employed abroad to benefit from more protective legal systems. By preventing employers from evading liability through choice-of-law clauses, the reform seeks to restore a fair balance within the employer-employee relationship, in line with constitutional principles.
The changes to the Code of Civil Procedure, the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, and the Administrative Procedure Law aim to uphold fundamental constitutional values such as the right to access the courts, the right to a fair trial, legal certainty, and foreseeability. By anchoring the appellate and cassation thresholds to the date the lawsuit is filed, these reforms seek to eliminate the legal uncertainty and arbitrariness that may arise during the litigation process.
As a result of these legislative amendments, individuals will now be subject to the appellate and cassation limits in effect on the date their lawsuit is filed. This eliminates the risk of rights being lost due to shifting monetary thresholds during the course of proceedings. Moreover, employees working abroad will no longer be bound solely by the legal system selected by the employer, but may instead invoke Turkish law when it is more favorable to them. The reforms introduced under the 10th Judicial Reform Package not only enhance the predictability of judicial proceedings but also reinforce the protection of fundamental rights of citizens.
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.
