Amendments Introduced Under The 12th Judicial Reform Package

The Law on Amendments to Certain Laws for the More Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary (the "Law"), prepared in line with the 4th Judicial Reform Strategy Document announced on 23 January 2025 and publicly referred to as the "12th Judicial Reform Package", was published in the Official Gazette dated 31 July 2026 and numbered 33326, and has entered into force.

The Law introduces significant amendments across a wide range of areas, including civil procedure, enforcement and bankruptcy law, compensation law, administrative procedure and criminal procedure. The principal objectives of the amendments are, on the one hand, to address the legal gaps that arose following the annulment decisions of the Constitutional Court and, on the other hand, to ensure that judicial proceedings are conducted more efficiently, predictably and within a reasonable time. In this context, the abolition of actions for unquantified receivables, the restructuring of the statutory interest regime, the amendment of the sale procedure in partition proceedings, the introduction of a mandatory prior application to the relevant public authority before initiating enforcement proceedings based on a judgment against public administrations, and the introduction of disciplinary measures concerning the appointment of experts on matters requiring legal assessment are among the Law's most notable changes.

This article does not cover every amendment introduced by the Law. Instead, it focuses on the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (the “CPC”) that are of particular practical significance, the changes to the statutory interest regime, and the new disciplinary framework governing the appointment of court-appointed experts in matters requiring legal assessment.

 I.       KEY AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL PROCEDURE

(a) Abolition of Actions for Unquantified Receivables and Strengthening of Partial Actions

Article 107 of the CPC has been repealed, thereby abolishing the action for unquantified receivables from the Turkish civil procedure system. Pursuant to Provisional Article 1(10) of the Law, however, Article 107 of the CPC will continue to apply to actions commenced before the repeal entered into force.

At the same time, the newly introduced fourth paragraph of Article 109 of the CPC seeks to preserve, within the framework of partial actions, the principal procedural safeguards previously afforded to claimants under the action for unquantified receivables. Accordingly, a claimant who has brought a partial action may increase the amount claimed once, until the conclusion of the investigation phase, without the need to amend the claim and without being subject to the prohibition on the extension or amendment of claims. Furthermore, the amendment expressly provides that, in respect of the increased portion of the claim, the limitation period will be deemed to have been interrupted as of the date on which the action was originally filed.

The action for unquantified receivables has been abolished in light of the long-standing debates in practice regarding the types of claims for which such an action could be brought, which frequently resulted in prolonged proceedings. At the same time, the principal procedural safeguards previously available under that mechanism have been incorporated into the regime governing partial actions. By providing that the limitation period for the increased portion of the claim is also deemed to have been interrupted as of the filing date of the action, the amendments aim to prevent potential loss of rights, particularly in proceedings that continue over an extended period.

These amendments entered into force on the date of publication of the Law in the Official Gazette.

(b)    Amendments Aimed at Enhancing the Efficiency of Court Proceedings

• (b).1 Limiting the Interval Between Hearings to Three Months

A new third paragraph introduced to Article 147 of the CPC provides that, as a general rule, the interval between hearings in proceedings subject to the written procedure may not exceed three months. However, where necessary due to circumstances such as lengthy expert examinations or investigative measures carried out through letters of request, courts may schedule a longer interval, provided that it expressly states the reasons for doing so.

According to the legislative rationale, this amendment is intended to expedite judicial proceedings, strengthen procedural economy and provide more effective protection of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. By limiting the interval between hearings, the legislature seeks to prevent judges from remaining detached from case files for prolonged periods and to facilitate the more expeditious resolution of disputes.

This amendment entered into force on the date of publication of the Law in the Official Gazette.

• (b).2 Expansion of the Scope of Remote Hearings

The amendments to Article 149 of the CPC provide that, except in limited circumstances involving declarations of intent—such as admissions, the taking of an oath, withdrawal of an action, acceptance of a claim and settlement—the legal requirements applicable to handwritten signatures will no longer apply where parties participate in hearings through audio and video transmission. As a result, the scope of remote hearings has been broadened so that the e-hearing system, previously available during the investigation phase, may also be used at preliminary examination hearings.

The legislative rationale notes that broader use of information technologies in judicial proceedings is intended to improve efficiency by reducing the time and costs associated with litigation. Accordingly, by expanding the stages of proceedings at which hearings may be conducted through audio and video transmission, the amendment aims to reduce both the time and costs associated with procedural steps that do not require the physical presence of the parties or their legal representatives before the court.

The amendment is expected to facilitate access to judicial proceedings, particularly for parties and legal representatives located in different cities, while also promoting procedural economy. Nevertheless, its effectiveness in practice will largely depend on the adequacy of the technical infrastructure and the extent to which courts adopt and effectively utilise the e-hearing system.

This amendment will enter into force three months after the publication of the Law in the Official Gazette.

• (b).3 Referral of Matters Requiring Legal Assessment to Court-Appointed Experts Constitutes a Disciplinary Offence

The amendment to the second paragraph of Article 63 of the Judges and Public Prosecutors Act No. 2802 introduces a new disciplinary offence by providing that referring matters capable of being resolved through the legal knowledge expected of judges and public prosecutors to court-appointed experts shall constitute conduct warranting a warning.

According to the legislative rationale, expert evidence is intended to serve as an exceptional evidentiary mechanism to be used only where the resolution of a dispute requires technical or specialised knowledge. However, in practice, expert opinions have frequently been sought even on issues requiring legal assessment, leading to unnecessary delays in proceedings and the use of the expert witness mechanism beyond its intended purpose.

This amendment entered into force on the date of publication of the Law in the Official Gazette.

(c)     Amendments to the Appellate Regime for Consolidation and Severance Orders

• (c).1 The Binding Effect of Consolidation Orders Has Been Revised

Pursuant to the amendment to the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 166 of the CPC, a consolidation order issued by the court where the second action was filed will bind the court where the first action was filed only after the order has become final.

In its judgment dated 17 June 2025 (Case Number: 2024/237, Decision Number:2025/137), the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye annulled the phrase "...and this decision shall be binding on the other court" in the first paragraph of Article 166 of the CPC. The Constitutional Court held that requiring the court where the first action had been filed to be bound by a consolidation order that was not subject to appellate review was constitutionally impermissible, as it deprived that court of its authority to determine whether the conditions for consolidation had been satisfied. To address the legal uncertainty arising from the annulment decision, Article 166 of the CPC has been amended to provide that the court before which the first action was filed will be bound by a consolidation order only after that order has become final. Accordingly, while preserving the binding effect of consolidation orders, the amendment makes it clear that such effect will arise only once the available appellate review has been completed.

This amendment entered into force on the date of publication of the Law in the Official Gazette.

• (c).2 The Appellate Regime for Consolidation and Severance Orders Has Been Revised

Article 168 of the CPC has been amended to revise the appellate regime governing consolidation and severance orders. Under the previous regime, consolidation and severance orders issued by first-instance courts could only be challenged on appeal together with the final judgment. Likewise, consolidation and severance orders issued by regional appellate courts could only be challenged before the Court of Cassation together with the final judgment.

Under the new regime, consolidation orders issued between civil courts of the same level and capacity within the same judicial district may be appealed immediately, without waiting for the final judgment. By contrast, the existing regime has been retained for severance orders issued by first-instance courts, as well as consolidation and severance orders issued by regional appellate courts, all of which may still be challenged only together with the final judgment. In addition, the regional appellate court's decision on a consolidation order will be final and may not be appealed before the Court of Cassation.

This amendment entered into force on the date of publication of the Law in the Official Gazette.

(d)    The Appeal Regime for Decisions Rendered on the Merits by Regional Appellate Courts Been Revised

A third paragraph has been added to Article 362 of the CPC, providing that where a regional appellate court partially or fully accepts an appeal and renders a new decision on the merits of the dispute, such decision may be appealed before the Court of Cassation if the amount or value of the accepted or rejected part exceeds the monetary threshold set out in Article 341(2) of the CPC.

However, two exceptions have been introduced to this right of appeal. Accordingly, where the decision of the regional appellate court falls below the monetary threshold for appeal before the Court of Cassation set out in Article 362(1) of the CPC and the difference in amount or value between that decision and the decision of the first instance court does not exceed the monetary threshold set out in Article 341(2) of the CPC, the decision may not be appealed before the Court of Cassation. Similarly, where a decision of the regional appellate court falling below the monetary threshold for appeal before the Court of Cassation concerns only litigation costs or attorneys’ fees, it may not be appealed before the Court of Cassation.

The amendment was introduced following the Constitutional Court’s decision dated 26 February 2026 (Case Number:2026/49, Decision Number:2026/48). In its decision, the Constitutional Court acknowledged that preventing appeals to the Court of Cassation in disputes falling below a certain monetary threshold is, in principle, justified by the aims of ensuring that proceedings are concluded within a reasonable time and at lower cost and reducing the workload of the Court of Cassation. However, it held that a different assessment was required where, following the partial or full acceptance of an appeal, the first instance court’s decision is set aside and the regional appellate court renders a new decision on the merits of the dispute for the first time.

According to the Constitutional Court, where a decision is rendered for the first time by a regional appellate court in this manner, preventing such decision from being subject to any review by the Court of Cassation solely because the amount or value of the dispute falls below the applicable monetary threshold disproportionately restricts the right to request review of a judgment. On this basis, the Constitutional Court annulled Article 362(1)(a) of the CPC insofar as it applied to cases where “the appeal is partially or fully accepted”, finding it contrary to Articles 13 and 36 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the amendment aims to allow decisions on the merits rendered by regional appellate courts following the partial or full acceptance of an appeal to be reviewed by the Court of Cassation, subject to the monetary threshold applicable to appeals against first instance court decisions. However, where the difference between the decisions of the regional appellate court and the first instance court does not exceed this threshold, or where the decision concerns only litigation costs or attorneys’ fees, such decisions remain outside the scope of review, thereby preserving the principle of finality for lower-value disputes.

This amendment entered into force on the date of publication of the Law in the Official Gazette.

II.        REVISION OF THE RULES GOVERNING THE DETERMINATION OF THE STATUTORY INTEREST RATE

The rules governing the determination of the statutory interest rate applicable where the parties have not agreed on an interest rate have been revised through amendments to Article 1 of the Law on Statutory Interest and Default Interest No. 3095. Under the new regime, the annual statutory interest rate applicable in the absence of a contractual interest rate will be set at 80% of the rediscount interest rate applied by the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye to short-term lending transactions as of 31 December of the preceding year. However, if, as of 30 June, the applicable rediscount interest rate differs by five percentage points or more from the rate in effect on the previous 31 December, the statutory interest rate applicable during the second half of the year will be recalculated as 80% of the rediscount interest rate applicable on 30 June.

In its judgment dated 22 July 2025 (Case No. 2024/24, Decision No. 2025/164), the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye annulled the provision of Article 1 of the Law on Statutory Interest and Default Interest No. 3095 governing the statutory interest rate, insofar as it applied to non-contractual obligations. The Constitutional Court reasoned that, as the statutory interest rate had remained unchanged for many years, it no longer reflected prevailing economic conditions. According to the Court, this undermined the balance of interests between creditors and debtors and could disproportionately interfere with the constitutional protection of property rights. The amendment seeks to establish a statutory interest mechanism that is capable of adapting to changing economic conditions.

The amendments concerning statutory interest entered into force on the date of publication of the Law in the Official Gazette.

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.