The Court Of Cassation Issues An Important Unification Of Judgments Decision On Raising A New Claim Through Partial Amendment

Recent Development

The General Assembly on the Unification of Judgments of the Court of Cassation (the “Assembly”), in its decision dated 8 May 2026 with file no. 2021/8 E. and decision no. 2026/1 K. (the “Decision”), ruled that a claim not included in the statement of claim cannot be introduced into the proceedings through partial amendment. The Decision was published in the Official Gazette dated 30 June 2026 and numbered 33296.

The conflict of precedents subject to the Decision concerns whether a receivable item or claim that was not requested in the statement of claim may subsequently be raised through partial amendment. Following divergent decisions rendered by the chambers of the Court of Cassation on this issue, it was requested that the divergence be resolved through the unification of judgments.

What Does the Decision Say?

The General Assembly on the Unification of Judgments of the Court of Cassation first assessed the purpose of the amendment mechanism. According to the Assembly, amendment is a procedural mechanism that allows one of the parties to fully or partially correct a procedural act previously performed.

The Decision also emphasizes the distinction between partial amendment and full amendment. Partial amendment does not render all procedural acts performed from the beginning of the proceedings entirely invalid, and the proceedings continue from where they left off. By contrast, in full amendment, it is possible to submit a new statement of claim by changing the cause of action or the subject matter of the case. Therefore, introducing a new claim not included in the statement of claim into the proceedings through partial amendment was considered a use that exceeds the limits of the partial amendment mechanism.

The Assembly stated that subsequently raising a claim not included in the statement of claim through partial amendment would, in effect, result in filing a second action or an additional action. It was stated that this would subsequently alter the boundaries of the proceedings drawn by the statement of claim, expand the scope of the dispute determined at the preliminary examination stage, make it more difficult for the defendant to prepare its defense, and undermine the foreseeability of the proceedings.

The Decision further assesses that such an approach is incompatible with the fundamental principles of civil procedure law. According to the Court of Cassation, introducing a request not included in the statement of claim into the proceedings through partial amendment may give rise to concerns in terms of legal certainty, legal security, equality of arms, the right of defense, and the right to trial within a reasonable time.

In this context, the Decision clarifies the distinction between increasing the amount of a claim included in the statement of claim and adding a new claim that was never included in the statement of claim. The Decision does not concern increasing an existing claim through partial amendment; rather, it concerns introducing a new claim that was never raised in the statement of claim into the proceedings through partial amendment.

Conclusion

The General Assembly on the Unification of Judgments of the Court of Cassation ruled, by majority vote, that a claim not included in the statement of claim cannot be introduced into the proceedings through partial amendment.

With this Decision, the divergence among the chambers of the Court of Cassation has been resolved, and it has been accepted that a receivable or claim not requested in the statement of claim cannot be added to the proceedings at later stages through partial amendment. Since unification of judgments decisions bind the general assemblies and chambers of the Court of Cassation, as well as first instance courts, the Decision is expected to have a significant practical impact on the application of amendment in civil proceedings.

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.