Türkiye rewrites the litigation playbook: key amendments under the 12th Judicial Reform Package

Türkiye’s civil procedure has entered a new phase: a long-standing route for pursuing indeterminate claims has given way to a simpler, more tightly timed mechanism. On 31 July 2026, the Law Amending Certain Laws to Ensure the Effective and Efficient Operation of the Judiciary, Law No. 7589, was published in Official Gazette No. 33326. Articles 19 through 25 of the Law repeal Article 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Law No. 6100 (“CCP”), which since 2011 has governed the indeterminate claim action, and introduce a new paragraph 4 into CCP Article 109 on partial actions, designed to carry over the principal practical benefit of the repealed provision. The Law also amends CCP Articles 147, 149, 166, 168 and 362, addressing hearing intervals, remote hearings, consolidation and separation of actions, and appellate review. Most of these amendments entered into force on publication; the new paragraph 4 of Article 149 enters into force on 31 October 2026.

The bottom line is clear for litigators: for civil actions filed on or after 31 July 2026, a claimant can no longer commence proceedings as an indeterminate claim action. Where the receivable is divisible and cannot responsibly be quantified in full at the outset, the replacement route is a partial action under CCP Article 109, followed by a single statutory increase before the investigation phase closes.

What Article 107 provided

For practitioners, Article 107 was a vital safety valve: it allowed a claim to get under way even when the evidence needed to calculate the full receivable was not yet in hand. Former CCP Article 107 allowed a creditor who could not reasonably be expected to determine the amount or value of the receivable at filing — or for whom doing so was impossible — to bring an action identifying only the legal relationship and a minimum amount. Once the amount became fully determinable, the judge was required to grant a peremptory two-week period in which the claimant could quantify the claim free of the prohibition on extending the claim. Crucially, limitation was interrupted in respect of the whole receivable from the filing date.

The explanatory memorandum to Law No. 7589 captures the practical frustration behind the reform: proceedings could drag on, only for a court to dismiss the action because it disagreed with how the claimant had classified it — a procedural label deciding a dispute without reaching its merits. The Turkish Constitutional Court has found violations of the right of access to court in such cases.

The replacement: a streamlined one-shot increase under CCP Article 109(4)

The replacement is strikingly simple. Where only part of a receivable is brought before the court, the subject matter of the claim may be increased once only in the same action, without being subject to the prohibition on extending the claim, until the end of the investigation phase. The second sentence of the new paragraph expressly provides that limitation is deemed interrupted from the filing date in respect of the increased portion as well. The trade-off is visible on the face of the text. The new provision is potentially broader at entry: it contains no eligibility test, and on its wording applies to divisible receivables generally rather than only to those that cannot be quantified.

Pending cases remain on familiar ground

For practitioners with pending matters, the transition is deliberately reassuring. Provisional Article 1/10 of Law No. 7589 expressly preserves repealed Article 107 for actions filed before the date of repeal. Pending indeterminate claim actions therefore continue under the former regime, including the judicial two-week quantification period, and should not be reconstituted as partial actions.

Keeping cases moving: hearing intervals (Article 147)

Courts will now be expected to keep cases moving at a steadier pace. Law No. 7589 adds a new paragraph to CCP Article 147 providing that the interval between hearings may not exceed three months. Where the nature of the matter requires an extended expert examination or the conduct of investigative steps by rogatory commission, the judge may set a longer interval, but must state reasons for doing so.

Bringing the courtroom into the present: remote hearings (Article 149)

The courtroom is also being brought into the digital present. New paragraph 4 of CCP Article 149 provides that, for persons permitted to attend a hearing from their location by simultaneous audio and video transmission, the provisions concerning handwritten signatures do not apply. The exception covers admission, the taking of an oath, consent to withdrawal of the action, waiver of the action, acceptance of the action and settlement, as referred to in Article 154(3)(ç). Unlike the other amendments discussed here, this paragraph enters into force on 31 October 2026 rather than upon publication.

Simplifying the consolidation puzzle: Article 166

The consolidation puzzle now has a clearer starting point. Law No. 7589 amends CCP Article 166(1) for connected actions pending before same-level courts in the same judicial district. Under the new wording, the actions may be consolidated in the court where the first action was filed, and that court is bound by the consolidation order once it becomes final. This changes the former rule under which the consolidation order was issued by the court where the second action was filed.

A clearer map for appellate routes: Article 168

The route through the appellate system is also being redrawn. Article 168 has been rewritten. A consolidation decision concerning cases in the same judicial district may be challenged only by appeal before the regional court of appeals. A separation decision of a first-instance court may be challenged by appeal before the regional court of appeals, while a consolidation or separation decision of a regional appellate court may be challenged by appeal before the Court of Cassation, but only together with the judgment. The fact that such a decision is challenged does not, by itself, constitute grounds for the regional appellate court to set aside the judgment and examine the merits or for the Court of Cassation to reverse it.

When the courthouse door stays shut: non-appealable decisions (Article 362)

Sometimes the most important procedural question is whether the courthouse door remains open at all. New paragraph 3 of CCP Article 362 addresses cases in which a regional appellate court partly or wholly allows an appeal before the regional court of appeals and renders a new decision on the merits. The accepted or rejected portion is generally open to appeal before the Court of Cassation only if its amount or value exceeds the monetary threshold under Article 341(2). No appeal before the Court of Cassation is available, however, where: (a) the regional appellate court’s new decision is below the appeal threshold in Article 362(1) and the difference between that decision and the first-instance decision does not exceed the monetary threshold under Article 341(2); or (b) the new decision concerns only litigation costs or attorney fees.

Practical implications: what practitioners should do now

Start with a defensible number. In the new regime, the first number carries real weight. A post-repeal petition must state concrete relief under CCP Article 119. Where the full receivable can be calculated, it should be claimed in full. Where it cannot, the petition should identify the action expressly as a partial action under Article 109 and state a supportable initial figure.

Mark the end of the investigation phase. The new mechanism is one-shot, and no statutory warning will sound. Because no statutory warning mechanism exists, the increase should be filed before the court announces closure of the investigation phase, not in reliance on a judicial prompt.

Keep interest on its own track. The limitation clock and the interest clock are not the same. Limitation for the increased portion is now expressly interrupted from the filing date; interest, however, remains a separate question. The substantive default or accrual date should be established and pleaded, with alternative requests for interest from the filing date and, failing that, from the date of increase.

Build the three-month cadence into your case plan. The interval between hearings should generally not exceed three months under Article 147. If an extended expert examination or rogatory proceeding makes a longer interval necessary, the judge must give reasons, making case-management planning and any request for extension important.

Check the remote-hearing clock. The signature rule for persons attending remotely under Article 149(4) does not take effect until 31 October 2026. Until then, the existing handwritten-signature requirements should not be assumed to have been displaced.

Chart the new routes for consolidation disputes. Consolidation decisions for cases in the same judicial district are subject only to appeal before the regional court of appeals. First-instance separation decisions are subject to appeal before the regional court of appeals, while regional appellate court consolidation or separation decisions may be challenged by appeal before the Court of Cassation only with the judgment, and the challenge alone does not require reversal.

Conclusion

Taken together, these amendments mark more than the end of Article 107’s problematic classification exercise. They replace that regime with a simpler mechanism under Article 109 that preserves interruption of limitation from the filing date, while also regulating hearing intervals, remote-hearing formalities, consolidation and separation, and the availability of cassation. The bargain is clear: claimants now receive a single, self-monitored opportunity to quantify in any partial action, and litigants must account for the new procedural timetable and appellate limits. Türkiye’s procedural toolkit is being rebuilt; practitioners who understand its new contours — and move with its clock — will be best placed to navigate the landscape ahead.

For further information on the implications of these amendments for your business, please contact your CMS partner or local CMS experts: Dr. Döne Yalçın and Erdinç Dalar