News & Publications
Key Amendments Introduced by Türkiye's 12th Judicial Package
The Law No. 7589 on Amendments to Certain Laws for the More Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary (the "Law"), commonly referred to as the 12th Judicial Package, was published in the Official Gazette dated 31 July 2026 and numbered 33326.
The Law introduces significant amendments across a wide range of areas, including civil procedure, criminal procedure, administrative litigation, enforcement and bankruptcy law, notarial law, and the statutory interest regime. Rather than addressing every amendment introduced by the Law, this article highlights those changes that are of particular relevance to our practice areas and are expected to have a meaningful impact in practice.
The full text of the Law is available here.
Indexation of the Statutory Interest Rate to the Rediscount Rate
Where the parties have not agreed on an applicable interest rate, the statutory interest rate will no longer be fixed. Instead, it will be determined as 80% of the rediscount rate applied by the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye to short-term lending transactions as of 31 December of the preceding year. Furthermore, if the rediscount rate changes by five percentage points or more as of 30 June compared to the previous year-end, the statutory interest rate applicable during the second half of the year will be adjusted accordingly.
PRACTICAL IMPACT
The amendment replaces the fixed statutory interest regime with a dynamic mechanism linked to economic indicators. It is intended to prevent the loss of value associated with the previous fixed-rate system and to establish a statutory interest regime consistent with the case law of the Constitutional Court.
Abolition of the Unquantified Receivables Lawsuit and New Rules on Partial Claims
The legal institution of the unquantified receivables lawsuit (belirsiz alacak davası) has been abolished. In cases where the amount of the claim cannot be determined precisely at the time the lawsuit is filed, the partial claim mechanism will apply instead. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to increase the amount claimed once in the same proceedings until the conclusion of the evidentiary phase. For the increased portion of the claim, the statute of limitations will be deemed to have been interrupted as of the date on which the lawsuit was originally filed.
PRACTICAL IMPACT
The amendment abolishes the unquantified receivables lawsuit and replaces it with a revised partial claim mechanism for cases where the amount of the claim cannot be determined at the time of filing. It enables claimants to increase their claims until the close of the evidentiary phase while ensuring that the statute of limitations for the increased portion is deemed to have been interrupted as of the original filing date.
Maximum Interval Between Hearings Limited to Three Months
In proceedings subject to the ordinary written procedure, the interval between two hearings may, as a general rule, not exceed three months. However, where an expert examination is prolonged, evidence is being taken through letters rogatory (istinabe), or similar compelling circumstances exist, the court may schedule a longer interval between hearings, provided that it states the reasons for doing so.
PRACTICAL IMPACT
The amendment is intended to expedite judicial proceedings by ensuring that hearings are held at regular intervals. At the same time, it preserves judicial discretion to depart from the three-month limit in exceptional circumstances, thereby balancing procedural efficiency with the practical needs of the proceedings.
Revised Appellate Regime for Consolidation and Severance Decisions
A consolidation order will bind the court before which the first lawsuit was filed only once the order has become final. In addition, consolidation orders issued between courts of the same level and jurisdiction within the same judicial district may be appealed independently. By contrast, severance orders and consolidation or severance orders rendered by the Regional Courts of Appeal may, as a general rule, be challenged only together with the final judgment. Moreover, any unlawfulness affecting such interlocutory decisions will not, in itself, constitute grounds for setting aside or reversing the final judgment.
PRACTICAL IMPACT
The amendment restructures the appellate regime governing consolidation and severance decisions with a view to eliminating procedural uncertainty. It strengthens judicial review of consolidation orders while promoting procedural economy by limiting interlocutory appeals against procedural decisions.
Introduction of Cassation Review for Certain Regional Court of Appeal Judgments
Judgments rendered by a Regional Court of Appeal after wholly or partially upholding an appeal and re-deciding the merits of the case will be subject to cassation review, provided that the amount or value of the accepted or rejected portion of the claim exceeds the monetary threshold set out in Article 341/2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By contrast, no cassation appeal will be available where the difference between the judgment of the Regional Court of Appeal and that of the first-instance court does not exceed that threshold, or where the judgment concerns only litigation costs or attorneys' fees.
PRACTICAL IMPACT
The amendment expands the scope of cassation review for certain judgments rendered by the Regional Courts of Appeal on the merits. It allows decisions modified at the appellate level to be reviewed by the Court of Cassation under specified conditions, thereby aligning the appellate framework with the Constitutional Court's case law on the right of access to judicial remedies.
Sentence Reduction for Accomplices Providing Access to IBANs or Payment Accounts
Where a person's participation in the offence of fraud or aggravated fraud is limited solely to providing another person with access to a bank or credit card, an IBAN, or information or instruments enabling the use of an account held with a bank, brokerage firm, payment service provider, or crypto-asset service provider, the sentence imposed on that accomplice will be reduced by one-half.
PRACTICAL IMPACT
The amendment distinguishes between individuals whose involvement is limited to making an account or payment instrument available and those who play an active role in planning or carrying out the offence. It introduces a more proportionate sentencing regime by taking into account the nature of the participation and the degree of the offender's contribution to the offence.
Reform of the Deferred Pronouncement of Judgment (HAGB) Regime
The conditions, supervision regime, and appellate framework governing the Deferred Pronouncement of Judgment (Hükmün Açıklanmasının Geri Bırakılması / HAGB) have been comprehensively revised. Under the new rules, a deferred pronouncement of judgment may be ordered where the sentence imposed is imprisonment for two years or less or a judicial fine. In addition, HAGB decisions will be subject to appeal before the Regional Court of Appeal, replacing the previous objection mechanism. The amendment also grants courts broader discretion regarding the execution of the sentence and the applicable enforcement regime where the offender breaches the obligations imposed during the supervision period.
PRACTICAL IMPACT
The amendment strengthens judicial review of HAGB decisions and restructures the legal framework governing the institution. By making HAGB decisions subject to appellate review, it addresses the legal uncertainty created following the Constitutional Court's annulment decision and aligns the regime with the Constitutional Court's jurisprudence.
Expansion of the Appellate Powers of the Regional Administrative Courts
Regional Administrative Courts are now empowered to dismiss an appeal while modifying the reasoning of the first-instance judgment, provided that they uphold its outcome as lawful. In addition, where deficiencies relating to on-site inspections, expert examinations, or hearings can be remedied by the Regional Administrative Court itself, it may decide the case on the merits without remitting it to the first-instance court. The circumstances in which a case must be remitted to the first-instance court have also been redefined and limited.
PRACTICAL IMPACT
The amendment is intended to enable Regional Administrative Courts to resolve disputes on the merits wherever possible and to reduce unnecessary remittals. It strengthens procedural efficiency while preserving fundamental procedural safeguards and enhancing appellate protection by ensuring that judgments rendered by Regional Administrative Courts on the merits remain subject to review by the Council of State.
Electronic Transmission of Notarial Records and Documents
The procedures governing the examination of notarial records and registers have been revised. Certified notarial records requested by courts, criminal peace judgeships, Chief Public Prosecutors' Offices, and other competent public authorities will, as a rule, be transmitted electronically using a secure electronic signature. Where electronic transmission is not feasible, certified hard copies will be provided instead.
PRACTICAL IMPACT
The amendment promotes the digitalisation of notarial services and the wider use of electronic document exchange. It is intended to facilitate the faster and more secure transmission of notarial records to judicial and administrative authorities, thereby improving the efficiency of judicial and administrative proceedings.
Disciplinary Sanctions for Unnecessary Appointment of Court Experts
Referring matters to a court-appointed expert that can be resolved based on the legal knowledge expected of judges and public prosecutors will constitute a disciplinary offence punishable by a warning. Accordingly, the unnecessary appointment of court experts in matters involving purely legal assessment will be subject to disciplinary sanctions.
PRACTICAL IMPACT
The amendment seeks to confine the use of court experts to matters requiring technical or specialised expertise. It reinforces the principle that legal issues should be determined by the courts themselves, with the aim of reducing unnecessary expert examinations and the delays they may cause in judicial proceedings.
The above information reflects the general assessments of YılmazÜlker Attorney Partnership ("YılmazÜlker") regarding the subject matter and does not constitute legal opinion or legal consultancy services. Before taking any action based on the matters stated herein, it is recommended to seek professional legal advice by considering the specific circumstances of the case. YılmazÜlker shall not be held liable for any consequences arising from or in connection with the content of this document.
