Introduction

The Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the Court of Cassation (“Assembly”), by its decision dated May 8, 2026 and numbered 2021/8 E. 2026/1 K., published in the Official Gazette on June 30, 2026 (“Decision”), ruled that a claim not raised in the statement of claim cannot be introduced into proceedings through partial amendment. You may access the full text of the Decision here.

Background to the Divergence Addressed by the Decision

Differing practices existed between the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation and certain Civil Chambers as to the changes that could be made through amendment. In this context, some chambers (notably the 4th, 9th, 11th, 14th and 21st Civil Chambers) held, on efficiency grounds, that a new claim never raised in the statement of claim could be brought within the scope of the final relief sought by means of partial amendment, whereas the General Assembly of Civil Chambers and the majority of the Civil Chambers maintained that such a practice was incompatible with the nature of the amendment mechanism. The unification request was brought to resolve this divergence.

The Assembly’s Reasoning

The Assembly first explained the amendment mechanism, drawing attention to the distinction between partial amendment and full amendment. In partial amendment, a claim already set out in the statement of claim is increased, expanded or altered, whereas in full amendment the subject matter of the case is changed entirely, rendering all procedural acts performed up to that point ineffective and, restarting the proceedings from the very beginning. Accordingly, a claimant wishing to expand or alter an existing claim must resort to partial amendment, while one wishing to assert an entirely new claim based on new facts must resort to full amendment. In light of these explanations, the Assembly emphasized that partial amendment cannot serve as a vehicle for introducing an entirely new claim into the proceedings. Accepting the contrary would result in a second lawsuit being incorporated into the existing case without ever satisfying the procedural requirements for filing a new action.

The Assembly based its decision primarily on the following grounds:

Assessment

This Decision puts an end to a practice frequently encountered in labour law and commercial disputes, where new claim “discovered” during litigation were added to the existing case through partial amendment rather than through the filing of a new action, thereby resolving a divergence of views that had persisted among the chambers for a long time. Going forward, claimants wishing to assert a claim not raised in the statement of claim will have to either file a separate action or resort to full amendment under Article 180 of Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. This will undoubtedly bring with it the related costs and procedural consequences (including an assessment of the limitation period for the new claim). For defendants, the foreseeability of the claims they will face throughout the proceedings is enhanced. Following this Decision, courts are expected to reject claims subsequently added through partial amendment outright, rather than assessing them on a case-by-case basis.