INTRODUCTION
The “Action for An Indeterminate Claim,” which was introduced into Turkish civil procedure law with the entry into force of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100[1] (“CCP”), aimed to safeguard the right to seek legal redress in cases where it is impossible or cannot reasonably be expected of the plaintiff to determine the exact amount of the claim. However, in practice, the question whether a claim is truly indeterminate, and whether the action should be dismissed on procedural grounds for lack of legal interest, gave rise to deep divisions of opinion in legal doctrine and in the case law of the Court of Cassation; the institution, which was intended to facilitate the freedom to seek legal redress, gradually turned into a procedural obstacle that prolonged litigation.
In order to put an end to these controversies and to ensure procedural economy, the legislator, through Law No. 7589[2], repealed Article 107 of the CCP and thereby abolished the action for indeterminate claims. At the same time, in order to prevent the loss of rights by plaintiffs, the institution of the “Partial Action”, regulated in Article 109 of the CCP, was strengthened: the plaintiff was granted a one-time right to increase the claim without being caught by the prohibition on the extension of the claim, and it was expressly provided that, with respect to the increased portion, the limitation period would be deemed interrupted as of the date of filing of the action.
This study briefly assesses the process and the grounds for the abolition of the action for indeterminate claims; it then examines, within the framework of the new statutory regulation, the operation of the partial action, the one-time claim-increase mechanism, the guarantees introduced with respect to the limitation period, and the procedural principles that practitioners must observe.
KEYWORDS: Action for Indeterminate Claims, Partial Action, CCP Art. 107, CCP Art. 109, Increase of Claim, Limitation Period, Interest, Procedural Economy, Freedom to Seek Legal Redress
[1] 6100 Sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu, RG. 12/01/2011, S. 27836
[2] 7589 Sayılı Yargının Etkin ve Verimli İşlemesine Yönelik Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun, RG. 31/07/2026, S. 33326
1. THE OLD REGULATION: THE ACTION FOR INDETERMINATE CLAIMS
1.1. The Nature and Purpose of the Action for Indeterminate Claims
The action for indeterminate claims, regulated in the repealed Article 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is a special type of action resorted to in cases where the plaintiff makes the whole of their claim the subject matter of the action, but where it cannot reasonably be expected of the plaintiff, or is objectively impossible, to determine the amount or value of that claim fully and definitively at the date of filing. In this action, the plaintiff filed suit by specifying a minimum amount to serve as the basis for the court fee. Upon the point at which the amount of the claim could be determined fully and definitively as a result of the examination stage or the expert examination process, the plaintiff had the opportunity to increase his or her claim.
The purpose for which the institution was established was characterized as protecting the plaintiff’s freedom to seek legal redress, in particular with respect to claims whose amount could only be ascertained through an expert examination, such as labor-related receivables, compensation claims arising from traffic accidents and occupational accidents, and compensation for loss of support. The central rationale of the regulation was to eliminate the risk of the claim becoming time-barred, or of the loss of rights owing to insufficient court fees, where the plaintiff filed suit on the basis of an incomplete or erroneous amount.
1.2. Problems Encountered in Practice and the Grounds for Abolition
During the more than fifteen years in which the action for indeterminate claims was applied, the distinction between whether a claim was “determinate or indeterminate” was interpreted inconsistently in judicial case law. Where the courts concluded, on the basis of documents such as the plaintiff’s service records, wage slips or contractual provisions, that the claim was determinable, they could dismiss the action on procedural grounds without entering into the merits, on the ground that the plaintiff had no legal interest, within the meaning of CCP Art. 114/1-(h), in bringing an action for indeterminate claims. This rigid and unpredictable distinction caused right-holders to bear heavy burdens of court fees and costs. Where the action had to be refiled, and in the correct type of action, it gave rise to losses of rights that were difficult to remedy, because the limitation periods had already expired.
The legislator, having concluded that the problem stemmed not from erroneous characterizations in individual files but from this structural and unpredictable distinction between the types of action itself, opted for a thoroughgoing solution. By Article 19 of Law No. 7589 on Amendments to Certain Laws for the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary -known publicly as the “12th Judicial Package”- Article 107 of the CCP was repealed in its entirety. The legislator chose to fill the gap left by the action for indeterminate claims by strengthening the institution of the partial action. The regulation was published in the Official Gazette dated 31 July 2026 and numbered 33326, and entered into force on the same day. Under the express transitional provision contained in the tenth paragraph of Provisional Article 1 of the Law, the repealed Article 107 of the CCP continues to apply to actions filed before the date of the repeal, and the amendment affects only actions instituted after that date.
2. THE NEW REGULATION: THE REINFORCED PARTIAL ACTION
2.1. The Legal Nature of the Partial Action
The partial action is an action for performance in which, where the subject matter of the claim is divisible by its nature, not the whole of the claim but only a specific portion of it is asserted (CCP Art. 109/1)[1]. The basis in substantive law of the creditor’s right to claim a part of the claim rather than the whole is Article 84 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, while its basis in procedural law is the principle of disposition (CCP Art. 24/2). By virtue of the principle of disposition, no one can be compelled to bring the full action in their own favor. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to make only a part of his or her divisible pecuniary or other claims for performance the subject matter of the action.
[1] Murat Atalı/İbrahim Ermenek/Ersin Erdoğan, Medeni Usul Hukuku, Yetkin Yayınevi, Ankara, 2025, s. 370. Emel Hanağası, Davada Menfaat, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara 2009, s. 265.
2.2. The Purpose of the Partial Action and Views in Doctrine
In legal doctrine, the primary purpose of the partial action is accepted to be the reduction of the risk of litigation costs arising from difficulties of proof and from the uncertainty of the legal situation[1]. By avoiding the risk of paying the court fee on the whole of the claim and, in the event of dismissal, of being ordered to bear high litigation costs and the opposing party’s attorney’s fees, the plaintiff bears these costs only in respect of the portion that is sued[2].
Pekcanıtez and Simil, however, point out that the purpose is not confined to reducing the risk of costs. The judgment rendered in a partial action as to the existence of the underlying obligation facilitates an out-of-court settlement between the parties, or recourse to mediation, in respect of the remaining portion, thereby offering the opportunity to resolve the dispute more quickly and at lower cost[3].
[1] Hakan Pekcanıtez/Cemil Simil vd., Medeni Usul Hukuku, Cilt II, On İki Levha Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2025, s. 1529.
[2] Pekcanıtez/Simil vd., s. 1529.
[3] Pekcanıtez/Simil vd., s. 1530.
2.3 Legal Interest in the Partial Action and Its Limits
In accordance with the general principles of civil procedure law, for a partial claim to be filed, the plaintiff must have a legitimate and current legal interest, worthy of protection, in having recourse to this course of action. Indeed, CCP Art. 114/1-h expressly provides, as a general condition of action, that “the plaintiff must have a legal interest in bringing the action.” In this context, even where the subject matter of the claim is divisible by its nature, the plaintiff is required to have a reasonable and legitimate justification for making only a portion of his or her claim the subject matter of the action. In particular, purposes such as saving on court fees and litigation costs, minimizing the risk of the opposing party’s attorney’s fees, or clarifying, during the course of the examination stage, the outstanding portion of the claim that has not yet been determined, are assessed as falling within the existence of a legal interest. Where there is no legal interest, the consequence is dismissal of the action on procedural grounds, without entering into the merits, pursuant to CCP Art. 115/2.
As regards legal interest, Karslı argues that the plaintiff’s aim of avoiding high court fees and costs, and his or her economic interest, must likewise be regarded as a legitimate legal interest[1].
If we consider the question of legal interest within the framework of the principle of good faith and the abuse of rights: where a claim is arbitrarily divided into very small portions and made the subject matter of separate actions, and where the sole object is to obtain more than one award of attorney’s fees, it is accepted that there is no legal interest worthy of protection and that this situation constitutes an abuse of the right to bring an action (Turkish Civil Code Art. 2)[2]. As long as the principle of good faith is not exceeded, the plaintiff is deemed to have a legal interest in bringing a partial action.
[1] Abdurrahim Karslı, Medeni Muhakeme Hukuku Ders Kitabı, Alternatif Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2011, s. 312.
[2] Yargıtay 10. HD, E. 2007/5188, K. 2008/645, T. 29.01.2008 “alacağın küçük parçalara bölünmesi suretiyle ayrı davalara konu yapılıp birden fazla vekalet ücreti edinilmesine yol açar şekilde dava hakkının kötüye kullanılmasının, yukarıdaki hukuksal ilkeler ışığında korunmasına olanak bulunmadığı ve bu yönün kamu düzenine ilişkin olduğu gözetilmeksizin davalı Kurumun toplam borcun çok üzerinde vekalet ücreti ve yargılama gideriyle sorumluluğuna yol açılması usul ve yasaya aykırı olup bozma nedenidir.”
2.4. The Conditions for Bringing a Partial Action
For a partial action to be brought, two fundamental conditions must be satisfied together:
The first condition is that the right made the subject matter of the action must be susceptible to division for substantive or legal reasons[1]. Pecuniary claims are divisible by their nature. By contrast, claims such as divorce, filiation, or the specific delivery of a movable, which cannot be divided physically or legally, cannot be the subject matter of a partial action.
The second condition is that the plaintiff must have sued a portion of a claim arising from a single legal relationship. The assertion of only one of several claims based on different legal relationships does not constitute a partial action[2].
Under the old practice, there was a strict distinction between these two types of action. Where it was impossible, or could not reasonably be expected of the plaintiff, to determine the amount of the claim fully and definitively at the date of filing (for example, where the account depended on the expert report, on documents to be submitted by the opposing party, or on an equitable reduction), the plaintiff was required to bring an action for indeterminate claims. Conversely, where the amount of the claim was determinate or calculable from the outset, an action for indeterminate claims could not be brought; the plaintiff could only have recourse to a partial action for a portion of his or her divisible claim. Where an action for indeterminate claims was brought even though the claim was determinable, the action was dismissed on procedural grounds, without entering into the merits, on the ground of lack of legal interest.
With the new statutory regulation, the action for indeterminate claims has been entirely repealed and this distinction has been done away with. Henceforth, irrespective of whether the amount of the claim is determinate from the outset or whether an expert examination is required during the proceedings, all divisible pecuniary claims are brought directly as partial actions. In this way, all disputes previously made the subject matter of an action for indeterminate claims have been brought within the scope of the partial action; the conditions for bringing an action have been simplified, and the procedural debates as to whether a claim is “determinate or indeterminate,” together with the risk of dismissal of the action, have been eliminated.
[1] Pekcanıtez/Simil vd., s. 1530. Süha Tanrıver, Medeni Usul Hukuku, Cilt I, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara, 2021, s.631. Ejder Yılmaz, Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu Şerhi, Cilt II, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara, 2021, s. 2492.
[2] Pekcanıtez/ Simil vd., s. 1531. Ayrıca bkz. Yargıtay 3. HD, E. 2018/1619, K. 2019/7090, T. 25.09.2019 “Bir davanın kısmi dava olarak nitelendirilebilmesi için, alacağın tümünün aynı hukuki ilişkiden (mesela, ödünç veya satış sözleşmesinden) doğmuş olması ve bu (aynı hukuki ilişkiden doğan) alacağın şimdilik bir kesiminin dava edilmesi gerekir. Dava konusu alacak, bir alacağın belli bir kesimi değil (bilakis bağımsız bir alacak) ise, o zaman dava, kısmi dava olarak nitelendirilemez.”
3. POINTS TO BE OBSERVED WHEN FILING AN ACTION IN PRACTICE
Since the regulation introduced by the 12th Judicial Package entered into force on 31 July 2026, and since the provision of CCP Art. 109/4 has not yet acquired a settled body of case law in practice, practitioners are obliged to draft their pleadings with particular care. Below, we address the points that must be observed in order to prevent losses of rights arising from possible divergences of interpretation in the future.
In this context, the first point to be emphasized is the express reservation, in the partial action petition, of the rights in respect of the excess. Although, under CCP Art. 109/3, the bringing of a partial action does not, as a rule, mean that the remaining part of the subject matter of the claim has been waived, we are of the opinion that expressing this point separately and expressly in the petition would be a sound practice, in that it sets out, without any room for doubt, the plaintiff’s intention with regard to the whole of the claim.
In structuring the operations relating to the increase of the claim, it is of great importance to distinguish the increase, procedurally and conceptually, from the institution of amendment. Basing the petition for the increase of the claim directly on the provision of CCP Art. 109/4, avoiding in the text of the petition any expressions that might evoke the intention to amend, and instead including a phrase of the form “without prejudice to our right to amend”, will prevent the two institutions from being confused and will underline that the party’s opportunity to have separate recourse to amendment in the future has not been exhausted. For the right of increase used within the scope of CCP Art. 109/4 and the classical institution of amendment regulated in CCP Art. 176 et seq. continue to exist as two independent and quite different legal instruments, both in terms of their source and their consequences.
The practical importance of this distinction emerges essentially with respect to the limitation period. Under the new regulation, the limitation-period guarantee provided by the repealed action for indeterminate claims has been incorporated into the partial action: it has been expressly accepted that, as a result of an increase of the claim made within the prescribed period, the limitation period is also deemed to have been interrupted, with respect to the increased portion, as of the date of filing of the initial action[1]. By contrast, whether the same result can be definitively achieved through an increase made by way of amendment has not yet become clear, given the novelty of the provision. In this regard, even if the party has reserved the right to amend, actually effecting the increase of the amount not by way of amendment but directly by relying on Article 109/4 is important in order to benefit fully from the limitation-period guarantee.
As regards the interest regime, the legislator has remained silent; for Article 109/4 regulates only the point in time at which the limitation period is interrupted and contains no express provision as to the date from which interest will accrue on the increased portion. This uncertainty acquires particular significance in claims such as labor receivables, where default has occurred before the action was filed. In such cases, expressly and separately emphasizing in the petition that interest is claimed not from the date of filing but from the date of default will serve to eliminate losses of rights that may arise from the existing gap in the interest regime.
It would likewise be appropriate to achieve a similar clarity with respect to the court fee. Stating, in the petition for increase made within the scope of CCP Art. 109/4, that the fee that must be completed is not an amendment fee but a fee specific to the partial action and the increase of the claim will forestall possible procedural objections in practice concerning the type of fee.
Finally, it must not be forgotten that these assessments are valid only for actions to be filed after 31 July 2026. Under the express transitional provision contained in the tenth paragraph of Provisional Article 1 of the Law, in actions filed before that date the previous system — namely CCP Art. 107 and the claim-increase regime attached to it — continues to apply, and the new rules find application only in actions instituted after that date.
[1] TBMM Adalet Komisyonu, Yargının Etkin ve Verimli İşlemesine Yönelik Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun Teklifi (2/3737) Komisyon Raporu, Sıra Sayısı: 280, Madde 20 ve 21 Gerekçeleri, s. 19.
CONCLUSION
The repeal of the action for indeterminate claims and the transfer of the guarantees it provided to the partial action have brought to an end one of the most deep-rooted disputes over practice in civil procedure law. Under the new system, it has become possible to bring a partial action for all divisible pecuniary claims, irrespective of whether the claim is determinate or indeterminate; the risk of actions being dismissed on procedural grounds for lack of legal interest has been eliminated.
The right, introduced for the partial action, to increase the claim without amendment until the end of the examination stage, together with the bringing of the increased outstanding portion within the limitation-period guarantee as of the date of filing of the action, has reinforced the freedom to seek legal redress and procedural economy. However, since the legislator has granted the power to increase the claim only “once,” it is of great importance, in order to avoid any loss of rights, that practitioners do not hastily increase the claim before the expert examination and the objection processes have become final.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ATALI, Murat / ERMENEK, İbrahim / ERDOĞAN, Ersin: Medeni Usul Hukuku, 8. Bası, Yetkin Yayınevi, Ankara 2025.
KARSLI, Abdurrahim: Medeni Muhakeme Hukuku Ders Kitabı, Alternatif Yayıncılık, İstanbul 2011.
PEKCANITEZ, Hakan / SİMİL, Cemil ve diğerleri: Medeni Usul Hukuku, Cilt II, 16. Bası, On İki Levha Yayıncılık. İstanbul 2025.
HANAĞASI, Emel: Davada Menfaat, 1. Bası, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara 2009.
YILMAZ, Ejder: Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu Şerhi, Cilt II, 4. Bası, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara, 2021.
TANRIVER, Süha: Medeni Usul Hukuku, Cilt I, 4. Bası, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara, 2021.
TBMM Adalet Komisyonu: Yargının Etkin ve Verimli İşlemesine Yönelik Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun Teklifi (2/3737) Komisyon Raporu, Sıra Sayısı: 280
