Constitutional Court Decision on Unquantified Debt Lawsuit
Introduction
With its decision dated June 8, 2023 on the application numbered 2019/17969, the Constitutional Court, as published in the Official Gazette numbered 32331 on October 6, 2023 (“Decision”), considered the rejection of a lawsuit for an unquantified debt related to the payment of labor dues due to the absence of a legal requirement for the lawsuit, based on the determinability of the debts, as a violation of the right to access to the court.[1]
The unquantified debt lawsuit, regulated by Article 107 of the Turkish Law on Civil Procedure Numbered 6100 (“LCP”), has been the subject of numerous judicial decisions, causing debates in legal doctrine and practice. For this reason, the Decision of the Constitutional Court holds significance. This study will examine the individual application subject to the Decision and the related decisions of the Court of Cassation. Subsequently, the assessment made in the Decision will be analyzed.
The Individual Application Subject to The Decision
In the case subject to the application to the Constitutional Court, the Applicants initiated lawsuits in the form of an unquantified debt lawsuit to claim payment of labor dues and requested compensation. In the proceedings before the court of first instance, expert examinations were conducted and the lawsuits were accepted, with a judgment ordering the payment of compensation arising from the employment relationship. The decision of the first instance court was appealed and the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, reviewed the appeals. The 22nd Civil Chamber stated that the purpose of the unquantified debt lawsuit which is regulated in Article 107 of the LCP is to eliminate the difficulties that the claimants may encounter within the legal system in cases where the claim value cannot be determined or it cannot reasonably be expected from the claimant to determine the claim. The Chamber noted that when the conditions for filing an unquantified debt lawsuit are not met, the lawsuit should be rejected directly due to the lack of legal interest, without granting any time to the claimant. In the cases subject to the individual application to the Constitutional Court, it was argued that the items of labor dues were determinable since the claimant knew the duration of the employment and the wage. In light of these considerations, the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation overturned the decision of the first instance court, stating that the cases subject to the application should be rejected on procedural grounds.
The first instance court complied with the decision of reversal, and the appeal made by the Applicants against the decision of reversal was rejected by the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation. Consequently, the Applicants, within the statutory time frame, filed an individual application with the Constitutional Court, alleging a violation of their right to a trial within a reasonable time and their right to access the court.
Decisions of Court of Cassation on Unquantified Debt Lawsuit
Before going through the content and grounds of the Constitutional Court’s Decision, it would be beneficial to discuss the views and practices of the Court of Cassation’s civil chambers regarding the unquantified debt lawsuit.
The 7th, 9th, and 22nd civil chambers of the Court of Cassation, specializing in labor and social security law, held differing and contradictory views on unquantified debt lawsuits related to labor dues.
The 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation was of the opinion that in determining whether a debt is indefinite, it is necessary to evaluate whether the debt is "liquid," which is a condition for enforcement denial compensation. Furthermore, the 7th Civil Chamber stated that in cases where the amount or value of the debt is to be determined during the proceedings and it requires the determination of another fact (such as the work facts, compensation, and the period and wages relevant to the debts in labor dues), it should be considered that the debt is indefinite and disputed.[2]
The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation considered the specificity or determinability of the claims as a completable condition for filing a lawsuit. In cases where a specific or determinable debt is claimed through an unquantified debt lawsuit, the claimant should be given a period to submit the specific requested amount and pay (if any) missing court fees.[3]
As mentioned in the Decision of the Constitutional Court, the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, regarding lawsuits with claims for labor dues filed in the form of unquantified debt lawsuits, adopted the view that due to the claimant’s knowledge of their work period and wages, the labor dues could be determined. Therefore, under LCP Article 107, the lawsuits should be rejected due to the lack of legal interest.[4]
The difference in the opinions between the 9th and 22nd civil chambers of the Court of Cassation was subject to a request for unification of jurisprudence, the Court of Cassation's General Assembly on Unification of Judgments rejected this request, stating that the determination of whether labour dues are specific or indefinite cannot be made in advance and that each specific case should be evaluated individually.[5]
While this division in practice continued, in 2020, the Court of Cassation's First Presidency Board decided to close the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation and consolidate its cases into the 9th Civil Chamber. Following this decision, the 9th Civil Chamber abandoned its previous stance regarding lawsuits for the payment of labor dues filed as unquantified debt lawsuits and adopted the view of the 22nd Civil Chamber.[6] Consequently, it was interpreted that there was a consensus of opinion within the Court of Cassation regarding the collection of labor dues in unquantified debt lawsuits.
However, as will be seen in the Decision to be examined in this study, the Constitutional Court considers the rejection of unquantified debt lawsuits due to lack of legal interest since the labor dues are determinable constitutes a violation of rights.
Examination of the Constitutional Court
The applicants asserted that they could not precisely calculate their claims before filing the lawsuit, which is why they initiated the case as an unquantified debt lawsuit. They argued that due to the difference of opinion between the 22nd, 9th, and 7th civil chambers of the Court of Cassation and the subsequent dismissal of their cases based on this disagreement, their right to a fair trial was violated. They also claimed that their claims had expired due to the dismissal of their cases by the Court of Cassation four years after filing, and because of the strict interpretation of the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, they were unable to file a new lawsuit, which they contended impeded their right to access to the court. The Constitutional Court evaluated these claims within the framework of the right to access to the court.
Considerations of the Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court made numerous references to its previous decision in the Ismail Avcı case[7], which stemmed from another individual application with very similar reasons to the case under consideration. In the Ismail Avcı case, the Constitutional Court emphasized that it is not within its jurisdiction to evaluate whether the decision of the first-instance court was correct in terms of procedural law, and this was reiterated in the Decision under review. The Constitutional Court conducted its examination based on the principle of proportionality. In this context, the dismissal of an unquantified debt lawsuit, which should have been initiated as an action of performance, is appropriate in order to achieve the objective of initiating the most effective legal process for the resolution of disputes related to civil rights. However, it was emphasized that such intervention should be considered as a last resort.
According to the Constitutional Court, the purpose of the strong powers conferred to judges in the LCP regarding the correction of procedurally flawed lawsuit petitions is to prevent the claimant’s substantive rights from being sacrificed for the procedural issues and thereby to ensure the protection of their rights under Article 36 of the Constitution. In this context, if a lawsuit is mistakenly initiated as an unquantified debt lawsuit, it should be considered an action of performance, and the claimant should be given a period to clarify their claim. This method has been recognized by the Constitutional Court as a means to avoid heavy-handed interventions like the dismissal of the lawsuit.
In conclusion, the Constitutional Court, bearing the possibilities in procedural law in mind, considers the dismissal of an unquantified debt lawsuit which was initiated before the conditions were met, due to the lack of legal interest as a measure of last resort. It views the dismissal of lawsuits based on the lack of legal interest as an interference with the right to access the court and suggests that this interference can be carried out with a less restrictive measure in order to achieve the goal of enabling the most effective lawsuit to be initiated. However, it emphasizes that selecting a measure that renders access to the court impossible is not in line with the necessity requirement.
In this context, the Constitutional Court has ruled that, in the Decision, the applicant’s right to access to the court, falling within the scope of the right to a fair trial as regulated in Article 36 of the Constitution, was violated. However, their claims regarding the violation of their right to a trial within a reasonable time were dismissed because they did not exhaust all available legal remedies.
The Constitutional Court has determined that there is a legal interest in remedying the violations of rights identified, and therefore, it has decided to send the case files back to the relevant courts for a retrial.
Conclusion
In light of the explanations provided above and the assessments made in the case of Ismail Avcı, the Constitutional Court has considered the dismissal of lawsuits due to the lack of legal interest before exploring the options that could allow the lawsuits to continue as a violation of the right to access to the court. In this context, it can be considered that the Constitutional Court has recognized the view adopted by the Court of Cassation, which has become uniform, as a violation of rights.
- See the Official Gazette Constitutional Court Decision of 06.10.2023 T, P:32331. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2023/10/20231006-7.pdf
- Yargıtay 7. HD 2015/9431 E- 2015/7709 K. (https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/yargitay/7-hukuk-dairesi-e-2015-9431-k-2015-7709-t-30-04-2015)
- For detailed analysis please see Piraye Erdem, “Belirsiz Alacak Davasının Şartlarına İlişkin Güncel Bir Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu Kararı” Kasım 2021 https://www.erdem-erdem.av.tr/bilgi-bankasi/belirsiz-alacak-davasinin-sartlarina-iliskin-guncel-bir-yargitay-hukuk-genel-kurulu-karari
- İbid.
- YİBBGK., E. 2016/6 K. 2017/5 T. 15.12.2017, https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/yargitay/e-2016-6-k-2017-5-t-15-12-2017
- For detailed analysis please see Sevgi Ünsal Özden, “Yargıtay’dan Belirsiz Alacak Davaları ve Sürpriz Karar Yasağı Hakkında Emsal Bir Karar” Ekim 2020 https://www.erdem-erdem.av.tr/bilgi-bankasi/yargitaydan-belirsiz-alacak-davalari-ve-surpriz-karar-yasagi-hakkinda-emsal-bir-karar
- The Constitutional Court had previously ruled, in the application made by Ismail Avcı with similar reasons, that the dismissal of an unquantified debt lawsuit due to the lack of legal interest before the conditions were met constituted a violation of the right to access to the court. For the Ismail Avcı decision, please see: https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2019/12190
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
Under Turkish law, the term “limits of certainty” refers to monetary limits to the rights of appeal and cassation. While it is possible to appeal to a higher court against the decisions of the courts of the first instance and the courts of appeal where the amount of the claim or the value of the case is above these...
The Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers and the Chambers of the Court of Cassation both issued opinions on whether a lawsuit filed for not due receivables should be dismissed with or without prejudice by the court on the grounds that the time of performance has not yet come, and whether the...
In general terms, the amendment of pleading is accepted as an exception to the prohibition of expanding and amending claims and defenses. With the amendment of pleading, the parties can partially or completely correct or amend the procedural actions that they could not perform due to the prohibition...
The possibility of appellate review of questions of fact, as well as of law, was introduced into Turkish law with an amendment made in the abrogated Civil Procedure Code No. 1086, through Law No. 5239 dated 26.09.2004. However, the Regional Courts of Appeal, which are the courts...
Recently, the requirements of unquantified debt lawsuits have been subjected to the examination and review of the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers, in its decision dated 07.07.2021 and numbered 2021/485 E. 2021/971 K. (“Decision”), examined whether...
In a state where the rule of law prevails, legal remedies are indispensable to eliminate judicial errors through the supervision of court decisions. However, legal disputes must be settled at some point and decisions must be finalized. In this Newsletter, appellate procedures against final court decisions will be...