Recent Development

The decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye (“Constitutional Court“) file no. 2026/49, decision no. 2026/48 (“Decision“) was published in the Official Gazette dated 21 May 2026 No. 33260. The Constitutional Court unanimously ruled that subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 362 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (“CCP“) was unconstitutional regarding the “partial or full acceptance of the appellate application before the regional court of appeal” and annulled it.

The Rule Subject to Annulment

Subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 362 of the CCP excluded decisions of regional courts of appeal (bölge adliye mahkemesi) rendered in disputes with a monetary value not exceeding forty thousand Turkish liras from review by the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay). This monetary threshold is adjusted annually in line with the revaluation rate pursuant to Additional Article 1 of the CCP, and as of 1 January 2026, stands at TRY 682,000. The provision rendered the decisions of regional courts of appeal in cases falling below this threshold final and non-reviewable, regardless of the outcome of the appellate proceedings before the regional court of appeal.

Background

The application for annulment was lodged by the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal in the course of appellate review proceedings in a negative declaratory action (menfi tespit davası) filed against the administration’s claim for a compulsory service fee and a proportionate training cost reimbursement. The referring court argued that, although the contested provision determines the availability of review by the Court of Cassation based on the monetary value of the dispute, in cases where the appellate application is partially or fully accepted, the regional court of appeal’s ruling constitutes a fresh merits decision rendered for the first time by that court — different from that of the court of first instance — and that treating such a ruling as final removes the possibility of seeking judicial review of the judgment within the scope of the right to a fair trial. On this basis, the court contended that the provision was incompatible with Articles 13 and 36 of the Constitution.

What Does the Decision Say?

Following its examination, the Constitutional Court assessed the dispute under the following key headings:

• Precedent Decision: In its decision dated 27 March 2025, file no. E.2024/189, decision no. K.2025/83, the Constitutional Court annulled the first sentence of Article 45(6) of the Code of Administrative Procedure No. 2577, which treated regional administrative court decisions that are not open to cassation as final, insofar as they concerned the “partial or full acceptance of the appellate application.” The Constitutional Court found that the reasoning set out in that decision — which was examined in detail — remained equally applicable to the present dispute by virtue of the structural parallels between the administrative and civil judiciary, and that there were no grounds warranting a departure from it.
• Structural Problem Arising from the Acceptance of the Appellate Application: Even in cases where review by the Court of Cassation is otherwise unavailable, when a regional court of appeal accepts the appellate application, sets aside the judgment of the court of first instance, and renders a decision on the merits, that ruling effectively constitutes the first merits decision rendered by the regional court of appeal itself. Treating such a ruling as final solely on the grounds that the value of the dispute falls below the statutory threshold deprives the parties of the opportunity to seek review by the Court of Cassation, without affording that court any opportunity to examine the matter.
• Proportionality Review: The Constitutional Court accepted that closing review by the Court of Cassation against decisions rendered by regional courts of appeal in disputes that do not reach a certain level of importance is an appropriate measure for achieving legitimate aims such as adjudication within a reasonable time and procedural economy. However, it held that treating a ruling rendered by a regional court of appeal on the merits following the acceptance of an appellate application as wholly final constitutes a disproportionate restriction on the right to seek judicial review of a judgment.

Conclusion

The Decision was adopted unanimously. The annulment took effect upon publication in the Official Gazette on 21 May 2026. The Constitutional Court did not opt to defer the entry into force of the annulment on grounds of a legal vacuum.

As of 2026, this Decision means that in disputes with a monetary value not exceeding TRY 682,000, where the appellate application before the regional court of appeal is partially or fully accepted and a fresh decision on the merits is rendered, that decision may no longer be treated as final solely by reason of the monetary threshold.