Statutory Amendments to Be Introduced Under the Bill of 20/03/2020 Amending the Code of Civil Procedure and Certain Other Laws

Text before the amendment

Article 20 HMK before the amendment: “(1) Where a decision of lack of jurisdiction or lack of venue is rendered, one of the parties must, (…) *1* , within two weeks from the date on which the decision became final, if it became final because no appeal was lodged within the time limit, or, if an appeal was lodged, from the date of service of the decision rejecting that appeal, apply to the court that rendered the decision and request that the case file be sent to the court having jurisdiction or venue. Otherwise, that court shall decide that the action be deemed not to have been filed.

(2) The court to which the file is sent shall of its own motion send summonses to the parties.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

“(1) Where a decision of lack of jurisdiction or lack of venue is rendered, one of the parties if the decision is final when rendered, from the date of service,must, within two weeks from the date on which the decision became final, if it became final because no appeal was lodged within the time limit, or, if an appeal was lodged, from the date of service of the decision rejecting that appeal, apply to the court that rendered the decision and request that the case file be sent to the court having jurisdiction or venue. Otherwise, the action shall be deemed not to have been filed, and the court shall of its own motion  it is ordered.

(2) The court to which the file is sent shall of its own motion send summonses to the parties.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 28 HMK before the amendment: “(1) Hearings and the pronouncement of decisions shall be public.

(2) The court may decide, at the request of one of the parties or of its own motion, that all or part of the hearings be held in private only where public morality or public safety strictly requires it.

(3) The parties' request for privacy shall be examined and decided in a private hearing within the framework of the provisions on preliminary issues. The judge shall state the reasons for this decision together with the decision on the merits.

(4) The judge shall warn those present during private proceedings not to disclose information obtained in connection with those proceedings, shall caution them that the provision of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 dated 26/9/2004 on breach of confidentiality will apply, and shall record this in the minutes.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

“(1) Hearings and the pronouncement of decisions shall be public.

(2) The court may decide that all or part of the hearings be held in private only where public morality or public safety or an overriding interest worthy of protection of persons involved in the proceedings strictly requires it, at the request of the person concerned or of its own motion.

(3) The parties' request for privacy shall be examined and decided in a private hearing within the framework of the provisions on preliminary issues. The judge shall state the reasons for this decision together with the decision on the merits.

(4) The judge shall warn those present during private proceedings not to disclose information obtained in connection with those proceedings, shall caution them that the provision of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 dated 26/9/2004 on breach of confidentiality will apply, and shall record this in the minutes.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 36 HMK before the amendment: “(1) Where there is a serious reason giving rise to doubt as to the judge's impartiality, one of the parties may challenge the judge, and the judge may also withdraw of his or her own accord. In particular, a ground for challenging the judge shall be deemed to exist in the following cases:

a) Having advised or guided either of the parties in the case.

b) Having expressed his or her opinion in the case to either of the parties or to a third party without being required to do so by law.

c) Having been heard as a witness or expert in the case, or having acted as a judge or arbitrator.

c1) The case concerning his or her collateral relatives up to and including the fourth degree.

d) Having a case pending with, or enmity with, either of the parties during the proceedings.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

“(1) Where there is a serious reason giving rise to doubt as to the judge's impartiality, one of the parties may challenge the judge, and the judge may also withdraw of his or her own accord. In particular, a ground for challenging the judge shall be deemed to exist in the following cases:

a) Having advised or guided either of the parties in the case.

b) Having expressed his or her opinion in the case to either of the parties or to a third party without being required to do so by law.

c) Having been heard as a witness or expert in the case, or having acted as a judge or arbitrator ; having acted as mediator or conciliator in the dispute.

c1) The case concerning his or her collateral relatives up to and including the fourth degree.

d) Having a case pending with, or enmity with, either of the parties during the proceedings.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 38 HMK before the amendment: “(1) A party who knows of a ground for challenging the judge must raise the challenge at the latest at the first hearing. If the party learns of the ground for challenge while the case is being heard, he or she must immediately submit the request at the latest at the first hearing after learning of it, before any new procedural step is taken. A challenge not made within the specified period shall not be heard.

(2) A challenge to the judge shall be requested by petition. The petition must clearly set out the grounds on which the challenge is based and the evidence or indications, and any documents must be attached.

(3) The petition challenging the judge shall be submitted to the court to which the challenged judge belongs.

(4) A challenge may not be withdrawn.

(5) The party challenging the judge shall have the petition served on the opposing party. The opposing party may respond within one week. After this period has expired, the chief clerk shall hand the challenge petition, together with any response and annexes of the opposing party and the file, to the challenged judge. The judge shall examine the file within one week, state in writing his or her opinion as to whether the grounds for challenge comply with the law, and hand the file to the chief clerk to be sent immediately to the reviewing authority.

(6) Even if the ground for challenge is not established, the reviewing authority may accept the challenge if it considers it probable.

(7) No oath may be proposed in respect of the grounds for challenge.

(8) Inviting the judge to withdraw shall have the effect of a challenge to the judge.

(9) These decisions may be appealed only together with the judgment.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

“(1) A party who knows of a ground for challenging the judge must raise the challenge at the latest at the first hearing. If the party learns of the ground for challenge while the case is being heard, he or she must immediately submit the request at the latest at the first hearing after learning of it, before any new procedural step is taken. A challenge not made within the specified period shall not be heard.

(2) A challenge to the judge shall be requested by petition. The petition must clearly set out the grounds on which the challenge is based and the evidence or indications, and any documents must be attached.

(3) The petition challenging the judge shall be submitted to the court to which the challenged judge belongs.

(4) A challenge may not be withdrawn.

(5) The party challenging the judge shall have the petition served on the opposing party. The opposing party may respond within one week. After this period has expired, the chief clerk shall hand the challenge petition, together with any response and annexes of the opposing party and the file, to the challenged judge. The judge shall examine the file within one week, state in writing his or her opinion as to whether the grounds for challenge comply with the law, and hand the file to the chief clerk to be sent immediately to the reviewing authority.

(6) Inviting the judge to withdraw shall have the effect of a challenge to the judge.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 42 HMK before the amendment: “(1) The decision on the challenge to the judge may also be given on the basis of an examination of the file.

(2) The challenged judge may not hear the case until the reviewing authority has decided on the challenge. However, matters and cases in which delay would be prejudicial are excluded from this. Where a judge whose challenge has previously been rejected by the reviewing authority is challenged again on the basis of the same circumstances and facts, this shall not prevent the judge from hearing the case.

(3) If the challenge is not accepted by the reviewing authority, the challenged judge shall continue to hear the case.

(4) If it is established that the challenge was made in bad faith and it is not accepted on the merits, a disciplinary fine of between five hundred and five thousand Turkish Lira shall be imposed on each of the persons making the request.

(5) Where a challenge to a judge raised by the same party in the same case is rejected, the disciplinary fine to be imposed may not be less than twice the previous disciplinary fine.

(6) For the collection of the disciplinary fine, the court hearing the case shall take the necessary action within two weeks from the date on which the file is received.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

“(1) The decision on the challenge to the judge may also be given on the basis of an examination of the file.

(2) Even if the ground for challenge is not established, the reviewing authority may accept the challenge if it considers it probable.

(3) No oath shall be proposed in respect of the grounds for challenge.

(4) The challenged judge may not hear the case until the reviewing authority has decided on the challenge. However, matters and cases in which delay would be prejudicial are excluded from this. Where a judge whose challenge has previously been rejected by the reviewing authority is challenged again on the basis of the same circumstances and facts, this shall not prevent the judge from hearing the case.

(5) If the challenge is not accepted by the reviewing authority, the challenged judge shall continue to hear the case.

(6) If it is established that the challenge was made in bad faith and it is not accepted on the merits, a disciplinary fine of between five hundred and five thousand Turkish Lira shall be imposed on each of the persons making the request.

(7) Where a challenge to a judge raised by the same party in the same case is rejected, the disciplinary fine to be imposed may not be less than twice the previous disciplinary fine.

(8) For the collection of the disciplinary fine, the court hearing the case shall take the necessary action within two weeks from the date on which the file is received.”

Text before the amendment

Article 94 HMK before the amendment: “(1) Time limits laid down by law are peremptory.

(2) The judge may decide that a time limit he or she has set is peremptory. Otherwise, a party who has missed the specified time limit may request a new time limit. A second time limit granted in this way is peremptory, and no further time limit may be granted.

(3) A party who fails to perform, within the time limit, a procedural act that must be performed within a peremptory time limit loses the right to perform that act.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

“(1) Time limits laid down by law are peremptory.

(2) The judge may decide that a time limit he or she has set is peremptory. In that case, the judge shall explain the act subject to the peremptory time limit in a manner leaving no room for doubt, and shall give warning of the legal consequences of failing to comply with the time limit by expressly recording them in the minutes. A party who has missed a time limit not specified as peremptory may request a new time limit; a second time limit granted in this way is peremptory, and no further time limit may be granted.

(3) A party who fails to perform, within the time limit, a procedural act that must be performed within a peremptory time limit loses the right to perform that act.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 107 HMK before the amendment: “(1) Where, on the date on which the action is filed, the creditor cannot be expected to determine the amount or value of the claim fully and precisely, or where this is impossible, the creditor may bring an action for an undetermined claim by specifying the legal relationship and a minimum amount or value.

(2) As soon as it becomes possible to determine the amount or value of the claim fully and precisely on the basis of information provided by the opposing party or as a result of the taking of evidence, the claimant may increase the claim stated at the outset of the action without being subject to the prohibition on expanding the claim.

(3) In addition, in cases where a partial action for performance can be brought, a declaratory action may also be brought, and in that case a legal interest shall be deemed to exist.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

“Action for an Undetermined Claim

(1) Where, on the date on which the action is filed, the creditor cannot be expected to determine the amount or value of the claim fully and precisely, or where this is impossible, the creditor may bring an action for an undetermined claim by specifying the legal relationship and a minimum amount or value.

(2) Where it becomes possible to determine the amount or value of the claim fully and precisely on the basis of information provided by the opposing party or as a result of the taking of evidence, the claimant may, within a peremptory period of two weeks to be granted by the judge before the evidence-taking stage ends, determine the claim fully and precisely without being subject to the prohibition on expanding the claim. Otherwise, the action shall be heard and decided on the basis of the amount and value stated in the relief sought.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 116 HMK before the amendment: “(1) Preliminary objections consist of the following:

a) An objection to venue where there is no rule of exclusive venue.

b) An objection that the dispute must be resolved by arbitration.

c) An objection concerning the division of work.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

“(1) Preliminary objections consist of the following:

a) An objection to venue where there is no rule of exclusive venue.

b) An objection that the dispute must be resolved by arbitration.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 120 HMK before the amendment: “(1) When filing the action, the claimant must deposit with the court cashier the court fees and the amount to be determined in the advance on costs tariff issued each year by the Ministry of Justice.

(2) If it becomes apparent during the proceedings that the advance is insufficient, the court shall grant the claimant a peremptory period of two weeks to make up the shortfall.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

“Payment of Fees and the Advance on Costs

(1) When filing the action, the claimant must deposit with the court cashier the court fees and the amount to be determined in the advance on costs tariff issued each year by the Ministry of Justice.

(2) If it becomes apparent during the proceedings that the advance is insufficient, the court shall grant the claimant a peremptory period of two weeks to make up the shortfall.

(3) The provisions of Article 324 on the advance for evidence determined by the court for the evidence that each party requests to be taken are reserved.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 123 HMK before the amendment: “(1) The claimant may withdraw the action until the judgment becomes final, but only with the express consent of the defendant.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

“(1) The claimant may withdraw the action until the judgment becomes final, but only with the express consent of the defendant. In that case, a decision shall be given that the action is deemed not to have been filed.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 125 HMK before the amendment: “(1) If, after the action has been filed, the defendant transfers the subject matter of the dispute to a third party, the claimant may exercise one of the following powers:

a) The claimant may, if he or she wishes, waive the action against the transferring party and continue the action against the person who has acquired the subject matter of the dispute. In that case, if the claimant wins the action, the transferor and the transferee of the subject matter of the dispute shall be jointly and severally liable for the costs of the proceedings.

b) The claimant may, if he or she wishes, convert the action into an action for damages against the transferring party.

(2) If, after the action has been filed, the subject matter of the dispute is transferred by the claimant, the transferee shall take the place of the claimant in the pending action, and the action shall continue from where it left off.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

“(1) If, after the action has been filed, the defendant transfers the subject matter of the dispute to a third party, the claimant may exercise one of the following powers:

a) The claimant may, if he or she wishes, waive the action against the transferring party and continue the action against the person who has acquired the subject matter of the dispute. In that case, if the action is decided in favour of the claimant, the transferor and the transferee of the subject matter of the dispute shall be jointly and severally liable for the costs of the proceedings.

b) The claimant may, if he or she wishes, convert the action into an action for damages against the transferring party.

(2) If, after the action has been filed, the subject matter of the dispute is transferred by the claimant, the transferee shall take the place of the claimant in the pending action, and the action shall continue from where it left off. In that case, if the action is decided against the claimant, the transferor and the transferee of the subject matter of the dispute shall be jointly and severally liable for the costs of the proceedings.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 127 HMK before the amendment: “(1) The period for submitting the statement of defence is two weeks from the service of the statement of claim on the defendant. However, where, depending on the circumstances, it is very difficult or impossible to prepare the statement of defence within this period, a defendant who applies to the court within the same period may be granted an additional period, once only and not exceeding one month. The decision on the request for an additional period for the defence shall be notified to the parties immediately.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

“(1) The period for submitting the statement of defence is two weeks from the service of the statement of claim on the defendant. However, where, depending on the circumstances, it is very difficult or impossible to prepare the statement of defence within this period, a defendant who applies to the court within the same period may be granted an additional period beginning to run from the expiry of the period for the defence, once only and not exceeding one month. The decision on the request for an additional period for the defence shall be notified to the parties immediately.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 139 HMK before the amendment: “(1) After the exchange of pleadings and the completion of the examination set out in the above articles, the court shall fix a hearing date for the preliminary examination and notify the parties. In the summons to be issued, in addition to the other matters relating to the hearing summons and its consequences, the parties shall be separately warned to make the necessary preparations for settlement, and that, if only one of the parties attends the hearing and wishes to continue the proceedings, the absent party may not object to the acts performed in his or her absence and the other party may expand or change his or her claim or defence without the absent party's consent.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

“(1) After the exchange of pleadings and the completion of the examination set out in the above articles, the court shall fix a hearing date for the preliminary examination and notify the parties. The following matters shall be notified by way of warning in the summons to be issued.

Other matters relating to the hearing summons and its consequences.

That the parties are to make the necessary preparations for settlement.

That, if only one of the parties attends the hearing and wishes to continue the proceedings, the absent party may not object to the acts performed in his or her absence.

That, within a peremptory period of two weeks from service of the summons, the parties are to submit to the court the documents they have indicated in their pleadings but not yet submitted, or provide the explanation necessary for documents to be obtained from elsewhere, and that, if these matters are not fulfilled within the period granted, a decision will be given that they are deemed to have waived reliance on that evidence.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 140 HMK before the amendment: “(1) At the preliminary examination hearing, the judge shall hear the parties if he or she considers it necessary in order to decide on the preconditions for bringing the action and on preliminary objections; thereafter, within the framework of the parties' claims and defences, the judge shall identify one by one the matters on which they agree and disagree.

(2) After identifying the matters in dispute, the judge shall encourage the parties to settle (Additional wording: 07/06/2012-Law No. 6325/Art. 35) or to use mediation; if the judge is of the opinion that a result will be achieved in this respect, he or she shall set a new hearing date, once only.

(3) At the end of the preliminary examination hearing, whether or not the parties have achieved a result from settlement (Additional wording: 07/06/2012-Law No. 6325/Art. 35) or mediation and, if not, the matters on which they disagree, shall be recorded in minutes. These minutes shall be signed by the parties present at the hearing. The taking of evidence shall be conducted on the basis of these minutes.

(4) The preliminary examination shall be completed in a single hearing. Where necessary, a new hearing date shall be set once only.

(5) At the preliminary examination hearing, the parties shall be granted a peremptory period of two weeks to submit to the court the documents they have indicated in their pleadings but not yet submitted, or to provide the explanation necessary for documents to be obtained from elsewhere. If these matters are not fully fulfilled within the peremptory period granted, a decision shall be given that reliance on that evidence is deemed to have been waived.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

“(1) At the preliminary examination hearing, the judge shall hear the parties if he or she considers it necessary in order to decide on the preconditions for bringing the action and on preliminary objections; thereafter, within the framework of the parties' claims and defences, the judge shall identify one by one the matters on which they agree and disagree.

(2) After identifying the matters in dispute, the judge shall encourage the parties by informing them about the principles, process  and legal consequences of settlement and mediation, and, if the judge is of the opinion that a result will be achieved in this respect, he or she shall set a new hearing date, once only.

(3) At the end of the preliminary examination hearing, whether or not the parties have achieved a result from settlement (Additional wording: 07/06/2012-Law No. 6325/Art. 35) or mediation and, if not, the matters on which they disagree, shall be recorded in minutes. These minutes shall be signed by the parties present at the hearing. The taking of evidence shall be conducted on the basis of these minutes.

(4) The preliminary examination shall be completed in a single hearing. Where necessary, a new hearing date shall be set once only.

(5) Where a party, despite the warning given under Article 139, does not submit the documents indicated in its pleadings or does not provide the explanation necessary for obtaining the documents, a decision shall be given that the party is deemed to have waived reliance on that evidence.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 140 HMK before the amendment: “(1) The parties may freely expand or change their claims or defences by means of the reply and the rejoinder; at the preliminary examination stage, however, they may do so only with the express consent of the opposing party. If one of the parties fails to attend the preliminary examination hearing without an excuse, the attending party may expand or change its claim or defence without the absent party's consent being required. After the completion of the preliminary examination stage, the claim or defence may not be expanded or changed.

(2) The provisions on amendment of pleadings (ıslah) and on the express consent of the opposing party with respect to the expansion or change of the claim and defence are reserved.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made,; “(1) The parties may freely expand or change their claims or defences by means of the reply and the rejoinder. After the exchange of pleadings, the claim and defence may not be expanded or changed.”

“(1) The parties may freely expand or change their claims or defences by means of the reply and the rejoinder. After the exchange of pleadings, the claim and defence may not be expanded or changed.

(2) The provisions on amendment of pleadings (ıslah) and on the express consent of the opposing party with respect to the expansion or change of the claim and defence are reserved.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 147 HMK before the amendment: “(1) After the completion of the preliminary examination stage, the parties shall be summoned to a hearing for the taking of evidence.

(2) The summons to be sent to the parties shall state that, if they are not present in court on the specified day and time without a valid excuse, the hearing will continue in their absence and they may not object to the acts performed.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

“(1) After the completion of the preliminary examination stage, the parties shall be summoned to a hearing for the taking of evidence and oral proceedings .

(2) The summons to be sent to the parties shall state that, if they are not present in court on the specified day and time without a valid excuse, the hearing will continue in their absence and they may not object to the acts performed, that oral proceedings will begin at the hearing at which the taking of evidence ends, that no separate summons will be sent to the parties if the hearing is adjourned for oral proceedings, and that, subject to Article 150,  judgment will be given in their absence  .” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 149 HMK before the amendment: “(1) The court may, provided that the parties consent, permit the parties or their representatives to attend the hearing and perform procedural acts from where they are located by means of simultaneous audio and video transmission.

(2) Provided that the parties consent, the court may permit a witness, expert, specialist or a party to be at another location while being heard. The hearing shall be transmitted simultaneously to the courtroom in audio and video.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made,; “Holding hearings by means of audio and video transmission or at another location

ARTICLE 149-(1) The court may, upon the request of one of the parties, decide that the requesting party or its representative may attend the hearing and perform procedural acts from where they are located by means of simultaneous audio and video transmission.

(2) The court may, of its own motion or upon the request of one of the parties, decide that a witness, expert or specialist be heard from where they are located by means of simultaneous audio and video transmission.

(3) In actions and matters over which the parties cannot freely dispose, the court may of its own motion decide that the persons concerned be heard from where they are located by means of simultaneous audio and video transmission.

(4) The court may also decide, due to a de facto impediment or for security reasons, that the hearing be held at another place within the boundaries of the province.

(5) The procedures and principles for the implementation of this article shall be laid down in a regulation.” as provided above.

Text before the amendment

Article 151 HMK before the amendment: “(1) The judge shall prohibit any person who disturbs the order of the hearing from doing so and, if necessary, shall order that person, with the exception of lawyers, to be removed from the courtroom immediately.

(2) If a person, despite a warning, disturbs the order of the court or continues to make inappropriate remarks or behave inappropriately in the presence of the court, he or she shall be arrested immediately and disciplinary detention of up to four days shall be imposed. This paragraph shall not apply to lawyers.

(3) If the act disturbing the order of the court, or the inappropriate remark or behaviour in the presence of the court, also constitutes an offence, this shall be sent with a report to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office and, if necessary, the detention on remand of the perpetrator, with the exception of lawyers, may also be ordered.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made, the first paragraph of the article reads: “(1) The judge shall prohibit any person who disturbs the order of the hearing from doing so and, if necessary, shall order that person, with the exception of the parties' lawyers , to be removed from the courtroom immediately. In respect of the parties' lawyers, action shall be taken in accordance with Article 79.” This is how it has been amended.

Text before the amendment

Article 177 HMK before the amendment:” (1) Amendment of pleadings (ıslah) may be made until the end of the taking of evidence.

(2) Amendment of pleadings may be made orally or in writing. If the opposing party is not present at the hearing or the request for amendment is made outside the hearing, the written request or a copy of the minutes shall be notified to the opposing party for information.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made, a paragraph has been added after the first paragraph: “(1) Amendment of pleadings (ıslah) may be made until the end of the taking of evidence.

(2) Where the file is sent to the court of first instance after a reversal decision of the Court of Cassation or a decision of the Regional Court of Appeal setting aside the judgment, amendment of pleadings may also be made until the end of the taking of evidence if the court of first instance performs an act relating to the taking of evidence.  However, the legal situation arising from compliance with the reversal decision cannot be eliminated.

(3) Amendment of pleadings may be made orally or in writing. If the opposing party is not present at the hearing or the request for amendment is made outside the hearing, the written request or a copy of the minutes shall be notified to the opposing party for information.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 186 HMK before the amendment: “(1) After the end of the taking of evidence, the court shall summon both parties to ensure that they are present in court on the day and time to be set for oral proceedings and judgment. The summons to be issued to the parties shall state that, if they are not present in court on the specified day and time, judgment will be given in their absence.

(2) In the oral proceedings, the court shall ask the parties for their final words and deliver its judgment.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made, the first paragraph of the article “(1) After announcing that the taking of evidence has ended, the court shall proceed to the oral proceedings stage at the same hearing. In that case, upon the request of one of the parties, the hearing shall be adjourned for not less than two weeks. Whether or not they are present, no separate summons shall be sent to the parties for the oral proceedings.” has been amended to read as above.

Text before the amendment

Article 206 HMK before the amendment:” (1) For documents containing legal transactions performed by persons unable to sign, by using a seal, an instrument or a fingerprint, to qualify as deeds (senet), they must be drawn up by notaries in the form of a notarial deed.

(2) For transactions of persons unable to sign with institutions that customarily conduct business by means of a passbook, it is sufficient that the seal, engraved signature, mark or fingerprint they will use has been impressed on the account book or passbook at the beginning of the transaction, or that a specimen has previously been certified by a notary for safekeeping; separate certification is not required for each transaction.

(3) No fees, taxes or stamp charges shall be collected from the persons concerned for deeds to be drawn up by notaries in accordance with the above provisions.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “(1) For documents containing legal transactions performed by persons unable to sign because they cannot read or write, by using a seal, an instrument or a fingerprint, to qualify as deeds, they must be drawn up by notaries in the form of a notarial deed.

(2) For documents containing legal transactions performed, by using a seal, an instrument or a fingerprint, by persons who can read and write but are unable to sign, to qualify as deeds, they must be certified or drawn up by a notary.

(3) For transactions of persons unable to sign with institutions that customarily conduct business by means of a passbook, it is sufficient that the seal, engraved signature, mark or fingerprint they will use has been impressed on the account book or passbook at the beginning of the transaction, or that a specimen has previously been certified by a notary for safekeeping; separate certification is not required for each transaction.

(4) No fees, taxes or stamp charges shall be collected from the persons concerned for deeds to be certified or drawn up by notaries in accordance with the above provisions.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 215 HMK before the amendment: “Use of Documents Against Successors

(1) Documents that may be used as evidence against a person shall also constitute evidence against that person's successors.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “Use of Documents Against Successors and Effect of Private Deeds on Third Parties

Documents that may be used as evidence against a person shall also constitute evidence against that person's successors.

With regard to a private deed, the date of presentation, if it has been duly certified by the notary or competent official to whom it was presented; the date of the transaction, if it has been the subject of an official transaction; the date of death, if one of the signatories has died; or the date of the event that made it impossible for one of the signatories to sign, if signing has become factually impossible, shall also have effect against third parties. The dates of other deeds referred to in the private deed shall have effect against third parties only as of the date on which the date of the last deed is accepted as having been certified.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 222 HMK before the amendment: “(1) In commercial cases, the court may, of its own motion or upon the request of one of the parties, order the production of the parties' commercial books.

(2) For commercial books to be accepted as evidence in commercial cases, they must have been kept fully and properly in accordance with the law, their opening and closing certifications must have been obtained, and the entries in the books must corroborate one another.

(3) For the entries in commercial books kept in accordance with the conditions set out in the second paragraph to be accepted as evidence in favour of their owner and the owner's successors, the entries in the other party's commercial books kept in accordance with the same conditions must not contradict them or must contain no entry at all on the relevant matter, or the contrary of the book entries must not have been proven by deed or other conclusive evidence. Entries in favour of and against the owner in books kept in accordance with these conditions cannot be separated from one another.

(4) Entries in commercial books that lack opening or closing certifications and whose entries do not corroborate one another shall constitute evidence against their owner.

(5) Even if one of the parties is not a merchant, that party may state that it will accept the entries in the commercial books of the other party who is a merchant; however, if the opposing party refrains from producing its books, the party requesting production shall be deemed to have proven its claim.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “(1) In commercial cases, the court may, of its own motion or upon the request of one of the parties, order the production of the parties' commercial books.

(2) For commercial books to be accepted as evidence in commercial cases, they must have been kept fully and properly in accordance with the law, their opening and closing certifications must have been obtained, and the entries in the books must corroborate one another.

(3) For the entries in commercial books kept in accordance with the conditions set out in the second paragraph to be accepted as evidence in favour of their owner and the owner's successors, the entries in the other party's commercial books kept in accordance with the same conditions must not contradict them, or the other party must not have produced its commercial books, or the contrary of the book entries must not have been proven by deed or other conclusive evidence. Where the other party's commercial books kept in accordance with the conditions set out in the second paragraph contain no entry at all on the relevant matter, the commercial books may not be used as evidence in favour of their owner. Entries in favour of and against the owner in books kept in accordance with these conditions cannot be separated from one another.

(4) Entries in commercial books that lack opening or closing certifications and whose entries do not corroborate one another shall constitute evidence against their owner.

(5) Even if one of the parties is not a merchant, that party may state that it will accept the entries in the commercial books of the other party who is a merchant; however, if the opposing party refrains from producing its books, the party requesting production shall be deemed to have proven its claim.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 281 HMK before the amendment: “(1) Within two weeks from the date on which the expert report is served on them, the parties may request the court to have the expert complete the matters they consider incomplete in the report, to have the expert provide clarification on matters showing ambiguity, or to appoint a new expert.

(2) In order to ensure that the deficiency or ambiguity in the expert report is remedied or clarified, the court may of its own motion obtain a supplementary report from the expert by formulating new questions, or request the expert to give oral explanations at a hearing it will set.

(3) If the court considers it necessary for establishing the truth, it may also have a fresh examination carried out by a newly appointed expert.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “(1) Within two weeks from the date on which the expert report is served on them, the parties may request the court to have the expert complete the matters they consider incomplete in the report, to have the expert provide clarification on matters showing ambiguity, or to appoint a new expert. Where it is very difficult or impossible to prepare the objection to the expert report within this period, or where it requires special or technical work, a party who applies to the court within the same period may be granted an additional period beginning to run from the expiry of the period, once only and not exceeding two weeks.

(2) In order to ensure that the deficiency or ambiguity in the expert report is remedied or clarified, the court may of its own motion obtain a supplementary report from the expert by formulating new questions, or request the expert to give oral explanations at a hearing it will set.

(3) If the court considers it necessary for establishing the truth, it may also have a fresh examination carried out by a newly appointed expert.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 290 HMK before the amendment: “(1) The place and time of the on-site inspection shall be determined by the court. The inspection shall be carried out in the presence of the parties if they attend, and otherwise in their absence.

(2) During the on-site inspection, the court may hear witnesses and experts. Minutes containing all acts performed and statements made during the inspection shall be drawn up. Documents such as plans, drawings and photographs shall also be attached to the minutes.

(3) The court may also have a reconstruction carried out in order to establish how an event may have occurred.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “(1) The place, scope and time of the on-site inspection shall be determined by the court. The inspection shall be carried out in the presence of the parties if they attend, and otherwise in their absence.

(2) During the on-site inspection, the court may hear witnesses and experts. Minutes containing all acts performed and statements made during the inspection shall be drawn up. The judge's observations concerning the subject and site of the inspection shall also be recorded in the minutes.  Documents such as plans, drawings and photographs shall also be attached to the minutes.

(3) The court may also have a reconstruction carried out in order to establish how an event may have occurred.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Heading of the chapter before the amendment: Correction and Clarification of the Judgment

Text after the proposal

Heading of the chapter after the amendment: Correction, Clarification and Supplementation of the Judgment

Text before the amendment

Article 306 HMK before the amendment: “REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND ITS PROCEDURE

(1) Clarification may be requested from the court that rendered the judgment by a petition to which copies equal to the number of parties are attached. A copy of the petition shall be served on the opposing party, with the period for response determined by the court. The response shall be served on the party requesting clarification.

(2) The court shall decide on the basis of an examination of the file even if no response has been given; however, if it considers it necessary, it may summon both parties to give oral explanations.

(3) If the court finds the request for clarification justified, it shall proceed in accordance with Article 304.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND SUPPLEMENTATION AND ITS PROCEDURE

(1) Clarification or supplementation may be requested from the court that rendered the judgment by a petition to which copies equal to the number of parties are attached. A copy of the petition shall be served on the opposing party, with the period for response determined by the court. The response shall be served on the party requesting clarification or supplementation .

(2) The court shall decide on the basis of an examination of the file even if no response has been given; however, if it considers it necessary, it may summon both parties to give oral explanations.

(3) If the court finds the request for clarification or supplementation justified, it shall proceed in accordance with Article 304.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 310 HMK before the amendment:” (1) Waiver and acceptance of the claim may be made at any time until the judgment becomes final.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “ (1) Waiver and acceptance of the claim may be made at any time until the judgment becomes final.

(2) Where the waiver or acceptance is made after the judgment has been delivered, the file shall not be sent for review by the higher court even if the parties have lodged a legal remedy, and the court of first instance or the Regional Court of Appeal shall give a supplementary decision in line with the waiver or acceptance.

(3) Where the waiver or acceptance is made after the file has been sent for review on points of law, the Court of Cassation shall, without conducting the review, send the file to the court that rendered the judgment for a supplementary decision to be given on the waiver or acceptance.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 314 HMK before the amendment:” (1) A settlement may be made at any time until the judgment becomes final.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “(1) A settlement may be made at any time until the judgment becomes final.

(2) Where the settlement is made after the judgment has been delivered, the file shall not be sent for review by the higher court even if the parties have lodged a legal remedy, and the court of first instance or the Regional Court of Appeal shall give a supplementary decision in line with the settlement.

(3) Where the settlement is made after the file has been sent for review on points of law, the Court of Cassation shall, without conducting the review, send the file to the court that rendered the judgment for a supplementary decision to be given on the settlement.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 317 HMK before the amendment:” (1) An action shall be brought, and a defence to the action submitted, by petition.

(2) The period for the defence is two weeks from service of the statement of claim on the defendant. However, where, depending on the circumstances, it is very difficult or impossible to prepare the statement of defence within this period, the court may grant a defendant who applies to the court within the same period an additional period, once only and not exceeding two weeks. The decision on the request for an additional period for the defence shall be notified to the parties immediately.

(3) The parties may not submit a reply or a rejoinder.

(4) The statement of claim and the statement of defence may also be submitted by completing the form to be laid down in a regulation.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “1) An action shall be brought, and a defence to the action submitted, by petition.

(2) The period for the defence is two weeks from service of the statement of claim on the defendant. However, where, depending on the circumstances, it is very difficult or impossible to prepare the statement of defence within this period, the court may grant a defendant who applies to the court within the same period an additional period beginning to run from the expiry of the period for the defence, once only and not exceeding two weeks. The decision on the request for an additional period for the defence shall be notified to the parties immediately.

(3) The parties may not submit a reply or a rejoinder.

(4) The statement of claim and the statement of defence may also be submitted by completing the form to be laid down in a regulation.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 323 HMK before the amendment:” (1) The costs of the proceedings are as follows:

a) Hearing, decision and judgment fees.

b) Service and postal expenses incurred on account of the action…” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “(1) The costs of the proceedings are as follows:

a) Application, decision and judgment fees.

b) Service and postal expenses incurred on account of the action…” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 331 HMK before the amendment:”…(2) Where, after a decision of lack of jurisdiction, lack of venue or referral, the action is continued before another court, that court shall rule on the costs of the proceedings. Where, after a decision of lack of jurisdiction, lack of venue or referral, the action has not been continued before another court, the court before which the action was brought shall, upon request, establish this on the basis of the file and order the claimant to pay the costs of the proceedings.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; ”…(2) Where, after a decision of lack of jurisdiction or lack of venue , the action is continued before another court, that court shall rule on the costs of the proceedings. Where, after a decision of lack of jurisdiction, lack of venue or referral, the action has not been continued before another court, the court before which the action was brought shall, upon request, establish this on the basis of the file and order the claimant to pay the costs of the proceedings.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 341 HMK before the amendment:” (1) An appeal (istinaf) may be lodged against final decisions of courts of first instance and against decisions given upon objection where requests for an interim injunction or precautionary attachment are rejected or accepted…” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “(1) An appeal (istinaf) may be lodged against the following decisions of courts of first instance:

Final decisions.

Decisions rejecting requests for an interim injunction or precautionary attachment, interim injunction and precautionary attachment decisions given in the presence of the opposing party, and decisions given upon an objection against interim injunction and precautionary attachment decisions given in the absence of the opposing party.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 353 HMK before the amendment:” (1) If, at the end of the preliminary examination, it is established that there is no deficiency in the file;

a) In the following cases, the Regional Court of Appeal shall decide finally, without a hearing and without examining the merits, to set aside the decision and to send the file for a retrial to the court that rendered the decision, to another local court within its jurisdiction that it considers appropriate, or to the court having jurisdiction and venue:

.

.

6) The court having rendered its decision without collecting any of the evidence presented by the parties concerning the merits of the case, or without evaluating the evidence presented at all.

b) In the following cases, concerning the merits of the case;

.

.

3) If the deficiencies in the proceedings are of a nature that can be remedied without a hearing, a fresh decision on the merits after they have been remedied,

shall be given without a hearing.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “:” (1) If, at the end of the preliminary examination, it is established that there is no deficiency in the file;

a) In the following cases, the Regional Court of Appeal shall decide finally, without a hearing and without examining the merits, to set aside the decision and to send the file for a retrial to the court that rendered the decision, to another local court within its jurisdiction that it considers appropriate, or to the court having jurisdiction and venue:

.

.

6) The court having failed to collect or evaluate evidence so significant that it could affect the resolution of the dispute, or having failed to decide on a significant part of the claim.

b) In the following cases, concerning the merits of the case;

.

.

3) If the deficiencies in the proceedings are of a nature that can be remedied without a hearing, after they have been remedied, a decision rejecting the application on the merits or a fresh decision on the merits

shall be given without a hearing.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 356 HMK before the amendment:” Decision to Hold a Hearing

Except in the cases set out in Article 353, the examination shall be carried out with a hearing. In that case, the hearing date shall be served on the parties.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “Holding of a Hearing and Rendering of the Decision

Except in the cases set out in Article 353, the examination shall be carried out with a hearing. In that case, the hearing date shall be served on the parties.

In the courtroom, the Regional Court of Appeal shall give the necessary decisions, including rejecting the appeal on the merits or setting aside the judgment of the court of first instance and delivering a fresh judgment.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 358 HMK before the amendment:” (1) In matters examined with a hearing, the summonses issued to the parties shall clearly state that, if they are not present at the hearing, the taking of evidence will be carried out and a decision given in their absence; and the summons to be issued to the appellant shall additionally state clearly that the appellant must deposit, by the hearing date, as an advance, the costs determined by the Regional Court of Appeal in connection with the taking of evidence to be carried out…

…(3) If the appellant fails to attend the hearings without an excuse, or the costs relating to the taking of evidence are not deposited within the time limit, a decision shall be given on the basis of the file as it stands. However, where it is not possible to give a decision without carrying out the envisaged taking of evidence, the application shall be rejected.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “(1) In matters examined with a hearing, the summonses issued to the parties shall clearly state that, if they are not present at the hearing, the taking of evidence will be carried out and a decision given in their absence; and the summons to be issued to the appellant shall additionally state clearly that the appellant must deposit the costs determined by the Regional Court of Appeal in connection with the taking of evidence to be carried out, within a peremptory period of not less than two weeks to be granted, as an advance…

…(3) Provided that the specified costs have been deposited within the peremptory period granted, if the parties fail to attend the hearing without an excuse, the taking of evidence shall be carried out and a decision given in their absence. If the specified costs are not deposited within the time limit, a decision shall be given on the basis of the file as it stands. However, where it is not possible to give a decision without carrying out the envisaged taking of evidence, the application shall be rejected.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 359 HMK before the amendment:”…  (2) The operative part of the judgment must set out, under serial numbers and in a clear manner leaving no room for doubt or hesitation, the ruling on each of the claims and the obligations imposed on and the rights granted to the parties, without repeating any part of the reasoning.

(Additional paragraph: 20/7/2017-Law No. 7035/Art. 30) Decisions not open to appeal on points of law shall be served by the court of first instance, and decisions open to appeal on points of law shall be served by the Regional Court of Appeal.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “:”…  (2) The operative part of the judgment must set out, under serial numbers and in a clear manner leaving no room for doubt or hesitation, the ruling on each of the claims and the obligations imposed on and the rights granted to the parties, without repeating any part of the reasoning.

(3) In a decision rejecting the application on the merits, the Regional Court of Appeal may confine itself to stating the reasons why the decision complies with the rules of law, provided that it summarises the grounds of appeal raised and explains the reasons for rejection.

(4)(Additional paragraph: 20/7/2017-Law No. 7035/Art. 30) Decisions not open to appeal on points of law shall be served by the court of first instance, and decisions open to appeal on points of law shall be of its own motion served by the Regional Court of Appeal.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 362 HMK before the amendment:” (1) No appeal on points of law may be lodged against the following decisions of Regional Courts of Appeal:

a) Decisions concerning actions whose amount or value does not exceed forty thousand *1* Turkish Lira (inclusive of this amount).

b) Decisions concerning the actions set out in (Additional wording: 20/7/2017-Law No. 7035/Art. 32) Article 4, except for claims arising from a lease relationship that are open to appeal on points of law by reason of their amount or value, and actions which special laws specify as falling within the jurisdiction of the civil court of peace (except for actions arising from the Condominium Law No. 634 dated 23/6/1965 and relating to rights in rem over immovable property).

c) Decisions given to resolve disputes over venue and jurisdiction between courts of first instance within its territorial jurisdiction, and decisions on the designation of the competent court.

c1) Decisions given in non-contentious matters.

d) Decisions concerning actions for the correction of civil registry records, except for actions producing consequences relating to descent.

e) Decisions on the transfer of a case to another court within the same territorial jurisdiction where the judges of the courts of first instance within that jurisdiction face legal or factual impediments to hearing the case.

f) Decisions given on interim legal protection…” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “(1) No appeal on points of law may be lodged against the following decisions of Regional Courts of Appeal:

a) Decisions concerning actions whose amount or value does not exceed forty thousand *1* Turkish Lira (inclusive of this amount).

b) Decisions concerning the actions set out in (Additional wording: 20/7/2017-Law No. 7035/Art. 32) Article 4, except for claims arising from a lease relationship that are open to appeal on points of law by reason of their amount or value, and actions which special laws specify as falling within the jurisdiction of the civil court of peace (except for actions arising from the Condominium Law No. 634 dated 23/6/1965 and relating to rights in rem over immovable property).

c) Decisions given on the jurisdiction and venue of courts of first instance within its territorial jurisdiction, and decisions on the determination of the competent forum.

c1) Decisions given in non-contentious matters.

d) Decisions concerning actions for the correction of civil registry records, except for actions producing consequences relating to descent.

e) Decisions on the transfer of a case to another court within the same territorial jurisdiction where the judges of the courts of first instance within that jurisdiction face legal or factual impediments to hearing the case.

f) Decisions given on interim legal protection

g) Decisions given under subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 353…” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 390 HMK before the amendment:” (1) An interim injunction shall be requested, before the action is filed, from the court having jurisdiction and venue over the merits and, after the action has been filed, only from the court hearing the main action…” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “(1) An interim injunction shall be requested, before the action is filed, from the court having jurisdiction and venue over the merits and, after the action has been filed, only from the court hearing the main action. Where a foreign state court, an arbitrator or an arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction and venue over the merits, the interim injunction shall be requested from the Turkish courts of the place where the right or thing subject to the request is located…“ This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 391 HMK before the amendment:”… (3) Where a request for an interim injunction is rejected, a legal remedy may be sought. This application shall be examined with priority and decided finally.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “…(3) A decision rejecting a request for an interim injunction shall be reasoned, and a legal remedy may be sought against it. A party against whom an interim injunction has been ordered in his or her presence may also seek a legal remedy. These applications shall be examined with priority and decided finally.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 393 HMK before the amendment:” (1) Enforcement of the interim injunction must be requested within one week from the date on which it was granted. Otherwise, the injunction shall lapse automatically, even if the action has been filed within the statutory period…” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; :” (1) Enforcement of the interim injunction must be requested within one week from the pronouncement and service of the decision on the party requesting the injunction  . Otherwise, the injunction shall lapse automatically, even if the action has been filed within the statutory period…” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 394 HMK before the amendment:”… (2) The opposing party may, within one week from the enforcement of the injunction if present at the time of enforcement, or otherwise from service of the minutes of enforcement, object before the court that granted the decision with respect to the conditions of the interim injunction, the court's venue and the security…” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; ”… (2) The opposing party may, within one week from the enforcement of the injunction if present at the time of enforcement, or otherwise from service of the minutes of enforcement, object before the court that granted the decision with respect to the conditions of the interim injunction, the court's venue and the security. An objection made after the action on the merits has been filed shall be decided by the court hearing that action…” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 397 HMK before the amendment:” (1) If the interim injunction was granted before the action was filed, the person requesting the injunction must, within two weeks from the date on which enforcement of the decision was requested, file the action on the merits, have the documents showing that the action was filed placed in the file by presenting them to the officer enforcing the decision, and obtain a receipt in return. Otherwise, the injunction shall lapse automatically

(2) Unless otherwise specified, the effect of the interim injunction shall continue until the final decision becomes final.

(3) If the injunction has lapsed or been lifted, this shall be notified to the relevant authorities.

(4) The interim injunction file shall be deemed an annex to the main case file.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “(1) If the interim injunction was granted before the action was filed, the person requesting the injunction must, within two weeks from the date on which enforcement of the decision was requested, file the action on the merits, have the documents showing that the action was filed placed in the file by presenting them to the officer enforcing the decision, and obtain a receipt in return. Otherwise, the injunction shall lapse automatically.

(2) If the interim injunction was granted before an action was filed before a competent foreign state court, arbitrator or arbitral tribunal, the person requesting the injunction must, within one month from the date on which enforcement of the decision was requested, file the action on the merits before the competent foreign state court, arbitrator or arbitral tribunal, have the documents showing that the action was filed placed in the file by presenting them to the officer enforcing the decision, and obtain a receipt in return. Otherwise, the injunction shall lapse automatically.

(3) Unless otherwise specified, the effect of the interim injunction shall continue until the final decision becomes final.

(4) If the injunction has lapsed or been lifted, this shall be notified to the relevant authorities.

(5) The interim injunction file shall be deemed an annex to the main case file.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 398 HMK before the amendment:” (1) A person who fails to comply with an order concerning the enforcement of an interim injunction or who acts in breach of the injunction shall be punished with disciplinary detention of one to six months. The court having jurisdiction and venue is the court that granted the interim injunction if the action on the merits has not yet been filed, and the court hearing that action if the action on the merits has been filed.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “(1) A person who fails to comply with an order concerning the enforcement of an interim injunction or who acts in breach of the injunction shall, upon a complaint filed within six months from the date on which the breach became known, be punished with disciplinary detention of up to six months. The court having jurisdiction and venue is the court that granted the interim injunction if the action on the merits has not yet been filed, and the court hearing that action if the action on the merits has been filed.

(2) A summons stating the day and time of the hearing shall be sent to the person complained of together with the complaint petition. The summons shall warn that person to submit his or her defence and evidence by the hearing date and that, if he or she does not attend the hearing, the proceedings will continue and a decision will be given in his or her absence.

(3) The court shall take the defence of the person complained of who attends the hearing, reminding him or her of the rights set out in Article 147 of Law No. 5271.

(4) The court shall evaluate the evidence in the file and carry out the necessary investigation. If, at the end of the proceedings, it is established that the person complained of failed to comply with the order concerning the enforcement of the interim injunction or acted in breach of the injunction, the court shall decide to punish that person with disciplinary detention under the first paragraph; otherwise, it shall decide to reject the complaint.

(5) The parties may object to the decision within one week from its pronouncement and service. Where the court that rendered the judgment has more than one chamber in that locality, the objection shall be examined by the chamber that follows it in numerical order, and for the last-numbered chamber by chamber number one; where the court that rendered the judgment has a single chamber in that locality, the objection shall be examined by the nearest court of the same level and status.

(6) The authority examining the objection shall give its decision within one week. If the authority finds the objection justified, it shall decide on the merits of the matter. The decision given upon objection is final.

(7) Disciplinary detention decisions given under this article may not be enforced until they become final. Final decisions shall be enforced by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office.

(8) Where the conduct in breach of the injunction ends, the requirements of the injunction are fulfilled or the complaint is withdrawn, the proceedings and the penalty shall lapse together with all their consequences.

(9) A decision on disciplinary detention may not be enforced once two years have elapsed from the date on which it became final.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 402 HMK before the amendment:”(1) A request for the preservation of evidence shall be made by petition. The petition shall contain the fact to be established, the questions to be put to witnesses or experts, the reasons giving rise to concern that the evidence will be lost or will be difficult to present, and the name, surname and address of the person against whom the preservation of evidence is requested. If the person making the request cannot identify the person against whom the preservation is to be carried out because the circumstances do not permit it, the request shall be deemed valid.

(2) No further steps shall be taken unless the costs of preservation determined by the court are paid in advance.

(3) If the court finds the request justified, the decision shall be served on the opposing party together with the petition. The decision shall also state how and when the preservation of evidence will be carried out, that the opposing party may also be present during its execution, and that any objections and additional questions must be notified within one week.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “(1) A request for the preservation of evidence shall be made by petition. The petition shall contain the fact to be established, the questions to be put to witnesses or experts, the reasons giving rise to concern that the evidence will be lost or will be difficult to present, and the name, surname and address of the person against whom the preservation of evidence is requested. If the person making the request cannot identify the person against whom the preservation is to be carried out because the circumstances do not permit it, the request shall be deemed valid.

(2) No further steps shall be taken unless the costs of preservation determined by the court are paid in advance.

(3) If the court finds the request justified, the decision shall be served on the opposing party together with the petition. The decision shall also state how and when the preservation of evidence will be carried out, that the opposing party may also be present during its execution, and that any objections and additional questions must be notified within one week.

(4) After the preservation of evidence has been carried out, a copy of the record of preservation and of any expert report shall be served on the opposing party by the court of its own motion.“ This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 436 HMK before the amendment:”… (2) Unless otherwise agreed, the arbitrator or arbitral tribunal may render partial awards.

(3) The arbitral award shall be notified to the parties by the arbitrator or the chair of the arbitral tribunal; in addition, the original of the award shall be sent to the court together with the file and kept by the court.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “… (2) Unless otherwise agreed, the arbitrator or arbitral tribunal may render partial awards.

(3) The arbitral award shall be notified to the parties by the arbitrator, the chair of the arbitral tribunal or the relevant arbitral institution. In addition, the original of the award shall be sent to the court together with the file and kept by the court.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 440 HMK before the amendment:”… (5) No additional arbitrator's fee shall be paid in cases of correction, interpretation or supplementation of the arbitral award…” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “… (5) Unless otherwise agreed, in cases of correction, interpretation or supplementation of the arbitral award, no additional arbitrator's fee shall be paid…” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Provisional Article 3 HMK before the amendment:”… (2) For decisions rendered before the date on which the Regional Courts of Appeal commenced operation, the provisions of Articles 427 to 454 of Law No. 1086, as they stood before the amendment made by Law No. 5236 dated 26/9/2004, shall continue to apply until they become final. (Additional sentence: 01/07/2016-Law No. 6723/Art. 34) Files relating to these decisions may not be sent to the Regional Courts of Appeal…” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “(2) For decisions rendered before the date on which the Regional Courts of Appeal commenced operation, the provisions of Articles 427 to 444 of Law No. 1086, as they stood before the amendment made by Law No. 5236 dated 26/9/2004, shall continue to apply until they become final. (Additional sentence: 01/07/2016-Law No. 6723/Art. 34) Files relating to these decisions may not be sent to the Regional Courts of Appeal.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 258 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law before the amendment:”…(3) Where a request for precautionary attachment is rejected, the creditor may lodge an appeal (istinaf). The Regional Court of Appeal shall examine this application with priority, and its decision is final.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “…(3)A decision rejecting a request for precautionary attachment shall be reasoned, and an appeal (istinaf) may be lodged against it. A party against whom a precautionary attachment order has been given in his or her presence may also lodge an appeal. The Regional Court of Appeal shall examine these applications with priority, and its decision is final.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 31 of the Administrative Procedure Law before the amendment:” In matters not provided for in this Law, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply with respect to the disqualification and challenge of the judge, capacity, the intervention of third parties in the action, third-party notice, the parties' representatives, waiver and acceptance of the claim, security, counterclaims, experts, on-site inspection, preservation of evidence, costs of proceedings, legal aid, the (Amended wording: 02/07/2012-Law No. 6352/Art. 59) measures to be taken against conduct of the parties during the hearing that disturbs the peace and order of the court, and electronic transactions. (Additional sentence: 05/04/1990 – 3622/Art. 11; Amended sentence: 10/06/1994 – 4001/Art. 14) However, third-party notice (…) *1*  shall be given of its own motion by the Council of State, the court or the judge. Experts shall be selected from the lists prepared by the regional expert boards, and the Law on Experts and the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 dated 12/1/2011 shall apply to experts…” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “In matters not provided for in this Law, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply with respect to the disqualification and challenge of the judge, capacity, the intervention of third parties in the action, third-party notice, the parties' representatives, inspection of the file by the parties and persons concerned, waiver and acceptance of the claim, security, counterclaims, experts, on-site inspection, preservation of evidence, costs of proceedings, legal aid, the (Amended wording: 02/07/2012-Law No. 6352/Art. 59) measures to be taken against conduct of the parties during the hearing that disturbs the peace and order of the court, and electronic transactions. (Additional sentence: 05/04/1990 – 3622/Art. 11; Amended sentence: 10/06/1994 – 4001/Art. 14) However, third-party notice (…) *1*  shall be given of its own motion by the Council of State, the court or the judge. Experts shall be selected from the lists prepared by the regional expert boards, and the Law on Experts and the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 dated 12/1/2011 shall apply to experts…” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 5 before the amendment:”… (3) In places where commercial courts of first instance have been established, these courts shall consist of a presiding judge and a sufficient number of members. In disputes whose subject matter can be measured in money, all stages of the proceedings relating to actions and matters with a value in dispute exceeding three hundred thousand Turkish lira, and, irrespective of the value in dispute, to:

matters and actions arising from bankruptcy, (…)*1*, the lifting of bankruptcy, the closure of bankruptcy, concordat and restructuring *1*,

matters and actions that the judge is to decide finally under the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 dated 13/1/2011,

actions for annulment and nullity of general assembly resolutions arising from company and cooperative law, liability actions against management and supervisory bodies, actions concerning the dismissal of bodies and the appointment of interim bodies, and actions for termination, dissolution and liquidation,

in arbitration proceedings conducted under the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 dated 12/1/2011 and the International Arbitration Law No. 4686 dated 21/6/2001, objections relating to the arbitration clause, (…)*1*, actions concerning the appointment and challenge of arbitrators, and actions for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards,

shall be conducted and concluded by a panel composed of a presiding judge and two members. Requests for precautionary attachment and interim injunctions made before or after the filing of actions to be heard by the panel shall also be examined and decided by the panel. Disputes other than the actions and matters specified in this paragraph shall be heard and decided by one of the judges of the court. The principles for distribution between the presiding judge and the member judges shall be determined in advance by the presiding judge of the court so as to ensure a balance of workload.

The provisions on the establishment of other civil courts established by special laws are reserved…” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “:”… (3) In places where commercial courts of first instance have been established, these courts shall consist of a presiding judge and a sufficient number of members. In disputes whose subject matter can be measured in money, all stages of the proceedings relating to actions and matters with a value in dispute exceeding five hundred  thousand Turkish lira, and, irrespective of the value in dispute, to:

matters and actions arising from bankruptcy, (…)*1*, the lifting of bankruptcy, the closure of bankruptcy, concordat and restructuring *1*,

matters and actions that the judge is to decide finally under the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 dated 13/1/2011,

actions for annulment and nullity of general assembly resolutions arising from company and cooperative law, liability actions against management and supervisory bodies, actions concerning the dismissal of bodies and the appointment of interim bodies, and actions for termination, dissolution and liquidation,

in arbitration proceedings conducted under the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 dated 12/1/2011 and the International Arbitration Law No. 4686 dated 21/6/2001, objections relating to the arbitration clause, (…)*1*, actions concerning the appointment and challenge of arbitrators, and actions for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards,

shall be conducted and concluded by a panel composed of a presiding judge and two members. In these matters and actions, the presiding judge of the court may appoint one of the members as a delegated judge to carry out certain specific acts of taking evidence.  Requests for precautionary attachment and interim injunctions made before or after the filing of actions to be heard by the panel shall also be examined and decided by the panel. Disputes other than the actions and matters specified in this paragraph shall be heard and decided by one of the judges of the court. The principles for distribution between the presiding judge and the member judges shall be determined in advance by the presiding judge of the court so as to ensure a balance of workload.

The provisions on the establishment of other civil courts established by special laws are reserved…” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 7 of Law No. 5235 before the amendment:” (1) The territorial jurisdiction of civil courts shall be the administrative boundaries of the provincial centre and districts in which they are located and of the districts attached to them for judicial purposes.

(2) In provinces with a metropolitan municipality, the territorial jurisdiction of the civil courts of peace or civil courts of first instance named after the provinces and districts within the boundaries of the metropolitan municipality shall be determined by the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors upon the proposal of the Ministry of Justice, irrespective of provincial and district boundaries.

(3) Taking into account geographical conditions and workload, the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors shall decide, upon the proposal of the Ministry of Justice, on the abolition of a civil court or the alteration of its territorial jurisdiction, and on the determination of the territorial jurisdiction of civil courts whose territorial jurisdiction is not specified in their special laws.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “(1) The territorial jurisdiction of civil courts shall be the administrative boundaries of the provincial centre and districts in which they are located and of the districts attached to them for judicial purposes. However, the territorial jurisdiction of civil courts, including those established under special laws, may be determined by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors upon the proposal of the Ministry of Justice, irrespective of provincial and district boundaries.

(2) Taking into account geographical conditions and workload, the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors shall decide, upon the proposal of the Ministry of Justice, on the abolition of a civil court or the alteration of its territorial jurisdiction, and on the determination of the territorial jurisdiction of civil courts whose territorial jurisdiction is not specified in their special laws.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 30 of Law No. 5684 before the amendment:”… (16) Arbitrators must render their decision within four months at the latest from the date of their appointment. Otherwise, the dispute shall be resolved by the competent court. However, this period may be extended with the express written consent of the parties. The arbitrator shall submit the decision to the Director of the Commission. (Amended sentence: 13/06/2012-Law No. 6327/Art. 58) The decision shall be notified to the parties by the Director of the Commission within three working days at the latest; in addition, the original of the decision shall be sent together with the file to the competent court in the place where the Commission is located and kept by the court…” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “… (16) Arbitrators must render their decision within four months at the latest from the date of their appointment. Otherwise, the dispute shall be resolved by the competent court. However, this period may be extended with the express written consent of the parties. The arbitrator shall submit the decision to the Director of the Commission. (Amended sentence: 13/06/2012-Law No. 6327/Art. 58) The decision shall be notified to the parties by the Director of the Commission within three working days at the latest; in addition, the original of the decision shall be kept by the Commission together with the file…” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 4 of the Turkish Commercial Code before the amendment:”… (2) In commercial cases, too, evidence and its submission are subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 dated 12/1/2011; the simple procedure shall apply in commercial cases whose amount or value does not exceed one hundred thousand Turkish lira.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; :”… (2) In commercial cases, too, evidence and its submission are subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 dated 12/1/2011; the simple procedure shall apply in commercial cases whose amount or value does not exceed five hundred thousand Turkish lira.” This is the amended wording.

Text before the amendment

Article 156 of Law No. 6769 before the amendment:” (1) The competent courts in actions provided for in this Law are the civil courts of intellectual and industrial property rights and the criminal courts of intellectual and industrial property rights. These courts shall be established by the Ministry of Justice, with the favourable opinion of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors, as single-judge courts at the level of courts of first instance, in places deemed necessary. The territorial jurisdiction of these courts shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 5235 dated 26/9/2004 on the Establishment, Duties and Powers of First Instance Courts of Ordinary Jurisdiction and Regional Courts of Appeal. In places where no civil court of intellectual and industrial property rights has been established, actions and matters falling within the jurisdiction of that court shall be heard by the civil court of first instance in that place; in places where no criminal court of intellectual and industrial property rights has been established, actions and matters falling within the jurisdiction of that court shall be heard by the criminal court of first instance in that place.

(2) In actions to be brought against all decisions taken by the Office under the provisions of this Law, and in actions to be brought against the Office by third parties harmed by the Office's decisions, the court having jurisdiction and venue is the Ankara Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights.

(3) In civil actions to be brought by the holder of an industrial property right against third parties, the court having venue is the court of the claimant's domicile, or of the place where the unlawful act was committed or where its effects were felt

(4) Where the claimant has no domicile in Turkey, the court having venue is the court of the place of business of the representative registered in the registry on the date on which the action is filed and, if the registration of the representative has been deleted, the court of the place where the Office's headquarters are located.

(5) In actions to be brought by third parties against the holder of an industrial property right, the court having venue is the court of the defendant's domicile. Where the applicant for or holder of the industrial property right has no domicile in Turkey, the fourth paragraph shall apply.” This is the wording.

Text after the proposal

With the amendment made; “(1) The competent courts in actions provided for in this Law are the civil courts of intellectual and industrial property rights and the criminal courts of intellectual and industrial property rights. These courts shall be established by the Ministry of Justice, with the favourable opinion of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, as single-judge courts at the level of courts of first instance, in places deemed necessary. The territorial jurisdiction of these courts shall be determined by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors upon the proposal of the Ministry of Justice, irrespective of provincial and district boundaries.

 (2) In places where no civil court of intellectual and industrial property rights has been established, actions and matters falling within the jurisdiction of that court shall be heard by the civil court of first instance; in places where no criminal court of intellectual and industrial property rights has been established, actions and matters falling within the jurisdiction of that court shall be heard by the criminal court of first instance. The civil and criminal courts of first instance that will hear these actions and matters, and the territorial jurisdiction of these courts, shall be determined by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors upon the proposal of the Ministry of Justice, irrespective of provincial and district boundaries.” The decision reads as above.