Action for an Unquantified Claim Abolished: A New Era for Partial Claims and Its Impact on Employment Disputes

Att. Emre Senar BOZKURT, LL.M.

Law No. 7589, published in the Official Gazette No. 33326 dated 31 July 2026, repealed Article 107 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure, which regulated actions for unquantified claims. The same Law introduced a new paragraph into Article 109, governing partial claims. Accordingly, while it is no longer possible to bring a new action for an unquantified claim after 31 July 2026, the procedural framework for partial claims has been made more functional. Actions for unquantified claims filed before this date will continue to be heard under the former provisions.

What Is the Main Change?

Under the former rules governing actions for unquantified claims, a claimant who was unable to determine the precise amount of the claim at the time of filing could initiate proceedings for a minimum amount and subsequently increase the amount claimed once the full value became ascertainable during the proceedings.

However, particularly in relation to employment claims, there had been considerable debate over which claims could properly be regarded as “unquantified”. Decisions based on the selection of the wrong type of action often prolonged proceedings and, in some cases, resulted in the loss of rights due to the expiry of limitation periods.

The new system seeks to resolve this issue largely through partial claims. Under the new Article 109/4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where only part of a monetary claim has been brought before the court, the amount claimed may be increased once during the same proceedings, without being subject to the prohibition against extending the claim and provided that the increase is made before the conclusion of the evidentiary phase.

In addition, the limitation period in respect of the subsequently increased portion will be deemed to have been interrupted on the date on which the original action was filed. The legislative grounds also state that this special increase may be made without using the procedural amendment mechanism known as ıslah.

In other words, a claimant may initially bring proceedings for a specified part of the claim and, once the evidence has been collected and the actual amount has become clear, claim the remaining amount within the same proceedings. Consequently, in most cases, there will be no need to bring a separate supplementary action or formally amend the claim through ıslah.

Key Differences Between the Former and New Systems

The most significant consequence of the new regulation concerns limitation periods. Under the previous rules applicable to partial claims, the commencement of proceedings interrupted the limitation period only in respect of the amount actually claimed. The limitation period continued to run in relation to the unclaimed balance.

Particularly where obtaining an expert report took a considerable amount of time, there was a risk that the remaining part of the claim would become time-barred before the expert calculation was completed. Under the new provision, the limitation period for the subsequently increased portion will also be deemed to have been interrupted as of the original filing date. One of the most important protections previously provided by the action for an unquantified claim has therefore been incorporated into the partial claim procedure.

Nevertheless, the right to increase the amount claimed may be exercised only once during the same proceedings. The timing of the increase will therefore be crucial. Increasing the claim immediately after the first expert report may create difficulties if objections are subsequently raised against that report or if a supplementary report calculates a higher amount. On the other hand, the claimant cannot wait indefinitely, as the increase must be made before the evidentiary phase is concluded.

Under the former Article 107/2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, once the amount of the claim became ascertainable, the court was required to grant the claimant a mandatory two-week period in which to specify the final amount claimed. The new Article 109/4 does not expressly require the court to grant such an additional period. Claimants and their legal representatives must therefore follow the proceedings carefully and increase the claim before the evidentiary phase is closed.

The new mechanism permits only an increase in the amount of a claim that has already been made the subject of the proceedings. A new and separate head of claim that was not included in the original statement of claim cannot subsequently be introduced under the guise of increasing the amount. It is therefore important that all heads of claim are expressly identified when the proceedings are initiated.

How Will the New Rules Apply in Employment Disputes?

Employment disputes are among the areas in which the effects of the amendment are likely to be felt most significantly. The precise amount of employment-related claims, including overtime pay, weekly rest-day pay, public holiday pay, salary differences, annual leave pay, severance pay and compensation in lieu of notice, can often be determined only after the employer’s records, witness statements and expert calculations have been examined.

For actions filed after 31 July 2026, an employee may bring a partial claim in respect of each head of claim, such as severance pay, overtime pay and annual leave pay. Once the employer’s records have been obtained and an expert report has been prepared, the amounts of the claims already included in the proceedings may be increased once, within the same proceedings and before the conclusion of the evidentiary phase.

The limitation period in respect of the increased amount will be deemed to have been interrupted on the date on which the proceedings were originally commenced. This provides an important safeguard for employees, particularly in view of the limitation periods applicable to employment claims.

However, litigation strategy in employment disputes will need to be established correctly from the outset. It remains important for claims such as severance pay, overtime pay, weekly rest-day pay and annual leave pay to be identified separately and expressly both in the mandatory mediation application and in the statement of claim.

For example, where proceedings have been brought only in respect of severance pay and overtime pay, an annual leave claim cannot subsequently be added merely by filing an application to increase the amount claimed.

It will also be necessary to increase all relevant employment claims, as far as possible, through a single and comprehensive application. Increasing the claim before objections to the expert report, possible supplementary reports and alternative calculations have been considered may result in the one-time right of increase being exercised prematurely.

The amendment principally affects employment proceedings concerning monetary claims. It does not alter the nature of proceedings that do not directly concern the recovery of a monetary claim, such as reinstatement actions.

Particular Attention to Interest

The new provision expressly regulates only the interruption of the limitation period in respect of the increased portion as of the original filing date. It does not contain a separate provision concerning the date from which interest will accrue. It therefore cannot automatically be concluded that interest on the increased amount will in every case run from the date on which the original action was filed.

In employment disputes, the commencement date for interest on the increased portion must be assessed separately by reference to the nature of the claim, whether the employer had previously been placed in default and the case law that will develop under the new rules. In this respect, claims subject to specific rules on interest, such as severance pay, may need to be distinguished from salary, overtime and annual leave claims.

Conclusion

The amendment has abolished the action for an unquantified claim while transferring its principal procedural safeguards to a strengthened partial claim mechanism. The new system is intended to reduce disputes over whether a claim is genuinely unquantified, but it also makes the careful preparation of the statement of claim and the timing of any increase considerably more important.

Particularly in employment disputes, accurately identifying all heads of claim from the outset, closely following the expert examination process and exercising the one-time right to increase the claim for the correct amount before the conclusion of the evidentiary phase will be essential to prevent any loss of rights.