The 12th Judicial Package, prepared with the objectives of accelerating judicial processes, strengthening the freedom to seek legal remedies, and ensuring compliance with the annulment decisions of the Constitutional Court, has been passed by the General Assembly of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (GNAT) and enacted into law. In line with the deliberations conducted during the legislative process, certain articles were removed from the initial draft, several new provisions were added, and the final text was finalized. The final text of the Law has been published in the Official Gazette. The regulations contained in this information note are categorized under the headings “Key Highlights” and “Other Regulations,” directly impacting our clients’ business processes and legal disputes.
You may access the full text of the Law at: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2026/07/20260731-1.htm
I. HIGHLIGHTS
A. Execution, Bankruptcy, and Sale Procedures
| Article No | Amended Law | Type of Amendment | Amended Article | Content of theAmendment | Justification for Amendment | Impact | Enforcement Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Execution and Bankruptcy Law (Law No. 2004) | Addition of Paragraph and Amendment of Sub-paragraph | Article 114 (Paragraph 2 and Sub-paragraphs 6, 8, 9 of Paragraph 7) | It has been proposed to narrow the first bidding schedule and participation requirements in favor of heirs regarding the sale of real properties transferred by inheritance, by amending Paragraph 2 of Article 114, which regulates advertisement and timing procedures. In tenders for the dissolution of co-ownership, it has been proposed to abolish the privilege of shareholders to enter the tender without providing collateral. The floor limit of 50% of the estimated value, which was valid for all tenders under the previous regulation, has been proposed to be updated for real properties transferred by inheritance. With the proposal made in sub-paragraph 9, deterrent financial measures have been introduced to prevent bad-faith sabotage of the tender: i. General Sales: The collateral of the buyer who fails to pay the tender price within the prescribed period shall be recorded as revenue and offset against the sales expenses. ii. Dissolution of Co-ownership (Izale-i Suyu): If the winning shareholder fails to pay the price, the submitted collateral shall be offset against sales expenses, and an administrative fine of 5% shall also be imposed. iii. Creditors as Buyers: If the winning creditor fails to pay the price, in addition to forfeiting the collateral, the obligation to pay 10% of the estimated value shall directly rest upon the creditor. | To prevent shareholders from sabotaging the tender process with bad-faith bids, to prevent inherited property from being sold cheaply to third parties, and to protect public resources and the judicial mechanism. | Abuses involving entering tenders in bad faith and failing to pay the price are prevented through severe sanctions (5% fine + forfeiture of collateral). Heirs are provided with the opportunity to protect the property primarily among themselves at 100% of its value. The reliability of tender processes is enhanced. | On the date of publication (It shall not apply to public auctions advertised prior to entry into force; previous provisions shall continue to apply.) |
| 11 | Turkish Civil Code (Law No. 4721) | Amendment | 440 | It has been proposed to stipulate that the sale of movable properties shall, in accordance with the instructions of the guardianship authority, be conducted via the “electronic sales portal integrated into UYAP.” | To protect the interests of the restricted person (ward), to eliminate physical space restrictions, and to sell the property at the highest value in a competitive environment. | The digitalization of sales processes, reaching a broader audience of participants, and ensuring the transparency of sales transactions are achieved. | Three months after the date of publication (For sales advertised prior to entry into force, the previous provisions shall continue to apply.) |
| 12 | Turkish Civil Code (Law No. 4721) | Amendment | 444 | It has been proposed to fully transfer the sale of immovable property to the electronic environment. | To ensure that the immovable property is sold at the highest value in a competitive environment by transcending physical boundaries, in order to protect the interests of the restricted person (ward) to the highest degree. | Increased transparency through the digitalization of sales processes, facilitating participation in the sale, and ensuring that the sale is realized at the highest value | Three months after the date of publication |
B. Methods of Interest and Compensation Calculation
| Article No | Amended Law | Type of Amendment | Amended Article | Content of the Amendment | Justification for Amendment | Impact | Enforcement Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Law on Legal Interest and Default Interest (Law No. 3095) | Amendment | 1 | A transition from a fixed interest rate to a variable rediscount-based system has been proposed. Instead of a fixed annual rate of 12%, 80% of the CBRT’s rediscount rate was adopted as the basis. It is envisaged that the interest rate will be updated every six months (on June 30) based on 5-point changes in the rediscount rate. | The Constitutional Court’s finding that the existing fixed interest rate system violates the right to property as it fails to compensate for the loss of value in money (E: 2024/24, K: 2025/164). | Protection of the creditor in an inflationary environment, establishment of a balance of interests between creditor and debtor, and alignment of interest rates with market conditions are ensured. | On the date of publication |
| 18 | Turkish Code of Obligations (Law No. 6098) | Addition | 55 | By proposal, a distinction between “known” and “unknown” periods in compensation calculations has been introduced, establishing the principle of hypothetical earnings for the future. Furthermore, it is aimed to set off payments made up to the preliminary examination stage proportionally from the total compensation. | Accruing interest from the date of the incident on hypothetical future earnings disproportionately increases the burden of compensation. | The interest burden on the compensation debtor becomes rationalized; the need for expert witness reports during the preliminary examination stage decreases, thereby accelerating the judicial process. | On the date of publication (Valid only for tortious acts/incidents occurring after entry into force.) |
C. Civil Procedure and Litigation Procedures (HMK Amendments)
| Article No | Amended Law | Type of Amendment | Amended Article | Content of the Amendment | Justification for Amendment | Impact | Enforcement Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19 | Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100) | Repeal | 107 | It has been proposed to completely remove the institution of “unquantified claim action” within the CCP system from the legal order. | Hesitancies in implementation, prolongation of proceedings, and the fact that violations concerning the right to seek legal remedies, as highlighted by the Constitutional Court, can be addressed through partial claims. | The possibility of filing an “unquantified claim action” comes to an end; litigation strategies will need to be reevaluated taking into account the statute of limitations assurance through “partial claim”. | On the date of publication (The former provisions shall continue to apply to lawsuits filed prior to the entry into force.) |
| 20 | Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100) | Addition | 109 | The proposal removes the requirement to file an “amendment” to increase the claim in a partial lawsuit and ensures that the statute of limitations for the increased portion is tolled from the very beginning of the lawsuit (the date the lawsuit was filed). | In line with the judgments of the ECtHR and the Constitutional Court, to fill the legal void resulting from the expiration of the statute of limitations for the remaining portion of the claim. | The plaintiff is provided with the assurance to increase the claim without incurring the burden of amending the pleadings ; a more effective legal protection shield is created, eliminating the risk of statute of limitations. | On the date of publication |
| 21 | Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100) | Addition | 147 | It has been proposed to limit the period that can be set between hearing dates to 3 months as a general rule. | To implement the principle of “trial within a reasonable time,” which is a requirement of the right to a fair trial, to expedite proceedings, and to ensure procedural economy. | A concrete time limit preventing arbitrariness in hearing adjournments is introduced; the oversight mechanism along with the judge’s obligation to state grounds is strengthened. | On the date of publication |
| 22 | Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100) | Addition | 149 | It has been proposed to remove the requirement of a handwritten signature for statements of persons participating in hearings via SEGBİS (Audio and Video Information System), provided that such statements do not constitute a “dispositional act” (such as admission, waiver, settlement, etc.). | To prevent physical distance and geographical obstacles from obstructing access to court; to facilitate digital participation for procedures that do not require a volitional declaration (signature). | Remote participation in hearings is streamlined; the requirement for a physical signature before a notary public or the court is retained only for “dispositional acts of the parties” | Three months following the date of publication |
| 23 | Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100) | Amendment | 166 | It has been proposed to introduce the condition that a consolidation decision (consolidate cases) must become “finalized” (become finalı) in order to bind the court hearing the first lawsuit. | To revise the provision (direct binding nature) that the Constitutional Court annulled as being contrary to the principle of the “lawful judge”. | An appeal remedy is introduced against consolidation decisions, thereby enabling the parties to make use of review mechanisms; legal certainty is strengthened with respect to conflicts of jurisdiction and competence between courts. | On the date of publication |
| 24 | Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100) | Amendment | 168 | It is envisaged that the parties will be granted the opportunity to file an independent appeal against consolidation decisions, without awaiting the judgment on the merits. | To ensure conformity with the amendment made to Article 166 (arising from the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision) and to facilitate judicial review of consolidation decisions. | A direct review mechanism is established over consolidation decisions; the risk that erroneous consolidation decisions may prolong the proceedings is prevented by means of the independent appeal remedy. | On the date of publication |
| 25 | Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100) | Addition | 362 | It has been proposed that decisions rendered ‘anew on the merits’ by the Regional Court of Appeal (BAM) upon acceptance of the appeal shall be subject to cassation, provided that they exceed the monetary threshold. | To address the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision, rendered on the grounds that the provision imposed a ‘disproportionate restriction on the right to request review of the judgment,’ and to safeguard the right to seek legal remedy. | A legal remedy (cassation) is introduced for final decisions rendered directly (at first instance) by the Regional Court of Appeal (BAM); the finality threshold is thereby harmonized with that applicable to first-instance courts. | On the date of publication |
D. Administrative Procedural Law
| Article No | Amended Law | Type of Amendment | Amended Article | Content of the Amendment | Justification for Amendment | Impact | Enforcement Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Law on the Establishment and Duties of Regional Administrative Courts, Administrative Courts and Tax Courts (Law No. 2576) | Amendment | Article 7 | It has been proposed to increase the monetary threshold for cases to be examined by a single judge (from TRY 25,000 to TRY 486,000) and to expand the types of cases falling within the jurisdiction of a single judge: Actions for annulment and full remedy actions not exceeding TRY 486,000. Disciplinary penalties (excluding removal from office/dismissal), grade determination disputes, and cases concerning dormitories, loans and scholarships. Temporary assignment, travel allowance, official housing (lodging) and leave transactions. Warning penalties imposed on public officials. Disciplinary penalties imposed on members (excluding those that prevent the exercise of professional activity). Cases arising from Law No. 2022 (old-age pension for those aged 65). | To expedite the proceedings; to balance the workload by resolving disputes that do not require examination by a panel through a single judge. | The volume and types of cases handled by a single judge in administrative courts are increased; the workload of panel courts is reduced. | On the date of publication (applicable only to cases filed after the date of entry into force.) |
| 5 | Administrative Procedure Law (Law No. 2577) | Amendment | 45 | It has been proposed to expand the authority of the appellate instance to correct the reasoning (of a decision) and to clarify the grounds for remanding the case file to the first-instance court: Instead of quashing decisions with erroneous reasoning, provision has been made for their dismissal upon correction of the reasoning. In addition to lack of competence/jurisdiction/a prohibited judge, procedural final decisions, misjoinder of the opposing party, incomplete judgments and deficiencies leading to the rejection of the petition have been brought within the scope of remand. The appellate instance has been granted the authority to remedy deficiencies relating to on-site inspection/expert examination and hearings itself. | To eliminate uncertainties in practice, to ensure procedural economy, and to render “remand” an exceptional remedy. | Where the outcome of the decision is correct, affirmation is achieved through correction of the reasoning; a more effective appellate process is ensured through remand or direct remedy in the case of procedural deficiencies. | On the date of publication (applicable only to decisions rendered after entry into force; the former provision shall continue to apply to decisions rendered prior thereto.) |
| 6 | Administrative Procedure Law (Law No. 2577) | Deletion and Insertion | 46 | It has been proposed to shift the cassation remedy from a “subject-matter”-based restriction to a system based on the “judicial act”: New rule: Irrespective of the subject matters listed, all decisions in which the Regional Administrative Court (BİM), upon quashing the first-instance decision, renders a new judgment on the merits, shall in principle be subject to cassation. Exceptions: Cases examined by a single judge, as well as decisions concerning agricultural property, possession, foreign nationals, and decisions relating solely to attorney’s fees and litigation costs, shall be excluded from the scope of cassation. Repealed: Subparagraph (c), based on the monetary threshold, shall be abolished, as the general cassation remedy has been introduced. | To ensure conformity with the Constitutional Court’s decision holding that “the categorical exclusion of the cassation remedy against decisions rendered by the BIM upon quashing violates the right to request review of the judgment.” | Where the BİM, acting in place of the first-instance court, renders a new judgment, that judgment shall be subject to review by the Council of State; however, in certain simple matters, the cassation remedy shall remain closed for the sake of trial within a reasonable time and workload considerations. | On the date of publication. |
II. OTHER REGULATIONS
A. Criminal Procedure and Criminal Law
| Article No | Amended Law | Type of Amendment | Amended Article | Content of the Amendment | Justification for Amendment | Impact | Enforcement Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 5271) | Amendment and Insertion | 80 | It has been proposed that, instead of genetic data being retained solely within a single file, it be made mandatory for such data to be recorded, in a form “stripped of identifying information,” in a central “dedicated system.” It is envisaged that the previously vague and short procedure, worded merely as “shall be destroyed immediately,” be replaced by two distinct destruction procedures (either immediate or after 20 years), differentiated according to whether the outcome was acquittal/non-prosecution or conviction/discontinuance. It has been requested that the data subject be granted a right (a new procedure) to apply directly to a judge for the deletion of the data, either where the purpose necessitating its retention ceases to exist or where a justified reason arises. Under the proposal, the purposes for which the data may be used and the authority competent to decide thereon have been restricted; a remedy of “application to the magistrate’s judgeship “ (a new supervisory mechanism) has been added against decisions of the public prosecutor. It is envisaged that the technical principles governing retention, destruction and use be regulated by a joint regulation issued by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Interior. | The Constitutional Court’s annulment decision (Application No. E: 2025/141, Decision No. K: 2025/274), based on the absence of “legality” and “foreseeability/certainty” in the retention of genetic data. | Arbitrariness in the processing of genetic data is prevented; the right to protection of personal data is placed on a legal footing through transparent destruction and retention procedures. | On the date of publication. |
| 15 | Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 5271) | Amendment | 231 | Through the proposed article, the scope of application of the institution of suspension of the announcement of the verdict (HAGB) has been narrowed specifically with respect to offenses directly connected with Article 17 of the Constitution (inviolability of the person). The offenses of torture and ill-treatment (torment) have been added to the list of offenses for which a HAGB decision may not be rendered. The application of HAGB will likewise no longer be possible for offenses of “mistreatment/ill-treatment,” committed by a public official by reason of his/her duty and assessed within the scope of Article 17 of the Constitution. With respect to the remedy of objection available against the judgments to be rendered by the court in the event of non-compliance with the obligations during the supervision period, the reviewing authority’s scope of review has been considerably narrowed. The objection authority will only be able to conduct its assessment within the limits of the conditions specified in paragraph 11, namely whether the “obligations have been fulfilled” and whether a “new offense has been committed.” | The Constitutional Court’s annulment decision holding that the application of HAGB to the offenses in question is incompatible with the State’s procedural obligation of “effective investigation and punishment” (Application No. E: 2024/98, Decision No. K: 2025/149). | By precluding the HAGB mechanism in offenses contrary to human dignity, such as torture and ill-treatment, it is ensured that the trial of the perpetrators of such offenses will result directly in an enforceable judgment. | On the date of publication. |
| 16 | Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 5271) | Insertion | 247 | It has been proposed to grant a fugitive defendant (a defendant who has absconded), where a security measure has been imposed against him/her, the right to request a retrial, provided that he/she appears in person. | The Constitutional Court’s annulment decision holding that there existed no guarantee of the right of defense (no effective remedy) for a fugitive defendant (Application No. E: 2024/98, Decision No. K: 2025/149). | By creating, against security measures imposed “in absentia” upon a fugitive defendant, the possibility of having the trial reopened in order to exercise the right of defense, the principle of “equality of arms” is thereby strengthened. | On the date of publication. |
| 17 | Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 5271) | Insertion | 308 | Under the proposal, the objection authority of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation has been expanded to cover all chamber decisions, with the exception of decisions on venue and lack of jurisdiction, and the examination period has been extended to three months, running from the delivery of the case file. In addition, it is envisaged that the persons entitled to make such a request (the defendant, the intervening party, etc.) be legally clarified, so that the application process acquires a transparent structure. | To remedy the deficiencies in the functioning of the objection remedy; to render the examination period sufficient in complex case files, and to strengthen the freedom to seek legal remedy. | The objection mechanism becomes more foreseeable; loss of rights is reduced, and the review conducted before the General Assembly of Criminal Chambers acquires a more comprehensive structure. | On the date of publication (applicable to case files delivered after the date of entry into force.) |
| 18 | Turkish Penal Code (Law No. 5237) | Insertion of Paragraph / Regulation | 158/1-f | The liability and penalty provisions for individuals who make their bank accounts or IBANs available to others (IBAN victims/account providers) in cases of aggravated fraud (involving the use of banks or credit institutions as a means) have been clarified. | To prevent the misuse of bank accounts in illegal activities and to ensure legal clarity and deterrence in disputes known to the public as “IBAN-related fraud.” | The limits of criminal liability for persons who allow others to use their accounts become clearer; financial tracing and investigation processes in fraud cases are expedited. | On the date of publication. |
B. Judicial Organization, Notarial Profession and Professional Disciplin
| Article No | Amended Law | Type of Amendment | Amended Article | Content of the Amendment | Justification for Amendment | Impact | Enforcement Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Notary Public Law (Law No. 1512) | Amendment of Article | Article 55 | Contrary to the previous provision — which made the removal of notarial documents and registers outside the notary’s office contingent upon a decision of the court or the examining magistrate, provided for the collection of a “writing fee” for requests for copies, and did not regulate digital transmission procedures — it has been proposed, under the new regulation, that the access process be simplified and limited to requests made by judicial authorities; that the transmission of documents electronically, by means of a secure electronic signature, be made the principal procedure; and that it be established that such transactions are exempt from any and all financial obligations, including fees, taxes, or the value of stamped paper. | To reduce bureaucracy (paperwork) in correspondence with judicial authorities and official offices, to expedite investigation processes, to ensure conformity with digital transformation, and to resolve disputes by clarifying that the public service in question is free of charge. | The obligation for physical copying in notarial transactions is reduced, and access to documents by investigating authorities becomes considerably faster. Through the fee exemption, the bureaucracy and cost items arising from transactions between public institutions are eliminated. | On the date of publication. |
| 4 | Council of State Law (Law No. 2575) | Amendment | Provisional Article 27 | It has been ensured that the existing structure of the chambers be preserved by extending the maximum period envisaged for reducing the number of Council of State chambers to the statutorily targeted number (10) from “ten years” to “fourteen years”; in connection therewith, it is envisaged that the rule — applied throughout the gradual reduction process in the number of chambers — whereby “one member is elected for every two vacant memberships,” be suspended until 23 July 2030, having regard to the current workload and staffing needs, and that, during this period, the practice of holding an election for each individual vacant member position be reinstated. | To manage the operational constraints arising from the current workload and the gradual reduction in the number of chambers. | The process of reduction in the number of chambers is slowed down; should member positions fall vacant before 23 July 2030, they shall be filled accordingly. | Effective as of 23 July 2026, on the date of publication. |
| 7 | Institute of Forensic Medicine Law (Law No. 2659) | Reorganization | 26 | It has been proposed to clarify, by law, the conditions for appointment to the specialization boards and to determine the terms of office: i. A requirement of specialization or a doctoral degree in medicine/dentistry has been introduced for the chair and members.ii. A four-year term of office has been established as a rule for board chairs/members, group chairs, and department chairs. | The Constitutional Court’s annulment decision holding that regulations of this kind, concerning appointment and terms of office, must be made exclusively by law rather than by Presidential Decree. | The standard of academic/professional expertise in forensic medicine services is placed under statutory guarantee; by determining terms of office, administrative stability and legal certainty are ensured. | On the date of publication (the term of office of those who have completed four years shall come to an end; those who have not yet completed their term shall complete it.) |
| 8 | Judges and Public Prosecutors Law (Law No. 2802) | Insertion and Amendment | 10 | It has been proposed to clarify, at the statutory level, the training curriculum and examination procedures; to introduce a right to a make-up examination (in case of valid excuse); and to set out in detail the criteria (legislation, professional competence, representation, Turkish) and the scoring method. | To strengthen the principal role of judges and public prosecutors in the conduct of judicial proceedings, to ensure that the institution of expert witnessing is used for its intended purpose (i.e., solely for technical matters), and to secure speed and economy in judicial proceedings. | By preventing judges and public prosecutors from delegating their legal assessment authority to expert witnesses, their control over and responsibility for the proceedings are enhanced. | On the date of publication. |
| 9 | Judges and Public Prosecutors Law (Law No. 2802 | Insertion | 63 | It has been proposed to bring within the scope of the “warning” penalty the practice of resorting to an expert witness in matters that are capable of being resolved through the legal knowledge required by the profession itself. | To strengthen the principal role of judges and public prosecutors in the conduct of judicial proceedings, to ensure that the institution of expert witnessing is used for its intended purpose (i.e., solely for technical matters), and to secure speed and economy in judicial proceedings. | By preventing judges and public prosecutors from delegating their legal assessment authority to expert witnesses, their control over and responsibility for the proceedings are enhanced. | On the date of publication. |
Sincerely,
Balay, Eryiğit & Erten Avukatlık Attorney Partnership
