Turkish Constitutional Court Ruling Reshapes The Appellate Review Framework

May 2026 – In its decision published in the Official Gazette dated 21 May 2026, the Constitutional Court of Türkiye (the “Constitutional Court”) ruled that decisions rendered by the regional appellate courts granting a partial or full acceptance upon appellate review may still be appealed before the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), even if the amount in dispute does not exceed the monetary threshold for cassation review (TRY 682,000 for 2026).

According to its decision dated 26 February 2026 and numbered E.2026/49, K.2026/48 (the “Decision”), the Constitutional Court annulled sub-paragraph (a) of Article 362/1 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (“CCP”), which restricted the right to appeal before the Court of Cassation in certain disputes, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional insofar as it applied to cases where the regional appellate court partially or fully accepted the appeal application.

What was the Appellate Framework?

Pursuant to Article 361/1 of the CCP, final decisions rendered by the civil chambers of the regional appellate courts (which serve as second-instance appellate courts reviewing first-instance judgements) that are subject to cassation review may be appealed before the Court of Cassation within two weeks following service of the decision. However, Article 362/1 of the CCP sets out which decisions of the regional appellate courts are deemed final and are therefore not subject to appeal before the Court of Cassation. Accordingly, decisions rendered by regional appellate courts in disputes with an amount or value not exceeding TRY 682,000 (approx. EUR 14,000, the threshold is updated annually) are considered final and cannot be appealed.

The Constitutional Court’s Assessment

In its Decision, the Constitutional Court argued that where a regional appellate court sets aside the first-instance court’s judgement and renders a new and different decision upon appellate review, such decision effectively constitutes a first-time adjudication on the merits. However, because these decisions were deemed final due to the monetary threshold under the relevant provision, the parties were deprived of the opportunity to seek further judicial review before a higher court. It was therefore asserted that:

• such rule violated the right to a fair trial and the principle of proportionality;
• disputes falling below the monetary threshold for cassation review cannot automatically be regarded as insignificant, and decisions rendered by appellate courts may still produce substantial legal consequences for the parties concerned.
• the impugned provision categorically precluded cassation review without allowing any assessment based on the nature of the dispute or the impact of the decision.

The Constitutional Court also acknowledged that the restriction in question could contribute, to a certain extent, to reducing the workload of the higher courts. However, it concluded that such a measure does not serve to strengthen the higher court’s role in developing jurisprudence and ensuring consistency in the application of law.

Conclusion

The Constitutional Court annulled Article 362/1-a of the CCP, which provided that decisions rendered by regional appellate courts in disputes with an amount or value not exceeding TRY 682,000 (applicable for 2026) would not be subject to cassation review, insofar as the provision applied to cases where the appellate application had been partially or fully accepted, on the grounds that it violated Articles 13 and 36 of the Constitution. The Decision entered into force on 21 May 2026.

In this regard, except for cases where cassation review is explicitly excluded under other laws, decisions rendered by the regional appellate courts granting a partial or full acceptance upon appellate review may still be appealed before the Court of Cassation, even if the amount in dispute does not exceed the monetary threshold for cassation review (TRY 682,000 for 2026).

You can read the full text of the Decision here (in Turkish only).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.