This content has been translated from the original text.
This article addresses the legal nature of the partial action under the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), the conditions for bringing it and its limits in practice. It assesses the differences between the partial action, which is resorted to where the amount or value of the claim cannot be expected to be determined fully and precisely or where doing so is impossible, and the action for an indeterminate claim. It also explains the effect of bringing a partial action on limitation periods and preclusive periods, the principle that the limitation period is interrupted only in respect of the amount sued for, and the procedural details that require attention in light of the current case law of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay).
Law No. 7589 on Amendments to Certain Laws for the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary was adopted on 16 July 2026 and entered into force upon its publication in the Official Gazette No. 33326 dated 31 July 2026. With this new law, the “Action for an Indeterminate Claim” (belirsiz alacak davası), regulated in Article 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK), has been abolished entirely; in its place, the procedural regime of the partial action has been restructured from top to bottom by the paragraph 4 added to Article 109 of the HMK. Serious controversies that have long persisted in the legal world and in judicial practice, such as the wrong choice of the type of action, dismissal for lack of legal interest and limitation periods, have been resolved by this official regulation. So what has changed for practitioners and citizens? Let us explain.
One of the matters most wondered about is the scope of the legislative amendment and the new mechanism introduced for the partial action. Article 107 of the HMK has been repealed by Article 19 of Law No. 7589, and a new paragraph has been added to Article 109 of the HMK by its Article 20. From now on, in all claims whose subject matter is divisible, a partial action will be brought directly, without the distinction of “was the claim determinate or indeterminate?”. The claimant will be able to increase the subject matter of the claim, once only within the same action and without being caught by the prohibition on expanding the claim, until the end of the investigation stage (tahkikat).
The second major heading is “the limitation period and rectification regime”, which is the most critical legal safeguard of the new regulation. Under the former partial action practice, bringing the action interrupted the limitation period only for the amount sued for, while the limitation period continued to run in respect of the remainder of the claim. Under the new Article 109/4 of the HMK, when a one-time increase of the claim is made, the limitation period is deemed to have been interrupted, in respect of the increased portion as well, directly on the date on which the first action was brought. In addition, since this special increase is not regarded as “rectification” (ıslah), the parties' single statutory right of rectification is also not exhausted.
As regards the procedural rules for immediate application, the position of pending files and the transitional process is extremely important. Under paragraph 10 of Provisional Article 1 of Law No. 7589, in actions for an indeterminate claim brought before 31 July 2026, the provisions of the repealed Article 107 of the HMK will continue to apply. In all claims brought after that date, the new partial action provisions are decisive. There is no question of pending actions being dismissed merely because the law has changed.
In terms of the critical points in practice, the start of interest and the stages of the court proceedings require separate attention. Although the statutory provision moves the limitation period back to the date on which the action was brought, it has not introduced a special rule on default and the start of interest in respect of the increased portion. For this reason, placing the debtor in default before bringing the action, or expressly stating the starting dates of interest in the petition for the increase, will prevent risks. Furthermore, since under Article 357 of the HMK the one-time right to increase the claim cannot be exercised at the appeal stage (istinaf), it is essential that this right be exercised before the court of first instance, with correct timing, before the investigation stage is closed and after the expert report.
Finally, an important fact worth knowing: this amendment has not restricted the freedom to seek legal remedies; on the contrary, it has removed the technical obstacles that locked up proceedings. The claims circulating on social media, such as “those who do not know their claim exactly will no longer be able to sue” or “the entire claim will become time-barred”, have no legal basis. The regulation transfers the limitation protection afforded by the action for an indeterminate claim under the umbrella of the partial action.
In short, as the era of the action for an indeterminate claim closes, a strengthened partial action model that offers a one-time increase of the claim without rectification and a limitation safeguard has entered our lives. If you have pending claims or are planning to bring employment, compensation or contractual disputes, we recommend that you assess the effect of these procedural changes on your file with a lawyer.
