With its decision dated 08.07.2025 and numbered 2024/41763, the Constitutional Court rendered an extremely significant pilot judgment in Turkish law with respect to additional damages, the loss of value of receivables against inflation, the right to property, and the right to an effective remedy. The decision is of precedent-setting nature, as it directly addresses at the constitutional level the problem of receivables arising from private law relationships failing to reach their real value due to lengthy judicial proceedings and low interest rates.

In this decision, the Constitutional Court also examined previous Court of Cassation precedents in detail and explicitly demonstrated that Article 122 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 is insufficient to compensate for the loss of value suffered by receivables in the face of high inflation. The Court determined that the mere application of default interest does not remedy the real loss occurring in the creditor’s assets and that this situation constitutes a violation of the right to property secured under Article 35 of the Constitution.

The decision further concluded that there is no effective legal remedy through which the creditor can compensate for the loss of value suffered due to inflation and that, for this reason, the right to an effective remedy regulated under Article 40 of the Constitution has also been violated. This decision entered into force upon its publication in the Official Gazette dated 29 September 2025 and numbered 33032.

The Legal Problem Within the Framework of Additional Damages and Court of Cassation Precedents

According to the established precedents of the Court of Cassation, in order to claim additional damages, the creditor was required to prove the debtor’s default, fault, causal link, and the creditor’s concrete damage. However, in practice, factors such as high inflation, increases in foreign exchange rates, and a serious decline in the purchasing power of money were not deemed sufficient on their own by the Court of Cassation, and creditors were additionally expected to present personal and concrete evidence of damage.

The Constitutional Court explicitly emphasized that this approach places the creditor under an excessive and disproportionate burden of proof, while allowing the debtor to become economically advantageous by delaying payment of the debt. It was determined that this situation disrupts the fair balance between the parties to the detriment of the creditor.

Pilot Judgment Character and Its Legal Consequences

This decision rendered by the Constitutional Court falls within the scope of the pilot judgment procedure and points to a structural legal problem. The Court stated that, instead of all similar disputes resulting in violations, the legislative and judicial authorities should make arrangements to eliminate this structural problem. In this respect, the decision has a nature that affects not only the individual application but all creditor–debtor relationships.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)

1. What is additional damage?

Additional damage is the extra (excess) damage that cannot be compensated by default interest and that occurs in the creditor’s assets due to the debtor’s default. This damage is independent of the principal receivable and interest and may be the subject of a separate lawsuit. Especially during periods of high inflation, real losses arising from the late collection of receivables are evaluated within the scope of additional damage.

2. Is Article 122 of the Turkish Code of Obligations sufficient to compensate additional damage?

According to the Constitutional Court’s decision in question, Article 122 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 is not sufficient to effectively compensate for the loss of value suffered by receivables against inflation. Due to the strict proof requirements sought in practice, this provision has become an ineffective legal remedy for creditors.

3. Why did the Constitutional Court find a violation of the right to property?

The Court accepts that receivables are also within the scope of the right to property. Being forced to collect a receivable after a long period and at a value far below its real value was evaluated as an interference affecting the essence of the right to property. For this reason, a violation of Article 35 of the Constitution was found.

4. Why was the right to an effective remedy violated?

The Constitutional Court determined that there was no other effective legal remedy through which the creditor could compensate for the inflation-related damage suffered. The failure of existing judicial mechanisms to remedy the damage resulted in a violation of the right to an effective remedy under Article 40 of the Constitution.

5. Will this decision change the precedents of the Court of Cassation?

Although the decision does not directly abolish the precedents of the Court of Cassation, it will create a strong constitutional guiding effect on lower courts and the Court of Cassation. Especially in additional damage claims, it is expected that rejection decisions based solely on the requirement of “proof of concrete damage” will be re-evaluated.

6. What does a pilot judgment mean?

A pilot judgment indicates that the violation is structural rather than individual. Through this type of decision, the Constitutional Court calls on the legislative and judicial authorities to eliminate the source of the problem through regulatory measures and changes in jurisprudence.

7. What does this decision mean for creditors?

This decision is of great importance especially for creditors who collect their receivables late due to lengthy lawsuits, enforcement proceedings, and banking disputes. A strong foundation has been established for the protection of inflation-related loss of value at the constitutional level.

8. How will additional damage claims be evaluated from now on?

Courts are expected to assess the creditor’s damage by considering economic realities, inflation rates, and the decline in the purchasing power of money from a broader perspective. The imposition of strict and abstract burdens of proof to the detriment of creditors has been reopened for discussion in light of this decision.