— Civil Procedure
Law no. 7589, in force since 31 July 2026, amended five articles of the Code of Civil Procedure with direct effect on how quickly a case proceeds and where it ends. The interval between hearings may as a rule not exceed three months; the signature rule was relaxed for those attending by video link; and the routes of challenge against joinder and severance orders, and the limits of appeal after the regional court, were redrawn.
The changes were introduced by articles 21 to 25 of law no. 7589, known publicly as the 12th Judicial Package. The law was published in the Official Gazette of 31 July 2026, issue 33326.
This article deals not with the criminal or enforcement limbs of the package but with the five provisions bearing directly on the conduct of civil proceedings. They change the answer to two questions: how long a case will take, and at what stage it becomes final.
One of the five has a different commencement date; that distinction is set out at the end. The office's fields of work appear on our practice areas page.
The provision can be consulted in the text as published in the Official Gazette.
Article 21 of the law added a third paragraph to article 147 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The rule is plain: the interval between hearings may not be longer than three months.
There is one exception. Where the nature of the matter makes it unavoidable, as where an expert examination is prolonged or the investigation is conducted by letter of request, the judge may fix a longer interval, stating the reasons.
Two elements of the exception apply together: the situation must be unavoidable, and the judge must state the reasons. Fixing a hearing more than three months away without reasons would not sit with the rule.
In practice the effect is shorter intervals, particularly in files awaiting an expert report. Filing the list of evidence and the questions for the expert in full and on time matters all the more within that timetable.
Article 22 of the law added a new paragraph to article 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, concerning those permitted to attend the hearing from where they are by transmission of sound and image.
Under the rule, the provisions on a handwritten signature do not apply to those persons. A party or representative attending online is not required to sign physically for every step.
The list of exceptions is narrow and important. The handwritten signature rule continues to apply to: admission, the taking of an oath, consent to withdrawal of the action, abandonment of the action, acceptance of the action, and settlement.
The distinction is coherent: each of those steps is a disposition affecting the merits directly and usually irreversibly. The procedural convenience has not been extended to them.
This article has a different commencement date from the others; see the section on commencement below.
Article 23 of the law replaced the second sentence of the first paragraph of article 166 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the new sentence, the court in which the first action was issued is bound by the joinder order from the time that order becomes final.
The amendment settles the moment at which the binding effect arises: not the giving of the order, but its becoming final.
It is directed at the uncertainty that arose in practice where a route of challenge had been taken against the joinder order.
Article 24 of the law rewrote article 168 of the Code of Civil Procedure in full, in two paragraphs.
Under the first, only an appeal lies against a joinder order given in respect of actions pending before civil courts of the same level and standing within the same judicial district.
The second paragraph provides a different regime. Against severance orders given by courts of first instance an appeal lies, and against joinder and severance decisions of regional courts of justice an appeal on points of law lies, but in each case only together with the judgment.
The closing sentence draws a limit: that matter alone does not constitute a ground for the regional court of justice to set the judgment aside and examine the merits, nor a ground for reversal before the Court of Cassation.
In practice this means that an objection directed at a joinder or severance order will not, even raised together with the judgment, of itself lead to the judgment being set aside or reversed.
Article 25 of the law added a third paragraph to article 362 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It governs the situation where the regional court of justice allows the appeal in whole or in part and gives a fresh judgment on the merits.
Under the rule, such a judgment may be appealed on points of law where the part allowed or refused exceeds, in amount or value, the monetary threshold in the second paragraph of article 341.
Two exceptions are listed. First, where the difference between the regional court's fresh judgment and the first-instance judgment, being below the appeal threshold in the first paragraph, does not exceed the monetary threshold in the second paragraph of article 341, no appeal lies.
Second, where such a judgment below the threshold concerns only litigation costs or attorney fees, the route is likewise closed.
The rationale is to keep files from reaching the Court of Cassation where the difference between appeal and first instance is small, or where the dispute has narrowed to items of cost.
The commencement provision produces a two-part picture for these five articles.
The provisions on the interval between hearings, on joinder and severance, and on appeal after the regional court, namely articles 21, 23, 24 and 25, entered into force on the date of publication, 31 July 2026.
Article 22, on attending a hearing by transmission of sound and image, entered into force three months after the date of publication.
Overlooking that distinction can give rise to argument about the validity of a step taken at a remote hearing; the date of the step and the date of commencement should therefore be checked together.
The three-month cap brings the burden of preparation forward. In files awaiting an expert report, filing objections and further questions without delay is what preserves the advantage of the shortened timetable.
On the appellate side the picture narrows. As joinder and severance orders are not of themselves grounds for setting aside or reversal, such objections need to be raised together with the defence on the merits and tied to a concrete loss of rights.
For an appeal after the regional court, what matters is whether the difference between the regional court's judgment and the first-instance judgment exceeds the monetary threshold. That calculation should be made before the time for appeal begins to run.
In files heard in Antalya, appellate review is carried out by the civil chambers of the Antalya Regional Court of Justice. On disputes arising from enforcement proceedings see our Antalya enforcement lawyer page, and on property disputes our Antalya real estate lawyer page.
The questions below concern this provision; more general questions are answered on the frequently asked questions page.
Under the paragraph added to article 147 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the interval may not be longer than three months. Where the matter makes it unavoidable, as with a prolonged expert examination or a letter of request, the judge may fix a longer interval, stating the reasons.
As a rule the provisions on a handwritten signature do not apply to those attending by transmission of sound and image. Admission, the taking of an oath, consent to withdrawal, abandonment, acceptance of the action and settlement fall outside that rule.
Only an appeal lies against a joinder order given in respect of actions pending before civil courts of the same level and standing within the same judicial district.
Against severance orders of courts of first instance an appeal lies, and against joinder and severance decisions of regional courts of justice an appeal on points of law lies, but in each case only together with the judgment. That matter alone is not a ground for setting aside or reversal.
No. The part allowed or refused in the regional court's fresh judgment on the merits must exceed the monetary threshold. The route is closed where the difference between the two judgments does not exceed the threshold, and where the judgment concerns only litigation costs or attorney fees.
The provisions on hearing intervals, joinder and severance, and appeal after the regional court took effect on 31 July 2026; the provision on attending by transmission of sound and image took effect three months after publication.
The law provides no separate transitional rule for that article. As fixing a hearing date is a step in the conduct of proceedings, the rule arises in respect of hearing dates fixed after commencement; its application in a given file is shaped by the court's assessment.
Read together, these five provisions point in a clear direction: proceedings are to be shortened, and the routes of challenge narrowed. Both tendencies increase the weight of the preparation done at first instance.
For an assessment of how these rules affect a pending file, the office can be reached through the contact page.