Sophos Hukuk Bürosu

12th Judicial Package (Law No. 7589): All Changes Article by Article

Yazar: Yayın:

Law No. 7589 on “Amendments to Certain Laws for the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary”, known as the 12th Judicial Package, was adopted by the General Assembly of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM) on 16 July 2026 and entered into force upon its publication in the Official Gazette No. 33326 of 31 July 2026. The package is not limited to a single field: it amended thirteen separate laws, ranging from the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law to the Turkish Criminal Code, and from the Code of Civil Procedure to the Turkish Code of Obligations. The abolition of the action for an undetermined receivable, the rewriting of the regime for the deferral of the announcement of the verdict (HAGB), and the priority given to heirs in sales for the partition of co-owned property (izale-i şuyu) are among the most discussed topics in practice.

Status of entry into force: Law No. 7589 was published in the Official Gazette No. 33326 of 31 July 2026, and the vast majority of its articles entered into force on 31 July 2026. Article 3 of the Law entered into force on the date of publication, with effect from 23/7/2026. Only Articles 11, 12 and 22 (the amendments to Articles 440 and 444 of the Turkish Civil Code and Article 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure) will enter into force three months after publication, that is, on 31 October 2026. For the detailed transitional rules, Provisional Article 1 of the Law should be consulted.

Below we examine the changes introduced by Law No. 7589, together with the relevant article numbers. Unless expressly stated otherwise, the provisions described throughout this text have been in force since 31 July 2026.

When Did the 12th Judicial Package Enter into Force?

The Law was published in the Official Gazette on 31 July 2026. Its entry into force is governed by Article 26 of the Law, which provides for three different timetables:

In other words, the abolition of the action for an undetermined receivable, the HAGB amendments, the new statutory interest rate rule and the rules on enforcement sales began to produce effects as of 31 July 2026. The electronic sale of assets under guardianship and the signature facility for remote hearings, on the other hand, will start to apply after the three-month transition period, on 31 October 2026.

If you have a pending case, you need to assess which date the transitional rules below apply to by reference to these two dates (31 July 2026 and 31 October 2026).

The Law also contains a detailed provisional article (Provisional Art. 1). This article determines separately which amendment applies to pending files. We also refer to these transitional rules under the relevant headings below.

Amendments to the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (Law No. 7589, Art. 1)

On the side of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK), the package introduced amendments that directly affect sales for the partition of co-owned property (izale-i şuyu) and the public auction procedure. Article 1 of the Law added new sentences to the second paragraph of Article 114 İİK and rewrote sub-paragraphs (6), (8) and (9) of its seventh paragraph.

The first auction is held only among the heirs

According to the sentence added to Article 114/2 İİK, for immovable property acquired by all owners through inheritance and in which no third party other than the heirs holds an ownership right, where partition by sale has been ordered, the first public auction is held only among the heirs who are owners. The Law also expressly states that this procedure applies only once.

The bidding threshold in this auction is also different: under the rewritten sub-paragraph (8) of Article 114/7 İİK, where the first auction is held only among the heirs, the bid must exceed one hundred per cent of the appraised value. In the second auction the general rule continues to apply: the bid must exceed fifty per cent of the appraised value or the total of the preferential receivables, whichever is higher, plus the costs of liquidation and distribution.

This provision, which aims to prevent family real estate from passing to third parties at low prices, changes litigation and sales strategy in co-ownerships arising from inheritance. Whether a specific property falls within this scope requires an examination of the title deed (tapu) and inheritance records; a preliminary review of this kind is important in order to clarify, before the auction, which procedure will apply.

The exemption from security has been redefined

The rewritten sub-paragraph (6) sets out in limited terms who is exempt from providing security when taking part in the auction. Accordingly, if the creditor who has requested the sale and wishes to participate in the auction applies to the enforcement office conducting the sale no later than the end of working hours on the business day preceding the end of the bidding period, no security is required from that creditor to the extent that the receivable covers the security. In public auctions, the Treasury is exempt from providing security.

The new version of the sub-paragraph no longer includes the exemption from security previously granted to co-owners in partition sales. There is a concrete abuse in practice behind this change: participants who did not deposit security could make exorbitant bids to block the auction and then have the sale cancelled by not paying the auction price. The security requirement places the cost of such conduct directly on the bidder.

Administrative fine for failing to pay the auction price

Sub-paragraph (9) introduces a serious sanction against bad-faith bidding behaviour. Under the new provision:

Transitional rule: Under Provisional Art. 1/(1), these amendments do not apply to public auctions announced before 31 July 2026; the former provisions continue to apply to those sales.

Notaries Law: Document Flow Goes Digital (Law No. 7589, Art. 2)

Article 55 of the Notaries Law has been rewritten in its entirety. Under the new provision, if a court, a criminal judgeship of peace or a chief public prosecutor’s office requests the original of a document, the notary makes a copy, certifies that it conforms to the original, keeps the certified copy in its own archive in place of the original and sends the original to the requesting authority.

Where a certified copy is requested, the notary scans the original, signs the copy with a secure electronic signature and sends it electronically. If electronic transmission is not possible, a physical certified copy is sent. No journal number is assigned to these transactions, and apart from postage and travel costs determined by the tariff, no fee whatsoever is charged, including fees, taxes and stamp charges.

Changes to Jurisdiction, Appeal and Cassation in Administrative Proceedings (Law No. 7589, Arts. 3-6)

The monetary limit for cases heard by a single judge raised to TRY 486,000

The first paragraph of Article 7 of Law No. 2576 has been rewritten. Except for those brought against regulatory acts, annulment and full-remedy actions whose subject matter does not exceed TRY 486,000 are decided by a single judge of the administrative court. The following actions have also been brought within the single-judge scope:

The expression “twenty-five thousand” in the second paragraph of the same article has also been changed to “four hundred and eighty-six thousand”. Transitional rule: Under Provisional Art. 1/(2), these amendments apply only to actions filed after 31 July 2026.

Dismissal of the appeal with amended reasoning (Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK), Art. 45/3)

Where the regional administrative court finds the decision lawful, it may dismiss the appeal; where it finds the outcome correct but the reasoning erroneous or incomplete, it may dismiss the appeal by amending the reasoning; and where factual errors in the decision can be corrected, it may dismiss the appeal after making the correction. This prevents a file from being quashed, and the proceedings prolonged, solely because of an error in reasoning.

Limits on remitting the file (İYUK Art. 45/5)

The grounds for quashing and remitting are listed in seven sub-paragraphs: where an appeal against decisions rendered on preliminary examination and other final procedural decisions is upheld; where the case was heard by a court lacking subject-matter or territorial jurisdiction, or by a judge who had been challenged or was disqualified; where a decision was given although the petition should have been rejected; where the case was completed with a missing or wrong respondent; where no decision was given on a claim or the judgment is incomplete; where a decision was given without an on-site inspection or expert examination; and where a decision was given without holding a hearing. The Law expressly states that the file cannot be remitted outside these cases. Moreover, the regional administrative court may itself remedy the lack of an on-site inspection, expert examination or hearing.

Cassation against decisions rendered anew after quashing (İYUK Art. 46/2)

Under the second paragraph added to Article 46 İYUK, in cases not falling within the first paragraph, decisions rendered anew by the regional administrative court after quashing the first-instance decision may be appealed on points of law to the Council of State (Danıştay) within thirty days of service. However, cases heard by a single judge, cases arising from the application of Law No. 4081 on the Protection of Farmers’ Property, Law No. 3091 and Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, as well as decisions relating solely to attorney’s fees and litigation costs, are excluded from this remedy. Sub-paragraph (c) of the article has been repealed.

Transitional rule: Under Provisional Art. 1/(3), this amendment applies to decisions rendered by regional administrative courts after 31 July 2026.

By Article 3 of the Law, the expression “ten years” in Provisional Article 27 of the Council of State Law has also been changed to “fourteen years“, and it has been provided that the seventeenth paragraph of the same article shall not apply until 23/7/2030. This article entered into force on the date of publication, with effect from 23/7/2026.

Amendments Concerning Judges and Prosecutors and the Forensic Medicine Institute (Law No. 7589, Arts. 7-9)

By Article 7 of the Law, the repealed Article 26 of the Forensic Medicine Institute legislation has been re-enacted: appointment as chair or member of a forensic medicine specialist board now requires a specialist certificate in medicine or dentistry, or a doctoral degree in the relevant field; and the term of office of the chairs and members of specialist boards, as well as of forensic medicine group heads and heads of specialist departments, has been set at four years.

By Article 8, detailed paragraphs on the training of assistant judges and prosecutors and on their written and oral examinations were added to Article 10 of Law No. 2802 on Judges and Prosecutors. The oral examination is conducted by assessing the candidate’s knowledge of legislation, case law and practice; professional competence; self-confidence and ability to represent; and effective use of Turkish and general knowledge, each scored out of twenty-five points.

Warning penalty for judges who refer legal questions to experts

By Article 9 of the Law, a new sub-paragraph was added to the second paragraph of Article 63 of Law No. 2802: “referring to an expert on matters that can be resolved with the legal knowledge required by the profession” is now among the acts calling for a warning penalty.

The provision targets the drift of the court-expert system away from its purpose. A judge delegating to an expert the legal assessment that he or she should make personally both prolongs proceedings unnecessarily and can lead to procedurally improper outcomes, such as expert reports containing legal characterisations. From the parties’ perspective, this change may mean lower expert costs and fewer months spent waiting for reports, particularly in non-technical legal disputes.

A New Formula for the Statutory Interest Rate (Law No. 7589, Art. 10)

Article 1 of Law No. 3095 on Statutory Interest and Default Interest has been amended. Where interest is payable under the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) or the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) and the amount has not been fixed by contract, payment is made annually at eighty per cent of the rediscount rate applied by the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye (TCMB) to short-term credit transactions on 31 December of the preceding year.

A dynamic adjustment mechanism is also provided: if the rediscount rate on 30 June differs by five percentage points or more from the rate applied on 31 December of the preceding year, eighty per cent of the rate determined on 30 June applies in the second half of the year.

This change directly affects interest calculations across a wide range of matters, from commercial debt collection to compensation claims. The interest calculation in pending or future receivable files may need to be reviewed; in commercial disputes it is advisable to seek professional legal advice from a lawyer on this assessment.

Turkish Civil Code: Sale of Assets under Guardianship Moves to an Electronic Portal (Law No. 7589, Arts. 11-12)

In the first paragraph of Article 440 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), the words “on the electronic sales portal integrated into the National Judiciary Network Information System” have been inserted after the words “in accordance with the instruction,”. Article 444/2 TMK has been rewritten: the sale will be carried out by public auction on the electronic sales portal integrated into UYAP, and the auction will be completed with the approval of the guardianship authority; the approval decision must be given within ten days from the auction date.

Note: Unlike the other articles of the package, these two amendments, which form Articles 11 and 12 of the Law, are not yet in force. They will enter into force three months after publication, that is, on 31 October 2026. Under Provisional Art. 1/(5), they will not apply to public auctions announced before that date.

Turkish Criminal Code: Reduced Penalty for Those Who Hand Over Accounts and Cards (Law No. 7589, Art. 13)

The fourth paragraph added to Article 158 of the Turkish Criminal Code (TCK) addresses a problem much debated in practice. Accordingly, where a person’s participation in the fraud offences under Articles 157 and 158 TCK is limited to the act of giving to another person, in order to obtain an unjust benefit for himself or herself or for another, payment instruments such as bank or credit cards, or the essential information or tools enabling the use of an account held with a bank, an intermediary institution, a payment service provider or a crypto-asset service provider, the penalty to be imposed is reduced by half.

Provisional Art. 1/(6) and (7) establish a detailed transitional regime: among files under appellate review, for defendants to whom this paragraph is to be applied, a reversal decision is issued concerning their files before the criminal chambers of the regional courts of appeal, and the file is sent to the first-instance court. Convicts whose sentences are being executed and to whom Article 168 TCK has not been applied may benefit from the effective repentance provisions of Article 168/2 TCK if they fully compensate the victim’s loss, by restitution in kind or by payment, within six months of a warning to be given by the court.

This provision directly affects the files of a large number of people prosecuted for fraud on the ground that they allowed their account to be used. Whether the conditions for applying the paragraph are met in a specific file requires a technical assessment; it may be advisable to have the file reviewed by a lawyer.

Amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 7589, Arts. 14-17)

Results of genetic analysis: recording and destruction regime (Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), Art. 80)

The results of molecular genetic analysis are recorded in a dedicated system in a form stripped of identity information, and a copy is sent to the investigation or prosecution authority to be kept in the file as evidence. This information is destroyed in the presence of the public prosecutor, and a record is drawn up:

The person concerned may request deletion from the judge or court during this period if the purpose requiring retention has ceased to exist or if there is a justified reason. The records may be used only by decision of a court, judge or prosecutor for the purpose of establishing the material truth in an ongoing investigation or prosecution; the prosecutor’s decision may be challenged before the criminal judgeship of peace.

The HAGB regime rewritten (CMK Art. 231/5-14)

Paragraphs five to fourteen of Article 231 CMK have been replaced in their entirety. The main points:

The defendant’s consent requirement for HAGB abolished

This is one of the most striking points of the package. Under the previous regime, an HAGB decision could be given only if the defendant accepted it; if the defendant refused, the court could not order HAGB. The rewritten Article 231/6 CMK does not include this condition — the consent requirement has been abolished.

Its practical significance is considerable. Under the previous system, a defendant who accepted HAGB largely waived the possibility of having the judgment reviewed; for this reason, defendants expecting acquittal could refuse HAGB and prefer the proceedings to continue. The new provision removes this choice but establishes a counterbalance: as mentioned above, an appeal (istinaf) is now available against HAGB decisions (CMK Art. 231/12). In other words, although the defendant must now accept the decision, he or she has gained the possibility of taking it to a higher court.

These two changes must be read together: while the abolition of the consent requirement on its own narrows the rights of the defence, the introduction of the appeal broadens the scope for review. In files where an HAGB decision is given after 31 July 2026, the time limits and grounds for appeal should be followed carefully.

Fugitive defendants and retrial (CMK Art. 247/3)

Proceedings may be conducted against a fugitive defendant; however, if the defendant has not previously been questioned, no conviction or decision of no penalty may be given. Where a security measure is ordered, the fugitive defendant or defence counsel may request a retrial, stating that they wish to exercise the right of defence.

The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation’s time limit for objection extended to three months (CMK Art. 308)

Against all decisions of the criminal chambers of the Court of Cassation, except decisions designating the competent court and decisions of lack of jurisdiction, the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation may, of his or her own motion or upon request, object to the Grand Criminal Chamber within three months of the date on which the file is delivered to him or her. No time limit applies to an objection in favour of the defendant. The fourth paragraph added to the article also lists those who may make such a request: the defendant or those entitled to seek legal remedies on the defendant’s behalf, and the intervening party, persons whose request to intervene has not been decided, or persons harmed by the offence in a way that would allow them to become an intervening party.

Transitional rule: Under Provisional Art. 1/(8), the three-month period applies to files delivered after 31 July 2026.

Turkish Code of Obligations: Start of Interest on Compensation and Proportional Set-Off (Law No. 7589, Art. 18)

With the paragraphs added to Article 55 TBK, the starting point of interest on compensation for losses arising from the reduction or loss of working capacity and for loss of financial support has been split into two:

Furthermore, any amount paid for the purpose of performance before the taking of evidence begins is set off proportionally against the compensation amount determined as at the payment date. Under Provisional Art. 1/(9), the amendment applies to torts and damaging events occurring after 31 July 2026; for earlier events, the former provisions of the article continue to apply.

Code of Civil Procedure: The Action for an Undetermined Receivable Abolished (Law No. 7589, Arts. 19-25)

Article 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) repealed

By Article 19 of the Law, Article 107 HMK, which governed the action for an undetermined receivable (belirsiz alacak davası), has been repealed. Under Provisional Art. 1/(10), the repealed article continues to apply to actions filed before the date of repeal.

The practical consequence is as follows: as of 31 July 2026, no new action for an undetermined receivable can be filed. Pending actions filed before that date will continue to be heard under the former regime.

The right to increase the claim in a partial action (HMK Art. 109/4)

The repealed institution has been replaced by the fourth paragraph added to Article 109 HMK: where only part of a receivable is sued for, the amount claimed may be increased once only in the same action, until the end of the taking of evidence, without being subject to the prohibition on expanding the claim. Moreover, the limitation period is deemed interrupted from the date of filing also in respect of the increased portion.

This twofold change fundamentally alters litigation strategy, particularly for employee receivables such as severance pay, notice pay, overtime and annual leave pay; the debate over whether a receivable is determined or undetermined gives way to the partial action plus increase model. It will be useful to have a prior assessment made by a lawyer as to which route to follow in pending or future files.

A three-month upper limit on the interval between hearings (HMK Art. 147/3)

As a rule, the interval between hearings may not exceed three months. In compelling cases, such as where, owing to the nature of the matter, an expert examination is prolonged or evidence is being taken by letters rogatory, the judge may set a longer period by stating the reasons.

Signature facility for remote hearings (HMK Art. 149/4)

The provisions on handwritten signatures will not apply to persons attending the hearing from their location by means of audio and video transmission. The exception is the cases listed in HMK Art. 154/3-(ç): admission, taking of an oath, consent to withdrawal of the action, waiver of the claim, acceptance of the claim and settlement.

Note: This amendment, which forms Article 22 of the Law, is also not yet in force; it will enter into force three months after publication, that is, on 31 October 2026.

Legal remedies against joinder and severance decisions (HMK Arts. 166, 168)

The second sentence of Article 166/1 HMK has been amended: the court where the first action was filed is bound by the joinder decision from the date it becomes final. Article 168 HMK has been rewritten: a joinder decision concerning cases heard before civil courts of the same level and capacity within the same judicial district may be challenged only by appeal (istinaf). Severance decisions of first-instance courts may be appealed, and joinder and severance decisions of regional courts of appeal may be appealed on points of law, only together with the final judgment. The Law also states that this matter alone will not constitute a ground for quashing or reversal.

Cassation against decisions in which the appellate court rules anew on the merits (HMK Art. 362/3)

If the regional court of appeal partially or fully upholds an appeal and rules anew on the merits, the accepted or rejected part may be appealed on points of law if it exceeds the monetary limit in HMK Art. 341/2. Two exceptions are provided: where the difference between the regional court of appeal’s decision and the first-instance decision does not exceed this monetary limit, and where the decision relates solely to litigation costs or attorney’s fees.

How Do These Changes Affect You?

The assessments below apply to the articles of the Law that entered into force on 31 July 2026. As regards the electronic sale of assets under guardianship (TMK Arts. 440, 444) and the signature facility for remote hearings (HMK Art. 149/4), the date of 31 October 2026 must be awaited.

If you are considering a claim for employee receivables: The action for an undetermined receivable has been abolished. In files filed after 31 July 2026, the route is to file a partial action and increase the claim once before the end of the taking of evidence. Actions for undetermined receivables filed before that date continue under the former provisions pursuant to the provisional article. In particular, in disputes over termination for just cause such as dismissal with SGK Code 46, these procedural rules should be borne in mind in new actions for severance and notice pay.

If you are involved in the partition of an inherited property: If the sale has not yet been announced as of 31 July 2026, the first auction is held only among the heirs and on the basis of the full appraised value. For sales announced before that date, the former procedure continues to apply.

If you plan to take part in a public auction: The cost of making the highest bid and then failing to pay the price on time has increased — in addition to losing the security, an administrative fine of five per cent of the bid price may be imposed. The exemption from security applies only to the creditor who requested the sale and applied in time, and to the Treasury.

If your fraud case is on appeal or at the execution stage: Article 158/4 TCK and the provisions of the provisional article may open up a new assessment for persons whose participation was limited to handing over an account or card.

If your criminal trial is ongoing: The abolition of the consent requirement for HAGB and, in return, the introduction of an appeal may require the defence strategy to be rebuilt.

If you have a debt or compensation claim: The method of calculating the statutory interest rate has changed; in addition, the starting point of interest on compensation for loss of support and loss of working capacity has been split into two.

Frequently Asked Questions

When did the 12th Judicial Package enter into force?

Law No. 7589 was adopted by the TBMM General Assembly on 16/7/2026 and published in the Official Gazette No. 33326 of 31 July 2026. Under Article 26 of the Law, most articles entered into force on the date of publication, i.e. 31 July 2026. Article 3 of the Law entered into force on the date of publication with effect from 23/7/2026. The amendments to Articles 440 and 444 of the Turkish Civil Code and Article 149 HMK (Articles 11, 12 and 22 of the Law) will enter into force three months after publication, on 31 October 2026.

Is the 12th Judicial Package currently being applied?

Yes. The Law entered into force upon publication in the Official Gazette on 31 July 2026, and most of its articles have applied since that date. Only Articles 11, 12 and 22 will enter into force on 31 October 2026. In addition, Provisional Article 1 regulates separately how each amendment applies to pending files.

Has the action for an undetermined receivable been abolished? What happens to the action I have filed?

Article 107 HMK has been repealed, and no new action for an undetermined receivable can be filed as of 31 July 2026. However, under Provisional Art. 1/(10), the repealed article continues to apply to actions filed before the date of repeal. In other words, your currently pending actions for undetermined receivables will continue to be heard under the former regime.

What has replaced the action for an undetermined receivable?

The fourth paragraph added to Article 109 HMK. A party filing a partial action may increase the claim once only in the same action, until the end of the taking of evidence, without being subject to the prohibition on expanding the claim; the limitation period is deemed interrupted from the date of filing for the increased portion as well.

Can an HAGB decision be appealed?

Yes. Under the new Article 231/12 CMK, without prejudice to Article 272/3, an appeal (istinaf) may be lodged against an HAGB decision. If the decision was given by a regional court of appeal or by the Court of Cassation acting as a court of first instance, an appeal on points of law (temyiz) is also available. The same provision abolished the defendant’s consent requirement for HAGB.

Can third parties take part in the first auction in a partition (izale-i şuyu) sale?

For immovable property acquired by all owners through inheritance and in which no third party other than the heirs holds an ownership right, the first auction is held only among the heirs who are owners, and this procedure applies only once. In this auction, the bid must exceed one hundred per cent of the appraised value.

How is the statutory interest rate calculated?

If the amount of interest has not been fixed in the contract, eighty per cent of the rediscount rate applied by the TCMB to short-term credit transactions on 31 December of the preceding year applies. If that rate differs by five percentage points or more on 30 June, eighty per cent of the 30 June rate applies in the second half of the year.

Assessment

The 12th Judicial Package has changed established practice at many points of procedural law. In particular, the transitional rules in the provisional article may result in two files on the same subject being subject to different regimes. For this reason, the filing date of each file, the date of the sale announcement or the date on which the decision was given must be assessed separately.

As most of the Law entered into force on 31 July 2026, the new provisions govern steps taken after that date. As regards guardianship sales and signatures in remote hearings, the existing provisions continue to apply until 31 October 2026.

This article was updated on 1 August 2026 on the basis of the official text of Law No. 7589 published in the Official Gazette No. 33326 of 31 July 2026.

Legal Notice: This text has been prepared for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. sophoshukuk.com makes no referral, guarantee or promise of outcome. Each case must be assessed on its own particular circumstances; for your specific dispute, please obtain professional advice from a lawyer.