- within Consumer Protection, Cannabis & Hemp, Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)
Law No. 7589 on Amendments to Certain Laws for the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary (the "Law"), adopted on 16 July 2026, introduced significant amendments to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 concerning actions for unquantified claims and partial actions, the conduct of hearings, participation in hearings by audio and video transmission, joinder and severance of actions, and appellate remedies.
The amendments abolish the action for an unquantified claim, permit a one-time increase of the relief sought in a partial action, limit the intervals between hearings, and introduce certain procedural amendments to the appeal and cassation system.
The principal amendments introduced by the Law to the Code of Civil Procedure are summarised below, together with their potential practical implications.
The Action for an Unquantified Claim Has Been Abolished
Under Article 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where it could not reasonably be expected of a creditor to determine the amount or value of the claim fully and precisely on the date the action was filed, or where such determination was impossible, the creditor could bring an action for an unquantified claim by identifying the legal relationship and specifying a minimum amount or value.
Under the previous framework, once the amount of the claim became determinable based on information provided by the opposing party or as a result of the evidentiary proceedings, the claimant could determine the claim fully and precisely within a definitive two-week period granted by the judge, without being subject to the prohibition against expanding the claim. It was also accepted that there was a legal basis for bringing a declaratory action, even though a partial action for performance could be brought.
The Law has repealed Article 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure in its entirety. Accordingly, the action for an unquantified claim will no longer constitute a separate type of action for proceedings filed after the amendment enters into force.
The amendment is intended to simplify the distinction between actions for unquantified claims and partial actions, a distinction that has long been debated in practice. Nevertheless, where the amount of the claim cannot be determined on the filing date, the applicable procedural mechanism and the limits of increasing the relief sought will henceforth be assessed under the new rules governing partial actions.
The Relief Sought in a Partial Action May Be Increased Once
Pursuant to the new paragraph added to Article 109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where only part of a claim is brought before the court, the amount claimed may be increased once within the same proceedings and until the conclusion of the evidentiary phase, without being subject to the prohibition against expanding the claim.
Where the relief sought is increased, limitation will also be deemed interrupted in respect of the increased part as of the filing date. This expressly resolves, in favor of the claimant, the uncertainty as to the date on which limitation is interrupted for the portion added at a later stage.
When considered together with the abolition of the action for an unquantified claim, the new framework makes the partial action the principal procedural mechanism for claims whose amount cannot be fully determined at the outset. However, as the right to increase the relief sought may be exercised only once in the same proceedings, the timing and scope of the increase should be determined through careful monitoring of the evidentiary phase.
The Interval Between Hearings Has, as a Rule, Been Limited to Three Months
The new provision added to Article 147 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that the interval between hearings may not, as a rule, exceed three months.
In mandatory circumstances, such as when an expert examination takes longer due to the nature of the matter, or when evidentiary steps are conducted by way of judicial assistance, the judge may set a period exceeding three months, provided that the reasons are stated.
The amendment is intended to prevent lengthy intervals between hearings and support the conclusion of proceedings within a reasonable time. For the exception to apply, the mandatory circumstance and the reasons for granting a longer period must be expressly stated in the relevant decision.
The Scope of the Handwritten Signature Requirement in Remote Hearings Has Been Narrowed
As a rule, the provisions requiring a handwritten signature will not apply to persons permitted to participate in a hearing from their location by audio and video transmission.
However, admissions, the taking of an oath, consent to withdrawal of the action, waiver of the action, acceptance of the claim, and settlement are excluded from this rule. The existing safeguards relating to signatures will therefore continue to apply to party acts that directly affect the merits or termination of the dispute.
The amendment is intended to reduce procedural difficulties arising from signature requirements in remote hearings and to improve the practical operation of electronic hearings. Nevertheless, party acts falling within the exceptions must continue to be duly documented.
Appellate Remedies Against Joinder and Severance Decisions Have Been Revised
In relation to the joinder of actions, it has been expressly provided that the court before which the first action was filed will be bound by the joinder decision once that decision becomes final.
Joinder decisions rendered by civil courts of the same level and capacity within the same judicial district may be challenged only by appeal. Severance decisions of first instance courts may be reviewed on appeal, while joinder and severance decisions of regional courts of appeal may be reviewed on cassation only together with the judgment on the merits.
Joinder or severance alone will not constitute grounds for the regional court of appeal to set aside the judgment and decide the case on the merits or for the Court of Cassation to reverse the judgment. The amendment is intended to prevent these interlocutory decisions from interrupting the proceedings and to ensure that appellate review is conducted together with the judgment on the merits.
The Cassation of Decisions Re-rendered on the Merits by Regional Courts of Appeal Has Been Clarified
Where a regional court of appeal partially or fully accepts an appeal and renders a new decision on the merits, the decision will, as a rule, be subject to cassation if the value of the part accepted or rejected exceeds the monetary threshold for appeal.
However, cassation will not be available where the decision of the regional court of appeal remains below the cassation threshold, and the difference between that decision and the first instance judgment does not exceed the monetary threshold for appeal. Likewise, cassation will not be available where the decision below the cassation threshold concerns only litigation costs or attorneys' fees.
The new provision is intended to clarify the monetary value by reference to which cassation is determined when the regional court of appeal reaches a different outcome on the merits from that of the first-instance court. In certain disputes, both the subject matter of the regional court of appeal's decision and the monetary difference between that decision and the first-instance judgment should be considered when assessing the availability of cassation.
A Transitional Provision Has Been Introduced for Actions for Unquantified Claims Filed Before the Amendment Entered into Force
Pursuant to Provisional Article 1 of the Law, the repealed Article 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure will continue to apply to actions filed before the date of repeal.
Accordingly, the abolition of the action for an unquantified claim will not have retroactive effect, and pending cases filed as such before the effective date will be concluded under the previous framework. The new rules on partial actions and the increase of the relief sought will be relevant to proceedings filed after the amendment enters into force.
Assessment and Conclusion
The restructuring of the relationship between actions for unquantified claims and partial actions is pivotal to the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure. Although the abolition of the action for an unquantified claim and the introduction of a one-time increase of the relief sought in partial actions may reduce disputes concerning the classification of actions, parties will need to adopt a more careful procedural strategy regarding the timing and amount of any increase.
Limiting the interval between hearings and narrowing the signature requirement in remote hearings reinforce the legislative approach of expediting proceedings and improving the effective use of digital procedural tools. The amendments concerning joinder, severance and appellate remedies are intended to prevent interlocutory decisions from delaying proceedings and to make the scope of appeal and cassation review more predictable.
Particularly in pending and newly filed claims, the filing date, the timing of any increase in the relief sought, and the limitation consequences for the increased portion should be assessed separately in light of the circumstances of each case.
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.
[View Source]
