In the Official Gazette dated 6th of October 2023, Constitutional Court Decision with the application number 2019/17969 was published. In this decision, the Constitutional Court has evaluated the dismissal of the lawsuit initiated for employment claims as unspecified claim amount due to lack of procedural prerequisite in terms of violation of the right to legal aid, the right to be tried within a reasonable time and the right of access to the court. The Court has accepted the applicants’ request for legal aid due to lack of solvency. The claim regarding the violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time is decided to be unacceptable due to non-exhaustion of application remedies. The Court has also examined the dismissal of the lawsuit for unspecified claim amount which was filed without fulfilling the requirements due to lack of procedural prerequisite in terms of the violation of the right to access to the court. In this evaluation, the Court has decided that the procedural law provides additional opportunities, that this interference on the right to the legal remedies was not proportionate and that it was not the ultimate remedy to be applied in this regard. Thus, the Constitutional Court decided that the applicants’ right of access to the court had been violated and retrial process shall be initiated.
The applicants, following the termination of their employment contracts, demanded severance pay, payment in lieu of notice, annual leave remuneration and subsistence allowance fee and initiated a lawsuit for unspecified claim amount. They argued that the amount and value of the receivables subject to the dispute could not be accurately and precisely determined. The court of first instance decided in favor of the applicants.
Upon appeal, the Court of Cassation for the 22nd Civil Chamber ordered reversal. The Court stated that in order the lawsuit to be filed with an unspecified claim amount, the amount or value of the receivable subject to the dispute must not be determined exactly and precisely by the plaintiff. It is also stated that in the event that the lawsuit was filed with an unspecified claim amount even though its conditions were not met, the lawsuit must be rejected due to the lack of legal interest without granting a time to the plaintiff. The first instance court conformed to the reversing decision and the appeal was rejected by the Court of Cassation for the 22nd Civil Chamber. Thereupon, the applicants exercised their right of individual application to the Constitutional Court within the legal period.
Applicant asserted that they filed the lawsuit with an unspecified claim amount since it was not possible for them to assess the exact value of their receivables before the lawsuit process. It is also claimed that their lawsuit was rejected on procedural grounds due to the divergence among the chambers of the Court of Cassation regarding the lawsuit for unspecified claim amount and that their right to a fair trial was violated for this reason. They claimed that their receivables were time-barred as a result of the
reversing decision ordered by the Court of Cassation mentioning the lack of legal interest and that there was no possibility anymore to initiate a new lawsuit due to the strict interpretation of the 22nd Civil Chamber and therefore, their right to legal remedies was violated.
Constitutional Court has decided that the claim regarding the violation of the right of access to the court is admissible and carried out the evaluation within the scope of Articles 36 and 13 of the Constitution. The Court has examined whether this interference on the right to the legal remedies is appropriate to the conditions stated on the Article 13 or not. The Court has stated that the interference is lawful in the sense that it was prescribed by law and based on a justified reason. In terms of proportionality, the Court has emphasized that the means chosen for the interference must be an ultimate remedy and the least damaging to the applicants' rights.
The Constitutional Court stated that Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 grants judge the authority to render the lawsuit petitions prepared in violation of the procedural rules into compliance with the law and that that these authorities are aimed at not to restrain the right of access to the court due to some formal deficiencies. It is also expressed that even if it is decided that the lawsuit for an unspecified claim amount was filed erroneously, the lawsuit should be regarded as general action for performance and the plaintiff should be granted a time to clarify the conclusion and request; thus and so, such serious interference to the right to legal remedies could be prevented. Accordingly, considering the opportunities available under the procedural law, it was decided that the direct dismissal of the applicants' lawsuit on the grounds of lack of procedural requirement violated their right of access to the court.
This decision of the Constitutional Court bears significance with respect to the right to a fair trial and the right of access to the court in the event that the lawsuits for unspecified claim amount are rejected due to the absence of procedural requirement. This decision regarding lawsuits for unspecified claim amount is precedent not only in the employment disputes but also in other disputes that are characterized as unspecified claim amount. Even if the court decides that the receivable is not subject to the lawsuits for unspecified claim amount, the court should not dismiss the lawsuit directly due to the lack of procedural requirement, and the plaintiff should be given time to clarify the conclusion and request.
You can access the full text of the decision of the Constitutional Court via this link.