Constitutional Court Finds Access to Court Violation Where Partial Claims Are Blocked by Statute of Limitations
I. Introduction
A partial claim is often used when the claimant cannot determine, with full certainty, the exact amount of a receivable or loss at the time of filing. In such cases, the claimant files for a limited amount and reserves the right to claim the remainder later. This approach is practical, but it creates a limitation risk: while the statute of limitations is affected (and paused) for the amount claimed, it may continue to run for the part not yet claimed. In long proceedings, this can lead to a situation where the amount later added through amendment is challenged on statute of limitations grounds.
The Constitutional Court’s decision dated 17.07.2025 and docket no. 2021/65631 is important because it examines this exact problem through the lens of the right of access to a court. The Court accepted that where the amount of the receivable or loss becomes clear only during the proceedings, typically through expert examination, and where the resulting delay cannot be attributed to the claimant, the way limitation rules are applied must also be assessed under the principle of proportionality.
II. Summary of the Facts and the Procedural History
The case arises from a Pilot Candidate Flight Training Agreement between the Applicant and Turkish Aeronautical Association Gökçen Aviation Economic Enterprise. The agreement provided for a training period of 12–18 months and a total fee of USD 66,500 (including VAT). The Applicant alleged that the training was not completed within the contractual timeframe and that the service was defectively performed. On 13.02.2015, the Applicant filed a lawsuit before the Ankara 6th Consumer Court, expressly reserving rights as to the excess, and claimed TRY 1,000 in pecuniary damages and TRY 20,000 in non-pecuniary damages.
Before the case could be examined on the merits, the proceedings were delayed due to a jurisdiction dispute. The Consumer Court issued a lack-of-jurisdiction decision and the file was sent to the civil court of first instance. The civil court of first instance then sought a formal determination of the competent court. By its final decision dated 25.10.2017, the Ankara Regional Court of Justice 13th Civil Chamber ruled that the competent court was the Consumer Court. This jurisdiction process took approximately 2 years and 8 months and postponed the merits review, including any expert examination.
After jurisdiction was finally settled, an expert report dated 16.07.2018 assessed the performance beyond the contractual period as a defect in service and calculated a price reduction (based on the defect ratio) in the amount of TRY 62,452.44. Following this development, the Applicant increased the claim by amendment on 19.09.2018. The defendant responded by raising a statute of limitations defense in respect of the increased portion.
III. First-Instance and Appeal
By its decision dated 03.04.2019, the Ankara 6th Consumer Court accepted the price reduction claim, found that the service was defective, and ordered the defendant to pay TRY 62,452.44 as stated in the expert report. The Court reasoned that flight training agreements were not subject to a specific limitation period under the relevant legislation and therefore applied the general ten-year limitation period under Article 146 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098. On that basis, it did not restrict the amended portion on limitation grounds. However, it dismissed the claim for pecuniary damages based on loss of earnings and the claim for non-pecuniary damages.
On appeal, the Ankara Regional Court of Justice 3rd Civil Chamber adopted a different legal framework. It first held that the case was not an unquantified debt claim but a partial claim. It then relied on Article 4/A of Law No. 4077, stating that a two-year limitation period applies to elective rights arising from defective services and a three-year limitation period applies to damages caused by defective services.
Accepting the defendant’s statute of limitations defense in relation to the amended portion, it concluded that the amounts increased by amendment (both the price reduction and the pecuniary damages claim) were time-barred. The judgment was therefore reduced to the amounts initially claimed. The dismissal reasoning for the non-pecuniary damages claim was also maintained. After cassation review, the decision became final, and the Applicant filed an individual application before the Constitutional Court.
IV. Constitutional Court’s Assessment: Right of Access to Court, Proportionality, and “Excessive Burden”
The Constitutional Court examined the application under Article 36 of the Constitution, focusing on the right of access to court. It accepted that limitation periods, and the fact that amendment is subject to time constraints, generally serve legitimate aims such as legal certainty and legal stability. The core issue was whether, in this specific case, the way limitation rules were applied produced a disproportionate outcome for the Applicant.
The Court noted that the amended increase was closely connected to the fact that the true amount of the claim was not clear at the start of the proceedings. The price reduction amount became clear for the first time through the expert report dated 16.07.2018. The Applicant then amended the claim on 19.09.2018, while the defendant raised a statute of limitations defense for the increased portion. The Regional Court of Justice dismissed the amended portion based on the two and three-year limitation periods under Article 4/A of Law No. 4077.
For the Constitutional Court, the decisive point was whether the Applicant could fairly be blamed for not increasing the claim earlier. The Court found no assessment showing that the amount could have been determined without expert examination, and no finding that the Applicant deliberately delayed the amendment. In other words, there was no basis to treat the timing of the amendment as a matter of choice or neglect.
The Court then focused on the reason why the expert process unfolded late. It found that the jurisdiction dispute prevented the case from moving to a merits stage for approximately 2 years and 8 months. As a result, the expert examination, and therefore the clear quantification of the price reduction, was also delayed. This delay was not attributed to the Applicant.
Against this background, the Constitutional Court concluded that dismissing the amended portion on statute of limitations grounds effectively prevented the Applicant from pursuing a substantial part of the claim. When the legitimate purpose of limitation rules was weighed against the practical effect on the Applicant, the outcome amounted to an “excessive burden”. The restriction on access to a court was therefore not proportionate, and the right of access to a court was found to be violated.
V. Conclusion
The Constitutional Court held that where the amount of the receivable or loss cannot reasonably be determined at the time of filing, the amount becomes clear during the proceedings through expert reports, and the delay in that process cannot be attributed to the claimant, dismissing the amended portion on statute of limitations grounds may place an “excessive burden” on the claimant. In the concrete case, it found a violation of the right of access to a court, ordered a retrial to remedy the consequences of the violation, and declined to award compensation on the basis that a retrial would provide sufficient redress.
This decision is significant because it clearly highlights the constraints, and the related risks, created by limitation periods for claims increased by amendment in partial actions. It indicates that, in cases where the amount cannot reasonably be quantified at the outset and only becomes clear during the proceedings (often through expert examination), dismissing the amended portion on statute of limitations grounds may impose a disproportionate burden on the claimant. In similar disputes, the procedural course of the case and whether any delay can fairly be attributed to the claimant should therefore be considered when evaluating a statute of limitations defense.
