The Constitutional Court (“CC”) held that the partial dismissal of the action on the grounds of lack of legal interest, based on the assertion that claims for severance pay and annual leave wage receivables cannot be brought as an indeterminate claim, constituted a disproportionate interference with the right of access to a court guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution. The CC found that, considering the procedural mechanisms available under procedural law, such an approach did not constitute a measure of last resort. Accordingly, it concluded that, for the purpose of ensuring the filing of the most effective type of action for the adjudication of a dispute concerning a civil right, it would have been sufficient to opt for a less restrictive measure, and that the preference for a severe measure rendering access to a court impossible failed to satisfy the requirement of necessity (“the Decision”).
In its decision dated 15 April 2025 and numbered 2019/1844 (“the Decision”), the Constitutional Court (“CC”) held that the right of access to a court, as an integral component of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution, had been violated.
The application concerned an action filed by the applicant before the Karaman Labour Court (“Labour Court”) seeking the recovery of employment-related receivables. The applicant brought the action as an indeterminate claim, requesting the payment of severance pay, overtime wages, weekly rest day wages, national and general holiday wages, and annual leave wages.
The Labour Court ruled that the annual leave wage receivable was determinable as of the date of filing and therefore could not be pursued within the framework of an indeterminate claim, and accordingly dismissed these claims on procedural grounds due to the absence of a procedural prerequisite.
The applicant filed an appeal, upon which the (abolished) 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held that the action had correctly been dismissed for lack of legal interest with respect to the annual leave wage claim, as such claim was determinable and thus could not form the subject matter of an indeterminate claim. However, the Chamber further noted that, although the severance pay claim was likewise determinable and could not be pursued as an indeterminate claim, the Labour Court had erroneously accepted this claim instead of dismissing it for lack of legal interest and therefore quashed the decision.
Following the reversal decision of the Court of Cassation, the Labour Court complied with the reasoning of the higher court and rendered a judgment accepting the claims for overtime, national holiday, and general holiday wages, while dismissing the claims for severance pay and annual leave wages on the grounds that they could not be brought as an indeterminate claim and that legal interest was lacking.
At this stage, the CC examined the application within the scope of the right of access to a court guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution and found that, having regard to the procedural mechanisms available under procedural law, dismissal on the grounds of lack of legal interest did not constitute a measure of last resort. The CC emphasized that the adoption of a severe measure rendering access to a court impossible failed to satisfy the requirement of necessity.
In its reasoning, the CC explicitly stated that it was necessary to assess whether the restriction imposed on access to a court was proportionate and whether it placed an excessive burden on the applicant. Noting that the purpose of indeterminate claims is to allow the assertion of receivables whose amounts cannot be precisely determined at the time of filing, the CC underlined that, where an action is considered to have been erroneously filed as an indeterminate claim, accepting the action as a general performance action and granting the claimant time to clarify the claim would constitute a less restrictive measure, thereby avoiding the severe interference inherent in procedural dismissal.
In this context, the CC concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right of access to a court was disproportionate and accordingly ruled that Article 36 of the Constitution had been violated.
As regards redress, the CC ordered retrial to eliminate the consequences of the violation, while rejecting the applicant’s claims for compensation.
The Decision was published in the Official Gazette dated 6 January 2026 and numbered 33129.
You can access the full text of the Decision via this link
