Yıldırım Beyazıt Law Review

Abstract

Amendment of claim is a significant procedural mechanism that allows the parties to partially or entirely revise their procedural acts during the course of litigation. While it has a broad scope in civil procedure law, its application is more limited in administrative judicial proceedings. With the addition of the second sentence to Article 16(4) of the Code of Administrative Procedure (İYUK) in 2013, it has been permitted to increase the amount claimed in full remedy actions only once and until the final judgment. However, this provision has given rise to various debates regarding whether an amendment may be made during the appellate stages. The Council of State has issued divergent decisions on this matter. Considering the purpose of administrative judicial procedure and the specific nature of full remedy actions, there is a compelling need to allow amendments at the appellate stage as well. In cases where the actual damage can only be determined during the appellate stage, denying the possibility of amendment based on a narrow interpretation-despite the absence of an explicit legal prohibition-prevents the claimant from obtaining full compensation for their loss. Such a restrictive interpretation of procedural rules hinders the claimant’s ability to reach a fair judgment and thus constitutes a violation of the right of access to a court and the principle of fairness within the scope of the right to a fair trial. This study examines the scope and limitations of amendment within administrative judicial procedure, offers a comparative perspective by analyzing the debates on amendment during appellate proceedings in civil procedure law, and evaluates the practice in administrative jurisdiction in light of the case law of the Council of State and the Constitutional Court.