A plaintiff who files a lawsuit in Turkey is not obligated to see that case through to a final judgment. Litigation strategies evolve, settlements get reached outside the courtroom, and sometimes parties simply reassess whether continuing makes sense. Turkish civil procedure addresses this reality through a formal mechanism known as “feragat,” which is best understood in English as renunciation of the claim, a concept distinct from merely withdrawing a case file from court.
The Statutory Definition of Renunciation
The Turkish Code of Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu, Law No. 6100) addresses this institution under Article 307, within the section governing party acts that terminate proceedings. The article reads:
“Renunciation is the plaintiff’s partial or complete abandonment of the relief sought in the lawsuit.”
This definition is deceptively simple but carries enormous weight. Renunciation is not the same as a settlement agreement between the parties, nor is it the same as a court dismissing a case for procedural defects. It is a unilateral declaration by the plaintiff alone, stating that they no longer wish to pursue some or all of what they originally asked the court to grant.
This is precisely why so many people, including those unfamiliar with Turkish litigation, confuse renunciation with the act of withdrawing a lawsuit, regulated separately under the Code. Withdrawing a case (davayı geri alma) generally allows the plaintiff to refile the same claim later, since the underlying right has not been given up, only the specific lawsuit has been paused or removed. Renunciation, by contrast, extinguishes the right itself with respect to that claim. The practical consequences of choosing one path over the other can be dramatically different, which is why legal advice before taking either step is essential.
Formal Requirements for a Valid Declaration
Because renunciation produces such serious and largely irreversible consequences, Turkish law imposes strict formal requirements on how it must be declared. Article 309 of the HMK governs the form of both renunciation and acceptance of a claim (the latter being the defendant’s mirror-image act of agreeing to the plaintiff’s demands). The article provides:
“Renunciation and acceptance shall be made by petition or verbally during the proceedings. The validity of renunciation and acceptance does not depend on the consent of the other party or the court. In partial renunciation or acceptance, the part being renounced or accepted must be clearly stated in the petition or in the record. Renunciation and acceptance must be unconditional and unqualified.”
Several important points emerge from this provision. First, renunciation can be made either through a written petition submitted to the court file or through an oral declaration made during a hearing, which is then recorded in the official minutes. Both forms carry equal legal weight, provided all other requirements are satisfied.
Second, and this is a point that surprises many people coming from other legal systems, renunciation does not require the agreement or acceptance of the defendant, nor does it need to be approved by the judge in the sense of an exercise of discretion. Once validly declared, it produces its effects automatically by operation of law.
Third, if the renunciation is only partial, meaning the plaintiff is giving up some claims while continuing to pursue others, the portion being renounced must be identified with precision, either in the written submission or in the hearing record. A vague or ambiguous statement that leaves room for interpretation will not satisfy this requirement, precisely because the consequences are so significant and courts will not speculate about what a party meant.
Fourth, and perhaps most critically, the declaration must be unconditional. A plaintiff cannot say they renounce their claim “provided that” something else happens, or “unless” some condition is met. Renunciation is a clean, unequivocal statement, with no room for hedging.
There is also an important practical matter regarding legal representation. If a lawyer is acting on the plaintiff’s behalf, the power of attorney (vekâletname) granted to that lawyer must contain an explicit, specific authorization to renounce claims under Article 74 of the HMK. General authority to represent the client in litigation is not sufficient on its own. This requirement reflects how seriously the legal system treats this particular act, since it can permanently dispose of a client’s substantive rights.
When Renunciation Can Be Declared
One of the more flexible features of this mechanism concerns timing. Article 310 of the HMK addresses this directly:
“Renunciation and acceptance may be made at any time until the judgment becomes final.”
This means the window for renunciation is remarkably broad. It is not limited to the early stages of a case, nor does it close once the trial court issues its decision. A plaintiff can renounce a claim while the case is still pending before the court of first instance, after a judgment has been rendered but before it becomes final, during proceedings before the regional courts of appeal (Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi), and even while the matter is under review by the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay).
This extended timeline reflects a practical reality of litigation: settlements and changes of heart can occur at any stage, sometimes years into a dispute and well into the appeals process. When renunciation occurs while a case is already at the appellate or cassation stage, the higher court typically does not proceed to examine the substantive merits of the appeal. Instead, the file is sent back to the court that issued the original decision, so that an additional ruling can be issued reflecting the renunciation and its effect on the case.
The Binding Legal Effect of Renunciation
The consequences attached to renunciation are what make this such a consequential decision, and Article 311 of the HMK spells them out plainly:
“Renunciation and acceptance produce legal effects equivalent to a final judgment. In cases involving defects of intent, annulment of renunciation or acceptance may be sought.”
In practical terms, the first sentence means that once a valid renunciation is declared, the dispute over that claim is treated as conclusively resolved, with the same force as if a court had issued a final judgment on the merits after a full trial. The court will then issue a formal ruling dismissing the claim due to renunciation (feragat nedeniyle davanın reddi), and this dismissal ruling itself carries the force of res judicata.
The practical upshot is significant: because the underlying right has been extinguished, and not merely the specific lawsuit, the same claim generally cannot be brought again in a new proceeding between the same parties on the same legal basis. If a plaintiff who previously renounced a claim later attempts to file a new lawsuit asserting that same right, the defendant can raise the defense of res judicata, and the new case will typically be dismissed on procedural grounds without the court even examining the substance again.
It is also worth noting that under Article 312 of the HMK, a party who renounces a claim is treated, for purposes of court costs and fees, as though judgment had been rendered against them. This means renunciation can carry direct financial consequences in terms of litigation expenses, a factor that should be weighed alongside the substantive effects.
Partial Renunciation in Practice
Renunciation does not have to involve giving up an entire case. Article 307 explicitly contemplates partial renunciation, where a plaintiff abandons only certain claims or portions of the relief originally sought while continuing to pursue the remainder of the lawsuit.
A common scenario involves cases with multiple heads of claim, such as a compensation lawsuit seeking damages for several distinct categories of loss. A plaintiff might, for instance, decide to renounce the claim related to one category of damages, perhaps because new evidence has emerged showing that head of damage is unsupportable, while continuing to pursue the remaining categories through trial.
As discussed above, the formal requirement that the renounced portion be clearly identified becomes especially important in these partial scenarios. Courts will look closely at whether the petition or hearing record precisely delineates what has been given up versus what remains in dispute, and any ambiguity can create complications later regarding what exactly was resolved by the renunciation and what remains open for adjudication.
The Narrow Exception for Defects of Intent
While renunciation is generally treated as final and irreversible once validly declared, Turkish law does not leave absolutely no room for exceptional circumstances. The second sentence of Article 311 allows a party to seek annulment of a renunciation where it was made under defects of intent (irade bozukluğu), a concept drawn from the general principles of the Turkish Code of Obligations covering situations such as mistake, fraud, or duress.
If a party can demonstrate that their renunciation was the product of one of these defects, rather than a genuine and informed exercise of their procedural rights, they may seek to have that renunciation annulled. This can be raised in one of two ways. It can be presented as a defense within the same set of proceedings, if the issue comes to light while matters are still active before the court. Alternatively, it can form the basis of an entirely separate lawsuit specifically aimed at annulling the renunciation.
In practice, however, successful challenges on these grounds are relatively uncommon. Courts in Turkey generally hold parties, and particularly parties represented by counsel with explicit authorization, to the declarations made on their behalf. Establishing genuine defects of intent requires substantial evidence, and the bar for overturning what is otherwise treated as a final, conclusive act is intentionally high.
Practical Guidance for Parties Considering Renunciation
For anyone involved in litigation in Turkey, whether a domestic party, a foreign investor, or a business with cross-border interests, the decision to renounce a claim deserves careful thought before any petition is filed or any oral declaration is made in a hearing. Unlike procedural steps that leave the door open for a second attempt, renunciation closes that door permanently with respect to the right involved.
Before instructing counsel to proceed with a renunciation, it is worth pausing to confirm exactly what outcome is intended. Sometimes what a party actually wants is to pause active litigation while settlement negotiations continue, without giving up the underlying right in case those negotiations fail. Other times, a party may simply want to remove a case from the court’s docket temporarily. Neither of these goals is achieved through renunciation under Article 307; each calls for a different procedural mechanism entirely.
Given the binding, final, and largely irreversible nature of this declaration, and given that any lawyer making such a declaration on a client’s behalf must hold explicit written authorization to do so, clear communication between client and counsel is essential. Anyone navigating litigation in Turkey should ensure that instructions regarding renunciation, whether to proceed with it or to avoid it, are documented in writing well before any hearing or filing where the issue might arise.
For all legal matters concerning Turkish law, you can reach out to Attorney Ozan Soylu. Legal consultancy and representation services are provided with a dedicated approach for foreign nationals. To submit your questions, contact us.
Leave a Comment