An Important Constitutional Court Decision on Procedural Dismissal in Indefinite Claim Lawsuits

The Constitutional Court has rendered a significant decision that will guide judicial practice regarding the long-debated issue of the procedural dismissal of certain employment-related claims on the grounds that an indefinite claim lawsuit cannot be filed, due to the absence of a condition of action.

In the dispute subject to the decision dated 15 April 2025, application no. 2019/1844, published in the Official Gazette on 6 January 2026, the applicant’s severance pay and annual leave pay claims were dismissed on procedural grounds for lack of a condition of action, on the basis that these receivables were determinable in nature and therefore could not be brought as an indefinite claim lawsuit.

The Constitutional Court examined this approach within the framework of constitutional proportionality and emphasized that the right of access to a court is a fundamental element of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution. While acknowledging that procedural rules are necessary for the orderly conduct of judicial proceedings, the Court clearly stated that such rules cannot be applied so rigidly as to eliminate the freedom to seek legal remedies.

According to the Constitutional Court, where it is concluded that the conditions for filing an indefinite claim lawsuit are not met, directly resorting to procedural dismissal is disproportionate, given that less restrictive procedural alternatives are available, such as treating the case as a general performance action, requesting the claimant to clarify the claim, or allowing deficiencies to be remedied. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the right of access to a court had been violated and ordered a retrial.

In its decision, the Constitutional Court also made an explicit reference to its earlier ruling in the İsmail Avcı application, emphasizing that it has consistently reviewed the practice of procedural dismissal in indefinite claim lawsuits within the scope of the right of access to a court, rather than doing so for the first time. This demonstrates that the decision is not an isolated ruling, but rather a continuation of the Court’s established constitutional approach.