The Fine Line Between "Unspecified Claim Lawsuits" and "Partial Actions" in Labor Disputes: A Comprehensive Legal and Procedural Analysis

The fine line between an "Unspecified Claim Lawsuit" (Belirsiz Alacak Davası) and a "Partial Action" (Kısmi Dava), which stands as one of the most fundamental debate topics in labor law and civil procedural law, carries vital importance in preventing the forfeiture of legal rights.

The statutory requirements of an unspecified claim lawsuit regulated under Article 107 of the Civil Procedure Code (HMK) No. 6100, the arbitrability of labor receivables under this lawsuit type, and the contemporary precedents of the Joint Appellate General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation (YHGK) are closely monitored within the legal community.

In this comprehensive article, we analyze in full legal detail the substantive nature of unspecified claim lawsuits, their differences from partial actions, the evaluation of the concept of "legal interest" (hukuki yarar) as a condition precedent to litigation (dava şartı), and the divergent jurisprudence among the specialized civil chambers of the Court of Cassation.

THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE NO. 6100: UNSPECIFIED CLAIM LAWSUITS

Unspecified Claim Lawsuit – Article 107:

1. In circumstances where it cannot objectively be expected from the plaintiff to fully and precisely determine the exact amount or value of the claim at the date the lawsuit is initiated, or where such a determination is impossible, the creditor may file an unspecified claim lawsuit by specifying the underlying legal relationship and a minimum layout amount or value.

2. (Amended: 22/7/2020-7251/Art. 7) The moment it becomes possible to fully and precisely determine the exact amount or value of the claim as a result of the information provided by the opposing party or through the judicial investigation phase (tahkikat), the plaintiff may—within a two-week mandatory peremptory period (kesin süre) to be granted by the judge prior to the conclusion of the investigation—fully and precisely determine their ultimate claim, completely free from the statutory prohibition on expanding the scope of the claim (iddiananın genişletilmesi yasağı). Otherwise, the lawsuit shall be adjudicated and resolved based on the initial minimum amount or value specified in the statement of claim.

3. (Repealed: 22/7/2020-7251/Art. 7)

Procedural Characterization of Unspecified Claims Against Partial Actions

When executing a technical legal characterization under the light of statutory regulations governing unspecified claim lawsuits and partial actions, the following parameters must be evaluated:

• A) Absolute Impossibility of Verification: For an unspecified claim lawsuit to be legally viable, it must be objectively impossible to determine the exact amount or transactional value of the claim at the date of filing, or it must be an unreasonable expectation to demand the plaintiff to execute such a calculation.

• B) Mandatory Explicit Designation in Pleadings: The plaintiff, while initiating the action, must explicitly provide the legal characterization in their statement of claim, stating that the lawsuit is filed as an "unspecified claim lawsuit" pursuant to Article 107 of the HMK. This explicit declaration eliminates any structural ambiguity regarding the nature of the action.

• C) Objective Inability to Quantify: The inability to quantify the claim amount must be an objective impossibility for the plaintiff, meaning that despite demonstrating the necessary professional care, diligence, and attention, the quantification of the disputed amount remains outside the plaintiff's cognitive and technical reach at the time of filing.

• D) The Element of Legal Interest as a Condition Precedent: If the value and amount of the underlying claim are fully known or easily discoverable through a basic calculation at the date of filing, an unspecified claim lawsuit cannot legally be initiated. In such an instance, the prerequisite of "legal interest" will fail to materialize.

As required in all civil actions, it is a strict condition precedent that the plaintiff must possess a valid legal interest in initiating that specific lawsuit typology. If the claim is liquidated or liquidable (ascertained or easily ascertainable), the plaintiff cannot exploit the advantages attached to an unspecified claim lawsuit under Article 107. If filed anyway, the action faces a procedural dismissal due to a lack of legal interest. In such scenarios, the plaintiff should instead utilize a "Partial Action" under Article 109 of the HMK or file a full performance action.

[Diagram illustrating the procedural decision matrix for a plaintiff deciding between an Unspecified Claim Lawsuit, a Partial Action, or a Full Performance Action based on the ascertainability of the claim and the presence of Legal Interest]

• E) Vetting of Evidence and the Structural Shift: Pursuant to Article 107, paragraph 2 of the HMK, if the true value of the claim can solely be uncovered after the opposing party submits the specialized files, payroll registers, and records hidden in their corporate sphere, or through judicial discoveries (keşif) and expert witness evaluations (bilirkişi incelemesi) processed during the investigation phase, the action is recognized as a valid unspecified claim lawsuit. Once the expert report quantifies the exact balance, the plaintiff can seamlessly increase their initial minimum demand to the true amount, completely exempted from the prohibition on expanding the claim.

• F) Information Asymmetry: “The plaintiff must lack access to the necessary information and documents required to calculate their claim during the pre-litigation preparation period. If the quantification of the disputed amount is conditional upon the disclosure of registers uniquely held by the employer, the lawsuit is a classic unspecified claim action. The core benchmark is that the precise determination of the relief sought cannot objectively be expected from the plaintiff.” (H. Pekcanıtez, Unspecified Claim Lawsuit, Ankara 2011, p. 45; H. Pekcanıtez / O. Atalay / M. Özekes, Civil Procedure Law, 14th Ed., Ankara 2013, p. 448).

• G) The Misconception of Expert Vetting: “While an unspecified claim lawsuit can be filed when the final calculation is dependent upon the vetting of evidence or expert computations during the investigation, the mere fact that a case will go to an expert witness does not single-handedly render a claim unspecified. If the plaintiff possesses the metrics to calculate the amount prior to filing despite requiring an expert calculation later, an unspecified claim lawsuit cannot be sustained.” (C. Simil, Unspecified Claim Lawsuit, 1st Ed., Istanbul 2013, p. 225).

• H) The Equity and Haircut Deduction Exception in Labor Law: In settled Court of Cassation jurisprudence, where labor receivables—such as overtime pay, weekly rest day wages, or public holiday (UBGT) remuneration—cannot be anchored to concrete written records or workplace logs and must be calculated based on oral witness testimonies, the Judge enjoys the statutory power to apply an equitable haircut deduction (hakkaniyet indirimi) from the final sum. Because the exact percentage of this deduction depends entirely on the judicial discretion of the Judge during the judgment phase, its amount is unquantifiable for the employee at the date of filing. Consequently, claims subject to an equitable haircut deduction inherently constitute a valid subject-matter for an unspecified claim lawsuit under Articles 50, 51, and 56 of the Turkish Obligations Code (TBK).

Doctrinal Controversy on Non-Compliant Filings and the Judge's Duty to Clarify

A severe doctrinal rift exists regarding how a court must react when a plaintiff files an unspecified claim lawsuit although the alacak is clearly specified or specifiable:

The Strict Procedural View (Pekcanıtez / Atalay / Özekes):

“If an action is filed as an unspecified claim lawsuit although its statutory requirements are absent, the court must immediately dismiss the case out-of-hand due to a lack of legal interest, without granting the plaintiff any extension or grace period to convert the action. Because a valid unspecified claim lawsuit was not legally established from the beginning, this deficiency cannot be cured through a subsequent remedy under Article 115/2. The legal interest required here is not a curable condition. Allowing the plaintiff a grace period to alter an explicitly liquidated claim would provide them with an unfair procedural advantage, violating the Principle of Weapons Equality (tarafların eşitliği ilkesi). Civil procedural rules do not permit such a practice.” (Pekcanıtez/Atalay/Özekes, Civil Procedure Law, 14th Ed., Ankara 2013, p. 454).

The Labor Judiciary View (Settled Practice of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation):

Conversely, the specialized labor chambers implement a more flexible, employee-protective approach. If a statement of claim demands a minimum amount but remains structurally ambiguous as to whether it constitutes an "unspecified claim lawsuit" or a "partial action," the relief sought is deemed vague (muğlak).

Pursuant to Article 119, paragraph 2 of the HMK, the court must grant the plaintiff a one-week peremptory period to explicitly clarify the technical nature of their action. Following this clarification:

1. If the plaintiff declares the action to be an unspecified claim lawsuit, but the claim fails to meet the statutory criteria of being unliquidated, the case is dismissed due to a lack of legal interest.

2. However, if the text manifests that the action fits the criteria of a "Partial Action", the court shall not dismiss the case; it shall seamlessly continue the litigation under the rules and consequences governing partial actions. (Court of Cassation, 9th Civil Chamber, dated 31.12.2012, Merits No: 2012/30463, Decision No: 2012/30091).

THE LANDMARK PRECEDENT OF THE COURT OF CASSATION GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF CIVIL CHAMBERS (YHGK)

• Merits No: 2015/22-1052

• Decision No: 2015/1612

• Decision Date: 17.06.2015

• Relevant Statutory Provisions: 6100 S.K. Articles 24, 26, 107, 109, 119

Summary of the Jurisprudential Conflict:

An intense conflict of jurisprudence arose between the 9th Civil Chamber and the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation regarding whether core labor receivables can legally be made the subject-matter of an unspecified claim lawsuit.

The 22nd Civil Chamber championed a strict approach, ruling that the mere fact that the calculation of working hours or the true salary is disputed between the parties does not single-handedly render an inheritance or labor receivable "unspecified." It argued that if a plaintiff files an unspecified claim lawsuit when the requirements are absent, the action must instantly be dismissed due to a lack of legal interest, without granting any extension period, and it cannot be re-characterized as a partial action.

Conversely, the 9th Civil Chamber defended the employee-protective view, arguing that given the severe information asymmetry in employment relations, labor claims are inherently unliquidated, and any ambiguity regarding the lawsuit type must be resolved by granting a grace period under the Judge's duty to clarify.

Factual Background and Lower Court Stance:

In the concrete dispute, the Local Labor Court ruled that the employer’s termination process was a sham transaction designed solely to circumvent the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement (toplu iş sözleşmesi), and that the employment relationships of the plaintiff and identically situated workers continued uninterruptedly.

Regarding the procedural dispute, the Local Court noted that the mere inclusion of the word "unspecified" in parantheses next to the minimum amounts in the statement of claim does not automatically establish an unspecified claim lawsuit; since the underlying claim for differential wages and differential bonuses was unliquidated, the action must be treated as a Partial Action.

Consequently, the Local Court applied the statute of limitations objection raised by the defendant against the plaintiff's subsequent amendment (ıslah) and partially accepted the case. Upon appeal, the Special Chamber reversed this judgment, but the Local Court resisted the reversal decree, entering a Decision of Resistance (Direnme Kararı).

Substantive Review of the Joint Appellate General Assembly (YHGK):

The core dispute centered on whether an action involving differential wages and differential bonuses derived from a collective bargaining agreement qualifies as an unspecified claim lawsuit, whether the plaintiff possesses a valid legal interest in filing an unspecified action, and whether a court can re-characterize an explicitly stated unspecified claim lawsuit as a partial action.

1. Procedural Characterization of a Partial Action:

A partial action is defined as a lawsuit initiated for a restricted segment of a divisible claim derived from a single underlying legal relationship. While a plaintiff commands the right to file a full performance action for the whole amount, they intentionally restrict the current relief sought to a temporary fraction.

For an action to be classified as partial, the statement of claim does not need to use the exact words "partial action"; it is legally sufficient if the text displays that the total claim is higher and includes expressions such as "reserving my rights regarding the remaining portion" (fazlaya ilişkin hakların saklı tutulması) or "claiming this amount for the time being." While Article 109, paragraph 2 of the HMK previously barred partial actions for undisputed, liquidated claims, this restrictive paragraph was completely repealed on April 1, 2015, via Law No. 6644, thereby restoring the unmitigated right to file partial actions regardless of whether the claim is liquidated or disputed.

2. The Interaction with the Principle of Party Autonomy and Binding Nature of the Relief Sought:

Pursuant to the Principle of Party Autonomy (Tasarruf İlkesi) codified under Article 24 of the HMK, a plaintiff must explicitly articulate the precise legal protection and remedy they seek from the court (Art. 119/1-ğ). Under Article 109, a plaintiff can choose to file a partial action for a divisible claim. In such a scenario, even if the court uncovers that the plaintiff's total entitlement is far higher, it is bound by the Principle of Being Bound by the Relief Sought (Taleple Bağlılık İlkesi - Art. 26 HMK), which dictates:

“The Judge is strictly bound by the ultimate demands of the parties; the court cannot grant more than what was requested or adjudge a different remedy. Depending on the circumstances, the court may grant less than the relief sought.”

3. Factual Application to the Concrete Dispute and Reversible Error:

In the concrete dispute, the plaintiff's counsel explicitly appended the word "(unspecified)" next to every initial claim amount in the results section of the statement of claim. Furthermore, during the trial, upon the submission of the expert report, counsel filed an amendment petition stating explicitly that they were “increasing the demands within their unspecified claim lawsuit.” The YHGK rules that where the plaintiff’s intent to file an unspecified claim lawsuit is completely clear and unambiguous, the trial court cannot unilaterally re-characterize the action as a partial action.

The minority view raised during the General Assembly sessions—arguing that placing the word "unspecified" in parantheses does not fulfill the criteria of a full collection action or an unspecified performance action, and that the case should be treated as a partial action from its inception to affirm the local decree—was rejected by the absolute majority of the General Assembly.

DECISION:

The Joint Appellate General Assembly adopts the reversal decree of the Special Chamber. The Local Court’s decision of resistance is REVERSED due to procedural and statutory non-compliance, and the file is remanded for a new adjudication. Decided via a Majority Vote (oy çokluğu) on 17.06.2015.

THE POWERFUL DISSENTING OPINION: ADVOCATING FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WEAKER PARTY

The deeply analytical Dissenting Opinion (Karşı Oy Gerekçesi) entered by the minority of senior Supreme Court Justices contains vital procedural guidelines for the labor judiciary:

I. The Structural Realities of Unspecified Claims vs. Partial Actions:

Pursuant to Article 107 of the HMK, an unspecified claim lawsuit can manifest through three distinct procedural archetypes:

1. An unspecified claim lawsuit seeking a full performance collection (Eda davası);

2. A declaratory unspecified claim lawsuit seeking pure declaration of a right (Tespit davası);

3. A hybrid action consisting of a partial performance demand combined with a total declaratory determination (Kısmi eda ve külli tespit davası).

The hybrid archetype functions similarly to a partial action under Article 109, but yields vastly different results regarding the statute of limitations. Under Article 119/1-ğ, the relief sought must be clear to allow the court to map out the nature of the action, ensure compliance with the prohibition against exceeding the demand (Art. 26), and draft a execution-ready judgment entry (Art. 297/1-ç). If the statement of claim is vague, the Judge must deploy their Statutory Duty to Clarify (Art. 31 HMK) to force the plaintiff to resolve the ambiguity.

II. The Core Criteria: Subjective vs. Objective Ascertainability:

Article 107 mandates two criteria to verify an unspecified claim: a) The plaintiff cannot realistically be expected to quantify the amount at filing (Subjective Element), or b) Quantification is technically impossible (Objective Element). Crucially, the code indexes the subjective element to the plaintiff personally, not to their legal counsel.

Under paragraph 2 of Article 107, if the final valuation requires data that can solely be extracted via the judicial vetting of evidence or an expert calculation report, the subjective element is satisfied, and the claim is unliquidated at filing. A plaintiff cannot be forced to hire private experts or initiate pre-trial discovery of evidence to quantify a claim prior to filing.

                  [THE STRUCTURAL SEPARATION]
                               │
       ┌───────────────────────┴───────────────────────┐
       ▼                                               ▼
[UNSPECIFIED CLAIM (Art. 107 HMK)]              [PARTIAL ACTION (Art. 109 HMK)]
       │                                               │
       ├─► Filing stops limitation for THE WHOLE       ├─► Filing stops limitation ONLY for 
       │   unliquidated claim amount.                  │   the fraction explicitly demanded.
       │                                               │
       └─► Balance added via an "Increase Petition"    └─► Balance added via an "Amendment (Islah)"
           exempt from limitation defenses.                vulnerable to Statute of Limitations.

III. The Mandate to Protect the Employee (İşçinin Korunması İlkesi):

In industrial relations, the employer holds a position of supreme socio-economic dominance, commanding the absolute power to issue directives, while the employee remains dependent and legally subordinate. This structural inequality cannot be ignored during the execution of procedural rules.

The Principle of Protecting the Weaker Party (Zayıfın Korunması İlkesi) is the lifeblood of labor jurisprudence. Furthermore, under the Principle of Low-Cost Litigation (ucuzluk ilkesi), an employee must be shielded from exorbitant advance court fees and litigation costs.

The unspecified claim lawsuit was created precisely to provide this effective judicial protection. Forcing an employee to quantify their exact receivables at filing—when all crucial employment logs, shift records, and payroll accounting are locked within the exclusive custody of the employer—represents an impossible burden and a legal contradiction.

IV. Legal Interest is a Curable, Tamamlanabilir Dava Şartı:

The majority's stance—ruling that filing an unspecified claim lawsuit when the claim is specifiable warrants an immediate procedural dismissal without any grace period—is an explicit breach of Article 115, paragraph 2 of the HMK. The code plainly dictates that if a condition precedent to litigation is missing but remedially curable (tamamlanması mümkün ise), the Judge must grant a peremptory extension to cure the defect.

Legal interest in this context is completely curable. Dismissing a case out-of-hand instead of allowing a conversion into a partial action represents a severe violation of the constitutional Right of Access to Court (Mahkemeye Erişim Hakkı) secured under the Right to Seek Justice (Art. 36 of the Constitution).

V. Sectoral Reality and the Strategic Advantage of Partial Actions:

Given that the majority of the General Assembly has unfortunately aligned with the strict view of the 22. Civil Chamber—rendering almost all core labor receivables ineligible for unspecified claim status—employees face a high risk of immediate procedural dismissal if they invoke Article 107.

Therefore, in contemporary labor litigation practice, it is strategically far more advantageous for an employee to initiate their case as a "Partial Action" under Article 109.

In a partial action, the plaintiff demands a safe fraction, and once the expert witness extracts the true metrics from the employer's files during the investigation, the plaintiff captures the remaining balance via an Amendment (ıslah). This path successfully insulates the employee from the catastrophic risk of a summary procedural dismissal due to a lack of legal interest.

CONCLUSION AND STRATEGIC ADVOCACY WARNING

The procedural battlefield between unspecified claim lawsuits and partial actions demonstrates that civil procedure rules act as the absolute boundary determining the success of a substantive right. A minor tactical misstep in the legal characterization of the relief sought can trigger the total collapse of a valid labor claim before the independent courts.

Strategic Litigation Blueprint for Labor Claims: Following the YHGK's restrictive precedent dated June 17, 2015, and taking into account contemporary high-court trends as of June 2026, initiating a labor dispute as an unspecified claim lawsuit carries severe procedural dangers unless the claim is bound to an unquantifiable equitable haircut deduction. To guarantee the absolute protection of our clients' rights against summary dismissals and to bypass the restrictive boundaries of high-court trends, Malgır Law Firm meticulously designs its litigation strategies by systematically deploying customized Partial Actions backed by robust expert witness modeling and dynamic amendment calculations.

REFERENCES:

• 6100 Sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu Mevzuatı (The Civil Procedure Code No. 6100)

• 6098 Sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu Genel Hükümleri (The Turkish Obligations Code No. 6098)

• Settled Precedents of the Joint Appellate General Assembly of Civil Chambers (YHGK)

• Pekcanıtez, H. / Atalay, O. / Özekes, M.; "Civil Procedure Law", 14th Ed., Ankara 2013.