The Basic Question of the Review: Has the Standard of Proof Really Changed?
For the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the Answer Is Largely Yes
In the decisions of the 6th Civil Chamber in 2024-2026, it can be seen that the approach looking solely for person-specific concrete proof of damage in a high-inflation environment has been abandoned or considerably relaxed. The Chamber accepts that, where economic indicators exceed default interest, a presumption of damage and an expert’s basket calculation may be relied on.
The Decisions Form a Self-Repeating Continuity
After the decision E.2023/1766, K.2024/4097 of 14.11.2024, the decisions E.2024/3534, K.2025/15 of 13.01.2025; E.2024/360, K.2025/978 of 11.03.2025; E.2025/544, K.2025/3055 of 23.09.2025; E.2024/3553, K.2025/3873 of 13.11.2025; E.2025/1988, K.2026/1547 of 16.04.2026; E.2025/4148, K.2026/1670 of 22.04.2026; and E.2025/2406, K.2026/2915 of 01.07.2026 have developed the same orientation.
One Cannot Speak of a Single Isolated Reversal Decision
The continuity of the series of decisions points to a line of practice for the 6th Civil Chamber. However, this line is not a common principle adopted by all the chambers of the Court of Cassation and the Civil General Assembly.
For the Court of Cassation as a Whole, the Answer Is No
The decision of the Civil General Assembly, E.2021/938, K.2022/401, accepted that munzam zarar must be proven by concrete facts specific to the creditor’s own situation, apart from general economic indicators. The decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 12.03.2024, E.2023/1897, K.2024/1099, and its later decisions continue this approach.
The Divergence in Case Law Continues
On one side there are the economic basket and factual presumption; on the other, the standard of a person-specific, clear and measurable concrete damage. These two methods lead to different results as to the existence of damage and the scope of the burden of proof.
The Description “Settled Case Law” Should Be Used with Restraint
One can speak of a stable line for the 6th Civil Chamber; but it cannot be asserted that the case law has converged across the Court of Cassation as a whole or that the approach of the Civil General Assembly has been entirely abandoned.
The Facts in the Decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation Dated 01.07.2026
The Dispute Concerns the Balance of the Price of a Restoration Work
A contract for the restoration works of a külliye (religious-social complex) was concluded between the parties in 2007-2009; the contract and the additional works were completed and delivered by the claimant contractor. When the price of the work was underpaid, the claimant sent a notice dated 02.08.2011, and the defendant fell into default on 19.08.2011.
The Principal Claim Was Determined in Earlier Actions
In the first action before the Edirne 1st Civil Court of First Instance, it was determined that the claimant was owed TRY 1,304,293.23; but because an amendment (ıslah) could not be made after the reversal, judgment was rendered on TRY 20,000. The action to annul the objection (itirazın iptali) brought after the objection to the enforcement proceedings started for the balance of the claim also became final in the claimant’s favour.
The Claim Was Collected About Nine Years Later
The claimant collected the remaining principal claim of TRY 1,284,293.23, together with TRY 1,053,587.82 of accrued interest, in 2020; it nevertheless argued that the interest did not make good the real loss.
The Court of First Instance Upheld the Action on the Basis of the Economic Basket
In the expert report, from the date of default of 19.08.2011 to the date of collection, a basket calculation was made on:
- TEFE and CPI (TÜFE)/PPI (ÜFE),
- bank deposit interest rates,
- exchange rates,
- government bond interest rates,
- worker wages,
- other investment instruments
and the damage not covered by interest was determined as TRY 3,004,279.87. The court upheld the action on the ground that the defendant had not proved the contrary of the presumption of damage or its own lack of fault.
The Regional Court of Appeal Rejected the Action on the Grounds of Concrete Damage and Absence of Fault
The Regional Court of Appeal (BAM) held that the claimant had not proven by concrete evidence its allegations of being unable to obtain new work, of using loans or of being unable to pay its debts; that the price of the additional work was determined through the proceedings; that a public administration could not be expected to pay without a final decision; and that a culpable default by the debtor could not be spoken of.
The BAM Re-Discussed the Date of Default
Although the date of default of 19.08.2011 had been determined in the earlier final decisions, the BAM moved towards the conclusion that there was no proper default because the amount of the claim was determined through the proceedings.
The BAM Applied the Strict Concrete-Proof Approach
Despite the economic basket report, the claimant’s failure to submit proof of damage specific to its own situation was one of the main grounds of the rejection.
Why Did the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation Reverse the Decision?
A Final Determination of Default Cannot Be Disregarded
The Chamber took into account that the claim and the date of default had become final in the earlier actions. The fact that the amount of the claim was determined at the end of the proceedings does not automatically remove the final determination of default in the later action.
That the Claim Was Disputed Is Not the Same as Lack of Fault
That the debtor disputed the debt or its amount does not automatically show that it had no fault at all in falling into default. In particular where the debtor knew of the work done, accepted it and persisted in not paying, the defence of lack of fault must be made concrete.
The Material and Legal Effect of the Earlier Final Judgment Must Be Examined Separately
In a munzam zarar action the principal claim is not tried again. What the earlier judgment made final as to the claim, the default and the start of interest must be determined.
An Economic Presumption Was Accepted in a Period of High Inflation
The Chamber considered it in accordance with the ordinary course of life that, in a high and persistent inflation environment, a reasonable person would not keep its money idle and would turn to foreign currency, gold, term deposits or government bonds at least to prevent loss of value.
The Loss of Value of Money Was Treated as a Reduction in Assets
Default interest falling behind inflation and other economic returns points to a real reduction in the creditor’s assets. If this reduction can be measured by economic indicators, it was not considered necessary for the damage to be separately proven solely by a personal loan document.
The Factual Presumption Does Not Entirely Remove the Burden of Proof
The creditor must set out the default period, the principal claim, the payments and the economic data to be applied. The debtor may in turn raise the contrary of the presumption, its lack of fault, a break in the causal link or errors in the calculation.
An Expert or Expert Panel Was Requested from the Court
According to the reversal decision, the BAM must determine, by a basket calculation formed from economic elements, whether the creditor has damage exceeding default interest.
The Six Data Groups to Be Used in the Calculation
- The annual TEFE-TÜFE rates,
- The banks’ three-month average term deposit interest rates,
- Government bond interest rates,
- US dollar and euro exchange rates,
- The minimum wage increase,
- The increase in gold prices.
The Basket Average Must Be Applied to the Specific Period
The economic data must be processed periodically and comparably from the date of default to the payment date; partial payments and interest actually collected must be shown separately.
The Most Innovative Aspect of the Decision: Ease of Proof and Set-Off Discipline Were Established Together
The Default Interest Collected Will Be Deducted from the Basket Damage
Munzam zarar is not the total loss of value but the net loss exceeding default interest. The Chamber required that the default interest collected by the claimant be subtracted from the amount found by the economic basket calculation.
Gross Loss of Value and Net Munzam Zarar Were Distinguished
The expert cannot merely calculate the value the claim would have reached and make this amount the basis of the judgment. The principal, the interest collected and any other redress must be separated.
Duplicate Compensation Must Be Prevented
The same economic loss must not be allowed to be compensated twice, under interest, the basket and concrete loan cost.
The Consequence of the Claimant’s Wrong Choice of Interest Was Placed on the Claimant
The distinguishing point of the decision is that, in the earlier claim action, the claimant claimed statutory interest when it could have claimed advance (avans) interest.
The Difference between the Interest That Could Be Claimed and the Interest Claimed
The Chamber held that the default interest under-collected as a result of the claimant’s right of choice cannot be added to the munzam zarar calculation as an obligation of the debtor.
Munzam Zarar Is Not an Unlimited Tool to Compensate for the Creditor’s Procedural Choices
TCO Article 122 makes good the loss arising from the debtor’s default; it cannot be used to transfer entirely to the debtor the result of the creditor’s incomplete or erroneous claim in the earlier action.
The Decision Has Strengthened the Creditor’s Duty to Mitigate Damage
The creditor must claim the appropriate type of interest, use the enforcement and litigation routes in time and not create duplicated damage. In this respect the decision does not merely introduce an ease of proof in favour of the creditor; it also establishes a review of self-responsibility in the calculation.
On What Grounds Was the Old Strict Proof Approach Based?
Civil General Assembly E.2021/938, K.2022/401
The Civil General Assembly accepted that general economic facts such as inflation, high interest and exchange-rate increases cannot be regarded as munzam zarar on their own, and that the creditor must make concrete the actual loss it personally suffered because of the late payment.
The Acceptance That the Statutory Interest Regime Is a Legislative Choice
According to the Civil General Assembly, the economic indicators were taken into account by the legislator when setting the interest rates. Awarding additional compensation in every case on the basis of the same indicators could result in changing the statutory interest rate by judicial means.
The Burden of Concretisation under Article 194 of the HMK
The facts giving rise to the damage must be clearly asserted; loans, exchange-rate differences, missed transactions or other reductions in assets must be proven with legal evidence.
3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation E.2023/1897, K.2024/1099
The 3rd Civil Chamber stated that high inflation, the dollar rate and free-market interest rates give the creditor no ease of proof, and that the claimant must prove the damage specific to its own concrete situation.
A Mere Loss of Purchasing Power Was Not Regarded as Sufficient
In this line, the loss of real value of a claim is not compensated under TCO Article 122 unless there is a separately proven personal damage apart from default interest.
The Road to the Caner Şafak Application
This decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber later became the subject of the Caner Şafak pilot decision of the Constitutional Court General Assembly, and it was found that the existing legal remedies were ineffective in making good the loss of value.
Continuity in the Other Chambers
In the 2025 decisions of the 9th and 10th Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation too, measurable and person-specific damage was required apart from general economic adversity. In the Caner Şafak decision, the Constitutional Court expressly assessed that the civil chambers other than the 6th Civil Chamber predominantly followed the Civil General Assembly line.
The Economic Basket Approach Has Historical Foundations
The Decision of the Civil General Assembly Dated 10.11.1999
In the decision E.1998/13-353, K.1999/929 of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, it was accepted that in a hyperinflation environment a reasonable person would not keep its money idle, and that turning to instruments such as term deposits or foreign currency forms a factual presumption in accordance with the ordinary course of life.
The Approach of Notorious and Generally Known Fact
It was considered that, because the economic indicators are facts known to the public and easily verifiable, they do not require separate personal proof.
The Debtor May Prove the Contrary of the Presumption
The debtor may show, by the particulars of the specific case, that the creditor did not suffer damage or that even had it received the money on time it could not have preserved its value.
The 2012-2013 Decisions of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation
The 11th Civil Chamber issued decisions accepting a basket calculation based on the average of inflation, deposit, government bond and foreign-currency data. These decisions show that the current approach of the 6th Civil Chamber is not a newly created theory; an old line of case law has been strengthened again.
The Abolished 15th Civil Chamber E.2018/3765, K.2018/4907
The Chamber required that the economic indicators between the dates of default and collection be taken from official institutions; that the amount the claim would have reached if invested in a basket made up of these instruments be calculated; and that it be compared with the interest collected.
The Current 6th Civil Chamber Approach Has Taken Over This Methodology
The 2024-2026 decisions of the 6th Civil Chamber continue the basket calculation of the abolished 15th Civil Chamber in the field of contracts for work, with more detailed and rights-based reasoning.
The Transition within the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation Is Not a Single Straight Line Either
In Decision E.2023/3584, K.2025/692 the Majority Upheld the Rejection
In the decision dated 24.02.2025, the claimant argued concrete damage such as the cancellation of loans, the sale of immovables and the inability to enter tenders, and the majority upheld the rejection decisions of the court of first instance and the BAM.
The Dissenting Opinion Advocated the Economic Basket Approach
The dissenting opinion in the decision explained in detail that the economic basket and factual presumption method should be applied in high inflation.
A Sign of the Transition Period
The fact that, in the same year, the Chamber later gave reversal decisions adopting the economic basket shows that 2025 was the transition year in which the orientation of case law became clear.
Decision E.2025/1988, K.2026/1547 Limited the Choice of Method
In the decision dated 16.04.2026, the Chamber distinguished the concrete and abstract methods of proof; it stated that the two methods cannot be used together in a duplicated way for the same damage.
If There Is Concrete Damage, a Document Link Must Be Established
Allegations of a loan, card debt, third-party debt or construction cost must be tied, in terms of date and causation, to the delay of the principal claim.
The Abstract Basket Method May Be Set Up as an Alternative Calculation
If concrete damage cannot be proven, the basket method specific to a period of high inflation can be argued; but the sum of the two calculations cannot be claimed.
The Constitutional Court’s Caner Şafak Pilot Decision Changed the Balance
The Case Concerns a Bank Claim between Private-Law Persons
The applicant started enforcement proceedings in 2010 on a principal claim of TRY 48,854; it collected its claim about ten years later with interest of 9 per cent per annum. The munzam zarar action was rejected on the ground that person-specific concrete damage had not been proven, and the rejection was upheld by the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation.
The Constitutional Court Found the Static Interest Regime Insufficient
The Court found that the interest rates in Law No. 3095 remained below inflation over long periods and were therefore not suitable, even at a theoretical level, to protect the real value of the claim.
The Debtor’s Paying Below the Real Value Upsets the Fair Balance
The creditor’s inability to reach the real value, and the debtor’s paying its debt below its real value, upset the balance between the parties to the creditor’s detriment.
The State’s Positive Obligation Extends to Private-Law Relationships Too
The Constitutional Court accepted that, in disputes between private-law persons too, the State must establish an effective legal infrastructure protecting the right to property.
The Constitutional Court Did Not Regard the Munzam Zarar Action as an Effective Route
The Court assessed that although TCO Article 122 literally offers a route of redress, because of the concrete-damage approach of the Civil General Assembly and most chambers it does not offer a theoretical and practical chance of success in making good the loss of value arising from inflation.
The 6th Civil Chamber Was Shown as an Exception
In paragraph 64 of the Caner Şafak decision, it is stated that the civil chambers other than the 6th Civil Chamber decided in line with the Civil General Assembly. The Constitutional Court thus expressly recorded the divergence in case law.
Finding of a Structural Problem
The Constitutional Court concluded that the lack of an effective legal remedy stemmed not from an individual court error but from the statutory and case-law structure.
Pilot Decision and Notification to the Grand National Assembly
The Constitutional Court, stating that a clear statutory regulation was needed to resolve the violation, decided that the decision be notified to the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM) and that applications made on the same subject be adjourned for six months.
The Decision Did Not Lay Down a Specific Calculation Formula Directly
The Constitutional Court did not determine which index or which basket would be used for each claim. It pointed to the legislature and the judiciary the obligation to establish a mechanism that would effectively make good the loss of real value.
The Decision of the 6th Civil Chamber Is One of the First Strong Applications after the Pilot Decision
The decision of the 6th Civil Chamber dated 01.07.2026 applies the economic basket method in detail to a specific dispute under a contract for work about one year after the Caner Şafak pilot decision.
How Should the ECtHR Decisions Be Read?
Ahmet Nihat Özsan AŞ v. Türkiye Found an Inconsistency in Case Law
The ECtHR determined that there were two lasting approaches to the same legal problem:
- The approach in which inflation exceeding default interest is regarded as a presumption of damage,
- The approach in which concrete pecuniary damage exceeding interest is separately proven.
The Problem Was Not Simply the Existence of Different Decisions
From the ECtHR’s perspective, the violation arose from the failure to resolve effectively, within the national system, a deep and continuing divergence in case law.
No Separate Ruling Was Made on the Property Complaint
In view of the conclusion it reached on the right to a fair trial, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine the property complaint separately. The decision should therefore not be read as meaning that the inflation difference will be compensated in every case.
Denizci v. Türkiye Required Exhaustion of the Domestic Remedy
The ECtHR found the application inadmissible, assessing that the applicant had not brought a munzam zarar action based on TCO Article 122 and that this route offered a reasonable chance of success at that date.
The Caner Şafak Decision Changed the Later Discussion of Effectiveness
The Constitutional Court’s 2025 pilot decision reached the conclusion that the munzam zarar route is not effective in making good the loss caused by inflation. This new constitutional finding must be taken into account in later assessments of the effectiveness of the domestic remedy.
The Interest Reform of 31 July 2026 Did Not End the Case-Law Debate
Law No. 7589 Linked Statutory Interest to a Dynamic Formula
Article 1 of Law No. 3095 was amended on 31.07.2026; statutory interest was linked to 80 per cent of the TCMB short-term rediscount rate. If the 30 June rate differs from the previous 31 December rate by at least five points, the new rate will be applied in the second half of the year.
As of 30 October 2026 Statutory Interest Is 31 Per Cent
Since the rediscount rate dated 20.12.2025 is 38.75 per cent, the result of the new formula is 31 per cent. In commercial matters, if the conditions are met, the advance (avans) rate of 39.75 per cent may be taken into account separately.
The Reform Postdates the Main Court of Cassation Decision
The decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E.2025/2406, K.2026/2915, was given on 01.07.2026. Law No. 7589 was published on 31.07.2026. The decision was therefore formed during the period in which the old fixed statutory interest regime was in force.
The Historical Period of the Decision Is 2011-2020
The period of concrete damage belongs to a time well before the new interest system. The new regulation does not retroactively remove munzam zarar alleged to have arisen in the past.
The New Dynamic Rate May Reduce the Future Damage Gap
Adapting the interest rate more quickly to economic conditions may reduce the loss of the real value of a claim. However, default interest may still fall below the concrete financing cost or the economic basket.
Link with Constitutional Court E.2024/24, K.2025/164
The Constitutional Court annulled the former Article 1 of Law No. 3095 as regards debt relationships not arising from contract and stated that the fixed rate could not protect the claim against inflation. Law No. 7589 adopted the new formula before the annulment took effect.
The Structural Problem of the Pilot Decision Cannot Be Regarded as Fully Resolved
The new interest formula is an important legislative response; however:
- past-period damage,
- contractual and commercial financing costs,
- periods in which the interest rate may still remain lower than inflation,
- the divergence in case law between strict concrete proof and the economic basket
continue. Whether the system is effective will be seen through new decisions.
How Should Litigation Strategy Be Built after 2026?
The Creditor Should Not Rely Solely on an Inflation Table
Although the basket approach of the 6th Civil Chamber provides a significant ease of proof, the strict approach of the other chambers continues. All possible concrete damage documents should therefore be brought into the file.
Evidence File for the Concrete Method
- Loan and financing documents,
- third-party debts,
- exchange-rate difference records,
- tax and premium delays,
- commercial books,
- cash flow,
- missed contracts and tenders.
Economic Data File for the Abstract Method
- TÜİK indices,
- TCMB deposit and exchange-rate data,
- government borrowing yields,
- gold series,
- minimum wage and wage indices,
- the statutory and commercial interest rates of the relevant period.
The Two Lines of Case Law Should Be Openly Argued in the Petition
Instead of merely listing decisions in its favour, the creditor should explain the opposing decisions of the Civil General Assembly and the 3rd Civil Chamber, and justify why the rights-based approach of the 6th Civil Chamber and the Constitutional Court should be applied in the specific file.
The Chamber’s Field of Duty and the Type of Dispute Matter
The fact that contract-for-work files come to the 6th Civil Chamber has made this line of case law more visible in that area. The risk of a different approach persists in other legal relationships and the chambers assigned to them.
The Constitutional Court Pilot Decision Is a Binding Constitutional Framework
The lower courts cannot ignore the Constitutional Court’s assessment of the right to property and effective remedy in its violation and pilot decision. However, since the Constitutional Court did not prescribe a specific compensation formula, the specific calculation and the conditions of TCO Article 122 must still be argued.
The Date of Default and the Interest Claim Should Be Set Up Correctly from the First Action
The decision of 01.07.2026 shows that the interest choice in the earlier action may directly affect the later munzam zarar calculation.
The Possibility of Commercial Interest Should Be Investigated
Whether the parties are merchants, the commercial nature of the transaction, the interest clause in the contract and Article 2 of Law No. 3095 should be examined together.
The Prayer for Relief Determines the Future Set-Off Risk
Claiming low statutory interest when higher interest could have been claimed may create an under-collection attributable to the creditor, to be deducted from the basket calculation.
The Expert Examination Should Not Conceal Legal Questions
The court should first determine which line of case law it will apply, the date of default, the type of interest and the set-offs. Giving the expert only the abstract task of “calculate the munzam zarar” is insufficient.
Basic Questions to Put to the Expert
- What are the dates of default and payment for each claim item?
- How much principal remains after partial payments?
- How much default interest was collected?
- On which official data is the periodic economic basket based?
- What is the difference between simple and compound calculation?
- Did the creditor have the possibility of claiming higher interest?
- Do the concrete damage items overlap with the basket calculation?
- What net munzam zarar remains after which set-offs?
An Alternative Report May Be Obtained
Because of the divergence in case law, the expert may be asked for an alternative calculation on:
- the concrete damage method only,
- the economic basket method only,
- different basket weights,
- statutory and commercial interest alternatives.
The legal choice must be made by the court.
The Debtor’s Defence Should Not Rest Solely on the Sentence “There Is No Concrete Evidence”
In the line of the 6th Civil Chamber, this defence may not be sufficient on its own. The debtor must set out in detail:
- why the high-inflation presumption should not apply in the specific case,
- its lack of fault,
- that the causal link was broken,
- the creditor’s conduct that increased the damage,
- wrong interest and enforcement choices,
- technical errors in the basket method,
- the risk of duplicate compensation.
Comparative Map of the Decisions
- Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly (HGK) E.2021/938, K.2022/401: Adopts the person-specific concrete damage approach; does not regard general inflation and exchange-rate increases as sufficient on their own.
- Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber (HD) E.2023/1897, K.2024/1099: Applies the strict concretisation standard; this rejection approach later became the subject of the Constitutional Court’s Caner Şafak pilot decision.
- Court of Cassation 6th HD E.2023/3584, K.2025/692: While the majority gave a rejection decision, the dissent advocated the economic basket method; the decision shows the transition and the difference of opinion within the Chamber.
- Court of Cassation 6th HD E.2024/360, K.2025/978: Adopted the economic basket method; reversed the BAM rejection decision given on the ground that there was no concrete damage.
- Court of Cassation 6th HD E.2025/544, K.2025/3055: Accepted the presumption and basket approach in a period of high inflation; expressly stated that the requirement of strict concrete evidence had been moved away from.
- Constitutional Court Caner Şafak, Application No: 2024/41763: Found a structural problem as regards the effective-remedy right linked to the right to property and gave a pilot decision.
- Court of Cassation 6th HD E.2025/1988, K.2026/1547: Distinguished the concrete and abstract methods; stated that the two methods cannot be applied in a duplicated way for the same damage.
- Court of Cassation 6th HD E.2025/2406, K.2026/2915: Combined the economic basket with set-off discipline; required that the interest collected and the difference arising from the creditor’s wrong choice of interest be deducted from the calculation.
Conclusions That Can and Cannot Be Drawn from This Decision
Conclusions That Can Be Drawn
The 6th Civil Chamber Has Adopted the Basket Method in High Inflation
More than one decision accepts a presumption of damage and an expert calculation on the basis of economic indicators.
Strict Concrete Proof Is Problematic in the Light of Constitutional Court Decisions
Particularly in cases where a claim was held for a long time at interest below inflation, closing off all routes of redress for lack of additional person-specific documents may give rise to a problem of property and effective remedy.
Set-Off and the Creditor’s Conduct Are an Inseparable Part of the Calculation
The basket approach is not unlimited compensation. The interest actually collected and the losses arising from the creditor’s own choices are deducted.
Conclusions That Cannot Be Drawn
Not Every Inflation Difference Is Automatically Munzam Zarar
The conditions of a monetary debt, default, damage, causal link and fault continue to exist. In a period of normal or low inflation, the requirement of concrete proof may be stronger.
Not All Chambers of the Court of Cassation Share the Same View
The concrete-damage approach of the Civil General Assembly and the other chambers is in force. It cannot be said that unity of case law has been achieved.
The Highest Return of a Single Investment Instrument Cannot Be Claimed
The basket approach aims at reasonable value preservation; it is not a profit-maximisation method that allows the creditor, looking back, to choose the highest-yielding instrument.
The Constitutional Court Did Not Directly Lay Down a Formula for Compensation of a Specific Amount
The pilot decision called for the establishment of an effective legal remedy; the calculation method and the conditions of TCO Article 122 must be made concrete by the lower courts and the legislature.
Related articles: Default Interest and Excess Damage Claims in Fund Refund Instructions That Were Not Carried Out.
Conclusion
The proof of munzam zarar in high inflation has changed markedly for the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation. In 2024-2026 the Chamber moved away from treating a person-specific concrete damage document as the only valid means of proof and began to apply the economic basket and factual presumption method consistently. The decision E.2025/2406, K.2026/2915 of 01.07.2026 sets out this line in the most detail.
However, the change is not complete for the Court of Cassation as a whole. The Civil General Assembly and the 3rd, 9th and some other civil chambers continue the concrete-damage approach. The Constitutional Court’s Caner Şafak pilot decision found that this divergence is not merely a technical matter of proof, but gives rise to a structural rights problem because there is no effective legal remedy protecting the real value of private-law claims against inflation.
The interest reform of 31.07.2026 is an important development; but it does not by itself resolve past damage, different financing costs or the divergence in case law. When preparing a munzam zarar action today, the safest strategy is to submit the concrete damage documents in full, to set up the economic basket calculation in an alternative and reviewable way, to claim the right type of interest from the first action, and to argue the opposing case law openly.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has the Court of Cassation changed its case law on munzam zarar?
There is a marked change for the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation. However, since the Civil General Assembly and some other chambers continue the concrete-damage approach, full unity of case law has not formed across the Court of Cassation as a whole.
What did the decision of 01.07.2026 change?
The decision applied the economic basket method; it required that the default interest collected and the difference arising from the creditor’s claiming statutory interest when it could have claimed higher interest be deducted from the damage.
Is high inflation alone sufficient for proof?
The 6th Civil Chamber may treat economic indicators as a presumption of damage in high and persistent inflation. The Civil General Assembly and other chambers, however, look for person-specific concrete damage. It is therefore risky to rely on an inflation table alone.
Which data are used in the economic basket?
TEFE-TÜFE, three-month term deposits, government bonds, the US dollar, the euro, gold and minimum wage increases are the main indicators listed by the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation.
Can the creditor claim both loan interest and the basket damage?
The same economic loss cannot be compensated twice. The period and loss covered by concrete loan damage and by the basket calculation must be separated; overlapping amounts must be set off.
If statutory interest was claimed in the earlier action, is munzam zarar entirely rejected?
No. However, if statutory interest was chosen when there was the possibility of claiming higher interest, the amount of under-collected interest arising from that choice may be deducted from the munzam zarar calculated.
Does the Caner Şafak decision apply to debts between private persons?
Yes. The decision arose directly from a bank claim between private-law persons, and it is a pilot decision of violation as regards the effective-remedy right linked to the right to property.
Did the Constitutional Court order that munzam zarar actions be accepted?
No. The Constitutional Court found that the existing interest and case-law system does not offer an effective route to make good the loss of value, and stated that a statutory regulation was needed. It did not prescribe automatic acceptance in every action or a specific calculation formula.
Did Law No. 7589 resolve the divergence in case law?
Such a conclusion cannot yet be drawn. The dynamic interest rate may reduce the loss of value; but the past periods, concrete financing losses and the debate on the standard of proof continue.
For which actions is this decision particularly important?
It is important for long-running actions on works and commercial claims, final monetary claims against a public institution or a private debtor, consumer claims collected with low interest, and enforcement proceedings spread over a period of high inflation.
What is the most frequent error in the expert report?
Not separating the periods and partial payments, not showing the official data source, not deducting the interest collected, taking the highest return of a single investment instrument as the basis, and making a legal assessment.
Does the decision impose unlimited liability on the debtor?
No. The debtor may raise its lack of fault, a break in the causal link, the creditor’s conduct that increased the damage, calculation errors and duplicate compensation.
Which case law must be argued in the action?
Together with the favourable decisions of the 6th Civil Chamber, the opposing decisions, namely Civil General Assembly E.2021/938, K.2022/401 and 3rd Civil Chamber E.2023/1897, K.2024/1099, as well as the Constitutional Court’s Caner Şafak pilot decision, must be assessed.
Sources
Principal Decisions Examined
- Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, E.2025/2406, K.2026/2915, T.01.07.2026
- Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, E.2025/1988, K.2026/1547, T.16.04.2026
- Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, E.2025/4148, K.2026/1670, T.22.04.2026
- Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, E.2025/544, K.2025/3055, T.23.09.2025
- Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, E.2024/3553, K.2025/3873, T.13.11.2025
- Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, E.2024/360, K.2025/978, T.11.03.2025
- Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, E.2023/3584, K.2025/692, T.24.02.2025
- Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, E.2023/1766, K.2024/4097, T.14.11.2024
- Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, E.2021/938, K.2022/401, T.29.03.2022
- Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, E.2023/1897, K.2024/1099, T.12.03.2024
- Court of Cassation 15th Civil Chamber, E.2018/3765, K.2018/4907, T.06.12.2018
- Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, E.1998/13-353, K.1999/929, T.10.11.1999.
Constitutional Court and ECtHR
- Caner Şafak [GK], Application No: 2024/41763, T.08.07.2025
- ANO İnşaat ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. [GK], Application No: 2014/2267, T.21.12.2017.
- Constitutional Court, Application No: 2017/24810, T.27.11.2019.
- Constitutional Court, E.2024/24, K.2025/164, T.22.07.2025
- ECtHR, Ahmet Nihat Özsan Anonim Şirketi v. Türkiye, Application No: 62318/09, T.09.02.2021.
- ECtHR, Denizci v. Türkiye, Application No: 57031/12, T.17.03.2022.
Legislation and Official Data
- Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, Articles 117-122
- Law No. 3095 on Statutory Interest and Default Interest
- Law No. 7589, Article 10
- TCMB Rediscount and Advance Interest Rates
Date of source and legal check: 30 October 2026. Because the divergence in case law continues, the competent chamber in the specific file and later-dated decisions should be rechecked.