Witness Evidence in Civil Cases: The Witness List, the Value of Testimony and the Limits of Proof

Witness evidence in civil cases is the hearing before the court of third persons who know the events relating to the dispute. However, the existence of a person who knows an event does not mean that this person will necessarily be heard or that the testimony will win the case. Relying on witness evidence in time, filing the witness list in the proper form, the suitability of the witness to prove the fact to be established, and the assessment of the testimony together with other evidence are all required.

Writing a few names in the case file is not the same as preparing witness evidence. The real question is this: who knows which event, where and when, and through which source of information? A list prepared without answering this question may fail to clarify the central issue of the case, even if it contains many names. By contrast, a limited account based on direct knowledge may be decisive under the appropriate legal conditions.

This guide deals with civil cases under the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK) in Türkiye. Criminal proceedings are subject to separate rules on witnesses, victims and protection. The explanations have been prepared on the basis of the legislation in force as of October 11, 2026; for transactions dating from earlier, the applicable provision and the monetary limit must be determined separately. [1]

What is witness evidence, and who may be a witness?

A party's statement and witness testimony are different

Under Article 240 of the HMK, persons who are not parties to the action may be named as witnesses. The claimant explaining its own claim, or the defendant explaining its own defense, is not witness testimony. The conditions and effects of hearing a party, of an examination of a party (isticvap) and of an oath are different. Treating a party's statement at the hearing as if it were the testimony of a third person alters the structure of proof. [1]

Being an employee of a legal entity does not by itself preclude testimony. However, for the competent organ of a company or its legal representative, the person's capacity to represent the company in the action must be examined. Merely working in the workplace is not the same as being in a position to make a statement on behalf of the company as a party. A principal intervenor is a party to its own action; the position of an accessory intervenor (fer'î müdahil) is not equated with party status. For this reason, an approach stating that "no one connected with the file can be a witness" is incorrect. [1, 15]

There is no general eighteen-year age limit for a witness. Those who have not completed fifteen years of age at the time of hearing are heard without an oath. The same rule applies to persons whose powers of discernment are insufficient to grasp the nature and importance of an oath. The value of a child's account is assessed on the basis of perception, memory and ability to express, together with the circumstances of the event. [1: Art. 257]

A witness describes the event known to them, not the legal consequence

The task of a witness is not to render a legal judgment such as "the defendant is at fault", "the employer is wrong" or "the contract is void". The witness explains the conduct observed, the conversation overheard, the meeting attended, the delivery taken part in or the working arrangement known. Legal characterization belongs to the court.

A distinction must also be drawn between a person who directly observes an event and one who later hears about it from a party. Indirect knowledge is not always disregarded; however, it cannot be presented as direct observation without disclosing its source. "I saw the payment" and "he told me he had made the payment" do not carry the same evidentiary value. The direct knowledge itself may also be questioned as to the distance, the date and the conditions under which it was acquired. [1: Arts. 198, 255, 260–261]

Which events may be proved by witnesses, and in which cases is written evidence required?

The distinction between a legal transaction and a material event

The usability of witness evidence is not determined merely by looking at the monetary value of the action. First the nature of the fact to be proved is identified. Legal transactions such as the formation of a contract, the assumption of a debt or a payment that extinguishes a debt are not subject to the same regime of proof as the occurrence of an accident, the hearing of an insult or the actual performance of a work. Subject to special provisions, there is a broader scope for witness evidence in respect of material events. [1: Arts. 187, 189, 200]

The burden of proof must also be determined separately. As a rule, the party who derives a right in its favor from a legal consequence attached to a fact must prove that fact. Legal presumptions and special provisions may change the result. The fact that the other side calls a witness to rebut the claim of the opposing party does not mean that it has voluntarily assumed the burden of proof. For this reason, when preparing a witness plan, first the claims and defenses, and then the burden of proof for each, should be written out. [1: Arts. 190–191]

The limit on proof by written instrument and the ban on witness testimony against a written instrument

For legal transactions within the scope of Article 200 of the HMK, the requirement of proof by written instrument is assessed by reference to the amount or value at the date of the transaction. For 2026, the limit is 41,000 TL; transactions exceeding this amount are, as a rule, proved by written instrument. This amount is determined by applying together the updating under the Additional Article 1 of the HMK, the rule that the part not exceeding one thousand Turkish lira is disregarded, and the revaluation rate. For an old transaction, the 2026 limit cannot be used merely because the action was filed in 2026. A partial repayment of the debt bringing it below the limit does not remove the requirement of proof by written instrument at the outset. [1, 2]

Article 201 of the HMK is also important: against a claim based on a written instrument, legal transactions capable of removing or reducing the effect of the instrument may, as a rule, not be proved by witness testimony, even where the amount is low. Consequently, the conclusion "the claim is below 41,000 TL, so I will prove everything by witnesses" cannot be drawn. Where the matter is a payment or modification said to have been made after a written contract, this provision is separately examined. [1]

The requirement of proof by written instrument should not be confused with the written or formal requirement for the validity of a transaction. An exception permitting witness testimony does not make a transaction that is contrary to form valid of its own accord. The problem of proof and the validity of the transaction are separate questions.

Initial evidence, express consent and statutory exceptions

Where a matter must be proved by written instrument, a witness may be heard if the other party expressly consents under Article 200/2 of the HMK. Silence cannot be treated as express consent. Even where testimony is permitted, the witness's account does not become conclusive evidence; the court continues to assess all the evidence. [1]

Initial evidence (delil başlangıcı) under Article 202 of the HMK is a document that does not fully prove the alleged transaction but makes it probable, and which was issued or sent by the person against whom it is relied on or by that person's representative. A message sent by the other party may satisfy these conditions. On the other hand, a note prepared by the person themselves does not become initial evidence against the other party merely because it is in writing.

The exceptions listed in Article 203 of the HMK include transactions between certain close relatives, transactions for which it is settled practice not to draw up a written instrument, the impossibility of obtaining a written instrument in exceptional circumstances, allegations of defect of intent and exploitation, allegations by third persons of simulation (muvazaa), and the loss of the instrument under the conditions set by law. Saying "we are relatives" or "I cannot find the document" is not sufficient on its own. The family relationship must fall within the scope set by the law, the claim must genuinely correspond to the relevant exception, and the necessary facts must be explained. An allegation directed against a previously drawn written instrument must also be separately examined. [1]

How are WhatsApp messages and witness testimony assessed together?

Electronic correspondence, photographs, and audio and video recordings may be documents within the meaning of Article 199 of the HMK. However, not every screenshot is a written instrument, and not every message counts as initial evidence. The sender of the correspondence, whether it was interrupted, its date and context, and whether it was lawfully obtained are all important. A witness may explain the circumstances of a meeting in which they personally took part; this cannot replace the technical examination of a document. [1: Arts. 189, 199, 202]

Hypothetical example: A person says they lent a substantial sum of money; there is no signed written instrument in their possession. A message from the other party saying "I will repay the debt I received at the end of the month" may be important as initial evidence once its sender and context are verified. In the same event, the fact that only the claimant's own diary entry exists is assessed differently. Increasing the number of witnesses does not by itself create initial evidence that does not exist.

If there is an evidence agreement between the parties, it too must be examined. Under Article 193 of the HMK, the parties may agree on proof by specific means; however, evidence agreements which make it impossible or extraordinarily difficult for a party to prove its rights are void. For this reason, a clause in the contract stating that "only company records are valid" cannot be accepted as a definitive result without examining its content and effect. [1]

When is witness evidence relied on, and when is the witness list submitted?

Relying on evidence and submitting a list of names are separate acts

The claim or response petition must show the relevant facts and the evidence by which they will be proved. A general statement such as "all kinds of lawful evidence" cannot safely take the place of an explicit indication of the events to be proved by witness testimony and of the type of evidence. The witness list, by contrast, specifies the names and surnames of the persons to be heard, their addresses suitable for service, and the fact for which each is named. [1: Arts. 119, 129, 194, 240]

In the written procedure, the stage of mutual exchange of petitions must be considered; in simplified proceedings, the claim and response petitions must be read together with Articles 317 to 319 of the HMK. In simplified proceedings, no reply to the response and no second response are filed. Having never relied on witness evidence is not the same problem as having relied on it in time but not yet having notified the names of the witnesses. This distinction is also a matter of particular debate in the doctrine on witness lists. [1, 14]

After witness evidence has been relied on, the decision and time limit set by the court for the list must be monitored. Even where names are to be notified in the first petition, the list must not be prepared at random; the assumption that a new name can be added later carries a serious risk because of the ban on a second list.

There is no two-week witness list period valid in every file

The firm two-week period attached to the preliminary review summons under Article 139 of the HMK relates to documents indicated in the petitions but not yet submitted, and to the explanations required for documents to be brought from elsewhere. This provision cannot be read as meaning that, in every civil action, the witness list must necessarily be submitted within two weeks of service. For the witness list, the interim decision issued in the concrete file is separately examined. [1]

Nevertheless, a firm two-week period set by the court cannot be disregarded on the ground that "the law does not say two weeks". It is important that the step to be taken is clearly indicated under Article 94 of the HMK, and that the consequence of non-compliance is warned. Whether the period is firm, its starting point, the form of announcement or service of the decision, and whether the required step can be carried out are assessed. Where there is a risk of loss of rights, the step must not be delayed; an objection to the period must also be recorded with its reasons.

In what context should the Court of Cassation's approach to time limits be read?

In its decision of March 8, 2022, E. 2020/9-605, K. 2022/264, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) examined, in relation to the employee's witnesses named in the claim petition, the relationship between the period given in the preliminary review and the stage of the preliminary review. In the concrete circumstances of the dispute, the Assembly did not find the rejection of the request to hear witnesses consistent with the right to be heard and the right to proof; it quashed the judgment of resistance. [3]

However, the procedural steps that were the subject of the decision belong to the period 2013–2014. The fact that the decision is dated 2022 does not mean that the events began at that date. The 2020 amendments on the preliminary review and the submission of documents must also be taken into account. No unlimited conclusion can be drawn from this decision, such as "every period given before the preliminary review is invalid" or "witness names can always be submitted later". The safe practice is to rely on the relevant evidence in time, to follow the court's concrete interim decision and, where there is any unlawfulness, to explain it on the file. [1, 3]

How is the witness list prepared?

The mandatory elements of the list and the address problem

The witness list must clearly show the court and file information, the party submitting the list, the first and last names of the witnesses, their addresses suitable for service, and the events for which they are to be heard. Where there is more than one witness, the field of knowledge of each witness must be shown separately. Article 240 of the HMK does not count the Turkish identity number of the witness among the mandatory elements of the list; existing and necessary identity information is assessed within secure file management. [1]

Where the address is incomplete or wrong, the judge sets a firm period suited to the nature of the matter for the address to be notified. If no address is notified within that period, or if the new address given is also incorrect, the party is deemed to have abandoned the hearing of that witness. A telephone number does not take the place of an address suitable for service. Where it is known that the witness has moved, repeating the old address does not solve the problem. [1: Art. 240/3]

When preparing the list, the aim is not to write the sentences the witness will say, but to show the court the field of knowledge. Instead of the phrase "all the events in our petition", a specific fact should be set out, for example "the amount delivered and the objection at the moment of delivery, by reason of being present at the delivery on March 12". Periods or transactions which the witness does not actually know about must not be attributed to them.

Table matching facts, witnesses and documents

The table below is a hypothetical working tool that contains no information about real persons. It does not replace the petition to be submitted to the court; it makes visible the gaps in preparing the file.

This table also helps in considering the position of the other side. Objections such as "the witness was not there that day", "they were not working at the workplace in that period" or "the document does not match the date described" can be checked at the outset. The aim is not to make the accounts resemble one another, but to understand the real strength and weakness of the file.

The ban on a second witness list and its exceptions

The rule: the first list cannot be expanded without limit later

Article 240/2 of the HMK provides that persons not shown in the list cannot be heard and that a second list cannot be submitted. The rule aims to prevent the lengthening of proceedings by adding new witnesses as the other party's evidence is seen. Writing "explanation", "supplementary list" or "amendment" in the heading of a document submitted later does not by itself lift the ban where its content in fact contains new witnesses. [1, 14]

Correcting an obvious spelling error in a person's name or completing their address is different from naming another person in their place. Where a correction is alleged, it must be shown that the person was the same person from the beginning. The mere belief that a previous witness will not say as much as expected is not a sufficient reason to replace the witness.

The new fact and the discussion of late identification of evidence

In its decision of June 22, 2021, E. 2017/2301, K. 2021/807, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, HGK) emphasized the distinction between the principal divorce action, the counterclaim and the response to the counterclaim. The Assembly did not treat, within the same scope, witnesses named in time against the allegations raised in the counterclaim and witnesses added later for the same facts. The decision requires examination of which petition named which person for which fact, rather than unconditional hearing of all names notified. [4]

Under Article 145 of the HMK, the court may permit the late identification of evidence where the delay is not intended to prolong the proceedings or where the failure to identify the evidence in time is not attributable to fault of the party concerned. These two conditions are provided in the alternative in the law. The relationship of this with the ban on a second list is debated in the doctrine; the Assembly's decision mentioned contains an exceptional approach, whereas a strict approach emphasizes the special and mandatory nature of Article 240. [1, 4, 14]

For this reason, in relation to a witness learned of later, it is not enough to say only "I learned it recently". It must be explained when and how the information was learned, why it could not be notified earlier, which disputed fact the witness will clarify, and the effect of the delay on the proceedings. The other side may also object to the genuineness of these explanations and to the procedural admissibility of the new evidence. The existence of an exception does not permit a carelessly prepared first list.

A party that has submitted no list bringing a witness to the hearing

Article 243/1 of the HMK provides that, where a firm period for the witness list has been set and a day for the hearing of witnesses has been fixed, the witnesses that a party which has submitted no list brings to the hearing may be heard. This possibility is separate from the question of relying on witness evidence in time. It cannot be said that bringing any person to any hearing cures all procedural deficiencies. [1]

It is disputed in the doctrine whether a person who was not on a list previously submitted may be brought to the hearing. The study by Aziz Serkan Arslan and Mustafa Topal in 2025 argues that this possibility should also be granted to the party that has submitted a list, whereas the opposing view accepts that the rule is limited to the party that has submitted no list. This academic debate should not be presented as a settled and uncontested freedom. In practice, what matters is that the person was correctly notified in the first list. [5]

The death of a witness or the witness becoming a party to the action

In its decision of April 13, 2021, E. 2019/3092, K. 2021/2207, the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Hukuk Dairesi) found that a witness named in an action for cancellation and re-registration of title had died. The Chamber did not consider correct the rejection of a request to name a new witness in place of the deceased witness; it accepted that a period should be given for another witness to be named, indicating the fact to be proved. Here there is an unforeseeable situation of inability to hear the witness, which differs from a request to increase the number of witnesses. [6]

The decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi) of February 13, 2024, E. 2023/3530, K. 2024/988, shows another distinction. In an action concerning an allegation of fraud, the spouse named as a witness became an heir and a party to the action upon the death of the claimant. The Chamber stated that his statement could no longer be given the value of witness testimony, and quashed the judgment, indicating that the possibility of naming another witness in place of the witness who could not be heard should be considered. [7]

These decisions show that a witness not attending without excuse, and reasons such as death or acquiring the status of a party, are not the same. In a request for an exception, the reason why the witness could not be heard must be documented, and the field of knowledge of the person named in their place must be explained. It should also be borne in mind that naming a new person does not automatically substitute the information held by the previous witness.

How is a witness summoned, and who bears the costs?

Summons, a witness brought by a party, and the consequences of non-attendance

A witness is, as a rule, summoned by the court's summons. Except where there is a risk of delay, the summons must be served at least one week before the hearing. A witness brought by a party without a summons may also be heard within the relevant conditions. The court may give notice by telephone or e-mail; however, the consequences of non-attendance are not applied solely on the basis of that communication. [1: Arts. 243–244]

A witness duly summoned is obliged to attend, subject to the statutory grounds for refusal to testify. Failure to attend without a valid excuse may result in compulsory appearance, liability for the costs caused and a disciplinary fine. The consequences of subsequently proving a valid excuse are assessed separately. Where there is illness or another serious impediment, it must be notified to the court in time and with documentation. A party's statement that "you need not attend" does not remove the court's summons. [1: Art. 245]

An advance on evidence costs and an advance on costs that is a condition of the action are not the same

The cost required for summoning and hearing a witness is assessed within the advance on evidence costs (delil avansı). Under Article 324 of the HMK, the advance fixed by the court must be deposited within the firm period. If one party does not deposit it, the other party may do so; if the required advance is not deposited, the consequence may be that the party is deemed to have abandoned the evidence. This consequence must not be confused with the procedural rejection regime for an advance on costs which is a requirement of the action. [1]

According to the HMK Witness Fee Tariff of October 28, 2025, examined as of October 11, 2026, a witness fee of 130–200 TL is provided in proportion to the time lost. The necessary travel, accommodation and meal costs are covered separately. This amount is not the whole cost of hearing a witness in a case; notification and other cost items may also arise. It should not be confused with the separate witness tariff issued for criminal procedure. When a new tariff enters into force, the current amount is applied. [8]

Where there is financial hardship, the conditions for legal aid must be assessed. For evidence taken ex officio in matters in which the parties are not free to dispose of the proceedings, the arrangement in Article 325 of the HMK is also important. No file should be approached on the assumption that the cost will be borne by the State or that every witness will waive their fee. [1: Arts. 325, 334 et seq.]

To whom is the right to refuse to testify granted?

Kinship, secrets and violation of interest

Under Article 248 of the HMK, the right to refuse to testify is granted in cases such as engagement, companionship where the marriage has ended, the specified relationships of descendants and ascendants, the adoptive bond, blood relationship up to the third degree, in-law relationship as provided by law, and the relationship within a foster family. Kinship does not prohibit testimony; it may give the right not to testify against particular close relatives. The account of a person who chooses to testify is also assessed together with the other evidence. [1]

Secrets which must be protected by law are considered under Article 249 of the HMK; direct material damage to the person or to the close relatives specified, violation of honor and reputation, danger of criminal investigation or prosecution, and professional or trade secrets are considered under Article 250. The scope and consequence of these reasons are not the same. Not every uncomfortable question gives rise to a right not to answer.

Article 251 of the HMK creates exceptions to some grounds for refusal. Participation as a witness in the making of a transaction, family events of birth or death, family financial disputes, and transactions carried out by a legal predecessor or representative are examined within this framework. It cannot be said that the exceptions remove all grounds of refusal; the article applies only to the provisions it expressly specifies. [1]

The lawyer's duty of confidentiality and the position of public officials

Under Article 36 of the Attorneyship Law No. 1136 (Avukatlık Kanunu), a lawyer is prohibited from disclosing matters learned in the course of their profession. On these subjects, testimony depends on the consent of the client; even where consent is given, the lawyer may refuse to testify. Accordingly, the client's permission does not produce a result forcing the lawyer to testify in every case. Article 249 of the HMK preserves this special regulation. [1, 9]

For secrets learned by public officials in the course of their duties, the regime of permission under Article 242 of the HMK applies separately. Professional secrecy, the official secret and information which is not desired to be disclosed personally should not be placed in the same category.

How is the ground for refusal notified to the court?

The person who wishes to refuse must notify the ground and the evidence justifying it, in writing before the witness is heard or orally at the hearing. Where the ground and its basis have been notified in advance under Article 252 of the HMK, the special provision on the obligation to attend on the day fixed applies. The court hears the parties and decides whether the refusal is justified. Merely informing the opposing party by telephone, or failing to attend without any explanation, does not replace this procedure. [1]

Unreasoned refusal, or avoidance of testimony or oath despite the court not accepting the refusal, may give rise to the costs, disciplinary fines and, where the conditions are met, disciplinary imprisonment consequences under Article 253 of the HMK. The right to refuse to testify is not a permission to make a false statement.

How is a witness heard at the hearing, and how are questions asked?

Separate hearing, oath and record

Witnesses are heard separately; the presence in the courtroom of witnesses who have not yet been heard, listening to the account of another witness, is prevented. Confrontation may be carried out where necessary. Identity, relationship with the parties and relationships which may affect the confidence placed in the statement are clarified. The duty to tell the truth and the consequences of false testimony are recalled, and, subject to legal exceptions, the account is taken after the oath. [1: Arts. 254–261]

The witness states what they know orally. Reading out a pre-prepared written statement is not the basis of testimony. Where notes must be consulted in order to recall dates, figures or particular matters accurately, permission of the judge is requested. The account is recorded in the minutes; the minutes are read out and signed by the witness. Where there is a material difference between what was said and what was recorded, it must be pointed out without delay. [1: Art. 261]

Under Article 246 of the HMK, the court may, where it considers it appropriate, send written questions to a witness and request answers; if the answers are found insufficient, the witness may be heard further. An account prepared by a party or whose signature has been certified by a notary does not replace this court procedure. The existence of such a document and the accuracy of the facts it contains are assessed separately. [1]

Lawyers ask questions directly; parties ask through the judge

Under Article 152 of the HMK, lawyers attending the hearing may address questions directly to a witness. The parties ask their questions through the judge. Where an objection is raised to a question, the court decides. This right is not a power to pressure the witness, to suggest the answer or to turn the hearing into a debate. Interrupting a witness, praising or belittling them by word or conduct is also prevented within the framework of Article 262 of the HMK. [1]

A good question reveals the limits of the witness's knowledge. Questions such as "Where were you during the delivery?", "Which event do you remember this date by?" or "Did you hear the conversation you mentioned yourself?" make the account capable of evaluation, instead of "The claimant is right, isn't he?" These are not instructions on the answer to be given to the witness; they are examples aimed at clarifying the source of information under the supervision of the court.

Where a witness generalizes about a workplace in which they were not present on other dates, the separation of working periods may be requested. Where the date in a document differs from the oral account, the difference is clearly shown and an explanation is asked for. Rather than attempting to put the witness in contradiction by taking a single word out of its context, the concrete dispute affecting the outcome of the case should be focused upon.

Keeping an accurate record is not the same as making a secret recording

Making an audio or video recording of the hearing on a private telephone is not a free part of keeping a personal file. The prohibition in Article 153 of the HMK and the recordings the court may make for the purposes of the proceedings must be kept separate. The basic course for a party and its lawyer is to ensure that the official minutes are accurately drawn up and to examine a correct copy of them. [1]

After the hearing, the important statements made by the witness, the questions asked, the questions refused and the court's interim decisions must be recorded in the working notes of the file. A petition may not be written as if there were a statement in the minutes that is not there. The hearing must not be left to memory; the action taken, the correction requested and the period to be followed must be recorded.

Witnesses who are in another city, abroad or in special circumstances

The fact that a witness is in another city does not require the witness to be removed from the list. Under the conditions set out in the law, the witness may be heard before the court where they are located by way of letters rogatory (istinabe). The parties must be informed of the place and time of the hearing, and their opportunities to ask questions and make statements must be respected. Article 259 of the HMK also regulates the hearing, at the place where they are, of a witness who cannot attend because of illness or disability. [1: Arts. 197, 259]

Under Article 149/2 of the HMK, the court may, on the request of a party or ex officio, decide to hear the witness from the place where they are through simultaneous audio and video transmission. This does not mean that the witness may be connected to the hearing through any application they choose; the decision, identity verification and technical procedure are under the court's management. [1]

Entry into force: The provision added by Law No. 7589 on the handwritten signature in remote participation will enter into force on October 31, 2026. It is not yet in force on October 11, 2026, the date of legislative review for this guide. The new provision contains exceptions for admission, the taking of the oath, consent to withdrawal of the action, waiver, acceptance and settlement. When planning the hearing of a witness remotely, the text on the date of the transaction and the procedure to be applied must be checked again. [1, 17]

For a witness who does not know Turkish, an interpreter is required; for a witness with a hearing or speech impediment, the communication facilities under Article 263 of the HMK are considered. Difficulty of expression caused by language or disability cannot in itself be given as a ground of unreliability. The necessary conditions must be provided so that the witness can convey their statement through an interpreter. [1]

Where the witness is abroad, the relevant country, the applicable conventions, the route of judicial assistance, and the conditions of translation and service are examined together. It should not be assumed that the court in Türkiye can carry out forcible appearance in the same way in every foreign country, or that a direct video link can be set up in every file. The country where the witness is located and their current address should be identified even while the list is being prepared.

How does the judge determine the value of a witness's testimony?

Kinship, employment relationship or enmity is not an automatic ground for rejection

Witness evidence is evidence subject to the court's assessment. The judge assesses the account together with the other evidence, complying with the statutory limits. Being a relative, employee, former employee or friend of one of the parties does not by itself render the whole account void. On the other hand, dependence, a relationship of interest or concrete enmity may be important in assessing reliability. Under Article 255 of the HMK, the grounds that affect confidence may be raised and proved. [1]

In employment disputes, the fact that a witness has filed an action against the same employer must also not be resolved mechanically. The possibility of common interest or enmity is examined; however, the direct knowledge of a person who worked together in the same workplace is assessed separately. The case review by Cenk Akil and Meltem Ercan Özler discusses the need for a concrete and reviewable assessment, between assuming that a witness is necessarily telling the truth and unreasoned distrust. This academic assessment is not a provision of law or an automatic rule of acceptance to be applied to every file. [16]

Contradiction, memory error and consistency with documents

Not every difference carries the same weight. An inability to recall exactly the time of an event years earlier and a contradiction as to whether the person was at the scene cannot be assessed at the same level. The consistency of the account on the main facts, the source of information, change over time, and agreement with external records must be examined together.

Hypothetical example: In a labor case, a witness says that the claimant worked the same hours all year; however, the witness was in the same shift only for two months. This does not automatically render the whole account worthless. The two months the witness directly knew of are separated from the period they learned of from other persons. The payroll and entry records are also checked for the same periods. In this way, the usable and the limited aspects of the evidence become visible.

The judge's discretion is not a power of unreasoned choice. In particular, the reasons why contradictions capable of changing the outcome and concrete objections were or were not accepted must be understood from the judgment. Although the court evaluates the live account of the witness, it must not set an absolute standard of truth based only on appearance, emotion or fluency of speech. [1: Arts. 27, 198, 255, 297]

Many witnesses do not always mean strong proof

In civil procedure there is no general rule that "at least two witnesses" are required or that "the side with the majority wins". The sufficiency of a witness is determined by the subject of proof, the other evidence and the file as a whole. Under Article 241 of the HMK, the court may decide not to hear the remaining witnesses if it has obtained sufficient information from the witnesses heard about the same fact. [1]

This power does not mean that a witness named for a different fact is unnecessary merely because other persons have previously been heard. What the person to be heard knows that differs from the others must be clearly set out. Moreover, a party's abandonment of evidence on which it relies is linked, under Article 196 of the HMK, to the express consent of the opposing party; the approach "it is my witness and I can remove them from the file whenever I want" is not valid in every case. [1]

How is an objection to witness testimony made?

A concrete comparison should be made instead of a general denial

The statement "the witness is lying" by itself provides no legal analysis. The objection must explain which sentence is contested, for what reason and by which evidence. Concrete objections concerning the source of information of an account, the witness's opportunity to be present at the scene, its contradiction with a document, or the witness's interest relationship with a party must be kept separate. [1: Arts. 27, 198, 255]

A workable order of work is as follows:

1. Identify the relevant statement in the minutes by its date and page.
2. Show the document or the earlier statement being compared, in its full context.
3. Explain which fact in the dispute the contradiction affects.
4. Write the reasons for a request for clarifying questions, a re-hearing, confrontation or examination of other records.

It is not necessary for all of these requests to be accepted in every event. The court assesses the requirements of necessity and procedure. There is no general two-week rule, mirroring the period for an objection to an expert report, for submitting a statement in response to witness testimony. Where a period has been given by the court, it must be followed; where an obvious error has been noticed at the hearing, it must be recorded without delay. [1]

Constitutional Court: being informed of testimony and being able to respond

In its decision in the case of Yusuf Sulusaray, Application No. 2020/2316, of January 12, 2023, the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi) examined whether the statement of a witness, regarded as decisive in a labor dispute, had passed through a proper process of hearing and debate. The applicant learned of the statement of that person together with the final judgment, and did not have the opportunity to make an effective response to it. The Court held that the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings had been violated, and ordered a retrial. [11]

The importance of the decision lies not only in saying "let the witness be heard". Being informed of the evidence that affected the judgment, being able to discuss its reliability and being able to submit counter-evidence must be protected together. The decision does not say that every rejected question or every witness not heard automatically constitutes a constitutional violation; the decisiveness of the evidence and the whole of the process are taken into account.

Professional ethics, truthfulness and confidentiality in dealings with witnesses

Directing a witness is not preparation of evidence

Article 24 of the Professional Rules of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations (Türkiye Barolar Birliği) asks a lawyer to avoid creating even a suspicion of having influenced persons who may later become witnesses, even where the lawyer must exceptionally obtain information from them. It prohibits giving instructions on how to testify or how to behave before the judge. This limit cannot be crossed under the heading of "preparation for the hearing". [10]

Establishing practical matters such as the witness's availability, the official call information or the need for an interpreter is not the same as rehearsing the account, having the answers memorized or making statements agree with one another. The client, too, should not teach the witnesses what to say or have them speak together to construct a common story. The lawyer's task is not to produce a narrative favorable to the client, but to assess the real information that can be obtained in a lawful manner.

A witness saying "I don't know" or "I don't remember" should not be regarded as a fault. Completing an unknown detail by guesswork damages both the reliability of the file and the legal position of the witness. A witness must not be turned into an instrument for achieving a party's aim of winning.

False testimony and error are not the same thing

Under Article 272 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (TCK), giving false testimony before a competent authority is a criminal offense. Testimony in a civil court is not outside this responsibility. Nevertheless, not every contradiction, incomplete recollection or statement that displeases one of the parties amounts directly to the crime of false testimony; the elements of the act and intent are examined. Under Article 264 of the HMK, where sufficient evidence or indication of false testimony or of testimony given for consideration exists, the court is required to draw up minutes and send them to the public prosecutor. [1, 12]

A distinction must be drawn with certainty between the lawful witness fee and the reimbursement of actual expenses on the one hand, and the provision of money or benefit in return for a particular account on the other. A threat of a criminal complaint may not be used as a means of pressure to change the witness's account. Where there is a suspicion of untruth, the path is a legal application based on concrete records.

Personal data and informing the client

Witness lists contain names, addresses, relationships and sometimes sensitive information. The processing of data necessary for the establishment, exercise or protection of a right in a case file is not the same as publishing personal information on a website. The legal basis, necessity and proportionality of the processing must be assessed together. For special categories of data, such as health data, the relevant legal conditions are separately observed. In public articles or examples, real addresses, identity numbers and file information must not be used. [9, 13]

The client, too, should be informed of the witness process: who has been named for which event, which expense must be deposited, who has been heard, which request has been refused and what the next step is, all in a clear manner. Where the witness does not speak as expected, the outcome must not be concealed; the effect of the statement on the file must be assessed together with the documents. Informing the client is not merely conveying positive developments; it is also explaining accurately the uncertainty and the risk.

If a witness is not heard, what routes may be considered?

The first step is to determine why the witness was not heard. Failure to rely on the evidence in time, the ban on a second list, a missing address, an unpaid advance, the obstacle of proof by written instrument, or the adequate clarification of the same fact are all different legal reasons. Rather than objecting to all of them in the same petition, the concrete ground for refusal and the loss of rights attached to it should be explained. [1]

A request may be made to the court to reconsider an interim decision; however, such a request does not automatically revive a missed firm period, and it does not mean that every refusal decision is subject to a separate and immediate appeal. Where an appeal against the final judgment is open, the fact the witness would prove, how it was notified in time and the effect of not hearing the witness on the outcome must be specified in the application.

Under Article 357 of the HMK, the examination of new evidence on appeal is limited. Evidence which was duly submitted in the court of first instance but rejected without examination, or which could not be submitted due to force majeure (mücbir sebep), may be examined. This provision does not give a second preparation period for every witness neglected in the first-instance proceedings. The type of remedy, the period for the application and the conditions of finality must be checked separately on the basis of the concrete decision. [1]

In cases such as a serious illness of a witness or where obtaining the evidence later would become considerably more difficult, the possibility of preservation of evidence (delil tespiti) should be considered before the action is brought or during the proceedings. The legal interest requirement of Article 400 of the HMK and following must be satisfied. Preservation of evidence cannot be used to circumvent the ban on the witness list or to correct automatically steps missed in the past; its purpose is to protect evidence at risk of being lost. [1]

Time limit and file-control table for witness evidence

The following distinctions should be tracked together. In particular, saying "we have submitted the list" does not mean that the stages of summons, address and expenses have been completed.

Every step in file management should record the person responsible, the final date, the record of completion and the next step. If the list has been submitted, the UYAP transmission record; if the advance has been deposited, the receipt; if the witness has been heard, the minutes; if a new address has been notified, the relevant petition must be in the file. Recording the matter serves both to prevent loss of rights and to give the client correct information.

Conclusion

The strength of witness evidence arises not from the number of names in the file, but from the clarity of the information presented in a lawful manner. A sound witness plan begins by identifying the fact to be proved and the burden of proof. The suitability of the event for proof by witnesses, the time of relying on the evidence, the first list, the correct address and the expenses are managed together. At the hearing, the source of information, the right to ask questions, the accuracy of the minutes and the consistency with other evidence come to the fore.

The exceptions to the ban on a second list are important safeguards; however, they should not be regarded as the ordinary remedy for incomplete preparation. Likewise, a witness's relationship with a party does not automatically render their statement worthless; nor does the court's discretion remove the need for reasons. Every account must be assessed in relation to the fact to which it belongs and in the context of the whole file.

For a lawyer, careful work means seeing the limits of the witness's knowledge without directing the witness, recording procedural steps, taking account of the strong objections of the other side and keeping the client informed of developments. The purpose of testimony is not to multiply what one party wishes to say, but to enable the court to reach reliable and reviewable information about the event.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a single witness sufficient in a civil case?

There is no general requirement of two or more witnesses. The sufficiency of a single witness is determined by the subject of proof, the limits on legal evidence, the nature of the account and the file as a whole. A transaction that must be proved by written instrument cannot be proved by any number of witnesses, absent an exception. For details, see the section on assessing testimony.

Is the period for submitting a witness list always two weeks?

No. For the witness list, the concrete interim decision of the court and the firm period under the proper procedure are examined. The document submission period under Article 139 of the HMK does not apply automatically to every witness list. However, a firm two-week period set by the court cannot be disregarded either. The distinction of periods is decisive.

Can a new witness be added after the first list?

As a rule, a second witness list cannot be submitted. Special situations such as a new fact, late identification of evidence or the death of a witness are assessed under their own conditions. Calling a petition that names a new person an "additional explanation" does not lift the ban. The limits of the decisions are explained in the section on exceptions.

If no list has been submitted, is it enough to bring the witness to the hearing?

It is not sufficient in every case. Conditions such as the setting of a firm period for the list and the fixing of a day for hearing under Article 243/1 of the HMK exist. The problem of relying on witness evidence in time is separately assessed. This possibility is not an unlimited right to bring witnesses at any stage.

Can my spouse, my brother or my employee testify?

As a rule, a close relative or an employee who is not a party to the action may be a witness. The right to refuse to testify of relatives under the law, the capacity to represent and the concrete relationships of interest are separately examined. The fact that a witness subsequently becomes a party to the action as an heir may change the result. The status of a witness and the right to refuse to testify are different.

Can a person under eighteen be a witness?

Yes; there is no general bar for those under eighteen. Persons who have not completed fifteen years of age at the time of hearing are heard without an oath. The value of the testimony is determined by assessing the person's ability to perceive and express themselves together with the concrete event.

If there is a WhatsApp message, can a witness also be heard?

The existence of the message alone is not sufficient. Attribution, integrity, lawfulness and, where necessary, the conditions for initial evidence are examined. A correspondence coming from the other party which makes the transaction probable may, under appropriate conditions, allow recourse to witness evidence. The limits of written evidence must be taken into account.

What happens if a witness does not come to court?

A witness who fails to attend without a valid excuse despite a duly served summons may be subject to compulsory appearance, costs and disciplinary fine provisions. A notification by telephone and the consequences of a duly served summons are not the same. The assertion of the right to refuse to testify is also subject to a separate procedure.

Is a witness paid?

The statutory witness fee and the expenses incurred under the conditions are paid. Under the HMK tariff examined, a fee of 130–200 TL is provided in proportion to the time lost; travel and other necessary expenses are separately assessed. This payment cannot be a return for giving testimony in a particular direction. See the section on fees and advances.

Does obtaining a written witness statement before a notary replace hearing the witness at the hearing?

As a rule, it does not. A statement prepared specially or whose signature has been certified by a notary is not the same as the court hearing the witness in the proper manner. Under Article 246 of the HMK there is a special procedure under which the court may send written questions; the parties cannot create this procedure alone. The evidentiary character of the document may be separately assessed on other grounds. [1]

May a witness read a pre-prepared text?

A witness gives testimony in principle orally. Where notes must be consulted for details such as dates and figures, permission is sought from the judge. Memorizing answers and having the account constructed by a lawyer or party raises professional and legal problems. The hearing procedure explains this distinction.

Can a witness living in another city or abroad be heard?

It is possible under the proper procedural conditions. For another city, letters rogatory (istinabe) or, when the conditions are met, audio and video transmission; for abroad, judicial assistance and the applicable rules depending on the country are considered. There is no automatic right of remote connection.

Is there a two-week period to object to witness testimony?

There is no general two-week objection period applicable to all files for witness testimony. The period set by the court must be followed; an important error or contradiction noticed at the hearing must be stated without delay. The statement, the counter-document and the effect on the outcome must be made concrete. The objection section contains a sample order of work.

Can a witness who was not heard be named for the first time on appeal?

An appeal is not the stage for drawing up a witness list from the beginning. The new evidence restriction in Article 357 of the HMK applies. The position of evidence that was duly submitted at first instance but rejected, or that could not be submitted due to force majeure, is separately examined. The section on remedies explains this limit.

Sources and legal bases

1. Republic of Türkiye, Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu); in particular Articles 27, 94, 119, 129, 139–145, 149–153, 187–203, 240–265, 297, 317–325, 334 et seq., 357, 400 et seq. and Additional Article 1. Current consolidated text.
2. Ministry of Treasury and Finance (Hazine ve Maliye Bakanlığı), Tax Procedure Law General Communiqué, Serial No. 585 (Vergi Usul Kanunu Genel Tebliği, Sıra No: 585), Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete), November 27, 2025, No. 33090; 2025 revaluation rate 25.49%. Text of the communiqué. The calculation of the monetary limit has been considered together with Additional Article 1 of the HMK.
3. Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), March 8, 2022, E. 2020/9-605, K. 2022/264. Transcription of the full text of the decision published in Çalışma ve Toplum, 2022/3, pp. 2004–2016: text of the decision.
4. Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), June 22, 2021, E. 2017/2301, K. 2021/807, in particular paras. 18–25. Open transcription of the full text of the decision: Gülsün Hukuk.
5. Arslan, Aziz Serkan / Topal, Mustafa, "The Possibility of Hearing a Witness Not Listed among the Witnesses Where the Witness Is Brought to the Hearing" ("Tanık Listesinde Yer Almayan Tanığın Duruşmada Hazır Bulundurulması Halinde Dinlenilmesi İmkânı"), Çukurova University Law Research Journal (Çukurova Üniversitesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi), 2025, No. 7, pp. 21–40; in particular pp. 37–38. DOI: 10.59399/cuhad.1615222.
6. 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Hukuk Dairesi), April 13, 2021, E. 2019/3092, K. 2021/2207. Open transcription of the full text of the decision: Karamercan Hukuk.
7. 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi), February 13, 2024, E. 2023/3530, K. 2024/988. Open transcription of the full text of the decision: Kararmatik.
8. Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı), Witness Fee Tariff under the Code of Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu Tanık Ücret Tarifesi), Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete), October 28, 2025, No. 33061, Articles 3–5. Text published by the Ministry.
9. Republic of Türkiye, Attorneyship Law No. 1136 (Avukatlık Kanunu), in particular Articles 34 and 36. Current consolidated text.
10. Union of Turkish Bar Associations (Türkiye Barolar Birliği), Professional Rules of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations (Türkiye Barolar Birliği Meslek Kuralları), in particular Article 24. Text of the Union.
11. Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi), Yusuf Sulusaray, Application No. 2020/2316, January 12, 2023, in particular paras. 35–43 and the operative part; Official Gazette, May 3, 2023, No. 32179. Official decision record; open transcription of the full text of the decision.
12. Republic of Türkiye, Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (Türk Ceza Kanunu), Article 272. Current consolidated text.
13. Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 6698 on the Protection of Personal Data (Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu), in particular Articles 4–6. Current consolidated text.
14. Turan, Mehmet, "Submission of the Witness List" ("Tanık Listesi Sunulması"), Turkish Justice Academy Journal (Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi), 2022, No. 49, pp. 289–322. DOI: 10.54049/taad.1055758.
15. Karamercan, Fatih, "Witness and Testimony in Civil Procedure Law" ("Medenî Usûl Hukukunda Tanık ve Tanıklık"), Ankara Bar Association Journal (Ankara Barosu Dergisi), 2018/3, pp. 151–192. Article text.
16. Akil, Cenk / Ercan Özler, Meltem, "An Examination of the Evaluation of the Evidentiary Value of Witness Testimony (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 25.02.2015 Tarihli Kararının Değerlendirilmesi)", Turkish Justice Academy Journal (Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi), 2018, No. 34, pp. 61–73. Article text.
17. Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 7589 on Amendments to Certain Laws on the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary (Yargının Etkin ve Verimli İşlemesine Yönelik Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun), adopted July 16, 2026; Official Gazette, July 31, 2026, No. 33326; Articles 22 and 26. Text of the law.