Objecting to an Expert Report in a Civil Case: Time Limits, Grounds and Requests for a New Report

Legislation and source review date: 11 October 2026

An objection to a court-appointed expert (bilirkişi) report in a civil case is, as a rule, made to the court hearing the case within two weeks of service of the report. The objection must show which finding is wrong and why, which document in the file contradicts it, and what step the court is asked to take. A timely and reasoned application may request a supplementary report, an explanation from the expert or a new expert examination. An adverse report does not mean the case has been lost; objecting to a report also does not automatically trigger a new examination. [1]

An incorrect acceptance of income in a compensation calculation, failure to investigate the cause of damage to a building, or the exclusion of a payment from the calculation can change the outcome of a case. For this reason, the focus of an effective objection is not the personality of the expert but the data, method, reasoning and result of the report. The legal characterisation is for the court to make.

This guide addresses civil cases under the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK). The special rules for criminal proceedings, administrative justice and valuation applications in enforcement files must be examined separately. The two-week period discussed here cannot be transferred unchanged to all judicial routes.

Is the court bound by an expert report?

The function and limits of technical examination

An expert assists the court on a matter requiring special or technical knowledge. Under Article 266 HMK, an expert may not be appointed on matters that can be resolved with general knowledge, experience or the legal knowledge required by the judicial office. The technical cause of water seepage in a building may require expertise; whether that cause amounts to a breach of contract, and who is to be held liable on what legal basis, is a matter for the judge. [1]

This distinction is also important for calculation reports. An expert may prepare alternative calculations according to different legal possibilities identified by the court. However, the expert cannot decide which legal option applies. A statement in the report that "the claim must be dismissed" does not by itself prove that the technical calculation is correct. Article 279(4) HMK and Article 3 of the Expert Witnesses Law exclude legal characterisation and assessment from the expert's field of duty. [1] [3]

What does a reasoned and reviewable report mean?

Article 279 HMK requires that the report contain the facts examined, the reasoning and the result. For a report to be reviewable, it must be possible to understand which documents were used, which method was applied on which assumptions, and how the result was reached. A text that merely states an amount or a percentage of fault is not always capable of being tested for accuracy.

The measure of the law is clear: "The judge freely evaluates the opinion and view of the expert together with other evidence." (Article 282 HMK.) This power is not a freedom to adopt a report without reasons or to resolve a technical problem by personal conviction without specialist support. The court should assess the decisive objections together with the other evidence in the file. [1]

The order appointing the expert should be read first. A question that falls outside the court's question, and a question that is asked but left unanswered, are not the same. Under Article 273 HMK, the scope of the examination and the questions must be clear. An unclear assignment may be the reason for an incomplete report; in such a case the objection should also ask for the examination question to be clarified.

How is the time limit for objecting to an expert report calculated?

From what date does the two-week period run?

The period under Article 281(1) HMK is two weeks from service of the report. The date on which the report was drawn up, submitted to the court or uploaded to the UYAP file is not automatically treated as the date of service. For this reason, the first document to check is not the cover of the report but the service record. In matters conducted through a lawyer, the rule on service on counsel in Article 11 of the Notification Law must also be taken into account. [1] [2]

A period set in weeks ends, under Article 92 HMK, on the day in the last week that corresponds to the day on which it began. Public holidays fall within the period; where the last day coincides with an official holiday, Article 93 HMK applies. For physical filing, working hours are important; for electronic transactions, the end-of-day rule in Article 445(4) HMK matters. An electronic submission is not complete merely because a draft has been saved; it should be checked that the document was sent and that a transaction record was created.

Where service is challenged as irregular, Article 32 of the Notification Law is also examined. Finding service to be irregular does not mean that the document was never learned of. The date of knowledge and its effect on the file must be explained with concrete documents. Waiting on the file on the basis that "the service was wrong" can make the dispute over time limits more difficult.

Service of the report on the parties is not only a matter of calculating the time limit. The right to be heard under Article 27 HMK includes the right of a person to learn of evidence that will affect the judgment and to comment on it. The provision in Article 280 HMK on serving the report before the hearing is important in this respect. An objection that the court reached a judgment without giving a party the opportunity to examine the report and make a timely statement must be demonstrated by the relevant minutes and service records.

The fifth-day rule for reports received through UETS

Electronic service under Article 7(a) of the Notification Law is deemed made at the end of the fifth day after the document reaches the electronic address. The arrival of the message in the National Electronic Notification System (UETS), the SMS notification and the statutory date of service must be kept apart. The calculation should be based on the evidence record of the electronic service. [2]

For example, suppose the report reaches the UETS address on Monday 2 November 2026. The statutory date of service is the end of Saturday 7 November. Two weeks from that date ends on Saturday 21 November, so, assuming no other special circumstance, the last day is Monday 23 November. This is an example illustrating the calculation; in a real file, the addressee of the service, the record and the specific applicable provisions must be examined separately.

An additional period and judicial recess are different

If preparing the objection is very difficult or impossible, or requires a special or technical study, an additional period may be requested within the first two weeks. The additional period that may be granted under Article 281(1) HMK begins at the end of the principal period; it may be granted once only and may not exceed two weeks. An additional period is not automatic. The request should explain why, for example, an account of hundreds of lines requires specialist examination; the period granted by the court and its decision must be followed. [1]

Simply stating "I will obtain an expert opinion" does not in itself create a right to additional time; Article 293(1) HMK expressly limits this. The reason why the technical study is necessary, and how the conditions of Article 281 are met, must be shown. Rather than remaining silent on the assumption that an extension will be granted, the existing concrete objections should be submitted in time and the outcome of the additional request monitored.

In judicial recess, however, the same result does not follow for every file. Article 103 HMK deals with matters heard during the recess, and Article 104 with the extension of periods in cases and matters subject to the judicial recess. Where, for this second group, the period set by the law ends during the recess, the period is deemed extended by one week from the end of the judicial recess. The group to which the case belongs must be determined first.

On what grounds may an expert report be objected to?

Missing data, wrong assumptions and calculation errors

An objection should not be confined to a general sentence rejecting the whole report. A bank receipt that was not examined, a working period wrongly accepted, a comparable property whose relevance is not explained, or the same amount added twice must each be identified separately. Each objection should cite the page of the report, the date of the document in the file and the link to the result.

The opposing party may argue that the payment shown relates to another debt, or that the comparable used is appropriate. For this reason, pointing to the document alone may not be enough. The relationship must be established through the explanation on the receipt, the contract clause, the period information or the physical characteristics of the comparable. Where an alternative calculation is offered, the data from which it is produced must be clear; an undisclosed calculation table does not correct an undisclosed report.

Method, field of expertise and lack of reasoning

Disagreement with a method is not, by itself, a scientific error. An objection should explain why the method does not fit the characteristics of the case, why a necessary measurement was not carried out, or why the result in the report does not agree with its own data. In particular in engineering, valuation and medical assessments, this explanation may be supported by the opinion of an expert in the relevant field.

The expert's field of specialism should also be examined. An accountant cannot be expected to analyse the cause of structural damage. However, the fact that the report is unfavourable does not make it sufficient to say that the expert "is not qualified". The technical question examined, the expertise required, and the way in which the present assignment is unsuited to that need must be specified. The duty of an expert to disclose the scope of the assignment or the limits of their expertise is regulated in Article 275 HMK. [1]

The error, the document and the request should be shown together

The table below is a working method for preparing an objection. The examples do not express any view on the outcome of a particular case.

An error, even if correctly identified, may not change the outcome of the case. A wrong spelling of a date that does not affect the calculation is not of the same weight as a date error that changes the period of calculation. The strength of an objection lies in explaining together its error, its accuracy and its effect on the outcome. In connection with this, the topic How is a partnership's liquidation share calculated? should also be considered.

A supplementary report, hearing the expert or a new panel?

Article 281 HMK makes it possible to complete a deficiency, clarify an ambiguity and, where necessary, carry out a new expert examination. The court may obtain a supplementary report, hear the expert at the hearing or appoint a new expert to establish the truth. Not every objection automatically requires the appointment of a new panel. [1]

A supplementary report may be appropriate where the existing expert is competent but a document was not discussed, an account was not explained, or a question remains unanswered. A request for a "supplementary report" should not be left in that general form; the concrete questions to be put to the expert should be written out. An oral explanation may serve in particular to clarify, at the hearing, the method or the data used.

A request for a new expert or panel may be justified on grounds of an unsuitable expertise, an unresolved essential contradiction or a technical deficiency requiring the examination to be re-established. In every case there is no mandatory order of steps requiring a supplementary report first, then oral explanation, and finally a new panel. If the first expert's field is unsuitable from the outset, repeatedly obtaining reports from the same person may not solve the problem.

Obtaining a supplementary report does not remove a party's right to discuss the new or complementary assessments in that report. A supplementary report may also be objected to within two weeks under Article 281 HMK, counted from service. The petition should explain on what point the earlier objection remained unanswered, or which error the new calculation has introduced. However, a supplementary report does not automatically reopen all the time limit and procedural issues relating to the earlier report.

The study by Alihocagil distinguishes between the court's assessment of an objection and obtaining a further explanation or a new examination from the expert. This approach supports a petition that not only challenges the outcome but also explains how the deficiency is to be remedied. It should be remembered that the study dates from 2018, and that the present additional-period provision was introduced by the 2020 amendment. [9]

How is an expert opinion used against an expert report?

What is the use of a scientific opinion obtained by a party?

Article 293 HMK allows the parties to obtain a scientific opinion from their expert on the event in dispute. This opinion does not arise through the same route as the expert report appointed by the court; however, because it was obtained by a party, it cannot be treated as insignificant without examining its reasoning. Its value lies in turning a disputed technical point into an explanation that can be tested. [1]

The expert from whom an opinion is sought should not be given only the last page of the adverse report. The assignment order, the relevant documents, the annexes to the report and the earlier objections should be submitted together. The expert should also state which data they could not access. A confident opinion prepared on an incomplete file may strengthen the opposing party's objection to the method and to the integrity of the data.

The court may summon the expert to the hearing and put questions. If the summoned expert does not attend without a valid excuse, the opinion is not taken into consideration. Moreover, submitting a technical opinion does not cause every fact or document not raised in time to enter the file automatically. The conditions of Article 145 HMK must also be observed where evidence is submitted late.

Court of Cassation: an essential technical contradiction should not be left unexplained

The decision of the 15th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 15. Hukuk Dairesi) dated 10 November 2016, E. 2015/5127, K. 2016/4635, concerns a dispute about waterproofing of a building. The reversal was based on the failure adequately to investigate serious technical differences between the court's reports and an expert opinion submitted. The Chamber requested an examination by a new panel of experts suited to the characteristics of the case. [8]

The practical importance of the decision is not an automatic rule that "where an expert opinion exists, a new report must always be obtained". What must be examined is which technical question the opinion raises and why the existing report left that question unanswered. Repetition of the same point in different words must be distinguished from a method or cause that would affect the result.

The academic study by Kaplan also discusses the resolution of a contradiction between an expert report and an expert opinion through explanation, further examination and, where necessary, a new expert. This assessment, which draws on German judicial practice, should not be read as a statutory provision laying down an unchangeable order of procedure in Turkish law. What is essential is that the technical contradiction is resolved intelligibly and that the court's reasoning can be reviewed. [10]

What happens if no objection is made to the report? The distinction shown by recent decisions

Missing the objection period is different from waiving the right

A timely objection retains its importance for discussing evidence and for requesting that a deficiency be remedied. Nevertheless, the sentence "if there is no objection, the report becomes final and binds the judge in every respect" does not reflect the distinction drawn by recent decisions. A procedural opportunity subject to a time limit and the substantive right in dispute are not the same thing.

The court's powers under Article 281(2)–(3) and Article 282 HMK do not remove the party's obligation to object in time. On the other hand, a party's silence does not turn the report into conclusive evidence either. The debate has focused in particular on whether a failure to object to the first damages calculation prevents a later, higher calculation from being considered.

The 2021 decision of the Civil General Assembly: the risk of a general objection

In its decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) dated 18 February 2021, E. 2018/94, K. 2021/111, reports containing different fault ratios were discussed in an action brought after a workplace accident. A statement that contained no concrete objection to the first fault report, and asked only for the file to be sent to the accounts expert, was not accepted as an objection to the allocation of fault; this led to a finding of a procedurally acquired right in favour of the opposing party. The lower court's decision of persistence (direnme kararı) was reversed. [7]

The practical lesson of this decision for drafting is that the phrase "we do not accept the adverse matters" does not explain which finding is objected to and why. However, the procedurally acquired right approach of that decision should not be transmitted today as a general and unchanging rule without examining the later Constitutional Court and 2026 Civil General Assembly assessments.

The Constitutional Court and the 2026 approach of the Civil General Assembly

The decision of the Constitutional Court in Ahmet Özgan and Şule Özgan, and the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation dated 6 May 2026, E. 2026/129, K. 2026/299, raise the limits of the consequences attached to silence in relation to substantive rights and access to a court. The approach under which failure to object to the first calculation report prevented later examination of the higher loss amount determined afterwards has been called into question. [5] [6]

In the decision of the Constitutional Court dated 21 December 2023, App. No. 2020/21347, the facts concerned loss-of-support compensation for persons who lost relatives in a traffic accident. The applicants brought a further action for a higher loss determined later; the examination of that amount was blocked on the ground that they had not objected to the first report. The Court examined the legal basis and proportionality of this practice and unanimously held that the right of access to a court had been violated. A retrial was ordered to remedy the violation; the compensation sought in the individual application was not separately awarded. The decision does not remove the objection period; it shows the limit of attaching a consequence that extinguishes a substantive right to the missing of a time limit. [5]

In the 2026 decision of the Civil General Assembly, the dispute concerned the calculation of pecuniary compensation arising from a workplace accident. The majority did not equate the failure to object to a report with its express acceptance; it emphasised the nature of an expert report as evidence subject to free assessment and the judge's power of evaluation. The dissenting view defended the approach of procedurally acquired right resulting from failure to object to the first report, but it was not adopted by the majority.

The decision separates an open, definite and unconditional statement of acceptance from silence. For this reason, the consequences of a statement that the party accepts the whole report or will be bound by a particular calculation cannot be assessed in the same way as the mere passing of a time limit. The meaning of "I do not object" should also be examined by considering the whole file and the content of the statement.

The Civil General Assembly accepted the reasoning of the lower court's decision of persistence (direnme kararı) and referred the other points of appeal that were not examined to the relevant chamber. This result does not mean that all calculations and claims in the action have been definitively confirmed. Nor can the decision be read as a licence that removes every time limit or claim limit or rule of recourse.

The practical approach is as follows: where the time limit is still open, a concrete objection is prepared immediately. Where the time limit has passed, the service, whether there was an express acceptance, the nature of the error, the stage of the proceedings and current case law are considered together. Where a step could not be taken for a reason outside the party's control, the conditions for restoration to the previous position under Articles 95–97 HMK are separately assessed; that route does not restart every time limit merely because it was forgotten. The two-week period for an application running from the removal of the obstacle, and the requirement that the step not taken be completed within that period, must also be observed. [1]

How is a petition objecting to an expert report prepared?

Reviewing the file and drafting the petition

The petition is submitted to the court hearing the case, not to the person who prepared the report or to the expert regional board. The court and case number, party details, the date of the report, the date of service, the objections, the links to documents and the outcome sought are stated clearly. Where there is more than one report, it must be clear beyond doubt which one is objected to.

The working order is to read the whole report; compare it with the court's questions; examine the documents used; separate errors from omissions; and then frame requests corresponding to them. The fact that the hearing is set for a later date does not change the period that runs from service. A timely application must be completed; it is not sufficient to wait for the hearing and make a statement there.

As regards evidence, documents already in the file must be distinguished from documents submitted for the first time. For the former, the location in the file and the date of earlier submission are shown. For the latter, the reason they could not be submitted earlier and the conditions for admission under Article 145 HMK are explained. Building the whole objection on the assumption that late documents will be accepted is risky.

Example: how to explain a payment that was not taken into account

In a hypothetical debt calculation, suppose the report fixes the principal at 120,000 TL. The defendant claims that a payment of 30,000 TL relating to this debt was submitted to the file earlier. The objection should not simply say "the account is too high"; it should show the receipt and which debt it relates to. If the payment is accepted as belonging to this debt, the arithmetical result for the principal alone is 90,000 TL; interest and other items are assessed separately.

The opposing party may argue that the payment relates to a different invoice. For this reason, the alternative calculation shows the result if the attribution of the payment is accepted; it does not by itself resolve the disputed legal and factual question. A petition that states this expressly prevents the calculation from being presented as an established fact.

A sample petition layout to be adapted

The layout below is a preparatory model. Bracketed fields must be completed according to the actual file; facts, documents or requests not present in the file must not be added to the text.

[To the competent civil court] — Case No: [case number]

Objector / counsel: [details]. Subject: Timely objections to the expert report dated [date] and [specific request for examination]. Date of service: [according to the service record].

Explanation of the objection: In section [page and section] of the report, [finding] has been adopted. However, [name of document and annex number], submitted to the file on [date], shows [concrete difference]. The report does not explain why this document was not taken into account. The difference affects the result in respect of [account item or technical result].

Examination question: [Whether the payment shown in the document relates to the debt examined in the report; if there is a relationship, its effect on the calculation; if it is considered there is no relationship, a technical and document-based explanation of that] is requested.

Result and request: We respectfully request that the objections explained be assessed and that the court decide [to obtain a supplementary report on the specified questions / to require the expert to explain / to appoint a new expert or panel of appropriate expertise for the specific reasons]. Annexes: [list of documents]. Date and signature.

The requests should be chosen according to the needs of the file. Alternative or graduated requests may be used; however, listing all the options without reasons makes it unclear how the deficiency is to be remedied. In particular, where a new panel is requested, it should be explained why the existing examination would not be sufficient.

For further details, see the section on yacht maintenance and refit contracts.

Do a challenge to the expert or a complaint replace an objection to the report?

They do not. An objection to the report is directed at the insufficiency or error of the technical opinion; a challenge to the expert is directed at the statutory grounds affecting the person's impartiality. An unfavourable outcome is not, by itself, a problem of impartiality. Where a relationship with a party or another ground for challenge is raised, the concrete facts and the date of learning must be shown.

Under Article 272 HMK, a request for challenge must be made within one week at the latest from learning of the ground. The provision on grounds of disqualification is assessed separately. An appeal against the rejection of a request to challenge an expert may be made together with the judgment on the merits. This one-week period must not be confused with the two-week period for objecting to the report. [1]

An application to the expert regional board concerns compliance with legislation and professional principles. Under Article 14 of the Expert Witnesses Law, the board may not review the report on its special or technical content and does not examine applications directed only at that content. Accordingly, complaining to the board instead of raising the claim "the account is wrong" before the court does not replace the judicial review of the report. A complaint does not automatically suspend the objection period in the case. [3]

How is the fee determined for a supplementary report and a new expert examination?

It cannot be said that a new fee will always be payable for each supplementary report. Article 11 of the 2026 Expert Witnesses Minimum Fee Schedule distinguishes between questions in the assignment order that remain unanswered and new questions put outside the scope of the assignment. [4]

Appointment of a new expert, an inspection or other examination costs may also arise separately. For determining the fee under the Schedule, the schedule in force on the date of appointment is the basis. The fact that no fee is charged for a deficient report does not mean that all litigation costs disappear.

Where the court has ordered an advance to be paid for evidence, the amount, time limit and warning in the interlocutory decision must be examined. Under Article 324 HMK, failure to pay the advance may, where the conditions are met, lead to the evidence being treated as waived. This consequence does not automatically mean dismissal of the action in every case; however, it may prevent the necessary proof being provided. The provisions of Article 325 HMK on matters in which the parties cannot freely dispose of rights are also reserved. [1]

What happens if the objection is rejected?

The court's refusal of a request for a new examination does not mean that a separate appeal may always be made at that stage. The report itself is not a court decision. Complaints of unlawfulness in interlocutory decisions on requests for examination are, as a rule, raised together with the final judgment, which is open to appeal. The nature of the file, the type of decision and the statutory limits are also assessed. [1]

In the appeal petition, rather than simply repeating the earlier objection, it should be shown which decisive point was not examined, to which evidence that point relates and how it affects the result of the judgment. The limits of review under Article 355 HMK and the restrictions on new claims, defences and evidence under Article 357 HMK must be observed. Matters of public order should not be placed in the same category as ordinary technical objections.

For this reason, planning to explain the objections to the expert report for the first time on appeal is not a sound method. The silence of the 2026 decision, as distinct from express acceptance, also does not mean that all deficiencies can be remedied without limit on appeal. It is important that the statements, requests and the court's decisions on them in relation to the report can be traced in the file.

For a consultation or an independent file assessment, the whole report, its annexes, the service record, the expert's appointment order, the earlier report and the objections, and the related evidence should be prepared together. The Client Centre of Güneş & Güneş Law Firm provides access to explanations on the preparation of applications and documents. In a time-limited document, it should be stated specifically when and how the report was served; a UYAP or e-Government password must not be sent for file sharing.

Documents should be shared through the secure channel specified by the firm, for the purpose of legal assessment, and in accordance with the principles of professional secrecy and the protection of personal data. A first application or sending of documents is not in itself an acceptance of the matter; that a time-limited step has been taken on should be separately confirmed.

For details, see the article on objecting to an expert or forensic medical report in a malpractice case.

For details, see the section on pre-purchase legal checks when buying a yacht or boat.

Conclusion

An effective objection to an expert report requires more than opposing the report: the correct time limit must be calculated, the error must be shown by a document, and the step that will remedy the deficiency must be clearly requested. Depending on the nature of the file, this step may be a further explanation, a new calculation, an assessment of an expert opinion or a new examination by a suitable expert.

Recent decisions show that silence does not in every case amount to waiving a right or to an express and definitive acceptance of the report. Even so, the value of a timely objection remains. The approach that protects the right is to discuss the data and reasoning of the report without neglecting the time limit, and to place before the court a concrete, outcome-relevant and reviewable explanation.

A well-prepared objection does not merely say that the report is wrong; it shows where the error lies and how it may be remedied.

Frequently Asked Questions

Within how many days must an objection to an expert report be made?

In civil cases, under Article 281 HMK, the period is two weeks from service of the report. Because the law sets the period in weeks, the rules on service, holidays and electronic transactions apply together. Special periods in other judicial routes must be examined separately. For details, see the section on calculating the time limit.

Does seeing the report on UYAP start the objection period?

The report appearing in the file does not, on its own, replace lawful service. The service record, the addressee and the provisions on learning of irregular service are examined. In UETS, the rule of the end of the fifth day following arrival at the electronic address applies.

Can the two-week objection period be extended?

Yes; however, the difficulty or special or technical study conditions of Article 281 HMK must exist, and the court must be applied to within the first two weeks. The additional period that may be granted is a single one, of at most two weeks, and runs from the end of the principal period. Making a request does not mean the period has been extended.

Is it enough to say "we do not accept the adverse matters"?

That phrase alone does not show which finding is wrong and why. The section of the report, the supporting document and the step requested must be explained. Although the effect of the statement on the concrete file is also assessed separately, limiting the petition to that sentence is a significant risk. An example layout appears in the section on drafting the petition.

Must the court necessarily appoint a new expert?

No. Obtaining an explanation or a supplementary report from the existing expert may be sufficient. A request for a new examination must be explained by concrete reasons such as unsuitable expertise or an unresolved essential contradiction. There is no mandatory order of steps to be followed in every file.

If the report is not objected to in time, is the case lost?

No; that result is not automatic. However, a consequence may arise in relation to the time-limited opportunity to apply and to the discussion of the evidence. Recent decisions distinguish between silence and express, definite and unconditional acceptance. The stage of the file, the nature of the objection and the parties' statements must be examined together.

Does obtaining an expert opinion invalidate the court expert's report?

No. A scientific opinion may be used to explain a technical objection and to show an essential contradiction. The court assesses the reasoning and, if it considers it necessary, hears the expert or orders a new examination. The consequence of an expert failing to attend a hearing to which they have been summoned without a valid excuse is separately provided for in Article 293 HMK.

Is a fee payable again for a supplementary expert report?

Not in every case. Under Article 11 of the 2026 Schedule, no separate expert fee is payable for remedying an existing deficiency or ambiguity, or for completing the questions originally asked. New questions outside the assignment, a new appointment and other costs are assessed separately.

Does complaining about the expert stop the objection period?

No. A complaint to the regional board is different from an objection to the report made to the court, and does not automatically suspend the period. The board cannot review the special or technical content of the report. Where a challenge for impartiality is concerned, the separate conditions and periods of Article 272 HMK also apply.

Can a supplementary report also be objected to?

Yes. A supplementary report's new or complementary assessments may be objected to within two weeks of service, under Article 281 HMK. However, the arrival of a supplementary report does not automatically remove all the time limit and procedural issues relating to the earlier report. The new finding and the objection that continues must be clearly identified.

Sources and legal bases

1. Republic of Türkiye, Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu); in particular Arts. 27, 33, 90–104, 145, 266–282, 293, 324–325, 341, 355, 357 and 445. Current text of the law.

2. Republic of Türkiye, Notification Law No. 7201 (Tebligat Kanunu); Arts. 7(a), 11 and 32. Current text of the law.

3. Republic of Türkiye, Expert Witnesses Law No. 6754 (Bilirkişilik Kanunu); in particular Arts. 3 and 14. Current text of the law.

4. Ministry of Justice, 2026 Expert Witnesses Minimum Fee Schedule (2026 Yılı Bilirkişilik Asgari Ücret Tarifesi), Official Gazette, 26.12.2025, issue 33119; in particular Arts. 5, 11 and 15. Text of the Schedule.

5. Constitutional Court, Ahmet Özgan and Şule Özgan [Plenary], App. No. 2020/21347, 21.12.2023; in particular §§ 51–56, 68–77 and the operative part. Decisions Database.

6. Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), 06.05.2026, E. 2026/129, K. 2026/299; in particular the reasoning §§ 26–34 and 52–58 and the operative part. UYAP case law.

7. Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), 18.02.2021, E. 2018/94, K. 2021/111. UYAP case law.

8. 15th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 15. Hukuk Dairesi), 10.11.2016, E. 2015/5127, K. 2016/4635. UYAP case law.

9. Alihocagil, Ömer Buğra, "The Preparation of an Expert Report in Civil Procedure Law and Objection to the Expert Report" (Medeni Usul Hukukunda Bilirkişi Raporunun Hazırlanması ve Bilirkişi Raporuna İtiraz), Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University Faculty of Law Journal (Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), Vol. XXII, Issue 3–4, 2018, pp. 547–588; in particular pp. 575–583. Full text of the article.

10. Kaplan, Mikail Bora, "Resolving the Contradiction between an Expert Report and an Expert Opinion in Civil Procedure Law" (Medenî Usûl Hukukunda Bilirkişi Raporu ile Uzman Görüşü Arasındaki Çelişkinin Giderilmesi), Turkish-German University Faculty of Law Journal (Türk-Alman Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 4(2), 2022, pp. 557–586; in particular pp. 570–576. Journal record and full text.