The current case-law dimension of this main guide is examined in detail in the separate analysis titled Has the Proof of Excess Damage Changed in High Inflation? The 2025-2026 Decisions of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation and Constitutional Court Case Law.
Munzam Zarar and Aşkın Zarar Express the Same Legal Institution
The Statutory Term in TCO Article 122 Is “Excess Damage” (Aşkın Zarar)
The heading of Article 122 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 is “Excess damage” (Aşkın zarar). In practice, and in the terminology inherited from the period of the old Code of Obligations, the expression “munzam zarar” is widely used for the same institution. Both terms therefore describe the same legal institution in court decisions and in legal literature.
The first paragraph of TCO Article 122 reads as follows:
If the creditor has suffered damage exceeding default interest, the debtor is also obliged to make good this damage, unless it proves that it is not at fault at all.
The second paragraph provides that if the amount of damage exceeding default interest can be determined in the pending case, the judge may, at the creditor’s request, also award this amount when deciding on the merits.
Its Counterpart in the Old Code of Obligations
The institution was regulated under the name “munzam zarar” in Article 105 of the repealed Code of Obligations No. 818. Since there is no substantial difference in the basic liability structure between the old and the new provision, decisions of the old period continue to form the historical case-law base for today’s application of TCO Article 122.
Terminology Does Not Change the Nature of the Action
Using one of the expressions “munzam zarar”, “aşkın zarar”, “damage exceeding interest” or “damage not covered by default interest” in the petition does not by itself create a different type of action. What matters is that the material facts relied on are made concrete in accordance with the conditions of TCO Article 122.
Munzam Zarar Differs from Default Interest
Default interest is the minimum, lump-sum compensation that the law grants the creditor because a monetary debt was not paid on time. When claiming default interest, the creditor does not have to prove separately the existence of damage or the debtor’s fault.
Munzam zarar, on the other hand, is the loss remaining above default interest. Therefore:
- Default interest is the consequence of default for which no fault is required.
- Munzam zarar depends on the debtor’s fault in falling into default.
- For default interest, the presumption of damage arises from the law.
- The existence and amount of munzam zarar are argued separately.
- Munzam zarar cannot be found without deducting the collected default interest from the total calculated economic loss.
Default Interest Is the Minimum Redress
The law accepts that late payment of a monetary debt causes damage to the creditor and covers the first layer of this damage with default interest. Default interest operates without investigating which investment instrument the creditor would actually have turned to or what expenditure it would have made.
Munzam Zarar Is the Second Layer of Redress
If default interest does not fully make good the creditor’s real loss, the second layer comes into play. For example, because payment was not made the creditor may have used a higher-interest loan, paid a foreign-currency debt at a more expensive exchange rate, or the real value of the claim may have eroded during a long delay by more than default interest.
Munzam Zarar Is a Positive Damage
In Court of Cassation decisions, munzam zarar is defined as the difference between the position the creditor’s assets would have reached had the debtor paid on time and the position actually arising from late payment. In this respect it is a pecuniary and positive damage that aims to make good a reduction in assets or a prevented economic gain.
A New Debt Independent of the Principal Claim
The munzam zarar claim is not the same as the principal monetary debt. It begins to arise with the debtor’s default, may increase throughout the default period and continues until the principal claim is paid. Even if the principal claim and interest have been paid, a separate munzam zarar debt may continue to exist if the conditions for damage exceeding interest are met.
Collection of the Principal Claim Does Not Automatically Remove the Munzam Zarar Claim
The fact that the principal claim has been collected through enforcement proceedings or an action does not end the allegation that default interest did not make good the real loss. However, the payment is the basic event that determines the end date and the damage period in the munzam zarar calculation.
There Are Five Basic Conditions for Claiming Munzam Zarar
There Must Be a Monetary Debt
Munzam zarar arises only in monetary debts. The source of the debt is, as a rule, not decisive.
Monetary Debts Arising from Contract
TCO Article 122 may apply to monetary debts arising from contract, such as a sale price, the price of work under a contract for work, a rent claim, an attorney’s fee, or the return of a deposit.
Non-Contractual Monetary Debts
Compensation for a tort, unjust enrichment, agency without authority or a payment obligation arising from law may also be the subject of a munzam zarar discussion if it is a monetary debt on which default interest can run.
The Source of the Debt Affects the Competent Court
TCO Article 122 is a general provision of the law of obligations; but it does not by itself determine which court will hear the case. The competent court is determined according to whether the underlying legal relationship is a consumer, commercial, employment, lease or general private-law relationship.
The Debtor Must Have Fallen into Default
Munzam zarar is the consequence of the debtor’s default. For this reason, maturity and default must be distinguished from each other; the date of default must be determined precisely in the specific file.
Cases Requiring a Reminder Notice
Under TCO Article 117, the debtor of a debt that has fallen due, as a rule, falls into default by the creditor’s reminder notice (ihtar). The notice must sufficiently explain the debt, the demand and the request for payment; it must reach the debtor and the service of the notice must be provable.
Cases of Default without Notice
A separate notice may not be needed where the performance day was determined together with the debt in a definite manner, was determined by a proper notification relying on a right reserved in the contract, or where the law provides for default without notice. For tort and unjust enrichment, the special provisions in TCO Article 117/2 are assessed separately.
The Effect of the Date of Enforcement Proceedings or the Action
If default has not occurred earlier, proper enforcement proceedings or an action may put the debtor into default if the conditions are met. However, each file must be examined separately as to the claim items, the start of interest and the scope of the demand.
The Date of Default in a Previous Final Decision
If the existence of the claim and the date of default were determined by a final judgment in earlier proceedings, the binding nature of that determination must not be overlooked in a subsequent munzam zarar action. In its decision of 01.07.2026, the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation found it incorrect for the regional court of appeal (BAM) to re-discuss the default, although it had been established by earlier final decisions that the debtor fell into default on 19.08.2011.
A Damage Exceeding Default Interest Must Have Arisen
If the creditor’s total loss does not exceed the default interest it has collected or become entitled to collect, there is no munzam zarar. For this reason the damage calculation must be made not on the gross economic difference, but on the net amount remaining after the interest is set off.
Actual Reduction in Assets
The creditor may have taken out a loan and paid interest because payment was not made; paid default interest or a contractual penalty to a third party because it could not pay its debt to them; or borne a late-payment surcharge because it delayed tax or social security debts.
Prevented Gain and Loss of Opportunity
The inability to carry out a specific and provable investment, commercial transaction or contract because of the payment delay may also constitute damage. However, serious and measurable economic possibilities must be shown, not hypothetical and uncertain expectations of gain.
Loss of the Real Value of Money
In periods of high inflation, the purchasing power of a claim bearing fixed or low interest may fall considerably. Whether this loss can be regarded as munzam zarar on its own is at the centre of the fundamental difference of opinion in the judiciary.
There Must Be an Adequate Causal Link between Default and Damage
The damage the creditor relies on must, according to general life experience and the normal course of events, be an adequate consequence of the debtor’s late payment.
Causation Must Be Established on the Specific Case
The creditor must show, by date, amount, transaction and document link, from which payment delay the damage arose. For example, if the borrowing under a loan began before the principal claim fell due, the interest on that loan may not be directly attributable to munzam zarar.
The Effect of Another Cause on the Damage Must Be Separated
If the business’s pre-existing financial difficulty, market risk, the creditor’s own choice, the act of a third party or another independent event contributed to the damage, the causal link and any reduction of damages are assessed separately.
The Creditor’s Duty to Mitigate Damage
The creditor cannot remain indifferent to the growth of damage it could have prevented by reasonable measures. Choosing the wrong type of interest, failing to pursue the claim in time, or abandoning an available legal possibility without reason may lead to a discussion of reduction or set-off in the calculation.
The Debtor Must Be at Fault in Falling into Default
Munzam zarar liability is based on fault. However, the burden of proof is not on the creditor.
The Presumption of Fault Is in the Creditor’s Favour
TCO Article 122 presumes that the debtor is at fault. The creditor does not have to prove separately the debtor’s intent or negligence.
The Debtor Must Prove That It Was Not at Fault at All
The debtor can be relieved of liability only by proving that it had no fault at all in falling into default. Defences such as an unforeseen event, a transmission delay not attributable to it, or being without fault unaware of the existence of the claim may be assessed according to the particulars of the case.
Even Slight Negligence Is Sufficient
As also emphasised in the decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 01.07.2026, the degree of fault is not decisive for liability to arise. Even if the debtor fell into default through slight negligence, it may be liable for munzam zarar if the other conditions are met.
In Proving Munzam Zarar, the Concrete Method and the Abstract Basket Method Are Distinguished
The Concrete Method Is Based on the Creditor’s Own Economic Losses
In the concrete method, the creditor tries to document the specific loss that arose in its own assets because of the late payment. This method is central in the strict approach to proof of the Civil General Assembly and the 3rd and 9th Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation.
Use of Loans and Financing Cost
The loan agreement, account statement, date of use, interest accrual and payment receipts relating to the loan used because the claim was not paid must be submitted. It must be shown not only that the loan exists but that it was used because of the delay in the claim.
Default Interest or Penalty Paid to Third Parties
If the creditor paid interest or a penalty to a third party because it could not pay its own debt, the relevant contract, notice, enforcement file, payment document and time link must be evidenced.
Foreign-Currency Debt and Exchange-Rate Difference
If a foreign-currency debt that could have been closed had the claim been paid on time was later paid at a higher exchange rate, the basis of the debt, its due date, the payment date, the exchange rate and the link with the principal claim must be shown.
Delays in Tax, Premium and Public Debts
Interest and surcharges paid because of delays in tax, social security premiums or other public debts may constitute concrete damage to the extent that a direct link is established with the late-paid claim.
Lost Business and Investment Opportunity
An allegation of being unable to enter a tender, to make a specific investment or of losing a commercial contract must be supported by preparatory steps, a financing plan, bid documents and the probability of its occurring. A mere statement that “had I had the money, I would have invested” may not be regarded as sufficient.
The Abstract Method Is Based on a Basket of Economic Indicators
In the abstract method, it is accepted that in a period of high inflation a reasonable person would not keep its money idle and that it is in accordance with the ordinary course of life for it to turn to instruments that preserve its value. This acceptance provides ease of proof through a factual presumption and generally known economic facts.
High and Persistent Inflation Is the Distinguishing Element
The 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation distinguishes between periods of normal and limited inflation and periods of high and persistent inflation. In a high-inflation environment, the loss of value of money and default interest’s failure to make it good may form the basis of a presumption that there is a reduction in the creditor’s assets.
The Economic Basket Is Not a Single Investment Assumption
The basket method does not assume that the creditor would invest all of its money solely in dollars, gold or deposits. It aims to produce a reasonable measure of value preservation by evaluating different economic indicators together.
Case-Law Basis of the Basket Method
The economic basket approach was adopted in the 2012 and 2013 decisions of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in the decision of 06.12.2018 of the now-abolished 15th Civil Chamber, and in a series of decisions of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation in 2024-2026.
Using the Two Methods Together Must Be Planned Carefully
In its decision E.2025/1988, K.2026/1547 of 16.04.2026, the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation distinguished the concrete and abstract methods; it stated that the injured party cannot obtain compensation twice for the same damage on the basis of both methods.
Alternative or Subsidiary Argument Must Be Distinguished from Double Compensation
The creditor may argue, as a primary matter, its concrete damage and, if that is not accepted, the economic basket calculation based on high inflation as a legal argument. However, double compensation cannot be requested by adding the same damage item under two methods.
Method and Damage Items Must Be Clearly Separated in the Petition
It must be shown whether items such as concrete loan cost, exchange-rate difference and late penalty and the basket calculation cover the same economic loss, and how set-off will be made.
There Are Two Different Approaches to Proof in the Case Law of the Court of Cassation
The Approach Looking for Concrete and Person-Specific Damage
The decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation of 29.03.2022, E.2021/938, K.2022/401, is among the clearest examples of the view that general economic adversity does not prove munzam zarar on its own.
General Economic Indicators Are Not Regarded as Sufficient on Their Own
In this approach, high inflation, exchange-rate increases, deposit interest and the decline in purchasing power are not accepted as sufficient unless they show actual damage in the creditor’s own particular situation.
Concretisation Is Required under Article 194 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK)
The creditor must show the facts giving rise to the damage, the amounts and the evidence in a manner suitable for proof. The decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation of 12.03.2024, E.2023/1897, K.2024/1099, has continued this approach.
The Defence That Default Interest Is Determined by the Legislature
The strict approach argues that economic adversity was already taken into account by the legislature when the statutory and default interest rates were set, and that automatically turning the same indicators into a second presumption of damage would in effect change the interest regime.
The Economic Basket and Factual Presumption Approach
In its decisions especially after 2024, the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation adopts the economic basket method on the view that strict concrete proof in periods of high inflation may lead to a violation of the right to property.
6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation E.2024/360, K.2025/978
In the decision dated 11.03.2025, inflation, foreign currency, gold, term deposits, government bonds and wage increases for the period 2004-2019 were evaluated together; it was found incorrect to reject the damage determined by the basket calculation merely because no concrete personal evidence was submitted.
6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation E.2025/544, K.2025/3055
In the decision dated 23.09.2025, the Chamber stated, on the grounds of the binding nature of the Constitutional Court’s decisions and the protection of the right to property, that in a high-inflation environment the existence of munzam zarar may be accepted as a presumption on the basis of economic indicators.
6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation E.2025/2406, K.2026/2915
In this decision dated 01.07.2026, the Chamber elaborated the basket method; in addition to the default interest collected, it held that the interest difference the creditor lost by requesting statutory interest in the earlier action, when it could have requested advance (avans) interest, must also be deducted from the damage.
It Cannot Be Said That Case Law of the Court of Cassation Has Converged
While the 3rd and 9th Civil Chambers and the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation maintain the concrete damage approach, the 6th Civil Chamber is developing the economic basket method. Moreover, in the decision of the 6th Civil Chamber dated 24.02.2025, E.2023/3584, K.2025/692, the majority upheld the rejection decision, and the economic basket approach was advocated in a dissenting opinion. Therefore, the conclusion that “the whole case law of the Court of Cassation has changed” should not be drawn from a single decision.
The Constitutional Court Links the Real Value of a Claim to the Right to Property
The ANO İnşaat Decision Showed That Strict Proof May Lead to a Rights Violation
In the ANO İnşaat ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. decision, the Constitutional Court examined the payment of a claim against a public institution after a long time, with serious loss of value against inflation; it found that imposing a personal, excessive and extraordinary burden on the applicant was incompatible with the right to property. The strict interpretation of the lower courts requiring separate proof of concrete damage upset the fair balance to the applicant’s detriment in the specific case.
The Caner Şafak Pilot Decision Directly Addressed Private-Law Claims
In its Caner Şafak decision dated 08.07.2025, the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court assessed the payment of a claim between private-law persons about ten years later, with interest that remained below inflation.
The Law No. 3095 Regime Was Not Regarded as Effective
The Constitutional Court found that the fixed interest rates in Law No. 3095 during the relevant period were not linked to inflation and did not offer a sufficient chance of success, even at a theoretical level, in preventing the loss of value of the claim.
The Munzam Zarar Action Also Did Not Function as an Effective Route
The Constitutional Court concluded that, because of the concrete-damage approach of the chambers other than the Civil General Assembly and the 6th Civil Chamber, the munzam zarar action had not developed into a domestic remedy capable of making good the loss caused by inflation.
Structural Problem and Pilot Decision
The Court held that the effective-remedy right linked to the right to property had been violated; that the problem was structural; that the pilot-decision procedure was to be applied; and that a notification be made to the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye for a solution.
ECtHR Decisions Raised the Inconsistency in Case Law and the Effectiveness of the Domestic Remedy
Ahmet Nihat Özsan AŞ v. Türkiye
The ECtHR found that there were two opposing lines of case law in the Turkish judiciary on the proof of munzam zarar; and, since the mechanism that would resolve this difference was not effective in the specific case, it reached a finding of violation of the right to a fair trial.
Denizci v. Türkiye
In its decision Denizci v. Türkiye of 17.03.2022, the ECtHR found the application inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had not exhausted the munzam zarar route based on TCO Article 122. This decision shows that the ECtHR regarded the munzam zarar action, at that date, as a domestic remedy that had to be exhausted and was assumed to have a reasonable prospect of success; but it does not mean that every munzam zarar claim must be accepted on the merits.
How Is the Economic Basket Built in Calculating Munzam Zarar?
The Calculation Period Is the Time between Default and Actual Payment
As a rule, the start of the calculation is the debtor’s date of default, and the end is the date on which the principal debt is actually paid. If there are partial payments, each payment gives rise to a separate period and set-off calculation for the relevant portion of principal.
The Date of Finality Is Not Always the Starting Point
If the claim and default arose earlier, merely having waited for the court decision to become final does not automatically move the start of the calculation to the date of finality. The binding determination of the earlier judgment on the date of default is also taken into account.
The Period after the Payment Date Is Not Added to the Munzam Zarar Calculation
With the payment of the principal debt, the default period attached to that debt ends. If the munzam zarar compensation itself falls due separately and the debtor is put into default as to that compensation, the interest on this new claim is assessed separately.
The Main Economic Data Used in the Basket
The following indicators appear in the current decisions of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation:
TEFE, CPI (TÜFE) and PPI (ÜFE) Changes
These show the decline in the purchasing power of money and the change in the general price level. The periodic index series must be used consistently with the start and end dates.
Three-Month Average Term Deposit Interest Rates
This is regarded as one of the reasonable, low-risk value-preservation instruments. The gross-net return, withholding tax and compound return method must be explained in the report.
Government Bond and Domestic Borrowing Yields
The yields of public borrowing instruments of the period may be included in the basket as an indicator of safe investment. How different maturities are converted into a single series must be stated.
US Dollar and Euro Exchange-Rate Changes
Foreign currency is considered an instrument of value preservation in periods of high inflation. The basket calculation should not be turned into an assumption that the claim would necessarily have been invested entirely in foreign currency.
Gold Prices
It must be explained which type and price series of gold is taken into account, and whether the buying, selling or average value is used.
Minimum Wage and Worker Wage Increases
These appear in the Court of Cassation decisions as an auxiliary indicator of change in economic value and wage level. This data is not a direct investment return; its function in the basket must be justified in the expert report.
The Basket Calculation Must Be Open to Review
It is not sufficient merely to write the economic indicators side by side. The expert must clearly show:
- The official source of each data series,
- The start and end dates,
- The annual and periodic conversion method,
- The choice of simple or compound calculation,
- Partial payments,
- Assumptions on tax and deductions,
- The weights used,
- The set-off of default interest,
- Deductions arising from the creditor’s own choice,
- The final net amount of munzam zarar.
A Simple Average of the Ranges Is Not Always Sufficient
Different economic series differ from one another in magnitude, period and compound effects. Merely adding and dividing percentage rates arithmetically may produce a misleading result, especially over long periods. The “basket average” to which the decision refers must be turned into a comparable and reviewable methodology by an expert.
The Expert Must Not Exercise Legal Discretion
The date of default, the type of interest, the effect of a final judgment, which method is legally to be applied and the burden of proof are the court’s legal assessment. The expert must carry out the economic and financial calculation, and must not rule on the legal outcome.
Default Interest Collected Is Always Set Off
Munzam zarar is the portion exceeding default interest. Therefore, the default interest actually collected by the creditor is deducted from the total value difference found by the basket calculation.
The Principal Cannot Be Compensated Again
The calculation is aimed not at collecting the principal again but at the additional loss, not covered by interest, caused by the late payment of the principal.
Enforcement Denial Compensation (İcra İnkâr Tazminatı) and Litigation Costs Are Separate Items
How enforcement denial compensation, the attorney’s fee and litigation costs are to be treated in the munzam zarar calculation must be determined separately according to their legal nature; these items are not automatically counted as set-off of default interest.
A Wrong or Incomplete Interest Claim May Reduce the Calculation
One of the most important novelties of the decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 01.07.2026 is that it takes into account the consequence of the creditor having claimed statutory interest in the earlier action when it could have claimed higher interest.
The Consequence of Claiming Statutory Interest Instead of Advance (Avans) Interest
According to the Chamber, if the creditor claimed statutory interest in the earlier action when it could have claimed advance interest, it must bear the interest difference under-collected because of that choice. This amount must be set off separately, after the basket damage and the default interest collected.
The Prayer for Relief Is of Strategic Importance
Choosing the wrong type of interest in the principal claim action may affect not only the accessory claim in that action but also the amount of a munzam zarar action that may be brought later. The interest claim must be built according to whether the parties are merchants, the commercial nature of the transaction, the contract and the legislation of the period.
The Statutory Interest Regime Changed with Effect from 31 July 2026
Law No. 7589 Amended Article 1 of Law No. 3095
With Article 10 of Law No. 7589, adopted on 16.07.2026 and published in the Official Gazette of 31.07.2026, statutory interest was linked to a dynamic formula instead of a fixed rate.
Under the new provision, where no interest rate has been set by contract, statutory interest is determined:
- on 80 per cent of the rediscount rate applied by the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye (TCMB) to short-term credit transactions on 31 December of the previous year,
- if the 30 June rate differs from the previous 31 December rate by at least five points, in the second half of the year on 80 per cent of the 30 June rate.
As of 30 October 2026 the Statutory Interest Rate Is 31 Per Cent
The TCMB short-term rediscount rate in force since 20.12.2025 is 38.75 per cent. 80 per cent of this corresponds to 31 per cent. Since there was no five-point change on 30 June 2026, the statutory interest rate to be applied from 31.07.2026 is 31 per cent.
In commercial matters, if the conditions of Article 2 of Law No. 3095 are met, the TCMB short-term advance (avans) rate may be used as the basis. For 2026, this rate, at 39.75 per cent, should be checked separately.
Interest rates are applied by period and are specific to the case. For each claim, the date of default, the type of transaction, the contract and the rates in force must be determined separately.
The Change Does Not Automatically Remove Past Damage
The new formula affects the calculation of statutory interest after 31.07.2026. It does not automatically erase the loss of value alleged to have arisen in earlier years because of low interest; nor does it automatically apply the new rate retroactively to final judgments.
Link to the Constitutional Court’s Norm Review Decision
By its decision E.2024/24, K.2025/164 of 22.07.2025, the Constitutional Court annulled the former Article 1 of Law No. 3095 as regards debt relationships not arising from contract and postponed the entry into force of the annulment by nine months. Law No. 7589 introduced the dynamic rate system before the annulment took effect.
Effect of the New Interest Regime on Munzam Zarar Actions
The dynamic interest system may reduce the gap between interest and inflation, but it does not eliminate the institution of munzam zarar. The following possibilities remain:
- The applied interest rate falling below the concrete loss,
- A higher financing cost specific to the contractual or commercial relationship,
- Economic indicators rising faster than interest during a long trial,
- Creditor-specific concrete damage arising,
- Claims for past-period damage.
Whether the new regulation fully resolves the structural problem identified in the Constitutional Court’s Caner Şafak pilot decision will become clear through practice and new decisions of the high courts.
The Procedure of a Munzam Zarar Action Is Determined by the Underlying Legal Relationship
Munzam Zarar May Be Claimed in the Same Action or in a Separate Action
TCO Article 122/2 allows a ruling together with the decision on the merits if the amount of damage can be determined in the pending action. If the damage cannot yet be determined or arose later, a separate action may be brought.
A Reservation of Rights Is Not Mandatory
In the practice of the Court of Cassation, since munzam zarar is regarded as a new debt independent of the principal claim, the failure to reserve the right to munzam zarar in the principal claim action does not by itself bar a later action.
Finality of the Principal Claim Is Not Always Awaited
For the munzam zarar calculation, the principal claim and the default must be sufficiently determinable. In some files, although the finality of the principal claim makes the legal and technical calculation easier, the law has not made prior finality an absolute condition for the action in every case.
The Limitation Period Is, as a Rule, Ten Years
Since there is no special limitation period in TCO Article 122, the general ten-year period applies. However, issues of commencement and interruption must be examined carefully.
Damage May Arise Day by Day during the Default Period
Court of Cassation decisions state that munzam zarar is an independent debt that begins with default and continues, increasing, until the payment date. In very long defaults, therefore, a limitation defence may arise for the portions of damage falling outside the ten-year period counted back from the date the action was filed.
A Principal Claim Action Does Not Automatically Interrupt the Limitation of Munzam Zarar
Bringing an action or enforcement proceedings for the principal claim is not deemed in every case to have interrupted limitation for the separate munzam zarar debt. The limitation calculation must be made separately on the nature of the claim and the steps taken.
Limitation Is Suspended during Mediation
Where mediation as a condition precedent to litigation applies, limitation is suspended, and the preclusive period does not run, from the application to the mediation office until the final minutes are drawn up.
The Competent Court Depends on the Nature of the Underlying Relationship
Commercial Relationships
Munzam zarar actions arising from works, sales, services or other commercial transactions relating to the commercial enterprise of both parties are, as a rule, heard by the commercial court of first instance. In commercial actions whose subject is a monetary claim or compensation, mediation prior to the action is a condition precedent under Article 5/A of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC).
Consumer Transactions
A munzam zarar action brought by a consumer on account of a bank, housing, defective goods or services relationship may fall within the jurisdiction of the consumer court. Except for the exceptions under Article 73/A of the Consumer Protection Law (TKHK), mediation as a condition precedent should be considered.
Employment Relationships
In munzam zarar claims connected with the claims and compensation of an employee or employer based on an employment contract, the labour court and the mediation regime in Law No. 7036 are taken into account.
Lease and Other Private Relationships
In disputes arising from a lease relationship, the mediation requirement under Article 18/B of Law No. 6325 has applied since 01.09.2023; in general relationships with no special jurisdiction provision, the civil court of first instance is considered.
The Court with Territorial Jurisdiction Is Determined by the General and Special Rules of Jurisdiction
The defendant’s place of residence, the place of performance of the contract, the place of the tort, or the rules of jurisdiction specific to consumer and employment law are assessed according to the specific case. The court that heard the earlier principal claim action is not always automatically competent in the munzam zarar action.
A Separate Default May Be Required for Interest on the Munzam Zarar Claim
Munzam zarar is a compensation claim independent of the principal debt. The arising of this claim is not the same thing as the debtor falling into default in respect of munzam zarar compensation.
The Importance of a Pre-Action Notice
A notice sent when the amount can be determined sufficiently may matter for the start of the interest running on the munzam zarar claim.
If There Is No Notice, the Date of the Action
If the debtor has not been put into default earlier, interest on munzam zarar compensation may, as a rule, come into play from the date of the action. The type of interest to be applied is determined separately according to the commercial nature of the parties and the transaction.
Evidence That Should Be in the Case File
Documents on Default and the Principal Claim
- The contract and its annexes,
- Invoices, progress payments and delivery records,
- The notice and proof of service,
- The enforcement file,
- Decisions in the principal claim action,
- The finality annotation,
- Payment and collection receipts,
- Dates of partial payments.
Documents on Concrete Damage
- Loan agreements and account statements,
- Interest accrual and payment records,
- Debts owed to third parties,
- Foreign-currency debt documents,
- Records of delays in tax and premiums,
- Payments of contractual penalties or compensation,
- Tender and investment preparation documents,
- Commercial books and financial statements,
- Cash flow records.
Economic Basket Data
- TÜİK price indices,
- TCMB deposit and interest statistics,
- TCMB exchange rates,
- Borrowing data of the Ministry of Treasury and Finance,
- Verifiable price series for gold,
- Minimum wage and wage indices,
- Statutory and commercial interest rates by period.
A Date and Amount Link Must Be Established among the Evidence
Submitting a pile of documents is not enough. The petition must explain which damage item, which period and which amount each document proves.
Which Questions Should the Expert Report Answer?
Has It Established the Default Period Correctly?
For each claim item, the report must show the date of default and of payment; in the case of partial payments, the remaining principal must be shown separately.
Has It Used the Correct Type of Interest and the Actual Collection?
The distinction between statutory, commercial, advance (avans) or contractual interest should be compared with the earlier judgment and the enforcement cover calculation.
Are the Sources of the Economic Data Clear?
Each series must have its institution, date, measurement method and data link. Unverified values taken from private websites should not be made the basis of the judgment on their own.
Have the Basket Weights and Calculation Technique Been Explained?
Which indicator was used with which weight, and the compound return and intermediate-period calculations, must be explained. The result must be capable of being recalculated.
Have Default Interest and Other Set-Offs Been Made?
The interest collected, the difference the creditor has to bear because of a wrong choice of interest, partial payments and earlier compensation must be shown on separate lines.
Do Concrete Damage and Basket Damage Overlap?
Duplication must be prevented if concrete damages such as loan cost or exchange-rate difference again include the loss compensated by the basket calculation in the same period.
Has the Report Exceeded the Limit of Legal Assessment?
The expert must not rule on the legal conclusion that belongs to the judge, such as “the action should be accepted” or “the debtor is at fault”. The calculation should be presented in alternatives and in a reviewable form.
Strategic Checklist for Creditor and Debtor
For the Creditor
Claim the Right Type of Interest in the Principal Action
If advance (avans) interest or contractual interest is available in a commercial matter, a claim for low statutory interest may create a loss that can later be deducted from the munzam zarar calculation.
Make the Date of Default and the Notification Indisputable
The notice, KEP (registered electronic mail), notary or other reliable means of notification should be used; the debt and the demand should be clearly written.
Do Not Lose the Concrete Evidence
Bank records, loan documents, third-party debts and financial statements may be impossible to obtain at the end of a long trial. Evidence should be collected at an early stage.
Explain the Choice of Method in the Petition
The items to which the concrete damage and economic basket methods are applied, and the relationship of alternative claims and set-off, should be made clear.
Track Limitation Independently of the Principal Action
The continuation of the principal claim action may not protect all the time limits for munzam zarar.
For the Debtor
Show Absence of Fault in Default with Concrete Evidence
Saying in general that “the claim was disputed” may not be sufficient. Why the payment could not be made, and that this cannot be attributed to the debtor, must be documented.
Question the Causal Link
Earlier use of the loan, a damage item arising from another debt, or the creditor’s economic choices may constitute a causation defence.
Scrutinise the Basket Methodology
Wrong periods, double counting, unexplained weights, gross-net confusion and compound calculation errors should be made grounds of objection to the expert report.
Raise Set-Off and the Creditor’s Fault
The interest collected, the failure to claim higher interest, late pursuit and conduct that increased the damage should be taken into account in the calculation.
Review the Release and Settlement Text
Whether a release or settlement document signed when the principal claim was paid covers the munzam zarar claim should be assessed on the basis of clear and specific wording.
Related articles: Default Interest and Excess Damage Claims in Fund Refund Instructions That Were Not Carried Out.
Conclusion
Munzam zarar is not merely an inflation difference or a claim for additional interest. It aims at compensation of the net loss that arises in the creditor’s assets because of the late payment of a monetary debt and that default interest has not made good. The conditions of a monetary debt, default, damage exceeding interest, adequate causal link and fault are assessed together; the burden of proving absence of fault lies on the debtor.
In today’s practice the most important problem is the standard of proof. While the Civil General Assembly and some chambers look for concrete, person-specific damage, the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation adopts the economic basket and factual presumption approach in periods of high inflation. The Constitutional Court’s Caner Şafak pilot decision identified the absence of an effective mechanism protecting the real value of a claim as a structural problem. Although the dynamic statutory interest system that entered into force on 31.07.2026 is an important change, it does not by itself resolve past damage or every dispute under TCO Article 122.
A successful munzam zarar file therefore requires that the right interest claim be made already in the first claim action, that the date of default be made final, that concrete documents be preserved, that the economic calculation be reviewable, and that the divergence in case law be openly argued.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are munzam zarar and aşkın zarar the same thing?
Yes. Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 uses the term “excess damage” (aşkın zarar); in practice, the expression “munzam zarar”, inherited from the old Code of Obligations, is also used for the same institution.
Can the inflation difference alone be claimed as munzam zarar?
There is no definitive, one-directional answer. While the Civil General Assembly and some chambers look for person-specific concrete damage, the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation accepts a basket of economic indicators as a presumption of damage in periods of high inflation. The petition should take both approaches and the particulars of the specific file into account.
Can a munzam zarar action be brought after the principal claim and interest have been collected?
Yes. Munzam zarar is regarded as a claim independent of the principal debt. The fact that the principal claim and default interest have been collected does not prevent a separate action if there is damage exceeding interest.
Is it necessary to reserve the right to munzam zarar in the earlier action?
In the practice of the Court of Cassation, a reservation of rights is not regarded as mandatory. However, clear planning on a file-by-file basis is useful for the claim, limitation and evidence strategy.
What is the limitation period in a munzam zarar action?
Since there is no special period, the ten-year limitation period applies as a rule. However, because the damage arises increasing throughout the default period, the effect of the principal action and enforcement steps on the limitation of munzam zarar must be examined separately.
Does the creditor prove the debtor’s fault?
No. TCO Article 122 presumes that the debtor is at fault. The debtor cannot be relieved of liability unless it proves that it was not at fault at all in falling into default.
Is an expert report mandatory for munzam zarar?
It is not an absolute statutory requirement in every file; however, when a long-term economic basket, partial payments, interest set-offs and concrete financing costs require technical calculation, an expert examination is often necessary.
Which economic data are taken into account?
The 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation counts inflation, three-month term deposits, government bonds, the US dollar and the euro, gold and minimum wage increases among the indicators of the economic basket.
Is the default interest collected also added to munzam zarar?
No. Munzam zarar is the portion not covered by interest. The default interest collected is deducted from the total economic loss.
Does claiming statutory interest in the earlier action affect the munzam zarar claim?
It may. According to the decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 01.07.2026, the interest difference lost by a creditor who claimed statutory interest when it could have claimed advance (avans) interest because of that choice may be set off against the basket damage.
How is statutory interest determined after 31 July 2026?
Statutory interest is determined on 80 per cent of the TCMB’s short-term rediscount rate of 31 December of the previous year. If the 30 June rate differs by at least five points, that rate is used in the second half of the year. As of 30 October 2026 the rate is 31 per cent.
Has the new interest system ended munzam zarar actions?
No. The dynamic rate does not eliminate past damage and does not prevent claiming concrete financing loss or other damage not covered by interest. The extent to which the new system removes the structural problem in the Constitutional Court’s pilot decision will be seen in subsequent practice.
Which court is competent?
It varies according to the underlying legal relationship. The commercial court of first instance may be competent in a commercial relationship, the consumer court in a consumer transaction, the labour court in an employment relationship, and the civil court of first instance in a general relationship with no special jurisdiction.
Is it necessary to apply to mediation?
It may be, depending on the type of dispute. Article 5/A of the TCC in commercial monetary claims and compensation actions; Article 73/A of the TKHK in consumer disputes; Law No. 7036 in labour disputes; and Article 18/B of Law No. 6325 in lease disputes should be taken into account.
From which date does interest run on a munzam zarar claim?
The munzam zarar claim is an independent debt. If the debtor was put into default in respect of this compensation by a pre-action notice, the notice date; otherwise, in most cases the date of the action may be used. The type of interest is determined according to the nature of the legal relationship.
Sources
Legislation
- Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, in particular Articles 117, 120, 121 and 122
- Law No. 3095 on Statutory Interest and Default Interest, current Articles 1 and 2
- Law No. 7589, Article 10; adopted 16.07.2026, Official Gazette 31.07.2026/33326
- Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, in particular Article 194 and the provisions on experts
- Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Articles 5 and 5/A
- Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes
Court of Cassation Decisions
- Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, E.2021/938, K.2022/401, T.29.03.2022
- Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, E.2023/1897, K.2024/1099, T.12.03.2024
- Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, E.2023/1766, K.2024/4097, T.14.11.2024
- Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, E.2023/3584, K.2025/692, T.24.02.2025
- Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, E.2024/360, K.2025/978, T.11.03.2025
- Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, E.2025/544, K.2025/3055, T.23.09.2025
- Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, E.2024/3553, K.2025/3873, T.13.11.2025
- Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, E.2025/1988, K.2026/1547, T.16.04.2026
- Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, E.2025/4148, K.2026/1670, T.22.04.2026
- Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, E.2025/2406, K.2026/2915, T.01.07.2026
- Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, E.2017/1927, K.2019/1658, T.28.02.2019
- Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, E.2020/10700, K.2021/10183, T.18.10.2021
- Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, E.2016/13484, K.2018/4895, T.27.06.2018
Constitutional Court, ECtHR and Official Data
- Caner Şafak [GK], Application No: 2024/41763, T.08.07.2025
- Constitutional Court, E.2024/24, K.2025/164, T.22.07.2025
- ECtHR, Ahmet Nihat Özsan Anonim Şirketi v. Türkiye, Application No: 62318/09, T.09.02.2021.
- ECtHR, Denizci v. Türkiye, Application No: 57031/12, T.17.03.2022.
- TCMB Rediscount and Advance Interest Rates
Date of source and legal check: 30 October 2026. Because interest rates and legislation may change over time, they should be rechecked at the date of the specific transaction.