Court Resists Cassation Reversal on Limitation, Ankara 2026/1327

It is rare for an appeal court to refuse to follow a Court of Cassation reversal and say "I persist in my earlier decision". The Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, 21st Civil Chamber, did exactly this in a case concerning a holding group that collected money in the 1990s from savers living abroad on the promise that it would be "repaid whenever requested". The 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation had said the claim must be dismissed as time-barred; the Chamber, relying on the case law that the same Court of Cassation chamber had applied for years, again held that the limitation defence was contrary to the rule of good faith. The real question is whether a person who sued relying on a high court's settled case law should be protected when that case law changes.

By its decision of 06.10.2026, Docket No. (E.) 2026/1203, Decision No. (K.) 2026/1327, the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, 21st Civil Chamber, unanimously persisted in its earlier decision concerning the defendant company; it held that the claimants are not partners of the defendant company and ordered EUR 59,042.00 to be collected with interest running from 31.03.2000 under Article 4/A of Law No. 3095. An appeal on points of law against the decision is open.

⏳ The Court of Cassation's reasons for reversal: the extended limitation period of 7.5 years

To understand the decision of persistence, one must first look at the reversal judgment. In its decision of 11.05.2026, Docket No. (E.) 2026/2731, Decision No. (K.) 2026/2798, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, referring to its own precedents (2024/3278 E., 2024/5341 K. and 2024/1235 E., 2024/3801 K.), made the following findings:

On this basis the Court of Cassation stated that the case must be dismissed as time-barred, reversed the Chamber's decision, and for the time being did not examine the defendant company's other grounds of appeal.

🗂️ Proceedings lasting more than ten years

The case was filed on 12.08.2016, seeking a declaration that no partnership relationship was formed and the return of the money under the provisions on tort. This case arose from the severing of the claims of two claimants in the same petition and concerns the collection of EUR 60,813.06, the equivalent of DM 118,940. Its stages:

For the Constitutional Court dimension of the limitation debate concerning the same holding group, see the article on limitation and the rule of good faith for money paid into a holdingTR; for a case in which the defendant gave up the limitation defence, see the article on waiver of the limitation defenceTR.

🧱 The Chamber's reasons for persisting

The Chamber based its decision not to follow the reversal on several grounds.

1. Settled case law and legal certainty. According to the decision, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held for a long time, in cases concerning the same group and of a similar nature, that raising the limitation defence is incompatible with the rule of good faith. The Chamber refers to many judgments in this direction (for example 2013/13293 E., 2014/15076 K.). The reasoning also cites Articles 36 and 138 of the Constitution and the Constitutional Court's decisions on divergences in case law. These decisions stress that money was collected in return for a "Partnership Status Certificate" (Ortaklık Durum Belgesi) and that criminal cases against the company's executives lapsed because of limitation. The Chamber stated that the legal certainty created for the claimants by the Court of Cassation's stable case law must be protected.

2. Prohibition of contradictory conduct. The defendant argued on the one hand that the claimants were partners of the company and that a partner cannot demand back the money put in as capital, and on the other hand raised the limitation defence. The Chamber described this defence as "a typical example of the prohibition of contradictory conduct" and expressed the view that the legal relationship between the parties must be determined first, and a ruling on the money can be made only after it is established that there is no partnership.

3. No valid partnership. Relying on earlier judgments of the Court of Cassation, it was accepted that the group companies, acting together, collected money with the undertaking that it would be "returned immediately upon request together with accrued profit share", that they formally showed those who paid as partners with low nominal values, and that they did not reflect the collections in their accounting records. The share certificates in the case were treated as invalid, and their nominal values were not deducted from the claim.

As a result, the Chamber held that the limitation defence is contrary to the rule of good faith in Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code and that the case was filed within the statutory period.

✍️ The signature on the payment document: who bears the burden of proof?

The second important aspect of the decision is the determination of the amount of the claim. According to the expert report and the CD records that the defendant companies sent to the Capital Markets Board (SPK), EUR 59,042 was collected from the claimants. The first-instance court had accepted some documents submitted by the defendant as payment documents and set off a total of EUR 19,007.00 from this amount. The documents set off are as follows:

On appeal, the claimants argued that the signatures on these documents did not belong to their decedents. At the hearing stage, the Chamber gave the defendant a final time limit to submit the originals; the originals were submitted and the defendant stated which claimant each signature belonged to. The Chamber held that, given the objection to the signature, the burden of proof lies on the defendant, and obtained a report from a handwriting expert. The report dated 01.12.2025 stated that for a sound opinion, a large number of wet-ink comparison documents spread over a wide period were needed.

In this situation the Chamber accepted that it could not be proved by proper evidence that the signature belonged to the claimant, that these documents could not be regarded as payment documents, and it made no set-off. The partnership status certificate dated 01.01.1999 relied on by the defendant was also not accepted as a payment document, on the ground that it had been renewed by the later 31.03.2000 document relied on by the claimant and did not appear in the CD records.

🧾 The outcome of the judgment: declaration, euro claim and interest

The Chamber gave the following judgment concerning the defendant company:

As to the start of interest, the Chamber stated that, because the act is a tort, the date on which the money was paid to the company must be taken as the basis; the first-instance court had taken the date of the case. For the attorney's fees, in line with the decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, 2022/9-106 E., 2023/69 K., the TRY amount corresponding to the selling rate of the claimed foreign currency on the date of the case was taken into account. Because the share certificates have no legal validity, no ruling was made for their return to the defendant.

🔁 Where does the case go after persistence?

Article 373, third paragraph, of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the regional court of appeal decides whether to follow the Court of Cassation's reversal after inviting and hearing the parties. Under the fifth paragraph, if the regional court of appeal persists in its decision and that decision is appealed, the review is carried out by the chamber whose decision is persisted in; the decision of persistence is examined first. If the chamber finds the persistence justified, it corrects its decision; if not, it sends the case to the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation. Under the seventh paragraph, the decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers must be followed.

The decision is therefore not the final link in the limitation debate. On appeal, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation will first assess the persistence; if it maintains its view, the matter will come before the General Assembly of Civil Chambers.

💬 Reader questions

For detailed information and legal support, you can contact Savun Law & Consultancy. See the contact page and the Case LawTR archive.