The ultimate aim of judicial proceedings is to resolve disputes substantively and eliminate legal uncertainty between the parties. The most critical phase of this process is the “judgment”, which constitutes the final decision rendered by the courts. However, although a judgment is a decision that concludes the trial, in some cases, it may not produce legal effects, meaning it is considered “ineffective”.
From the perspective of civil procedure law, a “judgment” is the final decision given at the hearing where the proceedings end. Article 294(1) of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (CCP) states:
"The court concludes the case with a final decision, either on procedural or substantive grounds."
In legal doctrine, a judgment is defined as "a final decision that resolves the dispute on its merits, conclusively determining the case and requiring the judge to withdraw from the matter."[1] According to this definition, a judgment is the final decision rendered at the conclusion of a trial concerning the substance of the dispute. Although in practice the terms decision and judgment are often used interchangeably, they have technically distinct meanings: A judgment puts an end to the dispute. Every judgment is a decision, but not every decision is a judgment.[2] This distinction becomes particularly important when evaluating the concept of “ineffective judgment”. While every judgment ultimately concludes a case, in certain circumstances, it may become ineffective for various reasons. In such cases, although a judgment has been issued, it may not produce legally binding effects. Below, the characteristics of ineffective judgments, their differences from similar concepts, and the legal consequences arising within this framework will be examined.
Characteristics of Ineffective Judgment and Differences from Similar Concepts
For a judgment to be valid, it must fulfill all the elements prescribed by law. In this regard, it is crucial that the court rendering the judgment is lawfully and properly constituted and that the judgment is publicly disclosed. Decisions that lack these characteristics are defective and cannot be considered fully valid judgments under procedural law. Such deficiencies may result in either a null (apparent) judgment or an ineffective judgment.
In an apparent judgment, the essential elements required for the judgment to be considered valid in the external legal world are lacking. In other words, while a judgment may exist in form, it does not actually qualify as a judgment in substance. An apparent judgment may arise in two ways: (i) it is issued by an entity that is not legally recognized as a court, or (ii) it has not been pronounced (tefhim edilmemesi). A decision issued under such circumstances has no legal effect, and its nullity is recognized ex officio (automatically by the court). Consequently, a decision rendered by a non-judicial entity can be re-litigated as if no judgment had ever been issued. However, if a judgment was issued by a lawfully constituted court but was not publicly pronounced, then the trial has not yet concluded, meaning a new lawsuit cannot be initiated. In both cases, these judgments are not enforceable. In legal doctrine, one view suggests that an apparent judgment can be challenged through legal remedies to have it annulled.[3] However, another view argues that annulling a non-existent judgment is not possible.[4] If the parties claim that a judgment is null, the court must render a decision on this matter. If the court rejects this claim, the judgment becomes final, allowing an appeal on the grounds that the decision is not null. Otherwise, a ruling that a judgment is null constitutes an interlocutory decision.
The decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), numbered 2023/6360E. and 2024/2592K., dated 28.03.2024, constitutes a significant example regarding the requirement that a judgment must be rendered by a lawfully and properly constituted court:
“Pursuant to the provisions of the relevant article, the authority to decide whether to comply with the reversal decision and, accordingly, to rule on the merits of the case belongs to the First Instance Court. The Regional Court of Appeals' failure to consider this and proceeding with the trial to issue a judgment is incorrect, rendering the given decision null.” [5]
An ineffective judgment differs from a null judgment in that it possesses the fundamental elements required for a valid decision. However, due to various reasons, the expected legal effect of such a judgment does not fully or partially materialize. If only some of its effects fail to materialize while others remain, such a decision is called a "limited-effect judgment"; if none of its effects arise, then the decision is classified as a "completely ineffective judgment". For example, if a court ruling does not constitute material res judicata but has formally become final and is enforceable, it is a limited-effect judgment. In contrast, if the issued decision constitutes neither formal nor material res judicata and is unenforceable, then it is a completely ineffective judgment.[6]
As a matter of fact, the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in its decision dated 11.11.2013, numbered 2012/27120 E., 2013/24065 K., defines ineffective judgment as follows:
“For a judgment to be considered valid, it must be rendered by a lawfully and properly constituted court in a specific manner and must be publicly disclosed. A decision lacking these characteristics is deemed null. In an ineffective judgment, however, a decision exists, but there is a fundamental defect in its essential elements. Such decisions fail to produce the necessary legal effect. Cases where the absence of party capacity has consequences, such as when a party dies before or after the trial, can be cited as examples of ineffective judgments.”[7]
Unlike null judgments, there are no specific criteria for determining ineffective judgments. Therefore, only some examples of such cases can be listed:[8]:
- A decision rendered against a person who has immunity,
- A decision issued against a non-existent party,
- A judgment that is unclear and cannot be clarified through amendment (e.g., a judgment containing contradictory provisions; however, contradictions between the reasoning and the ruling do not necessarily render the judgment ineffective),
- A ruling on a legally non-existent relationship,
- A judgment rendered in a case that was not pending (non-pending litigation),
- A judgment that violates Article 2 of the Constitution.,
- A decision whose execution is objectively and absolutely impossible[9].
An ineffective judgment does not produce the legal effects that a valid judgment is expected to generate. The ineffectiveness of a judgment can always be asserted. As a general rule, the part of the decision concerning litigation costs remains valid and produces legal consequences like an enforceable judgment. However, if the reason for the judgment's ineffectiveness is that it was issued against a person who lacks legal standing, then the part of the decision concerning litigation costs will also have no legal effect. Indeed, in such a case, since a non-existent person cannot be expected to pay litigation costs, that part of the decision will also be considered ineffective.
A legal remedy can be sought against an ineffective judgment because, in such cases, the trial has been completed, and the court is bound by its own decision.
In cases where material finality and enforceability do not simultaneously exist, a limited-effect judgment arises. If a judgment is of limited effect, its valid parts remain effective, while the other parts may be considered ineffective judgments.[10]
Ultimately, a judgment containing serious procedural errors or violations of substantive law does not automatically become ineffective. Such a judgment still has legal effect but is erroneous, meaning that, if the necessary conditions are met, a request for retrial (yargılamanın iadesi) may be pursued. However, a retrial is not possible for an ineffective judgment.[11]
Conclusion
In Turkish law, an ineffective judgment refers to a court decision that has been lawfully rendered and is formally valid but fails to produce its expected legal effects due to certain special circumstances. The concept of an ineffective judgment differs from that of a null judgment; in a null judgment, the decision lacks the fundamental validity requirements and is considered never to have existed legally. In contrast, an ineffective judgment acknowledges the existence of a valid ruling but signifies that its consequences do not fully or partially materialize. Therefore, the identification and elimination of ineffective judgments are generally achieved through legal remedy mechanisms.
[1] Pekcanıtez, Atalay, Özekes, op.cit., p.492; Kuru, USUL Vol.III, p.3005; Önen, YARGILAMA, p.267; Saim Üstündağ, Medeni Yargılama Hukuku, Vol.I-II, İstanbul, 1999, p.801. (YARGILAMA)
[2] Belgesay, HÜKÜM, p.170.
[3] Alangoya, H. Y., Yıldırım, M. K., & Deren-Yıldırım, N. (2011). Medeni Usul Hukuku Esasları (8th ed.). İstanbul: Yetkin Yayınları, p.487.
[4] Pekcanıtez, p.2049
[5] https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/yargitay/1-hukuk-dairesi-e-2023-6360-k-2024-2592-t-28-3-2024
[6] Yılmaz, E. (2018). Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu Şerhi (Vol 2). Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları, p.240.
[7] https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/yargitay/22-hukuk-dairesi-e-2012-27120-k-2013-24065-t-11-11-2013
[8]Tanrısever, S., Hanağası, E., Karar ve Hüküm. Ankara Üniversitesi Open Course Materials.
[9] Example of an Ineffective Judgment – Court of Cassation Decision (8th Civil Chamber, Decision No. E. 2013/20997, K. 2015/6619, Dated 23.3.2015): “If a court issues a ruling without a request, the sanction should be considered an ‘ineffective judgment.’ The ineffectiveness can always be remedied through a declaratory judgment or a legal remedy. Therefore, the family court's ruling that the plaintiff has waived their right regarding the liquidation of the matrimonial property is an ineffective judgment. Since the plaintiff, in this case, has requested a participation receivable, this request should be considered as an implicit request for the declaration of ineffectiveness. Moreover, since a waiver must be explicit and definite (Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 309/4), the plaintiff's statement in the divorce case that they are not claiming any property rights cannot be considered a waiver. Thus, the ruling of the family court regarding the plaintiff’s participation receivable is an ineffective judgment. Therefore, the court must evaluate the merits of the plaintiff’s claim concerning the liquidation of the matrimonial property, collect the necessary evidence, and issue a decision accordingly. However, the court incorrectly dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiff had waived this right. I believe that the ruling should be reversed for further review and reconsideration in line with my explanation; therefore, I do not agree with the majority’s approval decision.” https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/yargitay/8-hukuk-dairesi-e-2013-20997-k-2015-6619-t-23-3-2015
[10] Pekcanıtez p.2053
[11] Köroğlu, A. (2020). Medeni usul hukuku bakımından ortaklığın giderilmesi davası/yargılamanın iadesi açısından ortaklığın giderilmesi davası. On İki Levha Yayıncılık, p.309.
By Deniz Buyuksengun, Senior Counsel, and Nesli Turker, Lawyer, Guleryuz Partners
