The judge’s decisions are divided into two categories: interim decisions and final decisions.
Interim decisions are decisions that do not put an end to the proceedings (the case), but rather serve to carry it forward. The judge makes many interim decisions in the case in order to conduct (advance) the proceedings. The common characteristic of all these decisions is that the judge does not withdraw his hand from the case with an interim decision, but rather continues the case (Kuru, B.: Civil Procedure Procedure, Istanbul 2001, Vol. III, p.2998). Within this scope, the court’s decisions regarding the rejection of the objection of jurisdiction and competence, and the rejection of the statute of limitations defense are interlocutory decisions, as well as the court’s decisions to give the parties time to show their evidence, to pay the costs of witness, expert examination and discovery are also interlocutory decisions.
Decisions that put an end to the proceedings and result in the judge’s withdrawal from the case are called final decisions. For example, a decision on lack of jurisdiction, a decision on lack of jurisdiction, a decision on divorce, a decision on determination of monthly rent, a decision that there is no need to decide on the merits because the debt (subject of the lawsuit) has been paid during the lawsuit.
With the final judgment, the judge withdraws from the case, cannot go back on his/her decision and cannot change it. However (unlike interim decisions) final decisions can be appealed (Art. 427). Thus, unless the final judgments are appealed and reversed by the Court of Cassation, it is not permissible for the judge to take another look at the case concluded by the final judgment (Kuru, p.3004-3005).
Final decisions can be categorized into two groups as final decisions on the merits and final decisions on the procedure. Although the judge withdraws his/her hand from the case with the procedural final decision, the merits of the dispute between the parties are not resolved with this decision. For example, the decisions rendered by the court on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction, the decisions rendered on the deeming of the case as not filed due to failure to pursue the case, the decisions rendered on the procedural dismissal of the case due to the lack of the conditions of the lawsuit are final decisions, but they are not decisions that end and resolve the dispute between the parties.
Courts resolve the dispute before them with a final decision on the merits, with exceptions such as the settlement of the parties, waiver of the lawsuit, acceptance or withdrawal of the lawsuit. In principle, every judgment rendered by the court expresses its conscientious opinion on the concrete dispute before it within the framework of “the Constitution, the law and the law”. The conformity of this conscientious conviction with the said framework is set out in the reasoning of the judgment. Therefore, according to the third paragraph of Article 141 of the Constitution, all decisions of all courts must be written with reasons. Within this framework, a judicial decision consists of the opinion of the court on the dispute before it. In other words, a judicial decision is the court’s statement of opinion on a concrete legal problem. This statement of opinion, which we characterize as a judicial decision, has binding consequences for the addressees. So much so that, in the event that the judgment is not fulfilled by the addressee, it is possible to enforce (by force) those that contain a judgment of performance (Pekcanıtez Usûl, Civil Procedural Law, Volume III, Istanbul 2017, p.1967). Based on these explanations, a judgment can be defined as the decision that the judge renders as a result of the judicial activity regarding the dispute brought before the court, which resolves the case on the merits and ends the dispute between the parties.
As a matter of fact, in the first paragraph of Article 294 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, which entered into force on 01.10.2011 (Law No. 6100/CCP/CCL No. 6100), “The court ends the case with a final decision on procedure or merits. The final decision given at the end of the trial on the merits of the dispute is the judgment.” The court decision on the merits, which resolves the dispute, is the judgment.
At the stage of the proceedings before the judgment, the judge first investigates and determines whether there is a rule of law applicable to the concrete case. Secondly, he examines whether the conditions in the abstract rule of law are present in the concrete case; he investigates whether the claims and defenses put forward are proven. This duty of the judge is realized through the collection and evaluation of evidence. In the final stage, the judge applies the objective rule of law to the concrete case as a result of his/her judicial activity and renders a decision on the merits of the dispute. The judgment does not have any consequences unless it is announced by the judge. In order for the decision (judgment) to have consequences, it must be announced to the parties, that is, it must be announced or notified. How the judgment will be rendered is regulated in Article 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086 (Law No. 1086/HUMK) and Article 294 of the Law No. 6100. The scope of the judgment is detailed in Article 388 of the Code No. 1086 and Article 297 of the Code No. 6100. After the judgment is written and signed by the judge and sealed with the seal of the court, the copies of the judgment are given to the parties against receipt and also notified to the party who has not received the judgment without delay (Article 301 of the Law No. 6100; Article 392 of the Law No. 1086).
The judicial remedy is a legal remedy granted to the parties to the case, by which wrong decisions (or rather, allegedly wrong decisions) can be reviewed and amended. Since there is a possibility that the judgment courts may make mistakes in their decisions, legal remedies are recognized in every legal system in order to have the decisions checked by a higher court (Kuru: p. 4483).
The remedies that prevent the finalization of final decisions are called normal remedies. In other words, in the event that a normal remedy is applied, the final decision against which the remedy is applied is not finalized until it passes through these remedies. The ordinary remedy is a remedy recognized for final decisions that have not yet become final. If the normal remedy is applied against a decision, the finalization of that decision is prevented, i.e. it is left to the outcome of the legal remedy. If this remedy is not taken within the normal legal remedy period, or if the decision is upheld and there is no other legal remedy, the final decision becomes final (Kuru: p.4484). In other words, remedies are not infinite. The judgment becomes final upon the exhaustion of the legal remedies stipulated in the law against the judgment or upon the expiration of the time limits for applying for legal remedies. However, the legal remedy recognized against finalized judgments is called extraordinary legal remedy, and the judgment subject to extraordinary legal remedy is essentially finalized by going through normal legal remedies or without resorting to legal remedies. However, in the presence of certain reasons stipulated in the law, the legislator has recognized the possibility of lifting or amending the finalized judgment.
In Turkish Civil Procedural Law, remedies are accepted for final judgments. There is no general remedy system foreseen against non-final decisions of the courts, in other words, against interim decisions.
