Constitutional Court of Türkiye Rules on Medical Malpractice and Statute of Limitations in Personal Injury Claims

16 May 2025 – News Update by CCS Law

On 16 May 2025, the Turkish Constitutional Court published a significant decision in the Official Gazette (Case No: 2020/37354, Decision Date: 8 January 2025), concerning the right of access to a court in the context of a medical malpractice claim. The ruling addresses critical procedural aspects, particularly the interpretation of limitation periods in personal injury and medical negligence cases where damages become clear only after expert reports.

Background

The applicant, Mr M.E.U, underwent eye surgery in December 2003. Following unsuccessful results and subsequent medical consultations, he became aware of permanent eye damage allegedly caused by the operation. He initiated separate claims for material and non-material damages in June 2004 against the physicians and the medical institution involved. The cases were later joined.

After an initial dismissal of the claim in 2010, the Court of Cassation overturned the decision in 2012 due to the ongoing criminal proceedings related to the same incident. A series of expert reports, including a forensic medical report and financial assessments, established that the applicant had lost 29% of his occupational capacity, with total material damages assessed at over TRY 420,000.

The applicant then filed supplementary claims in 2011 and 2016 to reflect the updated damage amounts. While some claims were accepted, the court dismissed the 2016 supplementary claim on the basis that the 10-year limitation period had expired, counting from the date of surgery in 2003. This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation in 2019, and a further rectification request was rejected in 2020.

Constitutional Complaint and Key Findings

The Constitutional Court ruled in favour of the applicant, holding that his right of access to a court under Article 36 of the Turkish Constitution had been violated. The Court found that:

• At the time of initiating the original claim, the full extent of the applicant's damages was not reasonably foreseeable.

• The applicant had expressly reserved the right to claim additional amounts as the extent of his loss became clearer.

• The subsequent claim was made based on expert evidence obtained during the proceedings, and should not have been dismissed solely on limitation grounds without considering when the applicant became objectively aware of the extent of his loss.

  
  

The Court drew on its earlier decision in C.A. , reaffirming that expecting claimants to quantify their losses precisely at the outset is disproportionate in cases requiring expert evaluation. It also noted that overly rigid application of procedural rules can undermine the right of access to justice.

Outcome

The Constitutional Court ordered a retrial to eliminate the consequences of the violation. No monetary compensation was granted, but the applicant was awarded TRY 30,446.90 in legal costs. The decision underscores that in malpractice and personal injury cases, where damages are uncertain at the outset, courts must take a fair and proportionate approach to limitation periods.

Commentary

This judgment has far-reaching implications for Turkish civil litigation, particularly in malpractice and tort claims. It highlights the importance of:

• The evolving doctrine of unquantified claims (belirsiz alacak davaları);

• The need for judicial flexibility in interpreting limitation periods where expert evidence is essential;

• The constitutional guarantee of effective access to justice.

  
  

For practitioners and claimants alike, this ruling provides a strong precedent that supports the continued use of supplementary claims in the context of long-running or medically complex disputes.

For further insights on medical negligence, personal injury claims, or constitutional litigation in Turkey, you can contact CCS Law team.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice.