Answer Petition
Article 127 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100 specifies the deadline for submitting an answer petition:
“The deadline for submitting the answer petition is two weeks from the notification of the statement of claim to the defendant. However, in situations where it is very difficult or impossible to prepare the answer petition within this period due to circumstances, the defendant, who applies to the court during this period, may be granted an additional period, which starts from the end of the response period, for a maximum of one month, and this extension may only be granted once. The decision regarding the request for the additional response period will be immediately notified to the parties.”
The Consequences of Failing to Submit an Answer Petition on Time
The failure of the defendant to respond to the lawsuit is regulated in Article 128 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100:
“A defendant who has not submitted an answer petition within the specified time is considered to have denied all the facts presented by the plaintiff in the statement of claim.”
In cases where the written procedure is applied, the defendant’s failure to submit an answer petition will naturally eliminate the plaintiff’s right to submit a reply petition. For the defendant, as explicitly stated in the legal provision, all facts are considered to have been denied.
Can a Defendant Who Fails to Respond to a Lawsuit Submit an Evidence Petition?
If no response is given to the lawsuit, the case will be examined and decided based on the evidence and facts presented by the plaintiff. This is because the defendant who does not submit an answer petition will also be unable to submit an evidence petition. Indeed, this issue is established in the context of Articles 141 and 145 of the Civil Procedure Code.
ARTICLE 141 – (1) The parties may freely expand or change their claims or defenses with reply and second reply petitions. After the exchange of petitions, the claims or defenses cannot be expanded or changed.
(2) The provisions regarding rectification and the explicit consent of the opposing party apply to the expansion and modification of claims and defenses.
ARTICLE 145 – (1) The parties cannot present evidence after the period specified by law. However, if the later submission of evidence does not aim to delay the proceedings, or if the failure to present it on time is not due to the fault of the concerned party, the court may allow the later presentation of that evidence.
Can a Defendant Who Fails to Respond to a Lawsuit Make a Statement?
A defendant who fails to respond to a lawsuit can make statements during the pre-examination and investigation stages within the scope of denial. Statements outside the scope of denial are considered as an expansion or modification of the defense. A defendant who has not responded to the lawsuit cannot introduce a new fact in their statement petition, nor can they raise objections or defenses. However, they can make statements in response to the facts presented by the plaintiff. Such statements made by the defendant are important for the judge’s discretion. Otherwise, if new facts are presented in the statement petition, these facts cannot be examined, and the defendant cannot present any evidence in these petitions. However, in exceptional cases involving public order and general morality, where the principle of ex officio investigation applies (e.g., paternity cases), the defendant may present new evidence at any stage of the case and raise objections and defenses that were not previously presented.
Objection and Defense
The question of whether the defendant who fails to submit a response petition within the required time may raise initial objections and defenses through amendment is a debated issue in both doctrine and practice. The Court of Cassation’s General Assembly of Civil Chambers (YHGK) stated that a defendant who submitted a response petition but forgot to raise a statute of limitations defense in that petition could, through amendment, present the statute of limitations defense. However, in another ruling, the YHGK clarified that the subject of amendment concerns procedural actions, and one party can amend procedural actions it has made. It was reasoned that since the required procedural action for amending a response petition is simply the submission of the response, and in this case, no procedural action was taken (i.e., the response petition was not submitted), the defendant could not raise the statute of limitations defense through amendment. The scope and number of amendments are regulated under Article 176 of the Civil Procedure Code (HMK):
“Each party may amend its procedural actions, either partially or fully.
In the same case, parties may only apply for amendment once.”
Court of Cassation Rulings
“The key point of resolving the dispute lies in whether the statute of limitations was raised within the required time frame. The plaintiff’s petition was served to the defendant on 02.09.2013, as confirmed by the court. Following this, the defendant requested an extension of the response period under Article 127/1 of the Civil Procedure Code (HMK) on 03.09.2013. Consequently, the court ruled on 04.09.2013, in decision number 2013/553, to extend the response period by an additional month, beyond the two-week statutory period. The defendant submitted the response petition on 21.10.2013. The petition was served on the defendant on 02.09.2013, and in accordance with this service and the extended period, the deadline for the response was set for 16.10.2013. The first-instance court made this determination as well. If the last day of the period falls on an official holiday, the period expires on the first business day after the holiday (HMK.93). Since the deadline of 16.10.2013 was the second day of the Feast of Sacrifice, which is an official holiday, the deadline extended to 20.10.2013, which was a Sunday. Therefore, the response petition could be submitted until the end of business hours on 21.10.2013. In this case, the statute of limitations defense was raised within the prescribed period, and the defense should have been evaluated, leading to a decision rejecting the case due to the statute of limitations. However, the decision to partially accept the case was incorrect, and the decision must be overturned.” (Court of Cassation, 15th Civil Chamber, Case: 2017-1302, Decision: 2017-2995, Decision Date: 14.09.2017)
“During the discussions in the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, some members argued that, among the claims in the plaintiff’s petition, there was a request for the custody of the joint child to be granted to the mother. It was stated that due to this request, which is related to public order, the defendant’s evidence should be allowed to be collected. On the other hand, some members pointed out that although the defendant who did not respond to the lawsuit within the time limit could not raise a fact that the other party was at fault, the defendant could submit evidence to refute the facts presented by the other party, unless it was an abuse. Accepting the opposite would mean denying the defendant the right to prove their defense, which would eliminate the right to a fair hearing. Some members also argued that since the issue was determined during the pre-trial hearing, the final date for the parties to present their evidence should not be the date of the lawsuit or response petition, but rather the last day of the two-week mandatory period given to the parties by the judge in accordance with Article 140/5 of the Civil Procedure Code (HMK). However, the majority of the Court did not accept these views for the reasons explained above.
Therefore, the decision of the Local Court to reject the request for evidence submission after the legal period has passed, due to the defendant’s failure to submit evidence by not submitting a response petition within the prescribed time, is correct.” (Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, Case: 2014-2-695, Decision: 2016-522, Decision Date: 20.04.2016)
“The defendant did not submit a response petition within the 2-week legal period specified in Article 317/2 of the Civil Procedure Code (HMK), and this results in the defendant being deemed to have denied all the facts raised in the plaintiff’s petition, in accordance with Article 128 of the HMK.
In the statement of defense submitted by the defendant during the first hearing and after the deadline, it was argued that the defendant had a separate well, did not benefit from the cooperative irrigation water, and that this could be determined by an inspection. This defense, which aims to reject the case, could only be raised within the scope of denial. Therefore, the court’s acceptance of it as an expansion of the defense was incorrect.” (Court of Cassation, 23rd Civil Chamber, Case: 2016-961, Decision: 2016-2156, Decision Date: 06.04.2016)
Views: 1
