The “conduct and management of the proceedings” regulated in the first paragraph of Article 32 of the CCP titled “Principles governing the proceedings” is divided into two as formal and substantive conduct and management. The fact that the petitions submitted to the court should be written in a certain discipline, especially that the petitions should be readable, relevant to the case and should not contain inappropriate expressions is directly related to the formal conduct of the proceedings.
The second paragraph of Article 32 of the CCP defines the formal conduct of the proceedings as follows: “An appropriate period of time shall be granted for the reorganization of the petition that cannot be read or is inappropriate or irrelevant, and this petition shall remain in the file. If a new petition is not filed within the given time, no further time shall be granted.” While the said provision was written as “inappropriate documents” in general terms during the abrogated CPC period, it was included in the CCP as “petition that cannot be read or is inappropriate or irrelevant”.
In this study; the purpose of the current regulation, the areas in which it has become functional in civil proceedings, the issues that need to be explained in terms of the meanings of the concepts of “unreadable petition”, “improper petition” and “irrelevant petition” mentioned in the provision, and the provisions and consequences of the said regulation have been examined in detail.
The “conduct and management of the proceedings” regulated in the first paragraph of Article 32 of the CCP titled “Principles governing the proceedings” is divided into two as formal and substantive conduct and management. The fact that the petitions submitted to the court should be written in a certain discipline, especially that the petitions should be readable, relevant to the case and should not contain inappropriate expressions is directly related to the formal conduct of the proceedings.
The second paragraph of Article 32 of the CCP defines the formal conduct of the proceedings as follows: “An appropriate period of time shall be granted for the reorganization of the petition that cannot be read or is inappropriate or irrelevant, and this petition shall remain in the file. If a new petition is not filed within the given time, no further time shall be granted.” While the said provision was written as “inappropriate documents” in general terms during the abrogated HUMK period, it was included in the CCP as “petition that cannot be read or is inappropriate or irrelevant”.
On the other hand, while the concept of “document” is used in Article 78, 2 of the abrogated CCP, the concept of “petition” is preferred in a narrower scope in Article 32, 2 of the CCP. The concept of “petition” in the Code should be understood as the written text submitted or sent to the judicial bodies, the content of which is generally regulated by law. Article 32, 2 of the CCP should be applied to all kinds of petitions submitted to the court, to the forms of the statement of claim and reply petition that can be submitted in the simple procedure, and to the expert opinion, which is considered as a party statement.
Article 32, 2 of the CCP can only be applied to petitions submitted to courts, and it is not possible to apply this provision to petitions submitted to enforcement offices and arbitration proceedings (Article 444 of the CCP).
The petition may be improper in form or content. For example, if the explanations in the petition are caricatured or if the petition is written on an inappropriate paper (for example, toilet paper), the petition is improper in form. Making inappropriate statements in the content of the petition is a case of impropriety in the content of the petition. Therefore, if a petition is submitted that is not in accordance with the law, exceeds the limits of the right to claim and defense, contains insults or inappropriate expressions towards the opposing party or the judge or expert, contains excessive and offensive expressions, or if the petition contains statements that damage the dignity of the court, it is improper in terms of content.
Care should be taken not to use unnecessary expressions in the petition, which have no effect on the resolution of the case and the fulfillment of the right, and which are not obligatory to be written. This is because making statements in the petition submitted to the court that are not directly or indirectly related to the pending lawsuit, including unnecessary details that have no effect on the realization of the right; may cause the lawsuit to be resolved and the merits of the case to be overlooked.
If there is a petition in the case file that cannot be read or is inappropriate or irrelevant, the court shall grant an appropriate period of time to the relevant party to reorganize the petition and this petition shall remain in the file (Art. 32, 2, c. 1 of the CCP). During the abrogated HUMK period, it was possible to return the illegible or inappropriate document to the relevant party with the decision of the judge, and thus the document in question could be removed from the case file (Art. 78, 2, c. 1 of the HUMK).
The Law regulates that the court shall grant “an appropriate period of time” to the relevant party, and the judge is given discretionary power to determine the duration of the period of time. The time given by the judge to the relevant party is final, taking into account the principle of procedural economy (Art. 30 CCP).
If the interested party makes the petition readable or appropriate or ceases to be irrelevant within the given period of time, this new petition shall be placed in the file and the interested party shall be deemed to have taken the action in accordance with the law.
If the person concerned fails to prepare and submit a new petition to the court within the time limit given by the court, it shall be as if the previous petition had never been filed.
Irrelevant Documents Management and Administration Unreadable Petition Inappropriate Petition Irrelevant Petition
