Introduction
Administrative judicial law is a field of litigation where individuals can seek legal remedies against the actions of public authorities exercising state power. While there is no complete equivalence between the parties in these proceedings, certain rights are provided to the parties to ensure the oversight of administrative actions. Within this context, it can be stated that amendment is one of these rights, allowing the parties to correct or modify their statements during the trial. However, the use of amendment in administrative judicial proceedings is more limited and controversial compared to civil litigation.
The Concept of Amendment
Amendment generally refers to the right granted to the parties to correct mistakes made during the course of litigation. In the Turkish legal system, the provisions regarding amendment are regulated under Article 176 and subsequent articles of the Code of Civil Procedure Law No. 6100 (“CCP”). The purpose of amendment is to correct the mistakes made by the parties without affecting the merits of the case. In civil litigation, the parties can request amendments at any stage of the case, allowing them to correct or expand their statements.
However, this situation differs in administrative judicial proceedings. Due to the nature of administrative litigation, the administrative action usually aims to determine the illegality of a specific administrative act. This creates a limitation on the scope of amendment in administrative judiciary.
Applicability of Amendment in Administrative Judiciary
The fundamental debate surrounding the applicability of amendment in administrative judicial proceedings is the final and enforceable nature of administrative actions. The Administrative Procedure Code Law No. 2577 (“APC”) does not explicitly regulate amendment. However, certain situations in which parties may request amendments have been recognized to a limited extent in the decisions of the Council of State and administrative courts. It should be noted that courts generally do not accept amendment requests regarding the subject matter and parties of the case. The reason for this is that administrative actions are directed at specific individuals or events, and changing such actions through amendment could create risks concerning public order.
Some of the limited cases where amendment is applicable are as follows:
- Correction of formal errors in the complaint petition: It is possible to request amendments to correct certain elements of the complaint petition (e.g., party information or factual errors).
- Expansion or reduction of claims: Expanding or reducing the claims in the complaint petition is accepted in limited cases. However, the key point here is that such requests must not alter the essence of the contested administrative action.
- Completion of missing evidence: In administrative litigation, completing or correcting the evidence is accepted as a practice that ensures a fair trial.
- Full remedy actions: In full remedy actions, where individuals seek compensation for damages resulting from administrative actions or omissions, parties may request amendments to modify or increase the amount of compensation.
Thus, the limited applicability of amendment in administrative litigation can be explained by the need to ensure the swift and efficient conduct of the proceedings. In administrative judiciary, the oversight of administrative actions involves balancing individuals’ right to seek legal remedies and public order. Expanding the scope of amendment could disrupt this balance, as changing the subject matter of the case could prolong the process even after the illegality of the administrative action has been established.
Amendment in Full Remedy Actions
Full remedy actions are lawsuits filed by individuals seeking compensation for material and/or moral damages caused by administrative actions or omissions. In these cases, the plaintiffs’ claims usually relate to the amount of damage. Therefore, amendment requests in full remedy actions are significant in terms of the compensation of damages. However, the most important point to consider here is that parties should not request amendments that aim to expand the subject matter of the case.
In this regard, one of the most common amendment requests in full remedy actions is the modification or increase of the amount of damage. Particularly in cases where the amount of damage changes as a result of the evaluation of evidence during the proceedings or where the plaintiff has made an incomplete claim in the initial filing, it is possible to request an amendment to increase the amount of compensation. However, due to the structure of administrative judiciary, which is designed to protect public order, such requests are subject to certain rules.
Indeed, an examination of the decisions of the Council of State and administrative courts reveals that amendment requests to increase the amount of damage are accepted under specific conditions. For example, in cases where the initially determined amount of damage is incorrect or incomplete, it is possible to correct this through amendment. However, it is accepted that any increases in the amount of damage must be reasonable and proportionate to avoid infringing upon the defendant’s right to defense.
Another notable limitation in administrative judicial law, especially in full remedy actions, is the prohibition against expanding the subject matter of the case. According to this prohibition, it is not possible to expand the scope of the case by adding new claims or seeking compensation for different damages through amendment. For example, if only material compensation has been requested in a full remedy action, it is not permissible to request moral compensation through amendment.
Conclusion
Amendment in administrative judicial proceedings can be described as an institution with a narrower scope compared to civil litigation. While the primary purpose of amendment is to allow the parties to correct mistakes during the trial, the unique structure of administrative judiciary limits this right within certain boundaries. Nevertheless, amendment plays a significant role in full remedy actions, particularly in terms of correcting the amount of damage. However, to prevent the expansion of the subject matter of the case and to protect the defendant’s right to defense, amendment requests are strictly limited. In this context, while it is possible to increase the amount of compensation through amendment in full remedy actions, such requests are subject to certain conditions and limitations. In any case, the amendment must not affect the merits of the case or infringe upon the right to defense.
