Munzam Zarar (Excess Damage for Late Payment) in Turkish Law: Inflation Loss, Proof and the 2026 Changes

What Is Munzam Zarar?

Munzam zarar is the loss a creditor suffers because a money debt was paid late and which default interest does not cover. Under Article 122 TBK, where the creditor has suffered a loss exceeding default interest, the debtor must also compensate that loss unless it proves that it bears no fault whatsoever. The same provision allows the judge, upon the claimant's request, to award this loss in the pending case if its amount can already be determined there.

The repealed Code of Obligations No. 818 regulated the same institution in Article 105 under the name “munzam zarar”. The current code uses the term “aşkın zarar”; both terms mean the same thing and both are used in practice and in court decisions.

Munzam zarar applies only to money debts. Losses caused by delay in delivering goods, performing work or transferring title to real estate are claimed under the general rules on debtor's default, not under Article 122 TBK.

I Collected My Receivable Years Later. Can I Claim the Inflation Difference?

Collecting a receivable years later does not, by itself, entitle the creditor to an inflation difference. The legal route for this claim is a munzam zarar action, and the rule in that action is that the creditor must show a loss exceeding default interest. In periods when interest lagged behind inflation, this question became one of the most debated issues in Turkish law.

Between 2021 and 2023, for example, annual consumer price inflation in Türkiye ranged between 36 and 65 percent, while statutory interest stayed far below these rates. Many creditors who collected their receivables with interest under a court judgment found that the real value of the money they received was below the value of the receivable when it arose. That loss cannot be recovered through default interest; it can only be raised through a munzam zarar claim.

Whether the claim succeeds depends on the nature of the debt, the date of default, the type of interest awarded in the main case and the method used to prove the loss. Procedural choices made in the main collection case can directly determine the fate of a later munzam zarar action.

What Are the Conditions of Munzam Zarar?

Five conditions must be met together for a munzam zarar claim to succeed:

• Money debt: the subject of the obligation must be a sum of money.
• Debtor's default: the due debt must not have been paid on its maturity date or within the period set by a formal notice.
• Loss exceeding default interest: the creditor's loss must be greater than the default interest applied.
• Adequate causation: the loss must be the ordinary consequence of the late payment.
• Debtor's fault: fault is presumed; the burden of proving absence of fault lies with the debtor.

For default interest the creditor need not prove any loss, and the debtor pays it even if it proves that it was not at fault. Munzam zarar works differently: the debtor escapes liability if it proves absence of fault, while the creditor must establish that a loss exceeding interest exists.

How Does Munzam Zarar Differ from Positive Damages?

Positive damages (müspet zarar) are the difference between the position the creditor's assets would have reached had the contract been properly performed and the position resulting from non-performance; they arise in any breach of obligation. Munzam zarar covers only the part of the loss that results from the late payment of a money debt and that interest does not cover.

The practical difference is this: if a developer delivers a home late, the buyer's losses such as lost rent are claimed as positive damages or delay compensation. If the same developer refunds the purchase price years after the contract has been terminated, the delay concerns a money debt, and the loss exceeding interest is claimed as munzam zarar. In construction-for-share contracts (kat karşılığı) both claims frequently arise together.

How Is Munzam Zarar Proven?

Proof is the decisive issue in these cases. According to the approach adopted by the Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation in its decision of 29 March 2022, and followed by the civil chambers other than the 6th Civil Chamber, munzam zarar is a concrete loss specific to the creditor and independent of inflation as a general phenomenon. Under this view, general inflation alone is not sufficient.

Under the concrete-proof approach the creditor is expected to document the loss it personally suffered because of the late payment. Typical facts relied on include:

• having to take out a high-interest loan because the receivable was not paid on time,
• missing a specific investment or purchase that would have been made had the receivable been collected,
• showing through records that, in the course of its business, the creditor would have invested the money at a certain return,
• documenting that the receivable had been earmarked for a foreign-currency or real-estate purchase that was delayed.

By contrast, the 15th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation for a period held, referring to Constitutional Court decisions, that where inflation, exchange rates, deposit rates and government bond yields exceed default interest, the existence of munzam zarar should be presumed.

Court of Cassation, 15th Civil Chamber, 6 December 2018, Docket 2018/3765, Decision 2018/4907

The Chamber abandoned its earlier practice requiring concrete evidence of munzam zarar and held that, where the returns of inflation and related investment instruments exceed default interest, the existence of munzam zarar should be presumed. The decision is cited in the Constitutional Court's Caner Şafak judgment.

Today, proof is the weakest link of a munzam zarar action. Because the chamber and the approach applied can change the outcome of the same case, gathering evidence before filing and framing the claim accordingly is decisive.

What Did the Constitutional Court Say About Munzam Zarar?

In two decisions delivered in 2025, the Constitutional Court identified the loss of value of receivables against inflation as a structural problem. According to the Court, the legal system offers no effective remedy to compensate the inflation-driven loss of value of receivables between private parties.

Constitutional Court, Plenary, Caner Şafak, Application No. 2024/41763, 8 July 2025 (Official Gazette 29 September 2025, No. 33032)

The applicant became a creditor of a bank because of a housing loan used for a home that was never delivered, collected the receivable with interest about ten years later, and then saw his munzam zarar action dismissed. The Court found that, after the 2022 decision of the Assembly of Civil Chambers, a munzam zarar action did not offer even a theoretical prospect of success for compensating inflation losses, and held that the right to an effective remedy in conjunction with the right to property had been violated. The pilot-judgment procedure was applied, examination of similar applications was postponed for six months and the judgment was notified to the Grand National Assembly.

Constitutional Court, Docket 2024/24, Decision 2025/164, 22 July 2025 (Official Gazette 1 December 2025, No. 33094)

The Court annulled Article 1 of Law No. 3095, which set the statutory interest rate at 12 percent per year, in respect of non-contractual obligations, and ruled that the annulment would take effect nine months after publication in the Official Gazette.

The facts of Caner Şafak reflect a pattern that is also common among buyers of off-plan homes in Antalya. The applicant did not obtain the type of interest he had requested in the first case and did not appeal that point; in the later munzam zarar case the first-instance court cited this among its reasons for dismissal. An interest choice made in the main collection case can work against the creditor in a munzam zarar action filed years later.

How Did Law No. 7589 Affect Munzam Zarar?

Law No. 7589, published in Official Gazette No. 33326 of 31 July 2026, did not amend Article 122 TBK, which governs munzam zarar. It affects munzam zarar cases indirectly in two respects: the statutory interest rate and the partial-claim procedure.

Statutory interest: Article 1 of Law No. 3095 was rewritten. Where the rate has not been agreed in a contract, statutory interest is calculated at 80 percent of the discount (rediscount) rate applied by the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye to short-term lending on 31 December of the previous year. If the rate on 30 June differs from the 31 December rate by five points or more, 80 percent of the 30 June rate applies in the second half of the year. Statutory interest is thus linked to market rates and no longer confined to the former fixed range of 9 to 24 percent.

The practical consequence is that the closer statutory interest comes to inflation, the narrower the portion not covered by interest and claimable as munzam zarar. For value losses relating to periods before the amendment, a munzam zarar claim remains important.

Can a Munzam Zarar Claim Be Filed as an Undetermined Claim Action?

In cases filed on or after 31 July 2026, the undetermined claim action (belirsiz alacak davası) is no longer available; Law No. 7589 repealed Article 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK). Under the transitional provision, the old rule continues to apply to undetermined claim actions filed before that date.

Because the amount of munzam zarar often cannot be known precisely before an expert examination, these cases were frequently filed as undetermined claim actions. In the new period, the route is a partial claim. Under the paragraph added to Article 109 HMK by Law No. 7589, if only part of a receivable has been sued for, the claim may be increased once in the same case, until the end of the evidentiary stage and without being subject to the prohibition on expanding the claim; for the increased part, the limitation period is deemed interrupted as of the filing date.

In a partial claim, the amount can be increased only once. The timing and size of the increase should therefore be decided in light of the expert report and the deadlines for objecting to it.

How Is Munzam Zarar Calculated?

There is no single official formula; the calculation is made by a court-appointed expert according to the proof approach adopted by the court. The basic logic is to compare the position the creditor would have reached had the receivable been paid on time with the position actually reached, and to deduct the default interest collected.

• Concrete method: the actual loss proven by the creditor is used, such as the interest burden of a loan taken because of the late payment or the price difference of a missed purchase.
• Abstract (basket) method: the return of a basket of economic indicators such as consumer prices, exchange rates, deposit interest, gold and government bonds is calculated, and the default interest collected is deducted from it.

The decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 13 January 2025, Docket 2024/3534, Decision 2025/15, cited in the dissenting opinion to the Constitutional Court's judgment on Law No. 3095, states that in periods of high inflation the abstract method should be considered, a basket calculation based on economic indicators should be obtained from an expert, and the default interest collected should be deducted. Since other chambers require concrete proof, the choice of method directly affects the outcome.

Can an Inflation Difference Be Obtained After a Long Lawsuit?

If the receivable awarded at the end of a long lawsuit has lost value, this is, as a rule, raised through a munzam zarar claim. The basis of the claim is not the length of the proceedings as such, but the fact that the debtor remained in default throughout. Interest runs from the date of default; the longer the proceedings last, the larger the share by which interest lags behind inflation.

Under Article 122 TBK, if the amount of the loss exceeding interest can be determined in the pending case, the judge may award it upon the claimant's request. Otherwise, munzam zarar is claimed in a separate action after the main receivable has been collected. Failure to conclude proceedings within a reasonable time is a separate matter that may be assessed through an individual application to the Constitutional Court or other compensation routes.

Can an Inflation Difference Be Claimed for the Amount Deposited in a Pre-emption Case?

In a pre-emption (şufa / önalım) case, the claimant deposits the sale price and title-deed costs within the period set by the court. If the case lasts for years and the money is finally paid to the buyer, the deposited amount may have lost much of its value. This is a frequent problem in co-ownership disputes in regions such as Antalya, where property values rise quickly.

Constitutional Court, Ali İmancı and Eşref Aydın, Application No. 2017/15134, 29 January 2020

The Court held that the right to property had been violated because the price deposited in a title-deed cancellation and registration case based on a pre-emption right was paid out after losing its value.

Depositing the price in a pre-emption case requires its own procedural discipline from the moment the case is filed. The details are explained in our guide to pre-emption (şufa) actions.

When Does Munzam Zarar Arise in Real-Estate Disputes?

A munzam zarar claim can arise in any real-estate dispute involving a money debt. Common examples in Antalya include:

• the price paid under a sale contract terminated because the home was not delivered being refunded years later,
• delays in money debts owed by the developer or the landowner under a construction-for-share contract,
• rent remaining unpaid for a long time and being collected late through enforcement proceedings,
• late payment of expropriation compensation or compensation for de facto expropriation,
• a commercial receivable being collected late, with interest, after proceedings to annul an objection to enforcement.

In each of these disputes the munzam zarar claim is assessed together with the specific rules of the legal relationship from which the main receivable arose.

Which Court Hears a Munzam Zarar Case, and Is Mediation Mandatory?

The competent court and the mandatory-mediation requirement depend on the legal relationship from which the main receivable arose. As a general rule the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi) has subject-matter jurisdiction; venue as a rule lies with the court of the defendant's domicile, and in contractual cases the court of the place of performance is also competent. For example, for a refund claim arising from the sale of a property in Antalya, both the place of performance and the parties' addresses are considered. As to subject-matter jurisdiction, the commercial court applies if the dispute is a commercial case, and the consumer court if it arises from a consumer transaction.

Mandatory mediation also depends on that relationship. Applying to a mediator before filing is mandatory in commercial cases concerning money receivables or compensation (Turkish Commercial Code Art. 5/A), in consumer disputes (Law No. 6502 Art. 73/A) and in disputes arising from lease relationships. A case filed without meeting this requirement is dismissed on procedural grounds.

What Is the Limitation Period for Munzam Zarar?

In practice the limitation period for a munzam zarar claim is mostly assessed on the basis of the general ten-year period in Article 146 TBK. As to its starting point, the date on which the loss became definite, i.e. the date the main debt was paid, is generally taken into account.

However, the type of the main receivable may matter; in disputes concerning receivables subject to different limitation regimes, such as rent, commercial relationships or torts, shorter periods have also been argued. An error in calculating the period may lead to the claim being dismissed without examination of the merits.