LAWSUITS ARISING FROM LEASE LAW AND EVICTION PROCEEDINGS

LAWSUITS ARISING FROM LEASE LAW AND EVICTION PROCEEDINGS

A Detailed Review of Enforcement Proceedings, Civil Court of Peace Actions, Eviction for Need, the Ten-Year Extension Period, and Rent Determination Actions

Introduction

The lease relationship is one of the contractual relationships that most frequently gives rise to disputes in practice. Disputes between landlords and tenants in residential and roofed workplace leases are not limited to non-payment of rent. Matters such as written eviction undertakings, two justified notices, eviction due to need, expiry of the ten-year extension period, determination and adjustment of rent, collection of rent receivables, ancillary expenses, security deposits, and the prohibition on re-letting are also among the principal subjects of lease law. Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 regulates a substantial part of these disputes in detail, while Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 provides special enforcement routes, particularly for eviction claims based on unpaid rent.

Today, most lease disputes concern eviction and determination of the rent. Each ground for eviction has its own conditions, time limits, and procedure. This is also the area in which landlords most often make mistakes: actions may be dismissed because the wrong eviction ground is relied upon, forfeiture periods are missed, the wrong authority is approached, or a notice is not served in accordance with procedure. Likewise, a sound result in a rent determination action requires the contractual rent-increase clause, the five-year period, the conditions for the judgment to take effect from the new rental period, and comparable-rent evidence to be considered together.

In addition, under Article 18/B added to the Mediation in Civil Disputes Law No. 6325 by Law No. 7445 dated 5 April 2023, mandatory mediation became a prerequisite for filing suit in a substantial portion of disputes arising from lease relationships as of 1 September 2023. However, provisions concerning eviction of leased immovables through non-judgment enforcement under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law remain outside this scope. It is therefore strategically important to identify which disputes require mediation first and which may be taken directly to enforcement or court.

This study outlines the principal categories of disputes arising from lease law and examines, in light of current legislation and settled Court of Cassation practice, such core subjects as enforcement proceedings seeking eviction, eviction based on two justified notices, eviction due to need, eviction upon expiry of the ten-year extension period, and rent determination actions.

I. Principal Types of Actions and Proceedings in Lease Law

Disputes arising from lease law are not confined to a single type of action. The most common matters in practice include enforcement proceedings for rent receivables, eviction due to default, eviction based on a written eviction undertaking, eviction based on two justified notices, eviction due to need, eviction due to the new owner’s need, eviction upon expiry of the ten-year extension period, rent determination, rent adjustment, return of the security deposit, compensation for misuse, and claims concerning ancillary expenses or other receivables. Each is subject to different substantive conditions and procedures. A mere intention to “remove the tenant” is therefore insufficient; the correct legal route must be selected.

This study focuses in particular on eviction claims and rent determination actions. A frequent source of confusion is that not every default in rent is subject to the same procedure; not every written document qualifies as an eviction undertaking; not every assertion of need results in eviction; not every late payment constitutes one of two justified notices; and not every long-term lease automatically ends on account of the ten-year extension rule. The legal result depends on the technical conditions of the ground relied upon. Correct selection under both substantive and procedural law is therefore the first and most important step toward a successful process.

II. Enforcement Proceedings Seeking Eviction: General Framework

Enforcement proceedings seeking eviction are among the fastest and most effective remedies where a tenant fails to pay rent or does not vacate despite a valid eviction undertaking. This route must be considered under two separate headings. The first is an enforcement proceeding seeking eviction because the tenant has defaulted on rent. The second is an enforcement proceeding based on a written eviction undertaking. The substantive and enforcement-law conditions of these routes differ, and treating them as one procedure can cause serious procedural errors.

It should be emphasized that proceedings for eviction of leased immovables through non-judgment enforcement under Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 are excluded from the mandatory-mediation requirement under Article 18/B of Law No. 6325. Accordingly, non-judgment enforcement may be commenced directly for non-payment of rent or on the basis of a valid eviction undertaking. If the tenant objects, applications before the enforcement court for removal of the objection and eviction also remain within this exception.

A. Eviction Due to the Tenant’s Default in Rent

Failure by the tenant to pay due rent or ancillary expenses is one of the classic grounds for eviction. Under Article 315 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, if the tenant fails to pay rent or ancillary expenses that became due after delivery, the landlord may grant a written period for payment and notify the tenant that the contract will be terminated if payment is not made within that period. The period is at least thirty days for residential and roofed workplace leases and at least ten days for other leases. It begins on the day following service of the written notice.

In practice, this notice may be sent directly through a notary or incorporated into the payment order issued in an enforcement proceeding seeking eviction. Settled practice accepts that the eviction warning in the payment order constitutes written notice for purposes of Article 315. A landlord seeking both collection and eviction may therefore choose the non-judgment eviction route. The crucial requirements are proper service of the payment order and expiry of the statutory thirty-day period; eviction cannot be requested before that period has expired.

For eviction due to default to succeed, the following elements must coexist: a valid lease, a due rent receivable, a duly issued and served payment order or notice, at least thirty days granted in residential and roofed workplace leases, and failure by the tenant to pay the debt in full within that period. “Payment in full” is especially important. Tenants sometimes pay the principal rent while disputing other items. Whether a particular item is rent or an ancillary expense must be assessed in the specific case.

If the tenant pays the entire debt within thirty days after service of the payment order, the route of eviction for default is generally closed. Payment need not necessarily be made into the enforcement file; under Court of Cassation practice, direct payment to the landlord may also be proven. The central question is therefore whether the whole debt was discharged within the thirty-day period. Timely full payment prevents eviction, leaving only costs and enforcement expenses, if any. If full payment is not made, the landlord may seek eviction from the enforcement court.

A common mistake is to treat partial payment as full payment capable of preventing eviction. In an enforcement proceeding seeking eviction, the default is cured only if the entire debt is paid within the period. Another mistake is failing to state the statutory thirty-day period in the payment order or including rent months that are not yet due. Such defects may lead to dismissal of the eviction request. The content of the payment order is therefore as important as the substantive ground.

The nature of the debt and the scope of ancillary expenses must also be assessed separately in each case. Whether dues, common expenses, operating costs, or other contractual items may be taken into account for eviction depends on the contract and the legal nature of the claim. The enforcement request should clearly distinguish rent receivables from ancillary expenses.

Before commencing eviction for default, the landlord should assess the lease, payment records, bank receipts, and previous notices as a whole. Defenses regarding prior payments, transfers containing explanatory notes, or partial payments accepted by the landlord may determine the outcome.

Proof becomes especially difficult where the tenant alleges cash payment. The evidence by which payment may be proven, the extent to which witness evidence is admissible, and whether there is written preliminary evidence must then be assessed separately. In default-based eviction files, it is important not only to establish the debt but also to establish non-payment in accordance with procedural rules.

Settled Court of Cassation Practice (Summary)

A payment order served in an enforcement proceeding that grants the period required by Article 315 replaces a separate notarized written default notice. If the entire debt is not paid within the statutory thirty-day period, the landlord may seek eviction from the enforcement court; partial payment does not cure the default. This is the settled approach of the Court of Cassation, particularly the 3rd Civil Chamber.

In conclusion, eviction for default may offer a relatively quick result, but every stage—from preparing the enforcement request and completing service to identifying debt items and assessing payment defenses—requires care. Even seemingly minor procedural errors can cause the eviction request to be dismissed, so the route must be planned carefully from the outset.

B. Eviction Based on a Written Eviction Undertaking

Eviction based on a written undertaking is one of the strongest remedies available to a landlord, but its validity conditions are strict. Under Article 352/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, where, after delivery of the leased property, the tenant has undertaken in writing to vacate it on a specified date and fails to do so, the landlord may terminate the contract by commencing enforcement proceedings or filing suit within one month from that date. The most important consequence is that an undertaking obtained before or simultaneously with delivery is, as a rule, not valid under this provision.

A valid undertaking must be in writing, duly signed by the tenant or authorized representative, specify a definite or determinable eviction date, and be executed after delivery. If the eviction date is unclear, the document cannot be used to obtain eviction.

Unification of Judgments Decisions (Summary)

Under the Court of Cassation’s Unification of Judgments Decision dated 4 October 1944, No. 15/20-28, an eviction undertaking obtained when the lease relationship is established—on or before the date of the lease—does not reflect the tenant’s free will and is invalid. By contrast, under the Unification of Judgments Decisions dated 3 October 1980, No. 2/3, and 4 October 1985, No. 2/7, undertakings given while the lease relationship is ongoing and the tenant is already occupying the premises are valid. An undertaking given after a reasonable period and with free will may therefore be enforced.

Leaving the eviction date blank does not automatically invalidate the document, but it creates evidentiary issues. Settled practice may accept that a tenant who deliberately leaves the date blank has effectively authorized the landlord to complete it. Recent Court of Cassation decisions generally place on the tenant the burden of proving that a blank undertaking was later completed contrary to the tenant’s will. Nevertheless, allegations that the document was obtained under pressure, on the same date as the lease, or before delivery may invalidate it depending on the circumstances.

Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers (Summary)

In decision No. 2017/975 E., 2021/1108 K., the General Assembly held that leaving the execution date blank does not by itself invalidate an eviction undertaking and that the tenant bears the burden of proving an allegation that it was obtained before or on the same date as the lease. This approach reduces the landlord’s evidentiary burden concerning a blank date.

The landlord must file suit or commence enforcement within one month from the stated eviction date. This is a forfeiture period; once missed, the same undertaking cannot be relied upon for eviction. If enforcement is chosen, an eviction order is served on the tenant and the process proceeds under enforcement law. Objections concerning the signature, date, whether the document was executed after delivery, or its content determine the course of the file.

Common defenses include allegations that the document was signed blank, obtained under pressure, does not reflect true intention, was executed before delivery, or was completed later. These allegations do not automatically succeed in every case, but the document should be drafted clearly and in a manner that facilitates proof. Although this route can be fast, a poorly prepared undertaking may create risk rather than advantage.

The leased property must also be identified beyond doubt. Uncertainty may arise if the full address, independent-unit details, or party information is missing. The court or enforcement authority will require a clear connection between the document and the relevant lease.

Another frequent defense is that the undertaking was signed under coercion or pressure. Although this does not automatically invalidate the document, the court will assess the circumstances. Where the undertaking was signed very shortly after the lease, the tenant had only just moved in, or delivery had not actually occurred, the Court of Cassation may find that the undertaking did not reflect free will. The document must therefore be strong in both form and substance.

Finally, the one-month period for enforcement or suit is a forfeiture period. Missing it may prevent eviction even where the undertaking is otherwise valid. If, however, the landlord served a timely written notice before the undertaking date, Article 353 may extend the period for filing suit into the following rental year.

III. Eviction Action Before the Civil Court of Peace Based on Two Justified Notices

Eviction based on two justified notices is regulated by Article 352/2. If, because of non-payment of rent, the tenant causes two justified written notices to be served during the lease term in contracts shorter than one year, or during a rental year or a period exceeding one rental year in contracts of one year or longer, the landlord may terminate the contract by filing suit within one month from the end of the lease term or the rental year in which the notices were served. Unlike eviction for default, later payment does not erase the existence of two justified notices. The landlord may therefore sue even if the tenant later pays.

Not every notice is “justified.” The rent must have been due and unpaid when the notice was sent, the notice must be written, and it must be duly served. If the tenant paid before service, a later notice is not justified. Splitting a debt for the same rental month into two notices does not satisfy the condition. Nor is this route always available where the contract requires annual advance payment.

The two notices must be served within the same rental year and relate to different due rent periods. Dividing the same month’s rent, or items already claimable at the time of the first notice, and making them the subject of a second notice will not support eviction. Many actions fail because of this technical point.

A payment order containing an eviction warning and served in an enforcement proceeding may also qualify as a justified written notice if the conditions are met. Court of Cassation and regional appellate court decisions accept this. Thus, if two separate valid payment orders are served in the same rental year and each qualifies as a justified notice, the landlord may later file an eviction action before the Civil Court of Peace. The one-month period for filing remains a forfeiture period.

The main technical issue is whether the notices are truly justified. A notice does not become justified merely because it is in writing. The underlying rent debt must be due and unpaid, and the notice must have been sent on that basis.

The notices must fall within the same rental year. Notices from different rental years cannot be combined. Actions are often dismissed because the start of the rental year or renewal period was calculated incorrectly. The dates and the rental year to which each notice belongs must therefore be examined carefully.

Each notice must also be based on a separate due debt. The same period’s rent cannot be divided or repeatedly noticed to create the condition. The Court of Cassation applies this requirement strictly, so the debt underlying each notice must be reviewed separately before suit.

Settled Court of Cassation Practice (Summary)

The Court of Cassation requires that: (i) both notices be served in the same rental year; (ii) each concern a different due rental period; and (iii) each be written and duly served. Failure of any condition leads to dismissal. A payment order served in an enforcement proceeding seeking eviction may qualify as a justified notice if the conditions are met.

In conclusion, although eviction based on two justified notices appears simple in theory, it requires precise handling of time limits, maturity, the rental year, and service. As of 1 September 2023, such an action is subject to mandatory mediation before suit.

IV. Eviction Due to Need in Light of Court of Cassation Decisions

A. Need of the Landlord and Close Relatives (Article 350)

Eviction due to need is one of the most important landlord-based grounds. Under Article 350, if the landlord must use the leased property as a residence or workplace for the landlord, spouse, descendants, ascendants, or other persons whom the landlord is legally obliged to support, the landlord may terminate a fixed-term lease by filing suit within one month after expiry, or an indefinite-term lease by filing within one month after the date determined in accordance with termination periods and notice requirements. The need may therefore be asserted not only for the owner but also for the persons listed by law.

Not every claimed need results in eviction. Settled case law requires the need to be genuine, sincere, and compulsory. Temporary needs or needs that have not yet arisen, or may arise only in the distant future, are insufficient. The need must exist when suit is filed and continue throughout the proceedings.

Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers (Summary)

In its decision dated 12 September 2012, No. 2012/6-388 E., 2012/560 K., the General Assembly expressly emphasized that the need must be genuine, sincere, and compulsory. The court must investigate the alleged need without incomplete examination, including business volume, the characteristics of the property, and whether the current premises are sufficient.

The Court of Cassation consistently requires the need to continue during trial. Sale of the property, a change in the circumstances of the person for whom need is asserted, or acquisition of another suitable property may show that the need is no longer genuine and sincere. The actual intention to use the premises through the end of the proceedings is therefore as important as the initial intention.

Standing is another important issue. The person in need need not necessarily be the signatory to the lease. Settled decisions permit actions based on need by the owner, usufructuary, or new owner. A legal entity’s workplace need is not categorically excluded, but company-need claims are subject to especially strict proof.

For indefinite-term leases, calculation of time limits is critical. General termination periods and notice rules apply, and suit must be filed within one month from the resulting date. For fixed-term leases, the general rule is filing within one month after expiry. If these periods are missed, the extension mechanism in Article 353 is available only if timely written notice was given.

The prohibition on re-letting must also be considered. Under Article 355, a landlord who obtains possession due to need may not, without justified cause, lease the property to anyone other than the former tenant for three years. Breach may result in compensation of not less than one year’s rent paid in the final rental year. A claim of need is therefore not merely an abstract litigation ground; it has continuing legal consequences.

Courts do not accept bare assertions of need. They examine the claimant’s living or working conditions, whether another suitable property is available, and whether the person for whom need is asserted truly intends and is required to use the premises.

In residential-need cases, relevant matters may include inadequacy of the current residence, family size, health conditions, and suitability of the leased property in terms of transportation and living. In workplace-need cases, the nature of the business, inadequacy of current premises, the necessity of expanding activities, and whether the leased property is truly required are considered.

Court of Cassation decisions stress that the claim must amount to more than a preference for a more convenient property. A desire for a better location, newer premises, or lower cost is not always sufficient; a genuine and serious necessity must be shown.

Actual use after eviction is also important. Re-letting shortly afterward or using the property in a manner inconsistent with the asserted need may create liability under Article 355. The planned use after eviction must therefore comply with the law.

B. Eviction Due to the New Owner’s Need (Article 351)

A person who acquires the leased property may seek eviction because the property is needed as a residence or workplace for the new owner, spouse, descendants, ascendants, or persons whom the new owner is legally obliged to support. Under Article 351, the new owner may terminate the lease by notifying the tenant in writing within one month from acquisition and filing suit after six months from acquisition. The new owner may alternatively file an action at the end of the lease term.

The new owner’s need must also be genuine, sincere, and compulsory. Missing the one-month notice period, filing before the six-month period, or filing too late may directly affect the result. The prohibition on re-letting under Article 355 also applies.

In conclusion, need-based eviction actions are among the most frequently used and most difficult to prove. Success requires clear and persuasive evidence that the need is genuine, sincere, compulsory, and continuing throughout the proceedings. Such actions have been subject to mandatory mediation since 1 September 2023.

V. Eviction upon Expiry of the Ten-Year Extension Period

Article 347 does not allow a landlord in residential and roofed workplace leases to terminate solely because the fixed term has expired, but it creates an important exception after the ten-year extension period. Unless the tenant gives notice at least fifteen days before the end, a fixed-term contract is deemed extended for one year on the same terms. The landlord cannot seek eviction merely because the initial term ended. However, at the end of the ten-year extension period, the landlord may terminate without stating a reason by giving notice at least three months before the end of each subsequent extension year.

The ten years are counted after the initial lease term, not from its beginning. For example, in a one-year fixed-term lease renewed annually, the landlord’s right to terminate without cause does not arise at the end of the first year but only after ten extension years have elapsed. Miscalculation is common. The notice must be written and reach the tenant at least three months before the relevant extension year ends; otherwise it takes effect for the next extension year.

Unlike eviction due to need, this ground does not require proof of a genuine, sincere, and compulsory need. Its advantage is that no reason must be proven. Its disadvantage is the technical time calculation and its application only to residential and roofed workplace leases. It offers landlords a limited exit mechanism from very long lease relationships.

The central issue is correct calculation. Landlords often send notice once ten years have elapsed from the original contract date, although the law counts the extension years beginning after the fixed term. In a one-year lease, the right does not arise immediately after the initial year but only after ten extension years.

The notice must clearly state at the end of which extension year termination is intended and must reach the tenant at least three months beforehand. A late notice produces effect for the following extension year.

Although no substantive need must be proven, strict attention to dates and notice is required. The contract start date, renewal period, extension years, and notice date must be evaluated together.

Settled Court of Cassation Practice (Summary)

The ten-year period under Article 347 is calculated by counting the extension years beginning after expiry of the fixed term; the initial rental year is not included. Notices that fail to comply with the three-month period take effect for the next extension year.

VI. Rent Determination Action: Scope, Conditions, and Practice

A rent determination action seeks a judicial determination of the rent to apply in a new rental period while the lease remains in force. Its principal legal basis is Articles 344 and 345. Under Article 344, agreements on rent increases for renewed periods are valid only to the extent they do not exceed the twelve-month average rate of change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the preceding rental year. If there is no increase agreement, the judge determines the rent equitably, considering the condition of the property, without exceeding that ceiling.

The temporary maximum increase of twenty-five percent for residential leases, introduced by Law No. 7409, applied from 11 June 2022 until 1 July 2024 and ended on 1 July 2024. Thereafter, the statutory ceiling for both residential and roofed workplace leases is the twelve-month average CPI rate. Contractual provisions exceeding that rate are invalid to the extent of the excess.

The law establishes a different system for leases longer than five years or renewed after five years. Under Article 344/3, regardless of whether there is an increase clause, the rent for the new rental year in contracts longer than five years, contracts renewed after five years, and at the end of each following five-year period is determined equitably by the judge by considering the twelve-month average CPI, the condition of the property, and comparable rents. After the fifth year, the index is no longer the sole criterion; comparable rents and equity also apply directly.

The practical conditions may be summarized as follows. First, an ongoing lease must exist; no rent determination action may be filed for an ended contract. Second, the action must concern the rent for a new rental period and not be confused with collection of past receivables. Third, during the first five years, the CPI ceiling generally cannot be exceeded if an increase clause exists; if none exists, the judge still remains within the CPI ceiling. Fourth, after five years and in each five-year period, comparable rents, the property’s characteristics, and equity are considered. Fifth, to make the judgment effective from the beginning of the new period, the timing rule in Article 345 must be met.

Article 345 allows the action to be filed at any time. However, for the determined rent to bind the tenant from the beginning of the new rental period, the action must be filed no later than thirty days before that period begins, or the landlord must notify the tenant in writing within that period that the rent will be increased. If this condition is met, even an action filed before the end of the new period may produce effect from its beginning. If the contract contains an increase clause, the amount determined in an action filed before the end of the new period may likewise apply from its beginning. Article 345 is the central provision for timing strategy.

Courts generally investigate comparable rents, obtain an expert report, and evaluate location, characteristics, use, area, physical condition, and local market values. Particularly after five years, the value the property could command if newly leased while vacant may also be considered, although it is not necessarily awarded in full and an equity reduction is often discussed. Court of Cassation practice requires the comparable analysis to be concrete and reviewable.

Settled Court of Cassation Practice (Summary)

Expert reports must compare concrete characteristics such as street, independent-unit type, area, use, construction year, and heating system with comparable properties, rather than rely on abstract conclusions. Settled practice also favors renewed rents in existing lease relationships as comparables rather than current asking rents for vacant properties newly offered for lease.

A rent determination action must not be confused with a rent adjustment action. Determination under Articles 344-345 sets rent according to the statutory system. Adjustment under Article 138 is based on disruption of contractual balance by extraordinary circumstances, such as excessive difficulty of performance. Not every economic change justifies adjustment, and not every desire for an increase can be resolved through determination. Selecting the proper action is critical.

The filing date is one of the most important practical issues. Although an action may be filed at any time, the period from which the court-determined rent applies depends directly on the filing date and any prior written notice. The action must therefore be strategically planned under procedural as well as substantive law.

After five years, comparable rents, the property’s physical characteristics, location, intended use, and economic conditions are given greater weight regardless of the current rent. Comparable examples submitted must truly concern similar properties and be suitable for judicial review.

Expert reports are decisive but must be reviewable, comparative, and grounded in concrete data. Superficial or abstract reports, or reports lacking a genuine comparison, may be challenged and may result in reversal.

In conclusion, rent determination is not a simple action aimed merely at raising an increase rate. It requires combined assessment of contract duration, the increase clause, the five-year period, comparable-rent research, expert evidence, and timing. It has also been subject to mandatory mediation since 1 September 2023.

VII. Mandatory Mediation in Lease Disputes

Under Article 18/B added to Law No. 6325 by Law No. 7445 published in the Official Gazette on 5 April 2023, mediation has been a prerequisite for filing suit in a substantial part of lease disputes since 1 September 2023. These include eviction actions other than eviction through non-judgment enforcement, rent determination, rent adjustment, rent receivables, and compensation claims.

Eviction of leased immovables through non-judgment enforcement under Law No. 2004 is excluded. Thus, in an enforcement proceeding seeking eviction for non-payment, an action before the enforcement court to remove the tenant’s objection and obtain eviction does not require separate prior mediation. An enforcement proceeding based on a written eviction undertaking is likewise within the exception.

However, if the tenant objects to the signature in enforcement proceedings based on an eviction undertaking, the matter must be brought before the Civil Court of Peace, and mandatory mediation again applies at that stage. This procedural distinction is crucial when planning the route.

An action filed directly without completing mandatory mediation will be procedurally dismissed for lack of a prerequisite. Each claim must therefore be assessed to determine whether it may proceed directly through enforcement or court or must first pass through mediation.

Conclusion

Eviction and rent determination are far more technical and time-sensitive than often assumed. Default in rent and enforcement based on an eviction undertaking are different procedures. Later payment may not alter the result in an action based on two justified notices, whereas full payment within thirty days closes the route of eviction for default. In need-based eviction, the central issue is whether the need is genuine, sincere, compulsory, and continuing throughout trial. Expiry of the ten-year extension period is easier regarding substantive proof but more sensitive regarding calculation. Rent determination cannot be properly structured without jointly considering the first five years, the post-five-year regime, the CPI ceiling, comparable rents, and Article 345.

The mandatory-mediation framework effective since 1 September 2023 must also be applied correctly. Except for eviction through non-judgment enforcement, skipping mediation in lease disputes will lead to procedural dismissal.

Successful handling of a lease dispute requires selection of the correct legal route, observance of forfeiture periods, proper notice and service, and advance design of the litigation or enforcement strategy. Otherwise, even a substantively justified claim may fail because of procedural errors. Every dispute should therefore be assessed individually, for both landlords and tenants, in light of its facts, current legislation, and settled Court of Cassation practice.