Uniform judicial precedent No. 794, issued on August 12, 2016, regarding the invalidity of the condition stated in the contract for granting bank facilities in excess of the profits of the Central Bank, according to which "... the condition contained in the contract for granting bank facilities in excess of interest announced by Central Bank is invalid ...". Subsequently, the Legal Department of the Judiciary was asked about the possibility of re-filing the settlement of the facility cases, as well as the cases against which a final verdict has been issued. Paragraph "a" of the Legal Department’s response, considering the invalidity of interest rate conditions in excess of the profits of the Central Bank, regardless of whether the facility file is closed or not, allows the lawsuit of annullment and the oblige the courts to refund the additional amount. And In paragraph (b), with reference to the withdrawal of the Uniform judicial precedent from the resolved cases and the cases in which a final verdict has been issued, as well as the necessity of public economic order, consider these two categories non-audible. The analysis of the theory indicates that, firstly, there is no ability to combine the sentence of paragraph A and B , and secondly, the relationship between the sentence and the argument in paragraph "A" to paragraph "B" is examined from the perspective of priority and rule over each other.  Finally, it seems to be possible to say that those who settled their facility case without going to court before the Uniform judicial precedent, as well as those whose claims for annulment of the interest rate condition in excess of the allowed profits were rejected by a final verdict can file an action to refund the additional amount