Atty. Nil Merve Çelikbaş Şeker, L.LM.
Labour and Social Security Law underwent a significant transformation throughout 2025. The increasing density of judicial precedents, individual application judgments of the Constitutional Court placing employee rights at the centre, and revisions observed in administrative regulations have collectively redrawn the contours of labour law practice. Particularly towards the end of the year, substantial progress has been achieved in strengthening legal predictability in employer–employee relations, enhancing the effectiveness of legal remedies, and deepening the constitutional dimension of the principle of employee protection.
Legislative amendments, Court of Cassation decisions, and Constitutional Court jurisprudence issued in the second half of 2025 have guided practice across a broad spectrum, ranging from the formation and termination of employment contracts to occupational health and safety obligations, mediation processes, access to personnel files, and the boundaries of freedom of expression. These developments have gone beyond classical labour law doctrines, giving rise to new areas of responsibility and interpretative needs for both employers and employees.
In the second issue of this Bulletin, with a view to entering 2026, judicial decisions and recent regulatory developments that came to the fore in the final period of 2025 and had a direct impact on practice, as well as global labour law developments, are addressed in a concise, systematic manner intended to shed light on implementation. We hope that this Bulletin will serve as a guiding reference for practitioners and other relevant stakeholders.
In this issue of our Labour and Social Security Law Bulletin, we briefly address the following topics:
- Constitutional Court Annulment Decision Regarding Mediation in Reinstatement Claims,
- New Regulation on Weekly Rest Entitlement of Employees in the Tourism Sector,
- Determination of the Competent Court in Disputes Arising from Non-Competition Agreements,
- Regulation Allowing Notifications under the Labour Law to Be Made via Registered Electronic Mail (KEP),
- A Significant Court of Cassation Decision on Unpaid Leave Practices During the Pandemic Period,
- Decision on an Individual Application Alleging Violation of a White-Collar Employee’s Right to Unionisation,
- Clarification of the Applicable Interest Rate for Notice Compensation by a Court of Cassation Decision,
- Update of the KOSGEB Human Resources Management Regulation,
- Expansion of the Scope of Mandatory Bank Transfers for Wages and Similar Payments,
- Precedent-Setting Court of Cassation Decision on Discretionary Reduction in Annual Paid Leave Receivables of Senior Executives,
- Basis of Compensation and Statute of Limitations in Termination Due to Military Service,
- Court of Cassation Decision Holding That Rent Determination Disputes in Residential and Roofed Commercial Leases Are Not Arbitrable,
- New Regulation on the Recovery of Deportation Costs from Employers Due to Unauthorised Employment of Foreign Nationals,
- Four Significant Decisions of the Constitutional Court,
- Global Developments in Labour Law.
We wish you an enjoyable read.
ConstItutIonal Court Annulment DecIsIon RegardIng MedIatIon In ReInstatement ClaIms
With its decision dated 03 June 2025 and numbered E. 2024/157, K. 2025/121, the Constitutional Court annulled the provision set forth in Article 3(15) of Law No. 7036 on Labour Courts, which required the principal employer and the subcontractor to jointly participate in the mandatory mediation process as a condition precedent to filing a lawsuit in reinstatement claims, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. The said decision was published in the Official Gazette dated 17 October 2025 and numbered 33050.
In its reasoning, the Constitutional Court emphasised that imposing on the employee the obligation to accurately identify the principal employer–subcontractor relationship—an arrangement to which the employee is often not a direct party—at the application stage constitutes a disproportionate burden on the right of access to court. The Court concluded that a fair balance could not be struck between the public interest pursued by preventing disputes regarding party status and the employee’s freedom to seek legal remedies, and accordingly held that the contested provision violated the principle of proportionality.
As a result of this annulment decision, the requirement to designate both the principal employer and the subcontractor as joint parties in the mandatory mediation process for reinstatement claims has been abolished. The decision aims to prevent dismissals on procedural grounds that unduly restrict employees’ right to file lawsuits in practice.
New RegulatIon on Weekly Rest Days for Employees In the TourIsm Sector
Pursuant to the Labour Law No. 4857, while the right to a weekly rest day is regulated for all employees as a constitutionally protected right to rest, a sector-specific arrangement has been introduced for employees working in the tourism sector through Article 9 of Law No. 7553 on the Amendment of Certain Laws and Decree Law No. 375, published in the Official Gazette dated 14 July 2025 and numbered 32956.
With this amendment, the additional provision inserted into Article 46 of the Labour Law stipulates that the weekly rest day of employees working in accommodation facilities holding a tourism operation certificate issued by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism may, upon the employee’s written request or consent, be granted within four days following the day on which the right to weekly rest is accrued.
Under the scope of the regulation, work performed by the employee on the accrued weekly rest day up to the length of the normal daily working time shall not be included in the calculation of overtime work. Moreover, employees are granted the right to withdraw their consent by providing written notice at least thirty days in advance. Accordingly, a regime departing from the general application has been envisaged for certain workplaces operating in the tourism sector, particularly with respect to both the timing of the weekly rest day and the calculation of overtime work.
This amendment has resulted in the emergence of differentiated practices regarding weekly rest days between employees working in the tourism sector and those employed in other sectors. In this respect, the regulation constitutes a legislative arrangement that must be carefully assessed in practice within the framework of the principle of equality before the law enshrined in Article 10 of the Constitution and the principle of equal treatment regulated under Article 5 of the Labour Law.
JURISDICTION DETERMINED IN DISPUTES ARISING FROM NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS
With its decision dated 13 June 2025 and numbered 2023/1 E., 2025/3 K., the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the Court of Cassation has conclusively determined that disputes arising from non-compete agreements producing effects after the termination of the employment contract, regulated under Articles 444 to 447 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, fall within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts of First Instance.
In its reasoning, the Court emphasized that while the employee’s obligation not to compete during the continuation of the employment relationship is assessed within the scope of the duty of loyalty regulated under Article 396 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, a non-compete obligation applicable after the termination of the employment relationship constitutes an independent and contractual undertaking in nature.
The Court of Cassation further held that such disputes qualify as absolute commercial actions pursuant to Article 4/1(c) of the Turkish Commercial Code, noting that the assessment of concepts such as customer portfolio and trade secrets falls within the area of expertise of commercial courts. Conversely, it was stated that Article 5 of the Labour Courts Law No. 7036 does not possess a character capable of overriding the statutory regulation governing absolute commercial actions.
Through this decision, uniformity in practice has been ensured with respect to the determination of the competent court in disputes arising from post-termination non-compete obligations.
REGULATION ALLOWING NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE LABOUR LAW TO BE MADE VIA REGISTERED ELECTRONIC MAIL (KEP)
With the entry into force on 24 July 2025 of Law No. 7555 on the Protection of the Value of Turkish Currency and on Amendments to Certain Laws and Decree Law No. 635, Article 109 of the Labour Law No. 4857 has been amended, introducing a significant innovation regarding written notifications in labour law practice.
Pursuant to the amendment, notifications prescribed under the Labour Law may now be effected via the Registered Electronic Mail (KEP) system, which has the legal character of evidentiary proof, provided that the employee has given written consent. Notifications made through KEP shall produce the same legal consequences as written notifications.
However, the statutory requirement that notifications resulting in the termination of the employment contract must, in all circumstances, be made in writing has been explicitly preserved. The amendment further stipulates that all costs associated with the use of the KEP system shall be borne by the employer. The scope and practical boundaries of this regulation are expected to be further clarified through secondary legislation and judicial precedents. In this respect, the amendment constitutes a noteworthy step towards strengthening the use of electronic notifications as legally valid evidence in labour law practice.
SIGNIFICANT COURT OF CASSATION DECISION ON UNPAID LEAVE DURING THE PANDEMIC PERIOD
With its decision dated 29 May 2025 and numbered 2025/3201 E., 2024/1108 K., the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation clarified to what extent unpaid leave periods implemented during the Covid-19 pandemic should be taken into account in the calculation of severance pay and annual paid leave entitlements.
In its reasoning, the Court held that, pursuant to Provisional Article 10 of the Labour Law No. 4857, the period spent on unpaid leave during the pandemic may be included in the calculation of seniority and annual paid leave provided that it does not exceed the six-week period added to the notice period. Unpaid leave periods exceeding this threshold, however, shall not be considered as part of the employee’s length of service.
Through this ruling, the Court of Cassation eliminated the divergent judicial practices that had emerged regarding the calculation of severance pay and annual paid leave for employees who were unilaterally placed on unpaid leave during the pandemic period. In this respect, the decision serves as an important guiding precedent concerning the impact of pandemic-related unpaid leave practices on employee receivables.
INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION FILED BY A WHITE-COLLAR EMPLOYEE ALLEGING VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO UNIONIZATION HAS BEEN DECIDED
In its decision dated 20 March 2025 in the application of Hülya Şimşek (Application No. 2022/18821), the Plenary Assembly of the Constitutional Court ruled that the right to unionization, as safeguarded under Article 51 of the Constitution, had been violated due to the applicant’s exclusion from the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement.
In the application, it was asserted that the collective bargaining agreements concluded with the authorized trade union at the workplace were not applied to the applicant on the sole ground that she was classified as a white-collar employee and was therefore deemed outside the scope of such agreements. The Court emphasized that, pursuant to Article 53 of the Constitution and Law No. 6356 on Trade Unions and Collective Bargaining Agreements, all employees, except for employer representatives and those who participate in collective bargaining negotiations on behalf of the employer , are entitled to benefit from collective bargaining agreements. It was expressly underlined that the mere qualification of an employee as “white-collar” does not, in itself, constitute a sufficient legal ground for excluding that employee from the scope of a collective bargaining agreement. Any such assessment must be based on a concrete determination as to whether the employee actually acts on behalf of the employer and holds the status of an employer representative.
Within this framework, the Constitutional Court concluded that the lower courts’ acceptance of the applicant’s exclusion from the collective bargaining agreement, without providing relevant and sufficient reasoning, was incompatible with the State’s positive obligations arising from the right to unionization. Accordingly, the Court held that the right to unionization had been violated.
THE TYPE OF INTEREST APPLICABLE TO NOTICE COMPENSATION CLARIFIED BY A COURT OF CASSATION DECISION
In Turkish labour law practice, the question of which type of interest should be applied to notice compensation has long been a matter of doctrinal and judicial debate. This controversy has been definitively resolved by the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation through its landmark decision dated 10 July 2025, numbered E. 2025/4095, K. 2025/4845.
In its reasoning, the Court of Cassation expressly emphasized that the highest interest rate applied to bank deposits, as regulated under Article 34 of the Labour Law No. 4857, is applicable exclusively to wage receivables. It was underlined that notice compensation does not qualify as a wage-related receivable and that there exists no specific statutory provision prescribing a special interest regime for such compensation.
Accordingly, the Court held that only statutory (legal) interest shall be applied to notice compensation. This decision has brought long-awaited clarity and uniformity to judicial practice regarding the interest regime applicable to notice compensation claims.
KOSGEB HUMAN RESOURCES REGULATION UPDATED
With the KOSGEB Human Resources Regulation published in the Official Gazette dated 17 April 2025 and numbered 32873, the principles governing the recruitment, employment, disciplinary regime, and termination of contracts of personnel to be employed under administrative service contracts have been comprehensively restructured, and the former regulation dated 2009 has been repealed.
Under the new regulation, merit and career principles have been adopted as the cornerstone of personnel recruitment. Position-based requirements concerning education, professional experience, examinations, and certification have been expressly defined, and a probationary period has been introduced for newly employed personnel. The Regulation further clarifies working hours, leave entitlements, disciplinary procedures, and ethical obligations, including duties of loyalty, confidentiality, and political neutrality.
Additionally, the prohibition of strikes and collective actions has been expressly regulated within the scope of disciplinary provisions. Overall, the Regulation aims to render the legal status of contract-based personnel employed within KOSGEB more predictable, structured, and systematic, thereby strengthening legal certainty in human resources practices.
SCOPE OF THE OBLIGATION TO PAY WAGES AND SIMILAR ENTITLEMENTS VIA BANK TRANSFER EXPANDED
With the amendment to the Regulation published in the Official Gazette dated 4 June 2025 and numbered 32920, the minimum threshold triggering the obligation to make payments of wages, bonuses, premiums, and all similar employee entitlements through banks has been reduced.
Accordingly, employers employing at least three employees within the scope of the Labour Law, the Press Labour Law, or the Maritime Labour Law are now required to make such payments via banking channels. Under the previous regulation, this obligation applied to employers with five or more employees; as of 4 June 2025, the threshold has been lowered to three employees, thereby significantly expanding the scope of mandatory bank-mediated payments.
PRECEDENT SETTING DISCRETIONARY REDUCTION BY THE COURT OF CASSATION REGARDING ANNUAL PAID LEAVE ENTITLEMENTS OF SENIOR EXECUTIVES
With its decision dated 04.06.2024 and numbered E. 2024/6366, K. 2024/9427, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has established a significant precedent concerning the calculation of annual paid leave entitlements of employees holding senior executive positions.
In its reasoning, the High Court emphasized that accepting, as a matter of fact, that an employee serving as a general manager had not taken any annual paid leave for many years is contrary to the ordinary course of life. The Court further underlined that individuals occupying such senior managerial positions typically possess de facto and administrative authority over the planning, approval, and use of their own leave periods. On this basis, the Court found it appropriate to apply a 50% discretionary reduction to the annual leave wage calculated by the court-appointed expert.
Through this decision, it has been explicitly acknowledged that, with respect to annual paid leave receivables of senior executives, a higher rate of discretionary reduction may be applied compared to other employees. The ruling is therefore expected to carry precedential value in practice.
BASE SALARY FOR COMPENSATION AND STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN TERMINATION DUE TO MILITARY SERVICE
The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in its decision numbered E. 2008/16747, K. 2010/7159, set out significant assessments regarding the statute of limitations and the determination of the base salary for compensation in cases where the employment contract is terminated due to compulsory military service. In its ruling, the Court expressly emphasized that severance pay, notice pay, and other employee receivables of a compensatory nature are subject to a ten-year statute of limitations, and that the statute of limitations does not extinguish the underlying claim but merely constitutes a defence preventing its enforceability through litigation.
From a doctrinal perspective, it is widely accepted that, in cases where employees terminate their employment due to military service or similar statutory obligations, the salary forming the basis of compensation should be determined not by reference to the wage received at the date of termination, but rather by taking into account the wages paid to comparable employees as of the date of the claim. This approach is considered more accurate and equitable in legal scholarship (Ercan Akyiğit, Commentary on the Labour Act, Seçkin Publishing, 3rd ed., 2008, Vol. I, p. 1467).
NEW REGULATION PUBLISHED ON THE RECOVERY FROM EMPLOYERS OF DEPORTATION RELATED COSTS INCURRED DUE TO UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN WORKERS
The Regulation on the Recovery from Employers of Certain Expenses Incurred in respect of Foreigners Subject to Deportation Decisions Due to Unauthorized Employment, published in the Official Gazette dated 23 July 2025, is set to enter into force on 23 January 2026.
Pursuant to the Regulation, where foreign nationals who are determined to have been working without a valid work permit are deported, and where the accommodation, removal, and healthcare expenses incurred for such foreign nationals—and, where applicable, their spouses and children—are covered from the budget of the Presidency of Migration Management, such expenses shall be recovered from the employer or the employer’s representative in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 6183 on the Procedure for the Collection of Public Receivables, in cases where collection from the foreign national proves impossible.
Within this framework, employers shall be held financially liable not only for administrative fines, but also for all public expenditures arising from the deportation process. The Regulation therefore significantly intensifies the scope and severity of employer liability in relation to the employment of unauthorized foreign workers.
FOUR SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
First, in its decision numbered B.B. 2020/3669, the Constitutional Court underscored the obligation of courts to address and assess, with adequate reasoning, the substantive claims and defences put forward by the parties. The Court held that a failure by judicial authorities to expressly examine allegations capable of affecting the outcome of the case constitutes a violation of the right to a reasoned judgment. It was emphasized that Article 36 of the Constitution safeguards not merely a formally conducted trial, but a proceeding that is substantively fair in material terms.
In another noteworthy decision, the Constitutional Court, in its ruling numbered B.B. 2020/34479, examined the compatibility of interferences with the right to property with the principle of proportionality. The Court stressed that restrictions imposed on grounds of public interest must not place an excessive and extraordinary burden on the individual; otherwise, such interference would amount to a violation of the right to property.
Another decision that merits particular emphasis is the Constitutional Court’s ruling numbered B.B. 2019/18391, in which it was held that the assessment of evidence without due regard to the protective character of labour law and the principle of interpretation in favour of the employee may result in a violation of the right to a reasoned judgment. The Court stated that decisions rejecting or limiting employee receivables must be based on clear, reviewable reasoning that duly takes into account the specific characteristics of the employment relationship.
Finally, in its decision numbered B.B. 2020/8869, the Constitutional Court addressed the failure to conclude judicial proceedings within a reasonable time within the scope of the right to a fair trial. In assessing the reasonableness of the duration, the Court considered the complexity of the proceedings, the conduct of the parties, and the diligence exercised by judicial authorities in conjunction. It concluded that protracted proceedings, by creating legal uncertainty and an increased risk of loss of rights for individuals, may constitute a violation of constitutional guarantees.
GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS IN LABOUR LAW
Pursuant to a regulation that entered into force on 26 May 2025 by the Brazilian Ministry of Labour, employees’ mental health has been formally incorporated into the framework of occupational risk management in the workplace. With the amendment introduced to Regulatory Standard No. 1 (NR-1), employers are now obliged not only to identify, assess, and manage physical, chemical, and biological risks, but also to address psychosocial risks, including workplace harassment (mobbing), excessive workload, ambiguous job descriptions, and communication-related issues. The regulation grants employers a one-year compliance period, with inspections and sanctions scheduled to commence as of 26 May 2026. This development constitutes a significant step aligned with global trends, clearly demonstrating that mental health has become an integral component of occupational health and safety policies.
Another notable global development has emerged from Singapore. Under a regulation that entered into force on 1 April 2025, paternity leave has been extended from two weeks to four weeks, rendered mandatory, and secured as a state-funded entitlement. In addition, a shared parental leave scheme has been introduced, allowing leave to be allocated between the mother and the father. Within this framework, six weeks of additional leave are granted for children born between 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2026, while ten weeks of additional leave apply to births occurring after 1 April 2026. These leave entitlements may be exercised within 12 months following the birth, provided that the employer is notified at least four weeks in advance. The regulation also extends to adoptive parents and expressly prohibits termination of employment contracts during the leave period. The new system aims to promote a balanced distribution of parental responsibilities and to support the sustained participation of women in the workforce.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The relevant decisions, announcements and news may be reached from the following links:
(only available in Turkish)
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/10/20251017-10.pdf
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/07/20250714-20.htm
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/09/20250912-5.pdf
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/07/20250724-2.htm
https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/yargitay/9-hukuk-dairesi-e-2025-3201-k-2025-4965-t-29-5-2025
https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2022/18821
https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/yargitay/e-2025-4095-k-2025-4845-t-26-5-2025
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/04/20250417-5.htm
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/06/20250604-9.htm
https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/yargitay/9-hukuk-dairesi-e-2024-6366-k-2024-9427-t-4-6-2024
https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/yargitay/9-hukuk-dairesi-e-2008-16747-k-2010-7159-t-18-03-2010
https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/yargitay/3-hukuk-dairesi-e-2023-4108-k-2024-2037-t-26-6-2024
https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/yargitay/3-hukuk-dairesi-e-2025-893-k-2025-3205-t-10-6-2025
https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2020/8869
https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/gia/article/how-inclusive-parental-leave-can-drive-development-across-asia
*Legal Alert *
This post is for the purpose of exchanging information and experiences, and it does not provide a legal guarantee regarding the accuracy or timeliness of the material contained in the articles. Celikbaş Law Office assumes no responsibility for any losses incurred as a result of the use of any information or other content contained in this article, whether direct or indirect. According to the relevant regulations of the Union of Bar Associations of the Republic of Türkiye, the content given on this site is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an advertisement, offer, legal advice, or consulting. The transmission of this information does not constitute the establishment of an attorney-client relationship. Because this information may not represent
the most recent legal developments, readers should contact with a lawyer about the current situation.