Recent Development
The decision of the Constitutional Court concerning the individual application filed in connection with a reinstatement lawsuit (in which the person lodging the individual application shall hereinafter be referred to as the “Applicant“) was published in the Official Gazette dated 29.09.2026 and numbered 33385. You can reach the full text of the decision from here.
In this decision, the Constitutional Court unanimously held that the right to a reasoned decision, safeguarded as an element of the right to a fair trial, had been violated on the grounds that the Applicant’s allegations concerning the six-month seniority requirement in the reinstatement action were not assessed with adequate reasoning during the appeal process.
What Does the Decision Discuss?
In the case underlying the Constitutional Court’s decision, the Applicant commenced employment with the employer on 15.03.2021, and the Applicant’s employment agreement was terminated by a termination notice dated 13.09.2021 on the grounds of poor performance. However, as the Applicant had been identified as a close contact of a COVID-19 case, the Applicant was on medical leave between 05.09.2021-18.09.2021, and the termination notice was served to the Applicant only on 18.09.2021. Thereupon, the Applicant filed a reinstatement case, asserting that as of the date on which the termination notice was served upon the Applicant, the Applicant satisfied the six-month seniority requirement prescribed for employment security protection, and that the termination effected only two days before completion of the required seniority period was contrary to the principle of good faith. The employer, on the other hand, argued that the date of termination was 13.09.2021 and that the Applicant had not yet fulfilled the six-month seniority requirement as of that date.
The court of first instance concluded that the six-month seniority requirement had been satisfied by taking into account the period during which the Applicant had been on medical leave and the date on which the termination notice had been served. Accordingly, it held that the Applicant was entitled to benefit from the employment security provisions, determined that the termination was invalid because no defense had been obtained from the Applicant and the allegation of poor performance had not been substantiated, and therefore ruled in favor of the action and ordered the Applicant’s reinstatement. In contrast, the regional court of appeal held that the Applicant’s seniority amounted to only 5 months and 28 days as of the termination date, that the six-month seniority requirement was of a mandatory nature, and that even a bad-faith termination by the Employer could not alter this legal consequence. On that basis, it rendered a final decision dismissing the action.
The Constitutional Court, however, concluded that the regional court of appeal failed to provide a relevant and sufficient response to the Applicant’s fundamental arguments, which were capable of affecting the outcome of the proceedings, and therefore held that the Applicant’s right to a reasoned decision had been violated. According to the Constitutional Court, although the court of first instance had concluded that the six-month seniority requirement had been satisfied by specifically taking into account the Applicant’s period of medical leave and the date on which the termination notice had been served on the Applicant, the regional court of appeal reached the opposite conclusion without discussing these two fundamental issues and simply stated that there was no dispute between the parties regarding the Applicant’s length of service.
However, even in its own reasoning, the regional court of appeal acknowledged the case law of the Supreme Court of Appeals, according to which a termination effected by an employer shortly before the completion of the six-month period for the purpose of preventing an employee from falling within the scope of employment security may be deemed invalid as being contrary to the principle of good faith, and that the six-month period must have been completed as of the date on which the termination notice is served on the Applicant. Furthermore, the established case law of the Supreme Court of Appeals recognizes that, where an Applicant is unable to attend work due to a legitimate and valid reason such as medical leave, the termination notice produces its legal effects only upon the expiry of such leave.
According to the Constitutional Court, despite referring to these principles and established precedents in its own reasoning, the regional court of appeal failed to explain why the Applicant was deemed not to have satisfied the six-month seniority requirement in the specific circumstances of the case and left unanswered the principal arguments that were capable of directly affecting the outcome of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court held that the right to a reasoned decision, which constitutes an element of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 36 of the Turkish Constitution, had been violated and unanimously ruled that a retrial was necessary in order to remedy the consequences of that violation.
Conclusion
The Constitutional Court concluded that, although the Applicant’s allegations concerning the medical report, the date of service of the termination notice, and whether the six-month seniority requirement had been satisfied were capable of affecting the outcome of the proceedings, these issues were not examined by the regional court of appeal with relevant and sufficient reasoning. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court held that the Applicant’s right to a reasoned decision had been violated.
In this respect, the decision constitutes an important precedent both for the interpretation of the six-month seniority requirement in employment security disputes and for the scope of the right to a reasoned decision as an element of the right to a fair trial.
