Employing Foreigners Without a Work Permit: Administrative Fines, SGK, Deportation and Employer Liability

Which situations count as employing a foreigner without a permit?

The basic rule of Law No. 6735 on International Labour Force is that a foreigner who will work in Türkiye must obtain a work permit or a valid work permit exemption before starting work. Signing an employment contract, filing an SGK notification, holding a residence permit, being a company partner or making a payment does not, on its own, give a right to work. [1, m.6]

No document at all

If there is no work permit or work permit exemption document issued in the foreigner’s name, and there is no special situation excluded from scope by law, the act is unauthorised work. The fact that an application has been filed, that it is under review or that a fee accrual has arisen does not, as a rule, give a right to start work either. The special possibility of work that the law recognises in a work permit extension application is the exception to this and applies on its own conditions.

Working outside the scope of the permit or exemption

Even where a document exists, a foreigner working for another employer, at a different workplace, in another duty or occupation, outside the permitted region or after the validity period has expired may also be assessed as working without a permit. Likewise, where an exemption document has been issued only for a specific scientific activity, internship, technical service or temporary assignment, a continuing employment relationship cannot be established outside that activity.

Labels such as “volunteer”, “consultant” or “company partner” are not decisive on their own

In an inspection, the real nature of the relationship is examined. Work performed on behalf of another, orders and instructions, working time, pay or benefit, attachment to the workplace organisation and continuity are important in assessing dependent employment. Calling the person an unpaid volunteer, a freelance consultant, an intern or a company partner does not remove the employment-contract character of the actual relationship. On the other hand, a company partner who is genuinely not a manager and does not reside in Türkiye may meet the conditions for an exemption of up to three months; the document and the activity limit are examined separately. [1; 2]

Who can be held liable?

The foreign employee

A separate administrative fine is imposed on a foreigner who works for an employer without a work permit. The foreigner’s belief that the employer will file the permit application, or the employer’s statement that “the application has been made”, does not in itself remove the administrative sanction; however, fault, notification and the particulars of the specific case may be raised in the objection file.

The employer and the employer’s representative

A separate fine is imposed for each foreigner on the employer or the employer’s representative who employs a foreigner without a work permit. For legal-entity employers, the company that formed the employment contract, the SGK workplace record and the actual power of management and supervision are examined together. If there is more than one foreigner at the same workplace, the sanction is calculated for each person. Identifying the right counterparty, where the foreigner was in fact employed by a different company or a subcontractor, is one of the most important issues in the inspection report. [1, m.23]

The independently working foreigner

A higher, separate fine is provided for a foreigner who works on their own name and account. Being a company partner does not in every case turn a person’s actual work within the company into independent work. Partnership, directorship, authority of representation and the work actually performed are assessed together.

Administrative fines for 2026

The basic amounts to be applied under the 2026 table of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security are below. The current official table, which changes each calendar year according to the revaluation rate, should be relied on. [3]

In case of repetition, the fine is doubled

If the same act is repeated, the administrative fines are doubled. In the assessment of repetition, it must be investigated for which act, person and period the earlier sanction became final. An automatic repetition outcome cannot be established for a different foreigner or a different legal entity; the inspection report and earlier decisions must be compared. [1, m.23/6]

The fine does not replace employment, SGK and migration procedures

Payment of the administrative fine does not mean that the foreigner has obtained a work permit, that the SGK premiums have been completed or that the deportation process has been closed. Separate administrative, social security, private-law and foreigners-law procedures may be conducted for the same event.

How is the violation detected?

Inspection authority

Ministry labour inspectors, Social Security Institution inspectors and auditors, other public inspection staff who inspect workplaces under their own legislation, and law enforcement may detect unauthorised work by foreigners. The findings of other public officials are notified to the Ministry; the administrative sanction is applied by the provincial director of the Employment Agency (Çalışma ve İş Kurumu) on the basis of the minutes and report sent. [1, m.23]

Which facts should the minutes contain?

A report based solely on the foreigner’s presence at the workplace may not be sufficient in every case. Actual work, the work performed, working time, pay or benefit, the employer’s orders and instructions, the connection with the workplace, the foreigner’s identity, the permit/exemption query and the employer capacity must be made concrete. Statements made at the time of the inspection, camera footage, timesheets, bank payments, messages, SGK records, customer or employee statements and electronic system queries may constitute evidence.

The employer’s “visitor”, “guest” or “trial day” defence

These defences are assessed according to the facts of the file. A foreigner’s brief presence at a workplace is not always work; however, performing work, wearing a uniform or using equipment, serving customers, producing goods, appearing on the work schedule or receiving pay strengthens the allegation of work. A “probationary period” does not remove the work permit requirement.

Which route can be used against the administrative fine?

Notification of the decision and the payment period

Under Law No. 6735, the administrative fine is paid within one month of notification. The payment period is not the same as the time limit for applying to a legal remedy. When considering an early-payment discount or the possibility of instalments, the current provisions of the Misdemeanours Law and the collection legislation must also be checked. Payment does not mean acceptance of the lawfulness of the decision unless the right to a legal remedy is expressly waived; however, the payment and application records should be kept separately. [1, m.23/4]

Criminal judgeship of peace and the fifteen-day period for the standalone fine

Although Law No. 6735 regulates objection to the Ministry and the administrative judicial route for work permit refusal and cancellation decisions, it does not designate a special court for the administrative fines imposed under the Law. The Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi) has decided that an application against a fine imposed under Article 23/5(b) of Law No. 6735 must be heard in the judicial courts, before the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği), under Article 27 of the Misdemeanours Law. The time limit for application is fifteen days from the date of notification or pronouncement of the decision. [4; 5]

In its decision E.2021/260, K.2021/330 of 7 June 2021, the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes emphasised that Article 21 of the Law concerns Ministry decisions such as the refusal of a work permit or exemption application and the cancellation of a document, and that there is no special jurisdiction rule for the administrative fine. This distinction is decisive so that the 30-day Ministry objection is not confused with the 15-day criminal-judgeship application against the fine. [5]

If there is another administrative decision in the same act, jurisdiction must be re-examined

Article 27/8 of the Misdemeanours Law may allow a claim that a sanction decision is unlawful to be heard, together with that act, in the administrative courts if another decision within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts has also been issued about the same person in the same act. Therefore, if the fine is in the same decision package as workplace closure, a licence, deportation or another administrative act, the competent authority must be determined according to the file. Before the time limit runs out, both the type of the decision and the notification must be examined separately.

Which objections can be raised in the objection file?

• That the foreigner has a work permit or a valid exemption document;
• That the document covers the event in terms of activity, employer, period and workplace;
• That there was no actual work;
• That the fine was imposed on the wrong foreigner, employer or legal entity;
• That the number of workers or the amount calculated for each foreigner is wrong;
• That the repetition provisions were applied before their conditions were met;
• Errors of notification and time;
• Contradiction, material error or lack of proof in the inspection report;
• That the law and fine amount in force on the date of the act were applied incorrectly.

Is deportation automatic?

The obligation to notify the Ministry of the Interior is different from a deportation decision

Law No. 6735 provides that foreigners found to be working without a work permit are to be notified to the Ministry of the Interior for deportation. This notification is not, on its own, a final deportation decision. A deportation decision is issued separately within the framework of the conditions, exceptions, the principle of non-refoulement, family and health circumstances and notification safeguards in Law No. 6458. [1, m.23/8; 6, m.4, 53-55]

If a deportation decision is notified, there is a separate seven-day period

If a deportation decision is also notified to the foreigner, the period for applying to the administrative court within seven days of notification under Article 53 of Law No. 6458 comes into play against that decision. A criminal-judgeship application against the fine does not replace an action against the deportation decision; the notifications and periods of the two files are followed separately. [6, m.53]

The employer’s liability for accommodation, return and health expenses

The employer or the employer’s representative is liable for the accommodation expenses of a foreigner without a work permit and any spouse and children, the costs necessary for their return to their country and, where necessary, health expenditures. If these expenses are covered from the budget of the Presidency of Migration Management, the amounts are collected from the employer under the provisions of Law No. 6183. [1, m.23/9]

The new Regulation on the application of this liability was published on 23 July 2025 and entered into force on 23 January 2026. The addressee of the collection procedure, the expense items, the notification and the public-receivable process must be examined separately under this Regulation. [7]

SGK obligations and the risk of retroactive premiums

The work permit fine does not remove the SGK registration and premium obligation

Irrespective of the foreigner’s work permit status, the employer must assess its SGK obligations in terms of actual work, the scope of insurance and international social security conventions. For a foreigner who has a work permit or exemption, the entry, wage and premium notifications must be made within the statutory period. When undeclared employment is detected, premiums, late-payment penalty/surcharge and administrative sanctions arising under Law No. 5510 may arise separately from the penalty under Law No. 6735. [1, m.22; 8]

Persons temporarily assigned by a foreign establishment

Persons sent to Türkiye for no more than three months by an establishment set up in a foreign country, on behalf of and for the account of that establishment, who document that they are subject to social insurance in the foreign country, may be assessed under the special exception in Law No. 5510. The posted-worker periods in social security conventions may also differ. This exception must be examined separately from the question of whether a work permit or exemption document is required. [8, m.6]

Records of start of work and departure

The insured-person entry declaration must, as a rule, be filed before work begins; the departure and the monthly premium/service records must be completed within the statutory period. Even if a work permit is obtained later, the SGK consequences of the earlier undeclared period are not automatically erased. In the inspection file, payroll, bank records, timesheets, workplace entry records and messages may be examined together. [9]

Does the absence of a permit remove the foreigner’s wage and employment claims?

Work actually performed cannot be disregarded

The absence of a work permit gives rise to a public-law sanction; however, whether all the private-law consequences of an employment relationship that was actually formed and carried out are automatically disregarded is a different matter. Under Article 394 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, if a person performs for an employer, for a certain period, work that, according to the circumstances, could only be done for pay, and the employer accepts it, an employment contract is deemed to have been formed; an employment contract later found to be invalid produces the effects of a valid contract until the relationship is terminated. [10, m.394]

In its decision E.2015/1774, K.2018/794 of 18 April 2018, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation reviewed a decision of insistence accepting that a foreign worker’s actual work does not disappear because of the lack of a work permit, and that the period of service and the wage must be proven by the documents in the file. The decision is important in showing that, although the lack of a permit gives rise to an administrative sanction, work actually performed cannot be ignored in examining wage and employment claims. [11]

If actual work has not begun, the result is different

In a decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E.2006/20061, K.2006/24888, dated 2006, it was held that if work was not actually begun because a work permit was not obtained and no employment relationship was formed, the remaining wages under a fixed-term contract and the penalty clause cannot be claimed. The distinction between “the contract was signed” and “the foreigner actually worked” is therefore decisive. Because the source record does not give the day and month of the decision, the decision date is shown only as the year 2006. [12]

Wage, overtime and compensation claims are proven separately

Even if actual work is accepted, the period of service, wage, overtime, weekly rest, annual leave and the manner of termination must each be proven with their own evidence. The absence of a work permit does not result in the automatic acceptance of every claim the foreigner raises. The employer’s bank records, signed payrolls, timesheets and termination documents; and the foreigner’s messages, witnesses, workplace records and payment evidence are assessed together.

Difference in case law on determination of service period and work accidents

Majority and dissent in a determination of service period

In its decision E.2022/5942, K.2022/7922 of 26 May 2022, the 10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, by majority, upheld the rejection of a request for determination of service period on the ground that there was no work permit. The dissent, emphasising the fundamental nature of the right to social security, Article 394 of the TCO and the fact that unauthorised work is sanctioned by an administrative fine, argued that the lack of a permit should not prevent the determination of actual service. This decision shows that the matter is neither undisputed nor one-directional. [13]

There is also a differing approach in determining a work accident

In its decision E.2024/5007, K.2024/5452 of 16 May 2024, the 10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, by majority, upheld the decision accepting that the incident suffered by a foreign worker was a work accident. The dissent argued that a foreigner without a work permit cannot be regarded as insured under Law No. 5510 and the incident cannot be accepted as a work accident. Accordingly, as to the SGK service and work-accident status of a foreigner without a work permit, the specific file, the foreigner’s status, international conventions and current case law must be assessed together. [14]

This divergence in case law does not remove the employer’s occupational health and safety obligation. Occupational health and safety measures must be taken for everyone actually working at the workplace; the accident must be reported to the law enforcement immediately and to the SGK within the statutory period. Even if the SGK work-accident status is disputed, fault-based compensation and liability under the TCO and occupational health and safety rules may arise separately. [15]

Sham contracts and wrong-employer risks

Showing a permit through another’s company

Where a foreigner actually works at company A but the permit or SGK record is shown through company B, this is risky in terms of both the scope of the work permit and the main-employer/subcontractor and sham-contract (muvazaa) rules. The employer, workplace and duty in the permit document must be the same as the actual work. Even if the companies belong to the same partners, the separation of legal personality does not disappear by itself.

Dependent work under the appearance of independent work

Issuing invoices, a consultancy contract or company partnership may not conceal the character of dependent work where the foreigner in reality works under the employer’s orders and instructions. The inspection focuses not on the name of the contract but on how the relationship is actually carried out.

Document checklist for the inspection and objection file

Risk management roadmap for employers

1. Before the foreigner starts work, check that the work permit or exemption has been issued and that its scope matches the employer, workplace, duty and date.
2. Do not confuse an application having been made with a permit having been granted.
3. Make the employment contract, the salary criterion, the SGK occupation code and the actual duty consistent in the same file.
4. Complete the entry, departure and Ministry notifications within their separate periods.
5. In case of a change of employer, branch, duty, province or workplace, examine in advance whether the existing document is sufficient.
6. During an inspection, keep the real records; do not produce retroactive contracts, payrolls or false exemption documents.
7. When a fine, deportation or SGK notification arrives, calculate the competent authority and the period for each decision separately.

Conclusion

Employing a foreigner without a work permit is not a single fine. The same event may give rise to separate fines for the foreigner and the employer; SGK premium and registration sanctions; a deportation assessment; return and health expenses; and work accident, wage and compensation disputes. The general route against a standard administrative fine is a fifteen-day application to the criminal judgeship of peace; a deportation decision and other administrative acts are subject to separate periods and judicial routes. For the employer, the safest approach is to verify, before the foreigner actually starts work, that the document has been issued and covers the real employment relationship. A permit obtained later, or payment of the fine, does not retroactively make the earlier unauthorised period lawful.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can the foreigner work immediately once a work permit application has been filed?

As a rule, no. Filing the application or its appearing under review in the system does not give a right to work. The special possibility of work that the law recognises in an extension application is separate, on its own conditions.

Does a residence permit give a foreigner the right to work?

No. A residence permit concerns stay in Türkiye, whereas a work permit or exemption concerns work. Some work documents may count as a residence permit; the reverse is not automatic.

Must a foreign company partner obtain a work permit?

An obligation may arise depending on the actual duty and authority of representation within the company. Some partners who do not reside in Türkiye and are not managers may be within an exemption of up to three months; the category and document conditions must be examined.

What is the employer’s fine in 2026?

A fine of TRY 102,503 per foreigner is applied to the employer or employer’s representative who employs a foreigner without a work permit. In case of repetition, the fine is doubled.

Is the foreign employee also fined?

Yes. A fine of TRY 40,977 is provided for a foreigner working in dependent employment and TRY 82,010 for a foreigner working independently.

Where is the fine objected to?

Against a fine under Article 23 of Law No. 6735 on its own, an application is generally made to the criminal judgeship of peace within fifteen days of notification. If there is another decision subject to the administrative courts in the same act, jurisdiction must be examined separately.

Does the thirty-day objection to the Ministry apply to the fine too?

As a rule, no. The thirty-day Ministry objection concerns Ministry decisions such as the refusal of a work permit or exemption application and the cancellation of a document. The Misdemeanours Law route applies to the fine.

Does paying the fine stop the deportation procedure?

No. The fine and the deportation decision are separate acts. The foreigner is notified to the Ministry of the Interior; the deportation assessment is made separately under Law No. 6458.

Does a foreigner working without a permit have wage claims?

Work actually performed is not disregarded automatically because of the lack of a permit. Wages and other employment claims are assessed on the evidence of the period of work, wage and termination. If work never actually began, the outcome of claims such as remaining-period wages is different.

Can a service period be determined for a foreigner without a permit?

There is a majority and dissent divergence in the 10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation on this. A definitive result cannot be reached without examining the specific status, the period of work, international conventions and current case law.

Is the accident of a foreigner without a permit regarded as a work accident?

Current decisions also show a divergence between majority and dissent. Even so, the employer’s occupational health and safety measures and accident-reporting obligations cannot be ignored; the SGK status and compensation liability are examined separately.

Does the employer pay the foreigner’s return costs?

Under the conditions in the law, the accommodation, return to the home country and, where necessary, health expenses of the foreigner and any spouse/children may be charged to the employer. The special Regulation that entered into force on 23 January 2026 governs the collection procedure.

Sources

1. Law No. 6735 on International Labour Force, in particular Articles 6 and 21-23. Official Gazette text.
2. Implementing Regulation of the International Labour Force Law, scope of the work permit and exemption. Official Gazette text.
3. Ministry of Labour and Social Security, 2026 Administrative Fines. Official table.
4. Misdemeanours Law No. 5326, in particular Articles 3, 17 and 27. Current official text.
5. Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, E.2021/260, K.2021/330, 07.06.2021. Fine under Article 23 of Law No. 6735: judicial courts / criminal judgeship of peace competent. Decision.
6. Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, in particular Articles 4 and 53-55. Current official text.
7. Regulation on the Recovery from Employers of Various Expenses of Foreigners Subject to a Deportation Decision for Unauthorised Work, Official Gazette 23.07.2025, No. 32964; in force 23.01.2026.
8. Law No. 5510 on Social Insurance and General Health Insurance. Current official text.
9. Social Security Institution, Employer Procedures and Insured Person Notifications. SGK official information.
10. Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, Article 394. Current official text.
11. Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, E.2015/1774, K.2018/794, 18.04.2018. Actual work, period of service and proof of wages. Decision.
12. Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2006/20061, K.2006/24888, T.2006. Remaining-period wages and penalty clause in a contract under which work was not actually begun. Decision.
13. Court of Cassation 10th Civil Chamber, E.2022/5942, K.2022/7922, 26.05.2022. Majority and dissent on determination of service period. Decision.
14. Court of Cassation 10th Civil Chamber, E.2024/5007, K.2024/5452, 16.05.2024. Majority and dissent on determination of a work accident. Decision.
15. Article 13 of Law No. 5510 and SGK work-accident notification explanations. The employer’s obligation to notify the law enforcement immediately and the Institution within the statutory period.