Radiation Health Leave for Public and Private Health Workers: Differences Between Workers, Civil Servants and Contracted Staff

Why must the working status be determined first for radiation health leave?

The substantive conditions for radiation health leave are affected by the same current Regulation for all health institutions: an ionizing source, a controlled area and actual work. However, the way the right is asserted can change entirely depending on the staff member's status.

The institution's name does not determine status: a four-stage check

1. What is the entry document? An appointment decision, an Article 4/B contract, a permanent worker post, a subcontractor contract or a service procurement contract each have a different legal effect.
2. How are pay and social security administered? The public payroll, the type of insurance under Law No. 5510, the SGK workplace, an invoice or a self-employment receipt are important evidence, but not conclusive on their own.
3. Who manages and gives instructions? It is examined who exercises management rights over shifts, leave, on-call duty, place of work, patient admission and discipline.
4. What is the claim? Use of the leave now, annulment of a refusal, past loss, pay after the employment contract ends, or a declaration of status each give rise to different actions and time limits.

Build your status file: Collect the appointment or contract document, the last three payslips or invoices, the SGK service record, the employer's title, the job description, the body that approves leave and the termination or refusal letter in a single file. The legal route cannot safely be determined without seeing these documents.

What are the common material conditions for radiation health leave in 2026?

The Regulation on Health Services Provided Using Ionizing Radiation and Radionuclides, dated April 13, 2023, covers health institutions belonging to the Ministry of Health, universities, private legal entities and natural persons, and the staff working in them.

Under the Regulation, for health leave:

• an ionizing radiation source or radionuclide must be used;
• the work must take place in a controlled area;
• the employee must actually work in that area;
• the length of leave must be determined from the actual hours in the calendar year using the table in Annex 2.

Actual work in a controlled area carried out with mobile X-ray, C-arm fluoroscopy and similar mobile devices is also counted. Because MRI and ultrasound do not produce ionizing radiation, working only with these devices does not, as a rule, give rise to health leave.

Leave is between 1 and 30 days. Although the first band of Annex 2 is written as 0–50 hours, the Regulation makes health leave dependent on actual work in a controlled area. For this reason, for an employee with "zero hours" of controlled-area work, it cannot be said that a day of leave arises merely from the heading of the table; where there is some actual work, however brief, the first band of up to 50 hours is applied as one day. In each subsequent 50-hour band, the leave increases by one day; the band of 1,451–1,500 hours produces the upper limit of 30 days.

Health leave earned is used in the following calendar year; it cannot be divided, cannot be used in succession across the turn of the year and cannot be carried forward to a later year. Periods of birth, death, marriage and annual leave are not counted in the calculation of actual work. Part-time work, temporary assignment or working for more than one employer in the same year does not automatically remove the right; however, only the period actually spent in each institution's controlled area and confirmed by reliable records is taken into account. The transfer of hours and responsibility between employers is not automatic.

Periods when an employee is removed from a controlled area after notifying a pregnancy, is on maternity leave or has been adapted to a radiation-free duty do not create actual controlled-area hours. This result does not mean that the stronger occupational health and safety protections for pregnancy and breastfeeding no longer apply.

The maximum weekly working time of 35 hours under the Additional Article 1 of Law No. 3153 is a different protection from the number of days of health leave. Leave granted when a dose limit is exceeded is also not the same thing as annual health leave.

Which regulatory framework applies to which period of work?

In radiation files, working years must not be combined under a single formula. Periods are calculated separately because of changes in the legislation:

Transitional period warning: The Ministry of Health's opinion letter of May 12, 2022, reference E.512, and the decisions of the Ombudsman Institution in this area are important in practice; however, each must be used with attention to its place in the hierarchy of norms and its concrete scope. The Ministry's opinion is neither a law nor a regulation, and an Ombudsman recommendation decision is not a court judgment.

Is health leave the same thing as other radiation and occupational health protections?

No. In practice, at least five different protections should not be confused:

Refusing to work in a serious and imminent danger under Law No. 6331 on Occupational Health and Safety, notification of a workplace accident or occupational disease, and compensation routes are also not identical to health leave. The same event may raise several protections together.

How is radiation health leave applied to civil servants under Article 4/A of Law No. 657?

Article 103 of the Civil Servants Law No. 657 expressly provides: "Personnel working with radioactive rays in the course of their service shall be granted a one-month health leave every year in addition to their annual leave." This right is separate from ordinary annual leave; it cannot be deducted from the annual leave balance.

For a civil servant, the first request is not to bring a wage action before a labour court, but to have the leave granted in kind and on time. The employee must submit to the institution's document system a written petition showing:

• the relevant calendar year;
• the duties performed in the controlled area;
• the type of device or radionuclide;
• the actual working hours;
• the amount of health leave requested.

The authority to receive the petition is determined by the institution's organization and signing directive; it may be the chief physician's office, the personnel unit, the affiliated provincial health directorate or the university unit. The document number of the application and the notification records must be preserved.

Does the "one month" in Article 103 of Law No. 657 conflict with the 2023 hours table?

This is a real and important debate about the hierarchy of norms in current law.

The decision of the Council of State's 12th Chamber, E.2023/3210, K.2025/2743, was given by the joint panel of the 10th and 12th Chambers. The majority concluded that the controlled area, actual work and the table in Annex 2 are not contrary to Article 103 of Law No. 657 or to Law No. 3153. The dissent stated that the statutory one-month right had been narrowed by regulation.

Limit of the decision: The decision is a first-instance decision of the Council of State against a regulatory act, and its text indicates an appeal route to the Plenary Assembly of Administrative Litigation Chambers. As of August 30, 2026, a published final appeal outcome in this file could not be verified, so it cannot be said that "the debate has definitively ended." However, for as long as the Regulation remains in force, the decision is a current ruling that administrations and first-instance courts cannot disregard.

Can a civil servant claim pay for health leave not used?

The earlier case law under the old regime, by which leave turns into a pay claim on termination, is not applied directly to civil servants. A civil servant's salary and personal rights are governed by status law; converting leave into money requires a clear legal basis and an analysis of the concrete administrative act and loss.

For this reason, three claims must be kept separate for a civil servant:

1. Use of the leave in kind: an annulment claim against the refusal in the year, or in the period of use provided by the legislation.
2. Monetary or other loss caused by the refusal: a full remedy claim, together with or after the annulment action, if its conditions are met.
3. Automatic pay in respect of past years: it cannot be said that such a right arises automatically under the worker's pay formula; the legal basis, a definitive act, the time limit and the loss must be established separately.

A civil servant should not wait on the basis that there is a "five-year limitation period for worker's claims." Time limits in administrative proceedings are much shorter.

What is the legal route for contracted staff under Article 4/B of Law No. 657?

Staff under Article 4/B of Law No. 657 work under a contract; however, the Law defines them expressly as public service officials who are not workers. For this reason, the conclusion that "I have a contract, so I go to a labour court" is not correct.

The Principles on the Employment of Contracted Staff provide that contracted staff who work with radioactive rays in the course of their service, and are directly exposed to radiation, are to be given paid health leave in accordance with the relevant legislation. The substantive scope of the current right is assessed together with the 2023 Regulation.

For staff under Article 4/B, the order of practice is as follows:

1. Check whether the position and the contract are really based on Article 4/B of Law No. 657.
2. Submit a written request for leave to the institution, adding the actual working hours and controlled-area records.
3. If there is an express refusal or a thirty-day silence, calculate the time limit under the İYUK.
4. As a rule, seek annulment before the administrative court; where there is concrete loss of a right, consider a full remedy claim under the relevant conditions.

In a local decision dated March 31, 2021, the Istanbul 14th Administrative Court held unlawful the postponement of the health leave of a 4/B radiology technician to the following year on the ground that the technician had not completed one year of work. The decision relates to the earlier legislative period and to its concrete facts; it is neither the current Annex 2 calculation nor a binding higher court precedent for every Article 4/B file.

If the contract ends: The expiry of an Article 4/B contract does not automatically convert unused health leave into the worker's pay claim of the Court of Cassation. End-of-service compensation, contractual provisions and health leave are different legal institutions.

What is the position of contracted health staff under Law No. 4924?

Contracted health staff under Law No. 4924 should not be merged under the same heading as Article 4/B staff under Law No. 657. Law No. 4924 establishes a special regime for health staff employed by the Ministry of Health, on a service contract, in places and service branches where it is difficult to recruit staff; these staff are not workers. Article 5 of the Law provides that Law No. 657 applies to leave, and Article 8 provides that, where the Law contains no provision, the provisions of Law No. 657 are applied as a rule.

When assessing health leave in this status, the following are examined together:

• whether the contract is really based on Law No. 4924;
• whether the staff member's relationship with a position under Law No. 657 continues;
• the Law No. 4924 standard contract and place of duty;
• the reference to Article 103 of Law No. 657 on leave;
• the provisions of the 2023 Regulation on controlled areas and actual hours;
• whether the claim concerns leave, pay, termination of the contract or a return to status.

Disputes over the leave decision and the status of the contract are, as a rule, in the administrative courts. However, the provisions on termination, redeployment and permanent contracted staff in Article 7 of Law No. 4924, and the 2024 amendments, must also be checked in the concrete file. The words "I am contracted health staff" alone do not reveal whether the case falls under Article 4/B of Law No. 657 or under Law No. 4924; the legal basis of the contract must be read.

What is the position of public workers under Article 4/D of Law No. 657?

Permanent and temporary workers under Article 4/D of Law No. 657 are not subject to the provisions of Law No. 657. The working relationship rests on an employment contract. Even where the employer is a public institution, if the dispute arises from the employment relationship and the pay for health leave, it is, as a rule, heard in the labour court.

For an Article 4/D worker, the first priority while the working relationship continues is to have the health leave actually granted. If the employer persistently refuses leave, a written request, internal records and, where necessary, occupational health and safety channels should be used. The monetary consequence of leave not used after the employment contract ends is assessed under the legislation in force for the working period and under labour case law.

In the settled approach of the Court of Cassation, unused radiation leave from the earlier legislative period:

• cannot be replaced by money while work continues;
• becomes due when the employment contract actually ends;
• is calculated on the last actual pay;
• and the limitation period starts running on termination.

However, for the "no carry-over to the following year and no transfer" system of the 2023 Regulation, higher court case law has not yet formed a settled line that resolves all monetary consequences. For this reason, earlier decisions should not be applied automatically to rights after 2023.

For workers under Article 4/D, a collective labour agreement, an individual contract or an institutional protocol may develop health leave beyond the statutory minimum; however, they cannot reduce the mandatory occupational health protection. The period and workplace to which a provision granting extra days, a pay supplement or an application procedure applies must be specifically proven.

What is the position of subcontracted and service company staff in a public hospital?

Working in the building of a public hospital does not make a worker a civil servant or a public official. A technician or other health worker employed under an employment contract by a company that has taken on the imaging service by tender is, as a rule, a private law worker.

The following documents should be examined together in these files:

• the employment contract and the SGK workplace information;
• the service procurement and tender contracts;
• the dates of changes of subcontractor;
• the role of the hospital or public legal entity in giving orders and supervising;
• the party that prepares the shift, leave and pay records;
• the employer who effected the termination;
• the trade registry and periods of each company that employed the worker.

If the conditions of Article 2 of the Labour Law No. 4857 are met, the principal employer may be jointly liable with the subcontractor for obligations under the law and contract relating to the workplace in respect of subcontractor workers. However, the public legal entity to be sued is determined from the file; it is not correct to write "Ministry of Health" as the defendant in every public hospital dispute. A university, a separate public legal entity or a special model may be involved.

Is a change of subcontractor a genuine termination?

Where companies change during tender periods but a worker continues working without interruption in the same hospital, each change of registration with the SGK is not regarded as a genuine termination. The factual continuity of the employment relationship, the transfer of the workplace and the chain of subcontractors are investigated. The genuine termination date is decisive for when the radiation leave pay becomes due, for the last pay, for limitation and for which companies are responsible.

In a mediation application, the direct employer, the employer on the date of termination, the earlier subcontractors whose liability is to be claimed, and the correct principal employer must be expressly named as parties. A wrong or incomplete party may create a dispute about the condition precedent to suit and limitation for that person.

For employees of earlier subcontractors who were moved into permanent worker posts under Decree Law No. 696, the earlier company period, the date of the transfer to public employment, any waiver or settlement documents, whether a genuine termination exists, and the employer responsible for each period must be examined separately. The transfer to a permanent post does not automatically transfer earlier radiation leave records or liability for the subcontracting period to a single debtor; a SGK exit code alone also does not prove a genuine termination.

How is the status of university hospital staff determined?

"A university hospital employee" is not a single legal status. The following groups may be present in the same hospital:

Article 64 of the Higher Education Law No. 2547 provides that teaching staff will normally take their annual leave during periods when study is suspended, and that for other leave, and for the personnel of higher education bodies and the staff of higher education institutions, the provisions of Law No. 657 apply. Because health leave is a protective leave separate from normal annual leave, it cannot be neutralized by the academic calendar; the approving authority and the plan for taking it may, however, be determined by the university's internal arrangements that comply with the legislation.

For academic staff of a foundation university, the automatic approach that "there is a contract, pay is claimed, so the labour court is competent" is not current. The Court of Jurisdictional Disputes decisions E.2025/506, K.2025/597 and E.2025/607, K.2025/691 show that the administrative courts may be competent for claims for pay, severance and related monetary claims arising from academic status or from the termination of an academic service contract. In particular, in its decision of November 24, 2025, E.2025/607, K.2025/691, a claim for severance pay based on an alleged justified termination by a lecturer was left to the administrative courts.

These decisions do not make every employee of a foundation university, or every worker of a separate hospital company owned by the university, a civil servant. Academic staff and administrative or support staff, and the university legal entity and a separate hospital company, must be distinguished; an academic appointment or assignment decision must be distinguished from a claim arising solely from an employment contract. The refusal of health leave is central to the assessment of jurisdiction, in connection with the academic status and the university's unilateral public authority.

How is the public and private sector worker distinguished in city hospitals?

The public–private partnership model of city hospitals may mean that several organizations operate within the same physical facility. For example, the official statement of Bursa City Hospital says that 18 services, consisting of medical support and support services provided by the project company, are controlled under the contract.

This structure means the following:

• Staff under Articles 4/A and 4/B of Law No. 657 who belong to the Ministry of Health are civil servants.
• The 4/D workers of the Ministry or the relevant public administration are in the status of labour law.
• Workers on the payroll of the project company, the contractor or the sub-contractor may be private law workers.
• Two persons working in a unit where the same device is used may have different employers, approving authorities and litigation routes.

The statement "I work in a city hospital" is not sufficient on its own. The e-payroll, the title of the SGK workplace, the appointment or post document, the service contract, the hospital card and the approving authority on the leave form must be examined together.

What happens to past health leave if the status or the employer changes?

A health worker may move, within the same calendar year or during a working life, from Article 4/B to Article 4/A, from Law No. 4924 status to a civil service post, from a subcontractor to permanent public worker status, or from a private hospital to a public institution. Transfers, temporary assignments, transfers of the workplace, or part-time work at more than one private hospital may also arise.

In these situations two separate questions must be answered:

1. Material right: in each period, how many hours were actually worked in which controlled area, and which regulation was in force?
2. Responsibility and legal route: in which employer or administration period did the leave planning or the monetary consequence arise; against which legal entity, within what time limit and in which judicial branch is the claim to be made?

A change of status does not automatically delete past hours; however, it cannot be said that the new administration or employer is automatically responsible for all the earlier hours and monetary consequences. The transfer regulation, the personnel transfer decision, the contract chain and the place of duty in the year of use must be examined together. For work done for more than one independent employer in the same calendar year, each employer's own controlled-area records and leave obligation must be established separately.

How does radiation health leave work in private hospital and medical centre employment?

Staff working under an employment contract in a private hospital, medical centre, dental health centre or imaging facility are subject to the 2023 Regulation for the purpose of acquiring the right to pay. A worker acquires the right not because of their professional title but because of work in a controlled area involving ionizing radiation.

While the employment relationship continues:

• the health leave to which the worker is entitled should be requested in writing;
• a statement of actual working hours should be requested;
• objection should be made to any offer to replace leave with money, or to records that state "leave taken" contrary to the facts;
• written and digital evidence should be preserved if the worker was required to work on days recorded as leave.

When the employment contract ends, the following are examined separately:

• the actual date of termination;
• the earlier and later legislative periods;
• the days earned and the days used;
• the last actual pay;
• the scope of mediation;
• five-year limitation and default.

This page explains the distinction between status and legal route, not the detailed calculation of pay.

Does a physician's service contract or payment through a company remove worker status?

No, not on its own. The title "service procurement" in the contract, a physician setting up a limited company, or issuing a self-employment receipt or an invoice is only evidence. The court itself determines the nature of the factual relationship.

Criteria pointing to an employment contract

• working days and hours set by the hospital;
• leave and on-call duty subject to hospital approval;
• the hospital's power of command, supervision and discipline;
• the physician's continuous integration into the hospital's organization;
• personal provision of labour, with no free right to send another person in their place;
• guaranteed or fixed pay combined with a performance payment calculated by the hospital;
• patient admission, pricing, collection and the SGK relationship managed by the hospital;
• the absence of any significant independent undertaking or economic risk.

Criteria pointing to independent professional or commercial relationship

• the physician independently determines when and how work is performed;
• the physician has their own patient portfolio and undertaking organization;
• the physician may provide services freely to more than one institution;
• the physician can negotiate price or service conditions;
• the physician bears business expenses and the risk of gain or loss;
• there is no hierarchical instruction or disciplinary relationship.

In its decision of June 4, 2026, reference E.2026/472, K.2026/1078, the 24th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal (İstanbul BAM 24. HD) held that a physician whose working hours and leave were set by the hospital, and who worked under instruction and direction, was a worker, despite the company and receipt structure. The decision is a final regional court ruling based on specific evidence; it does not automatically convert all invoiced physician relationships into employment contracts.

If the real relationship is shown to be an employment contract, claims for radiation leave, the 35-hour limit, pay and job security may be dealt with under labour law. If there is a genuinely independent service relationship, the dispute may go to the civil or commercial court depending on the nature of the contract and the parties; the approach specific to workers' radiation leave pay does not apply automatically.

Which administrative authority should a civil servant apply to for health leave, and how?

The application must be addressed to the institution authorized to carry out the act. In practice this may be the chief physician's office, the hospital management, the university rectorate or personnel department, the provincial health directorate or a Ministry authority. The signing powers of the institution and the legal person to which the staff member belongs must be checked.

Minimum information the application should contain

• the staff member's name, title, status and register or post information;
• the unit worked in and the controlled area;
• the ionizing device or radionuclide used;
• the actual working hours in the relevant calendar year;
• a request that dosimeter and shift records be extracted from the institution;
• the basis in Article 103 of Law No. 657, the provisions for contracted staff and the 2023 Regulation;
• the leave period and number of days requested;
• a written, reasoned request capable of being notified.

Example subject of application:

A request that my actual work in controlled areas where ionizing radiation sources were used in the [year] calendar year, including mobile device work, be determined from the institution's records; and that my entitlement to health leave under Article 103 of Law No. 657 / the contracted staff provisions relating to my status and the Regulation of April 13, 2023 be calculated in writing and notified to me in a leave plan.

Express refusal, implied refusal and application to a higher authority

Under Article 10 of the İYUK, the person concerned may apply to the administration for an act that may be the subject of an administrative action to be carried out. If no answer is given within thirty days, the request is deemed refused; the general time limit for suit then begins to run from that date.

If an existing refusal or incomplete leave decision exists, under Article 11 of the İYUK the removal, withdrawal, amendment or replacement of the act may be requested from the superior authority, or, if there is none, from the authority that made the act, within the time limit for suit. This application suspends the time limit that has begun to run; if there is no answer within thirty days, the refusal arises and the remaining time begins to run again, taking into account the days elapsed before the application.

Time calculation is file-based: Writing "objection" in a petition does not by itself protect the time limit. It must be established whether the application is under Article 10 or Article 11, whether an existing final act exists and what the date of notification is.

Do a CİMER application, an Ombudsman application, a union letter or an internal petition stop the time limit for suit?

What decides the matter is not the name or electronic channel of the application, but its legal content, addressee and date.

Practical rule: On the day an express refusal letter is notified, a calendar showing the remaining time should be prepared; it must not be assumed that the administrative time limit for suit is suspended by a CİMER application, an Ombudsman application or a union meeting.

In which court, within what time limit and against whom does a civil servant bring an action?

Annulment action

The annulment of a final and enforceable administrative act is sought, where a refusal, incorrect calculation or unlawful failure to grant leave has been made. In the administrative courts, the general time limit for bringing an action, where no other time limit is set by a special law, is sixty days from the day after written notice.

Full remedy action

Where an administrative act or conduct has caused personal loss, a full remedy action may arise, subject to its conditions. Article 12 of the İYUK allows annulment and full remedy to be brought together or in sequence in respect of an act that infringes a right. The one-year and five-year application periods in Articles 13 of the İYUK apply specifically to losses arising from administrative conduct; they do not mean an automatic "five years" for each leave refusal.

A civil servant's claim for past health leave to be paid by reference to "multiplying the last monthly salary by the leave days" implies importing the worker's pay case law and does not on its own provide an adequate legal basis. First, it must be established in which period the request to take the leave in kind was refused, whether the act was challenged in time, what concrete and causal loss arose when the leave year passed, and whether the special personnel legislation provides a monetary equivalent. Each of the routes of annulment, full remedy and loss from administrative conduct has a different time limit and object of claim.

Competent court

For claims concerning the personal and monetary rights of civil servants, under Article 33 of the İYUK the administrative court of the place where the staff member works is, as a rule, competent. The special law and the nature of the act must also be checked.

Stay of execution

Where the period of leave is passing and will cause loss that is difficult to remedy, a stay of execution may be requested. For this, it must be shown together that the administrative act is manifestly unlawful and that its implementation would cause loss that is difficult or impossible to remedy. The request is not accepted automatically.

Which route does a worker follow for radiation leave pay?

For a worker, while the employment relationship continues, the principal aim is the actual use of the leave. If the employment contract has ended and a monetary claim is said to have arisen, the mediation as a condition precedent to suit must first be applied to under Law No. 7036 on Labour Courts.

In the mediation application the claim may be expressly described as follows:

Collection, with the periods of work stated separately, of the radiation (health) leave entitlement earned for work actually done in controlled areas where ionizing radiation sources and/or radionuclides are used, which was not taken during the employment relationship and which is said to have become a claim for pay on termination, based on the last actual pay and the statutory accessories.

If no agreement is reached, an action is brought in the labour court. Where there is no labour court, the civil court of first instance sits as a labour court. Jurisdiction is determined by the rules on the defendant's place of residence and the place where the work was carried out.

Period warning: The periods before June 25, 2021 (the old fixed four-week regime), the 2022 transitional arrangement and the EK-2 regime after April 13, 2023 must not be combined into a total day count without being separated.

What happens if the wrong judicial branch or time limit is chosen?

An error of jurisdiction or time limit is not merely a loss of time. It may lead to dismissal on procedural grounds without a decision on the merits, to a lack of condition precedent, to limitation, or to the loss of the administrative time limit for suit.

Article 9 of the İYUK allows, where an action within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts has been filed in the judicial courts and rejected for lack of jurisdiction, an action to be filed in the competent administrative court within thirty days from the day after the decision becomes final, and preserves the date of the first application. This provision is not a general rule that "every error is forgiven"; the conditions of finality and the thirty-day period must be followed with care.

Which documents should be gathered to establish status and entitlement?

Status documents

• [ ] Appointment decision, post or position document, Article 4/B or Law No. 4924 contract
• [ ] Employment contract, additional protocols and physician service contract
• [ ] Information on Article 4/D or permanent worker post
• [ ] SGK service record and workplace titles
• [ ] Payroll, bank payments, invoices and self-employment receipts
• [ ] Subcontractor tender and service procurement contracts
• [ ] Persons giving approval on the leave form and the shift list

Documents showing the material conditions of the right to radiation leave

• [ ] Job description and unit assignments
• [ ] Controlled-area plans and radiation safety committee records
• [ ] Nuclear Regulatory Authority licence and device records
• [ ] Personal dosimeter reports
• [ ] Shift, on-call duty, time-keeping and card access records
• [ ] HBYS, PACS/RIS, Medula and device console logs
• [ ] Mobile fluoroscopy and X-ray case records
• [ ] Leave requests, refusal letters and notification documents
• [ ] Leave forms and actual operational records for the same dates

Additional documents for the physician's working status

• [ ] Correspondence regulating working hours, on-call duty and leave
• [ ] The hospital's instruction and direction and performance systems
• [ ] Guaranteed pay and turnover share calculations
• [ ] Who admitted the patient and who collected the fee
• [ ] The company's actual organization, its other clients and its economic risk
• [ ] Records of work at other institutions and of exclusivity

Patient data in systems should not be downloaded indiscriminately. Special categories of data such as patient name, identity number and diagnosis should be masked as far as possible; only the type of procedure, date, time and user identity should remain visible, and complete records should be requested through the court or the competent administrative authority.

Does the method of collecting evidence differ between administrative and judicial courts?

Yes. Although the material fact to be proved is the same, the court's method of collecting and examining the file changes:

The court's power of ex officio investigation does not remove the civil servant's duty to present the documents in their possession and to explain which records will prove which fact. Where the employer's or administration's records conflict with each other, raw data, audit trails, user authorization tables and record retention policies should also be requested.

What happens if the leave form and the automated record conflict?

The leave form is an important piece of evidence, but if actual work took place contrary to it, it is not decisive on its own. In its decision E.2021/12186, K.2022/528, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi) accepted that, where the hospital automation shows actual work on days the employer claimed the worker took leave, those days cannot be offset.

In making the assessment, the following must be examined together:

• whether the user account is personal to the individual;
• the possibility of a shared password or remote approval;
• the DICOM processing and device console times;
• shifts and card access;
• the masking of patients' personal data;
• whether the entry shows the whole shift or only a particular moment.

A single log record does not always prove a full day of work; a dosimeter reading of "0" does not always prove that no work was done in a controlled area.

For mobile fluoroscopy and C-arm X-ray devices used in operating theatres or in the field, the procedure may not always appear under the employee's name on the fixed PACS screen. In such cases the operating theatre case book, the raw device console and modality worklist logs, the DICOM time information, the anaesthesia monitoring form, the surgical team record, the unit's on-call roster and turnstile data should be examined together. The absence of a name in PACS does not in itself show that no actual work was done with a mobile device.

What limits do current court decisions show?

Rule for reading decisions: Alongside the outcome of a decision, record the working period, the status of the staff member, the type of claim, the reason for reversal and the position in relation to subsequent case law. A worker decision under the old regime is not a direct answer to a current dispute about a public staff member.

Which route applies to five different people in the same hospital?

How should a firm legal assessment be structured in these files?

Güneş & Güneş Law Firm's own legal approach to radiation files does not begin with the question "how many days and how much money?" Four separate layers are first established:

1. Status: the appointment, the contract, the actual dependence and the structure of the employer are determined.
2. Material right: the ionizing source, the controlled area, the actual hours and the period of work are established.
3. Evidence: it is separated which facts the official personnel documents and the hospital's digital records prove.
4. Legal route: an in-kind leave claim, an administrative annulment or full remedy claim, or a worker's pay claim and mediation are selected.

This method particularly reduces the risk of the wrong jurisdiction and time limit in files involving city hospitals, university hospitals, subcontracting chains and physician files paid through a company or invoices. Instead of a single label on an invoice, a payslip or an institutional card, the whole relationship is assessed.

What legal work does Güneş & Güneş Law Firm carry out in these files?

Depending on the nature of the file, the following legal work may be offered:

• documented preliminary analysis of the status as contracted under Article 4/A, Article 4/B, Law No. 4924, Article 4/D, subcontracted or independent service provider;
• a legal map of the evidence of controlled areas, devices and actual working records;
• an assessment of the concrete hierarchy of norms between Article 103 of Law No. 657 and the 2023 Regulation;
• for public staff, an institutional application, a timetable for Article 10 and 11 İYUK time limits and preparation of the administrative action;
• for workers, mediation, identification of the party and the litigation position, and analysis of period-based leave and claims arising on termination;
• identification of the real employer and the responsible public legal entity in city and university hospitals;
• an assessment of the physician's service contract, company and invoice and actual dependence;
• an application for the preservation of HBYS, PACS/RIS, Medula, device logs and mobile fluoroscopy records;
• review of expert reports, pay, actual hours and the offsetting of leave;
• coordination of documents and strategy between administrative and judicial proceedings.

Güneş & Güneş Law Firm has provided legal services from Antalya since 1999 in labour law, administrative law and disputes linked to the health sector across Türkiye. No result is guaranteed in any file; the competent authority, the time limit, the evidence and the legal risk are assessed on the basis of concrete documents.

Frequently asked questions

I work in a public hospital; am I automatically a civil servant?

No. You may be a civil servant under Article 4/A of Law No. 657, a contracted staff member under Article 4/B or Law No. 4924, a public worker under Article 4/D, or an employee of a service company. The appointment or contract document and the real employer must be checked. The 5510 Article 4(1)(a) record in the social security system and civil servant status under Article 4/A of Law No. 657 are not the same concept.

Does a contracted staff member under Article 4/B go to the labour court?

As a rule, no. A staff member under Article 4/B of Law No. 657 is a public official who is expressly not a worker. Leave decisions go through an administrative application and the administrative court. Special law and the real nature of the relationship are also examined separately.

Is the status of contracted health staff under Law No. 4924 the same as Article 4/B?

No. Although both may be public staff who are not workers, Law No. 4924 establishes its own regime for employment, contract, termination and financial rights. Article 5 of Law No. 4924 refers to Law No. 657 for leave. A route should not be chosen as "4/B" or as the worker's route without seeing the basis of the contract.

Is a public worker under Article 4/D treated in the same administrative way as a civil servant?

No. A worker under Article 4/D is subject to an employment contract and falls outside the provisions of Law No. 657. For a monetary worker's claim, mediation as a condition precedent to suit and the labour court route are followed.

Does a civil servant always take 30 days of health leave?

Article 103 of Law No. 657 provides for one month of health leave. However, the 2023 Regulation in force applies a 1–30 day table according to actual hours in the controlled area. The Council of State majority in 2025 found the table lawful; the dissent argued that the statutory right has been narrowed. The concrete act and the outcome of the current legal remedy must be checked.

Is health leave that a civil servant has not used paid automatically on retirement or departure?

It cannot be said that it automatically becomes a worker's pay claim. In status law, the explicit legal basis, the refusal decision, the time limit for application and the concrete loss are examined. Written requests during the leave period and timely administrative action are important to prevent loss of the right.

Is the company staff member in a city hospital a civil servant?

As a rule, a person who has an employment contract with the company is a private law worker. However, Ministry staff may also be in the same facility. A definitive classification cannot be made without seeing the SGK workplace, the contract, the payroll and the approving authority on the leave form.

What is the route for a university hospital doctor?

If the doctor is a faculty member or a civil servant of a state university, administrative jurisdiction arises. For academic staff of a foundation university, recent Court of Jurisdictional Disputes decisions show a strong line favouring administrative jurisdiction; by contrast, non-academic staff or a worker of a separate hospital company may, as a rule, be in ordinary courts. No definitive route can be stated without determining the status, the source of the claim and the real employer.

Does a physician who issues invoices through their own company lose the right to radiation leave?

Not on its own. Working hours, leave, instructions, dependence on the hospital's organization and economic risk are examined. If there is in fact an employment contract, worker rights may apply; if the service is genuinely independent, the special worker's pay regime does not apply.

Does applying to mediation after an administrative refusal letter stop the time limit for suit?

No. Mediation in labour disputes is not the application under Article 11 of the İYUK that stops the administrative time limit for suit. The application must be made to the competent administrative authority within the time limit and with the correct content.

Does an application to the Ombudsman Institution stop the time limit for suit?

If the conditions of Law No. 6328 are met, an application to the Ombudsman Institution made within the time limit for suit stops the time limit that has begun to run. However, the rule that ordinary administrative application routes should be exhausted first, the six-month application period to the Ombudsman, and the remaining period after Article 21 of the Law must be read together. A CİMER application, by its channel name alone, does not have the same effect.

When does the time limit start if the administration does not respond?

If the administration does not respond within thirty days to a request for an act under Article 10 of the İYUK, the request is deemed refused. The general time limit for suit begins to run from the date on which that thirty-day period ends. The concrete application must first be placed under Article 10 or Article 11.

What if I file the case in the wrong court?

Not always, but the risk is serious. Where an action within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts is filed in the judicial courts and rejected for lack of jurisdiction, Article 9 of the İYUK may allow an action within thirty days from the day after finality, preserving the first application date. This deadline must not be missed.

If my dosimeter reading is zero, do I have no right to leave?

That conclusion cannot be drawn on this alone. Under the current regime, actual work in the controlled area is the principle. The dosimeter is evaluated together with the area record, the device log, the shift and the assignment.

Does an MRI worker receive radiation health leave?

Because MRI work alone does not involve ionizing radiation, it does not, as a rule, give rise to health leave. The actual period of work in X-ray, CT, fluoroscopy, nuclear medicine or other ionizing procedures by the same worker is calculated separately.

Conclusion

In radiation health leave the correct legal question is not only "public or private?" The real questions are these: with what status, in whose name, with which device and in which controlled area, for how many hours was work actually done; by which act was the leave refused, and in which legal route, within what time, how much time remains?

Civil servants under Article 4/A of Law No. 657, contracted staff under Article 4/B and contracted public staff under Law No. 4924 are, as a rule, in the administrative application and administrative court route. Public workers under Article 4/D, subcontracted workers and private hospital workers are under labour law; where there is a claim for pay, mediation and the labour court come first. University and city hospitals have mixed staff structures, and the name of the institution alone does not determine status. The jurisdiction of academic staff of foundation universities must be examined in the light of the current Court of Jurisdictional Disputes decisions; the status of a physician who works through a company or invoices must be resolved not by the title of the contract but by factual dependence and the economic organization.

In the debate between the one-month period in Article 103 of Law No. 657 and the 1–30 day table in the 2023 Regulation, the Regulation is in force and the Council of State majority rejected the request for annulment on May 27, 2025. The contrary dissenting view that statutory rights cannot be reduced by regulation continues. For this reason, a civil servant should request the leave in kind on time and should not allow the administrative time limit to pass after an express or implied refusal.

Final legal principle: If the status is wrongly determined, the right is claimed in the wrong authority and within the wrong time. The first calculation in a radiation file is not the leave day; it is the calculation of working status and legal route.

Confidentiality and legal information

Working, health and hospital records shared with Güneş & Güneş Law Firm are assessed within the framework of attorney professional secrecy, the duty of confidentiality and the legislation on the protection of personal data. Patient data should not be sent through insecure channels; information beyond the minimum areas needed for legal assessment should be masked.

This article is intended for general legal information. Without seeing the status of the staff member, the working period, the employer legal entity, the internal authority of the institution, the date of notification, and the device and actual work records, no legal opinion or guarantee of outcome can be given.

Official, judicial and academic sources

Legislation and official practice

• Civil Servants Law No. 657 — current consolidated text
• Ministry of Justice page showing the text of Article 103 of Law No. 657
• Law No. 3153 — Ministry of Health
• Regulation on Health Services Provided Using Ionizing Radiation and Radionuclides, dated April 13, 2023
• Principles on the Employment of Contracted Staff — Ministry of Justice UYAP Legislation
• Law No. 4924 — current consolidated text
• Regulation on the Appointment and Transfer of Contracted Health Staff — Ministry of Health
• Law No. 6328 on the Ombudsman Institution — Legislation Information System
• Presidential Decision No. 5530 of April 26, 2022 and Regulation — Official Gazette
• Presidential Decision No. 4144 of June 25, 2021 — Official Gazette
• Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 — current consolidated text
• Labour Courts Law No. 7036 — Ministry of Justice
• Labour Law No. 4857 — Ministry of Justice
• Higher Education Law No. 2547 — Ministry of Justice
• Bursa City Hospital Public–Private Partnership Coordination Unit

Court decisions

• Council of State, 12th Chamber, E.2023/3210, K.2025/2743, May 27, 2025
• Council of State, Plenary Assembly of Administrative Litigation Chambers, E.2023/670, K.2023/2924, November 30, 2023 — published decision text
• Constitutional Court, E.2010/29, K.2010/90, July 16, 2010
• Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, E.2025/709, K.2026/15, January 12, 2026
• Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, E.2025/506, K.2025/597, October 13, 2025
• Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, E.2025/607, K.2025/691, November 24, 2025
• Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal 24th Civil Chamber, E.2026/472, K.2026/1078, June 4, 2026
• Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2021/12186, K.2022/528, January 18, 2022
• Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2025/4838, K.2025/8455, November 4, 2025
• Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2025/6453, K.2025/8185, October 22, 2025
• Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2025/6454, K.2025/8186, October 22, 2025
• Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2025/6602, K.2025/8187, October 22, 2025
• Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2025/7227, K.2025/8188, October 22, 2025
• Istanbul 14th Administrative Court, March 31, 2021 — decision published on a professional organization's page

Academic sources

• Miraç Şamil Pekşen, "İş Hukuku Boyutuyla Şua İzni" (Radiation Leave from the Perspective of Labour Law), Çalışma ve Toplum, 2025/4, No. 87, pp. 1913–1942. DOI and article page.
• Samet Can Olgaç, "İş Hukukunda Şua İzin Alacağı Üzerine Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Genel Bir Değerlendirme" (A General Assessment of Radiation Leave Pay Claims in Labour Law in Light of Court of Cassation Decisions), Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, 2015/117, pp. 333–358. The work should be used for the earlier legislative period.
• Tahir Baysal, "4/B Sözleşmeli Personel Disiplin İşlemlerinin Mevzuat Açısından Değerlendirilmesi" (Assessment of Disciplinary Proceedings for Article 4/B Contracted Staff from the Legislative Perspective), Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 32/1, 2022, pp. 239–250. DOI access.
• "Öğretim Elemanlarının Yıllık İzin Kullanımına İlişkin Değerlendirmeler" (Assessments on the Use of Annual Leave by Teaching Staff), Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2025. DergiPark page. A supporting source for understanding the place of Article 64 of Law No. 2547 in the leave system, not for health leave itself.
• "Vakıf Üniversitesi Akademik Personel Uyuşmazlıklarında Görevli Yargı Yeri" (Competent Jurisdiction in Disputes Involving Foundation University Academic Staff), Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi, 2026. DergiPark page. A supporting source on the current development of the judicial-administrative split for academic staff.

---