How to File a Radiation Health Leave (Şua İzni) Pay Claim: Mediation, Evidence and Required Documents

What is a şua izni pay claim?

Şua izni, under the current legislation called health leave (sağlık izni), is an additional protective rest right, on top of annual leave, for certain personnel who work with ionising radiation sources or radionuclides in health institutions. Under the Regulation of April 13, 2023, the scope of the right is assessed by reference to the job title, the ionising source, the controlled area and the actual working time in a calendar year.

While the employment contract continues, what matters is that the leave is granted. A monetary claim arises, in established Court of Cassation practice, when unused leave is converted into pay upon termination of the employment contract. The type of termination — resignation, termination by the employer or termination by agreement — is not alone decisive for the creation of the claim; however, the actual termination date, the release, payment and the reinstatement process are also examined separately.

Because the 2023 Regulation operates on a system under which "leave is used in the following calendar year and is non-transferable", the supreme court practice on converting the claim for the new period into money upon termination is not yet settled. For this reason, decisions under the former regime should not be applied automatically to the new period; for each calendar year, the acquisition of the right, the employer's failure to grant the leave and the termination must be assessed together.

Which five questions must be answered before filing?

If any of these questions is left unanswered, the correct course is to build a document and record map first, rather than drafting the petition directly.

Who may bring a şua izni claim before the labour court?

The main subject of this guide is private-sector employees subject to the Labour Law No. 4857, and persons working in public institutions as 4/D workers or as subcontractor employees. Status is not determined solely by whether the institution is public or private.

Why is a separate route needed for public officials?

Article 103 of Law No. 657 provides for health leave, additional to annual leave, for personnel working with radioactive rays in the course of their service. A rejection of a civil servant's leave request is an administrative act; mediation as a condition precedent for worker claims is not the route for this dispute. Under Articles 7, 10, 11 and 12 of the İYUK, the application, express or implied rejection, the action for annulment or full remedy and, in general, the sixty-day action period must be calculated separately according to the type of act.

After July 31, 2026, actions against leave decisions concerning public officials have been placed among the groups of cases to be heard by a single judge under Article 7 of Law No. 2576. This provision does not change the competent jurisdiction; it concerns the composition of the adjudicating panel.

Time limit warning: The formula "five years from termination of the employment contract" should not be used for public officials. Administrative application and action periods may be much shorter.

Is mediation mandatory for a şua izni claim?

Under Article 3 of the Labour Courts Law No. 7036, applying for mediation is a condition precedent to actions concerning claims and compensation arising from the employment relationship. Since the şua leave pay is a monetary claim arising from the employment relationship, an employee with worker status must first apply for mediation.

The application is made:

• to the mediation office in the place of residence of the opposing party, or of one of them where there are several opposing parties, or
• to the mediation office at the place where the work was performed

Where there is no mediation office, the application is made to the registry office of the court designated for that purpose. According to the official statement of the Ministry of Justice, the application is processed through the mediation offices at the courthouses.

The mediator concludes the process within three weeks from the date of assignment; where necessary, this period may be extended by at most one week. From the date of the application until the final minutes, limitation is suspended.

How should the request be named in a mediation application?

Writing only "all my labour claims" or "leave claim" may lead to a dispute over the subject-matter of the claim and the period in the subsequent action. The legal name of the claim, its factual basis, the period of work and the liable parties should be stated clearly.

Sample application statement:

A claim for the recovery of health (şua) leave pay, earned through actual work in controlled areas using ionising radiation sources and/or radionuclides or with mobile X-ray/fluoroscopy devices, not granted during the continuation of the employment relationship and alleged to have been converted into pay upon termination, together with statutory interest and ancillary rights calculated on the last actual wage at the date of termination. Claim period: [start–end].

This text must be adapted to the concrete file. Where the employee claims only the old period, only the post-2023 period or a mixed period, the date ranges must be separated. If overtime work, premiums or annual leave are also to be claimed, each head of claim must be stated separately.

Who should be named as opposing party in mediation?

The direct employer, the employer at the date of termination, previous subcontractors and the principal employer's liability must each be identified separately. Where, in the same public hospital, subcontracting companies have changed and work has continued without interruption:

• service procurement contracts,
• tender technical specifications,
• transfer of the undertaking and SGK entry and exit records,
• the work period of each company,
• the status of the public legal person as principal employer

must be examined before the list of parties is prepared.

Where a principal employer–subcontractor relationship exists within the meaning of Article 2 of the Labour Law, the relevant public employer and the subcontractor may be jointly liable within the scope of the law. However, the name "Ministry of Health" should not be automatically inserted in every file. Where there is a university hospital, an affiliated body, a city hospital operating model or a separate public legal personality, the correct legal person must be identified.

Where possible, every defendant to be sued in the subsequent action should also be named as an opposing party in the mediation file; this prevents a dispute over the condition precedent.

Which parties and liability must be identified where public hospitals change subcontractors?

Where the subcontractors providing imaging services in public hospitals change at the end of tender periods, and the employee continues to work at the same workplace without interruption, this alone does not mean that a genuine termination has occurred or that all labour rights have become due. It is not sufficient to rely on the SGK entry and exit notices; it must be investigated whether the work, the workplace, the organization of work and the personnel have continued, whether the relationship between the subcontractors constitutes a transfer of the undertaking or another legal succession, and whether there was any factual interruption.

When determining the parties to mediation and the action, a separate party–period–liability matrix must be prepared for each tender period. Depending on the concrete contract and working model, the claim may be directed at:

• the relevant public legal person in the position of principal employer, if the conditions of Article 2 of the Labour Law are met,
• the last subcontractor at the date of termination,
• previous subcontractors whose liability continues from their own working period or from a transfer of the undertaking.

This list does not apply automatically in every file. Instead of the "Ministry of Health", a university, an affiliated body, a provincial special administration, the operator of a city hospital or another legal person may need to be a party. Establishing the defendants without examining the tender contracts, technical specifications, payroll/personnel lists, SGK workplace registers and the facts of any transfer of the undertaking is not correct.

Where a previous or last subcontractor against which a claim is to be directed was not included at all in the mediation process, an objection concerning the condition precedent may arise as regards that defendant. Excluding a previous company from mediation does not in itself create an absence of the condition precedent where no action is brought against that company; however, it may narrow the ability to pursue a responsible employer and recover, and may require that a subsequent application against that person be completed within the limitation period. For this reason, in the mediation form the parties should be identified not only by their trade name but separately by their MERSIS/tax number and their period of responsibility.

Why is a general release clause in a mediation settlement risky?

Even where the parties have agreed only on severance or notice pay, placing a general statement such as "the employee has no further labour claims" in the settlement document may make the şua claim also disputed. Where the şua pay claim is to be left outside the scope of the settlement, this should be stated expressly:

The health/şua leave pay claim, together with the interest and procedural rights attached to it, is excluded from the scope of this agreement.

If a settlement is reached, the type of claim, the period, the gross/net nature, the amount, the interest, the payment date and the claims excluded from the scope must each be shown separately.

Must the action be filed within two weeks after the last minutes?

There is no general two-week period for filing an action for the şua leave pay claim. That special period is provided in relation to a reinstatement claim. For the şua pay claim, the limitation period that was suspended upon the final minutes resumes running from where it stopped. Nevertheless, leaving filing to the last day increases the risk of error in time limits and service.

Which court has jurisdiction, subject-matter and territorial?

Subject-matter jurisdiction

For a şua leave pay claim arising from the employment contract, the court with subject-matter jurisdiction is the labour court. Where there is no separate labour court, the action is heard by the civil court of first instance acting as a labour court.

Territorial jurisdiction

Under Article 6 of Law No. 7036, the following are competent, at the claimant's election:

• the court of the place of residence of the defendant, natural or legal person, at the date of filing, or
• the court of the place where the work or the act was performed

Where there are several defendants, the court of the place of residence of one of them may also have jurisdiction. Jurisdiction agreements contrary to these rules are void.

For example, where an employee actually worked at a hospital in Antalya while the company's headquarters were in Istanbul, an elective jurisdiction may arise between the Antalya labour court and the court of the place where the defendant's headquarters are located, according to the concrete parties and workplace records.

What preconditions must be checked before filing?

In a şua leave pay action, the following conditions must be checked together:

1. A working relationship in worker status must exist.
2. The legislation applicable to the period claimed must be separated.
3. The actual work of the employee with an ionising radiation source/radionuclide, in a controlled area or with mobile devices covered by the Regulation, must be established.
4. It must be determined whether the health leave earned was in fact not granted, or whether the employee actually worked on days shown as leave.
5. For a monetary claim, the employment contract must in principle have ended.
6. The five-year limitation period and any suspension or interruption events must be calculated specifically for the file.
7. Mediation as a condition precedent must be completed and the final minutes attached to the petition.

Where the employment contract continues, the employee's priority claim is the granting of the leave. It must be remembered that filing a pay action during employment may give rise to a problem of acceleration of the debt; in response, the leave request, assessment, occupational health and safety applications or other protective routes may be evaluated separately according to the concrete situation.

How is the type of action chosen after July 31, 2026?

Can an action for an indeterminate claim still be brought?

No. Under Article 19 of Law No. 7589, Article 107 of the HMK was repealed with effect from July 31, 2026. New actions brought after that date cannot be framed as an "action for an indeterminate claim".

In the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, E.2015/22-3406, K.2019/558, the şua claim was regarded as indeterminate under former Article 107 of the HMK where the records were in the employer's hands. The decision retains its importance for files brought before July 31, 2026 that are subject to former Article 107 under the transitional provision; it does not revive the repealed type of action for a new action.

When is a full action for performance appropriate?

Where the working periods, leave days, actual hours and the last wage can be determined from reliable documents, an action for performance (tam eda davası) may be brought, showing the whole of the claim. An incorrect or unfounded high claim may create the risk of litigation costs and attorney fee awards on the rejected part.

When may a partial action be considered?

Where the HBYS/PACS records, leave schedules or the actual wage data are in the employer's hands and the total claim cannot be fully calculated at the date of the action, part of the claim may be brought under Article 109 of the HMK. Under Article 109(4), which entered into force on July 31, 2026, the claim is not subject to the prohibition on extending the claim, provided it is extended once in the same action and until the close of the investigation. For the part to be extended, the limitation is deemed interrupted at the date of the action.

This innovation has the following consequences:

• the petition must expressly state that the action is partial;
• the legal relationship at issue and the claim period must be fully defined;
• the initial amount must be set in such a way that its legal interest is not disputed;
• since the right to extend can be used only once, a hasty extension should be avoided before all records and the expert report have been seen;
• the new Article 109(4) regulates limitation; it should not be assumed that it automatically moves the starting point of interest to the date of the action. Pre-action default must be established separately for the whole debt.

How should the claim in the petition be framed?

The claim in the petition must contain at least the following elements:

• the gross claim amount,
• whether the action is partial or for the full amount,
• the claim period,
• the clear name of the şua/health leave pay,
• the statutory interest claimed from the date of default or of the mediation/action date,
• the defendants and the form of their liability,
• the request that the pay be determined on the basis of the last actual wage,
• the taking into account of tax and statutory deductions at the payment stage.

Partial claim example:

Reserving our rights to the excess, and for extension once only, until the end of the investigation, under Article 109(4) of the HMK, we request that a decision be given ordering the defendants, each within the scope of their liability, to pay [amount] TL gross of health/şua leave pay for the present, together with statutory interest running from [default date].

This wording is not a ready-made petition; it must be adapted to the party, period, interest and procedural position of the concrete file.

How is the burden of proof distributed in a şua leave action?

Under Article 190 of the HMK, the party who derives a right in its favour from a legal consequence tied to a fact generally proves that fact. However, because of information asymmetry, the employer's duty to keep records and the nature of leave use, not every issue falls on the same party.

The burden of proof and the actual possession of the evidence are not the same thing. Where the employee has sufficiently specified the fact, the court may order the production of records held by the employer or a third-party institution.

Is the leave form and the leave register alone sufficient?

A signed leave form is an important piece of evidence; however, no definitive conclusion should be drawn without examining the following five elements:

1. whether the form really concerns health/şua leave or annual leave;
2. whether the start and end dates and the total number of days are clearly written;
3. the authenticity of the signature and the date of drafting;
4. how the wage and the work organisation proceeded on those dates;
5. whether there is any processing, reporting or approval record in the digital systems on the same days.

In its decision E.2021/12186, K.2022/528, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi) examined a case in which the employer relied on leave forms for two periods. The Chamber requested that the automation system be examined on site to determine whether there was work during those periods, and that if work was established, the case be decided without deducting "the working days in question from the şua leave claim" (18.01.2022, decision p. 4).

In decision E.2024/8203, K.2024/11882, it was established that the hospital automation system showed actual work on the dates stated in the leave documents; the record-based acceptance decision was found by the Court of Cassation to be procedurally and legally correct.

Conclusion: A form may show that leave was planned or signed. Where reliable procedural records refute the actual rest, a set-off cannot be made solely on the basis of the form.

Do dosimeter records prove anything?

Personal dosimeter results may support the following:

• that the employee was included in a radiation safety programme,
• that measurements were made in certain periods,
• the level and continuity of exposure.

However, a zero or low dose result does not by itself show that the person did not work. Non-use of the dosimeter, its handing over to another person, the technical characteristics of the device, protective equipment, the measurement period and the integrity of the records must be examined separately.

For the post-2023 leave calculation, the central question is not only the measured dose, but the actual working time in the controlled area where ionising sources are used. Where the dose limit is exceeded, the Regulation separately brings into play an immediate health-leave mechanism; this is a protective layer distinct from the annual EK-2 leave.

How are controlled area and device records collected?

The fact that an employee is assigned to the "radiology department" is not by itself sufficient. The following records should be sought in the case file, historically:

• NDK permit/licence or authorisation documents,
• the brand, model, serial number and technical class of the device,
• whether the device produces ionising radiation,
• classification plans of controlled/supervised areas,
• shielding and conformity reports,
• the radiation protection programme,
• decisions of the radiation safety committee,
• personal dosimeter lists and reading reports,
• device maintenance, calibration and use records,
• audit/licence records of the Provincial Directorate of Health or the Ministry of Health.

MRI and ultrasound do not produce ionising radiation. On the other hand, X-ray, CT, mammography, angiography, fluoroscopy, mobile X-ray/fluoroscopy and nuclear medicine applications require different technical assessments. Where the same employee has worked in mixed fashion on different devices, the system should not be examined only through a single device.

What do HBYS, PACS, RIS and Medula records prove?

Hospital information records are not a single database. The petition and the expert examination should be structured according to the technical function of each system.

Special proof protocol for operating theatres and mobile fluoroscopy/X-ray work

Work with mobile fluoroscopy, C-arm fluoroscopy or mobile X-ray devices used in operating theatres may not always be fully recorded under the working employee in the central HBYS/PACS system, unlike procedures in a fixed radiology unit. The procedure may have been recorded under the surgeon, the operating theatre or a shared device account, and the images may have been kept in the device's local memory or transferred only to the case file. For this reason, the absence of a record in the fixed PACS under the employee's name does not by itself prove that no work with an ionising source was carried out in the operating theatre.

Mobile device work should be investigated by matching the following records together and by the same case, device, date and time:

• the operating theatre case/operation register and the list of operations in which fluoroscopy was used,
• the operation report, the anaesthesia monitoring form and the records of the surgical team/case participation,
• the mobile device console, modality worklist, DICOM header information, exposure/shot count, session and user logs,
• the device's local memory, service and maintenance history, dose–area product or similar exposure records generated by the device,
• operating theatre duty rosters, shift schedules, assignments and call lists,
• turnstile/card access, controlled area access, personal dosimeter issue and reading records,
• radiation safety committee decisions and records on the use of mobile devices and protective equipment.

The presence of a "fluoroscopy used" entry in the case register proves the procedure, but does not always prove alone which technician operated the device. For this reason, staff assignment, device session, operating theatre team and entry/exit records must be cross-checked. In the expert examination, reliance should not be placed on the fixed PACS alone; the local data structure of the mobile device, the log retention period, any shared user application, and whether there are images not transferred to the central system should also be investigated.

How should the hour of first patient admission and last procedure be interpreted?

The period between the first patient admission and the last procedure is a useful time interval; however, it is not automatically the whole working time. Preparation, device checks, reporting, patient waiting, emergency calls, rest breaks and procedures in different systems must be separately assessed.

To prove work on a single day shown as leave, several reliable procedure records for that day may be sufficiently strong. By contrast, to determine the annual actual working hours for the purposes of EK-2, a more detailed analysis of the shift and device records of the whole year is required.

How does the Court of Cassation decision E.2021/12186 change the litigation strategy?

In that decision, the defendant hospital submitted only ultrasound records; the claimant reported that all the examinations, including Doppler, mammography, tomography, MRI and direct radiography, were present in the "Enzim" automation system. The Court of Cassation did not find it correct to rely on incomplete data and asked for the workplace records to be examined on site.

The decision has three practical consequences:

1. A limited screen print selected by the employer does not replace the whole system.
2. The request to the court should not be merely for "automation records"; concrete data sets should be requested, specifying the device, type of procedure, date, user and audit log.
3. Where the leave form and the digital work record contradict each other, the expert must resolve the contradiction day by day.

Although the decision relates to a previous legislative period, it remains a direct procedural and proof guide, current on the examination of electronic evidence and the comparison of leave documents with the actual situation.

How are shift, attendance and on-call lists assessed?

Shift and on-call lists show the time at which the employee was planned to work; attendance and card records support actual participation. However, the following contradictions should be specifically examined:

• a name in the shift schedule but shown as on leave in the attendance record,
• a PACS/RIS procedure appearing while a leave form exists,
• a card entry present while the HBYS user is another person,
• a mismatch between the on-call list and the working/premium accrual in the payslip,
• procedures appearing at different branches on the same day,
• simultaneous remote-location operations from one user account.

A contradiction is resolved not by treating one of the records as automatically disregarded, but by investigating how the record was produced, the authorisation, the time stamp and the user policy.

When is witness evidence useful?

Witnesses may in particular explain:

• the device and department in which the employee actually worked,
• whether a shared user name or password was used,
• whether an employee shown as on leave was called in and made to work,
• how work with a mobile device at a service or operating theatre was recorded,
• how the shift and on-call application actually operated in practice,
• by whom and when the records were prepared.

A witness should ideally have worked in the same period, in the same unit, and directly observed the event. General statements such as "everyone used to work very hard" are weak for the calculation of years and hours. Where the use of leave must be proved by the employer's records, reliance on the employer's witness alone may not be considered sufficient.

What should be done before evidence is lost?

Some audit logs, camera recordings or device histories in hospital systems may be kept only for a limited period. In preparing the action, the following order should be followed:

1. Draw up a record inventory: determine which data for which date and user is present in which system.
2. Send a written preservation request: through KEP, a notary or the institution's document system, ask that the relevant HBYS/PACS/RIS, device and access logs not be deleted.
3. Record the document request in the mediation: have the request for preservation and sharing of records recorded in the minutes.
4. Consider evidence preservation under Article 400 of the HMK: where evidence would be lost or its later production would become significantly harder if not immediately secured, a request for pre-action preservation may be made.
5. Choose the right court: under Article 401 of the HMK, the request may be made to the court that will hear the main action, or, where the subject of an on-site inspection or expert examination is located, to the civil court of peace. After the action has been filed, the request is made to the court hearing the action.
6. Make the production of documents specific: under Articles 219–220 of the HMK, instead of "all records", a decision requiring production should be sought which specifies the system, date, user, procedure and file format.

Where possible, electronic records should be requested in not only a PDF screen print but also an original or native format suitable for examination, together with the audit history, a data dictionary and an integrity check. Where technically possible, obtaining a read-only copy and a hash value facilitates the integrity examination of the records; this is not a statutory rule but a good practice in digital forensics.

How should a request for production of digital records be framed under Articles 219–220 of the HMK?

A request for production of documents should not be framed in vague and disproportionate terms such as "send all hospital records". The name or user account of the employee, the unit, the device, the date range, the data fields requested, the file format and the audit history should be specified. Masking of the patient's identity and health data in the parts not necessary for the dispute, while preserving the employee, procedure, device, date and time fields, should be requested.

Sample paragraph to submit to the court:

The records in the HBYS, PACS, RIS, device console/modality worklist and access control systems held and managed by the defendant employer are necessary for the resolution of the dispute. Pursuant to Articles 219–220 of the HMK, we request that the defendant be given a firm period to submit, in an examinable original electronic format and with the patient's personal data masked in the parts unrelated to the dispute: the user session, procedure and approval records connected with the user account [name/staff number] at [unit/device] between [start–end] dates; the DICOM procedure times and operator fields; the device operating/exposure logs; and the system access audit trail, together with the data dictionary, time zone/system clock information and change history. Should the records be withheld without a justified reason, we request that the consequences provided for in Article 220(3) of the HMK be applied and that our concrete explanations about the content of the records be assessed together with the other evidence in the file.

Article 220(3) of the HMK does not provide for automatic acceptance of the whole of the şua claim against the party that fails to produce. The court may accept the statement of the opposing party as to the content of the document, taking into account the existence and content of the document, whether the refusal to produce is based on a justified reason, and the other evidence. For this reason, the type of record and the fact to be proved should be expressly matched in the request paragraph.

How is evidence collected in compliance with the KVKK?

HBYS, PACS, RIS and Medula records contain patients' identity and health data. Health data is special category personal data. An employee should not download patient files beyond their authority, send them to a personal e-mail or share them with third parties merely because an action is to be brought.

KVKK-compliant safe evidence protocol

• The priority is to obtain the record from the institution by court letter or expert examination.
• Where a screen print that the employee is legally entitled to access will be used, the patient name, national identity number, protocol number and clinical information should be masked as far as possible.
• Only the procedure type, date, time, device, user/employee identity and fields necessary for the dispute should be left visible.
• A masked presentation copy and a procedural record should be prepared without any change to the original file.
• Files should not be shared through open messaging links or personal cloud storage.
• For patient data requested by the court, confidentiality, restricted access and, where necessary, sealed envelope or electronic restriction should be requested.

The KVKK Board accepts that health data may be transferred with adequate safeguards in response to a court letter. For this reason, the lawful and secure route is not for the employee to extract bulk patient data, but for the court to request specific records from the institution.

Under Article 189(2) of the HMK, evidence unlawfully obtained may not be taken into account by the court. The evidence-gathering strategy must not create a breach of personal data or of professional secrecy.

Which institutional records may be requested from the court?

Depending on the concrete facts, the following letters may be requested:

In a request to the court, instead of an imprecise phrase such as "all hospital records for 2015–2021", the employee's identity, unit/device, date range, user name and the log fields requested should be stated.

When are on-site inspection and expert examination required?

The Court of Cassation decision E.2021/12186 shows that the automation system must sometimes be examined on site, rather than solely on the limited printouts placed in the file. Under Article 288 of the HMK, the court may carry out an on-site inspection on the subject of the dispute and may use expert assistance.

A single accounting expert may not resolve every technical problem. Depending on the nature of the file, the panel should include the following expertise:

• expert in labour receivables and accounting: the period, days and wage calculation,
• radiation safety / medical physics or relevant health expert: the ionising nature of the device, the controlled area and the mode of work,
• health informatics / digital forensics expert: the data structure of HBYS/PACS/RIS, audit log, user and time stamp,
• radiology or nuclear medicine specialist where necessary: technical explanation of clinical workflow and device use.

Legal qualification, competence, parties, limitation and interest cannot be left to the expert. Law No. 7589 also provides for disciplinary sanction in respect of the unnecessary use of expert evidence on matters a judge can resolve with legal knowledge.

Which questions should be put to the expert?

1. Are the devices in the claim period ionising radiation sources?
2. On which dates was the place of work classified as a controlled area?
3. With which user/device/unit records has the employee been matched?
4. Is there a shared or common user account?
5. What are the actual working hours in controlled areas in each calendar year?
6. From which sources have the mobile device work been calculated?
7. Are there PACS/RIS/HBYS or device logs on the days shown as leave?
8. Have duplicate records of the same procedure been counted twice?
9. Have the former Regulation, and the 2022 and 2023 Regulation periods been calculated separately?
10. Which documents establish the fixed and regular variable elements of the last actual wage?
11. By which evidence have the leave days used been set off, day by day?
12. What are the disputed assumptions for which an alternative calculation is needed?

How should the expert report be objected to?

Under Article 281 of the HMK, the parties may, within two weeks of service of the report, request that missing matters be completed, that uncertainties be explained, or that a new expert be appointed. Where preparing the objection is very difficult or impossible, or requires special or technical work, a one-time additional period of at most two weeks may be requested, provided the request is made within the first two-week period.

Şua leave report objection checklist

• [ ] Has the report applied the correct legislative period?
• [ ] Did it separate the periods before 25.06.2021, in 2022 and after 13.04.2023?
• [ ] Did it calculate the post-2023 period on the basis of the calendar year and actual hours in EK-2?
• [ ] Did it distinguish MRI/ultrasound from ionising devices?
• [ ] Did it verify the classification of the controlled area by official documents?
• [ ] Did it not exclude mobile X-ray/fluoroscopy work?
• [ ] Did it rely only on screen prints selected by the employer?
• [ ] Did it separately explain the data coverage of the PACS, RIS, HBYS, Medula and device logs?
• [ ] Did it examine the shared user account, remote access and clock synchronisation?
• [ ] Did it compare the leave form days with the automation records day by day?
• [ ] Did it set off the leave days actually worked?
• [ ] Did it count the whole time between the first and last patient as the whole working time without justification?
• [ ] Did it count the same procedure twice from several systems?
• [ ] Did it confuse annual leave with şua leave?
• [ ] Did it determine the last actual wage and the regular premium by documents?
• [ ] Did it resolve the contradictions among payslip, bank and SGK premium base?
• [ ] Are the gross/net distinction and statutory deductions correct?
• [ ] Does the calculation table contain auditable formulas and line detail?
• [ ] Did the expert go beyond the expert's remit by giving a legal opinion on a legal question?
• [ ] Has a supplementary report or a new panel request been made specific for each point objected to?

A general objection of the form "the report is wrong" is not sufficient. It should be shown which data set is missing, which day has been wrongly set off, and with which document the correct calculation can be established.

What happens if the employer's records contradict each other?

Where records contradict each other, a document hierarchy is not automatically established. The court should follow this method:

1. determining by whom, for what purpose and when each record was produced,
2. requesting the change/audit history,
3. matching the time stamps on the same time zone and system clock,
4. investigating whether the records belong to the employee or to a shared user,
5. cross-checking with independent sources,
6. where the contradiction cannot be resolved, obtaining an alternative expert calculation.

If the employer does not produce the records without a justified reason despite a specific production order of the court, the consequences under Article 220 of the HMK may be assessed. However, it should not be generalised that "records were not produced, so everything the employee says is automatically correct"; the court assesses the production conditions and the other evidence together.

How are the employer's common defences assessed?

Pre-action document checklist

Status, parties and termination

• [ ] Identity and contact details
• [ ] Employment contract, protocol of addition, job description
• [ ] SGK registration and statement of service
• [ ] All employer/subcontractor titles and working periods
• [ ] Termination notice, SGK exit code, notarised notice
• [ ] Reinstatement file and finality/application documents, if any
• [ ] Mediation application form and final minutes

Pay and payment

• [ ] Payslips for the last 12 months
• [ ] Bank account movements
• [ ] Breakdown of premium, progress payment, commission and performance pay
• [ ] SGK premium-base earnings and tax records
• [ ] Release, compromise or mediation agreement document, if any

Radiation and actual work

• [ ] Device list, serial numbers and units where work was performed
• [ ] NDK licence and controlled area documents
• [ ] Dosimeter handover and reading reports
• [ ] Radiation safety committee decisions
• [ ] Shift, attendance, on-call and assignment lists
• [ ] Card/turnstile entry and exit records
• [ ] HBYS user movements and audit logs
• [ ] PACS DICOM procedure times and operator fields
• [ ] RIS workflow and technician assignments
• [ ] Medula service records, as supporting material
• [ ] Device console/modality worklist records
• [ ] Institutional e-mail and internal correspondence
• [ ] Identity and assignment details of witnesses working in the same period

Leave

• [ ] Year-by-year health/şua leave entitlement schedule
• [ ] Signed leave forms and leave register
• [ ] Separate statements of annual leave and şua leave
• [ ] Day-by-day automation review of dates shown as leave
• [ ] Leave request petitions and employer responses

How does the step-by-step course of the action proceed?

1. Status and period analysis: the employee/civil servant status, the old and new legislation and the actual termination are determined.
2. Evidence preservation: a written preservation request for short-lived logs is made and, if necessary, evidence preservation is sought.
3. Preliminary calculation of the claim: the leave days earned, the leave used and the last actual wage are calculated separately.
4. Party analysis: the employer, previous subcontractors and principal employer are identified by documents.
5. Mediation: the type of claim, period, interest and all target defendants are stated expressly.
6. Choice of type of action: after 31.07.2026, a decision is made between a full action for performance and a partial action.
7. Petition and evidence list: each factual allegation, source of evidence and the letter to be requested are matched.
8. Collection of records: concrete records are requested from the employer, NDK, SGK, the Ministry of Health/Provincial Directorate and the IT provider.
9. On-site inspection and expert: where necessary, on-site examination in the system and a multidisciplinary panel are arranged.
10. Objection to the report and extension: a technical objection is made within the two-week period; the timing of the one-time extension in a partial action is carefully chosen.
11. Judgment and appeal: gross/net, interest, the defendant's liability and the monetary limit for appeal are checked.

How are litigation costs and the duration of the process assessed?

In an action for a monetary claim, the application fee, the proportional advance fee for judgment and decision, the advance on costs and, depending on the evidence requested, advances for experts, on-site inspection and witnesses arise. In 2026, the proportional decision and judgment fee rate is 68.31 per thousand; as a rule one quarter is collected upfront when the action is filed. Since fixed fees and advances on costs change each year, the UYAP account screen and the current tariff should be checked on the date of filing.

The length of the file depends on the number of defendants, whether the records have been preserved, the nature of the expert panel, on-site inspection and the need for an appeal. No definitive date for conclusion can be promised. Where records have been preserved early and evidence requests have been concretely framed, the number of unnecessary letters and supplementary reports can be reduced.

In 2026, the appeal threshold in asset-related actions is applied as 50,000 TL for appeal and 682,000 TL for cassation. Because of the change made by Law No. 7550, the applicable threshold should be determined by the date the action was brought; the effect of multiple claims and of acceptance or rejection amounts on the right of appeal must be calculated separately.

Common mistakes in a şua leave action

• Filing an action for an indeterminate claim after 31.07.2026 on the basis of the repealed Article 107 of the HMK.
• In mediation, writing only "labour claims" and not stating the şua/health leave and the period.
• Not naming as party in mediation the principal employer or subcontractor to be sued.
• Applying the old four-week system to each year after 2023.
• Calculating the 2023 EK-2 figure by reference to seniority years rather than the calendar year.
• Not comparing the leave form with the automation records.
• Presenting only a screenshot from HBYS and not requesting the PACS/RIS audit log.
• Treating the Medula record as the sole and conclusive evidence of physical work.
• Accepting a zero dosimeter result as proof of no entitlement.
• Making unmasked and unauthorised copies of patient data.
• Asking the expert legal questions, or relying only on an accounting expert.
• Not making a specific objection to the expert report within the two-week period.
• Using the one-time extension in a partial action early, with incomplete records.
• Confusing the two-week reinstatement period with the limitation period for the şua claim.

How does Güneş & Güneş Law Firm approach the assessment?

The assessment by Güneş & Güneş Law Firm in şua leave disputes is not carried out on the basis of the leave form or payslip alone. The file is examined in five separate layers of data:

1. status and responsible parties,
2. ionising device and controlled area,
3. actual work and use of leave,
4. last actual wage,
5. termination, mediation and procedure of the action.

Particularly where the hospital automation records and the signed leave documents contradict each other, the manner of production of the data source, the user authority, the time stamp and the device record are assessed together. The aim is not merely to produce a high calculation, but to ensure that every calculation line rests on evidence that can be audited by the court.

Güneş & Güneş Law Firm, which has been active from Antalya since 1999, carries out the following work depending on the nature of the file:

• pre-mediation analysis of parties and claims,
• preparation of record-preservation notices and evidence preservation,
• concrete framing of HBYS/PACS/RIS evidence requests,
• establishing the type of action and the form of the claim,
• expert panel mandate list and objection to the report,
• coordination of the records of the principal employer–subcontractor and public institution.

No result is guaranteed. In each file the route to follow is determined by the status, the period, the records available and the documents at hand.

Frequently asked questions

Is mediation mandatory before a şua leave claim?

Yes, for an employee with worker status. For civil servants and contract personnel under public law, as a rule the administrative application and administrative court route apply.

Is it enough to write "leave claim" in the mediation application?

It is risky. The "health/şua leave pay", the working period, actual radiation work, termination and the target defendants should be stated expressly.

Must I file the action within two weeks after the final mediation minutes?

There is no special two-week period for a şua leave claim; this period should not be confused with the reinstatement claim. The remaining limitation period is the one that applies.

Can an action for an indeterminate claim be brought in 2026?

Not after July 31, 2026. Article 107 of the HMK has been repealed. Depending on the amount, a full action for performance or a partial action under Article 109(4) of the HMK is considered.

What happens to an indeterminate claim action I already brought?

For actions brought before July 31, 2026, the repealed Article 107 of the HMK continues to apply under the transitional provision.

Does a signed şua leave form defeat my claim?

Not alone. If automation or other records show actual work on the dates in the form, the question whether the form actually proves the use of leave is examined.

Does a HBYS record alone suffice?

Not always. The user account, type of procedure, shared password, remote access and audit log should be verified with PACS/RIS or device records.

Does a Medula record conclusively prove that I worked?

It supports the hospital service and billing record; who performed the procedure and how long the employee was physically present must be proved separately.

If my dosimeter result was zero, can I not bring an action?

A zero result is not in itself an obstacle. The controlled area, the device, the actual work and the use arrangements for the dosimeter are assessed together.

Do MRI or ultrasound records create a right to şua leave?

MRI and ultrasound do not produce ionising radiation. However, whether the employee worked in the same period with X-ray, CT, mammography, fluoroscopy or other ionising devices should be investigated across all systems.

May I take a photograph of a patient's screen on my phone?

Unauthorised access and transfer must not be made. The priority is a court letter or evidence preservation. Where a lawfully accessed image is to be presented, the patient's identity and health information should be masked, leaving only the necessary fields.

What if the employer does not provide the automation records?

A court order for production of specific documents may be sought under Articles 219–220 of the HMK. The consequence of non-production is assessed by the court according to the clarity of the request and whether there was a justified reason.

What should I do if I am afraid the records will be deleted?

A written preservation request should be sent and, where the conditions are met, evidence preservation under Articles 400–401 of the HMK should be sought before the action.

Can the claim be won with a witness?

A witness is an important supporting source; however, for precise dates and times, support from objective records is stronger. Where the use of leave must be proved, the employer's written records are of particular importance for the burden of proof.

How many days are there to object to an expert report?

Two weeks from service. Where there is a technical difficulty, a one-time extension of at most two weeks may be requested within this first period.

Can a direct action be brought against the Ministry of Health?

Not automatically in every file. The actual employer, the correct legal person and the principal employer–subcontractor relationship must first be determined.

Does a 4/D public worker go to the labour court?

As a rule, yes; for worker claims, mediation as a condition precedent and the labour court route apply. The route for civil servant status under Article 4/A of Law No. 657 is different.

Can I claim the şua leave pay while still employed?

According to the established approach, while the employment relationship continues the leave is a right of rest and, as a rule, is not converted into money. The granting of the leave, determination and occupational health and safety routes should be evaluated separately.

How long does a case take?

There is no fixed period. The number of defendants and periods, the preservation of digital records, on-site inspection, the nature of the expert panel and the appeal process are the determining factors.

How are interest and limitation applied to a şua leave claim?

Under the established Court of Cassation approach regarding the former regime, the claim becomes due upon actual termination and the five-year limitation period starts on that date. The applicable interest is statutory interest; the starting point is examined separately by reference to default. Special situations, such as the post-2023 period and reinstatement, should be assessed separately.

Conclusion

A şua leave pay action is not simply a calculation action in which the years worked are multiplied by the last wage. The outcome depends on determining together:

• the correct working status,
• the correct employer and liable persons,
• the legislation applicable to the date of the event,
• the ionising device and the controlled area,
• the actual working hours,
• the leave actually used,
• the true last wage, and
• the type of action changed in 2026.

The employer's defence that "leave was used" must be tested against the automation records for the same dates, even where it is based on a signed form. The practical message of Court of Cassation decisions E.2021/12186 and E.2024/8203 is clear: where paper leave and actual work contradict each other, no decision can be made without a complete examination of the digital records.

Final legal principle: A successful litigation strategy is built not on the question "what document do I have?" but on the question "which reliable record, in whose hands, will prove which fact?"

Confidentiality and legal notice

Information and documents shared with Güneş & Güneş Law Firm are assessed under the professional secrecy of lawyers, the duty of confidentiality and the legislation on the protection of personal data. Patient identity and health data must not be sent through insecure channels.

This article is for general legal information only. It does not constitute a legal opinion or a guarantee of result for a concrete file without examination of the working status, period, device, controlled area, termination, wage and hospital records.

Sources and legal bases

Legislation and official sources

• Law No. 3153 on Radiology, Radium and Electrical Treatment and Other Physiotherapy Establishments
• Regulation on Health Services Provided Using Ionising Radiation and Radionuclides — 13.04.2023, Official Gazette 32162
• Labour Courts Law No. 7036 — UYAP Legislation
• Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 — UYAP Legislation
• Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 — UYAP Legislation
• Law No. 7589 — text as adopted by the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM)
• Ministry of Justice Directorate General of Mediation — FAQ on mediation as a condition precedent to litigation
• Summary of the decision of the Personal Data Protection Board No. 2023/1578 on the transfer of health data by court letter
• Personal Data Protection Authority — Guide on the Processing of Special Categories of Personal Data
• Ministry of Justice — announcement of the 2026 advance on costs, arbitrator and witness fee schedules under the Code of Civil Procedure

Judicial decisions

• 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi), E.2021/12186, K.2022/528, 18.01.2022, decision pp. 3–4: open access.
• 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi), E.2024/8203, K.2024/11882, 17.09.2024: open access.
• Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), E.2015/22-3406, K.2019/558, 14.05.2019: open access. The decision has historical and transitional value for the period of the repealed Article 107 of the HMK.
• 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi), E.2011/2883, K.2013/11531, 10.04.2013: open access. The reasoning on proof of annual leave is a supporting source by analogy for şua leave.

Academic source

• Miraç Şamil Pekşen, "İş Hukuku Boyutuyla Şua İzni" (Şua Leave from the Perspective of Labour Law), Çalışma ve Toplum (Work and Society), 2025/4, No. 87, pp. 1913–1942, DOI: 10.54752/ct.1629124: open-access PDF.

---