Limitation Period and Interest on a Şua Leave Claim: When Does It Start and Which Rate Applies?

Is the right to şua leave the same as the claim for şua leave pay?

No. Two legal positions must be separated for the file to be set up correctly:

In its decision E.2020/5049, K.2021/5141 (link), the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation expressly accepted that şua leave cannot be converted into pay while working and does not mature while the employment relationship continues. This approach is based on applying the protective logic of the annual paid leave right to şua leave.

This distinction changes three things:

• While the employee is still working, the correct claim is, as a rule, not "pay me for the past leave", but a claim that the health leave be granted in practice and that working hours be recorded.
• If the claim for pay for unused leave is brought before termination, it may meet an objection of early action or lack of maturity.
• The limitation period does not run separately each year while the employment relationship continues.

What happens if the normal wage for a period of leave actually taken is not paid?

This situation differs from the conversion of unused leave into money upon termination. If the employee actually used health leave but the normal wage for that month was underpaid, the dispute may be a claim for unpaid wages rather than the value of the leave balance on termination. Maturity, the limitation period and interest on that wage are assessed separately according to its payment date. The two types of claim must not be confused in the same file.

Why must the four concepts be identified separately?

The most common error in şua leave files is treating the accrual of the right, maturity, the limitation period and default as a single date.

Termination, maturity and the start of the limitation period are central; however, termination alone is not always enough for interest. Since the law does not set a mandatory payment date on which the şua leave pay must be paid at termination, default must be established separately.

Does şua leave pay mature while the employee is still working?

The monetary value of unused şua leave claimed on termination is, as a rule, not matured while the employment relationship continues. In its decision E.2020/5049, K.2021/5141, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stated that neither maturity nor limitation applies while the employment relationship continues.

This rule does not mean that the employer is free not to grant health leave. While the employment relationship continues, the employee may request:

• planning and actual granting of health leave,
• written disclosure of the working hours in the controlled area,
• not being made to work on days recorded as leave,
• application of occupational health and safety measures,
• preservation of evidence if there is a dispute

If the conditions are met, occupational health and safety, termination of the employment contract for good cause, or administrative supervision may be considered separately. However, none of these routes produces an automatic result without the concrete documents being examined.

When does the value of şua leave turn into money?

Under the established Court of Cassation approach regarding the former Regulation period, unused şua leave cannot be granted in kind once the employment contract ends and turns into a pay claim. Termination by the employee or the employer, resignation, just cause or termination with notice does not, as a rule, by itself eliminate this conversion.

However, the word "termination" cannot be determined only by reading the date of exit in the SGK records. The following situations must be examined separately:

• reinstatement lawsuit and failure to reinstate,
• transfer of the workplace or change of subcontractor,
• intermittent work and whether the previous period was actually settled,
• death and the claim passing to heirs,
• continuity through a severance agreement or a new contract,
• a state of suspension and resumption of actual work.

Are a transfer of the workplace, a change of subcontractor or an SGK exit–entry actual termination?

Not every change in employer or SGK registration is an actual termination that makes the value of şua leave matured. Under Article 6 of Labour Law No. 4857, when a workplace or a part of it is transferred, the employer who takes over the employment contracts existing on the transfer date assumes all their rights and obligations. If the employee has continued the work without interruption in the same hospital and the same organisation, a mere change in company name, subcontractor or SGK file does not by itself start the limitation period.

In the relationship between main employer and subcontractor, it may not be enough to direct the claim only at the last payroll employer. Under Labour Law Articles 2 and 6 and the concrete transfer relationship, it must be determined separately which period and which debts the main employer, the last subcontractor, a previous subcontractor or the acquiring employer is liable for. Failing to name one of the potentially liable employers in the mediation application may create a dispute on the condition precedent to litigation and on limitation for that party.

Practical result: Without establishing an "actual termination", the start of the limitation period, the last wage and the correct defendant cannot be determined. The SGK notice of termination is a strong piece of data, but on its own it does not produce a definitive legal result.

Practical application: subcontracted radiology staff in hospitals attached to the Ministry of Health

In disputes over "Ministry of Health şua leave pay" and "subcontracted radiology staff şua leave", the first task is not to treat the company named on the payroll and the public administration as a single employer automatically, but to document the valid main employer–subcontractor relationship. Where a radiology or diagnostic imaging service in a state hospital attached to the Ministry of Health is carried out with subcontracted workers, the service procurement contract and technical specifications, the place of the work within the hospital's organisation, the relationship of command and supervision, the tender periods, the unit in which the worker actually works and the payroll employers are examined together.

If a main employer–subcontractor relationship within the meaning of Labour Law Article 2 can be established, the main employer may be jointly liable with the subcontractor towards the subcontractor's workers, in its own workplace, for obligations arising from the Law, the employment contract or an applicable collective agreement. However, in every public hospital file it cannot be assumed that the defendant is directly the "Ministry of Health". In university hospitals, affiliated or related bodies, city hospital operating models or structures with separate public legal personality, the correct public employer and contract chain must be determined separately.

Where successive subcontracting companies have changed but the employee has worked in the same hospital, in the same imaging unit and without interruption, the mere change of company is not regarded as an actual termination. The transfer of the workplace between companies, the continuity of the service, whether the previous period was actually settled and the period of responsibility of each employer are examined. When an actual termination occurs, the claim must be directed at the correct persons and on the correct legal basis, in accordance with the scope of responsibility of the public administration, the last subcontractor and the previous subcontractors.

Mediation and standing check: The titles of the public administration and the subcontracting companies that are considered as defendants in a lawsuit must be stated separately, with their correct legal personalities, in the mediation application; the şua/health leave pay, the periods of work and the claim of joint liability must be stated clearly. Omitting a party entirely from the application may create an objection on the condition precedent to litigation and a limitation risk for that party. The special joinder rule for reinstatement disputes must not be confused with mediation for a monetary claim.

Post-2023 important legal limit for health leave

The Regulation of 13 April 2023 ties health leave to actual working hours in the controlled area and provides that the leave cannot be used consecutively across year transitions and cannot be carried over to the next year. In its decision E.2023/3008, K.2025/2739, the 12th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 12. Daire) found this regulation largely lawful.

However, that Council of State decision does not directly decide whether leave under the current regime that the employer did not grant to a private-sector employee becomes a pay claim when the employment contract ends. The earlier Court of Cassation decisions largely relate to the repealed Regulation period.

For this reason, the correct sequence in a file under the current regime is as follows:

1. Determine how many days of health leave accrued in each calendar year.
2. Examine whether the leave was granted in accordance with the regulations.
3. Assess, considering the prohibition on transfer, the employer's fault in not granting the leave and the nature of the protective right, whether a monetary claim arises.
4. If a monetary claim is accepted, carry out the analysis of maturity, limitation and interest.

No guarantee should be given that the former case law has a definite and automatic result for the new-period claim.

Can a release, a severance agreement or a mediation agreement end the right?

A document signed on leaving, stating "I have used all my şua leave" or "I have received my şua leave pay", does not end the right in every case. Under Article 420 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), for a release agreement regarding a worker's claim to be valid, the following conditions must be met together:

• it must be made in writing,
• at least one month must have passed from the end of the employment contract,
• the type and amount of the şua/health leave claim released must be clearly stated,
• payment must be made in full according to the amount due, through a bank.

A release that does not satisfy one of these conditions is absolutely void. A payment made through a bank that does not fully cover the actual claim may have only the effect of a receipt for the amount paid; it does not by itself end the balance of the right. A signed leave form is also not conclusive evidence by itself if the records (PACS, RIS, HBYS, turnstile or shift records) show that the employee was actually working on those dates.

For a severance agreement, the genuine and reasonable benefit, the defect of will, the date of termination, the payment items and the release provisions must be examined together. A settlement document signed by the parties after mediation may produce a different result from an ordinary release; whether the subjects agreed on, the scope of the parties and whether the amount is clear must be separately checked. Whether general wording used without expressly naming the "şua leave" covers this claim must be determined on the concrete document.

Partial agreement and a "general release" clause in mediation

Where the parties wish to agree only on severance pay or notice pay in mediation, but a purely abstract sentence such as "the employee has no other labour claims" or "the employer has released the employee from all past claims irrevocably" is added to the document, there is a serious risk of losing rights. According to the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation E.2022/436, K.2022/1380, dated February 7, 2022, a valid settlement document drawn up at the end of duly conducted mediation is not an ordinary release agreement; it cannot be declared void by applying the release conditions of TBK Article 420, and under the law the matters agreed upon cannot be the subject of a lawsuit.

This principle does not mean that every vague or unlimited general release sentence automatically ends all unlisted claims. Whether the şua leave pay was made the subject of the agreement; how the type, period, amount and payment plan of the claim were written; whether there was a genuine dispute between the parties; whether the mediation was conducted in accordance with the law; and whether the will was defective are examined on the concrete document. Indeed, in its decision 9th Civil Chamber E.2024/15165, K.2025/2237, dated March 3, 2025, a voluntary mediation document that converted in advance into money the claims dependent on termination, such as severance, notice and annual leave, while the employment contract and a genuine dispute were continuing, was not accepted as valid.

If a partial agreement is to be made, only the claims agreed upon, the gross/net amounts, the periods and the payment dates should be written one by one in the "matters agreed" section of the document. Where the şua claim remains unresolved, a clause excluding it that clearly carries the following meaning should be added:

Example reservation clause: "My claim for unused şua/health leave pay and the interest on this claim and, where applicable, my claims for excess loss are outside the subject and scope of this agreement; my rights to apply and to sue in respect of those claims are reserved."

This example alone does not make every document safe. The whole agreement document, the final minutes, the payment receipt and the mediation process must be examined together before anything is signed.

When does the limitation period on a şua leave claim start?

Under the current approach of the Court of Cassation, the limitation period on the pay claim for unused former-regime şua leave starts on the date the employment contract ends.

Two basic decisions of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation reach the same result from different angles:

Y9HD E.2020/5953, K.2021/3837, February 15, 2021

The decision stated that the şua leave pay should be treated like annual leave pay, that the monetary claim arises upon termination and that the limitation period starts to run upon termination. The importance of the decision lies in its express abandonment of the former approach treating the claim as akin to overtime.

Y9HD E.2020/5049, K.2021/5141, February 25, 2021

In this decision, the expert calculated şua leave for only the last five years counted backwards from the date of the lawsuit. The Court of Cassation found this method erroneous because the leave did not convert into pay and was not matured while the employment relationship continued, and it required that şua leave be calculated for the whole working period.

Basic distinction: The five years are, as a rule, the limitation period within which the right may be asserted after termination; it is not a rule of "the last five years of service" that automatically prunes the earlier working years before the lawsuit date.

What was the former Court of Cassation approach and why can it no longer be relied on alone?

In its decision E.2009/36989, K.2012/5590, dated February 23, 2012, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation treated the şua leave claim as akin to overtime and stated that the limitation period should start from the date on which the leave was earned. That decision still circulates on many websites as if it were the current rule.

The 2021 decisions E.2020/5953 and E.2020/5049 reformulated the legal nature of the claim: şua leave is not a money claim while working; it turns into money upon termination, and the limitation period starts at that date. An academic study from 2025 also classifies the earlier and later series of decisions as a change of opinion.

A decision is not "repealed"; case law may change through later decisions. For this reason, the 2012 decision should be cited as a historical source, and the current strategy should be built on the 2021 and subsequent decisions.

How many years is the limitation period?

Under current practice the basic period for a claim for şua leave pay is five years. Şua decisions treat the claim by analogy with annual leave pay; Article 32 of the Labour Law, Additional Article 3 of the Labour Law and Article 147 of the TBK are considered as the legal basis of the five-year regime.

In its decision on annual leave pay, E.2024/13393, K.2025/797, dated January 22, 2025 (link), the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation reconsidered the ten-year approach applied in the past for contracts that ended between 1 July 2012 and 24 October 2017 and accepted a five-year period. That decision is not a decision on şua leave itself; however, it provides strong current support for the analogy to annual leave that the 2021 şua decisions established.

How is the five-year period calculated?

In a simple example, if the employment contract ended on 15 September 2026, the limitation period as a rule starts running on 15 September 2026 and expires at the end of the five-year calendar period if there is no ground for suspension or interruption. However, a public holiday on the last day, the time spent in mediation, acknowledgment of the debt, a lawsuit, enforcement proceedings, death or other special reasons may change the calculation.

For this reason, "termination date plus five years" is only the first check. For the exact calculation of the time limit, the following should be examined together:

• the actual date of termination,
• the mediation application and final minutes dates,
• any earlier lawsuit or enforcement,
• any written acknowledgment of debt or partial payment by the employer,
• reinstatement proceedings,
• whether the claim and the claim item were correctly identified

Do the COVID-19 and other statutory suspension periods change the calculation?

Yes. Under Provisional Article 1 of Law No. 7226, limitation periods were suspended because of COVID-19 between 13 March 2020 and 15 June 2020. The periods resumed running from 16 June 2020. For periods that had fifteen days or less left to run on the date the suspension began, the special fifteen-day protection in the law is also separately assessed.

This date range is not automatically added to every şua file. For the COVID-19 suspension to be effective, the limitation period on the şua leave pay must have started before 13 March 2020 and must not yet have expired on that date. If the employment contract ended after 15 June 2020, the claim's limitation period had not yet started during the suspension period, and this provision as a rule gives no additional time.

Where several events such as mediation, statutory suspension, acknowledgment of the debt and a lawsuit exist in the same file, the same calendar day must not be counted twice. Special time-limit provisions issued because of a state of emergency or a regional disaster must also be separately examined according to the scope of the person, the employer, the court and the act.

How should the last day be checked?

"Termination plus five years" is only a check on the starting point. The inclusion of the starting day, the expiry of the period at the end of the corresponding day, whether the last day falls on an official holiday, the time of the electronic filing and the special suspension or interruption rules must be assessed together. An online calculator or calendar application should not be treated as safe on its own for the lawsuit period.

Can limitation be applied by the court of its own motion?

Limitation is not a forfeiture period that extinguishes the debt by itself; as a rule, it is a plea (def'i) raised by the debtor. If the employer does not raise this defence properly and in time, the court does not apply limitation of its own motion.

However, this does not mean that the period can be safely waited out. The stage at which the defence may be raised, the answer to the statement of claim, the defence against amendment or increase of the claim, and the matters of procedural acquired rights may vary according to the date of the file. The safest approach is to complete the mediation and litigation steps before any limitation argument arises.

How does mediation affect the limitation period?

In employer–employee claims, applying to a mediator before filing a lawsuit is a condition precedent to litigation. Under Article 3 of Labour Courts Law No. 7036, the limitation period is suspended from the application to the mediation office until the date on which the final minutes are drawn up; that interval is not counted in the time limit.

What does "suspension" mean?

Suspension does not mean that the past period is erased or that the five years start afresh. The time that elapsed up to the application day is preserved; once the final minutes are drawn up, the remaining period resumes running from where it stopped.

Example:

• Termination: 1 September 2021
• Application for mediation: 1 August 2026
• Final minutes: 21 August 2026

In this example, the mediation period from 1 to 21 August does not count towards the limitation period. However, the approximately four years and eleven months that elapsed before the application are not reset. Only the remaining period runs after the final minutes. The day count must be carried out in the concrete file in accordance with the start and end dates and the holiday rules.

Common error: In labour-claim mediation, there is generally no "two-week lawsuit period" after the final minutes. The special two-week period concerns the reinstatement lawsuit. For a şua leave pay claim, the remaining limitation period is what applies.

How should the claim be stated in the mediation form?

The şua leave item must be stated clearly. Vague expressions such as "my labour claims" or "my other rights" alone may create disputes about the scope of the condition precedent to litigation and the date of default.

An example of a usable description:

"Claim for pay for health/şua leave earned for work in the controlled area where ionising radiation sources are used and not granted, together with the statutory interest on it."

This example should be adapted to the concrete claim by stating the period, the employers and the wage system. Where there is a main employer–subcontractor relationship, all the liable persons and the periods of work must be shown separately.

How does mediation affect the start of interest?

The effect of mediation on limitation and on interest is not the same:

• Limitation: The period between the application to the office and the final minutes is not counted.
• Default/interest: In the settled practice of the Court of Cassation, where there was no earlier default and the claim item was expressly claimed in mediation, the date of the final minutes is treated as the date of default.

In its decision E.2022/3222, K.2022/3813 on resolution of a dispute, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation accepted this result for claims other than severance pay. The decision E.2023/8073, K.2023/10333 shows that the same approach has been consistently maintained.

The result does not change if the employer did not attend the mediation meeting; however, the regular invitation and the claim, and the content of the final minutes, must be proved.

Does a formal notice bring the start of interest forward?

Yes. An open payment notice sent after the employment contract has ended and the claim has matured may put the employer in default earlier. The notice should:

• clearly state the "şua/health leave pay" item,
• state the periods of work and termination as far as possible,
• demand payment expressly,
• where necessary, give a reasonable and specific payment period,
• be reliably documented as to the date of service.

In Court of Cassation practice, the individual listing of the types of claim is required, but it is not always necessary to state an exact amount, because the employer may hold the actual records. However, a text that only says "I claim all my statutory rights" in the abstract is risky for the start of interest.

Example claim paragraph:

"I request that the pay for health/şua leave earned in the controlled area, which matured on the date my employment contract ended and was not granted to me, be calculated on the basis of the workplace leave and work records and paid to me within seven days of service of this notice."

It should not be forgotten that the notice does not replace the condition precedent of mediation.

Can a specific payment date or special interest provision exist without a notice?

It can. Under Article 117(2) of the TBK, where the day of performance of a debt has been definitely fixed by agreement of the parties, default may arise upon that day passing, without a separate notice. If the day on which the şua leave pay is to be paid has been expressly agreed in the employment contract, the collective agreement, the severance agreement, a workplace regulation or the mediation settlement document, that provision should be reviewed first.

For example, a period that can be objectively determined, such as "on the seventh day following termination", produces the same result, whereas a vague phrase such as "will be paid as soon as possible" does not. A clear and definitive refusal by the employer to pay or to honour the debt may also be important in assessing default.

The statutory interest under Law No. 3095 applies where no different interest has been agreed in the contract or in an applicable collective agreement. Accordingly, instead of an absolute statement that "only statutory interest always applies to a şua claim", the following sequence should be followed:

1. Does an applicable employment contract or collective agreement contain a special payment day and interest provision?
2. Does the provision actually cover the şua/health leave pay?
3. Is the agreed rate valid under TBK Article 120, the mandatory provisions and the relief sought?
4. If there is no special provision, is statutory interest applicable under the current case law of the Court of Cassation?

It is not possible to treat the şua leave pay as unpaid wages under Labour Law Article 34 and thereby automatically move to the highest deposit interest rate. However, a valid and clear special interest provision in the concrete contract cannot be ignored without examination either.

How does filing a lawsuit affect the limitation period?

Under Article 154 of the TBK, the creditor's application to a court or an arbitrator, the commencement of enforcement proceedings or the lodging of a claim in bankruptcy are among the grounds that interrupt the limitation period. Interruption differs from suspension: a new period starts to run. During the proceedings, the period starts to run again after the procedural acts of the parties or the decisions of the judge; for a fixed claim established by a final court judgment, the new period is ten years.

However, where the lawsuit has been brought against the wrong party or only for a partial amount, the scope of protection may change. For lawsuits that were brought without first completing mediation and were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or premature filing, the sixty-day additional period under Article 158 of the TBK must be examined separately. This additional period does not apply automatically or to every ground of dismissal.

How do limitation and interest run after a final judgment?

Where the claim has been finally determined by a court or arbitral judgment, under Article 156 of the TBK the new limitation period is, as a rule, ten years. This period differs from the first five-year limitation period on the labour claim and is calculated separately for the enforcement of the judgment.

Where default interest has been awarded in the judgment, interest runs from the start point stated in the judgment until the date of payment or the date on which it legally ends. As a rule, accrued interest is not added to the principal so that interest runs again on it; compound interest may arise only in the exceptional cases permitted by law. Whether finality of the judgment is a condition for enforcement, whether the judgment is for specific performance, whether the amount is gross or net, and the deductions to be made in enforcement must also be separately examined.

How has the system for uncertain claims and partial claims changed after 31 July 2026?

The most important current procedural note of this article is this: Article 19 of Law No. 7589 and Article 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), No. 6100, were repealed on 31 July 2026. No new "uncertain claim lawsuit" can be filed after that date.

Paragraph four added to Article 109 of the HMK by Article 20 of the same Law strengthens the partial lawsuit. Where only part of the claim has been sued, the claim may, until the end of the examination stage, be increased once without being caught by the prohibition on expanding the claim; the portion of the increase is treated as interrupted on the lawsuit date for limitation purposes.

What does Court of Cassation General Assembly decision E.2015/22-3406 mean now?

In this decision, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers accepted that a şua leave claim could be uncertain under former HMK Article 107 where the wage and leave records do not reflect the truth and the decisive documents are held by the employer. The decision retains its importance for lawsuits filed before 31 July 2026 in which former Article 107 continues to apply. However, it no longer opens the HMK Article 107 route for a person who files a new lawsuit.

Advice found on Google and in older litigation guides, such as "file an uncertain-claim lawsuit for şua leave", cannot be used without stating the date of the lawsuit.

How does an amendment or an increase of the claim affect limitation?

The answer depends on the date of the lawsuit and the procedure chosen.

Former partial lawsuits before 31 July 2026

In its decision E.2020/4230, K.2021/1802, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation characterised the lawsuit as a partial lawsuit and stated that a limitation defence raised in good time against the portion increased by amendment must be taken into account. Under the former system, as a rule, the first lawsuit interrupted limitation only for the amount claimed; the increased portion was examined separately as of the date of the amendment or the claim increase.

Uncertain claim lawsuits filed before 31 July 2026

In an uncertain-claim lawsuit for collection that met the conditions of former HMK Article 107, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, in its decision E.2015/9-3157, K.2018/365, accepted that the date of the lawsuit has a limitation effect and, where there was no earlier default, an interest effect for the whole claim. This result can apply only to lawsuits subject to former Article 107 under the transitional provision.

Partial lawsuits after 31 July 2026

Under new HMK Article 109(4), a one-time increase of the portion until the end of the examination stage expressly carries limitation back to the date of the lawsuit. This considerably reduces the risk of a former partial lawsuit.

However, the provision does not regulate the start of interest. For this reason:

• where the employer was put in default before the lawsuit for the whole claim, interest may as a rule be claimed from the date of default;
• where there was no earlier default, the future effect of the former distinction between the lawsuit date for the first claimed amount and the increase date for the increased portion, in the light of the new Article 109(4), has not yet been settled by a established Court of Cassation decision;
• the type of interest, its start date and any alternative claim must be expressly set out in the lawsuit and increase petition.

2026 procedural warning: HMK Article 109(4) expressly states only that it carries limitation back. Applying the same result to interest automatically would be adding a provision that the law does not contain.

How can the claim be framed after 31 July 2026?

In the new system, it must be expressly stated whether the lawsuit is a full performance lawsuit or a partial lawsuit; the principal claim for şua leave pay, the type of interest and the start date of interest must be kept separate. If there was a valid default covering the whole claim before the lawsuit, its document and date should be shown; an alternative start date of interest should be set out for the other possibility.

A sample of claim wording that may be adapted to a concrete file is:

"Reserving our rights to the excess and, under HMK Article 109(4), to increase the claim once until the end of the examination stage, we claim, for the time being, [amount] TL gross of the şua/health leave pay claim, primarily from [end of the notice period / date of the final mediation minutes], or, if the Court finds that no default arose on that date, from the date of the lawsuit, together with statutory interest, from the defendants jointly and severally according to their periods and scope of responsibility…"

This example is not a ready-made lawsuit petition. The choice between a full and a partial lawsuit, the gross/net claim, joint liability, the monetary nature of the post-2023 leave, the default document and the interest rate must be drafted according to the features of the file. The sentence "our rights to the excess are reserved" alone does not remedy a lack of the correct party, the correct claim or the correct mediation scope.

From when does interest run on a şua leave claim?

For the start of interest, maturity is examined first and then default. The typical sequence is as follows:

Interest cannot be claimed before the date of default. On the other hand, the type of interest and the start limit that the court may award are affected by the claim sought; an incomplete or wrong interest claim in the lawsuit petition may cause loss of rights.

Is the şua leave claim subject to statutory interest or to the highest deposit interest rate?

Under current practice of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, statutory interest applies to a şua leave claim.

In the decision E.2016/2547, K.2019/12571, May 29, 2019, it was stated that the şua claim is not a wage within the meaning of Article 34 of the Labour Law and therefore the highest deposit interest rate cannot be awarded. The decision E.2020/4230, K.2021/1802, January 21, 2021 repeated the same principle.

Is there a contrary view?

Yes. In the older decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E.2015/5369, K.2016/7663, dated March 30, 2016, and in some academic works, it is argued that because of the social nature of the şua leave pay, it should be subject to the highest deposit interest rate under Article 34 of the Labour Law.

This view is important as an academic and case-law debate; however, for practical strategy the later and more direct decisions of the 9th Civil Chamber, which expressly adopt statutory interest, should be followed. Where a regional appellate court has awarded the highest deposit interest rate and the Court of Cassation has reversed the decision for another reason, this does not mean that the Court of Cassation has independently approved the type of interest.

What is the statutory interest rate in 2026?

Law No. 7589, which entered into force on 31 July 2026, amended Article 1 of Law No. 3095. The rate is now, where no different rate has been agreed in the contract, eighty percent of the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye's (TCMB) short-term rediscount rate as at 31 December of the previous year. Where the 30 June rate differs from the previous 31 December rate by at least five points, the 30 June data is used for the second half of the year.

On the official TCMB table, the short-term rediscount rate has been 38.75% since 20 December 2025. Since no new rate differing by at least five points was found on 30 June 2026:

2026 second-half reference rate = 38.75%
Statutory interest = 38.75% × 80% = 31% per year

Because Law No. 7589 entered into force on 31 July 2026, the 31% rate applies from that date.

Currency warning: The rate for 2027 and later periods will be recalculated according to the TCMB data of 31 December and, where necessary, 30 June. For this reason, the page must not state the fixed proposition that "31% always applies".

Is interest calculated at a single rate?

No. Where default occurred in 2023 and payment is made in 2026, the last rate is not applied to the whole period. Each date range is calculated separately on a simple interest basis at its own statutory rate; the results for the periods are then added together.

For example, for a principal of TL 100,000 where default occurred on 1 January 2024 and the calculation date is 31 August 2026:

1. the period January 1, 2024–May 31, 2024 at 9%,
2. the period June 1, 2024–July 30, 2026 at 24%,
3. the period July 31, 2026–August 31, 2026 at 31%

are each subject to a separate day count. Leap years, the number of days, payments/set-off and the scope of the claim in the lawsuit must also be checked separately in the expert calculation.

Can excess loss be claimed if statutory interest does not cover the actual loss?

Statutory or agreed default interest may not always cover all the loss caused by late payment. Article 122 of the TBK allows a creditor who suffers a loss exceeding the default interest to claim the difference, unless the debtor proves that it was not at fault. In scholarship and practice this item is referred to as "excess loss" (aşkın zarar), formerly "munzam zarar".

Excess loss is not an automatic award of the difference between the statutory interest rate and inflation, foreign currency, gold or any other economic indicator. The following elements must be discussed separately:

• the principal debt is matured and the debtor is in default,
• there is an actual loss exceeding the default interest,
• there is an appropriate causal link between the loss and the late payment,
• whether the debtor can prove that it was not at fault,
• the claim has been expressly raised within mediation and the lawsuit,
• no duplicate recovery is created between the principal, the interest and the excess loss.

In its pilot decision of 8 July 2025, Caner Şafak, Application No. 2024/41763, the Plenary Assembly of the Constitutional Court (AYM) found a violation of the right to an effective remedy linked to the property right, in the context of the rapid loss of value of monetary claims between private persons over a long period in the face of inflation and the ineffectiveness of the existing excess-loss route owing to a rigid approach to proof. The decision was notified to the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye to address the structural problem.

Linking the statutory interest to the TCMB rediscount rate on 31 July 2026 is an important change aimed at reducing future loss of value; however, it has not repealed Article 122 of the TBK. The new rate system and subsequent case law will, however, be taken into account when the existence and amount of excess loss are assessed.

Litigation strategy: In high-value şua leave claims unpaid for a long time, one should not be satisfied with a statutory interest calculation alone; where there is a concrete economic loss, the excess-loss claim, the means of proof, mediation as a condition precedent to litigation and the limitation aspects must be examined separately. This claim is not an automatic inflation difference that can guarantee a result.

How do reinstatement proceedings affect limitation and interest?

Where the employee applied within the time limit following a reinstatement decision and the first termination has become void, it cannot be accepted that annual leave and şua leave pay matured on the date of the first termination. If the employee is reinstated, the employment relationship continues and the balance of leave does not, as a rule, convert into a monetary claim.

If the employee applies but is not reinstated, the actual termination date is determined by assessing together:

• the date on which the employer clearly notified that it would not reinstate the employee,
• in the absence of such a notice, the end of the statutory reinstatement period,
• the concrete payment and actual refusal facts.

In its decision 9th Civil Chamber E.2025/4838, K.2025/8455, November 4, 2025, the Court found that, because the first termination was eliminated by the reinstatement process, lawsuits for şua leave and annual leave brought before an actual termination had occurred were premature.

Concrete date example for maturity after reinstatement

In the example below, it is assumed that the final reinstatement decision was duly served on the same day, that the employee applied within the time limit and that the employer had not previously given a clear notice of refusal:

In this assumption, the five-year limitation period for the şua leave pay starts on 15 October 2025, not on 1 February 2024. If the employer had given a clear and definitive notice that it would not reinstate the employee on 1 October 2025, the actual termination date would have been, where the conditions are met, 1 October rather than 15 October. For this reason the calculation must not be made automatically by selecting "one month after the application".

Nor can the wage base for the şua leave pay be fixed mechanically by taking the former payroll amount of 2024. The actual termination date, the effect of the statutory period following the void termination on the service, comparable employees' wages, wage increases and any applicable variable pay data must be examined together. A hypothetical and undocumented amount cannot be set as a "comparable wage".

Maturity and default remain distinct. Even where the şua leave pay becomes claimable upon an actual termination, interest does not start automatically on the same day. If there is no prior valid default covering the matured claim, the appropriate notice sent after the actual termination, or otherwise the final minutes of mediation in which the claim is clearly stated, or the lawsuit date, are assessed for the start of interest.

This affects:

• the date of maturity,
• the start of the five-year limitation period,
• the last wage and any variable-wage reference,
• the earliest date from which default may be established,
• whether mediation as a condition precedent to litigation was carried out at the right time.

In a file where a reinstatement lawsuit is pending, the actual termination must be determined before the şua leave claim is placed on a separate litigation timetable.

How are termination types reflected in the start date?

Are there other acts that interrupt the limitation period?

Under Article 154 of the TBK, the employer's acknowledgment of the debt, particularly a partial payment or a payment of interest, may interrupt the limitation period. However, not every payroll line, accounting entry or settlement discussion is an express acknowledgment of the debt.

The following documents should also be assessed:

• a personnel statement stating "unused şua leave balance",
• a partial şua leave payment made in the termination calculation,
• an e-mail or minute by the employer accepting the debt,
• the signed mediation settlement document,
• a partial payment made in enforcement proceedings.

If interruption is accepted, a new period of the same nature starts to run; where the debt is fixed by a final court judgment, the new period is, as a rule, ten years.

How are partial payments set off against principal and interest?

A partial payment made by the employer raises three separate questions: acknowledgment of the debt, interruption of the limitation period and the item to which the payment is to be allocated. A payment without explanation cannot be treated as acknowledgment of the şua leave debt. On the other hand, where the bank explanation, payroll or written reconciliation expressly ties the payment to "şua/health leave pay", acknowledgment and interruption have a stronger effect.

Under Article 100 of the TBK, if the debtor is in delay in paying interest or costs, it cannot simply deduct the partial payment from the principal as it pleases. The payment explanation, the creditor's receipt and the interest and costs accrued must be examined together, and the set-off rules of Articles 100 to 102 of the TBK must be applied. Wrongly deducting the whole partial payment from the principal may produce an understated later interest calculation.

Where the partial payment document contains a statement such as "I waive my balance claim" or a release, a separate check under TBK Article 420 is also carried out. The receipt effect of the amount paid must not be confused with the claim that the remaining claim has ended.

Gross and net principal and the interest base

It must be expressly stated whether the claim sought is gross or net. Where the court has awarded a gross claim, statutory deductions are applied at the payment or enforcement stage; interest is also calculated on the principal awarded and the scope of the judgment. Where the expert applies interest to the gross principal and then grosses up again in the result, or subjects the net principal to deductions once more, this may produce a duplicated reduction.

Which elements of pay are taken into account in calculating the principal of the şua leave claim is the subject of a separate guide entitled "How Is the Şua Leave Claim Calculated? Last Wage, Premiums and Actual Wage Basis". On this page the gross/net distinction is addressed only to the extent that it affects limitation, interest and enforcement calculations.

Examples of limitation and interest scenarios

Example 1: Timely application, entire former working period

Assume that the employee worked from 1 January 2010 to 1 September 2026 and never used the former-period şua leave. Limitation does not start at the end of each service year; it starts with the actual termination on 1 September 2026. If a lawsuit is filed within five years, not only the period 2021–2026 but all the relevant working periods in which leave was earned under the former regime and not used are examined.

This example does not mean that the number of days is accepted automatically. Entitlement, the periods of legislation, leave records and the post-2023 regime must be proved separately.

Example 2: Mediation suspends but does not reset

If the termination was on 1 September 2021, the application for mediation on 1 August 2026 and the final minutes on 21 August 2026, the period in between does not count towards limitation. After the final minutes, the period remaining as at the application date resumes running. It cannot be said that "a new five years has begun".

Example 3: Formal notice brings interest forward

If the termination was on 1 March 2026 and the formal notice expressly claiming the şua leave pay was served on 10 March, with a seven-day period given, default may, where the conditions are met, start on 18 March. Even if mediation ended on 1 May, an earlier valid default date may be preserved for the purpose of interest.

Example 4: No prior notice, final minutes

If the termination was on 1 March 2026, there was no notice, and the final mediation minutes expressly showed the şua leave pay as at 1 May 2026, then under the Court of Cassation's general approach to labour claims interest may start on 1 May. The date of the final minutes, not the date of the application, is taken.

Example 5: Period-based interest

Where default began on 1 January 2024 for a claim of TL 100,000 and payment is made on 31 August 2026, the date ranges at 9%, 24% and 31% are calculated separately. The final 31% rate is not applied to all the earlier years.

Example 6: Early lawsuit after reinstatement

If the first termination was on 1 June 2024; the employee applied within the time limit after a reinstatement decision; and the employer notified on 1 November 2025 that it would not reinstate the employee, the first termination may have been eliminated. The maturity and limitation of the şua claim are assessed by reference to the actual termination/non-reinstatement date rather than 1 June 2024.

The detailed day count for this example is in the section above, "Concrete date example for maturity after reinstatement". The date on which the decision became final, the date of service, the date of application and the date of the clear refusal or the end of the one-month period must be recorded separately.

Which documents should be prepared before filing a lawsuit?

• [ ] Employment contract, job description and additional protocols
• [ ] Applicable collective agreement, workplace regulation and any special payment/interest provisions
• [ ] SGK service statement and the notice of termination
• [ ] Records showing transfer of the workplace or employer, change of subcontractor and continuous work
• [ ] Notice of termination, resignation or just-cause termination notice
• [ ] Reinstatement lawsuit and decisions; application for reinstatement and documents on failure to reinstate
• [ ] Wage payslips, bank records and variable-pay statements
• [ ] Şua/health leave forms and leave balance records
• [ ] Controlled area, shift, on-call, turnstile, PACS/RIS/HBYS and dosimeter records
• [ ] Leave and payment requests sent to the employer and service documents
• [ ] Mediation application form, invitation and final minutes
• [ ] Earlier lawsuit, enforcement proceedings, acknowledgment of debt or partial payment documents
• [ ] Release, severance, settlement or mediation settlement document and bank payments
• [ ] Subcontracting agreements between the main employer and the subcontractor and their periods
• [ ] Death and certificate of heirship documents, if applicable

What errors should be looked for in an expert report on interest and limitation?

1. Starting the limitation period at the end of each leave year.
2. Applying the five-year period that begins on termination as "the last five working years before the lawsuit date".
3. Not investigating the actual termination where the first termination was eliminated by reinstatement.
4. Adding the time spent in mediation to the limitation period.
5. Assuming that mediation resets the limitation period.
6. Making an ex officio reduction where the limitation defence has not been raised.
7. Confusing the old partial lawsuit with the new HMK Article 109(4) system.
8. Automatically carrying the effect of the lawsuit date on the increased portion back to before July 31, 2026.
9. Assuming that the new HMK Article 109(4) also carries back the start of interest to the lawsuit date.
10. Treating the termination day as the day of default/interest.
11. Failing to examine the content and service date of the formal notice.
12. Treating the mediation application date as the default date instead of the final minutes date.
13. Failing to check whether the şua leave claim is included in the final minutes.
14. Applying the highest deposit interest rate to the şua leave claim.
15. Taking the statutory rate as a fixed 24% or 31% for the entire period.
16. Failing to make a day-based period breakdown at the 31 July 2026 rate change.
17. Failing to consider partial payments and set-offs together with the default interest accrued on the payment date.
18. Failing to show principal, accrued interest and post-lawsuit interest separately.
19. Confusing gross/net principal with the interest base.
20. Carrying out only an interest calculation under the post-2023 regime without discussing whether a monetary claim arises at all.
21. Treating a workplace or subcontractor change as an actual termination and thereby starting limitation early.
22. Failing to examine the contractual final payment date and any valid special interest provision.
23. Not taking into account the statutory suspension of limitation from March 13, 2020 to June 15, 2020 in old files.
24. Deducting a partial payment directly from the principal contrary to TBK Articles 100 to 102.
25. Failing to examine a release against the conditions of TBK Article 420 and the bank payment.
26. Confusing the gross principal, statutory deductions and the net payment stages.
27. Calculating the excess-loss claim as an automatic mathematical result of the difference between statutory interest and inflation.

Güneş & Güneş Law Firm's legal assessment

The method reached by a combined review of the legal opinion and the set of decisions uploaded is as follows: in a şua leave dispute, first which leave days legally exist, then which actual termination converted those days into a monetary claim, and finally how the limitation and default timetable is formed must be determined.

It is not sufficient to resolve a file merely by saying "there are five years" or "statutory interest applies". The same file may contain five different dates:

1. the period in which the health leave was earned,
2. the actual termination and maturity date,
3. the mediation application that suspends limitation,
4. the notice or final minutes that put the employer in default,
5. the lawsuit and increase date.

A legal report prepared without placing these dates into a single chronology cannot be legally verified. In particular, in files after 31 July 2026, reliance on the repealed uncertain-claim explanation or the application of the new statutory rate to the whole past period are important sources of error.

Step-by-step dispute roadmap

1. Establish the status: A worker subject to Law No. 4857, a public worker, or a person under Law No. 657 Articles 4/A or 4/B are not subject to the same procedure.
2. Determine the actual termination: Where there is reinstatement, a workplace transfer or intermittent work, do not rely on the SGK code alone.
3. Divide the leave days into periods: Calculate separately the former Regulation, the transitional interval and the post-2022 and post-2023 regimes.
4. Prove the unused days: Cross-check the leave forms against the digital work records.
5. Draw up the limitation timetable: Show the dates of termination, mediation, lawsuit, acknowledgment and partial payment in a single table.
6. Establish default: A notice expressly claiming the şua leave pay; otherwise, check the scope of the final mediation minutes.
7. Investigate special maturity and interest: Examine the provisions in the employment contract, the collective agreement, the severance agreement and the workplace regulation.
8. Apply to mediation with the correct parties: Show the main and subcontractor employers, the periods of the transferring and acquiring employers, and the şua leave pay item clearly.
9. Choose the procedure according to the lawsuit date: There is no HMK Article 107 after July 31, 2026; evaluate HMK Article 109(4) or a full performance lawsuit.
10. Divide the interest by periods: Apply the statutory rates in force from the date of default on a day-by-day basis.
11. Assess excess loss separately: In a long delay, examine the concrete economic loss beyond statutory interest and the conditions of TBK Article 122.
12. Check releases and payments: Separate the validity of the TBK Article 420 release from the acknowledgment and set-off effect of a partial payment.
13. Check the expert report against legal dates: A purely mathematical check is not sufficient.

Public servants: competent court and time-limit warning

The compulsory mediation, labour court, HMK Article 109 and labour-claim limitation explanations in this article are primarily intended for employees under an employment contract.

For personnel employed in the status of Law No. 657 Article 4/A or 4/B in a state or university hospital, the health leave and monetary claims are examined, depending on whether the act is an administrative act or action, through the institutional application, the time limits of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK), and an action for annulment or full remedy. The 60-day period for bringing an administrative action, the distinction between act and action and the effect of an application on the time limit cannot be replaced by the five-year worker limitation period in this article.

A person who works in a public hospital in the status of a "permanent worker" may be subject to the labour law and labour court regime even though employed by a public body. The legal status of the person, not the name of the institution, is decisive.

Common mistakes

• Saying "there is a 2012 Court of Cassation decision; every leave year expires in five years".
• Assuming that "termination happened; interest started the same day".
• Thinking "I applied for mediation; I have gained a new five years".
• Failing to mention the şua claim at all in the mediation form.
• Claiming interest from the application date instead of the final minutes date.
• Still treating statutory interest as a fixed 24%.
• Applying the 31% rate to the whole 2024–2026 period.
• Claiming the highest deposit interest rate on a şua claim without an alternative claim.
• Filing an uncertain-claim lawsuit after 31 July 2026.
• Regarding it as certain that the new HMK Article 109(4) also carries back the interest on the increased portion.
• Treating the first termination as the date of maturity after a reinstatement decision.
• Treating every SGK exit, subcontractor change or transfer of the workplace as an actual termination.
• Accepting a release that does not meet the TBK Article 420 conditions as a definitive loss of rights.
• Not investigating the contractual payment date or valid special interest provision in a collective agreement.
• Not checking the COVID-19 statutory suspension of limitation in an old file.
• Deducting a partial payment from the principal without examining the interest and costs.
• Calculating excess loss merely as the statutory interest-inflation gap.
• Directing a public servant to the labour court and mediation.
• Assuming after 2023 that unused health leave is certainly converted into money upon termination.

Frequently asked questions

Does limitation for şua leave start at the end of each working year?

No. Under the current Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber approach, unused former-regime şua leave does not convert into a monetary claim while the employment relationship continues; the limitation period starts with the actual termination.

Can only the last five years of service before termination be claimed?

No. The five years are the period within which the claim may be asserted after termination. If a proper application is made within that period, the unused şua leave for the entire relevant working period under the former regime is examined.

Is the limitation period definitively five years?

Current practice is five years. Very old terminations, transitional provisions and suspension or interruption grounds must be examined separately with concrete dates.

Can I apply to mediation if the limitation period has already expired?

The application can be made technically; however, if the limitation period has already expired, mediation does not revive the period that has passed in the past. The employer may raise the defence of limitation.

Does mediation restart the five-year period?

No. The time from the application to the final minutes is not counted; the time that has already passed is not erased.

Must a lawsuit be filed within two weeks after the final mediation minutes?

Generally, no, for a şua leave pay claim. The special two-week period concerns the reinstatement lawsuit. For the şua leave claim, the remaining limitation period is what counts.

Does interest start automatically from the termination date?

As a rule, no. Termination makes the claim matured; interest requires default, established by an express notice, the final mediation minutes or a lawsuit.

Is the application date or the final minutes date the start of interest in mediation?

Where there was no valid earlier default, the Court of Cassation takes the date of the final minutes, where the claim item is expressly shown in them, for claims other than severance pay.

Must the amount be stated exactly in a formal notice?

In Court of Cassation practice, it is important to list the types of claim individually; an exact amount is not always mandatory. In any event, the claim, the period and the intention to pay must be stated clearly.

Which interest applies to a şua leave claim?

According to the current decisions of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, statutory interest applies; the highest deposit interest rate applied by banks does not.

Is the 2026 statutory interest rate 24%?

Until 30 July 2026, the rate for the relevant period was 24%. From 31 July 2026, under the new TCMB-linked system, 31% per year applies until the end of 2026.

Will 31% apply in 2027 as well?

Not certainly. The new system looks at the TCMB rediscount rate as at 31 December and, where the conditions are met, 30 June each year; the current TCMB data must be confirmed on the date of publication and of the calculation.

Can a partially sued claim be increased and does limitation then run back?

For a portion increased once under the conditions of new HMK Article 109(4) after 31 July 2026, limitation is treated as interrupted on the lawsuit date. For older lawsuits, the type of lawsuit and the date of amendment are examined separately.

Does new HMK Article 109(4) also carry interest back to the lawsuit date for the increased portion?

The law does not expressly say so; it only regulates limitation. Where there was no earlier default covering the whole claim, new case law on the start of interest should be awaited.

Can an uncertain-claim lawsuit be brought after 31 July 2026?

No new uncertain-claim lawsuit can be filed after 31 July 2026. Lawsuits filed before that date continue under the former HMK Article 107 by virtue of the transitional provision.

Does a pending reinstatement action affect when the şua leave claim becomes due?

If the original termination has been removed through the reinstatement process, the şua leave claim may not yet be due before the date of actual return to work. The 9th Civil Chamber decision E.2025/4838, K.2025/8455 shows this risk of premature litigation.

Does limitation start if the workplace or the subcontractor changes?

Not automatically. If work continues without interruption in the same hospital, the change may amount to a transfer of an undertaking and the employment contract does not end. In hospitals attached to the Ministry of Health too, the public employer, the service-procurement chain, the principal–subcontractor relationship and the periods of responsibility of companies must be determined through concrete documents.

Are the Ministry of Health and a subcontracting company jointly liable for the şua leave claim?

Where a valid principal–subcontractor relationship within the meaning of Article 2 of the Labour Law exists, the relevant public employer and the subcontractor may be jointly liable within the scope of the law. However, it cannot be assumed that the Ministry of Health is automatically the defendant in every public hospital; in the university, affiliated-body and city-hospital models the correct legal person must be separately identified. The institutions and companies to be made parties must be shown separately, under their correct titles, in the mediation application.

What if I signed a severance agreement, does my right end?

Not every release is valid. The one-month period under TBK Article 420, written form, the type and amount of the claim, and full bank payment must all be satisfied together. A partial payment may have a receipt effect only as regards the amount paid.

How is a şua leave claim protected if only severance pay is agreed in mediation?

It must be expressly stated that the şua leave pay, its related interest and, where applicable, excess-loss claims are excluded from the agreement and are reserved. A soft "I have no other labour claims" clause must not be signed; the agreed claim, period, amount and payment plan must be listed one by one, because a valid mediation settlement may be a bar to suit on the matters agreed.

What happens if the collective agreement contains a special payment date or interest?

First, examine whether the provision covers the şua leave pay and whether it is valid. If a definite payment date exists, default may arise without a notice; if no valid special interest provision exists, statutory interest applies.

Does the COVID-19 suspension of limitation apply to every file?

No. The limitation period must have started before 13 March 2020 and must not have expired on that date. Where the employment contract ended after 15 June 2020, the COVID-19 suspension as a rule gives no additional time.

Does making a partial payment restart limitation?

Where the payment shows an acknowledgment of the şua leave debt, acknowledgment and interruption may come into question. A payment without explanation does not produce the same result; the allocation of the payment to interest, costs and principal is also examined.

If statutory interest does not cover inflation, can I claim more?

Where the conditions are met, excess loss may be claimed under TBK Article 122. However, the difference between inflation and statutory interest is not an automatic claim; the excess loss, causation and the debtor's fault are examined in the concrete case.

Are health-leave days after 2023 definitely converted into money upon termination?

There is not yet a settled and direct series of Court of Cassation decisions on this matter as there is for the former Regulation period. The prohibition on transfer, the employer's refusal to grant the leave and the nature of the protective right must be assessed in the specific file.

What work can Güneş & Güneş Law Firm carry out on these files?

Depending on the circumstances of the file, the following legal work may be carried out:

• separation of the working and legislative periods,
• establishment of the actual termination and reinstatement timeline,
• examination of leave balance, controlled area and automation records,
• preparation of a limitation suspension and interruption table,
• drafting of a formal notice of default and of a mediation application with the claim items,
• determination of joint liability and transfer-of-workplace responsibility between main employer and subcontractor,
• validity review of releases, severance, mediation settlement and partial payments,
• examination of special time-limit and interest provisions in contracts and collective agreements,
• selection of the correct type of lawsuit before and after 31 July 2026,
• verification of principal and periodic statutory interest,
• where the conditions are met, preparation of the excess-loss claim and the proof plan under TBK Article 122,
• preparation of a legal and mathematical objection to the expert report,
• assessment of the administrative application and the competent court in public-personnel files.

The outcome of every file depends on the employment status, the legislative period, the evidence, the actual termination, the limitation steps and the current case law. No guarantee of outcome can be given.

Conclusion

The correct answer to a şua leave claim is not simply "limitation is five years, interest is statutory interest". First, the regime under which the right arose, whether the unused days converted into a monetary claim and the actual termination must be determined.

On the current Court of Cassation approach to the former regime:

• leave does not convert into money while the employment relationship continues;
• the monetary claim matures on actual termination;
• limitation starts on termination;
• the current period is five years;
• five years does not limit the claim to the last five working years;
• interest requires a separate default;
• the type of interest is statutory interest;
• where there was no earlier notice, the date of the final mediation minutes may be the date of default;
• a workplace or subcontractor change is not in every case an actual termination;
• a valid special payment or interest provision in the contract and a release valid under TBK Article 420 must be examined separately;
• where statutory interest is exceeded by a concrete loss, a separate excess-loss claim under TBK Article 122 may arise.

From 31 July 2026, two new rules are particularly important: the uncertain-claim lawsuit has been abolished and the partial lawsuit has been strengthened; and statutory interest, which was previously a fixed rate, is linked to the TCMB rediscount rate. The rate until the end of 2026 is 31%, but past interest periods are calculated at their own rates. This change has not repealed the excess-loss institution in Article 122 of the TBK.

Final legal principle: A reliable result cannot be established for a şua leave file without showing the accrual of the right, maturity, limitation, default, lawsuit and interest dates separately in a single timeline.

Confidentiality and legal information

Information and documents shared with Güneş & Güneş Law Firm are assessed under the rules on attorney professional secrecy, the duty of confidentiality and the legislation on the protection of personal data. PACS, RIS or HBYS records containing patient data must not be sent through insecure channels; patient identification details outside the fields necessary for legal evidence should be masked.

This guide is intended for general legal information. No legal opinion or outcome guarantee is created without examining the documents of the concrete case, the employment status, the legislative period, the actual termination, mediation, any earlier lawsuit or enforcement, leave records and the current interest rate.

Official, judicial and academic sources

Legislation and official data

• Labour Law No. 4857 — UYAP Legislation
• Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 — UYAP Legislation
• Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 — UYAP Legislation
• Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes — UYAP Legislation
• Labour Courts Law No. 7036 — UYAP Legislation
• Law No. 3095 on Statutory Interest and Default Interest — UYAP Legislation
• Law No. 7589 — text adopted by the Grand National Assembly
• Law No. 7226 — text adopted by the Grand National Assembly
• Ministry of Justice — extension of time limits to 15 June 2020 by Decision No. 2480
• TCMB — Rediscount and Advance Interest Rates
• TBB announcement on Presidential Decision No. 8485
• Regulation on Ionising Radiation of April 13, 2023 — Official Gazette

Court decisions

• 9th Civil Chamber, E.2020/5049, K.2021/5141, February 25, 2021 — UYAP
• 9th Civil Chamber, E.2020/5953, K.2021/3837, February 15, 2021 — original decision text uploaded
• 9th Civil Chamber, E.2016/2547, K.2019/12571, May 29, 2019
• 9th Civil Chamber, E.2020/4230, K.2021/1802, January 21, 2021
• General Assembly of Civil Chambers, E.2015/22-3406, K.2019/1117, May 14, 2019
• General Assembly of Civil Chambers, E.2015/9-3157, K.2018/365, February 28, 2018
• 9th Civil Chamber, E.2022/3222, K.2022/3813, March 21, 2022
• 9th Civil Chamber, E.2023/8073, K.2023/10333, July 4, 2023
• 9th Civil Chamber, E.2022/436, K.2022/1380, February 7, 2022
• 9th Civil Chamber, E.2024/15165, K.2025/2237, March 3, 2025
• 9th Civil Chamber, E.2024/13393, K.2025/797, January 22, 2025
• 9th Civil Chamber, E.2025/4838, K.2025/8455, November 4, 2025
• Council of State 12th Chamber, E.2023/3008, K.2025/2739, May 27, 2025
• Constitutional Court Plenary Assembly, Caner Şafak, Application No. 2024/41763, July 8, 2025 — pilot decision

Academic sources

• Miraç Şamil Pekşen, “İş Hukuku Boyutuyla Şua İzni”, Çalışma ve Toplum, 2025/4, No. 87, pp. 1913–1942; in particular pp. 1936–1937.
• Samet Can Olgaç, “İş Hukukunda Şua İzin Alacağı Üzerine Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Genel Bir Değerlendirme”, TBB Dergisi, 2015/117, pp. 333–358.
• İrem Yayvak Namlı, “Radyasyonla Çalışan İşçilerin Şua (Sağlık) İzni”, Sicil İş Hukuku Dergisi, 2024/51, pp. 121–140.
• Yalçın Bostancı, Sevde Bulun Tokkaş and Ecenur Sarıkaya, “Evaluation of the Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber Decision No. 2022/436 E., 1380 K. of February 7, 2022 on the Validity of a Mediation Settlement Document Containing a Release Provision”, Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024, pp. 91–108.