How Many Days of Şua Leave? How Health Leave Is Calculated from Actual Working Hours in a Controlled Area

What is the current legal basis for şua leave?

The right known in practice as "şua leave", "radiation leave" or "ray leave" is, under current legislation, called health leave. The principal sources are:

• Law No. 3153 on Radiology, Radium and Electrotherapy and Other Physiotherapy Establishments,
• Article 103 of Law No. 657 on Civil Servants, for public personnel,
• the Regulation on Health Services Provided Using Ionising Radiation and Radionuclides, published in Official Gazette No. 32162 of 13 April 2023 by Presidential Decision No. 7077,
• Article 8 of the Regulation and the Health Leave Table in EK-2.

Under Article 8 of the Regulation, health leave is granted in addition to annual leave only to employees working in controlled areas where ionising radiation sources and radionuclides are used. The length of leave is determined from EK-2 according to the actual time worked in controlled areas within one calendar year. The same method of calculation applies to radiation workers who use mobile devices such as mobile X-ray or fluoroscopy units.

The ILO Radiation Protection Convention No. 115, which Türkiye has ratified, forms the international framework for protection against occupational exposure to ionising radiation. However, the Convention does not establish an alternative "number of days of leave" table to the EK-2 of Turkish law. The number of days is determined by domestic legal rules; the general direction of radiation protection is determined by assessing national legislation, NDK regulations and the binding international obligations together.

Article 103 of Law No. 657 provides that personnel working with radioactive rays are to be given one additional month of health leave each year on top of their annual leave. For civil servants, the relationship between this statutory provision and the hours table in the Regulation has been debated in terms of the hierarchy of norms. In 2025 the 12th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 12. Daire) rejected actions brought against certain health-leave provisions of the 2023 Regulation. Even so, a civil servant's status, the relevant administrative act, the state of any appeal against the decision and the date of the events must be examined before any litigation strategy is built; the same strategy as for a private-sector employee cannot be applied.

Health leave table in the 2023 Regulation

EK-2 contains thirty steps of 50 hours each. For ease of reading, the complete table is set out below:

The first band is shown in the annex to the Regulation as "0–50 hours". However, zero hours means that no actual work at all was carried out in the controlled area. Because the right is tied to actual work, it cannot be argued that a person who has not worked at all is entitled to a day of leave merely because the figure "0" appears in the table. In academic literature this expression is treated as a drafting problem in the schedule. The workable formula is therefore as follows:

Days of leave = round up (actual hours in the controlled area / 50)

The result may not exceed 30 days. The formula must be applied only to a positive period of actual work.

Quick calculation examples

Common calculation error: Dividing 248 hours by 50 to obtain 4.96 days and rounding down is wrong. The hours are placed in the table band in which they fall; 201–250 hours is five days.

Five-step quick decision test for calculating şua leave

If one of the first three questions cannot be answered, an automatic calculation of days cannot be made merely on the basis of a professional title or hospital department. Once all five questions have been answered, the net period is placed in EK-2.

How are hours in excess of a whole hour, minutes and threshold values calculated?

EK-2 shows the bands in whole hours as "0–50", "51–100" and so on; it does not separately regulate how seconds and minutes are to be rounded. In academic writing, however, the calculation is explained as dividing the total period by 50 and completing any remainder to the next whole day. Accordingly, it is not a safe method for an institution to round a period of 50 hours 1 minute down to 50 whole hours first, thereby hiding the remaining actual work.

For an auditable application, the period must first be converted into minutes:

Total minutes = (whole hours × 60) + remaining minutes Days of leave = round up (total minutes / 3,000)

Legal caution: The minute-sensitive formula is a technical interpretation that applies the stepped 50-hour structure of EK-2 by reference to actual work. Because the Regulation contains no express provision on rounding minutes and there is no settled case law after 2023, the institution's calculation policy, the raw logs and the expert method must be openly debated in any dispute.

In which year is a night shift from 31 December to 1 January recorded?

Because the criterion is the calendar year, a shift that runs over New Year's Eve should not be recorded entirely in one year. For example, a verified controlled-area shift from 22:00 on 31 December to 06:00 on 1 January is recorded as follows: the part from 22:00 to 24:00 counts towards the old calendar year, and the part from 00:00 to 06:00 towards the new one. The time zone of the system, the server clock and the agreement of the logs with Turkish time must also be verified.

How is the calendar-year calculation made?

The current provision bases the calculation on the actual time worked "within one calendar year". The calculation period is, as a rule, 1 January to 31 December; it is not the anniversary of the date of employment.

For example, the controlled-area hours of a person who started work on 1 October 2025 up to 31 December 2025 form the 2025 calculation. From 1 January 2026 the counter starts again from zero for the new calendar year. A single service-year calculation running from October 2025 to September 2026 is not made.

Should health leave be used in the year in which the work was done or in the following year?

This is the most important practical problem of the current system. The Regulation ties the length of leave to actual working hours within one calendar year, while also providing that health leave cannot be divided, cannot be used consecutively across the change of year and cannot be carried over to another year. If the total hours for the year are only finalised on 31 December, the question arises of when the leave, in full days, should be granted within the same year.

Four layers of sources must be distinguished in this matter:

In the accessible summaries of Council of State reasoning, it has been accepted that the granting of health leave at the time it is earned is consistent with its protective purpose and that carrying it over to the following year would contradict that purpose. On the other hand, there is a doctrinal view that, because the number of days of leave is determined by the annual total of hours, the leave should be granted as a single block in the calendar year following the year of work.

For this reason, as of 2026 one of the two propositions should not be selected and written down as an undisputed rule:

• Council of State approach: The leave must be granted in the period in which it is earned without loss of time; like annual leave, it should not be deferred to a later year.
• Doctrinal approach: Because the annual total is finalised on 31 December, the leave corresponding to the work of that year should be taken in one block in the following calendar year; the prohibition on "carrying over to another year" prevents it from being carried into later years.

The method that reduces risk in practice is for the institution to monitor the cumulative hours over the year, to notify staff in writing in advance of which view its planning is based on, and to avoid delays that would make the leave impossible to take in practice. In a concrete application, the outcome of any appeal against the Council of State decision, the personnel status and the act established by the institution must be separately investigated.

Assessment of Güneş & Güneş Law Firm: The wording of the current Regulation prohibits transferring leave to another year; the routine solution is therefore not to accumulate the previous year's leave into the next year. The employer should monitor the actual hours cumulatively over the year, regularly notify the employee of the step reached, and structure the service plan so that the leave can be taken without interruption within the same calendar year. Continuing to employ someone until the year end and then making the full leave period, as it stands on the last day, impossible to take amounts to benefiting from the employer's own planning failure. However, because the Regulation does not expressly regulate a cumulative leave-planning procedure and there is no settled Court of Cassation practice on the point, the status, the administrative act and the route to court must be separately examined in the concrete file.

Cumulative entitlement and planning model

This example shows why leave planning that is set up only at year end may be ineffective. The employer must consider the work schedule together with the non-divisibility of health leave and the annual hours forecast. This table, however, is not a separately written "leave advance" rule in the Regulation; it is a model of institutional planning and dispute avoidance.

Are leave days counted as working days or calendar days?

The current Regulation uses the expression "1 day–30 days" in EK-2, but it does not separately define whether these days are working days or calendar days. The same article provides that leave cannot be divided. Under the former Regulation, which used the language "four weeks of uninterrupted rest", the approach of 28 consecutive calendar days is strong for the former period; that old expression must not be carried over to the current EK-2 without explanation.

For the current period, the start and end dates of the leave, the method of counting weekly rest days and public holidays, and, for shift workers, the date of return to work must be clearly stated when the leave is approved. Treating "30 days" automatically as "30 working days", or marking only shift days scattered across a period in a way that disrupts the employee's continuous rest, may create problems for the non-divisibility purpose of the rules. Until a settled post-2023 line of case law emerges, the institution's practice and the provisions of any collective or employment agreement must be separately examined.

Accrual, step increase and the final calculation are not the same thing

In the current system three stages must not be confused:

• Entry into the protective scope: the employee's actual start of work in a controlled area where ionising radiation is used.
• Step increase: the increase in the number of days of leave as the cumulative period enters each new 50-hour band. For example, 50 hours gives one day; 51 hours gives two days.
• Calculation as at a specific date: placing the verified total hours on the table as at a cut-off date such as termination of employment, change of unit, leave planning or year end.

This distinction shows why the view that "no right arises before a full year has passed" is contested under the current system. The Regulation contains no one-year seniority requirement, and the table places even a very short period of positive actual work in the first step.

How should the three-month to one-year leave in Law No. 657 be reconciled with the 1–30 day table in the Regulation?

Article 103 of Law No. 657 on Civil Servants provides that personnel who work with radioactive rays during their service are to be given one additional month of health leave each year on top of their annual leave. The Regulation, however, establishes a 1–30 day table linked to actual hours for the whole of the personnel covered. The apparent tension between the statute and the Regulation requires separate examination, particularly for civil servants.

Basic questions on the hierarchy of norms

• Is the "one month" in the statute a directly fixed right, or a maximum period that may be made concrete by a regulatory act?
• Can a regulation set leave below the period provided in the statute?
• How does the purpose of Law No. 3153, which protects the health of employees, affect the interpretation?
• What is the majority reasoning, and is there a dissenting opinion, in the Council of State's 2025 rejection decisions?
• Are the decisions final; has an appeal review been lodged?
• Is the civil servant's claim an annulment of the administrative act, a monetary right, or both?

Why is the Constitutional Court decision of 2010 important?

In its norm-review decision E.2010/29, K.2010/90 of July 16, 2010, the Constitutional Court showed three separate layers of protection for civil servants which must not be confused with one another:

1. Annual leave arising from the status of a civil servant;
2. one month of health leave linked to working in a department where radiation is used for diagnosis or treatment under Article 103 of Law No. 657;
3. the leave granted separately under Additional Article 1 of Law No. 3153, linked to exceeding the dose limit.

The Court did not find it unconstitutional for the duration of the third type of leave, which arises from exceeding the dose, and its protective measures to be set by regulation, given their technical nature. This decision explains that ordinary health leave and dose-excess leave are not the same right. However, because the EK-2 table of 2023 did not exist at the time of that decision, the decision should not be presented as a provision that approves every detail of the current table.

What did the Council of State's 2025 review change on the current system?

Among the accessible reasoned texts, the decision of the 12th Chamber of the Council of State E.2023/3008, K.2025/2739 of May 27, 2025 is particularly important. The Chamber rejected applications for annulment directed at EK-2, the actual-hours criterion, the exclusions in Article 8(5) of the Regulation and the wording "cannot be used consecutively across the change of year and cannot be carried over to another year". The rejection on the carry-over prohibition was unanimous; the rejection regarding the second sentence of Article 8(1), Article 8(5) and EK-2 was by majority. The decision indicated that an appeal lies to the Plenary Assembly of the Administrative Chambers of the Council of State within 30 days of notification.

This detail matters for two reasons. First, it cannot be said that "the Council of State has not examined the current system at all". Second, because of the majority vote and the open appeal route, it cannot be said that every aspect of the dispute has been finally and irrevocably resolved, unless the outcome of the appeal has been checked.

The accessible 2025 information from the 12th Chamber indicates that a significant part of the requests for annulment of the health-leave provisions of the Regulation was rejected. However, the full texts of the decisions and the status of any appeal must be checked against the official decision system or the case file before a conclusion is reached that "the debate under Article 103 of Law No. 657 has definitively ended".

Employment status changes the outcome

A private-sector worker cannot rely directly on the provision of Law No. 657 specific to public personnel merely because they work in a health institution. On the other hand, the scope of the Regulation covers both public and private health institutions. Proposing a single application and calculation method before the status has been determined may cause loss of rights.

Working in more than one health institution in the same year

The Regulation does not set out in detail how the total is to be coordinated where an employee works for more than one employer or health facility in the same calendar year. Given the protective purpose and the criterion of "actual time worked within one calendar year", a strong interpretation is that all verified controlled-area work is considered together on a per-person basis. However, access to the records of the previous employer, the determination of who is obliged to grant the leave and the prevention of duplicate leave may cause practical problems.

In such a case the employee should obtain the controlled-area schedule, the assignment records, the dosimetry reports and the document showing the health leave granted from the previous institution; the new institution should also carry out a written assessment for duplication and for any incomplete calculation. It should not be asserted that there is an established line of Court of Cassation case law on this point.

Transfer of the workplace, change of subcontractor and change of the institution's name

A change of the commercial title of a hospital during the calendar year, a merger of companies, a transfer of the workplace or a change of subcontractor does not automatically reset the actual controlled-area work. However, the scope of liability must be determined separately for each legal transaction:

• for a transfer of the workplace, Article 6 of Law No. 4857 and the debt structure at the transfer date;
• for the main employer–subcontractor relationship, Article 2(6)–(7) of Law No. 4857 and whether the work was genuinely delegated to the subcontractor;
• for a sham subcontracting arrangement, the possibility that the worker is treated as an employee of the main employer from the outset;
• for a company merger or change of legal form, the provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code;
• for a move between public bodies, the personnel status and administrative acts

must be examined.

An abstract conclusion that the main employer and the subcontractor are automatically jointly liable in every case cannot be drawn. Joint liability requires that a main employer–subcontractor relationship exist under the law, that the claim arise from work at that workplace and that the relevant period be determined.

What is meant by "actual working time"?

Actual work is a narrower concept than the personnel appearing in the radiology unit on the payroll or being present at the workplace according to the duty roster. The decisive question is the period during which the duty connected with an ionising radiation source or radionuclide was actually performed in the controlled area.

The following factors must be examined together:

• classification of the area as a controlled area under the legislation of the Nuclear Regulatory Authority and in the facility documents;
• the device or source used produces ionising radiation;
• the actual procedures carried out by the employee, not the job description;
• entry and exit and shift records for the controlled area;
• console, exposure, treatment and patient-procedure records of the device;
• PACS, RIS, HBYS, Medula and hospital automation logs;
• personal dosimeter custody and measurement results;
• temporary assignment and call-out schedules;
• occupational health and safety, radiation protection and quality records.

How is a controlled area identified?

A department being referred to in everyday language as a "radiation area", or being labelled with a different name in the employer's records, is not in itself decisive. The area is classified by its technical characteristics, the expected exposure and the special radiation protection measures that must be applied. The area classification guidelines of the Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NDK) focus on entry and exit control, personal dosimetry, area measurements and record keeping.

In a dispute, at least the following documents should be examined:

• NDK authorisation, licence and activity documents;
• the radiation area layout plan of the facility;
• classification records for controlled and supervised areas;
• the radiation protection programme and instructions;
• area dose-rate measurement reports;
• records of the radiation protection officer and of the committee;
• the type, serial number, area of use and maintenance and calibration documents of the device;
• personal dosimeter custody records and measurement periods;
• records of how a temporary controlled area was delimited in the case of a mobile application.

The fact that an employer has classified an area incorrectly or incompletely does not remove the real technical conditions. Where necessary, an inspection and document review should be carried out with expert court-appointed experts in health law, occupational safety and radiation physics.

A dosimeter result and actual hours are not the same thing. The dosimeter is an important technical piece of evidence on exposure; however, the days of leave are, as a rule, calculated from the actual hours in the controlled area, not from the measured quantity in mSv. Exceeding the dose limit is a separate exceptional circumstance that requires immediate granting of leave.

Equipment exposure time, procedure time, shift and controlled-area time are not the same

Taking only the few seconds in which the device emits radiation as the basis may understate the actual task in the controlled area. Conversely, counting the entire eight-hour shift as controlled-area time is also wrong where the employee was, for part of that period, writing a report, admitting patients or performing administrative tasks. The correct calculation combines the area and device technology with the workflow in the digital records.

Auditable technical calculation protocol for actual hours

Basic formula

Total actual period in the controlled area = verified normal controlled-area work + verified on-call and overtime + work with a mobile device verified as such + verified controlled-area work during temporary assignments − duplicate records − periods spent outside the controlled area − periods of leave and reports without actual work.

Order of matching records

1. Identify the calendar year and the legislative sub-period.
2. Extract the controlled areas and mobile devices of the facility from the technical documentation.
3. Prepare the shift and assignment schedule of the employee.
4. Obtain the user, time stamp and type of procedure from the PACS, RIS, HBYS, Medula and device logs.
5. Cross-check against the area entry–exit and dosimeter records.
6. Separate annual leave, reports and assignments outside the controlled area.
7. Treat duplicate system records showing the same procedure as a single period of work.
8. Keep uncertain periods in a separate column with the reason stated; do not add or subtract them automatically without verification.
9. Place the annual total in the EK-2 step.
10. Separately assess the health leave used and the date of termination of employment.

How is the reliability of digital records tested?

Not every digital record has the same probative force. It must be examined whether the user account is shared, whether the system clock is correct, whether the logs can be altered after the event, how the device is integrated with the hospital system and how long records are retained. A sound examination should show the following:

• the system and server that generated the record;
• the user or staff identity;
• the procedure and device identity;
• the start and end time stamps and the time zone;
• the date of export of the record;
• the method of checking for duplicates;
• gaps or deleted data;
• the institution and authority that delivered the record;
• the technical method that confirms the integrity of the record.

A screenshot may be a useful starting piece of evidence; however, where possible, the raw log, the institution's written reply and a verifiable export should be obtained.

Are preparation, reporting and duties outside the room counted?

Patient admission, report writing, general meetings, administrative duties outside the controlled area or waiting time without use of the device cannot be automatically counted as actual work in the controlled area. On the other hand, preparation, work with the source, quality control or required procedural time carried out within the controlled area by the nature of the procedure may be taken into account if it can be proved by genuine records.

The institution counting the whole shift as controlled-area time merely from the start and end of the shift, or using only the seconds during which the device emitted radiation without any breakdown, may not reflect the actual workflow. Technical expert examination should consider the area plan, device type, task flow and digital logs together.

Is overtime included in the calculation of health leave?

The Regulation contains no express prohibition stating that "overtime hours are not counted". Since the criterion is actual time worked in the controlled area, it is inconsistent with the protective purpose of the right to treat controlled-area work that is proven to have been actually performed as invisible merely because it exceeded the normal programme, even if it was unlawfully required.

Nevertheless, three matters must be distinguished:

1. Health leave calculation: the actual controlled-area hours determine the EK-2 step.
2. Overtime pay: exceeding the limits on working time may also give rise to separate pay claims and to consequences under occupational health and safety law.
3. Upper limit: although total actual hours above 1,500 may be recorded, the health leave under EK-2 is at most 30 days. Hours in excess do not increase the health leave to 31 days or more; however, overtime, the dose limit and the employer's responsibility are examined separately.

In a claim of unrecorded overtime, the on-call schedule alone may not be sufficient. The device log, patient procedure record, entry–exit data, PACS/RIS user records and witness statements should be cross-checked.

How is work with mobile X-ray and fluoroscopy calculated?

Article 8 of the Regulation expressly covers radiation workers using mobile devices such as mobile X-ray or fluoroscopy. The fact that work is not carried out in a fixed radiology room does not remove the right.

The following questions must be answered in the file of a mobile device:

• Is the device a source of ionising radiation?
• Was the temporary area in which the procedure was carried out delimited by the controlled-area measures during the application?
• Who operated the device, and what was the actual task of the staff working around the device?
• Was the start and end time of each procedure, and the record of the user carrying it out, kept?
• Have repetitions in the operating theatre, intensive care unit or at the bedside been matched with the staff concerned?
• Do the dosimeter and device logs corroborate each other?

Mobile work does not mean that the whole duty roster is automatically counted as controlled-area hours. However, a hospital cannot disregard genuine mobile procedures on the ground that there is no entry record for a fixed room. The usage log of the device, the operation note, the patient protocol and the consumable and image archive records may show the actual period of work.

Example matrix for mobile applications

These examples are not an exhaustive list of professions. Each event is separately evaluated for the delimitation of the area, the type of device, the workflow and the records.

Are temporary assignment periods counted?

A temporary assignment of an employee to another unit of the same institution or to another health facility neither increases nor decreases the period by itself. If actual work with ionising radiation was performed in the controlled area during the assignment, those hours must be added to the total for the relevant calendar year. If the assignment was outside the controlled area, that period does not count.

In practice, record-keeping responsibility may be divided between two institutions. The personnel and payroll records of the sending institution and the shift, device and automation records of the receiving institution should be requested together. The approval of an assignment shows only the duration of the task; by itself it does not prove that the entire period was actually spent working in the controlled area.

How do reports, annual leave and other leave affect the calculation of actual hours?

Article 8(5) of the Regulation expressly provides that periods spent on maternity, death, marriage and annual leave are not included in the working time. Since no actual controlled-area work is considered to take place in those periods, they are not added to the total of hours.

Because the Regulation does not expressly list reports and unpaid leave, it should not be said that they are "prohibited by law". The correct reasoning is that, as a rule, there is no actual controlled-area work in those periods. However, if a person was actually made to work on days recorded as sick or on leave, that unlawful practice may be established through digital records; a paper leave record alone does not change the material facts.

Three-fold legal classification: Annual, maternity, death and marriage leave are expressly excluded in the Regulation. Reports, unpaid leave and similar periods are excluded because there is no actual work in them. Divisible periods such as practical training in the controlled area, actual work on an administrative-leave day and breastfeeding leave are assessed according to concrete hours records.

Does "non-divisible" mean that an unused right is entirely lost?

Two consequences must be kept apart:

• Under the Regulation, health leave of a past year cannot in fact be granted by combining it with the leave of a new year.
• Whether the worker or civil servant may make a legal claim because the employer did not grant the leave on time depends on the status, the date of the event and the competent court.

Under the former case law, it was accepted for workers that unused şua leave could turn into a pay claim upon termination of the employment contract. However, no settled body of Court of Cassation case law yet interprets, in all its aspects, the non-divisibility rule of the 2023 hours-based system and the post-termination monetary consequence directly. For this reason, categorical statements such as "it is definitively lost" or "in every case it converts into pay upon termination" should be avoided.

How is the 30-day ceiling applied?

The final step of EK-2 is 30 days for 1,451–1,500 hours. The Regulation does not provide for 31 or more days for higher hours. Accordingly, where actual controlled-area work exceeds 1,500 hours, the health-leave calculation stops at 30 days.

This ceiling does not give the employer authority to require unlimited work. Weekly working limits, the prohibition on or conditions for overtime, the special rules on working for radiation workers, personal dose limits and the protective obligations under Law No. 6331 on Occupational Health and Safety also apply. Where the dose limit has been exceeded, it is not permissible to continue work merely by stating that "the 30-day ceiling has been reached"; the Regulation requires that leave be granted immediately and that the necessary occupational health and safety measures be taken.

Is the 1,500-hour threshold a formula of 35 hours × 52 weeks?

No. The 1,500-hour ceiling of EK-2 is a binding schedule provision and must not be reproduced in a payroll or expert calculation using a different arithmetical formula. A maximum working week of 35 hours does not mean that every week counts entirely as actual controlled-area work. Furthermore, mathematically 35 × 52 = 1,820 hours. The different totals that may appear in some court or practice texts are not independent calculation rules replacing the official EK-2 and must be verified against the original document in case of transcription or drafting errors.

The correct method is not to subtract leave days from the theoretical annual working time, but to add up the verified period that the person actually spent in the controlled area. The 35-hour weekly limit is a working-time protection; EK-2 is a separate scale determining the number of days of health leave.

Health leave does not replace dose limits or occupational health and safety measures

Health leave should not be described as a treatment that "eliminates" radiation risk or that scientifically "cleanses" the effects in the body. Its legal function is an additional rest and exposure-reduction measure that removes the employee from the controlled area for a specified period. In addition, the employer must:

• apply justification, optimisation and the principle of keeping exposure as low as reasonably achievable in radiation protection;
• monitor area and personal dose;
• provide suitable personal protective equipment;
• provide health surveillance;
• provide training, device maintenance and quality control;
• investigate the source and working conditions where a dose limit has been exceeded

The right to refuse work under Article 13 of Law No. 6331 is not the same as an automatic and unilateral power to "go on şua leave". Serious and imminent danger conditions, application to the board or the employer, and the emergency exception are assessed separately.

Pregnant and breastfeeding employees

The situation of a pregnant or breastfeeding employee cannot be managed only through the annual health-leave table. The special radiation protection rules, risk assessment, dose restrictions, notification, and adaptation of duties and workplace must all be applied together. The exclusion of maternity leave from the EK-2 calculation does not remove the employer's protective obligations specific to pregnancy and breastfeeding.

How is health leave calculated for part-year employees?

The current Regulation contains no one-year seniority requirement and no rule that "an employee who does not work for a full year cannot take leave". The actual hours of a person who joined during the year, was assigned to a unit during the year, or worked in the controlled area only for certain months of the year are placed on the table for that calendar year.

Example 1 — Joining during the year

An employee started work on 1 September and actually worked 318 hours in the controlled area up to 31 December. Under the band 301–350 hours, seven days of health leave are calculated. Because the employee worked for four months, no separate proportion of "30 days × 4/12" is calculated; the Regulation already establishes a proportion based on hours.

Example 2 — Leaving the controlled area during the year

An employee worked 465 hours in the controlled area between January and May and, from June onwards, was assigned only to the MR unit. Because MR does not produce ionising radiation, the period spent only in MR is not added automatically. Under the band 451–500 hours, ten days of leave arise.

Example 3 — Several interrupted periods

An employee worked 210 hours in the controlled area in January–March and 175 hours in July–September. The verified periods in the same calendar year are added together: 385 hours. Under the band 351–400 hours, eight days of health leave are calculated.

How is an incomplete year assessed where employment ends?

If the employment contract ends before the calendar year is complete, the hours actually worked in the controlled area up to the date of leaving may be established and placed in EK-2. The Regulation contains no provision that "no right arises before 31 December". However, the actual granting of health leave and a monetary claim on termination are different matters.

If the employee could have been granted leave before leaving, the employer should not eliminate the protective right by paying money. If the contract has ended, it is no longer possible to grant the rest leave in kind. Under the former regime, the Court of Cassation's approach is that unused leave converts into a pay claim on termination. Since there is no settled, direct case law on the monetary outcome of an incomplete year under the new hours system, the following elements must be assessed together:

• the table step that arose by the termination date;
• whether the leave was granted by the employer;
• the status of the contract and of the work;
• the applicable legislative period;
• the employee's last actual wage and regular pay components;
• limitation and compulsory mediation;
• any leave or payment documents for the same period.

Assessment of Güneş & Güneş Law Firm: Where the table step was reached before the date of termination, entirely disregarding all protection merely because 31 December had not arrived would not be consistent with the purpose of the Regulation, which is to measure actual work and protect the health of workers. However, this view should not be presented as a settled post-2023 Court of Cassation case law binding on the court in the concrete dispute.

Why must the former and the new periods be calculated separately?

One of the most serious errors in a şua leave dispute is to apply a single legislative regime to the whole of a ten-year working period. As a rule, a legal rule applies to events that occur after it comes into force.

Up to 25 June 2021: fixed four-week system

Article 24 of the 1939 Regulation on Radiology, Radium and Electrotherapy Establishments provided that personnel who worked permanently with X-rays and radium for five hours a day were to be given four consecutive weeks of health leave a year. Four weeks is 28 days; "one month" must not be confused with the 30 or 31 days that differ in each calendar month.

The Regulation was repealed by Presidential Decision No. 4144, published in Official Gazette No. 31522 of 25 June 2021. Former-period Court of Cassation decisions still matter for their own dates of events, but they are not decisions interpreting the current 50-hour table.

Gap between 25 June 2021 and 25 April 2022 and the transition problem

A problem of application in terms of time arose between the repeal of the Regulation and the entry into force of the first new Regulation on 26 April 2022. Law No. 3153 and, for public personnel, Law No. 657 remained in force, and the subordinate legislation changed. For this interval it must not be automatically assumed that either the former Regulation remained in force or that the not-yet-effective EK-2 applies retrospectively. Status, acquired rights, statutory provisions and administrative practice must be examined separately in the concrete file.

26 April 2022 – 12 April 2023: first EK-2 system

The 2022 Regulation, put into effect by Presidential Decision No. 5530, introduced the principle of actual work in a supervised area and the EK-2 table. The Ministry of Health's implementing letter No. E-95966346-449-512 dated 12 May 2022 shows the administrative approach to how the 2022 transition was to be carried out. That letter is neither a statute nor a court decision; its legal weight in a concrete case must be assessed accordingly.

The Ministry of Health letter adopted a transition approach under which the work of personnel who had used the 2021 health leave during January 1, 2022–April 25, 2022 was calculated under the table of the first Regulation and granted within 2022, while the work from April 26, 2022–December 31, 2022 was calculated under the table and granted within 2023. This method is an administrative practice specific to the 2022 transition; it cannot be used as a general rule, exceeding the prohibition on carry-over of the 2023 Regulation in every year.

The Ombudsman Institution (Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumu) recommended in 2024, in an application by staff who could not use the health leave arising from the 2022 period because of administrative causes, that the grievance be remedied, despite the Ministry's transition letter. A decision of the Ombudsman Institution is not a court decision and does not create binding judicial case law; however, it shows the official practice during the transition, the assessment of good administration and fairness.

From 13 April 2023: current controlled-area system

The 2023 Regulation, published by Presidential Decision No. 7077, repealed the 2022 Regulation and retained the hours-based EK-2 system, replacing the terminology of "supervised area" with "controlled area". For the current period, Article 8 of the Regulation and EK-2 apply.

What do the Council of State's 2025 decisions show about the current system?

Provisions of the 2023 Regulation on health leave have been the subject of regulatory-act proceedings. According to the accessible reasoned text, in its decision E.2023/3008, K.2025/2739 of May 27, 2025, the 12th Chamber of the Council of State rejected applications for annulment directed at the second sentence of Article 8(1) of the Regulation, the carry-over prohibition in Article 8(4), Article 8(5) and EK-2. Related decision information under the references E.2023/3019, K.2025/2741 and E.2023/3210, K.2025/2743 is also available; however, the parties, scope of the claim, full reasoning and appeal status of each decision must be verified from its own file.

The effect of the decisions should be understood within the following limits:

The rejection in case E.2023/3008 was unanimous as to the carry-over prohibition; the rejection as to the actual-hours criterion, Article 8(5) and EK-2 was by majority. The decision indicates an appeal to the Plenary Assembly of the Administrative Chambers of the Council of State within 30 days of notification. For this reason, the decision number alone should not be relied on; the appeal and finality position should be checked at the time of the publication or the concrete application.

The full texts of the decisions, any dissenting opinions, the date of notification and the appeal position should be checked again at the time of publication or of the concrete application, through the Council of State decision system and the case file. A sentence from a decision that cannot be accessed must not be quoted in quotation marks.

Multi-year example

Where an employee worked continuously from 2019 to 2026, the calculation should be set up as follows:

The years 2022 and 2023 must be divided into further sub-periods because the legislation changed during the year. The results should be combined without creating duplicate rights within the same year and taking the transition practice into account.

Numerical multi-year example

The following assumption is only for showing the calculation method: the employee satisfied the conditions of the Regulation in the former period; for 2022 onwards, the hours in the supervised/controlled area have been verified by the institution's records.

Because there are two different sub-periods of the 2023 Regulation, it may not be correct to add the 5 and 18 days together to 23 days without any examination, or to place all the hours of 2023 under a single regulation. The transition provision, the leave used and any duplication must be considered together.

What documents are needed for the calculation?

A sound calculation cannot be made from the payroll or personnel schedule alone. At least the following groups of data should be compared:

Work and assignment records

• employment contract, appointment and job descriptions;
• shift, on-call, call-out and time-keeping schedules;
• approvals of temporary assignments;
• controlled-area entry–exit records;
• access card and camera records, having regard to retention periods and personal data rules.

Technical and hospital digital records

• PACS image and user logs;
• RIS procedure records;
• HBYS and Medula transactions;
• device console and exposure logs;
• nuclear medicine application and source records;
• surgery, fluoroscopy and mobile-device protocols;
• personal dosimeter reports and custody records.

Leave and pay records

• annual leave, excuse, maternity and sick-report documents;
• requests for and approvals of şua/health leave;
• payslips and bank records;
• termination documents;
• waivers and payment statements.

In the Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber decision E.2021/12186, K.2022/528 of January 18, 2022, the approach that the accuracy of leave documents must be investigated where hospital automation records show actual work on the dates recorded as leave is important. That decision concerns a former legislative period; however, it provides a strong method of proof for comparing a paper leave record with digital records of actual work in current files as well.

In the more recent Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber decision E.2024/8203, K.2024/11882 of September 17, 2024, a finding was upheld that a radiology specialist physician had actually worked, according to hospital automation records, on dates on which he claimed to have used şua leave. The working period of that case is 2012–2021 and the substantive law applied is the former Regulation. The decision therefore does not directly determine the number of days under the 2023 EK-2; however, it confirms that automation records may be used to test the material accuracy of a leave document.

Matrix of applicability over time

The purpose of this matrix is not to say that "the old decision is now worthless". An old decision may assist with proof, the purpose of the right or the principle of maturity in a current dispute; however, the old four-week day count cannot be copied directly into the new hours system.

How should the employer record the calculation of health leave?

It is not an adequate control system for an employer to report only a total number of days at year end. A traceable record must be created for each employee:

1. Define the controlled areas and mobile-device activities.
2. Keep records of the employee's actual start and end times in the controlled area.
3. Separate leave, reports, training and duties outside the controlled area.
4. Obtain an approved statement of hours from the facility where the employee was temporarily assigned.
5. Match device and automation logs with personnel records.
6. Notify the employee of the monthly cumulative hours and the EK-2 step reached.
7. Monitor dosimeter results separately; take immediate action where a dose limit is exceeded.
8. Plan health leave without interruption and verify that it is actually granted.
9. Respond to requests for correction of records with reasons and in writing.
10. Protect personal health and dose data in accordance with the Law on the Protection of Personal Data (KVKK) and the occupational health and safety retention rules.

What should an employee do if they believe the calculation is wrong?

First, quantify the dispute. Instead of saying "too little leave was granted", show on which dates, in which controlled area and for how many hours work was performed, and which hours the employer excluded from its calculation.

Practicable roadmap

1. Prepare a separate schedule for each calendar year and each legislative sub-period.
2. Document the controlled area and the ionising device.
3. Match the shift record with the device and automation logs.
4. When deducting reports and leave periods, check whether actual procedures were carried out on days recorded as leave.
5. Show temporary assignment and mobile procedures in a separate column.
6. Place the total hours in the correct EK-2 step.
7. Ask the employer or the public administration in writing for the calculation and supporting records.
8. For a worker's claim, assess compulsory mediation before litigation; for a civil servant, assess the administrative application and the time limits for action separately.
9. Where digital records are at risk of deletion, consult a lawyer about evidence preservation under Article 400 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) and the possibility of requiring production of documents under Article 219 HMK.

For monetary claims by workers, compulsory mediation before suit is, as a rule, required under Labour Courts Law No. 7036. For civil servants, the administrative-court time limits differ and may be short, in response to an act or a refusal. An application must not be made to the wrong judicial branch before the status has been determined.

Which legal remedies can be used before evidence is lost?

Hospital automation and device records may be deleted under system policies, moved to archives or overwritten. For this reason, waiting merely until a lawsuit is filed is risky.

Preservation of evidence under Article 400 et seq. HMK

Where there is a risk that the later examination of digital records will be impossible or substantially more difficult, preservation of evidence may be requested before or during the lawsuit, with a legal interest explained. The competent court should be determined by the nature of the principal dispute and the time of the application; it must not be generalised that a magistrate's court is competent in every case.

Production of documents under Articles 219–220 HMK

The court may require production of the records necessary for resolving the dispute and held by the other party. If the employer fails without good reason to produce the document ordered, the court may, under the concrete circumstances and in accordance with Article 220 HMK, accept the other party's account of the content of the document. This result is not an automatic rule of proof; it requires the judge's reasoned assessment.

The request should be framed concretely, by system, date range, user, device and type of procedure, rather than as an overbroad demand for "all hospital records".

Checklist of documents to be prepared before a lawsuit

• [ ] Identity documents and documents showing the status as civil servant, public-sector worker or private-sector worker
• [ ] Employment contract, appointment or assignment letters, additional protocols and job descriptions
• [ ] SGK service statement, payslips and bank account movements
• [ ] Personal dosimeter monitoring reports and custody records
• [ ] NDK authorisation and licence documents and device inventories
• [ ] Controlled area classification, area plan and radiation safety records
• [ ] Shift, on-call, call-out, turnstile and access card data
• [ ] PACS/RIS imaging, HBYS patient procedure, Medula and device logs
• [ ] Records of mobile X-ray, fluoroscopy, operating-theatre and temporary assignments
• [ ] Schedules of annual leave, reports, maternity, death, marriage and unpaid leave
• [ ] Petitions requesting şua leave and responses of the employer or administration
• [ ] Termination notice, termination document, notary notice and, if any, the final minutes of mediation
• [ ] Documents showing the release, bank payment and payslip statements

The collection and use of personal health data and patient records must be carried out within the framework of the KVKK, patient privacy and procedural rules. The purpose of proving the employee's own claim does not authorise the collection of unnecessary health data of third parties; records should, as far as possible, be requested with personalised user and time data, with patient identity masked.

An uncertain-claim lawsuit and a partial lawsuit are not the same

The main subject of this article is the calculation of the number of leave days; the details of the type of lawsuit should be examined in the separate guide on şua leave claims. Nevertheless, because choosing the wrong type of lawsuit may cause loss of rights, the basic distinction is as follows:

Where the employee cannot establish, to the extent that could reasonably be expected of them, the hours in the controlled area, the hospital automation records, the leave granted or the actual wage components, and the documents are held by the employer, a legal interest may arise for an uncertain-claim lawsuit under Article 107 HMK. The decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation E.2015/22-3406, K.2018/1145 of May 30, 2018 shows the concrete importance of the records held by the employer and of the actual wage dispute in assessing whether the claim is determinable.

However, an uncertain-claim lawsuit is not an automatic type of action. Where all elements of the claim can be objectively determined, a partial lawsuit or a full-performance action is evaluated according to strategy and procedure. The consequences of a partial lawsuit and of an uncertain claim for the increase of the claim, limitation and interest are not the same.

How should an expert report on the calculation be audited?

• Has the correct legislation been applied to each calendar year?
• Have the transitions of June 25, 2021, April 26, 2022 and April 13, 2023 been separated?
• Has the anniversary of the date of employment been used instead of the calendar year?
• Has the controlled area been established from technical documentation?
• Has the whole shift been mistakenly counted as controlled-area time?
• Has the actual period of work been reduced merely by taking the exposure seconds as the basis?
• Have mobile device and temporary assignment records been assessed?
• Has verified overtime in the controlled area been excluded?
• Have leave and reports been deducted more than once?
• Have digital logs been matched to the correct user and time stamp?
• Has it been investigated whether any actual procedure took place on days recorded as leave?
• Has the hour step been rounded down?
• Has the 30-day ceiling been applied correctly?
• Has pre-2021 case law been carried into the new system without reasons?
• Have uncertain or incomplete records been clearly shown in the report?

A report that does not answer these questions does not become auditable merely because it states a total number of days.

Which defences of the employer should be tested against which records?

Short release warning under Article 420 TBK

For a release of a worker's claim to be valid, it must be in writing, at least one month must have passed from the end of the employment contract, the type and amount of the claim released must be expressly stated, and payment must be made in full through a bank. A release that does not satisfy these conditions is absolutely void. A document containing an incomplete payment may have a receipt effect only in respect of the amount paid. Whether there was actual work on the dates recorded as leave is examined separately.

Health-institution compliance and audit checklist

• [ ] Are the controlled and supervised area classifications in line with current NDK regulations?
• [ ] Is the entry and exit of each employee to the controlled area recorded individually?
• [ ] Are PACS/RIS/HBYS and device user accounts defined so that they are not shared?
• [ ] Are personal dosimeters fully distributed and are the results archived?
• [ ] Are normal work, on-call, mobile device and temporary assignment hours monitored separately?
• [ ] Are leave and report periods separated without creating duplicates?
• [ ] Is a monthly cumulative EK-2 calculation made for each employee?
• [ ] Is health leave planned within the same year, without interruption and in line with the service plan?
• [ ] Is it prevented that a person on leave makes a system approval or device operation on the same date?
• [ ] Are immediate leave and occupational health and safety measures applied where a dose limit is exceeded?
• [ ] Is a separate risk assessment and adaptation of duties made for pregnant and breastfeeding employees?
• [ ] Is the calculation statement and the channel for objections notified to the employee in writing?
• [ ] Are the retention, access and KVKK policies for digital records defined?

How does Güneş & Güneş Law Firm work in a calculation dispute?

The legal assessment of Güneş & Güneş Law Firm on the post-2023 hours-based system

Taking into account the wording of the current Regulation, its protective purpose, the Council of State review, the former Court of Cassation approach and the areas not yet resolved by case law, the firm's legal position is as follows:

• The hours step confers a graduated right: The Regulation contains no one-year seniority requirement. Positive actual work and the 50-hour step reached create a measurable legal position before the end of the calendar year.
• An incomplete year cannot automatically be disregarded: Entirely erasing a step reached before leaving merely because 31 December had not arrived is inconsistent with the hours-based system and the protective purpose of the right. The monetary consequence is examined separately under the law of litigation.
• Genuine overtime cannot be made invisible: Actual work proven in the controlled area cannot be removed from the total of hours because the employer breached working-time limits. Overtime pay and OHS responsibility are assessed separately.
• The carry-over prohibition does not provide immunity from liability: The fact that the previous year's leave cannot be carried into the new year in kind does not by itself remove all legal consequences that may arise from the employer's or administration's failure to calculate and grant the leave on time.

These views do not claim that there is a settled Court of Cassation case law on all questions since 2023. In a concrete file, the contrary view, personnel status, administrative acts, the legislative period and the latest appeal decisions are assessed together.

Güneş & Güneş Law Firm has been working on labour and health-law disputes since 1999. In a health-leave calculation, depending on the circumstances of the file, the following may be planned:

• separation of the working period by the 2021, 2022 and 2023 legislative transitions;
• analysis of technical documents on the nature of the controlled area and the device;
• preservation and procurement of PACS, RIS, HBYS, Medula, dosimeter and device logs;
• determination of mobile device and temporary assignment hours;
• comparison of leave documents with actual procedures on the same dates;
• preparation of an auditable EK-2 calculation table for each calendar year;
• conduct of compulsory mediation and the labour court process for workers;
• administrative application, competent court and time analysis for civil servants;
• objection to the period, hours, wage and set-off errors in an expert report;
• compliance audit of the recording and leave-planning system for employers.

The outcome of each file depends on its working period, status, evidence and leave records. No guarantee of outcome is given; an enforceable claim, its risks and its time limits are determined by the concrete documents.

Common misconceptions about health leave and legal facts

Some internet content, even with a current date, still describes the old fixed 28-day system, a one-year seniority requirement that does not exist for private-sector workers in the Regulation, or a single uniform route to court for all personnel. For this reason, the publication date alone is not an indicator of legal currency.

Frequently asked questions

Is şua leave automatically 30 days every year?

No. Under the current system after 13 April 2023, leave is between 1 and 30 days depending on the actual hours in the controlled area. To reach 30 days, the step of 1,451–1,500 hours in EK-2 must be reached. For civil servants, the relationship between Article 103 of Law No. 657 and the Regulation is assessed separately.

Does someone who works fewer than 50 hours receive leave?

Where there is positive actual work in the controlled area, the band 1–50 hours corresponds to one day of leave. For a person with zero hours of work, a right must not be assumed merely on the basis of the "0–50" wording in the table.

How many days is exactly 50 hours?

One day. The second day step begins at the 51st hour.

Is 50 hours and 1 minute of work counted as one day or two days?

The Regulation does not expressly regulate minute rounding. Under a minute-sensitive method that does not round the actual period down, 50 hours and 1 minute gives a result of two days, because a second 50-hour band has begun. An institution's different method must be audited against the raw records and the legal reasoning; it must not be asserted that there is a settled post-2023 case law on the point.

Does work exceeding 1,500 hours give 31 days of leave?

No. The EK-2 ceiling is 30 days. Excess hours are examined for working time, pay, dose and occupational health and safety.

Are overtime hours counted towards şua leave?

Where overtime was actually performed in the controlled area and is proven, the actual-work criterion requires that it be taken into account in the calculation. The lawfulness and pay of overtime are a separate matter. Settled Court of Cassation case law directly interpreting the 2023 system is still limited on this point.

Are days on a medical report counted?

The Regulation does not list sick reports among the excluded periods in its fifth paragraph; however, in periods of report there is, as a rule, no actual work in the controlled area, so the period is not added to the hours. Days on which the employee was actually made to work while recorded as on a report are investigated separately with records.

Are periods of annual leave counted?

No. The Regulation expressly provides that periods of annual leave are not counted in working time.

Is unpaid leave counted?

As a rule not, because there is no actual work in the controlled area during it. This result follows from the actual-work criterion, not from the fact that unpaid leave is expressly listed in the article.

Can a mobile X-ray technician take health leave?

Yes. The Regulation expressly covers radiation workers using mobile devices such as mobile X-ray or fluoroscopy. The actual procedure time and duty must be determined from the records.

Is time spent on a temporary assignment lost?

No. Verified hours actually worked in the controlled area during a temporary assignment must be included in the annual total. An assignment letter alone does not prove that the whole period was spent in the controlled area.

Does şua leave carry over to the following year?

Under the Regulation it does not carry over; it cannot be used consecutively across the change of year. However, the monetary or administrative liability arising from the employer's failure to grant it on time is a separate legal matter.

What about an employee who leaves in the middle of the year: can they take no leave at all?

There is no general rule of that kind. The hours actually worked up to the date of leaving may be placed in EK-2. Whether the leave is granted in kind and the post-termination pay claim are assessed according to status, period and existing case law.

Is an MRI employee entitled to şua leave?

An MRI unit does not produce ionising radiation. As a rule, work only in MRI does not give rise to health leave under this Regulation. If the person also works in a controlled area where an ionising source is used, that duty is assessed separately.

What if there is a PACS or HBYS record on the day I signed the leave form?

A signed leave document does not by itself establish the material facts. If on the same date there is a patient procedure, image approval or device use under the employee's user account, the accuracy of the record and whether the account is personal to the employee are investigated. The Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber decision E.2021/12186, K.2022/528 shows the importance of this comparison.

In which year must health leave be used?

The 2023 Regulation prohibits carrying the leave over to another year and its consecutive use across the change of year. Current institutional practice should be built on cumulative hour monitoring during the calendar year and on uninterrupted leave planning. The 2022 Ministry letter on the following-year use relates to the transition period. The doctrinal differing views and the Council of State decisions of 2025 are explained in the special section above.

Does "working days" or "calendar days" apply to health leave?

The current Regulation does not expressly define how days are counted; it states only that the leave cannot be divided. For this reason, the leave approval must state clearly the start and end dates, how weekly rest and public holidays are counted, and the date of return to work. The four consecutive weeks of the former Regulation must not be carried into the new EK-2 period without explanation.

Should I receive pay for health leave that I did not use while working?

While the employment relationship continues, protective leave should, as a rule, not be replaced by money. The post-termination pay claim is examined separately by reference to the former Court of Cassation case law, the post-2023 system, the legislative period, limitation and pay components. This question should be dealt with in the cluster article entitled "How Is the Şua Leave Claim Calculated and Requested?".

What happens to unused leave for an employee who resigned?

The Court of Cassation's approach under the former system did not, as a rule, tie the arising of an unused şua leave pay claim to the type of termination. However, established case law directly interpreting all consequences of the 2023 hours and carry-over system is limited. For this reason, the date of resignation, the step reached, the leave granted and the legislative period should be assessed together.

Why is limitation and interest not covered in detail in this calculation article?

Because determining the number of days and the limitation and interest on a monetary claim arising on termination are different search intentions. The current Court of Cassation approach links the maturity of a monetary şua leave claim to termination; the limitation period applicable to it is subject to the transitional provisions of October 25, 2017, the suspension of the period during mediation, and the claim and default for interest, which must be examined separately. The detail should be left to the second article.

Under the current labour-claim regime, the five-year limitation period is the principle. However, for periods that began before October 25, 2017, Transitional Article 8 of Law No. 4857 applies, and if the remaining part of the former period is shorter, that period may be preserved. The Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber decision E.2020/5953, K.2021/3837 is important for accepting the date of termination as the start. Under Article 3(17) of Law No. 7036, limitation is suspended from the application to the mediation office until the final minutes. As regards interest, Court of Cassation practice treats statutory interest as applicable; the start date depends on the claim, the default and the scope of the lawsuit or mediation.

Does a worker who signed a release lose the right to apply entirely?

No. The document is examined for all the conditions of Article 420 TBK, the bank payment, the express type and amount of the claim and the date of execution. A release signed less than one month after termination, or one in which payment was not made in full through a bank, does not produce a valid release. Where there is a partial payment, the receipt effect of the document is assessed separately.

Conclusion

The period of şua leave is not determined by a single criterion such as "working in a radiology department" or "having one year of seniority". For the period after 13 April 2023, the correct question is this: how many hours did the employee actually work in the controlled area, where an ionising radiation source or radionuclide is used, in the relevant calendar year?

That period is placed in the EK-2 Health Leave Table. Each 50-hour step gives one day of leave; the leave cannot exceed 30 days. Genuine work on mobile devices and during temporary assignments must not be excluded; leave, reports, unpaid leave and periods outside the controlled area must not be added as actual work. Overtime must be examined separately for working limits and occupational health and safety in addition to the calculation of health leave.

The former four-week system and the hours-based system since 2022 and 2023 must not be confused. A multi-year file should be divided at the dates on which the legislation changed; for each calendar year, shift records, device logs, dosimeter data and hospital automation records should be assessed together.

Final legal conclusion: The calculation of şua leave is not merely a division operation. It is a technical legal calculation resting on proof of the correct legislative period, the controlled area, the real device and duty, the actual hours and the periods to be excluded.

Legal information and confidentiality

This article is intended for general legal information. It does not create a legal opinion or a guarantee of outcome without examination of the working period, personnel status, institutional records, the classification of the controlled area and the current case law applicable to the concrete facts. 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.

Official, judicial and academic sources

Official legislation and institutional sources

• Official Gazette — No. 32162 of 13 April 2023: Presidential Decision No. 7077, the current Regulation and EK-2.
• Official Gazette — No. 31821 of 26 April 2022: the previous Regulation, which entered into force by Presidential Decision No. 5530.
• Official Gazette — No. 31522 of 25 June 2021: Presidential Decision No. 4144 and the repeal of the former Regulation.
• Legislation Information System — Law No. 3153.
• Legislation Information System — Law No. 657 on Civil Servants.
• Legislation Information System — Law No. 6331 on Occupational Health and Safety.
• Legislation Information System — Law No. 4857 on Labour.
• Legislation Information System — Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure.
• Legislation Information System — Law No. 6098 on Turkish Code of Obligations.
• Ministry of Health, Department of Diagnostic and Testing Services — announcement of the Regulation.
• Nuclear Regulatory Authority — guideline on the classification of radiation areas: area classification, entry–exit and dosimetry records.
• Nuclear Regulatory Authority — Frequently Asked Questions: official explanations on authorisation and dosimetry practice.
• Council of State — Precedent Decision Search: the official search channel for the full texts of the 2025 decisions and for checking the appeal route.
• Constitutional Court — E.2010/29, K.2010/90: distinction between ordinary health leave and dose-excess leave under Additional Article 1 of Law No. 3153.
• ILO NORMLEX — conventions ratified by Türkiye: information on the entry into force for Türkiye of Convention No. 115 on Radiation Protection.
• Court of Cassation — Decision Search: official reference and text check of Court of Cassation decisions.

Court decisions

• Council of State 12th Chamber, E.2023/3008, K.2025/2739, May 27, 2025: judicial review of Article 8(1), (4), (5) and EK-2 of the Regulation; rejection unanimous on the carry-over prohibition and by majority on the other provisions identified. A 30-day appeal route is indicated in the decision; the current appeal and finality position must be checked again on the date of the concrete application through the official system and the case file.
• Council of State 12th Chamber, E.2023/3019, K.2025/2741: related regulatory-act review. The full text, parties, scope of the claim and appeal status must be verified from the official file.
• Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2021/12186, K.2022/528, January 18, 2022: leave records, hospital automation data and comparison of actual work with wages. The facts concern the former legislative period.
• Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2024/8203, K.2024/11882, September 17, 2024: establishment of actual work on dates claimed as şua leave by reference to hospital automation records; the 2012–2021 former regulatory period.
• Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2020/5049, K.2021/5141, February 25, 2021: the protective purpose of şua leave and the claim for unused leave; former regulatory period.
• Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2020/5953, K.2021/3837, February 15, 2021: conditions of şua leave and assessment of the labour claim; former regulatory period.
• Council of State 12th Chamber, E.2023/3210, K.2025/2743: related regulatory-act review of the health-leave provisions of the 2023 Regulation; the full text and appeal status must be verified from the official system.
• Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers, E.2015/22-3406, K.2018/1145, May 30, 2018: uncertain claim assessment in the context of records held by the employer and an actual-wage dispute; it is not applied automatically to every file.

Academic sources

• Miraç Şamil Pekşen, “İş Hukuku Boyutuyla Şua İzni”, Çalışma ve Toplum, No. 87, Vol. 4, 2025, pp. 1913–1942: in particular on accrual and short-term work pp. 1928–1930; EK-2 calculation pp. 1930–1931; timing of use and non-divisibility pp. 1931–1933; pay and limitation on termination pp. 1935–1937. Academic views are not binding case law.
• İrem Yayvak Namlı, “Radyasyonla Çalışan İşçilerin Şua (Sağlık) İzni”, Sicil İş Hukuku Dergisi, No. 51, 2024, p. 123 et seq.: academic assessment of the purpose, conditions and new regulation of health leave.

Source use and verification map

---