Termination of Foreign Employees - Case Law Analysis

Introduction

Under International Labour Force Law No. 6735, a fixed-term work permit granted to a foreign national employed by an employer is limited to a particular workplace and job and is issued for a maximum of one year upon the initial application. In practice, employers often treat this period as the term of the employment contract itself and assume that the employment relationship automatically ends when the permit expires. However, the manner in which an employment relationship is terminated is governed by the Labour Law; the legislation on work permits regulates only the lawfulness of the work.

This distinction raises three questions. Does a fixed-term work permit make the employment contract a fixed-term contract? Under what circumstances may the expiry, non-renewal or cancellation of a work permit constitute just cause or a valid ground for termination? What are the consequences, in terms of severance pay, notice pay and reinstatement, where termination is based on the work permit? The following analysis addresses these questions in light of decisions of Yargıtay and the Regional Courts of Appeal.

Legal Framework

Pursuant to Article 10 of Law No. 6735, a fixed-term work permit is granted for a maximum of one year upon the initial application, provided that it does not exceed the term of the employment or service contract and is limited to work at a specified workplace and in a specified job. For extensions with the same employer, the permit may be extended for up to two years on the first extension and up to three years on subsequent extensions. An application to work for a different employer is treated as an initial application.

Under Article 7(3), an application for an extension must be filed within the sixty-day period preceding the expiry of the work permit and, in any event, before the permit expires. Applications filed after expiry are rejected. Article 27(5) of the Implementing Regulation provides that, where an extension application has been filed in due time, the foreign national may continue working in the same job and at the same workplace for up to ninety days after the permit expires. These provisions indicate that the extension process falls within the employer’s sphere of control.

Under Article 15, a work permit ceases to be valid upon expiry or cancellation by the Ministry; the termination of employment for any reason constitutes a ground for cancellation. Article 22 requires the employer to notify the Ministry of the commencement and termination of employment within fifteen days. As regards termination, the relevant provisions include Articles 11 (objective conditions for a fixed-term employment contract), 17 (notice periods), 18 (valid grounds for termination) and 25 (just cause for termination) of Labour Law No. 4857, as well as Article 438 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (compensation for the remaining term in the event of unjustified termination of a fixed-term contract).

Does a Fixed-Term Work Permit Determine the Type of Employment Contract?

In 2005, the 9th Civil Chamber of Yargıtay considered a fixed-term work permit to constitute a substantial reason for concluding a fixed-term employment contract. In its decision dated 7 June 2005 (E. 2004/24583, K. 2005/20488), it held that where work permits were obtained for one-year periods, it was appropriate for the employment contracts also to be concluded for one-year periods. It further stated that successive renewals would not convert the contracts into indefinite-term contracts and that the claim for notice pay should be dismissed. The same decision also stated that, where no work permit had been obtained or the permit had been issued for an indefinite period, the contract would be deemed to be for an indefinite term. The decision dated 11 October 2005 (E. 2005/12936, K. 2005/33070) followed the same approach.

This approach was gradually abandoned. In its decision dated 28 January 2014 (E. 2012/1798, K. 2014/2032), the Chamber emphasised, in relation to the contract of a foreign national serving as a general manager, that foreign nationality is not a reason requiring the conclusion of a fixed-term employment contract. Following the closure of the 22nd Civil Chamber in 2020, Principle Decision No. 33 of the 9th Civil Chamber settled the debate. According to that principle decision, foreign nationality alone does not constitute an objective reason in respect of employees working in Türkiye, and the fact that the employee’s work or residence permits are time-limited is irrelevant for this purpose. In its decision dated 28 March 2024 (E. 2021/1421, K. 2024/746), the 15th Civil Chamber of the İzmir Regional Court of Appeal likewise treated a contract whose commencement was tied to the work permit document and whose term was set at one year as an indefinite-term contract, since the work performed was continuous in nature.

There is also a converse aspect to this development. Where a contract is expressly concluded for a fixed term and the employee brings a claim in reliance on that term, the employer may not argue that the contract was in fact for an indefinite term, and the court may not examine the existence of an objective reason of its own motion. The 9th Civil Chamber applied this principle in its decision dated 10 January 2024 (E. 2023/14965, K. 2024/234), concerning the contract of a foreign geologist terminated before its expiry. Having found that the employer had failed to prove just cause, the Chamber held that compensation equal to the remuneration for the remaining term should be awarded under Article 438 of the Turkish Code of Obligations; the claim could not be converted into a claim for notice pay.

Circumstances in Which Termination Has Been Considered Justified or Valid

The grounds for just cause under Article 25 and the valid grounds under Article 18 of the Labour Law apply equally to foreign employees. The decisions examined disclose no separate category of just cause specific to foreign employees; in every case, the employer bears the burden of proving the grounds for termination. In disputes relating to work permits, the decisive criterion is the sphere of control in which the obstacle arose.

Where the obstacle is attributable to the employee, Yargıtay tends to treat the resulting situation as akin to a compelling reason. In its decision dated 17 January 2002 (9th Civil Chamber, E. 2001/15931, K. 2002/348), a work permit could not be obtained for a foreign mechanical engineer because the required certificate of equivalence had not been secured, and the employer terminated the contract. The Chamber upheld the dismissal of the claim for notice pay but found the dismissal of the claim for severance pay erroneous. Decisions concerning professional permits follow the same reasoning. The expiry of a work permit issued to a private security officer under Law No. 5188 was treated as a compelling reason within the meaning of Article 25(III); the employer was not required to give notice, but severance pay was held to be payable (9th Civil Chamber, 15 May 2019, E. 2017/11091, K. 2019/11043; and decisions dated 1 July 2019 to the same effect). In the context of reinstatement proceedings, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Adana Regional Court of Appeal held in its decision dated 25 April 2024 (E. 2024/646, K. 2024/859) that the administrative cancellation of a private security identity card constituted a valid ground for termination and that its subsequent renewal did not alter the assessment as at the date of termination. Since these decisions do not concern foreign employees, they may be relied upon only by analogy.

The position is different where the employment relationship has never commenced. In its decision dated 26 September 2006 (9th Civil Chamber, E. 2006/20061, K. 2006/24888), the employer terminated, on the scheduled commencement date, a two-year contract with a foreign national after the employee failed to provide the missing documents required for the work permit application. The Chamber held that, as the employment relationship had not actually been established, neither remuneration for the remaining term nor a contractual penalty could be claimed, and that the employee had failed to fulfil the obligations incumbent upon him in connection with obtaining the permit.

In reinstatement proceedings brought by a foreign employee of a bank (9th Civil Chamber, 30 October 2014, E. 2014/13164, K. 2014/31851), the employer argued that the work permit had been cancelled as of the termination date and that a foreign national without a permit could not benefit from job security. The Chamber quashed the first-instance judgment and dismissed the claim. The accessible parts of the reasoning concern termination based on the employee’s conduct; whether the argument concerning the work permit was accepted should be verified against the full text of the decision.

Circumstances in Which Termination Has Been Considered Unjustified or Invalid

The first group comprises cases in which the expiry of the work permit was presented as bringing the employment contract to an automatic end. In its decision dated 5 July 2018 (E. 2018/706, K. 2018/1333), the 9th Civil Chamber of the Antalya Regional Court of Appeal rejected the employer’s argument that one-year work permits constituted a substantial reason for fixed-term employment contracts and concluded that the employee was entitled to severance pay and notice pay. In its decision dated 13 June 2024 (E. 2024/6690, K. 2024/9754), the 9th Civil Chamber of Yargıtay upheld a judgment treating the contract as an indefinite-term contract and awarding severance pay and notice pay, notwithstanding the employer’s argument that termination had resulted from the non-extension of the work permit. This case most likely concerned an employee working abroad; nevertheless, it reflects the same underlying reasoning.

The second group concerns failures in the extension process within the employer’s sphere of control. In its decision dated 9 May 2019 (E. 2018/3396, K. 2019/1120), the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Bursa Regional Court of Appeal examined the case of a foreign employee whose permit expired on 22 May 2017 and who was dismissed on 13 June 2017. The employer argued that the employee was abroad during the renewal process and could not be contacted. The court upheld the reinstatement decision, which had been based on the finding that the termination was neither justified nor valid. This outcome is supported by the fact that, under Law No. 6735, the extension application process is handled through the employer.

The third group concerns evidentiary issues. In its decision dated 8 June 2018 (E. 2018/1608, K. 2018/1639), the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Bursa Regional Court of Appeal rejected the employer’s assertion that the employee had resigned because the work permit had expired, on the ground that no resignation letter had been submitted. Decisions of the İstanbul Regional Court of Appeal in 2020 concerning Turkish employees working abroad (24th Civil Chamber, E. 2019/3802, K. 2020/953; 25th Civil Chamber, E. 2019/3730, K. 2020/745) likewise found the terminations invalid and ordered reinstatement, notwithstanding the argument that the foreign authorities had refused to renew the work permits.

Assessment and Conclusion

A fixed-term work permit does not determine the duration of the employment contract or the legal regime governing its termination. A work permit is an administrative instrument that ensures the lawfulness of employment; the manner in which the employment contract comes to an end must be assessed under the Labour Law. The case law in work-permit-related termination disputes determines the outcome by reference to the sphere of control in which the obstacle arose.

Summary of the principal scenarios

1. Expiry of the work permit relied upon by the employer

Legal characterisation: Termination by the employer, with no just cause established.

Consequences: The employee is entitled to severance pay and notice pay.

Relevant authority: 9th Civil Chamber Principle Decision No. 33; Antalya Regional Court of Appeal, 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2018/706, K. 2018/1333.

2. Failure in the extension process attributable to the employer

Legal characterisation: Invalid termination.

Consequences: Reinstatement.

Relevant authority: Bursa Regional Court of Appeal, 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2018/3396, K. 2019/1120.

3. Early termination of a fixed-term contract without proof of just cause

Legal characterisation: Unjustified termination.

Consequences: Remuneration for the remaining term under Article 438 of the Turkish Code of Obligations; no notice pay.

Relevant authority: 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2023/14965, K. 2024/234.

4. Inability to obtain or renew the permit due to an obstacle attributable to the employee

Legal characterisation: Termination on grounds analogous to a compelling reason.

Consequences: No notice pay; severance pay remains due.

Relevant authority: 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2001/15931, K. 2002/348; by analogy, 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2017/11091, K. 2019/11043.

5. Termination following administrative cancellation of a permit or identity card

Legal characterisation: Valid ground for termination in the context of reinstatement proceedings.

Consequences: Reinstatement is refused; severance pay and notice pay are payable.

Relevant authority: Adana Regional Court of Appeal, 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/646, K. 2024/859 (by analogy).

6. Contract terminated before the permit is obtained and before work commences

Legal characterisation: The employment relationship has not been established.

Consequences: Neither remuneration for the remaining term nor a contractual penalty is recoverable.

Relevant authority: 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2006/20061, K. 2006/24888.

For employers, the safest course is to file the extension application on time and, where missing documentation is attributable to the employee, to record this in writing. Even where termination is based on a work permit issue, severance pay should be paid; the termination should be made in writing and with reasons stated; and the Ministry should be notified within fifteen days after termination. For employees, the expiry of a work permit does not, in itself, result in a loss of rights; claims for severance pay, notice pay and, where the statutory conditions are met, reinstatement may be brought under the general rules.

Sources and Verification Note

This article is based on a search conducted on 12–16 October 2026 in the Lexpera case-law database and open sources. The full texts of the following decisions were available and reviewed through open sources: 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/234; 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2006/20061, K. 2006/24888; 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2017/11091, K. 2019/11043; and Adana Regional Court of Appeal, 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/646, K. 2024/859. The decisions of the 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2005/20488; 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2005/33070; 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2002/348; 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2014/31851; 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/9754; Antalya Regional Court of Appeal, 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2018/1333; Bursa Regional Court of Appeal, 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2019/1120; and Bursa Regional Court of Appeal, 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2018/1639 were assessed on the basis of excerpts of the decisions appearing in search results on Lexpera. Principle Decision No. 33 of the 9th Civil Chamber, the 9th Civil Chamber decision E. 2014/2032 and the İzmir Regional Court of Appeal decision E. 2024/746 were cited through secondary sources. The full texts of these decisions should be checked before publication or use in legal submissions.

• Yargıtay 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2023/14965, K. 2024/234 (Çalışma ve Toplum)
• Yargıtay 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2006/20061, K. 2006/24888 (Çalışma ve Toplum)
• Yargıtay 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2017/11091, K. 2019/11043 (Kazancı)
• Adana Regional Court of Appeal, 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/646, K. 2024/859 (Çalışma ve Toplum)
• Yargıtay 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2004/24583, K. 2005/20488 (Lexpera)
• Yargıtay 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2001/15931, K. 2002/348 (Lexpera)
• Yargıtay 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2014/13164, K. 2014/31851 (Lexpera)
• Yargıtay 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/6690, K. 2024/9754 (Lexpera)
• Bursa Regional Court of Appeal, 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2018/3396, K. 2019/1120 (Lexpera)
• Bursa Regional Court of Appeal, 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2018/1608, K. 2018/1639 (Lexpera)
• Yargıtay 9th Civil Chamber Principle Decisions (Hukas)
• Principle decisions concerning fixed-term contracts (CottGroup)
• Quotation from 9th Civil Chamber decision E. 2014/2032 (metinpolat.av.tr)
• Secondary account of İzmir Regional Court of Appeal decision E. 2024/746 (muhasebetr.com)
• Şahankaya, Ankara Bar Association Journal 2016/4
• Yiğit, DEÜHFD (secondary account of 9th Civil Chamber decision E. 2005/33070)
• International Labour Force Law No. 6735 (mevzuat.gov.tr)
• Implementing Regulation of the International Labour Force Law (Lexpera)