The Decision of the Constitutional Court Dated 1 October 2025 and Numbered 2021/26482

The decision of the Constitutional Court (“CC”) dated 1 October 2025 and numbered 2021/26482 (“Decision”) has been published in the Official Gazette dated 6 January 2026 and numbered 33129. 

In preceding proceedings not forming the subject matter of the present application, the applicant, who was employed as a press operator between 24 January 2007 and 12 December 2014, filed an action for reinstatement on 30 December 2014 following the termination of his employment contract, alleging that the dismissal was not affected on the basis of a valid or just cause. The action was dismissed by the court of first instance on the ground that the termination was based on a valid reason, and the said decision was subsequently upheld by the Court of Cassation on 13 April 2016. 

1. Proceedings Giving Rise to the Application: 

The applicant was a member of a trade union from 12 March 2013 until the termination of his employment contract, whereas the respondent workplace was affiliated with a different trade union. Due to authorization disputes experienced at the respondent workplace, no collective bargaining agreement was concluded between 1 September 2012 and 31 August 2014. In the subsequent period, a collective bargaining agreement was executed on 13 April 2015, and it was decided that the said agreement would also cover the period between 1 September 2014 and 31 August 2017. 

Furthermore, by virtue of a protocol executed on the same date, arrangements were decided upon in respect of the period between 1 September 2012 and 31 August 2014 during which no collective bargaining agreement had been in force, and it was decided to grant wage improvements and back pay for the said period so as to apply to employees who were employed at the respondent workplace as of the date of execution. 

Relying on the assumption that there existed a final and binding decision to the effect that the termination of his employment contract had been affected with just cause, the applicant brought an action seeking the recovery of severance and notice compensation pursuant to the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement executed on 13 April 

2015. The action was dismissed by the court of first instance; however, this decision was overturned upon appellate review. 

Following the remittal, the court of first instance once again dismissed the action, holding that the applicant had caused disharmony at the respondent workplace, that his conduct amounted to harassment of other employees, and that, on these grounds, the termination had been affected for just cause. 

Upon the appellate review again initiated against this decision, the Regional Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the court of first instance and ruled to partially accept and partially dismiss the action. In the reasoning of its decision, the appellate court held that, in the presence of a final and binding judgment establishing that the termination was based on a valid reason, it was not legally appropriate to conclude that the termination had been affected with just cause; accordingly, it decided to grant the applicant’s claims concerning his employment-related receivables. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the claims falling within the scope of the protocol to the collective bargaining agreement on the grounds that the provisions of the said protocol could not be applied to employees who had not been employed at the respondent workplace during the relevant period. 

Ultimately, an individual application to the CC was filed against the said final judgment. 

2. Assessment of the CC 

The applicant claimed that, despite the explicit provisions of Articles 35 and 39 of the Law No. 6356 on Trade Unions and Collective Bargaining Agreements (“the Law”), they were unlawfully excluded from the scope of the collective bargaining agreement through a protocol and therefore were not allowed to benefit from it. In its assessment, the CC decided to examine the application within the scope of Articles 51 (the right to form a union) and 53 (the right to collective bargaining and collective agreement) of the Constitution. 

Following its examination of the relevant legislation and the procedural history of the application, the CC noted that, pursuant to Law No. 6356 on Trade Unions and Collective Bargaining Agreements (“the Law”), employees whose employment contracts terminate between the date of execution and the effective date of a collective bargaining agreement are entitled to benefit from the collective bargaining agreement until the date of termination of their employment contracts. 

The CC further emphasized that, under the said Law, the duration of a collective bargaining agreement may not be shortened after its execution, and that practices contrary to this provision constitute an interference with the right to trade union freedom. 

In assessing the applicant’s exclusion from the financial entitlements covering the period between 1 September 2012 and 31 August 2014 on the ground that he was not employed at the respondent workplace as of 13 April 2015, the date of execution of the protocol, the CC found that the parties had effectively shortened the duration of the collective bargaining agreement. The CC noted that although the applicant had the right to benefit from the collective bargaining agreement until the date their employment contract ended, it could not be demonstrated—under the Constitution and the relevant statutory provisions—on what legal basis it could be legitimately accepted that the applicant should not benefit from the collective bargaining agreement. 

However, it is clear that a legal interpretation leading to such a serious consequence as the inability to benefit from collective bargaining agreements—an entitlement of constitutional status—must be based on findings to be made by taking into account the circumstances of the actual incidents and the explicit provisions of the Law. 

Consequently, the CC concluded that excluding the applicant from the scope of the collective bargaining agreement and denying him the benefits thereunder until the date of termination of his employment contract constituted a violation of the right to trade union freedom as guaranteed under Article 51 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the CC ordered a retrial and awarded non-pecuniary damages in favor of the applicant.