07.09.2026 13:20
A landmark ruling has been issued by the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation regarding the use of short-term annual leave, which has been a topic of debate in working life for years. In the unanimous decision, it was noted that annual leaves taken in periods shorter than 10 days, with the employee's request and consent, do not alone constitute a justified reason for termination.
The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, with its decision numbered 1495 for the year 2026, rendered an important ruling regarding annual leave, which constitutes a significant point of dispute in working life.
An employee, who claimed that he had been working as a customs consultancy assistant for a full 9 years at the company, that he could not use his annual leave at all when he needed it, and that his requests to use annual leave were rejected by the employer on the pretext of heavy workload, resigned. As a result of the negotiations, the consultant, who could not obtain his rights, knocked on the door of the Labor Court. He stated that he was allowed to use annual leave for a maximum of 6 consecutive days at a time, that the compensation for the annual leave he did not use during his 9 years of employment was not paid by the defendant employer, and that he had a receivable of 68 days' annual leave pay. He alleged that the employment contract was justifiably terminated because the defendant employer did not allow him to use his annual leave, and that the bonus receivables he had earned were also not paid, and requested that severance pay, annual paid leave, and bonus receivables be collected from the defendant.
FIRST INSTANCE COURT FOUND THE EMPLOYEE JUSTIFIED
The defendant employer argued that the plaintiff left the job by resigning, that the plaintiff used some of his annual leave, that the compensation for the unused leave was paid to the plaintiff, that the bonus payments at the workplace were not continuous, that the bonus payments varied according to performance and profitability, and that the plaintiff had no unpaid bonus receivables, and requested the dismissal of the case. Reminding that it was understood that the plaintiff had a right to 82 days of annual leave, the Labor Court decided that the plaintiff worker's justifiable termination of the employment contract should be accepted and that severance pay should be awarded. Since the plaintiff could not prove his bonus receivable, it was decided to partially accept the case, accepting the severance pay and annual paid leave receivables, and rejecting the bonus receivable claim. The defendant appealed the decision. The Regional Court of Appeal rejected the objections. The defendant appealed the decision.
ACCORDING TO THE LAW, IT CANNOT BE DIVIDED, BUT THE WORKER'S CONSENT EXISTED
The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation made a landmark decision. It was emphasized that according to Article 56 of Labor Law No. 4857, annual paid leave cannot be divided by the employer, and if it is divided with the agreement of the parties, one of the periods of leave must not be less than 10 days. The Chamber, accepting that the periods specified in the leave documents in the concrete case were shorter than 10 days, determined that these leaves were divided upon the request and consent of the worker.
The decision stated as follows: 'Although the leave period used according to the annual leave documents is less than 10 days, it is understood that this period was divided upon the request and consent of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff could not prove that he notified the employer in writing at least one month before the time he wanted to use the leave that he wanted to use longer periods, and that the employer nevertheless allowed the annual leave to be used in shorter periods. Although Article 56/3 of Law No. 4857, which was in force during part of the claim period, stipulates that leaves can be used in parts of not less than 10 days, the settled practice of our Chamber on this issue is that annual leave is valid even if it is used for less than 10 days upon the worker's request. On the other hand, it is seen that the plaintiff also failed to prove that the employer did not allow any leave for a very long time or did not allow leave without justification upon request. It is understood that the termination carried out by the plaintiff worker was not based on justifiable reasons. It was incorrect to decide to accept the severance pay claim when it should have been rejected.'
On the other hand, with this decision, the presence of leave periods shorter than 10 days in annual leave documents will not, in every case, grant the worker the right to justifiable termination. If short-term leaves were used upon the worker's request and consent, they may be considered valid.