02.09.2026 13:21
The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has made an important decision concerning those who missed out on EYT (Retirement Age Adjustment) due to insufficient premium days. The High Court ruled that the length of service cannot be determined solely by SGK (Social Security Institution) records and that kinship alone does not invalidate witness testimony, stating that different documents and witness statements can also be taken into consideration.
Tens of thousands of people who could not benefit from the EYT regulation due to insufficient premium days have turned to the courts to determine the periods in the past when they were employed without insurance or with underreported insurance. The decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals' 9th Civil Chamber has put forward a notable criterion regarding how the service period should be determined.
The High Court ruled that the service period cannot be determined solely based on Social Security Institution (SGK) records, while also stating that the testimony of a person who is a relative of the worker cannot be considered invalid merely because of the kinship.
LEARNED AT THE HOSPITAL THAT INSURANCE WAS NOT PAID
In the case in question, M.D. started working at a production facility in 1994. After learning in July 2017, when he went to the hospital, that his insurance had not been paid, M.D. terminated his employment contract and applied to the Labor Court.
The worker claimed that the payrolls were prepared based on the minimum wage and that there were unpaid wage receivables. In addition to severance pay and notice pay, he demanded the collection of overtime pay, wages, and annual paid leave receivables.
The defendant employer, on the other hand, argued that M.D. worked for the minimum wage shown on the payrolls and reported to the SGK during the periods between his employment entry and exit declarations. Claiming that due to low workload, the worker had worked seasonally for many years and resigned in 2017, the employer requested the dismissal of the case.
LABOR COURT ACCEPTED 23 YEARS AND 2 MONTHS OF WORK
The Labor Court accepted that M.D. worked continuously at the defendant workplace for 23 years and 2 months.
The court ruled that the employment contract was justifiably terminated by the worker and that he was therefore entitled to severance pay. Finding the wage and annual paid leave claims justified as well, the court decided to partially accept the case.
EMPLOYER APPEALED THE DECISION
After the employer's lawyer appealed the decision, the file came to the Regional Court of Appeal.
The Regional Court of Appeal noted that the burden of proving the service period lies with the worker and that witness statements should be evaluated in cases where no written evidence exists.
However, the court took into account that the plaintiff's witnesses were close relatives of the worker and that they had not worked together with M.D. until the termination period. Taking the SGK records as a basis, the court accepted that the worker had worked for 13 years, 2 months, and 25 days with interruptions.
Thereupon, the First Instance Court's judgment was overturned, a new decision was made on the merits, and the case was partially accepted.
CASE REACHED THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
When the worker appealed the Regional Court of Appeal's decision, the case came before the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals.
It was observed that two different calculations were made in the expert report in the file. In the first option prepared according to witness statements and the file content, the service period was calculated as 23 years and 2 months, while in the second option, where only SGK records were considered, it was calculated as 13 years, 2 months, and 25 days.
The Labor Court had considered the first option, while the Regional Court of Appeal had considered the second option based on SGK records.
DECISION FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS ON 'RELATIVE WITNESS'
In the Supreme Court of Appeals' review, the testimony of the worker's brother, İ.D., was decisive. İ.D. stated that he started working at the defendant workplace as an apprentice in late 1989 and served as a cutter in the production department from 1993 until February 2006.
İ.D. stated that his brother M.D. also started working at the said workplace through him in April-May 1994, providing information regarding the start date and the continuous work period.
The Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that the witness being a relative of the worker is not sufficient by itself to disregard his statement.
The decision included the following statements: "In the file content, İ.D., one of the plaintiff's witnesses who stated he was the plaintiff's brother, stated that he started working at the defendant workplace as an apprentice in late 1989 and worked as a cutter in the production department from 1993 until February 2006. He stated that the plaintiff started working at the defendant workplace through him in April-May 1994; he made a statement confirming the plaintiff's initial start date and the fact of continuous work at the defendant workplace."
WORK BETWEEN 1994-2006 WILL BE ACCEPTED AS CONTINUOUS
The Supreme Court of Appeals decided that, also considering the witness's own service period at the defendant workplace, M.D.'s work between May 1, 1994, and January 31, 2006, should be accepted as continuous.
It was stated that for work periods after this date, SGK records should be taken as a basis.
The Supreme Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the Regional Court of Appeal's decision and ordered the file to be sent to the relevant court for re-evaluation.
ONLY SGK RECORDS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR SERVICE PERIOD
In the Supreme Court of Appeals decision, the evidence that can be evaluated in determining the working period was also listed.
Accordingly, in determining the service period, in addition to SGK records, employer and workplace records, documents showing entry and exit to the workplace, internal workplace correspondence, testimony of people working at the workplace, testimony of people working in neighboring workplaces, and other evidence in the file can be considered.
The decision is important for people requesting the determination of previously underreported work periods in order to benefit from EYT. However, the decision does not mean that everyone with missing premium days will automatically be granted premium days or retirement rights; each dispute must be evaluated according to its own evidence.