22.10.2026 11:42
Contractual healthcare personnel whose spouse works on a contract basis at another public institution will not be able to request a transfer due to spousal status for the first three years. The Constitutional Court did not annul this restriction; the decision was published in the Official Gazette on October 22.
According to the Constitutional Court decision published in the Official Gazette dated 22 October 2026 and numbered 33408, the three-year appointment restriction imposed on health personnel working on a contract basis in the Ministry of Health and its affiliated institutions and whose spouse also works on a contract basis in another public institution will remain in force.
The Court rejected by majority vote on 25 June 2026 the request for annulment of the phrase 'in permanent staff status' in Article 45/A of Decree-Law No. 663 (E.2026/46, K.2026/145). Three members dissented.
According to the provision in question, contracted health personnel appointed under 45/A cannot be appointed to another place for three years. The exception to this rule is family unity grounds: Personnel who have completed one year in the province where they are located can be appointed to join their spouse if a visa-approved position is available. However, for this possibility, the spouse must be employed on a contract basis at the Ministry or be a permanent staff member at the Ministry or another public institution. Those whose spouse works on a contract basis at another institution cannot benefit from this right before completing three years.
The issue was brought to the Constitutional Court upon the application of the Hakkari 2nd Administrative Court, which was hearing a case filed after a request for transfer by appointment was rejected. The local court had argued that the rule disproportionately interfered with family life.
The Constitutional Court, on the other hand, drew attention to the fact that health services are services that cannot be postponed and that personnel working in the same place for a certain period is necessary for the continuity of the service. The decision emphasized that the restriction is not an absolute prohibition and that personnel who have completed three years may request a change of location. The Court also cited the fact that contracted personnel are employed for a period limited to the fiscal year as the justification for the difference between them and those whose spouses are permanent staff members.
The dissenting members Engin Yıldırım, Selahaddin Menteş and Kenan Yaşar argued that the rule was based not on the need for service but on the spouse's employment status, and that whether the spouse is permanent staff or contracted, the family is separated to the same extent.