A Notable Constitutional Court Decision on the Dismissal of Labor Claims with a Foreign Element on Statute of Limitations Grounds

The Constitutional Court has issued a notable decision concerning the dismissal of labor claims arising from employment contracts involving a foreign element, on the grounds of statute of limitations, without examining the merits of the case. The Court emphasized that, in such disputes, limitation periods cannot be applied in an automatic or purely formalistic manner.

The decision gives rise to important consequences that must be carefully evaluated, particularly with respect to companies employing personnel working abroad, employment contracts containing references to foreign law, and disputes based on a statute of limitations defense.

In the case subject to the decision published in the Official Gazette dated 16 January 2026, concerning the judgment dated 29 July 2025 with application no. 2024/48855, the applicant sought the payment of labor receivables arising from an employment relationship under which he had been working de facto in Russia. The first-instance court accepted that Russian law was applicable to the dispute and dismissed the case on the grounds that the limitation periods prescribed under that law had expired. However, in doing so, the court failed to conduct a comprehensive examination as to which law should actually apply, whether a valid choice-of-law agreement existed between the parties, and whether the employment relationship continued to maintain a sufficient connection with Turkish law. On this basis, the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, alleging that the dismissal of his case without any examination on the merits violated his right of access to a court.

In its assessment, the Constitutional Court emphasized that the statute of limitations cannot be examined in isolation or applied automatically. The Court held that dismissing a case solely on statute of limitations grounds constitutes a violation of the right of access to a court where:

• The law applicable to the employment contract has not been clearly determined,
• It has not been established whether a valid choice of law exists between the parties,
• The place where the work is actually performed, the manner in which the employment relationship is carried out, and the factual link between the parties have not been duly assessed.

The Court further underlined that the statute of limitations cannot be interpreted in a manner that entirely deprives individuals of their right to seek judicial protection, and expressly stated that courts are under an obligation to determine the applicable law accurately and comprehensively before ruling on limitation defenses in such disputes.

In practice, particularly in relation to employees working on overseas projects, employers frequently assume that lawsuits may be dismissed by relying on:

• References to foreign law contained in employment contracts,
• Shorter limitation periods prescribed under foreign law.

Through this decision, the Constitutional Court clearly demonstrated that such an approach is not invariably reliable.

Accordingly, beyond the wording of the contract itself, the following factors have gained decisive importance:

• The actual working arrangement,
• The true nature of the employment relationship,
• Whether the principle of employee protection has been undermined.

In essence, courts are now required, before concluding that “foreign law is applicable to the contract,” to conduct a more detailed examination as to whether the connection between the dispute and Turkish law has been severed and whether the employee has been deprived of minimum protection standards afforded under Turkish law.