The Constitutional Court, The decision dated 3.6.2025 and numbered E.2024-157, K.2025-121,

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULING ON CASES INVOLVING A PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER–SUBCONTRACTOR RELATIONSHIP

Summary of the Application:

The Adana 6th Labor Court lodged an application challenging the constitutionality of paragraph (15) of Article 3 of the Labor Courts Law No. 7036

The provision in question required both employers to participate jointly in the mediation process for reinstatement and to ensure that their intentions were compatible in cases involving a principal employer-subcontractor relationship. The application argued that this regulation imposed a excessive burden on the employee, that in most cases it was impossible for the employee to identify the principal employer, and that if the mediation application was incomplete, the employee's right of access to the courts was effectively eliminated.

Assessment:

The Constitutional Court examined the contested provision in light of the principle of proportionality guaranteed by Articles 13 and 36 of the Constitution, as well as the right to a fair trial and access to court.

The Court first examined the purpose of the rule. Accordingly, it was determined that in principal employer-subcontractor relationships, requiring both employers to participate in the mediation process in disputes concerning reinstatement claims aimed to prevent errors regarding party status and ensure earlier resolution of the dispute. In this respect, it was accepted that the regulation served a legitimate purpose.

However, the Court held that the means chosen to achieve this purpose, namely the obligation to identify the principal employer in advance and involve them in the mediation process, exceeded the limits required by the principle of proportionality. This is because, in most cases, the employee is only on the subcontractor's payroll and does not have a direct relationship with the principal employer. In this case, the employee cannot be expected to fulfill the obligation of identifying the principal employer in the mediation process and ensuring their participation.

The Court emphasized that declaring the mediation application invalid if the employee fails to fulfill this obligation and subsequently dismissing the lawsuit due to lack of condition for filing a lawsuit would undermine the essence of the right of access to the courts. It has been concluded that the rule makes the freedom to seek justice unenforceable, thereby creating an unreasonable restriction.

The decision also stated that the objective envisaged by the legislator could be achieved by less severe means. For example, the institution of change of parties, regulated in Article 124 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, allows parties who were not included in the mediation process to be included in the lawsuit at a later stage. In this case, it was stated that the obligation imposed by the contested regulation was not mandatory or the only way.

The Court concluded that the application of the provision in mentioned imposed an unbearable burden on the worker, disrupted the fair balance between the individual and the public interest, and effectively eliminated workers' right to appeal to the court, and therefore found the rule to be contrary to Articles 13 and 36 of the Constitution.

Ruling:

The Constitutional Court, in its decision dated 3/6/2025 and numbered E.2024/157, K.2025/121, ruled that paragraph (15) of Article 3 of Law No. 7036 was contrary to Articles 13 and 36 of the Constitution, and therefore decided to repeal the provision in question and adopted the decision by a majority vote.

The decision was published in the Official Gazette dated October 17, 2025, and numbered 33050.