Regulation Amending the Regulation on the Certification of Simple Accommodation Facilities and Beach Enterprises Has Been Published in the Official Gazette

The Regulation on the Certification of Simple Accommodation Facilities and Beach Operations (“Regulation“) was amended by the Regulation Amending the Regulation on the Certification of Simple Accommodation Facilities and Beach Operations (“Amending Regulation“), published in the Official Gazette No. 33352 dated 26 August 2026. The Amending Regulation introduces a restriction on the transfer of simple accommodation tourism operation certificates, establishes detailed minimum requirements for simple accommodation facilities, and enables Ministry inspectors to take part in the inspection of such facilities. In particular, as the newly introduced minimum requirements will enter into force on 1 November 2026, businesses operating simple accommodation facilities will be required to bring their facilities into compliance with the new standards by this date.

Pursuant to paragraph 8 added to Article 7 of the Regulation by the Amending Regulation, the transfer of a simple accommodation tourism operation certificate has been prohibited, except for transfer through testamentary disposition or inheritance. Accordingly, it will not be possible to transfer the simple accommodation tourism operation certificate to third parties through sale, business transfer, or similar transactions. In case a violation is detected, pursuant to subparagraph (e) of the first paragraph of Article 34 of the Law for the Encouragement of Tourism No. 2634, it will result in the document forming the basis of the operation permit obtained from the relevant institution or organization losing its validity or being canceled. The provision in question entered into force on 26 August 2026.

With Article 8/A added to the Regulation, the minimum qualifications that simple accommodation facilities must satisfy have been regulated in detail for the first time. In this context;

•  Having a reception desk at the entrance of facilities with a capacity of 25 rooms or more,

•  In case food and beverage service is provided, preserving food supplies under appropriate conditions,

•  Maintaining first aid equipment at the facility and employing first aid-certified personnel,

•  Regularly carrying out cleaning and maintenance, and conducting regular pest control,

•  For facilities with swimming pools, meeting requirements regarding physical pool safety, filtration and disinfection systems, non-slip flooring, children’s pool, pool usage rules (in Turkish and at least 2 foreign languages), and maintaining a certified lifeguard,

•  For facilities with recreational pools, employing security-responsible personnel and meeting certain safety standards,

•  Maintaining specific minimum equipment and fixtures in bedrooms and bathrooms (In bedrooms, having basic equipment such as standard-compliant beds and textile products, bedside tables or similar arrangements, lighting, natural ventilation, power outlets, trash cans, wardrobes, and curtains; if room doors do not have electronic locks, installing an additional lock system; and meeting specific equipment and safety standards in bathrooms.)

have been made mandatory. Specifically within the scope of the pool regulation, it is stipulated that a separate children’s pool with a maximum depth of 50 cm must be provided. However, for facilities that accept only guests aged 12 and above and notify guests of this policy in advance, the children’s pool requirement will not be sought. Nevertheless, if the facility changes its guest admission policy, the children’s pool must be constructed before this change is implemented. Most of the new minimum qualifications will enter into force on 1 November 2026. Therefore, it is important for businesses to review their current facilities and operations before the specified date and make the necessary physical and administrative arrangements.

With the amendment made to Article 10 of the Regulation, it has been stipulated that inspections of simple accommodation facilities and beach enterprises may be carried out by Ministry controllers, provincial directorate personnel to be authorized by the governorship, and, where necessary, other personnel to be assigned by the governorship. Thus, Ministry controllers have also been explicitly included in the inspection process, paving the way for more effective supervision of the implementation of the new minimum qualifications. In addition, with the amendment made to the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Regulation, it has been explicitly regulated that beach enterprises and simple accommodation facilities are required to satisfy the qualifications stipulated in the Regulation. These provisions entered into force on 26 August 2026.

Sincerely,

Balay, Eryiğit & Erten Attorney Partnership

Law Proposal on Amending Certain Laws Regarding the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary Has Been Adopted

The 12th Judicial Package, prepared with the objectives of accelerating judicial processes, strengthening the freedom to seek legal remedies, and ensuring compliance with the annulment decisions of the Constitutional Court, has been passed by the General Assembly of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (GNAT) and enacted into law. In line with the deliberations conducted during the legislative process, certain articles were removed from the initial draft, several new provisions were added, and the final text was finalized. The final text of the Law has been published in the Official Gazette. The regulations contained in this information note are categorized under the headings “Key Highlights” and “Other Regulations,” directly impacting our clients’ business processes and legal disputes.

You may access the full text of the Law at: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2026/07/20260731-1.htm

I. HIGHLIGHTS
A. Execution, Bankruptcy, and Sale Procedures
Article NoAmended LawType of AmendmentAmended ArticleContent of theAmendmentJustification for AmendmentImpactEnforcement Date
1Execution and Bankruptcy Law (Law No. 2004)Addition of Paragraph and Amendment of Sub-paragraphArticle 114 (Paragraph 2 and Sub-paragraphs 6, 8, 9 of Paragraph 7)It has been proposed to narrow the first bidding schedule and participation requirements in favor of heirs regarding the sale of real properties transferred by inheritance, by amending Paragraph 2 of Article 114, which regulates advertisement and timing procedures. In tenders for the dissolution of co-ownership, it has been proposed to abolish the privilege of shareholders to enter the tender without providing collateral. The floor limit of 50% of the estimated value, which was valid for all tenders under the previous regulation, has been proposed to be updated for real properties transferred by inheritance.

With the proposal made in sub-paragraph 9, deterrent financial measures have been introduced to prevent bad-faith sabotage of the tender:

i. General Sales: The collateral of the buyer who fails to pay the tender price within the prescribed period shall be recorded as revenue and offset against the sales expenses.

ii. Dissolution of Co-ownership (Izale-i Suyu): If the winning shareholder fails to pay the price, the submitted collateral shall be offset against sales expenses, and an administrative fine of 5% shall also be imposed.

iii. Creditors as Buyers: If the winning creditor fails to pay the price, in addition to forfeiting the collateral, the obligation to pay 10% of the estimated value shall directly rest upon the creditor.		To prevent shareholders from sabotaging the tender process with bad-faith bids, to prevent inherited property from being sold cheaply to third parties, and to protect public resources and the judicial mechanism.Abuses involving entering tenders in bad faith and failing to pay the price are prevented through severe sanctions (5% fine + forfeiture of collateral). Heirs are provided with the opportunity to protect the property primarily among themselves at 100% of its value. The reliability of tender processes is enhanced.On the date of publication (It shall not apply to public auctions advertised prior to entry into force; previous provisions shall continue to apply.)
11Turkish Civil Code (Law No. 4721)Amendment440It has been proposed to stipulate that the sale of movable properties shall, in accordance with the instructions of the guardianship authority, be conducted via the “electronic sales portal integrated into UYAP.”To protect the interests of the restricted person (ward), to eliminate physical space restrictions, and to sell the property at the highest value in a competitive environment.The digitalization of sales processes, reaching a broader audience of participants, and ensuring the transparency of sales transactions are achieved.Three months after the date of publication (For sales advertised prior to entry into force, the previous provisions shall continue to apply.)
12Turkish Civil Code (Law No. 4721)Amendment444It has been proposed to fully transfer the sale of immovable property to the electronic environment.To ensure that the immovable property is sold at the highest value in a competitive environment by transcending physical boundaries, in order to protect the interests of the restricted person (ward) to the highest degree.Increased transparency through the digitalization of sales processes, facilitating participation in the sale, and ensuring that the sale is realized at the highest valueThree months after the date of publication
 
B. Methods of Interest and Compensation Calculation
Article NoAmended LawType of AmendmentAmended ArticleContent of the AmendmentJustification for AmendmentImpactEnforcement Date
10Law on Legal Interest and Default Interest (Law No. 3095)Amendment1A transition from a fixed interest rate to a variable rediscount-based system has been proposed. Instead of a fixed annual rate of 12%, 80% of the CBRT’s rediscount rate was adopted as the basis. It is envisaged that the interest rate will be updated every six months (on June 30) based on 5-point changes in the rediscount rate.The Constitutional Court’s finding that the existing fixed interest rate system violates the right to property as it fails to compensate for the loss of value in money (E: 2024/24, K: 2025/164).Protection of the creditor in an inflationary environment, establishment of a balance of interests between creditor and debtor, and alignment of interest rates with market conditions are ensured.On the date of publication
18Turkish Code of Obligations (Law No. 6098)Addition55By proposal, a distinction between “known” and “unknown” periods in compensation calculations has been introduced, establishing the principle of hypothetical earnings for the future. Furthermore, it is aimed to set off payments made up to the preliminary examination stage proportionally from the total compensation.Accruing interest from the date of the incident on hypothetical future earnings disproportionately increases the burden of compensation.The interest burden on the compensation debtor becomes rationalized; the need for expert witness reports during the preliminary examination stage decreases, thereby accelerating the judicial process.On the date of publication (Valid only for tortious acts/incidents occurring after entry into force.)
 
C. Civil Procedure and Litigation Procedures (HMK Amendments)
Article NoAmended LawType of AmendmentAmended ArticleContent of the AmendmentJustification for AmendmentImpactEnforcement Date
19Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100)Repeal107It has been proposed to completely remove the institution of “unquantified claim action” within the CCP system from the legal order.Hesitancies in implementation, prolongation of proceedings, and the fact that violations concerning the right to seek legal remedies, as highlighted by the Constitutional Court, can be addressed through partial claims.The possibility of filing an “unquantified claim action” comes to an end; litigation strategies will need to be reevaluated taking into account the statute of limitations assurance through “partial claim”.On the date of publication (The former provisions shall continue to apply to lawsuits filed prior to the entry into force.)
20Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100)Addition109The proposal removes the requirement to file an “amendment” to increase the claim in a partial lawsuit and ensures that the statute of limitations for the increased portion is tolled from the very beginning of the lawsuit (the date the lawsuit was filed).In line with the judgments of the ECtHR and the Constitutional Court, to fill the legal void resulting from the expiration of the statute of limitations for the remaining portion of the claim.The plaintiff is provided with the assurance to increase the claim without incurring the burden of amending the pleadings ; a more effective legal protection shield is created, eliminating the risk of statute of limitations.On the date of publication
21Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100)Addition147It has been proposed to limit the period that can be set between hearing dates to 3 months as a general rule.To implement the principle of “trial within a reasonable time,” which is a requirement of the right to a fair trial, to expedite proceedings, and to ensure procedural economy.A concrete time limit preventing arbitrariness in hearing adjournments is introduced; the oversight mechanism along with the judge’s obligation to state grounds is strengthened.On the date of publication
22Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100)Addition149It has been proposed to remove the requirement of a handwritten signature for statements of persons participating in hearings via SEGBİS (Audio and Video Information System), provided that such statements do not constitute a “dispositional act” (such as admission, waiver, settlement, etc.).To prevent physical distance and geographical obstacles from obstructing access to court; to facilitate digital participation for procedures that do not require a volitional declaration (signature).Remote participation in hearings is streamlined; the requirement for a physical signature before a notary public or the court is retained only for “dispositional acts of the parties”Three months following the date of publication
23Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100)Amendment166It has been proposed to introduce the condition that a consolidation decision (consolidate cases) must become “finalized” (become finalı) in order to bind the court hearing the first lawsuit.To revise the provision (direct binding nature) that the Constitutional Court annulled as being contrary to the principle of the “lawful judge”.An appeal remedy is introduced against consolidation decisions, thereby enabling the parties to make use of review mechanisms; legal certainty is strengthened with respect to conflicts of jurisdiction and competence between courts.On the date of publication
24Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100)Amendment168It is envisaged that the parties will be granted the opportunity to file an independent appeal against consolidation decisions, without awaiting the judgment on the merits.To ensure conformity with the amendment made to Article 166 (arising from the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision) and to facilitate judicial review of consolidation decisions.A direct review mechanism is established over consolidation decisions; the risk that erroneous consolidation decisions may prolong the proceedings is prevented by means of the independent appeal remedy.On the date of publication
25Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100)Addition362It has been proposed that decisions rendered ‘anew on the merits’ by the Regional Court of Appeal (BAM) upon acceptance of the appeal shall be subject to cassation, provided that they exceed the monetary threshold.To address the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision, rendered on the grounds that the provision imposed a ‘disproportionate restriction on the right to request review of the judgment,’ and to safeguard the right to seek legal remedy.A legal remedy (cassation) is introduced for final decisions rendered directly (at first instance) by the Regional Court of Appeal (BAM); the finality threshold is thereby harmonized with that applicable to first-instance courts.On the date of publication
 
D. Administrative Procedural Law
Article NoAmended LawType of AmendmentAmended ArticleContent of the AmendmentJustification for AmendmentImpactEnforcement Date
4Law on the Establishment and Duties of Regional Administrative Courts, Administrative Courts and Tax Courts (Law No. 2576)AmendmentArticle 7It has been proposed to increase the monetary threshold for cases to be examined by a single judge (from TRY 25,000 to TRY 486,000) and to expand the types of cases falling within the jurisdiction of a single judge:

Actions for annulment and full remedy actions not exceeding TRY 486,000.

Disciplinary penalties (excluding removal from office/dismissal), grade determination disputes, and cases concerning dormitories, loans and scholarships.

Temporary assignment, travel allowance, official housing (lodging) and leave transactions.

Warning penalties imposed on public officials.

Disciplinary penalties imposed on members (excluding those that prevent the exercise of professional activity).

Cases arising from Law No. 2022 (old-age pension for those aged 65).		To expedite the proceedings; to balance the workload by resolving disputes that do not require examination by a panel through a single judge.The volume and types of cases handled by a single judge in administrative courts are increased; the workload of panel courts is reduced.On the date of publication (applicable only to cases filed after the date of entry into force.)
5Administrative Procedure Law (Law No. 2577)Amendment45It has been proposed to expand the authority of the appellate instance to correct the reasoning (of a decision) and to clarify the grounds for remanding the case file to the first-instance court:

Instead of quashing decisions with erroneous reasoning, provision has been made for their dismissal upon correction of the reasoning.

In addition to lack of competence/jurisdiction/a prohibited judge, procedural final decisions, misjoinder of the opposing party, incomplete judgments and deficiencies leading to the rejection of the petition have been brought within the scope of remand.

The appellate instance has been granted the authority to remedy deficiencies relating to on-site inspection/expert examination and hearings itself.		To eliminate uncertainties in practice, to ensure procedural economy, and to render “remand” an exceptional remedy.Where the outcome of the decision is correct, affirmation is achieved through correction of the reasoning; a more effective appellate process is ensured through remand or direct remedy in the case of procedural deficiencies.On the date of publication (applicable only to decisions rendered after entry into force; the former provision shall continue to apply to decisions rendered prior thereto.)
6Administrative Procedure Law (Law No. 2577)Deletion and Insertion46It has been proposed to shift the cassation remedy from a “subject-matter”-based restriction to a system based on the “judicial act”:

New rule: Irrespective of the subject matters listed, all decisions in which the Regional Administrative Court (BİM), upon quashing the first-instance decision, renders a new judgment on the merits, shall in principle be subject to cassation.

Exceptions: Cases examined by a single judge, as well as decisions concerning agricultural property, possession, foreign nationals, and decisions relating solely to attorney’s fees and litigation costs, shall be excluded from the scope of cassation.

Repealed: Subparagraph (c), based on the monetary threshold, shall be abolished, as the general cassation remedy has been introduced.		To ensure conformity with the Constitutional Court’s decision holding that “the categorical exclusion of the cassation remedy against decisions rendered by the BIM upon quashing violates the right to request review of the judgment.”Where the BİM, acting in place of the first-instance court, renders a new judgment, that judgment shall be subject to review by the Council of State; however, in certain simple matters, the cassation remedy shall remain closed for the sake of trial within a reasonable time and workload considerations.On the date of publication.
 
II. OTHER REGULATIONS
A. Criminal Procedure and Criminal Law
Article NoAmended LawType of AmendmentAmended ArticleContent of the AmendmentJustification for AmendmentImpactEnforcement Date
14Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 5271)Amendment and Insertion80It has been proposed that, instead of genetic data being retained solely within a single file, it be made mandatory for such data to be recorded, in a form “stripped of identifying information,” in a central “dedicated system.”

It is envisaged that the previously vague and short procedure, worded merely as “shall be destroyed immediately,” be replaced by two distinct destruction procedures (either immediate or after 20 years), differentiated according to whether the outcome was acquittal/non-prosecution or conviction/discontinuance.

It has been requested that the data subject be granted a right (a new procedure) to apply directly to a judge for the deletion of the data, either where the purpose necessitating its retention ceases to exist or where a justified reason arises.

Under the proposal, the purposes for which the data may be used and the authority competent to decide thereon have been restricted; a remedy of “application to the magistrate’s judgeship “ (a new supervisory mechanism) has been added against decisions of the public prosecutor.

It is envisaged that the technical principles governing retention, destruction and use be regulated by a joint regulation issued by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Interior.		The Constitutional Court’s annulment decision (Application No. E: 2025/141, Decision No. K: 2025/274), based on the absence of “legality” and “foreseeability/certainty” in the retention of genetic data.Arbitrariness in the processing of genetic data is prevented; the right to protection of personal data is placed on a legal footing through transparent destruction and retention procedures.On the date of publication.
15Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 5271)Amendment231Through the proposed article, the scope of application of the institution of suspension of the announcement of the verdict (HAGB) has been narrowed specifically with respect to offenses directly connected with Article 17 of the Constitution (inviolability of the person).

The offenses of torture and ill-treatment (torment) have been added to the list of offenses for which a HAGB decision may not be rendered.

The application of HAGB will likewise no longer be possible for offenses of “mistreatment/ill-treatment,” committed by a public official by reason of his/her duty and assessed within the scope of Article 17 of the Constitution.

With respect to the remedy of objection available against the judgments to be rendered by the court in the event of non-compliance with the obligations during the supervision period, the reviewing authority’s scope of review has been considerably narrowed. The objection authority will only be able to conduct its assessment within the limits of the conditions specified in paragraph 11, namely whether the “obligations have been fulfilled” and whether a “new offense has been committed.”		The Constitutional Court’s annulment decision holding that the application of HAGB to the offenses in question is incompatible with the State’s procedural obligation of “effective investigation and punishment” (Application No. E: 2024/98, Decision No. K: 2025/149).By precluding the HAGB mechanism in offenses contrary to human dignity, such as torture and ill-treatment, it is ensured that the trial of the perpetrators of such offenses will result directly in an enforceable judgment.On the date of publication.
16Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 5271)Insertion247It has been proposed to grant a fugitive defendant (a defendant who has absconded), where a security measure has been imposed against him/her, the right to request a retrial, provided that he/she appears in person.The Constitutional Court’s annulment decision holding that there existed no guarantee of the right of defense (no effective remedy) for a fugitive defendant (Application No. E: 2024/98, Decision No. K: 2025/149).By creating, against security measures imposed “in absentia” upon a fugitive defendant, the possibility of having the trial reopened in order to exercise the right of defense, the principle of “equality of arms” is thereby strengthened.On the date of publication.
17Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 5271)Insertion308Under the proposal, the objection authority of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation has been expanded to cover all chamber decisions, with the exception of decisions on venue and lack of jurisdiction, and the examination period has been extended to three months, running from the delivery of the case file. In addition, it is envisaged that the persons entitled to make such a request (the defendant, the intervening party, etc.) be legally clarified, so that the application process acquires a transparent structure.To remedy the deficiencies in the functioning of the objection remedy; to render the examination period sufficient in complex case files, and to strengthen the freedom to seek legal remedy.The objection mechanism becomes more foreseeable; loss of rights is reduced, and the review conducted before the General Assembly of Criminal Chambers acquires a more comprehensive structure.On the date of publication (applicable to case files delivered after the date of entry into force.)
18Turkish Penal Code (Law No. 5237)Insertion of Paragraph / Regulation158/1-fThe liability and penalty provisions for individuals who make their bank accounts or IBANs available to others (IBAN victims/account providers) in cases of aggravated fraud (involving the use of banks or credit institutions as a means) have been clarified.To prevent the misuse of bank accounts in illegal activities and to ensure legal clarity and deterrence in disputes known to the public as “IBAN-related fraud.”The limits of criminal liability for persons who allow others to use their accounts become clearer; financial tracing and investigation processes in fraud cases are expedited.On the date of publication.
 
B. Judicial Organization, Notarial Profession and Professional Disciplin
Article NoAmended LawType of AmendmentAmended ArticleContent of the AmendmentJustification for AmendmentImpactEnforcement Date
2Notary Public Law (Law No. 1512)Amendment of ArticleArticle 55Contrary to the previous provision — which made the removal of notarial documents and registers outside the notary’s office contingent upon a decision of the court or the examining magistrate, provided for the collection of a “writing fee” for requests for copies, and did not regulate digital transmission procedures — it has been proposed, under the new regulation, that the access process be simplified and limited to requests made by judicial authorities; that the transmission of documents electronically, by means of a secure electronic signature, be made the principal procedure; and that it be established that such transactions are exempt from any and all financial obligations, including fees, taxes, or the value of stamped paper.To reduce bureaucracy (paperwork) in correspondence with judicial authorities and official offices, to expedite investigation processes, to ensure conformity with digital transformation, and to resolve disputes by clarifying that the public service in question is free of charge.The obligation for physical copying in notarial transactions is reduced, and access to documents by investigating authorities becomes considerably faster. Through the fee exemption, the bureaucracy and cost items arising from transactions between public institutions are eliminated.On the date of publication.
4Council of State Law (Law No. 2575)AmendmentProvisional Article 27It has been ensured that the existing structure of the chambers be preserved by extending the maximum period envisaged for reducing the number of Council of State chambers to the statutorily targeted number (10) from “ten years” to “fourteen years”; in connection therewith, it is envisaged that the rule — applied throughout the gradual reduction process in the number of chambers — whereby “one member is elected for every two vacant memberships,” be suspended until 23 July 2030, having regard to the current workload and staffing needs, and that, during this period, the practice of holding an election for each individual vacant member position be reinstated.To manage the operational constraints arising from the current workload and the gradual reduction in the number of chambers.The process of reduction in the number of chambers is slowed down; should member positions fall vacant before 23 July 2030, they shall be filled accordingly.Effective as of 23 July 2026, on the date of publication.
7Institute of Forensic Medicine Law (Law No. 2659)Reorganization26It has been proposed to clarify, by law, the conditions for appointment to the specialization boards and to determine the terms of office:

i. A requirement of specialization or a doctoral degree in medicine/dentistry has been introduced for the chair and members.ii. A four-year term of office has been established as a rule for board chairs/members, group chairs, and department chairs.		The Constitutional Court’s annulment decision holding that regulations of this kind, concerning appointment and terms of office, must be made exclusively by law rather than by Presidential Decree.The standard of academic/professional expertise in forensic medicine services is placed under statutory guarantee; by determining terms of office, administrative stability and legal certainty are ensured.On the date of publication (the term of office of those who have completed four years shall come to an end; those who have not yet completed their term shall complete it.)
8Judges and Public Prosecutors Law (Law No. 2802)Insertion and Amendment10It has been proposed to clarify, at the statutory level, the training curriculum and examination procedures; to introduce a right to a make-up examination (in case of valid excuse); and to set out in detail the criteria (legislation, professional competence, representation, Turkish) and the scoring method.To strengthen the principal role of judges and public prosecutors in the conduct of judicial proceedings, to ensure that the institution of expert witnessing is used for its intended purpose (i.e., solely for technical matters), and to secure speed and economy in judicial proceedings.By preventing judges and public prosecutors from delegating their legal assessment authority to expert witnesses, their control over and responsibility for the proceedings are enhanced.On the date of publication.
9Judges and Public Prosecutors Law (Law No. 2802Insertion63It has been proposed to bring within the scope of the “warning” penalty the practice of resorting to an expert witness in matters that are capable of being resolved through the legal knowledge required by the profession itself.To strengthen the principal role of judges and public prosecutors in the conduct of judicial proceedings, to ensure that the institution of expert witnessing is used for its intended purpose (i.e., solely for technical matters), and to secure speed and economy in judicial proceedings.By preventing judges and public prosecutors from delegating their legal assessment authority to expert witnesses, their control over and responsibility for the proceedings are enhanced.On the date of publication.

 

Sincerely,

Balay, Eryiğit & Erten Avukatlık Attorney Partnership

Principle Decision Regarding the Processing of Biometric Data for Time and Attendance Tracking Purposes Published in the Official Gazette Dated 02/06/2026

With the Personal Data Protection Board’s (“Board”) “Principle Decision Regarding the Processing of Biometric Data for Time and Attendance Tracking Purposes” dated 29.04.2026 and numbered 2026/921 (“Principle Decision”), published in the Official Gazette dated 02.06.2026 and numbered 33268, the principles regarding the processing of special categories of personal data through the use of biometric identification systems such as fingerprints, facial recognition, iris/retina scanning, vein prints and similar systems for the purpose of time and attendance tracking have been evaluated.

In summary, in the Principle Decision;

• It was stated that, within the scope of the Law on the Protection of Personal Data No. 6698 (“Law”), biometric data are special categories of personal data and that, since it is not possible to change or retrieve such data if they are obtained, they require stricter protection.

• While it was accepted that the employer has an obligation to monitor and document working hours under the Labor Law and the relevant legislation, it was assessed that there is no provision expressly prescribing that time and attendance tracking be carried out through the processing of biometric data.

In this context, the Board has decided that;

• Under current circumstances, conducting time and attendance tracking by means of processing biometric data cannot be regarded as a condition expressly prescribed by law,

• Taking into account the imbalance of power in the employer-employee relationship and the revocability of consent, explicit consent alone would not constitute a sufficient legal basis,

• Where less intrusive alternative methods are available, the processing of biometric data for time and attendance tracking purposes would not satisfy the proportionality criterion under Article 4 of the Law, even if the data subject has explicit consent,

• Therefore, time and attendance tracking should be ensured through alternative methods such as password-protected cards, PIN-based systems, traditional signatures and paper-based attendance sheets, RFID/NFC identity cards or manual entry under the supervision of an auditor, instead of biometric identification systems.

You may access the full text of the Principle Decision published in the Official Gazette on 02/06/2026 from here.

Sincerely,

Balay, Eryigit & Erten Attorney Partnership

Amendment To The Law On Maternity Leave Periods Published In The Official Gazette

The Law No. 7578 on Labour Law Matters (the “Law”), which introduces significant amendments to labour legislation, was published in the Official Gazette dated 1 May 2026 and numbered 33240. The Law primarily revises various statutory provisions concerning parental rights, with a particular focus on maternity leave entitlements. The key amendments are summarised below for your information.
Current Framework as of 1 May 2026:
• Under the amendments introduced by the Law, the postnatal maternity leave period for female employees has been extended from 8 weeks to 16 weeks, while the 8-week prenatal leave period remains unchanged, resulting in a total maternity leave entitlement of 24 weeks.
• The regulation further introduces greater flexibility regarding the period during which employees may continue working prior to birth. While the previous framework allowed employees to work up to 3 weeks before delivery, the amended regime reduces this period to 2 weeks, thereby effectively extending the postnatal leave period available to employees.
• The Law also expands parental leave entitlements. In this respect, the paternity leave period for private sector employees has been increased from 5 days to 10 days, while the existing 10-day entitlement for public sector employees remains unchanged.
• In addition, in cases of adoption, the Law increases the leave entitlement granted to female or male employees to 8 weeks of paid leave. The regulation further strengthens the legal framework by introducing additional leave rights for foster families responsible for the care and protection of children.
Transitional Framework Prior to 1 May 2026:
• The Law establishes a specific transitional mechanism in relation to the amendments to maternity leave entitlements.
• Employees falling within this scope are entitled to an additional 8 weeks of maternity leave, provided that they submit a request within 10 working days.
• The aforementioned 10-working-day period constitutes a statute of limitation period.
The amendments require employers not only to ensure compliance with the increased maternity leave entitlements but also to comprehensively restructure their human resources processes.
Accordingly, employers are strongly advised to review and update their internal policies.
The full text of the Law is accessible at:
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2026/05/20260501-1.htm

Yours faithfully,
Balay, Eryiğit & Erten Attorney Partnership

Principle Decision On The Separate Arrangement Of Explicit Consent Form And Privacy Notice Published In The Official Gazette

The Personal Data Protection Authority has prepared the “Principle Decision on the Requirement for Data Controllers to Arrange Explicit Consent Form and Information Texts Separately” (“Principle Decision”), which was published in the Official Gazette No. 33203 dated March 24, 2026.

In the Principle Decision, the concepts of explicit consent form and privacy notice are examined within the scope of the legislation, and evaluations are provided regarding unlawful practices frequently encountered in practice. In summary, the Authority has emphasized the following matters:

  • The purpose of privacy notices is to provide information and they do not have the nature of a contract; therefore, expressions indicating a declaration of will such as “I have read and accept,” “I have read and give consent,” or “I have read and approve” should be avoided, and expressions such as “I have read and understood” should be preferred.
  • Explicit consent form is a declaration of will based on information and is therefore different from the privacy notice. It should include a statement such as “I give my explicit consent for the processing of my personal data.”
  • When the processing of personal data depends on the condition of explicit consent, the privacy notice and the explicit consent form must be arranged under separate headings as distinct texts.
  • If the privacy notice and the explicit consent form are arranged on the same page, they should be structured under separate headings with a separate declaration obtained for each text.
  • If the processing of personal data is based on other legal grounds stipulated in the Law No. 6698 rather than explicit consent, fulfilling the obligation to inform alone is sufficient, and no separate consent should be obtained.
  • The texts should be prepared by each data controller in accordance with their own organization and sectoral activities.
  • The texts should use clear, understandable, and simple language; general, ambiguous, incomplete, misleading, or incorrect information should be avoided, as well as unnecessarily detailed, complex, or lengthy texts.

Additionally, the Authority has included examples of good and bad practices in the annex to the Principle Decision.

If the practice is not properly implemented, data controllers are subject to administrative fines in accordance with Articles 12 and 18 of the Personal Data Protection Law.

The full text of the Principle Decision can be accessed here.

Best Regards,
Balay, Eryiğit & Erten

The Principle Decision Regarding Loyalty Card Practices Has Been Published

Within the scope of the Personal Data Protection Board’s (“Board”) Principle Decision published in the Official Gazette dated February 28, 2026 dated February 11, 2026 and numbered 2026/266 (“Decision”), certain shopping practices carried out under loyalty card programs were evaluated.

Pursuant to the relevant Decision, it has been stated by the Board that the practices whereby a shopping transaction is carried out by third parties by informing the cashier of a customer’s mobile phone number or loyalty card number without the data subject’s knowledge and consent, issuance of invoices or similar documents in the name of the data subject, and recording purchase transaction in the data subject’s account:

  • cannot be based on any of the data processing conditions set forth under Article 5 of Law No. 6698 (“Law”) and would lead to unlawful personal data processing activities,
  • could constitute a violation of the principle of “being accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date” set forth under Article 4 of the Law,
  • may constitute a violation within the scope of the obligation to ensure personal data security as regulated under Article 12 of the Law.

Within this scope, the Board has stated that:

  • the practices enabling the aforementioned shopping transactions must be terminated,
  • the necessary technical and administrative measures must be taken by data controllers,
  • different verification mechanisms must be implemented in loyalty card practices depending on the type of transaction such as membership verification, earning points/discounts/promotions, and redeeming points, and the level of risk associated with such transactions.

A six-month compliance period from the date of publication of the Principle Decision has been granted to data controllers to establish the aforementioned verification mechanisms.

You can access the full text of the Decision here.

Best Regards,
Balay, Eryiğit & Erten

Turkish Constitutional Court Decision On The Competition Authority’s “On-Site Inspection” Powers Published In The Official Gazette Dated 17/02/2026

With the Constitutional Court (“AYM”) decision dated 06.11.2025 and numbered E.2023/174, K.2025/224, published in the Official Gazette dated 17.02.2026 and numbered 33171, it was held that the phrase “…where it deems necessary…” in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 15 of the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 4054 (“Law No. 4054”) is not unconstitutional, and the objection was dismissed.

The decision is significant, within the scope of the incidentality (objection) applications filed by the 13th Chamber of the Council of State and the Ankara 11th Administrative Court, in terms of the scope of the on-site inspection power regulated under Article 15 of Law No. 4054 and the relationship of this power with fundamental rights safeguards.

The constitutional review subject to the objection was conducted under two headings:
(i) the phrase “…where it deems necessary…” in Article 15/1 of Law No. 4054; and (ii) the second sentence of the third paragraph added to Article 15 by Article 25 of Law No. 4971 dated 1/8/2003. The referring courts argued that these provisions were contrary to Articles 2, 13, and 21 of the Constitution.

In the decision;

  • With respect to the phrase “…where it deems necessary…” in Article 15/1 of Law No. 4054, it is seen that the rule was reviewed within the framework of the rule-of-law principle (Article 2 of the Constitution); and, considering that it serves a legitimate aim within the scope of the State’s positive obligation to protect competition (Article 167 of the Constitution), the Court concluded that there was no unconstitutionality.
  • The majority of the Constitutional Court stated that the challenged rule was not considered to fall within the scope of Articles 13 and 21 of the Constitution (proportionality / inviolability of domicile), and therefore did not conduct a separate constitutional review on that basis.
  • As for the objection concerning the second sentence of the third paragraph later added to Article 15 of Law No. 4054, the application was assessed in terms of the “applicable provision” requirement in the concrete cases and was dismissed due to the Court’s lack of jurisdiction (applicability / applicable-provision issue).
  • Dissenting opinions were submitted and appended to the decision. In particular, the dissents emphasize that, in practice, on-site inspections involve access to areas of undertakings that are not freely accessible to everyone as well as to electronic data systems; therefore, the safeguards of the inviolability of domicile under Article 21 of the Constitution (such as a judge’s warrant / cases of urgency / judicial approval within 24 hours) should be at the center of the debate; and they raise criticisms that a broad phrase such as “where it deems necessary” leaves interferences with fundamental rights to the discretion of the administration.

With this decision, since no annulment or consequence affecting the entry into force arose with respect to the phrase “…where it deems necessary…” in Article 15/1 of Law No. 4054, the normative framework regarding the Competition Authority’s on-site inspection power continues unchanged; however, it is assessed that the inviolability-of-domicile / judicial-safeguard debates emphasized in the dissents will remain on the agenda in practice (particularly regarding areas of the workplace not open to everyone and the examination of electronic data).

You can access the full text of the legislative amendment regarding notifications to employees to be made via KEP dated 24/07/2025 here.

Best Regards,
Balay, Eryiğit & Erten

Communiqué on Amendments to the Communiqué Concerning Mergers and Acqusitions Requiring Competition Board Clearance Published in the Official Gazette

Significant amendments have been introduced to the Communiqué No. 2010/4 on Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring Competition Board Clearance, as published in the Official Gazette dated 11/02/2026, through the Communiqué No. 2026/2 on Amendments prepared by the Competition Authority. The key aspects of these amendments are set out below.

The definitions of the relevant undertaking, transaction parties, and technology undertakings have been updated.

The concept of “related undertaking” has been clarified to encompass the acquiring party or the person/economic units subject to the merger or acquisition. In particular, the term “transaction party” has been elaborated to explicitly indicate the economic entities to which the relevant undertakings belong and the units subject to the transaction. Additionally, in the definition of technology undertakings, digital platforms have been explicitly mentioned and highlighted as a separate category.

Turnover thresholds for mergers and acquisitions requiring the merger clearance of the Board have been updated.

  • With the changes to the turnover thresholds in mergers and acquisitions, it has become mandatory to obtain the Board’s merger clearance for a transaction to be legally valid if the following conditions are met: the total Turkish turnovers of the transaction parties, previously 750 million TRY, now reach 3 billion TRY; and the Turkish turnovers of at least two of the transaction parties, previously 250 million TRY each, now reach 1 billion TRY; or in acquisitions, the assets or operations subject to the transaction, and in mergers, the Turkish turnover of at least one of the transaction parties, previously 250 million TRY, now reach 1 billion TRY, and the global turnover of at least one of the other transaction parties, previously 3 billion TRY, now reaches 9 billion TRY.
  • In merger transactions where at least one of the transaction parties is a technology undertaking established in Turkey, as well as in transactions involving the acquisition of such undertakings, the turnover thresholds set forth in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the first paragraph, which were previously not applied to the transaction party subject to the transaction, are now applied at 250 million TRY.

Conceptual additions and amendments have been made to terms such as dominant position, competition, and undertaking.

A fourth paragraph has been added to Article 13 of the Communiqué, whereby the Board will now specifically consider the significant activities of the transaction parties in the markets or related markets in which joint ventures operate, as well as the likelihood that coordination may eliminate competition. The market structure, effective competition, and dominant position criteria set out in the previous first and second paragraphs have been retained.

Significant changes have been made to the Notification Form annexed to the Communiqué to simplify the notifications to be submitted to the Board.

  • In Section (2) of the Notification Form, subparagraph (b), the phrase “if there is no affected market in Turkey” has been revised to: “for transactions involving an affected market, it will be mandatory to answer the long-form questions requesting detailed information on market dynamics if (i) in horizontal overlaps, the combined market shares of the parties exceed 15%, and/or (ii) in vertical overlaps, at least one of the parties’ market shares exceeds 20%.” A market share threshold has thus been introduced.
  • Another addition to the content of the Notification Form has been made under subparagraph (3). According to this newly added subparagraph, the information to be submitted regarding transaction parties that are venture capital investment partnerships, venture capital investment funds, venture capital companies, or individual private equity investors is limited solely to matters directly related to their activities in Turkey, and the transaction party subject to the transaction is excluded from this scope.

It has been stated that the changes to the turnover thresholds and other conditions in the Communiqué will also apply to ongoing transactions. The amendments came into effect on the date of publication. The Amendment Communiqué can be accessed via this link.

Best Regards,
Balay, Eryiğit & Erten