Legislation Bulletin 2026/31 · 20 October 2026

Senior-level dismissals and appointments carried out across various public institutions

Decisions Regarding Appointments by the Presidency (Decision No: 2026/342-355)

Laws concerned: Capital Markets Law No. 6362 · Decree-Law No. 660 on the Organization and Duties of the Public Oversight, Accounting and Auditing Standards Authority

Within the scope of the Presidential Appointment Decisions published in the Official Gazette, senior-level dismissals and new appointments have been made in various public institutions and organizations. Accordingly, actions have been taken pursuant to the relevant legislative provisions, Presidential Decree No. 3, and Article 4 of Statutory Decree No. 660 on the Organization and Duties of the Public Oversight, Accounting and Auditing Standards Authority.

Mahmut Sütcü, Chairman of the Capital Markets Board, and İbrahim Ömer Gönül, Chairman of the Public Oversight, Accounting and Auditing Standards Authority, have been dismissed from office. These actions constitute individual dismissal measures and do not result in any permanent rule change, repeal, or introduction of a new rule in the relevant laws or legislative provisions.

The respective decisions entered into force on the date of their publication and did not create a general legal change in the organizational structures of the institutions. Aside from the execution of administrative processes within these institutions, the regulations do not directly impose new compliance obligations on market participants.

Effective date

20 October 2026

Bu Karar yayımı tarihinde yürürlüğe girer.

Who is affected

Capital Markets Board, Public Oversight, Accounting and Auditing Standards Authority, and relevant public officials.

Official Gazette text

Constitutional Court rules that dismissal of a lawsuit due to general wording in the mediation protocol constitutes a violation of rights

Constitutional Court Decision on the Individual Application of Durmuş Çelik

Laws concerned: Labor Law No. 4857

A Constitutional Court decision published in the Official Gazette evaluated the procedural dismissal of a lawsuit filed for employment claims on the grounds that individual claim items were not separately specified in the mediation application form as a violation of the right of access to court. The High Court ruled that including a general expression such as 'arising from the employee-employer relationship' in the mediation non-agreement document and placing the entire responsibility for substantiating this on the applicant constitutes an overly formalistic approach. Drawing attention to the fact that the will of the parties must be taken as the basis during the mediation process, the decision has paved the way for a retrial.

While this decision does not directly amend Labor Law No. 4857, it holds significance regarding the application of the mandatory mediation requirement in labor law disputes and the approach courts must follow in reviewing procedural conditions. It serves as a precedent for employers and employees concerning the content of mediation protocols and formal requirements in litigation processes.

Who is affected

Employers, employees, mediators, and legal practitioners conducting lawsuits in labor courts.

Official Gazette text