Legislation Bulletin 2026/34 · 30 October 2026

Failure to pay interest on wrongfully withheld tax refunds violates the right to property

Constitutional Court Decision on the Application of Emine Oya Yüksel

Laws concerned: Income Tax Law No. 193 · Tax Procedure Law No. 213

In a ruling published in the Official Gazette, the Constitutional Court examined the case of an individual who received a court-ordered refund of income tax deducted from a severance payment—paid upon the termination of an employment contract via a mutual separation agreement—without any interest being paid for the period between the date of deduction and the date of refund. The applicant requested compensation for the loss of value suffered due to the wrongfully withheld tax remaining in the administration's possession for years, but the courts dismissed the interest claim by citing relevant statutory provisions.

The Constitutional Court emphasized that refunding only the principal amount of wrongfully collected taxes is insufficient and that interest must be paid to compensate for inflation and monetary depreciation. Ruling that the judiciary's rejection of the interest claim constitutes a disproportionate interference with the right to property, the court ordered a retrial to remedy the consequences of the violation.

This decision sets a precedent for seeking legal remedies against the practice of not paying default interest on tax refunds, evaluating the application of the law within the context of the right to property.

Effective date

18 May 2026

Who is affected

Taxpayers, tax offices, and individuals receiving refunds for wrongful tax deductions.

Official Gazette text

Constitutional Court rules no violation of the right to respect for private life in employment terminations based on terrorism suspicion

Judgment of the Constitutional Court Dated 16/9/2026 and Numbered 2020/7753

Laws concerned: Labor Law No. 4857

A decision of the Constitutional Court published in the Official Gazette concerns the termination of an employment contract of a private sector employee on the grounds of suspected ties to a terrorist organization and the breakdown of the trust relationship. The decision addresses the application of subparagraph (II) of Article 25 of Labor Law No. 4857 during the state of emergency, which served as the basis for the termination. The high court accepted as concrete and objective the employer's suspicion that the trust relationship was impaired, given the determination that the applicant was a ByLock user.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the interference was proportionate since the opportunity to continue working in the private sector was not restricted and procedural guarantees were provided throughout the judicial process. In this context, it was unanimously decided that the right to respect for private life was not violated. The document does not introduce a direct amendment to the relevant article of the Labor Law, but establishes high court jurisprudence regarding the judicial review of termination grounds.

Who is affected

Private sector employers and employees.

Official Gazette text