Which Law Governs an International Employment Contract in Turkey? MÖHUK Article 27 After the 2025 Amendment

1. Article 27 balances party autonomy with employee protection

Employment contracts often contain unequal bargaining power. MÖHUK therefore does not apply the ordinary commercial rule without modification. The employer and employee may choose governing law, but the employee keeps the mandatory minimum protection of the habitual-workplace legal system.

This means a foreign-law clause cannot automatically waive Turkish mandatory employment rights where Türkiye is the employee’s habitual workplace.

The court should compare the chosen law and the mandatory workplace rules for the claim at issue.

2. A governing-law clause is valid within the statutory employee-protection floor

A multinational company may use English, German, Dutch or Turkish law in an employment contract. Article 27 recognises that choice.

However, the clause should never be presented as eliminating all rights under the habitual-workplace law. The statutory minimum remains.

Human-resources templates should therefore be localised for the employee’s real working pattern rather than rely solely on headquarters law.

3. Habitual-workplace mandatory rights form a minimum protection floor

Mandatory rules can include dismissal protection, working time, minimum wage, annual leave and other employee rights depending on the designated workplace law.

The employee can benefit from a more favourable chosen law, but the choice cannot lower the statutory minimum.

The specific right must be classified as mandatory under the relevant law; not every contractual rule has the same status.

4. The habitual workplace is a factual centre of the employee’s work

Habitual workplace is not determined only by the employer’s registered office or the nationality of the employee.

Courts can examine where duties are normally performed, where the employee reports, where work is organised, where equipment and clients are located and how long the working pattern has continued.

A contract stating “workplace: London” is not necessarily decisive if the employee has in reality worked permanently in Mersin for years.

5. Temporary work abroad does not change the habitual workplace

Article 27 expressly states that temporary work in another country does not make that temporary place the habitual workplace.

A Turkish employee sent to Germany for a six-month project can therefore remain connected to the Turkish habitual-workplace law depending on the overall employment structure.

The expected duration, return plan, continued reporting line and employment contract can all be relevant.

6. Employees who habitually work in several countries require a different rule

Some airline, sales, shipping, technical-service and regional-management employees do not habitually work in one country.

Article 27(3) then points to the law of the country where the employer’s principal establishment is located.

That rule is distinct from temporary posting. The question is whether multi-country work is the permanent normal pattern.

7. Principal establishment is not always the same as the corporate group’s ultimate parent

The employer identified in the contract and payroll must be distinguished from the group parent, affiliate or client.

If a Turkish subsidiary employs the worker while a German parent gives strategic instructions, the legal employer and principal-establishment analysis can require close factual review.

Our site contains a separate Turkish-language guide on direct instructions from a German parent; Article 27 provides the conflict-law layer rather than duplicating that labour-law issue.

8. The 2025 amendment strengthened the closer-connection provision

Article 27(4), as amended by Law No. 7550, allows a more closely connected law to apply instead of the first three paragraphs where all circumstances justify that connection, subject to the protected mandatory rules of the place where work is performed at the relevant time.

This prevents rigid application of a formal connecting factor where the real employment relationship is centred elsewhere.

The exception should be justified from all facts, not used merely because one party prefers another law.

9. Mandatory provisions of the place where work is actually performed can remain decisive

The amended fourth paragraph expressly preserves rules of the place where the work is performed that must be applied at the time of performance.

Health and safety, working-time, minimum employment standards and public-law labour requirements can therefore operate even where another law governs the contract more broadly.

International employers should conduct destination-country compliance before posting staff.

10. Remote work makes habitual-workplace analysis especially important

A software employee can be hired by a foreign company and work permanently from Türkiye. The employer’s servers and clients may be abroad, while the employee physically and habitually works from a home office in Mersin.

The contract label “remote from anywhere” does not erase the factual work location.

Tax, social-security, work-permit and permanent-establishment questions are separate from the Article 27 employment-law question but should be coordinated.

11. Temporary Germany–Türkiye assignments should separate labour, social security and immigration rules

A posting can leave the original habitual workplace intact under Article 27 while bilateral social-security rules determine contributions and Turkish/German immigration rules determine work authorisation.

Our existing guides on A/T-1 and T/A-1 assignments address the social-security/work-permit side.

The conflict-of-laws analysis should therefore be one layer of a larger cross-border employment plan.

12. Governing law matters directly for dismissal and severance claims

Notice periods, severance, valid-reason standards, reinstatement and termination form can differ significantly between legal systems.

A foreign-law clause should be tested against the employee’s mandatory minimum workplace rights before calculating final pay.

For employees habitually working in Türkiye, Turkish Labour Law and mandatory employment protections can remain central.

13. Wage, overtime and leave claims also depend on the applicable law

Overtime definitions, maximum hours, evidentiary presumptions and annual-leave rules can differ across countries.

The employee should identify the period worked in each country and whether changes were temporary or permanent.

Our unpaid wages guide and overtime guide explain Turkish substantive claims separately.

14. Post-employment non-competes require both conflict and mandatory-law review

A contract can choose foreign law for a non-compete, but the employee-protection floor and mandatory Turkish rules may limit enforcement where the employment is centred in Türkiye.

Our non-compete guide explains Turkish validity requirements.

The governing-law clause should therefore be analysed before enforcing a foreign template in Türkiye.

15. Applicable employment law and work permission are different questions

MÖHUK Article 27 chooses the law governing the employment contract. International Labour Force Law No. 6735 determines whether the foreigner can lawfully work in Türkiye.

A contract can be legally governed by foreign law and still require a Turkish work permit for performance in Türkiye.

Our Turkey Work Permit 2026 guide addresses those current criteria.

16. MÖHUK Article 44 provides special Turkish jurisdiction for employment disputes

Applicable law and jurisdiction must be separated. Article 44 contains jurisdiction rules for lawsuits arising from individual employment contracts or employment relationships with a foreign element.

A foreign forum clause cannot always remove the protective Turkish labour forum made available by mandatory jurisdiction rules.

The actual employee workplace and defendant establishment should be reviewed before filing.

17. A Turkish labour court can apply foreign law

Under Article 2, the judge applies the foreign law designated by MÖHUK ex officio and can request assistance from the parties.

Foreign labour statutes, collective agreements, case law and legal opinions can be necessary.

The 2025 amendment should be cited expressly because older translations and articles can reproduce the previous Article 27 wording.

Conclusion

MÖHUK Article 27 protects employees in international employment relationships by combining law choice with a mandatory workplace-law floor. The 2025 amendment makes current analysis especially important: habitual workplace remains central, temporary posting does not change it, multi-country work points to the employer’s principal establishment, and a more closely connected law can apply while mandatory rules of the actual place of work remain protected. Employment, immigration, social security and tax should be planned as separate but coordinated layers.