Where Can a Foreign Employee Sue in Turkey? MÖHUK Article 44, Habitual Workplace and Protected Turkish Courts

1. Article 44 prevents international employment from becoming a forum barrier for employees

Cross-border employment often places the worker in a weaker procedural position. The employer may be incorporated abroad, the contract may be written in another language and payroll may be administered from a foreign headquarters even though the work is performed in Türkiye.

Article 44 responds by creating specific Turkish jurisdiction connections tied to the employee’s actual work and residence. The rule does not require the employee to chase the employer to the employer’s home country merely because the company is foreign.

This forum protection should be analysed before accepting a foreign-jurisdiction clause printed in the employment contract.

2. Article 44 applies to disputes arising from individual employment contracts or employment relationships

The statutory scope covers disputes arising from an individual employment contract or employment relationship. Typical claims include unpaid salary, overtime, annual leave, severance, notice pay, reinstatement, discrimination, workplace transfer and contractual benefits.

Collective labour disputes can involve other statutes and jurisdiction questions. Article 44 should not be used mechanically for every labour-related disagreement involving a union or collective bargaining agreement.

The factual existence of an employment relationship can itself be disputed; Article 44 is not defeated merely because the employer labels the worker an independent contractor if the claimant alleges a true employment relationship.

3. The habitual workplace in Türkiye creates a direct Turkish forum

The first sentence of Article 44 identifies the Turkish court at the place where the employee habitually performs the work when that workplace is in Türkiye. The concept focuses on the stable centre of the employee’s working activity rather than a single business trip.

An engineer regularly assigned to a Mersin facility can have Mersin as the habitual workplace even if the employer is registered in Germany. A salesperson travelling within Türkiye may require a broader factual inquiry into the operational base from which work is organised.

Employment records, travel, supervisor location, office access, payroll and daily work patterns can demonstrate the habitual workplace.

4. A temporary foreign posting does not necessarily change the employee’s habitual workplace

International groups frequently send employees abroad for projects lasting weeks or months. Temporary assignment alone should not be treated as a permanent shift in the employee’s habitual workplace.

The expected duration, return arrangements, home position, payroll, family residence and organisational integration help determine whether the employee remains habitually connected to Türkiye.

This jurisdiction analysis parallels, but is not identical to, the applicable-law protection in MÖHUK Article 27.

5. Remote work requires a factual workplace analysis

A foreign company’s employee can work permanently from a home in Türkiye without a conventional Turkish office. Article 44 should be applied to the actual place where the work is habitually performed, not only to the employer’s formal office structure.

If the employer knowingly organises and accepts long-term work from Türkiye, that Turkish work location can become significant. By contrast, an employee unilaterally working during a short holiday may not change the habitual workplace.

Remote-work agreements, login records, expense policies, tax and social-security arrangements can all be relevant.

6. Employees working across several countries require careful classification

Air crew, regional managers, drivers, salespersons and project employees can perform duties in several states. The court should determine whether one Turkish place remains the habitual centre of work.

Where no single habitual workplace exists, Article 44’s text and the broader domestic procedural framework must be read carefully for the particular claim. The employee’s residence and the employer’s Turkish connections can become especially important when the employee is claimant.

Do not simply select the country where the employee spent the greatest number of days without examining the employment organisation.

7. Employer residence gives an additional Turkish forum when the employee sues

Article 44 expressly allows an employee bringing a claim against the employer to sue in Turkish courts connected to the employer’s residence. This is an additional protective option.

A foreign corporate group should identify the actual employing entity. A Turkish subsidiary’s residence cannot automatically be attributed to its foreign parent if the parent is the legal employer, and the reverse is also true.

Employment contract, SGK registration, payroll, company records and who exercises employer authority are central evidence.

8. Employee residence or habitual residence in Türkiye can also support a claim by the employee

The employee’s residence and habitual residence provide further Turkish forum choices when Article 44’s conditions are met. The rule is particularly useful where the employee worked in different locations but maintains a stable Turkish residence.

Residence should be genuine. A nominal address created solely for litigation can be challenged if it does not reflect the employee’s actual legal/factual connection.

Population/address records, lease, family life and ongoing residence can support the forum connection.

9. The broad additional forum choices are specifically designed for the employee as claimant

Article 44’s second sentence protects employees suing employers. This asymmetry reflects the weaker-party character of employment litigation.

An employer should not assume it can use the same employee-residence forum offensively against the worker. The statutory text must be read according to who brings the claim.

This matters in claims for training costs, non-compete damages, alleged employee losses or repayment of advances.

10. Employer claims require a narrower jurisdiction analysis

When the employer sues the employee, the special employee-protective options cannot be expanded beyond the statute. The habitual-workplace forum and relevant domestic venue rules must be assessed carefully.

An employer choosing Türkiye merely because the employee has assets here should not assume Article 44 automatically supplies jurisdiction.

Any non-compete or confidentiality claim should also be classified for substantive law under Article 27 and related rules.

11. Article 47(2) prevents parties from eliminating Article 44 courts by agreement

A foreign employer may include a clause saying that only the courts of London, Frankfurt, Dubai or another city can hear disputes. Article 47(2) states that the jurisdiction of the courts identified in Articles 44, 45 and 46 cannot be removed by agreement.

This does not mean every foreign court clause is meaningless in every context. It means the protected Turkish employee forum cannot be contractually stripped away where Article 44 applies.

The clause should therefore be analysed before advising an employee that proceedings can only be brought abroad.

12. Arbitration clauses require a different analysis from court-selection clauses

Article 47 directly regulates foreign court agreements. Arbitration is governed by arbitration statutes, conventions and the arbitrability of the particular employment claim.

Some employment disputes can raise questions about whether an arbitration agreement is valid, voluntary and legally capable of excluding court proceedings.

A standard foreign arbitration clause should not be assumed enforceable without examining Turkish mandatory labour and arbitration rules.

13. Jurisdiction does not determine the governing employment law

A Turkish labour court with Article 44 jurisdiction can apply foreign substantive employment law if MÖHUK Article 27 selects it, while preserving mandatory employee protections required by the statute.

Our MÖHUK Article 27 employment-law guide explains the applicable-law analysis.

Keeping forum and law separate prevents incorrect statements that “because the lawsuit is in Türkiye, every issue is automatically Turkish law.”

14. Work-permit irregularity does not erase every employment claim

A foreign employee’s work-permit status can create administrative and employment consequences, but an employer should not assume that an irregular permit automatically eliminates all wage or labour rights.

The court will classify the employment relationship and applicable mandatory rules. Administrative penalties and private employee claims are separate legal layers.

Our Turkey Work Permit 2026 guide explains the authorisation rules separately.

15. Dismissal and reinstatement claims can have short domestic deadlines

Where Turkish substantive employment law applies, reinstatement and mandatory mediation can involve strict time limits. An overseas employee should not delay while debating international jurisdiction internally.

Notification of termination, mediation application and filing dates should be preserved immediately.

If foreign law governs the employment contract, the Turkish court must determine which mandatory Turkish protections remain applicable under Article 27.

16. Salary, overtime and leave claims often rely on evidence held by a foreign employer

Employment files can include foreign payroll systems, email servers, time records and expense platforms. The Turkish proceeding should identify which evidence can be requested from the employer and which materials the employee should preserve before access is disabled.

WhatsApp messages, travel records, calendars and bank payments can supplement formal payroll evidence.

Foreign-language evidence must be translated for court use where required.

17. A foreign employer must be served validly

Article 44 jurisdiction does not remove the requirement of proper international service. Hague Service Convention, bilateral instruments or diplomatic service channels can govern notification to the employer abroad.

Service errors can substantially delay employment litigation and create later enforcement objections.

The employer’s exact legal name, registered address and country should be verified before filing.

18. Plan whether the judgment will be enforced in Türkiye or abroad

If the foreign employer has Turkish bank accounts, receivables, shares or other assets, Turkish enforcement can be practical. If all assets are abroad, recognition/enforcement in the employer’s home state may be necessary.

Foreign courts can examine Turkish jurisdiction, service and public policy during recognition. A well-grounded Article 44 jurisdiction analysis therefore improves enforceability.

Settlement strategy should also consider currency and cross-border transfer issues.

Conclusion

MÖHUK Article 44 gives employees meaningful protected access to Turkish courts in international employment disputes. The habitual Turkish workplace is a direct forum, and employees suing employers can also rely on specified residence connections. Article 47 prevents standard jurisdiction clauses from eliminating these protected courts. Jurisdiction, governing law, work-permit status and enforcement must nevertheless be analysed separately for each cross-border employment file.