Overtime in Turkey is regulated by the Labour Act and the Regulation on Overtime. Following criticism from legal scholars, the Regulation on Overtime was recently amended. The amendment has clarified that an employee's written consent for overtime can be obtained through an employment contract or during the employment relationship if needed. Therefore, obtaining employee consent at the beginning of each year is no longer required.
The justification of court decisions is regarded as a key element of the right to a fair trial. In Turkey, this right is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the Turkish Constitution, the Code of Civil Procedure and Supreme Court precedents. However, in practice, judgments are sometimes made without providing any justification as to why the parties' claims and evidence were not taken into account.
Preliminary injunctions in Turkey are regulated under the Code of Civil Procedure. A preliminary injunction can be requested from the competent court that has jurisdiction over a case prior to filing or the court before which a case is filed. Applicants must determine the grounds for making such a request in addition to the nature of the preliminary injunction being sought. They must also prove their claim to convince the court that the merits of the case are legitimate.
If a foreign national who owns real estate in Turkey dies, his or her successors must have recourse to the Turkish courts and obtain a certificate of inheritance in order to complete the transfer of the real estate under their names before the land registry or be able to legally dispose of the property in any manner. A recent case illustrates that this issue can be overcome by the submission of specific documents issued by the competent authorities of foreign countries, testament or notary statements.
A recent Court of Appeals case concerned a resolution taken at a general assembly meeting where the signature of the shareholder plaintiff's representative had been forged. As it was established without doubt that the signature on the general assembly meeting minutes did not belong to the plaintiff's representative, the court declared that the decisions taken at the general assembly were null and void.