Attorney Hüseyin Aydın · Alanya / Antalya
If someone else drives your vehicle, who is liable for traffic fines, accidents and social security sanctions in Turkey? A traffic fine issued face to face by the traffic police or gendarmerie to a person driving a company vehicle is no longer just a record of a traffic offence. With its Circular No. 2026/22 dated 19.10.2026, the Social Security Institution (SGK) has reorganised how traffic fine reports are to be assessed in the fight against unregistered employment. The Circular amends section “2.3.1.1. Procedures for (4/a) insured persons” of Circular No. 2015/25 dated 11.11.2015.
Short answer: Under the new rules, findings based on traffic fine reports served in person are first examined by the KADİM (Fight Against Unregistered Employment) units. For each report in which the person is found to be actually working, the insured person is credited with 1 day of service as of the date of the report. If there are several findings at the same workplace, the earliest date is treated as the start date and the work is deemed part-time; the first finding after a month without any finding is treated as a new hiring. If it is claimed that the work was continuous, the file is referred to social security inspectors.
IMPORTANT: Even if someone else is driving, liability usually stays with the vehicle owner. The SGK risks may be small compared with the operator’s liability under the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918 (KTK). Under the KTK, the operator is liable for damage arising from the operation of the vehicle even without fault and is held liable for the driver’s fault as if it were his own (KTK Art. 85). Lending the vehicle briefly to a friend, a relative or an unregistered driver does not, as a rule, remove the status of operator. If the driver is employed without social security registration, all costs incurred by SGK in a possible accident can also be recovered from the employer under Article 23 of Law No. 5510. This is discussed in detail in section 7 below.
The issue is particularly important for businesses offering transfer, shuttle, car rental, tour and delivery services in tourist regions such as Alanya, Antalya, Gazipaşa, Mahmutlar and Konaklı. Indeed, some of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) decisions discussed below concern disputes arising from traffic reports issued in Antalya. This guide examines the Circular, the operator’s liability under the Highway Traffic Law when the vehicle is used by someone else, the Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law No. 5510, decisions of the 10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation and the first professional commentaries.
Table of Contents
- Circular No. 2026/22: Details and the Change It Introduces
- Old and New Practice Compared
- Examples in the Circular: How Is Service Calculated?
- Which Reports Are Covered?
- Legal Basis: Law No. 5510
- Sanctions for Employers
- If Someone Else Drives Your Vehicle: Operator Liability under the KTK
- If an Unregistered Driver Has an Accident: A Double Risk
- Public Commentary and Misconceptions
- Court of Cassation Decisions: Is a Traffic Report Sufficient on Its Own?
- Objections, Lawsuits and Deadlines
- Practical Checklist for Vehicle Owners and Employers
- Conclusion
- Frequently Asked Questions
1. Circular No. 2026/22: Details and the Change It Introduces
The Circular was issued by the SGK General Directorate of Insurance Premiums on 19.10.2026 under number E-26658445-045.99-152153364 with the subject “Amendment to Circular No. 2015/25”. It is available in the legislation section of SGK’s official website. The regulation contains two changes:
- Addition to the first paragraph: The phrase “except for records to be sent to the social security inspectors unit pursuant to the third paragraph” has been added to the rule on KADİM units processing insured persons.
- Rewritten third paragraph and new examples: How findings based on traffic fine reports served in person are examined, how many days of service are credited and how hiring and termination dates are determined have been regulated anew, and Example 15 and Example 16 have been added.
The essence of the Circular lies in this sentence:
“…for each record in which the insured person is found to be actually working, the insured person shall be credited with 1 day of service as of the date the report was issued.”
SGK Circular No. 2026/22
2. Old and New Practice Compared
Under the previous version of Circular No. 2015/25, administrative fine reports issued after traffic checks were processed by treating the date of the report as the start date of employment. SGK’s lawyers also relied on this rule in cases before the Court of Cassation (for example, the file underlying Yargıtay 10th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/1471, K. 2024/2428, 07.03.2024). The new Circular ties the scope and limits of service to much more concrete rules.
| Issue | Previous practice (2015/25) | New practice (2026/22) |
|---|---|---|
| Initial review | Direct processing by KADİM units | Review by KADİM units; records where work at the same workplace cannot be established are sent to social security inspectors |
| Service credited | Processing by treating the report date as the start date | 1 day for each record in which actual work is established |
| Nature of work | No explicit part-time rule | Where there are several findings at the same workplace, part-time work is assumed |
| Month without findings | No specific rule | The first finding after a month without findings counts as a new hiring; the previous relationship ends on the last day of service |
| Claim of continuity | General objection procedures | If it is objected that work was continuous between the first and last findings, the matter is referred for inspection |
3. Examples in the Circular: How Is Service Calculated?
The two examples added to the Circular clearly show the logic of the new system:
| Example | Days established | SGK’s procedure |
|---|---|---|
| Example 15 (consecutive months) | March 2026: 2 days, April 2026: 1 day, May 2026: 2 days, June 2026: 1 day | A single hiring notification as of the first finding in March 2026; 2 days of service for March, 1 for April, 2 for May and 1 for June (no new hiring notification for later months); termination as of the last day of service. Total: 6 days, one employment relationship. |
| Example 16 (months with a gap) | March 2026: 2 days, April 2026: 1 day, May 2026: no finding, June 2026: 2 days, July 2026: 1 day | Hiring in March; 2 days for March, 1 for April and termination as of the last day. As there is no finding in May, a new hiring as of the first finding in June; 2 days for June, 1 for July and termination. Total: 6 days, two separate employment relationships. |
As the examples show, the Circular does not automatically treat all days between two findings as worked. Service is limited to days established by documents. However, if the employer or the insured person claims that work continued uninterrupted between the first and last findings, the matter will go to an inspector, which may result in a longer service period and a correspondingly higher premium debt.
4. Which Reports Are Covered?
Two elements stand out in determining the scope of the Circular:
- Traffic fine reports served in person: Reports in which the driver’s identity is established at the time of the check are covered. For fines detected by electronic enforcement systems (EDS) and served on the vehicle owner by post or electronically, the driver’s identity is not determined at the time of the check, so such records are not considered suitable for the same result.
- Reports drawn up by officials such as police, municipal police, doctors, veterinarians and engineers: The “1 day per record” rule also applies to information and documents obtained from public authorities, findings of SGK’s inspection officers and reports drawn up by such officials other than public inspection staff. The rule is therefore not limited to traffic police and gendarmerie; reports of municipal police and similar officials are also covered.
Another important aspect of the Circular is that records other than those where work at the same workplace is established are sent to the social security inspectors unit. For example, where the vehicle has been rented, lent, or the driver is insured with another employer, the file is expected to be examined through inspection rather than concluded directly by the KADİM unit.
5. Legal Basis: Law No. 5510
The Circular does not create a new obligation; it determines how existing obligations under Law No. 5510 apply to traffic reports. The main relevant provisions are:
- Article 8 (Notification of insured persons): Employers must notify SGK of 4/a insured persons with a hiring notification before the start of insurance. Moreover, under the law, “the insured person’s failure to notify himself does not constitute evidence against him.”
- Article 11 (Workplace): The law counts vehicles as part of the workplace, together with annexes and places attached to it. Treating a company vehicle as a workplace is the legal basis for linking a finding made in the vehicle to the employer.
- Article 59 (Inspection): Inspection staff of public authorities must report persons employed without registration to SGK; the right of objection is reserved.
- Article 86 (Premium documents): If documents for insured persons whose work is evident from documents issued by public institutions are not submitted within one month despite notice, the documents are issued ex officio by SGK and the premiums are notified to the employer.
- Article 102 (Administrative fines): Regulates administrative fines for breaches of notification and documentation obligations.
6. Sanctions for Employers
When a finding of unregistered employment based on a traffic report becomes final, the employer may face several financial consequences:
| Consequence | Legal basis | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Failure to submit a hiring notification | 5510 Art. 102/1-a-2 | If it is established from information and documents obtained from public authorities, an administrative fine of twice the minimum wage per insured person. If repeated within one year, five times the minimum wage under 102/1-a-3. |
| Monthly premium and service declaration | 5510 Art. 102/1-m-4 | An administrative fine for insured persons whose service was not declared, varying with the employer’s bookkeeping status. |
| Premiums, late payment penalty and interest | 5510 Arts. 86/7, 88, 89 | Premiums for documents issued ex officio are collected from the employer. |
| Loss of incentives and support | 5510 Art. 81 and related support provisions | Court files show that, after findings based on traffic reports, SGK has reclaimed premium incentives and minimum wage support used by the employer. |
It should be noted that the one-quarter reduction under Article 102(2) of Law No. 5510 is not available for notifications made on the basis of SGK findings or documents obtained from public authorities. The real financial burden of the sanction can therefore be far above the premium for a single day.
7. If Someone Else Drives Your Vehicle: Operator Liability under the KTK
The most common thought in practice is: “I wasn’t driving; the driver caused the accident or committed the offence.” However, because of the danger created by motor vehicles, the Highway Traffic Law attaches liability not to the person driving but to the operator of the vehicle. If a company vehicle is given to an unregistered driver, a friend, an employee’s relative or an acquaintance for a day’s job, the greatest risk for the owner is often not an SGK fine but liability for compensation under KTK Art. 85.
7.1. Who is the operator? Is the registered owner always the operator?
Under Article 3 of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918, the operator is:
“the person who owns the vehicle, or who is registered as buyer in a sale with retention of title, or the lessee, borrower or pledgee in cases such as long-term lease, loan for use or pledge of the vehicle. However, if it is proven by the person concerned that another person operates the vehicle on his own account and at his own risk and has actual control over the vehicle, that person is deemed the operator.”
KTK Art. 3
The conclusion is clear: the registered owner is, as a rule, the operator. The Court of Cassation accepts that the owner being the operator is a presumption consistent with the ordinary course of life, which can only be rebutted in cases such as a long-term lease where the lessee operates the vehicle in his own name and on his own account (Yargıtay 4th Civil Chamber, E. 2021/9627, K. 2021/2518, 07.06.2021). The Court applies a substantive test: actual control over the vehicle, deriving economic benefit from it and bearing its costs and risks are decisive (Yargıtay 4th Civil Chamber, E. 2023/12232, K. 2024/1506, 13.02.2024).
7.2. Who remains the operator when the vehicle is given to someone else?
| Situation | Who is the operator? | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| An employee (registered or not) uses the company vehicle | The owner company | The driver is a person for whose acts the operator is responsible; the operator is liable for the driver’s fault as if it were his own (KTK Art. 85, last para.). |
| The vehicle is lent to a friend or relative for a day or a few hours | As a rule, the owner | According to the Court of Cassation, for operator status to pass under a loan for use, the borrower must assume all maintenance, repair and responsibility for the vehicle, and the benefit from its use must also belong to him. |
| Long-term lease (e.g. notarised contract for months or years, financial leasing) | The lessee | If the lessee operates the vehicle in his own name and on his own account, operator status passes to the lessee; no claim can be brought against the registered owner. |
| Short-term (daily) rent-a-car hire | As a rule, the rental company | For the hirer to be the operator, the lease must be long-term. For traffic administrative fines, however, under a provision added to KTK Art. 116 in 2026, the fine is issued in the hirer’s name if the conditions are met. |
| Vehicle sold privately (without notary) but not transferred | Depends on the case | If it is proven that the buyer operates the vehicle on his own account and at his own risk and has actual control, the buyer is the operator; the burden of proof lies with the party asserting this. |
| Vehicle stolen or seized | The thief or person who seized it | KTK Art. 107: the thief is liable like an operator; the operator is not liable if he proves that neither he nor those for whom he is responsible were at fault for the theft. |
The 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation sets strict conditions for operator status to pass under a loan for use:
“For a person to become the operator by virtue of a loan for use, he must assume all maintenance, repair and responsibilities of the vehicle, and the benefit arising from its operation must also belong to him.”
Yargıtay 4th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/1728, K. 2024/5750, 05.06.2024
As regards long-term leases, the Court held that the registered owner was not the operator in an accident occurring during a two-year notarised lease (Yargıtay 17th Civil Chamber, E. 2012/1803, K. 2013/1497, 13.02.2013). In a case where a financial leasing company leased the vehicle for three years, it was likewise held that the lessee was the operator and no claim could be brought against the lessor (Yargıtay 4th Civil Chamber, E. 2010/10330, K. 2011/12331, 23.11.2011). On the other hand, the Court stresses that the lease must be long-term for the lessee to be the operator (Yargıtay 17th Civil Chamber, E. 2014/9531, K. 2016/8441, 03.10.2016).
Note: Under the KTK, it makes no difference whether the owner “lets a driver use the vehicle without social security registration” or “lends” it: in both cases the owner, as a rule, remains the operator. The only difference is that, if the driver is an employee, additional SGK obligations and sanctions arise. Writing “liability belongs to the hirer/driver” in a contract is not a way to escape operator liability; under KTK Art. 111, agreements that remove or limit statutory liability are void.
7.3. Nature of the operator’s liability: strict (risk-based) liability
Under KTK Art. 85(1), if the operation of a motor vehicle causes a person’s death or injury or damage to property, the operator is liable. If the vehicle is operated under the name of an enterprise, the operator and the owner of the enterprise are jointly and severally liable. The last paragraph of the article is the heart of the matter:
“The operator and the owner of the operating enterprise are liable for the fault of the driver or of assistants involved in the use of the vehicle as if it were their own fault.”
KTK Art. 85, last para.
According to the Court of Cassation, the operator’s liability is risk-based liability; the operator must compensate damage caused by the operation of the vehicle even without any fault of his own (Yargıtay 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2016/21314, K. 2018/8721, 19.09.2018). It is sufficient that the damage arose from the faulty driver’s act (Yargıtay 17th Civil Chamber, E. 2015/9234, K. 2018/3643, 02.04.2018). The injured party may sue the faulty driver under general provisions and the operator under KTK Art. 85(1); their liability is joint (Yargıtay Assembly of Civil Chambers, E. 2017/1089, K. 2019/294, 14.03.2019).
7.4. When can the operator escape liability?
- Exoneration (KTK Art. 86/1): The operator is released if he proves that the accident resulted from force majeure or gross fault of the injured party or a third party, without any fault on his part or of those for whom he is responsible (including the driver) and without any defect of the vehicle contributing. In an accident where the driver was at fault, this route is effectively closed.
- Reduction of compensation (KTK Art. 86/2): If contributory fault of the injured party is proven, the judge may reduce compensation.
- Gratuitous carriage and vehicles given as a favour (KTK Art. 87): If the injured party was carried free of charge as a favour, or the vehicle was given to the injured party as a favour, the operator’s liability is subject to general provisions. The same rule applies where the person to whom the owner gave the vehicle as a favour (e.g. a friend who borrowed it) is himself injured; fault is then required.
- Vehicle not in operation (KTK Art. 85/3): The injured party must prove the fault of the operator or of those for whom he is responsible, or that a defect of the vehicle caused the accident.
7.5. The operator’s right of recourse against the driver and compulsory traffic insurance
Although the operator is liable towards the injured party externally, he may seek recourse from the faulty driver internally. Under KTK Art. 88, where several persons are liable, the damage is apportioned taking all circumstances into account. In practice, however, the right of recourse often remains on paper, since an unregistered driver or a friend who borrowed the vehicle may not have assets to cover the compensation.
Under KTK Art. 91, operators must take out compulsory motor third-party liability (traffic) insurance to cover their liability under Art. 85(1). However, traffic insurance does not protect the operator in every case:
- Damage exceeding the policy limits and claims for non-pecuniary damages are outside the insurance cover (KTK Art. 92) and are paid directly from the operator’s assets.
- If the vehicle is driven by an unlicensed or drunk person, the insurer may claim back from the operator what it paid to the injured party under the General Conditions of Compulsory Liability Insurance. In a file reviewed by the 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (E. 2022/16725, K. 2023/4515), the insurer was found to have a right of recourse against the operator because the driver was unlicensed and at fault.
- The driver’s own bodily injuries are also not covered by this insurance; the driver is not a third party in relation to the operator (Yargıtay Assembly of Civil Chambers, E. 2021/86, K. 2021/516, 20.04.2021).
7.6. Administrative liability: allowing an unlicensed driver and fines issued to the plate
- KTK Art. 36: Driving motor vehicles without a driving licence and allowing them to be driven is prohibited. Following the amendment by Law No. 7574 of 12.02.2026, an administrative fine of TRY 40,000 applies to unlicensed drivers and TRY 200,000 to those driving although their licence has been withdrawn or cancelled; the operator who allows such persons to drive is also fined TRY 40,000 via the registration plate.
- KTK Art. 116: For offences where the driver cannot be identified (e.g. electronic enforcement detections), the report is issued against the registration plate and served on the person shown as owner in the traffic register. Under a paragraph added in 2026, if it is established from data under the Identity Notification Law that the vehicle was rented on the date of the offence and the hirer has an address suitable for service, the fine is issued in the hirer’s name.
- Criminal liability is personal: If the accident results in death or injury, criminal liability lies with the faulty driver; the owner is assessed separately only for his own culpable act (e.g. knowingly handing the vehicle to a drunk or unlicensed person).
Related guides: For sanctions on unlicensed drivers see Driving Without a Licence in Turkey 2026, for objections to traffic fines see Traffic Fines in Turkey 2026: Penalties and Objection Guide, and for compensation claims after an accident see Motorcycle Accident Compensation and Legal Liability in Turkey.
8. If an Unregistered Driver Has an Accident: A Double Risk
Circular No. 2026/22 and operator liability under the KTK come together most severely when a driver employed without social security registration has an accident with a company vehicle. In that case the owner-employer faces liability on two fronts:
| Front | Legal basis | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Third parties injured in the accident (pedestrians, other vehicles, passengers) | KTK Arts. 85, 86, 88 | The operator is liable for the driver’s fault as if it were his own; pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, the part exceeding insurance limits and possible recourse claims by the insurer. |
| Injury or death of the driver himself | 5510 Arts. 13 and 23 | Since the vehicle counts as part of the workplace (5510 Art. 11), the event may qualify as a work accident. If no hiring notification was submitted, all costs incurred and to be incurred by SGK and the initial capital value of any pension granted are recovered from the employer regardless of fault. |
| SGK administrative sanctions | 5510 Art. 102 | Administrative fines for the hiring notification and premium documents, premiums and late payment interest. |
Article 23 of Law No. 5510 is very clear on this point:
“…the amount of all costs incurred and to be incurred by the Institution and, if a pension is granted, the initial capital value of that pension on its start date, shall additionally be recovered from the employer, regardless of the liability conditions set out in the first paragraph of Article 21.”
Law No. 5510, Art. 23/2
Furthermore, where the accident is caused by the fault of a third party, SGK seeks recourse under Article 21(4) of Law No. 5510 from the third parties who caused the damage and, if at fault, from those who employ them. The 10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation accepts that if the vehicle driven by a driver deemed a third party also has an operator, the operator is jointly and severally liable with the driver (Yargıtay 10th Civil Chamber, E. 2016/6788, K. 2018/6590, 17.09.2018; the decision concerns a recourse action under former Law No. 1479). A “one-day” use by an unregistered driver can therefore have devastating consequences for a business, especially in an accident involving serious injury or death.
9. Public Commentary and Misconceptions
After the Circular was published, the topic quickly gained attention among professionals and on social media. HRD Voice, which publishes on human resources, emphasised that a traffic fine issued to a person does not by itself show unregistered employment and that the decisive criterion is whether actual work is established. A circular published by Prozon noted that under the old practice the period between the first and last findings could be treated as continuous work, while the new rules introduce 1 day per record and part-time work.
Some social media posts claimed that the Circular provides for “premiums for every day a report is issued” and “ex officio retroactive hiring”, thus ending the era of unregistered drivers altogether. In light of the text of the Circular, these statements need correcting on some points:
- There is no automatic registration; there is review. Reports are examined by KADİM units; records where work at the same workplace cannot be established are sent to an inspector.
- Service is limited to 1 day on the report date. No automatic retroactive service is provided for the period before the report. The “retroactive” notification simply means that SGK, after the finding, treats the report date as the hiring date.
- Days between two findings are not automatically counted as worked. Continuity can only be established through an inspection following an objection.
- The sanctions should not be underestimated. Although the premium for a single day seems low, administrative fines and loss of incentives can create a serious financial burden.
In short, the Circular introduces a more proportionate calculation method for employers while showing that unregistered employment will be monitored systematically through traffic checks.
10. Court of Cassation Decisions: Is a Traffic Report Sufficient on Its Own?
In recent decisions of the 10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, regional court decisions holding that a traffic administrative fine report is not on its own conclusive evidence of unregistered employment, and that SGK must carry out an inspection based on the report, have been upheld.
Yargıtay 10th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/3786, K. 2024/6723, 12.06.2024
SGK took action because of a person driving a company’s commercial vehicle in a traffic report issued in Denizli. According to the witnesses, the driver was a friend of the company director and there was no record of any commercial work done with the vehicle. The regional court’s reasoning was upheld by the Court of Cassation:
“…the sole basis was the traffic administrative fine report, and although the defendant Institution should have carried out an inspection through its inspectors, taking this report into account, to determine whether unregistered employment existed, it did not do so…”
Yargıtay 10th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/3786, K. 2024/6723
Yargıtay 10th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/2004, K. 2024/3313, 27.03.2024 (Antalya)
In a report issued by the Antalya Provincial Police Directorate, it emerged that the person driving the taxi was the owner’s grandson, taking the vehicle to deliver it to the regular driver after a shift. The Antalya 9th Labour Court annulled SGK’s action, holding that the report was issued solely for a traffic violation, did not contain the driver’s signature or statement and was not conclusive evidence of work under an employment contract; the decision was upheld on appeal and cassation. Statements of public witnesses from the taxi rank were also taken into account.
Yargıtay 10th Civil Chamber, E. 2025/6752, K. 2025/12429, 25.09.2025
In this case, SGK registered a workplace ex officio in the vehicle owner’s name and assessed 1 day of premiums on the basis of a traffic report issued in Kırıkkale. The court annulled the action, considering that the vehicle had been lent, the driver was registered as insured at another workplace on the report date and SGK had not carried out an inspection; the decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation. The file also shows that the administrative fine was challenged before the Administrative Court; premium and registration actions and administrative fines are reviewed in different judicial channels.
Contrary assessment: Ankara Regional Administrative Court, 9th Chamber, E. 2019/1302, K. 2020/4, 02.01.2020
Not every case ends in the employer’s favour. In this file, traffic officers found that the driver of a bus used for staff and student transport had no social security record; since the owner was insured with another institution, it was considered consistent with the ordinary course of life that an unregistered person worked in his vehicle. The decision shows that where the vehicle is clearly used commercially, as in shuttle and passenger transport, the report may be accepted as stronger evidence.
The overall picture from case law is that the purpose for which the vehicle was used, whether the driver was registered at another workplace, whether a lease or loan relationship is documented and whether SGK carried out an inspection are the main factors determining the outcome. The Circular’s referral of records where work at the same workplace cannot be established to an inspector is consistent with this line of case law.
11. Objections, Lawsuits and Deadlines
The remedies available to the employer in actions based on traffic reports differ according to the type of action. Missing deadlines may make the action final, so notifications should be monitored closely.
| Action | Administrative objection | Judicial remedy | Legal basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Documents issued ex officio and premium debt | Within 1 month of service to the relevant SGK unit (objection suspends collection) | Within 1 month of service of the rejection, to the labour court (filing does not suspend collection) | 5510 Art. 86/7 |
| Administrative fine | Within 15 days of service to SGK (objection suspends collection) | Within 30 days of service of the rejection, to the administrative court | 5510 Art. 102 |
| Claim that work was continuous | Objection for the period between the first and last findings | Following the objection, the matter is examined through inspection | Circular No. 2026/22 |
In cases where the employer argues that the driver was not his employee, the insured person’s rights are also affected, so care should be taken to structure the parties correctly. The insured person, for his part, retains the right to bring an action for determination of service under Article 86 of Law No. 5510.
12. Practical Checklist for Vehicle Owners and Employers
- Whoever drives the vehicle must be registered: Check that hiring notifications for employees using company vehicles were submitted before they started driving.
- Keep vehicle use and assignment records: Written records showing who used which vehicle on which date will be among the most important evidence in any finding.
- Document lease and loan relationships: If the vehicle is leased to another company, keep the contract, the lessee company’s SGK registration of the driver and handover reports.
- Keep part-time employees’ missing-day documents in order: As the Circular adopts the part-time work principle, missing-day notifications and supporting documents become important.
- Reply to SGK letters on time: Respond to SGK’s requests for information and documents within the given period, supported by evidence.
- Consider a continuity claim carefully: An objection that work was uninterrupted leads to inspection and may result in a broader finding of service and premiums.
- Think twice before lending the vehicle: In a short-term loan, operator status as a rule remains with the owner; liability for compensation in an accident falls on the owner.
- Check the driving licence and its class: Letting an unlicensed person or one whose licence was withdrawn drive leads both to an administrative fine for the operator under KTK Art. 36 and to a risk of recourse by the traffic insurer.
- Make long-term leases in writing, preferably notarised: Proof that operator status passed to the lessee rests on these documents; a liability clause in the contract alone is not enough (KTK Art. 111).
- Review traffic insurance limits and optional excess liability cover: Damage above the limits and non-pecuniary damages are paid directly from the operator’s assets.
- Check your incentive status: Whether incentives and support used will be affected by a finding should be assessed together with a financial advisor.
13. Conclusion
SGK Circular No. 2026/22 turns traffic fine reports served in person into a more systematic data source in the fight against unregistered employment. On the one hand, it introduces a proportionate calculation based on 1 day of service per record and part-time work; on the other, it makes clear that letting unregistered persons use company vehicles can lead to administrative fines, premium debts and loss of incentives. Case law of the Court of Cassation shows that a report alone is not sufficient and that the purpose of use and the parties’ relationship must be established with concrete evidence.
The key point is this: the use of a vehicle by someone else does not, as a rule, release the owner from operator liability under the KTK. The operator is liable for the driver’s fault as if it were his own and on a strict liability basis; operator status changes only in exceptional cases such as a long-term lease, a genuine loan for use or proof that someone else operates the vehicle on his own account. If the driver is also employed without registration, compensation liability under the KTK and SGK recourse liability under Article 23 of Law No. 5510 may arise at the same time in an accident.
Businesses operating vehicle fleets in Alanya, Antalya and the surrounding area would be well advised to review their driver and vehicle use records now. With regard to your specific disputes and to avoid any loss of rights, it is advisable to seek professional legal advice from a lawyer specialised in the field.
Frequently Asked Questions
If someone else is driving my car and has an accident, who is liable?
Under Article 85 of the Highway Traffic Law, the operator of the vehicle, as a rule the registered owner, is liable even without fault and is held liable for the driver’s fault as if it were his own. The injured party may claim against both the driver and the operator; the operator may seek recourse from the faulty driver for what he paid.
If I lend my car to a friend, does operator status pass to him?
As a rule, no. According to the Court of Cassation, for operator status to pass under a loan for use, the borrower must assume maintenance, repair and responsibility for the vehicle and the benefit from its use must belong to him. In a short-term loan, operator status remains with the owner.
What does SGK Circular No. 2026/22 introduce?
Findings based on traffic fine reports served in person are examined by KADİM units; for each record in which actual work is established, 1 day of service is credited as of the report date and the work is deemed part-time. If continuous work is claimed, the matter is examined by social security inspectors.
Is a traffic fine report conclusive evidence of unregistered employment?
No. In decisions upheld by the 10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, it was accepted that a traffic administrative fine report alone is not conclusive evidence of unregistered work and that SGK must establish actual work through inspection. The purpose of use, whether the driver is insured elsewhere and documentation of a loan determine the outcome.
What happens if I let an unlicensed person drive my vehicle?
Under KTK Art. 36, an unlicensed driver is fined TRY 40,000 and the operator who allowed the vehicle to be driven is also fined TRY 40,000 via the registration plate. In an accident, the traffic insurer may also claim back from the operator what it paid to the injured party.
What are the deadlines for objecting to SGK actions?
For documents issued ex officio and premium debts, an objection may be filed with the SGK unit within 1 month of service; if rejected, the labour court may be applied to within 1 month. For administrative fines, the objection period is 15 days from service and the period for suing in the administrative court against a rejection is 30 days.
Sources:
- SGK General Directorate of Insurance Premiums, Circular No. 2026/22 dated 19.10.2026 (E-26658445-045.99-152153364) – sgk.gov.tr
- Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law No. 5510 (Arts. 8, 11, 13, 21, 23, 59, 86, 102)
- Highway Traffic Law No. 2918 (Arts. 3, 36, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 107, 111, 116)
- Yargıtay HGK, E. 2017/1089, K. 2019/294, 14.03.2019
- Yargıtay HGK, E. 2021/86, K. 2021/516, 20.04.2021
- Yargıtay 3. HD, E. 2016/21314, K. 2018/8721, 19.09.2018
- Yargıtay 4. HD, E. 2022/1728, K. 2024/5750, 05.06.2024
- Yargıtay 4. HD, E. 2023/12232, K. 2024/1506, 13.02.2024
- Yargıtay 4. HD, E. 2021/9627, K. 2021/2518, 07.06.2021
- Yargıtay 4. HD, E. 2022/16725, K. 2023/4515, 28.03.2023
- Yargıtay 4. HD, E. 2010/10330, K. 2011/12331, 23.11.2011
- Yargıtay 17. HD, E. 2015/9234, K. 2018/3643, 02.04.2018
- Yargıtay 17. HD, E. 2014/9531, K. 2016/8441, 03.10.2016
- Yargıtay 17. HD, E. 2012/1803, K. 2013/1497, 13.02.2013
- Yargıtay 10. HD, E. 2016/6788, K. 2018/6590, 17.09.2018
- Yargıtay 10. HD, E. 2024/3786, K. 2024/6723, 12.06.2024
- Yargıtay 10. HD, E. 2024/2004, K. 2024/3313, 27.03.2024
- Yargıtay 10. HD, E. 2025/6752, K. 2025/12429, 25.09.2025
- Yargıtay 10. HD, E. 2024/1471, K. 2024/2428, 07.03.2024
- Ankara BİM 9. İDD, E. 2019/1302, K. 2020/4, 02.01.2020
- HRD Voice
- Prozon
Legal Notice: This text has been prepared for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. sophoshukuk.com makes no referral, guarantee or promise of outcome. Each case must be assessed on its own particular circumstances; for your specific dispute, please obtain professional advice from a lawyer.