Personnel Attendance Tracking System (“PATS”) records refer to electronic or digital workplace records used by employers to monitor and record matters such as employees’ entry and exit times, working hours, overtime, leave periods, absenteeism, and similar employment-related data.

With the integration of technological developments into working life, the question of whether PATS records, which constitute technical data, may be accepted as evidence particularly in employment law proceedings has become increasingly significant. In this context, the fact that such systems are established and controlled by the employer has also raised discussions regarding the impartiality and reliability of these records. As a general rule, PATS records are considered private documents unilaterally created by the employer and, within the scope of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”), they are considered evidence subject to the court’s discretionary assessment.

In its decisions rendered in 2023, the 8th Civil Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal held that such records could not be relied upon as evidence on the grounds that they were not secured by means of a timestamp mechanism and were open to external intervention. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the overtime claimsshould be calculated and awarded based on witness statements, and found the first-instance court decisions lawful in this respect.

On the other hand, in its subsequent decisions, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal adopted a different approach by attributing evidentiary value to the records submitted by the defendant institution. The Court determined the employee’s overtime and weekly holiday claimsby taking into account the recorded entry and exit times for the periods covered by such records and dismissed the parties’ appeals on these grounds with final effect.

In light of the foregoing explanations, following the application filed for the resolution of the conflicting approaches adopted in the decisions of the Regional Courts of Appeal, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in its decision dated 30 June 2025, held that: “…It should be noted that the absence of a timestamp in electronic records does not, unless the existence of a actual tampering is proven, prevent such records from being taken as a basis for determining working periods. Electronic records for which no intervention has been established cannot be cannot be rebutted by witness testimony…”Accordingly, the Court emphasized that the absence of a timestamp alone does not invalidate digital records and underlined that the essential issue is whether any external interference or alteration has been made to such records. In this regard, it was ruled that where it is established that no external intervention has been made to digital records, witness statements shall not be taken into consideration, and the working hours reflected in the digital records may be relied upon in reaching a conclusion.

Likewise, in its decision dated 15 January 2026, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation examined the evidential value and probative force of PATS and ruled that such records may be used as evidence provided that certain conditions are satisfied. In its decision numbered 2025/8898 Case N., 2026/288 Decision N., the Court further stated: “Since both parties rely on workplace records as evidence, the digital data relating to the claimant’s computer login and logout system records (log records) and fingerprint attendance system records should be examined by an expert appointed by granting authority to inspect the defendant’s central workplace. A detailed, explanatory, and reviewable expert report should be obtained regarding whether any intervention has been made to the system. If it is determined by the court that no intervention has been made to the system, the dispute should be resolved by relying on the records submitted by the defendant employer for the periods covered by such records. However, if any intervention is identified, it should be determined based on witness statements whether overtime work was performed and whether the claimant worked on national holidays and public holidays.” Through this decision, the Court of Cassation has provided further clarification regarding the assessment of digital workplace records and the conditions under which PATS Records may constitute valid evidence.

As a result, as also established by the decisions of the Supreme Court, PATS Records cannot be automatically accepted as conclusive evidence. In the event of a potential dispute:

  • The PATS Records and other digital records submitted by the parties must be examined by a qualified expert;
  • A detailed, explanatory, and reviewable expert report must be obtained regarding whether any intervention has been made to the system; and
  • If it is determined that no intervention has been made to the system, the dispute should be resolved by relying on the submitted PATS Records.