Istanbul Law Review

SUBMITINFORMATION
EnglishTürkçe

Research Article


DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0011   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0011    Full Text (PDF)

Analysis of Directive (EU) 2023/970 on Pay Transparency in Comparison with Turkish and German Law

Artür Karademir

Adopted on May 10, 2023, Directive (EU) 2023/970 aims to enforce equal pay for equal work or work of equal value between men and women through pay transparency and enforcement mechanisms. Member states must transpose this directive by June 7, 2026. It builds on longstanding EU principles of equal pay, addressing implementation challenges by emphasising transparency to prevent gender-based discrimination. Employers must provide information on pay levels and criteria for pay progression. German law, under the Pay Transparency Act enacted in 2017, aligns with the principles set out in the Directive but requires updates for full compliance, while Turkish law lacks provisions equivalent to the Directive’s transparency measures. In contrast, German and Turkish law generally comply with the Directive’s legal regime regarding the shift of the burden of proof. According to the Directive, the burden of proof shifts to employers once prima facie evidence of discrimination is presented. However, failure to meet transparency obligations further shifts this burden without needing prima facie evidence. This solution is not applicable in Turkish law, since there is no transparency regulation requiring the employer to provide employees with pay information. Furthermore, the Directive mandates comprehensive compensation for discrimination, including non-material damages. Member States must implement effective, proportional penalties and may impose structural workplace changes or exclusion from public tenders for repeated violations. Given that Turkish labour law also emphasises equal treatment but lacks specific transparency measures, aligning with Directive (EU) 2023/970 would enhance transparency and employee empowerment in Turkey.

Keywords: Equality, Gender Pay Gap, Pay Transparency, EU Law, Compensation
DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0011   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0011    Full Text (PDF)

Türk ve Alman Hukukuyla Karşılaştırmalı Olarak Avrupa Birliği’nin Ücret Şeffaflığına İlişkin 2023/970 Sayılı Direktifi Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Artür Karademir

 (AB) 2023/970 sayılı Direktif, 10 Mayıs 2023 tarihinde, eşit veya eşit değerdeki işi gören kadın ve erkekler arasındaki eşitliğin güçlendirilmesi amacıyla kabul edilmiştir. Direktif uyarınca üye devletler ulusal mevzuatlarını en geç 7 Haziran 2026 tarihine kadar Direktif hükümleri ile uyumlaştırmak zorundadırlar. Direktif’in amacı, yasal düzlemde yıllardan beri benimsenmekle birlikte uygulanmasında güçlük yaşanan ücrette eşitlik ilkesinin çeşitli mekanizmalar vasıtasıyla uygulamada da hayata geçirilmesinin sağlanmasıdır. Direktif ile işverenlere ücret düzeyleri ile ücret ilerlemesine ilişkin bilgi sağlama zorunluluğu getirilmiştir. Ücret şeffaflığı Alman hukukunda 2017 yılında yürürlüğe giren Ücrette Şeffaflık Kanunu ile düzenlenmiş olmakla birlikte Direktif hükümlerine uyum sağlanmasını teminen bazı yasal değişikliklerin yapılması gerekmektedir. Türk iş hukukunda ise ücret şeffaflığını düzenleyen bir hüküm bulunmamaktadır. Buna karşılık, her iki hukuk sistemi de Direktif’in ispat yükünün yer değiştirmesine ilişkin öngördüğü hukukî rejimle uyumlu düzenlemeler içermektedir. Buna göre, işçinin ilk görünüş ispatı itibarıyla ayrımcılığa uğradığına kanaat getirilmesi hâlinde, aksini işveren ispatlamak zorundadır. Öte yandan, ücret şeffaflığına ilişkin getirilen zorunluluklara uyulmaması durumunda, gerek Alman hukukunda, gerekse Direktif uyarınca işçinin ilk görünüş ispatına sevk olmasına dahi gerek olmaksızın ispat yükü yer değiştirmektedir. Türk hukukunda ise işverenin işçiye ücret şeffaflığı sağlama borcunun düzenlenmediği dikkate alındığında, işçiye şeffaflık sağlanmamış olması tek başına ispat yükünün yer değiştirmesine sebep olmayacaktır. İlaveten, Direktif cinsiyete dayalı ayrımcılık karşısında kamu ihalelerinden yasaklanmaya kadar kapsamlı tedbirler öngörmektedir. Öte yandan, Türk hukukunda da ücrette cinsiyet eşitliği benimsenmekle birlikte Direktif’te öngörülen hukukî rejim kadar kapsamlı mekanizmalar bulunmamaktadır. Neticeten, bu çalışmada, ücret şeffaflığının Türk hukukunda da benimsenmesinin işçinin hukukunu güçlendirici etkisi olduğu ifade edilerek şeffaflık düzenlemelerine ihtiyaç olduğu savunulmaktadır. 

Keywords: Eşitlik, Kadın-Erkek Arasında Ücret Eşitsizliği, Ücret Şeffaflığı, AB Hukuku, Tazminat

EXTENDED ABSTRACT


 Directive (EU) 2023/970, adopted on May 10, 2023, aims to enhance the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value between men and women through pay transparency and enforcement mechanisms. This Directive shall be transposed by the Member States by June 7, 2026. The Directive seeks to address the longstanding principle of equal pay, which faces implementation challenges, by introducing pay transparency as a core mechanism to prevent gender-based discrimination.

The principle of equal pay was established by the Treaty of Rome in 1957. Various directives have since been adopted, including Directive 75/117/EEC in 1975, which emphasised administrative and judicial mechanisms for addressing discrimination but lacked provisions on the burden of proof. This was addressed by Directive 97/80/EC in 1997, which shifted the burden of proof to employers in cases of gender discrimination. Directive 2006/54/EC further reinforced these principles and highlighted the need for equality bodies. Directive 2023/970 builds on these by emphasising pay transparency and proactive measures against discrimination.

The Directive applies to all employers and includes provisions for job applicants. It identifies transparency as crucial for achieving gender equality, addressing the barriers to recognising and proving pay discrimination. Pay includes base wages, bonuses, allowances, and other benefits. Justifiable pay differences must be based on justifiable criteria, such as skills, effort and working conditions. Transparency implies openness, accountability, and communication. It includes collective measures such as pay reporting and individual measures like employee rights to access pay information. Employers must provide information on pay levels and criteria for pay progression. Job applicants must also receive information on initial pay or pay ranges, promoting informed decision-making, and demonstrating gender-neutral pay criteria. Additionally, pay reports must include gender-based pay differences, quartile distributions, and the proportion of employees receiving supplements, with varying requirements based on employer size.

German law mandates median earnings disclosure for comparison groups, whereas Turkish law lacks such provisions. Enacted in 2017 to align with Directive 2006/54/ EC, the German Pay Transparency Act also aims to eliminate gender pay disparities. Employers with more than 500 employees must prepare a pay report every three years (or every five years if bound by a collective agreement). This report must outline measures taken to ensure gender equality and pay equality, as well as the average number of employees by gender and full/part-time status. On the other hand, the Directive requires more frequent and detailed pay reports, applicable to employers with at least 100 employees, covering gender pay differences, median pay levels and the proportion of employees receiving supplements.

In German law, employees have the right to request information about their wages and the pay elements. The employer must also provide the median earnings of the comparison group. The obligation to provide information applies to workplaces with more than 200 employees. Requests can be made every two years. The Directive, on the other hand, does not limit the information request period, whereas German law imposes a two-year interval. In addition, German law lacks provisions equivalent to the Directive’s transparency on pay progression criteria.

The burden of proof shifts to employers if an employee demonstrates prima facie evidence of discrimination. If employers fail to meet transparency obligations, they must prove the absence of discrimination without requiring prima facie evidence from the employee. This principle has been reinforced by past CJEU rulings, and German law practices comply with it.

Compensation for gender-based pay inequality must cover all damages, including non-material damage. Member states must ensure effective, proportional and deterrent penalties, potentially including structural workplace changes and exclusion from public tenders for repeated violations. Turkish law also emphasises equal treatment but lacks specific transparency measures. The law provides limited compensation for discrimination and lacks provisions for suspending or interrupting the period of limitation in employment. Aligning Turkish practices with the Directive would enhance transparency and empower employees.

Pay transparency must not violate personal data laws. Whereas the Directive mandates that employers cannot seek job applicants’ previous pay information unless relevant to the job, this issue raises different opinions in Turkish doctrine.

In conclusion, Directive (EU) 2023/970 strengthens the principle of equal pay through transparency, building on nearly seventy years of EU law. It introduces innovative measures, such as employee access to pay information and simplified burden of proof, aiming to foster a sociocultural shift towards valuing workers and   ensuring gender equality in pay. German law requires adjustments to fully align with the Directive, while Turkish law could benefit from adopting similar transparency measures to balance employer-employee power dynamics.


PDF View

References

  • Ahrendt M, ‘§ 36 Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz und Mobbing’ in Günther Schaub (ed), Arbeitsrechts-Handbuch (20th edn, C. H. Beck 2023) google scholar
  • Ahrendt M, ‘§ 37 Entgeltgleichheit’ in Günther Schaub (ed), Arbeitsrechts-Handbuch (20th edn, C. H. Beck 2023) google scholar
  • AnnuB G, ‘Entgelttransparenzgesetz-doch kein zahnloser Tiger?’ (2021) 21 Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 1538-1541. google scholar
  • Aydınöz G, ‘Avrupa Birliği ve ATAD Kararları Çerçevesinde Ayrımcılık Yasağı ve Ayrımcılığın İspatı’ (2009) 3(22) Çalışma ve Toplum Dergisi 163-192. google scholar
  • Bakırcı K, ‘İstihdamda Cinsiyetler Arası Eşitlik ve Mevzuatta ve Kamusal Politikalarda Yapılması Gereken Değişiklikler’ (2007) (8) Sicil İş Hukuku Dergisi 22-40. google scholar
  • Bakırcı K, Uluslararası Hukuk AB ve ABD Hukuku ile Karşılaştırmalı İş Hukukunda Cinsiyet Ayrımcılığı Yasağı İlkesinin İstisnaları ve Objektif Haklı Nedenler (Seçkin 2012). google scholar
  • Bamberger PA, Exposing Pay: Pay Transparency and What It Means for Employees, Employers and Public Policy (Oxford 2023). google scholar
  • Bauer JH and Romero S, ‘Der individuelle Auskunftsanspruch nach dem Entgelttransparenzgesetz’ (2017) (7) Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 409-413. google scholar
  • Baysal U, ‘Kişisel Veri Olarak Ücret ve Ücretin Gizliliği’ in Tankut Centel (ed), İş Hukukunda Genç Yaklaşımlar III (On İki Levha 2018). google scholar
  • Benedi Lahuerta S, ‘EU Transparency Legislation to Address Gender Pay Inequity: What is on the Horizon and its Likely Impact in Ireland’ (2022) 24 Irish Journal of European Law 161-188. google scholar
  • Buijze A, ‘The Six Faces of Transparency’ (2013) 9(3) Utrecht Law Review 3-25. google scholar
  • Buijze AWGJ, The Principle of Transparency in EU Law (Utrecht University 2013). google scholar
  • Caniklioğlu N, ‘İş İlişkisinin Sona Ermesi ve Kıdem Tazminatı’ Yargıtay’ın İş Hukuku ve Sosyal Güvenlik Hukuku Kararlarının Değerlendirilmesi 2017, (On İki Levha 2018). google scholar
  • Chifan AS and Da Silva Azevedo T, ‘Equality Between Men and Women’ (Fact Sheets on the European Union, May 2024). google scholar
  • Doğan Ceylan N, ‘Yargıtay Kararları Işığında İşverenin Eşit Davranma Borcu’ (2024) (51) Sicil İş Hukuku Dergisi 141-167. google scholar
  • Doğan Yenisey K, ‘İş Kanunu’nda Eşitlik İlkesi ve Ayrımcılık Yasağı’ (2006) 11(4) Çalışma ve Toplum Dergisi 63-82. google scholar
  • Doğan Yenisey K, ‘Kadın-Erkek Eşitliği Bakımından Türk İş Hukuku’nun Avrupa Birliği Hukuku ile Olası Uyum Sorunları’ (2002) 6(4) Kamu-İş 31-72. google scholar
  • Dulay Yangın D, ‘Ulusalüstü Hukukta Eşit Değerde İş İçin Eşit Ücret İlkesi’ (2018) 15(59) Legal İş Hukuku ve Sosyal Güvenlik Hukuku Dergisi 829-864. google scholar
  • Dulay Yangın D and Özer HD, ‘Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin İş İlişkisinde İşverenin Eşit Davranma Borcuna İlişkin Kararı ve Düşündürdükleri (2016/5824 No.lu 28/12/2021 Tarihli Burcu Reis Başvurusu)’ (2022) 13(2) İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 376-389. google scholar
  • Ekmekçi Ö and Esra Y, Bireysel İş Hukuku Dersleri (5th edn, On İki Levha 2023). google scholar
  • Forst G, ‘§ 7 Informationserhebung bei der Einstellung und beim beruflichen Aufstieg’ in Gregor Thüsing (ed), Beschaftigtendatenschutz und Compliance (3rd edn, C. H. Beck2021). google scholar
  • Franzen M, ‘Anwendungsfragen des Auskunftsanspruchs nach dem Entgelttransparenzgesetz (EntgTranspG)’ (2017) 13 Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 814-819. google scholar
  • Göpfert B and Giese K, ‘Entgelttransparenzgesetz- Folgt jetzt die Klagewelle?’ (2018) 4 Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 207-210. google scholar
  • Gültekin F, İş İlişkisinde İfade Özgürlüğü (On İki Levha 2024). google scholar
  • Günder Z and Öz GA, ‘Avrupa Birliği Cinsiyet Eşitliği İlkesi Perspektifinden Türk Sosyal Güvenlik Sistemi’ (2020) 20(48) Sosyal Politika Çalışmaları Dergisi 601-642. google scholar
  • Günther J and Schiffelholz M, ‘Die Entgelttransparenzrichtlinie: Inhalte und Unterschiede zum Entgelttransparenzgesetz’ (2023) 11 NZA Rechtsprechungs-Report Arbeitsrecht 568-574. google scholar
  • Jung S, ‘Die EU-Entgelttransparenz-Richtlinie: Eckpunkte und Umsetzungsspielraume’ (2024) 2 Recht der Arbeit 89-94. google scholar
  • Kania T, ‘Entgelttransparenz’ in Wolfdieter Küttner and Jürgen Röller (eds), Personalbuch (31st edn, C. H. Beck 2024). google scholar
  • Kaplan ET, ‘Mukayeseli İş Hukukunda İşçinin Kişilik Haklarının Bilgisayarda Toplanan Bilgilere (Verilere) Karşı Korunması’ (1999) 4(4) TÜHİS İş Hukuku ve İktisat Dergisi 51-64. google scholar
  • Kılınçarslan P, ‘Avrupa Birliği Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitliği Politikaları: Başlangıcından Günümüze Bağlamsal Bir İnceleme’ (2024) 23(1) Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi 129-161. google scholar
  • Korkmaz F and Alp NS, ‘2006/54/AT Sayılı Direktif ve Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı Kararları Işığında İstihdam ve Meslek Konularında Kadın ve Erkek Arasında Eşit Davranılması ve Fırsat Eşitliğinin Sağlanması’, (2016) 74(Prof. Dr. Fevzi Şahlanan’a Armağan Sayısı) İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası 529-550. google scholar
  • Kökkılınç AG and Kaya G, ‘AB Hukukunda Kadın Erkek Arasında Ücret Eşitliği İlkesi: Güncel Gelişmeler Üzerine Bir İnceleme’ (2022) 2(48) Sicil İş Hukuku Dergisi 86-108. google scholar
  • Kutlu Mutluer M, ‘Şeffaf ve Öngörülebilir Çalışma Koşulları: 2019/1152 Sayılı Avrupa Birliği Direktifi ve Türk İş Hukukunda İşverenin Çalışma Koşulları Hakkında İşçilere Bilgi Verme Yükümlülüğü’ (2024) 28(2) Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 81-135. google scholar
  • Manav AE, ‘İş İlişkisinde İşçinin Kişisel Verilerinin Korunması’ (2015) 19(2) Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 95-136. google scholar
  • Mollamahmutoğlu H, Astarlı M and Baysal U, İş Hukuku (7th edn, Lykeion 2022). google scholar
  • Oberthür N, ‘Das Gesetz zur Förderung der Transparenz von Entgeltstrukturen: Ein Beitrag zu mehr Entgeltgerechtigkeit oder bürokratische Riesenkrake?’ (2017) 31, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2228-2234. google scholar
  • Özkaraca E and Ünal Adınır C, ‘Dar Anlamda Eşit Davranma Borcunda Ayrımcılık Tazminatına Hak Kazanılıp Kazanılamayacağı (Karar İncelemesi)’ (2021) (46) Sicil İş Hukuku Dergisi 127136. google scholar
  • Rolfs C and Lex L, ‘Die Entgelttransparenz-Richtlinie: Entgeltgleichheit zum Preis bürokratischer Überlastung?’ (2023) 21 Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 1353-1359. google scholar
  • Sağlam S, ‘Komisyonun Yetkilerini Etkin Kullanması Sorunu’ in Mehmet Ali Yavuz, Mustafa Keleş and Muhammet Emin Güzel (eds), Meclis Araştırması Komisyonlarının Çalışma ve Rapor Sürecini Değerlendirme Çalıştayı (TBMM 2015). google scholar
  • Schaffert W, ‘UWG § 3a Rechtsbruch’ in Peter W. Heermann and Jochen Schlingloff (eds), Münchener Kommentar zum Lauterkeitsrecht (3rd edn, C. H. Beck 2020). google scholar
  • Schlachter M, ‘AGG § 22 Beweislast’ in Rudi Müller-Glöge, Ulrich Preis, Inken Gallner and Ingrid Schmidt (eds), Erfurter Kommentar zum Arbeitsrecht (24th edn, C. H. Beck, 2024). google scholar
  • Schlachter M, ‘EntgTranspG § 4’ in Rudi Müller-Glöge, Ulrich Preis, Inken Gallner and Ingrid Schmidt (eds), Erfurter Kommentar zum Arbeitsrecht (24th edn, C. H. Beck, 2024). google scholar
  • Süzek S, İş Hukuku (23rd edn, Beta 2023). google scholar
  • Tunçcan Ongan N, ‘AB’nin Kadın-Erkek Eşitliğine İlişkin Direktifleri’, (2003) 53(1) İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 91-104. google scholar
  • Ugan Çatalkaya D, ‘İş Hukukunda Eşitlik İlkesinin İki Bileşeni: İşverenin Dar Anlamda Eşit Davranma Borcu ve Ayrım Yasağı’ (2021) 69(2) Çalışma ve Toplum Dergisi, 859-898. google scholar
  • Ünal C, İş Hukukunda Yaş Ayrımcılığı (On İki Levha 2018). google scholar
  • Wank R, ‘Das Entgelttransparenzgesetz - Pramissen und Umsetzung’ (2018) 1 Recht der Arbeit 38-46. google scholar
  • Willemsen HJ and Scweibert U, ‘Schutz der Beschaftigten imAllgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetz’ (2006) 36 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2583-2592. google scholar
  • Windel PA, ‘Aktuelle Beweisfragen im Antidiskriminierungsprozess’ (2011) 4 Recht der Arbeit 193-199. google scholar
  • Winter R, ‘Den Anforderungen der EU-Entgelttransparenzrichtlinie bald nackommen - Die Zeit lauft’ (2024) 1 Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 8-18. google scholar
  • Yayvak Namlı İ, ‘Almanya’da Yürürlüğe Giren Ücrette Şeffaflık Kanunu’ (2017) 75(2) İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası 741-764. google scholar
  • Yıldız GB, ‘İşverenin Eşit Davranma Borcu’, III. Çalışma Yaşamı Kongresi - Çalışma Yaşamının Güncel Sorunları ve İş Mevzuatı (İş Müfettişleri Derneği 2010). google scholar
  • Yıldız GB, İşverenin Eşit İşlem Yapma Borcu (Yetkin 2008). google scholar
  • Yiğit E, İş İlişkisinde Kişisel Verilerin Korunması (2nd edn, On İki Levha 2023). google scholar
  • Yuvalı E, İşçinin Kişisel Özellikleri Bakımından İşverenin Eşit Davranma Borcu (Turhan 2012). google scholar
  • Yürekli S, ‘İş Hukukunda Sözleşme Görüşmelerinden Doğan Sorumluluk (Culpa In Contrahendo)’ (2014) 72(2) İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası 541-580. google scholar
  • Case C-109/88 Handels- og Kontorfunktionerernes Forbund I Danmark v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Danfoss [1989] ECR 3199. google scholar
  • Case C-127/92 Dr. Pamela Mary Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Secretary of State for Health [1993] ECR I-5535. google scholar
  • Case C-243/95, Hill and Stapleton v. Revenue Commissioners [1998] ECR I-3739. google scholar
  • Case C-381/99 Susanna Brunnhofer v Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse AG [2001] ECR I-4961. google scholar
  • Grand General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation 1795/954, 25.11.2020. google scholar
  • 9thCC of the Court of Cassation 16778/10508, 27.03.2014. google scholar
  • 9thCC of the Court of Cassation 10379/22430, 22.06.2015. google scholar
  • 9th CC of the Court of Cassation 24041/15069, 05.10.2017. google scholar
  • 9th CC of the Court of Cassation 22105/8242, 17.09.2020. google scholar
  • 9th CC of the Court of Cassation 7135/920, 14.01.2021. google scholar
  • 9th CC of the Court of Cassation 4817/2405, 26.01.2021. google scholar
  • 9th CC of the Court of Cassation 9093/6337, 17.03.2021. google scholar
  • 9th CC of the Court of Cassation 5442/7075, 06.06.2022. google scholar
  • 22nd CC of the Court of Cassation 22609/37217, 29.12.2014. google scholar
  • 22nd CC of the Court of Cassation 22523/34254, 10.12.2015. google scholar
  • Bundesarbeitsgericht 2 AZR 171/81, 19.5.1983. google scholar
  • Bundesarbeitsgericht 8 AZR 1012/08, 22.07.2010. google scholar
  • Bundesarbeitsgericht 8 AZR 488/19, 21.01.2021. google scholar
  • Bundesarbeitsgericht 8 AZR 450/21, 16.02.2023. google scholar
  • Landesarbeitsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 2 Sa 237/09, 21.10.2009. google scholar
  • https://eur-lex.europa.eu. google scholar
  • https://www.bundesarbeitsgericht.de. google scholar
  • https://www.edps.europa.eu. google scholar
  • https://www.legalbank.net. google scholar
  • https://www.lexpera.com.tr. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Karademir, A. (2025). Analysis of Directive (EU) 2023/970 on Pay Transparency in Comparison with Turkish and German Law. Istanbul Law Review, 83(1), 21-53. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0011


AMA

Karademir A. Analysis of Directive (EU) 2023/970 on Pay Transparency in Comparison with Turkish and German Law. Istanbul Law Review. 2025;83(1):21-53. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0011


ABNT

Karademir, A. Analysis of Directive (EU) 2023/970 on Pay Transparency in Comparison with Turkish and German Law. Istanbul Law Review, [Publisher Location], v. 83, n. 1, p. 21-53, 2025.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Karademir, Artür,. 2025. “Analysis of Directive (EU) 2023/970 on Pay Transparency in Comparison with Turkish and German Law.” Istanbul Law Review 83, no. 1: 21-53. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0011


Chicago: Humanities Style

Karademir, Artür,. “Analysis of Directive (EU) 2023/970 on Pay Transparency in Comparison with Turkish and German Law.” Istanbul Law Review 83, no. 1 (Jul. 2025): 21-53. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0011


Harvard: Australian Style

Karademir, A 2025, 'Analysis of Directive (EU) 2023/970 on Pay Transparency in Comparison with Turkish and German Law', Istanbul Law Review, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 21-53, viewed 27 Jul. 2025, https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0011


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Karademir, A. (2025) ‘Analysis of Directive (EU) 2023/970 on Pay Transparency in Comparison with Turkish and German Law’, Istanbul Law Review, 83(1), pp. 21-53. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0011 (27 Jul. 2025).


MLA

Karademir, Artür,. “Analysis of Directive (EU) 2023/970 on Pay Transparency in Comparison with Turkish and German Law.” Istanbul Law Review, vol. 83, no. 1, 2025, pp. 21-53. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0011


Vancouver

Karademir A. Analysis of Directive (EU) 2023/970 on Pay Transparency in Comparison with Turkish and German Law. Istanbul Law Review [Internet]. 27 Jul. 2025 [cited 27 Jul. 2025];83(1):21-53. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0011 doi: 10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0011


ISNAD

Karademir, Artür. “Analysis of Directive (EU) 2023/970 on Pay Transparency in Comparison with Turkish and German Law”. Istanbul Law Review 83/1 (Jul. 2025): 21-53. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0011



TIMELINE


Submitted14.10.2024
Accepted24.02.2025
Published Online06.05.2025

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.