Events
A disciplinary investigation has been initiated against the applicant, who was working as a teacher at the time of the incidents and was a member of the Education and Science Workers’ Union (EĞITIM SEN) affiliated to the Confederation of Public Employees’ Trade Unions (KESK), due to social media posts. As a result of the investigation, it was proposed to apply the penalty of dismissal from public office in accordance with the Civil Servants Law No. 657 on the applicant, and after the applicant’s defense on the issue, it was decided to accept the proposed penalty. The applicant filed a lawsuit at the administrative court with a request for the cancellation of the disciplinary penalty established against him; the court decided to reject the transaction subject to the lawsuit. Upon the rejection of the request for appeal by the regional administrative court, the applicant filed an appeal request. The Council of State has definitively decided to dismiss the case by stating that the appeal decision is in accordance with the procedure and the law.
The Allegations
The applicant claimed that his freedom of expression was violated due to the fact that he was punished with disciplinary action based on the posts he made via his social media account.
The Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, the applicant assessed the terrorist operations carried out in the places where the trench incidents took place as “the state massacred the civilian population” in general. In this context, the applicant, who is a public official, is expected to be more careful and meticulous when criticizing the state’s anti-terrorism policies. The applicant described the security operations carried out against terrorist acts through their sharing as the killing of civilians in the operation zones by the state and intentionally.
The teaching profession has a different position in society from other public duties. In this context, the teacher symbolizes the ideal individual who sets a precedent with his actions and discourses on the way to bringing society to the good and the right, beyond being a public servant working only in the school. Therefore, the statements made by teachers about social issues find more response in society compared to any citizen or public official. Based on this, it has been assessed that the duties and obligations to which the teacher is subject are not limited to the school, and that it is necessary for the teacher to continue the duties and obligations to which he is subject in his professional life outside the school to a certain extent.
On the other hand, as a public official, it is possible for teachers to have any opinion about an event like everyone else and share it within the scope of freedom of expression. However, in the concrete case, the applicant, who is responsible for the public service related to education and training according to his duty, shared his thoughts about the serious violent events that have been going on for a long time in a certain region of the country with his followers only from a single perspective, using a strict and strictly accusatory language that has no hesitation. The administration, on the other hand, found the applicant’s shares contrary to a special obligation of trust and impartiality expected of him as a public official. In this context, the applicant’s shares are not the result of a spontaneous reaction and brought with it certain risks. Therefore, the applicant has created a danger of instilling ideas that are conducive to unilateral, inappropriate and violent effects on other people who expect him to behave objectively, especially on his students, through his shares.
Ultimately, the applicant, in his social media posts, called on the people of the region to act in “self-defense” and resist the security forces against the security operations organized within the scope of the fight against terrorism. At the same time, he also formulated the scope of the mentioned resistance in the form of “killing so as not to die”, inciting and legitimizing violence. Therefore, in the face of the fact that the applicant is a teacher, the potential impact of his statements, the provocative and legitimizing nature of violence, it was concluded that the disciplinary punishment given to the applicant meets a mandatory social need.
On the other hand, education is a semi-public service by its nature and is widely offered by the private sector as well as the public. Therefore, the dismissal penalty imposed on the applicant from public office will not prevent the applicant from maintaining his life. Accordingly, it has been concluded that the mentioned disciplinary punishment is proportionate.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the freedom of expression has not been violated on the grounds described.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking