Events
A disciplinary investigation has been launched against the applicant, who is a teacher, on the grounds that he shared in favor of a terrorist organization on social media. As a result of the investigation, it was stated that it would be appropriate for him to be assigned outside the province, and the applicant was assigned to a school in another province. The applicant filed a cancellation case against the relocation process established against him, and it was decided to definitively dismiss the case.
Claims
The applicant claimed that his appointment with another person due to the statements he had shared on social media violated his freedom of expression.
Evaluation of the Court
Since the applicant is a teacher in a concrete case, the effects of the shares on the civil service should be examined taking into account the qualifications of the teaching profession. It should be recognized that the statements made by teachers on social issues have more value in society compared to any citizen or public official.
A member of a terrorist organization who was killed in one of the applicant’s shares, which caused him to be transferred, was clearly glorified, and the district in which the applicant served was invited to take care of the terrorist in question. Although the applicant claimed that he had shared the content created by another account without comment, he did not make a statement or notification that he had not participated in the content of the share or shared the statements for any other purpose.
There is no doubt that the aforementioned sharing of the applicant, who works in a small district, may cause unrest in the school and the environment where he works. Indeed, clearly legitimizing terrorism and glorifying the share in question, the applicant’s tenure the school administration to parents of students in junior high or react with the administration or the applicant’s cause tension between colleagues can contain.
Many of the applicant’s other shares related to trench incidents, which are a movement based on terrorism and violence, and were made on the dates of these events. Although there are no statements in these shares that clearly and directly legitimize or glorify terrorism and violence, the applicant, who is a public official, is expected to be more careful and scrupulous in criticizing the state’s counterterrorism policies.
Examining the applicant’s cancellation request, the courts of cassation jointly considered the fact that the applicant’s shares on the social networking site under his management were public and that the location of the school where he served was located in a narrow environment. As a result, the courts of cassation have decided that the applicant’s continued employment in the same place may create unrest in the environment, disrupt the peace and trust of the institution, and adversely affect the conduct of the service.
Considering the potential impact of the applicant’s comments on his students as a teacher, as well as the considerations that the shares are evaluations that are accessible to everyone, the court of cassation’s assessment that the public service may be adversely affected is not arbitrary. Accordingly, it has been concluded that the applicant’s change of position satisfies a mandatory need in a democratic social order. In this context, it has been concluded that the courts of instance have decided on a relevant and sufficient basis.
The Constitutional Court has decided that freedom of expression has not been violated on the grounds described.