Events
The applicant, who was a teacher at the time of the events and a member of the Education and Science Workers’ Union (EĞİTİM SEN) affiliated to the Confederation of Public Employees’ Trade Unions (KESK), was subjected to a disciplinary investigation due to his social media posts. As a result of the investigation, the applicant was proposed to be dismissed from the civil service in accordance with the Law No. 657 on Civil Servants, and after the applicant’s defence on the subject, it was decided to accept the proposed punishment. The applicant filed a lawsuit at the administrative court for the cancellation of the disciplinary penalty imposed on him; the court decided to reject the action. Upon the rejection of the appeal request by the regional administrative court, the applicant requested an appeal. The Council of State decided to dismiss the case definitively, stating that the appeal decision was in accordance with the procedure and law.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his freedom of expression was violated as he was penalised with a disciplinary penalty for the posts he made on his social media account.
Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, the applicant, in his posts, criticised the terrorist operations carried out in the places where the trench incidents took place as “the state massacred the civilian population”. In this context, the applicant, as a public official, is expected to be more careful and meticulous when criticising the state’s anti-terrorism policies. In his posts, the applicant characterised the security operations against terrorist acts as the state’s deliberate killing of civilians in the operation areas.
The teaching profession has a different position in the eyes of the society than other public offices. In this context, the teacher is not only a public official working in the school, but also symbolises the ideal individual who sets an example with his/her actions and discourses in order to lead the society to the good and the truth. For this reason, teachers’ statements on social issues are more recognised by the society than those of any other citizen or public official. From this point of view, it has been evaluated that the duties and obligations that teachers are subject to are not limited to the school, and that it is necessary for teachers to continue the duties and obligations that they are subject to in their professional life to a certain extent outside the school.
On the other hand, it is possible for teachers, as public officials, to have and share their opinions about an event like everyone else within the scope of freedom of expression. However, in the concrete case, the applicant, who was responsible for the public service of education and training, shared his thoughts on the grave violence that continued for a long time in a certain region of the country with his followers from a single perspective, using a strict and absolutely accusatory language that did not harbour any hesitation. The administration, on the other hand, found the applicant’s posts to be in breach of the special obligation of trust and impartiality expected of him as a public official. In this context, the applicant’s posts were not the result of a spontaneous reaction and brought with them certain risks. Therefore, the applicant, through his posts, created the danger of inculcating one-sided, inappropriate and violent ideas that were likely to have a one-sided, inappropriate and violent effect on his students and others who expected him to act objectively.
Finally, in his social media posts, the applicant called on the people of the region to engage in “self-defence” and resist the security forces against the security operations carried out within the scope of the fight against terrorism. At the same time, he provoked and legitimised violence by formulating the scope of the said resistance as “killing in order not to die”. Therefore, in view of the applicant’s status as a teacher, the potential impact of his statements, and the provocative and legitimising nature of violence, it has been concluded that the disciplinary penalty imposed on the applicant meets a compelling social need.
On the other hand, education is a semi-public service due to its nature and is widely provided by the private sector as well as the public sector. Therefore, the disciplinary penalty of dismissal from the civil service will not prevent the applicant from sustaining his life. Accordingly, it is concluded that the disciplinary penalty is proportionate.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that there was no violation of the freedom of expression.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking