A. Examination of the Phrase “…by the Ministry of National Education…” in Paragraph (4) of Article 3 and Paragraph (1) of Article 4 of the Law
Article 3(4) of the Teaching Profession Law, which is the subject of the lawsuit, clearly and explicitly regulates the career steps for the teaching profession. In this respect, the rule cannot be said to be ambiguous or unpredictable; therefore, it does not violate the criterion of legality. Furthermore, the rule divides the teaching profession into career steps in accordance with the principles of career and merit. The purpose of establishing career steps for the teaching profession is to enable teachers to advance in their profession in accordance with the principles of career and merit, to ensure their professional development, and, consequently, to improve their personal rights. In light of these assessments, it has been concluded that the rule is in the public interest.
The rule containing the phrase “… by the Ministry of National Education…” it is seen that the basic principles and legal framework for the qualifications required of teacher candidates are determined by law, but that the administration is granted the authority to make determinations in accordance with the conditions that develop and change in terms of administrative technique within the framework of these specified qualifications. There is nothing in the legislature’s decision to outline the legal framework for the qualifications required of teacher candidates and then leave it to the administration to determine which subject should be taught by teacher candidates with which qualifications that is contrary to the principles of certainty and the non-transferability of legislative power.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the rules were not contrary to the Constitution and rejected the requests for annulment based on the reasons explained.
B. Examination of the phrase ‘…as a result of the evaluation conducted by the Candidate Evaluation Commission…’ in the second sentence of paragraph (3) of Article 5 of the Law, subparagraph (ç) of paragraph (4) and paragraph (6)
Article 5 of Law No. 7354, which is the subject of the lawsuit, stipulates in paragraph (6) that the Candidate Teacher Training Programme, which forms the basis for the training of candidate teachers during the candidacy process, the formation of the Candidacy Evaluation Commission, and other procedures and principles related to the candidate teacher process shall be regulated by a regulation.
It has been observed that the rule in question, which is expected to evaluate the probationary period, does not clearly and explicitly regulate the formation, powers, working principles, and objective criteria for evaluation of the Probationary Evaluation Commission, or the scope of the Candidate Training Programme, leaving room for doubt. It was concluded that the rule violates the requirement that fundamental rights and freedoms be limited by law, as it leaves an unlimited, undefined, and broad area to be regulated by a regulation without establishing any legal framework or fundamental principles on a matter concerning the right to remain in public service, which the Constitution requires to be regulated exclusively by law.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the rule was unconstitutional and decided to annul it based on the reasons explained. Due to the annulment of paragraph (6) of Article 5 of Law No. 7354, which is the subject of the lawsuit, the second sentence of paragraph (3) of the aforementioned article, which reads “… As a result of the evaluation conducted by the Candidacy Evaluation Commission…” and the application of subparagraph (ç) of paragraph (4) is no longer possible, and it was deemed unnecessary to conduct a constitutionality review of the aforementioned provisions.
C. Examination of Article 6(1)(b) of the Law, the phrase “…and those who have completed the work required for head teacher status in the areas of professional development…” in the first sentence of paragraph (2), and paragraph (8)
According to subparagraph (b) of paragraph (1) of Article 6 of Law No. 7354, which is the subject of the lawsuit, in order to apply for the written examination for the title of specialist teacher, it is necessary to have completed the minimum work required for specialist teaching in professional development areas. The first sentence of paragraph (2) stipulates that specialist teachers with at least ten years of service in specialist teaching and without any penalty of suspension of advancement may apply for the written examination for the title of head teacher if they have completed the Head Teacher Training Programme, which consists of at least 240 hours of professional development, and have completed the work required for head teacher status in professional development areas. The phrase ‘…and those who have completed the work required for master teacher status in professional development areas…’ in the aforementioned sentence constitutes the other rule subject to the lawsuit. Paragraph (8) of the article, which is the subject of the lawsuit, stipulates that the procedures and principles regarding advancement in the career ladder of the teaching profession shall be regulated by a regulation.
It has been observed that the fundamental principles, scope and nature of the minimum work required in the areas of professional development, which are among the conditions for advancement in the teaching career ladder under the rules in question, have not been regulated in a clear and unambiguous manner that leaves no room for doubt. As in the previous assessment concerning the regulation on the right to remain in public service, the Constitution stipulates that matters relating to the personal affairs of public officials must be regulated exclusively by law. In this context, it was concluded that the rules were incompatible with the requirement that fundamental rights and freedoms be limited by law, as it was envisaged that an unlimited, undefined, broad area would be left to regulation without any legal framework being established or fundamental principles being determined on a matter relating to the personal affairs of public officials.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the rules were unconstitutional and decided to annul them based on the reasons stated.