Events
At the time of the events, the applicant was an assistant professor at a state university. Between 2011 and 2013, nine different disciplinary penalties were imposed on the applicant. Three of these disciplinary penalties were lifted by the Higher Education Council (YÖK) upon objection, and the others were cancelled by the courts of first instance on the grounds that they were unlawful. In the ongoing process, the applicant’s doctoral thesis was cancelled on the grounds of plagiarism and his doctoral title was revoked, and the court cancelled this action. In addition, the applicant was acquitted of the offence of insult upon the complaint of the rector of the university where the applicant worked. It was also decided to annul the procedure regarding the termination of the applicant’s duty by not reappointing him due to the expiry of his term of office.
In addition, during the period when the disciplinary penalties were imposed, various health institutions issued resting reports on the applicant with the diagnoses of “depressive mood, anhedonia, insomnia and depressive seizures”.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his right to protection and improvement of his material and moral existence was violated due to psychological harassment.
The Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, when assessing whether the procedures to which the applicant claims that he has been unjustly subjected have reached an intolerable degree of gravity and intensity in terms of their impact on the applicant’s life, all the facts that took place during the process should be evaluated together.
In this context, taking into account the health reports issued for the applicant during the period when the disciplinary penalties were imposed, it cannot be said that the said actions of the administration did not reach an unbearable degree of gravity and intensity in terms of their impact on the applicant’s life and did not threaten his moral integrity, and consequently did not reach the level of psychological harassment. Therefore, the alleged violation of the applicant’s material and moral integrity must be addressed in the context of the positive obligations of the state in line with the above-mentioned principles.
In the petitions submitted to the courts of first instance, the applicant claimed that the disciplinary investigations and disciplinary penalties imposed on him were used as a means of torture, that he was subjected to psychological harassment and that he had to undergo treatment during this process. In the concrete case, it has been observed that the applicant was punished with nine different disciplinary penalties in a period of two years, but that these actions were cancelled by the courts or lifted by the Higher Education Council, and that the applicant was diagnosed with a psychological illness in the same period. No assessment was made by the courts of first instance, despite the applicant’s serious allegations in this context, which were supported by events spanning a period of time.
On the other hand, in the compensation lawsuit filed by the applicant against the persons concerned in the judicial judiciary, it was decided to dismiss the lawsuit due to lack of hostility, stating that the lawsuit should be filed against the administration, not against the persons. In addition, the applicant’s complaint against the relevant persons for misconduct in office was also inconclusive as the Higher Education Council decided that there was no need for an investigation.
Public authorities should not be content with identifying situations that constitute psychological harassment, but should quickly take effective measures to prevent or remedy such behaviour. It can be said that public authorities should act swiftly in the face of allegations of psychological harassment, reveal the truth, take measures to eliminate psychological harassment, prevent its recurrence and ensure that the victim’s damages are compensated, on the one hand, will serve the effective execution of public service, on the other hand, it is a requirement of the positive obligation to protect the material and moral existence of the person.
However, it is undisputed that the full judgement case in the concrete case is a remedy in the context of the right to the protection and development of material and moral existence. However, in the circumstances of the present application, it has been observed that the applicant’s moral damages, which clearly exist, could not be compensated due to the rejection of the full judgement action. In this context, it has been concluded that the rejection result reached by the court does not contain relevant and sufficient grounds to protect the guarantees contained in the right to protect and improve one’s material and moral existence and to compensate the damages of the applicant.
As a result, it has been concluded that the positive obligations to be undertaken by the public authorities within the scope of the right to protect and promote the material and moral existence of the person have not been fulfilled due to the fact that effective measures were not taken by the public authorities in the concrete application and the results reached by the courts of first instance in the full judicial proceedings were not explained with relevant and sufficient justifications.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that the right to protect and improve one’s material and moral existence was violated.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.