Events
The applicants, who are teachers, participated in the action of “conducting a lesson in a way to indicate the meaning and importance of the mother tongue in one class hour” on 22/2/2016 in line with the decision taken by the trade union they belong to. An investigation was initiated against the applicants due to the action in question and the applicants were given reprimand or salary deduction penalties in accordance with Article 125 of the Civil Servants Law No. 657 on the grounds that their actions did not take place within the scope of trade union activities and were in the nature of protesting educational activities. The lawsuits filed by the applicants before the administrative courts for the cancellation of the aforementioned disciplinary penalties were either accepted or rejected. In the appeals filed against these decisions, the regional administrative courts found the disciplinary penalties to be appropriate and decided definitively to dismiss the cases.
Allegations
The applicants claimed that their freedom of expression had been violated because they had been penalised with various disciplinary penalties as a result of the fact that, upon the call of the trade union of which they were members, they had taught a lesson on the importance of mother tongue in the schools where they worked.
The Court’s Assessment
Teachers, like other public officials, are free to express their opinions, but unlike other public officials, teachers have the power to influence young people and to directly convey information. The expressions used by a teacher during a lesson largely consist of a one-sided, didactic narrative. For this reason, states draw a framework for the knowledge, understanding and thoughts to be conveyed through a curriculum preference determined in their education policies. As a matter of fact, the third paragraph of Article 42 of the Constitution states that the education to be provided in schools is under the strict control of the state and that no education contrary to the principles determined by the state is possible.
It should not be forgotten that school education does not only consist of the development of basic socio-cultural acquisitions and cognitive skills. School education is designed to comprehensively promote the personal development of pupils, especially as it affects their social behaviour, and to develop their emotional dispositions. In addition, the dimension of education that affects the state should also be considered in a separate context. Each individual who grows up in the education provided by the state becomes a part of historical, social and cultural continuity.
In this context, it has been determined that teachers cannot make political and ideological statements and actions or participate in such actions while performing their duties. In the present application, the applicants, who are teachers, mentioned a subject that is not included in the curriculum – contrary to the policies and principles determined by the state in this field – in the course of their duties. The administrative and judicial authorities considered that this form of action was incompatible with the impartiality of public officials and their loyalty to the state.
Considering the potential impact of the applicants’ comments on their students, it has been concluded that the disciplinary penalties imposed on the applicants for going outside the curriculum in terms of ensuring the proper functioning and continuity of public services correspond to a compelling social need in a democratic society, considering that the disciplinary penalties imposed on the applicants for going outside the curriculum were not of a nature that would prevent them from participating in democracy and expressing their thoughts freely, or that would make it significantly difficult and eliminate its effect.
The applicants were penalised with reprimand or salary deduction penalties for the acts of negligently performing the assigned duty or disrupting the duty. It has been concluded that the imposition of lighter penalties instead of the most severe penalty in relation to the actions of the applicants constituted a proportionate intervention.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that the freedom of expression was not violated.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.