Application Alleging Violation Of The Right To Organise Meetings And Demonstrations
Events
The applicants are public servants and trade union members. At the time of the incidents, protests were being held in the area of Siirt Kasaplar Deresi to demand the proper opening of mass graves allegedly containing the bodies of members of terrorist organisations that were not received by their families. On 28/3/2015, a press statement was made in the said area. The applicants stated that they were present at the press statement in their capacity as union or association executives or members.
According to the reports of the security forces, slogans in favour of the terrorist organisation (PKK) were chanted, flags and banners of the organisation were carried, banners with pictures of members of the organisation were unfurled and security forces were attacked with stones. Seven police officers were injured as a result of these incidents. The applicants were given warning penalties for attitudes and behaviour unbecoming the dignity of a civil servant on the grounds that they had attended the meeting in question.
In the course of the lawsuit filed for the cancellation of the warning penalties, the administration and the courts of first instance accepted that the applicants, who are public officials, participating in a meeting where a terrorist organisation’s propaganda was made and violent incidents took place constituted the act of behaving in a manner and manner unbecoming a public official.
Allegations
The applicants, who are public officials, claimed that the imposition of a warning penalty for a meeting they attended violated their right to organise meetings and demonstrations.
The Court’s Assessment
Meeting started peacefully but then turned into an event where violence was used with various provocations and propaganda of the terrorist organisation was made.
Persons who make important decisions and hold critical positions for the life of society and the state must act much more meticulously in order to remain impartial as required by their official capacity and to be worthy of the trust required by loyalty to the Constitution. In the case of terrorism, even the lowest ranking civil servant is expected to act in accordance with the gravity of the duty they occupy and their duty of loyalty to the Constitution. As in the concrete case, the existence of trade union ties of the public servant does not end their duty of loyalty to the Constitution.
There is no doubt that the non-peaceful meeting subject to the application and the statements in the nature of propaganda of the terrorist organisation enable raising awareness or encouraging people to resort to violence.
According to the Constitutional Court, the meeting subject to the application as a whole constituted an open attack and challenge to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, human rights, the fundamental principles of the Constitution and the fundamental values represented by the Republic of Turkey as a state of law.
It is concluded that the applicant Mehmet Alanç, who is a public official, did not show the care required by his duties and obligations arising from his status by continuing to stay in the meeting after it ceased to be peaceful and turned into terrorist organisation propaganda. Therefore, it was concluded that the disciplinary penalty of warning imposed on the applicant Mehmet Alanç was in accordance with the requirements of a democratic society.
The other three applicants, who are teachers, were found by the competent authorities to have left the meeting demanding the duly opening of mass graves before it turned into propaganda for the terrorist organisation and before violent incidents occurred. In this case, the issue that caused the competent authorities to impose a disciplinary penalty by stating that it was incompatible with the duties and obligations of a public official did not occur in the case of the three applicants who are teachers.
The Regional Administrative Court, which rejected the applicants’ case, did not provide any justification in this regard, nor did it explain in what other way their attendance at the meeting in question was incompatible with a public office such as teaching. It has not been demonstrated with a relevant and sufficient justification that the disciplinary penalties imposed on the three applicants fulfil a compelling social need and are necessary in a democratic social order.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court held that the right to organise meetings and demonstrations was not violated in the case of Mehmet Alanç, but was violated in the case of the other three applicants.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.