Violation Of The Right To Respect For Private Life Due To Assignment
Events
The applicant, while working as a civil servant in the Municipality (Administration), requested to be appointed as a director upon his success in the promotion exam. Upon the rejection of this request, the applicant filed a lawsuit and the 1st Administrative Court ruled for the cancellation of the Administration’s action, as a result of which the applicant was appointed to the Directorate of Zoning and Urban Planning.
Six days after the applicant started his duty in this department, the Administration appointed the applicant as the director of public works. The applicant filed a lawsuit to the 2nd Administrative Court (the Court) for the cancellation of this transaction, and the Court ruled for the cancellation of the said transaction. Despite the Court’s decision of cancellation, the applicant, who was determined to continue his duty at the Directorate of Public Works, was temporarily assigned as the advisor to the head of the office at the level with the decision of the Administration.
The applicant filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of the temporary assignment. Court ruled for the cancellation of the said procedure. The Administration filed an appeal against the decision. The Regional Administrative Court decided to annul the court’s decision and dismiss the lawsuit. In the justification of the decision, it was stated that the discretionary power granted to the mayors for the appointment of personnel in managerial positions in municipalities is wider than that of other personnel.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his right to respect for private life was violated due to the assignment.
Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, the applicant, who was working as the director of public works in the municipality, was assigned as the advisor to the mayor of the office. İn the process that started with the applicant’s success in the promotion exam, it is clear that the Administration failed to appoint the applicant to the directorate of zoning and urbanisation and established transactions that would render the judicial decisions in this direction ineffective.
In this respect, considering that the concrete requirements were not clearly stated when the temporary assignment process was established, and that the applicant was not allowed to work in the position to which he was entitled to be appointed without taking into account the judicial decisions, it has been evaluated that the allegations that the aforementioned savings of the Administration are arbitrary are not completely unfounded. On the other hand, in the appeal examination made by the Regional Administrative Court, contrary to the findings of the Court, it was sufficient to state that the Administration had wide discretionary authority in the appointment and assignment of employees in managerial positions and no evaluation was made about the applicant’s objections.
Therefore, in the decision of the Regional Administrative Court, it is understood that the decision was made by referring only to the discretionary authority of the Administration without any evaluation of the justifications put forward by the court of first instance and the claims and objections put forward by the applicant. In the evaluations made in this context, it cannot be said that the administrative and judicial decisions, which accept that the Administration can act within its wide discretionary power and make assignments without clearly determining the duration and scope, contain relevant and sufficient justifications that are convincing that the intervention meets a compelling social need. As a result, the intervention in the concrete case does not fulfil the condition of conformity with the requirements of the democratic social order.
The Constitutional Court decided that the right to respect for private life was violated for the reasons explained.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.