Events
The applicants, who are teachers, participated in an action on February 22, 2016, to “conduct a lesson highlighting the meaning and importance of the mother tongue during one class period,” in accordance with a decision taken by their union. An investigation was initiated against the applicants due to the aforementioned action, and disciplinary penalties of reprimand or salary deduction were imposed on the applicants pursuant to Article 125 of the State Employees Law No. 657, on the grounds that their actions did not fall within the scope of union activities but constituted a protest against educational activities. The applicants filed lawsuits in administrative courts requesting the cancellation of the aforementioned disciplinary penalties, which were either accepted or rejected. Upon appeal of these decisions, the regional administrative courts upheld the disciplinary penalties and definitively ruled to dismiss the lawsuits.
Allegations
The applicants claimed that their freedom of expression had been violated because they were punished with various disciplinary penalties as a result of discussing the importance of their mother tongue during a lesson at the schools where they worked, following a call from their union.
The Court’s Assessment
Teachers, like other public officials, are free to express their opinions; however, due to the nature of their duties, teachers have the power to influence young individuals and directly impart knowledge, which distinguishes them from other public officials. The statements made by a teacher during a lesson are largely one-sided and didactic in nature. For this reason, states outline a framework for the information, understanding, and ideas to be conveyed through their curriculum choices in education policy. Indeed, the third paragraph of Article 42 of the Constitution states that education provided in schools is under the strict control of the state and that education contrary to the principles determined by the state is not possible.
It should not be forgotten that school education is not limited to the development of basic socio-cultural skills and cognitive abilities. Education provided in schools is designed to comprehensively encourage the personal development of students, particularly influencing their social behavior, and to develop their emotional tendencies. In addition, the dimension of education that affects the state should be addressed separately. Each individual educated by the state becomes part of historical, social, and cultural continuity.
In this context, it has been determined that teachers cannot make any political or ideological statements or take any such actions while performing their duties, nor can they participate in such actions. In the current application, the applicants, who are teachers, addressed a topic not included in the curriculum during their duties, contrary to the state’s policies and principles in this area. Administrative and judicial authorities have assessed that this form of action is incompatible with the impartiality and loyalty of public officials to the state.
Considering the potential impact of the comments made by the applicants during the aforementioned action on their students, and taking into account that the disciplinary penalties imposed on the applicants for deviating from the curriculum do not eliminate their effect by preventing or significantly hindering their participation in democracy and the free expression of their opinions, in terms of ensuring the proper functioning and continuity of public services, it was concluded that the disciplinary penalties imposed on the applicants for deviating from the curriculum did not have the effect of eliminating their participation in democracy and their freedom of expression by preventing or significantly hindering it, given the potential impact of the comments they made during the action in question on the students and the need to ensure the proper functioning and continuity of public services.
The applicants were punished with reprimands or salary deductions for failing to perform their duties properly or for neglecting their duties. It was concluded that a proportionate intervention was made in imposing lighter penalties instead of the most severe penalties for the applicants’ actions.
The Constitutional Court ruled that freedom of expression had not been violated based on the reasons stated.
