Events
At the time of the events, the applicant was working as a lecturer at a state university with the title of assistant professor. Between 2011 and 2013, nine different disciplinary penalties were imposed on the applicant. Three of these disciplinary penalties were overturned by the Higher Education Council (YÖK) upon appeal, while the others were annulled by the courts on the grounds that they were contrary to law. In the ongoing process, the applicant’s doctoral thesis was annulled on the grounds of plagiarism, and his doctoral title was revoked; however, this decision was also annulled by the court. However, the applicant was acquitted in the trial for insulting the rector of the university where he worked, which was initiated upon the rector’s complaint. The decision to terminate the applicant’s employment by not reappointing him upon the expiration of his term of office was also overturned.
In addition, during the period when disciplinary penalties were imposed, various health institutions issued sick leave reports for the applicant with diagnoses of “depressive mood, anhedonia, insomnia, and depressive episodes.”
Allegations
The applicant claimed that the right to protect and develop one’s material and moral existence had been violated due to psychological harassment.
The Court’s Assessment
In the present case, when assessing whether the actions that the applicant claims to have been unjustly subjected to reached an unbearable level of severity and intensity in terms of their impact on the applicant’s life, it is necessary to evaluate all the events that occurred during the process together.
In this context, when the medical reports prepared about the applicant during the period when the disciplinary penalties were imposed are taken into account, it cannot be said that the administrative authority’s actions reached an unbearable level of severity and intensity in terms of their impact on the applicant’s life, threatened his moral integrity, or ultimately amounted to psychological harassment. Therefore, the applicant’s claim of a violation of his physical and mental integrity must be examined in the context of the state’s positive obligations in accordance with the principles outlined above.
In the petitions submitted to the courts of first instance, the applicant claimed that the disciplinary investigations conducted against him and the disciplinary penalties imposed were used as a means of torture, that he was subjected to psychological harassment, and that he was forced to undergo treatment during this process. In the specific case, it was observed that the applicant was punished with nine different disciplinary penalties over a two-year period, but that these proceedings were annulled by the courts or revoked by the Council of Higher Education (YÖK), and that the applicant was diagnosed with a psychological illness during the same period. Despite the applicant’s serious allegations supported by events that unfolded over a period of time, no assessment was made by the courts of first instance.
On the other hand, in the compensation case filed by the applicant against the relevant persons in the judicial courts, it was stated that the case should be filed against the administration rather than the persons, and the case was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the applicant’s complaint against the relevant individuals for abuse of office was also unsuccessful because the Council of Higher Education decided that there was no need to open an investigation.
Public authorities should not merely identify situations that constitute psychological harassment but should also take effective measures to prevent such behavior from occurring or to remedy it. It can be said that public authorities’ swift action in uncovering the truth in the face of allegations of psychological harassment, taking measures to eliminate psychological harassment and prevent its recurrence, and ensuring that the victim’s damages are compensated will, on the one hand, serve the effective performance of public services and, on the other hand, fulfill their positive obligation to protect the material and moral integrity of the individual. However, it is undisputed that the full-fledged lawsuit in the present case is the appropriate avenue for redress in the context of the right to the protection and development of one’s material and moral integrity. However, due to the rejection of the full trial case under the conditions of the current application, it has been observed that the applicant’s obvious moral damages cannot be compensated. In this context, it has been concluded that the rejection decision reached by the court does not contain relevant and sufficient reasons to protect the guarantees contained in the right to protect and develop the material and moral integrity of the individual and to compensate the applicant’s damages.
As a result, it was concluded that the positive obligations that public authorities are required to fulfill under the right to protect and develop one’s material and moral existence were not fulfilled due to the failure of public authorities to take effective measures in the specific application and the failure of the courts of first instance to explain the results of the full-fledged lawsuit with relevant and sufficient justifications.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the person’s right to protect and develop his material and moral existence had been violated, based on the reasons stated.
