Events
Applicants working as professors at the university requested a license in order to be able to freely practice their professions outside working hours. The Directorate of Health decided to reject this request on the grounds that the applicants were academic members subject to the Higher Education Law No. 2547. The lawsuits filed by the applicants were rejected by the courts of first instance. An appeal against this decision was also rejected.
The Allegations
Applicants claimed that their rights to a fair trial had been violated due to the rejection of the lawsuits they filed for the cancellation of their requests to engage in self-employment activities outside working hours.
The Court’s Assessment
The article entitled “Working principles” of the Law No. 2547, which is the basis for the rejection of the applicant’s request for granting a license, regulates the working procedures and principles of faculty members. Article regulates in detail the forms and conditions under which teaching staff can carry out their professional activities outside the educational institution while maintaining their titles. On the other hand, in the same provision, in cases where there is no provision in Law No. 2547, it has been arranged that Article 28 of the Civil Servants Law No. 657, which prohibits civil servants from engaging in trade and other profitable activities, will also be regulated. Which can be applied, in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the article, for the purpose of engaging in the self-employment activities of civil servants, offices, bureaus, etc. It was arranged that he could not open it.
Law No. 2547 and the Constitutional Court’s 7/11/2014 (E.2014/61, K .those who are not included among the persons who have the title of associate professor or professor on 18/1/2014, when the Law No. 6514 entered into force, and who had a medical practice that was in operation before this date, on the basis of the annulment decision dated 2014/166), the courts of appeal found it appropriate to reject the applicants’ request, and who had the title of associate professor or professor on 18/1/2014 Dec.
According to the Law No. 1219 on the Practice of Medicine and Medical Sciences and the Basic Law Dec. 3359 on Health Services, the examination of the physical conditions of the allocated office is among the authorized and primary duties of health directorates. Admission of patients by a physician, compliance with the legislation of the required areas and whether the person who wants to become self-employed has a valid diploma and specialty certificate in this regard. It is understood that the administration took into account these two Laws and other legal regulations related to this issue when creating the procedure.
Based on the provision of Law No. 2547 and the justification in the Constitutional Court decision, the opinion of the courts of first instance that applicants who are not among the persons who had actual activities before Dec. 18/1/2014 do not have the right to self-employment, do not contain an obvious arbitrariness or an obvious error of discretion. Therefore, in the concrete case, the requests of applicants who are faculty members and applicants who want to engage in self-employment activities outside of working hours are subject to Law No. 2547 and Law No. 28. the fact that it was rejected in accordance with article 657 of the Regulation referred to in this Law did not harm the fairness of the trial.
For the reasons explained, the Constitutional Court decided that the right to a fair trial had not been violated.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.