Violation of the Right to Property Due to the Failure to Cover the Material Damages Caused by the Unlawful Delay of the Appointment
Events
Candidates who have started working as assistant labor inspectors have not been appointed as labor inspectors despite being successful in the written and oral exams for labor inspector proficiency. The applicants applied to the Presidency of the Labor Inspection Board with the request to be appointed to the vacant labor inspector positions, but their requests were rejected stating that the appointment procedures were continuing. Upon this, the applicants filed a lawsuit in the administrative courts demanding the cancellation of these transactions and paying the monetary rights that were deprived from the date of obtaining the title of labor inspector, along with legal interest.
The administrative courts have canceled the procedures related to the rejection of the requests for appointment as a labor inspector. The Administrative Courts also ruled that the applicants should be paid the monetary rights they were deprived of along with their legal interest, but they reached different conclusions about the date of calculation of monetary rights. While some Administrative Courts decided that applicants should be paid their monetary rights that they were deprived of from the date they deserved to be appointed as a labor inspector, some other Administrative Courts ruled that the deprived monetary rights should be calculated from the date of application to the administration.
Examining the parties’ request for appeal, the Regional Administrative Court rejected the requests for appeal and decided to correct the provision that the paragraphs in the decisions that ruled that the applicants’ monetary rights should be calculated from the date they deserve to be appointed as a labor inspector should be calculated from the date of application to the administration.
The Allegations
Applicants alleged that their property rights had been violated due to the fact that they had not been compensated for the material damages they had suffered due to the unlawful delay of their appointment from the deputy labor inspector to the labor inspector.
The Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, the illegality of the delay in the appointment of the applicants as labor inspectors was determined by the decisions of the Administrative Courts, which were subjected to an appeal review. The illegality of the delay in their appointments showed that the interference with the applicants’ property rights lacked a legal basis. Therefore, it has been concluded that the violation of the right to property has been detected by the administrative courts and therefore an examination has been conducted as to whether the violation has been remedied.
Although the cancellation of the administrative procedure and the completion of the appointments of the applicants alleviated their grievances, they did not completely eliminate them. In order for the victimization to be eliminated in a real sense, the damages caused as a result of the violation of the applicants’ property right must also be compensated. It is understood that the applicants have filed a full judicial lawsuit to remedy the violation of their property rights. Some administrative courts have decided that the monetary rights stipulated for this position should be paid to the applicants from the date they become eligible for appointment as a labor inspector.
However, the district administrative court has corrected the date of calculation of monetary rights as the date of administrative application. According to the district administrative court, the date of administrative application should be taken as the date of administrative application, because it is unclear how long it takes to complete the assignment procedures in the concrete case. Some administrative courts, inspired by this reasoning of the regional administrative court, have also decided that the date of administrative application should be taken as the date of calculation of monetary rights.
This opinion of the regional administrative court has led to a contradiction in the decisions. In this context, the regional administrative court rejected the administration’s appeal request without providing any additional Oct. In the decisions of the administrative court, it was found that the administration made delays beyond reasonable in carrying out the appointment procedures. Because it is also stated in the decisions of the regional administrative court that the applicants were not appointed as labor inspectors within a reasonable period of time.
this case, although it is accepted that the administration made a delay in performing the assignment procedures, it is a serious contradiction to accept that the deprived monetary rights should be calculated from the date of the administrative application because it is not specified how long the reasonable period is in the section where the compensation claim is evaluated, and it cannot be considered a reasonable interpretation.
On the other hand, the interpretation of the Regional Administrative Court imposed an obligation on applicants who fulfilled all their obligations and succeeded in the exam to apply to the administration for appointment. However, the legislation stipulates that assistant labor inspectors who successfully pass the proficiency exam will be automatically appointed as inspectors by the administration. In addition, the administration has not offered a defense to the contrary. Therefore, the approach of the regional administrative court has given the administration a discretion that is not provided for in the legislation.
In a state governed by the rule of law, the administration is obliged to remedy violations caused by unlawful acts. According to the principle of restitutio in integrum (restructuring), the administration is obliged to bring the person as close as possible to the situation he would have been in if the illegal act had not been committed. In this respect, it cannot be said that the administration has fully fulfilled its obligation to remedy the violation by appointing the applicants as labor inspectors. In order to be able to say that the violation has been fully remedied, the applicants should also be compensated for the loss of monetary rights that they would have suffered from the date of their appointment as a labor inspector in the ordinary course of the administrative procedure if there had been no unlawful delay.
5 Of the Constitution. the article also imposes a duty on the State to take deterrent measures to prevent violations of rights and freedoms. The interpretation of the regional administrative court prevents the applicants from being fully compensated for the damages they suffered due to interference with their property rights, as well as neutralizes the deterrent feature of the compensation case against the establishment of unlawful transactions.
As a result, the full elimination of the violation detected by the cancellation of the process related to the rejection of the request for appointment as a labor inspector was prevented due to the conflicting interpretation of the regional administrative court and some administrative courts. In this case, it is accepted that the violation of the right to property continues.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the right to property had been violated for the reasons explained.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.