Events
At the time of the events, the applicant was working as a lecturer at a state university with the title of assistant professor. The applicant had been given nine separate disciplinary Decrees between 2011 and 2013. Three of these disciplinary penalties were overturned by the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) on appeal, while the others were annulled by the courts on the grounds that they were unlawful. In the ongoing process, the applicant’s doctoral thesis was canceled on the grounds of plagiarism and his doctoral title was removed; however, this decision was also canceled by the court. However, the applicant was acquitted of insulting the rector of the university where he worked in the case opened upon the rector’s complaint. The decision to terminate the applicant’s employment by not reappointing him even though his term of office had expired had also been overturned.
In addition, it was seen that during the disciplinary punishment, the applicant was reported by various health institutions with the diagnosis of “depressive mood, anhedonia, insomnia and depressive episodes”.
The Allegations
Applicant claimed that her right to protect and develop her material and spiritual existence had been violated due to psychological harassment.
The Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, in assessing whether the actions that the applicant claims to have been subjected to unfairly have reached an unbearable weight and intensity in terms of their impact on the applicant’s life, it is necessary to evaluate all the events that took place during the process Decently.
In this context, considering the medical reports issued on the applicant during the period of disciplinary penalties, it cannot be said that the actions of the administrative authority reached an unbearable severity and intensity in terms of the impact on the applicant’s life, threatened his spiritual integrity, or ultimately amounted to psychological harassment. For this reason, the claim that the applicant’s physical and spiritual integrity has been violated should be examined in the context of the positive obligations of the state in accordance with the principles stated 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 forcibly treated during this process. In the concrete case, it was observed that the applicant was sentenced to nine separate disciplinary penalties within a two-year period, but these procedures were canceled by the courts or canceled by the Higher Education Council (YÖK), and during the same period the applicant was diagnosed with a mental illness. Despite the applicant’s serious allegations, which were supported by events that developed over 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 at judicial proceedings, it was stated that the case should be filed against the administration instead of the persons, and the case was dismissed due to incompetence. In addition, the case filed by the applicant on charges of abuse of office against the relevant persons was also inconclusive due to the decision of the Council of Higher Education that there was no place to open an investigation.
Public authorities should not only identify situations that constitute psychological harassment, but also take effective measures to prevent or eliminate the occurrence of such behavior. It can be said that the rapid action of public authorities to reveal the truth in the face of psychological harassment allegations, to take measures to eliminate psychological harassment and prevent its recurrence, and to ensure compensation for the victim’s damages, will serve to effectively perform public services on the one hand, and on the other to fulfill their positive obligations to protect the material and spiritual integrity of the individual.
However, it is indisputable that a full trial in a concrete case is an appropriate way of compensation in the context of the right to protection and development of a person’s material and spiritual integrity. However, due to the refusal of full trial under the conditions of the current application, it was found that the applicant’s obvious moral damages could not be compensated. In this context, it has been concluded that the rejection decision made by the court does not contain relevant and sufficient grounds for the protection of the guarantees contained within the scope of the right to protect and develop the material and spiritual integrity of the individual and for the compensation of the applicant’s damages.
As a result, it was concluded that the positive obligations that public authorities should fulfill within the scope of the right to protect and develop their material and spiritual existence were not fulfilled due to the failure of public authorities to take effective measures in the concrete application and the failure of the courts of first instance to explain the results of the full-fledged case on relevant and sufficient grounds.
The Constitutional Court decided that the right of a person to protect and develop his material and spiritual existence was violated for the reasons explained.