Events
The applicants, who are teachers, took action on February 22, 2016, in accordance with a decision taken by their union, with the aim of “conducting a lesson emphasizing the meaning and importance of the mother tongue within one lesson hour.” An investigation was launched against the applicants due to this action, and they were given a reprimand or salary deduction penalty in accordance with Article 125 of the State Employees Law No. 657 on the grounds that their actions were not within the scope of union activities but constituted a protest against education and training activities. The applicants filed lawsuits in administrative courts seeking the annulment of the disciplinary penalties, and the lawsuits were either accepted or rejected. Upon appeal against these decisions, the regional administrative courts upheld the disciplinary penalties and decided to definitively reject the lawsuits.
Allegations
The applicants claimed that their freedom of expression had been violated because they were punished with various disciplinary penalties for expressing the importance of their mother tongue in class at the request of their union.
The Court’s Assessment
Teachers, like other public officials, have the freedom to express their opinions; however, due to the nature of their duties, they 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 establish a framework for the knowledge, understanding, and ideas to be conveyed through curriculum choices in their education policies. Indeed, the third paragraph of Article 42 of the Constitution states that education provided in schools is under the strict supervision 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 aims to comprehensively encourage students’ personal development, particularly influencing their social behavior and developing their emotional tendencies. Furthermore, the dimension of education that affects the state must also be considered. Every individual educated by the state becomes part of historical, social, and cultural continuity.
In this context, it has been determined that teachers cannot engage in any political or ideological discourse while performing their duties, cannot take part in such actions, and cannot participate in such actions. In the current application, the applicants, who are teachers, addressed a topic not included in the curriculum during their duties, and this was found to be contrary to the state’s policies and principles in this area. Administrative and judicial authorities have assessed that such an action is incompatible with the impartiality and loyalty of public officials to the state.
Considering the potential impact of the applicants’ comments during the proceedings on the students, and considering that the disciplinary penalties imposed on the applicants for deviating from the curriculum did not eliminate their effect by preventing or significantly hindering their participation in democracy and their freedom of expression, which is essential for ensuring the proper functioning and continuity of public services, it has been concluded that the disciplinary penalties imposed on the applicants for deviating from the curriculum do not eliminate their effect by preventing or significantly hindering the applicants’ participation in democracy and their freedom of expression, considering the possible impact of their comments during the proceedings on students and the need to ensure the proper functioning and continuity of public services.
The applicants were given reprimands or salary deductions for failing to perform their duties properly or neglecting their duties. It was concluded that imposing lighter penalties on the applicants’ actions instead of the most severe penalties constituted a proportionate intervention.
The Constitutional Court ruled that freedom of expression had not been violated for the reasons stated.