EVALUATION ON THE DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DATED 14.06.2023 AND APPLICATION NUMBER 2019/10975
With its decision dated 14/6/2023 and numbered 2019/10975, the Constitutional Court (“CC”) ruled that the right to respect for private life guaranteed under Article 20 of the Constitution and freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution were violated due to the termination of the applicants’ employment contracts based on their social media posts.
Subject and Grounds of Application
The applicants claimed that their right to respect for private life and freedom of expression were violated due to the termination of their employment contracts based on their social media posts while they were employed at İzmit Waste and Residues Treatment Inc.
Upon the termination of their employment contracts by their employers, the applicants filed a lawsuit for reinstatement before the Court of First Instance. The Court of First Instance dismissed the lawsuits on the grounds that the termination of their employment contracts was justified.
Upon the applicants’ request for appeal, the Regional Court of Appeal annulled the judgements of the local court on the grounds that the termination was not justified but based on valid reasons and decided to re-establish a new judgement.
The appeal of the aforementioned decisions was rejected by the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 18/2/2019 and the judgements were upheld. Upon this decision, the applicants made an individual application to the Constitutional Court.
As a result of the decisions, the applicants
With the violation of the right to respect for private life and freedom of expression due to the termination of their employment contracts based on some social media posts,
They made an individual application to the Constitutional Court claiming that their right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated due to the long duration of the reemployment cases.
Constitutional Court’s Review and Conclusion
The Constitutional Court, in its assessment regarding the claim that the rejection of the applicants’ lawsuits filed for their reinstatement on the grounds that the termination of their employment contracts based on their social media posts was justified violated the right to respect for private life, freedom of expression and the right to be tried within a reasonable time:
The applicants had shared their thoughts on public issues on social media platforms in order to benefit from freedom of expression; these posts were related to public debates and the applicants had a close interest in public issues as voters and citizens,
The claim that the applicants’ posts were not related to the workplace, that they were not made during working hours and that they could not fulfil their responsibilities arising from the employment contract was not valid; and that the employer’s claims that the relationship of trust was broken and that the posts caused negativity in the workplace were not examined in detail,
The Constitutional Court concluded that the courts of first instance which adjudicated the dispute did not conduct a diligent trial in which the guarantees set out in the Constitution regarding freedom of expression were taken into consideration, that the state did not fulfil its obligations in terms of the protection of constitutional guarantees, that Article 18 of Law No. 4857 was subjected to an excessive interpretation and that the expression of opinion was used as a basis for indirect restriction of freedom of expression and, as a result, the Constitutional Court ruled that the applicants’ rights to freedom of expression and respect for private life were violated.
GRC LEGAL Comment
With this decision, the Constitutional Court emphasises the balancing between the freedom of expression -especially in terms of social media posts- and the employer’s trust relationship and the negative interaction at the workplace, and reveals that the courts should conduct judgements with care in maintaining the delicate balance between freedom of expression and labour relations. In addition, the Constitutional Court’s decision that the right to respect for private life and freedom of expression were violated on the grounds that the Constitutional guarantees were not sufficiently observed and the state did not fulfil its obligations is an important emphasis on the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms regulated by our Constitution.
We observe that the Constitutional Court has frequently emphasised freedom of expression in the recent decisions on the termination of employment contracts of employees due to their social media posts, that the posts in question should be evaluated independently of the employee-employer relationship and that the relevant posts should not harm the relationship of trust; We hope that these emphases made by the Constitutional Court within the scope of freedom of expression will shed light on future judicial decisions.
