THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULED THAT THE RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE LIFE OF THE EMPLOYEE WHOSE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS TERMINATED DUE TO HIS SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS WAS VIOLATED!
With its decision dated 7/2/2024 and numbered 2019/14799, the Constitutional Court (“CC”) ruled that the right to respect for private life of the applicant, whose employment contract was terminated due to his social media posts, was violated.
In summary; the applicant, who worked as an employee in a private company operating in the field of books and stationery, applied to the Constitutional Court stating that his right to respect for private life was violated as a result of the rejection of the lawsuit he filed for the proof of the invalidity of the termination and reinstatement and the subsequent rejection of his appeal application, after his employment contract was terminated on the grounds that he made negative posts about the workplace on social media.
In its assessment, the Constitutional Court stated that
– The applicant’s allegations are related to the whole of the proceedings regarding the termination of his employment contract and the reinstatement lawsuit he filed and in this context, it is undeniable that the right to respect for private life comes to the fore in litigation processes where people’s professional lives are closely connected with their private lives and measures or interventions in their professional lives are in question,
– However, first of all, the criteria should be taken into account in determining in which cases measures or interventions in professional life are eligible to be considered as private life or which of the disputes that are the subject of the application should be considered applicable in this context,
– As a precedent, in its decision with the application number 2018/10286, it has made detailed evaluations on the applicability of the right to respect for private life in cases where issues related to private life are taken as a basis for the dispositions related to the person’s profession and what are the conditions necessary for the interventions in professional life without any reason related to private life to be examined within the scope of the right to respect for private life,
– When the concrete case is evaluated within the scope of the criteria explained in the aforementioned decision, the measure taken against the applicant’s professional life was not based on any reason related to private life,
– In addition, it was stated that the interference in the applicant’s professional life had a serious impact on his private life, that this impact had reached a certain level of gravity and that the measure taken would significantly weaken the applicant’s ability to establish and develop relationships with others and would have serious consequences for his ability to maintain his social and professional reputation.
Within the scope of the above-mentioned reasons, it was concluded that the application could be examined within the scope of the right to respect for private life for consequential reasons.
The Constitutional Court further stated that what needs to be done in the relevant application is to determine whether the public authorities have succeeded in fulfilling the positive obligations of the state by establishing and operating an effective judicial system upon the employer’s termination of the employment contract between the applicant and the employer and establishing a fair balance between the applicant’s right to respect for private life and the interests of the employer. In addition, he stated that Article 18 of the Labor Law No. 4857 (“Law”) stipulates that the employer is obliged to provide a valid reason for the termination of indefinite-term employment contracts, and that if the employee’s behavior does not have a negative impact on the production and labor relationship process in the workplace, it is not possible to show these behaviors as a valid reason for the termination of the employment contract. At this point, it is stated that in order for the social media posts of the employee to be accepted as a reason for termination, it must be fully demonstrated by the employer that the continuation of the employment contract cannot be expected for the employer together with the negative effects of these posts on the execution of the work.
However, in the relevant application, although it was accepted that the applicant’s social media posts damaged the relationship of trust between the employer and the applicant, it was determined that the applicant’s posts were neither included in the grounds for termination nor in the justification of the courts, and that the courts decided to dismiss the case without making an assessment in this regard.
As a result of these assessments, the Constitutional Court concluded that the right to respect for private life guaranteed under Article 20 of the Constitution was violated, as it was understood that the courts of first instance did not conduct a diligent trial in which the guarantees set out in the Constitution regarding the right to respect for private life were observed, and therefore the state did not fulfill its obligations in terms of protecting constitutional guarantees.
GRC LEGAL Comment
In the Constitutional Court’s decision dated 14.06.2023 with application number 2019/10975, which we have previously reviewed, it was decided that the termination of employment contracts by the employer due to social media posts of the employees violated the right to respect for private life guaranteed by the Constitution. In this context, it is observed that the Constitutional Court, while examining the posts made by the employees on social media, evaluated issues such as the need for the employer to fully demonstrate the negative effects of the posts on the execution of the work, the employer’s obligation to provide a valid reason in the event of termination of the employment contract by the employer, and the courts to strike a fair balance between the employees’ right to respect for private life and the interests of the employer during the trial phase. At this point, we are of the opinion that the Constitutional Court’s decisions are extremely appropriate, considering the importance of fair and diligent proceedings and that the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual should be prioritized.
