Events
A disciplinary investigation was initiated against the applicant, who is a teacher, on the grounds that he shared on social media in favor of the terrorist organization. As a result of the investigation, it was stated that it would be appropriate to be appointed out of the province, and the applicant was assigned to a school in another province. The applicant filed an action for annulment against the relocation procedure, and the case was definitively dismissed.
allegations
The applicant alleges that his assignment to someone else, due to the statements he shared on social media, violated his freedom of expression.
Court’s Evaluation
In the concrete case, since the applicant is a teacher, the effects of the posts on the civil service should be examined by considering the qualifications of the teaching profession. It should be accepted that the statements made by teachers on social issues have more response in society than any citizen or public official.
A member of a terrorist organization who was killed in one of the applicant’s posts that led to his transfer, was openly glorified and the district where the applicant worked was invited to protect the terrorist in question. Although the applicant claimed that he shared the content created by another account without comment, he did not make a statement or notification that he did not participate in the content of the post or that he shared the said statements for another purpose.
There is no doubt that the said post of the applicant, who works in a small town, may cause unrest in the school and environment where he works. As a matter of fact, the aforementioned post, which clearly glorifies and legitimizes terrorism, is of such a nature that the parents of the students studying at the secondary school where the applicant works may react to the school administration or cause tension between the applicant and his colleagues or the administration.
Most of the applicant’s other posts are about the trench incidents, which is a terror and violence-based movement, and were made on the dates of the aforementioned events. Although these posts do not contain expressions that directly and directly legitimize or glorify terrorism and violence, the applicant, who is a public official, is expected to be more careful and meticulous when criticizing the state’s anti-terrorism policies.
The courts of instance, which examined the applicant’s request for annulment, evaluated together the issues of the public nature of the shares made by the applicant on the social networking site under his administration and the fact that the school where he worked was located in a narrow environment. As a result, the courts of instance decided that the applicant’s continuation of his duty in the same place may cause unrest in the environment, disrupt the peace and trust of the institution, and adversely affect the execution of the service.
Considering the potential impact of the applicant’s comments as a teacher on his students, and the fact that the posts were publicly accessible, the judgment of the court of instance that the public service could be adversely affected was not arbitrary. Accordingly, it was concluded that the change of the applicant’s place of duty met a mandatory need in a democratic society. In this context, it has been concluded that the courts of instance gave their decisions with a relevant and sufficient justification.
The Constitutional Court decided that the freedom of expression had not been violated for the reasons explained.
