Individual Application

The Facts

At the time of the events, the applicant was an assistant professor at a state university. He was subject to nine different disciplinary sanctions between 2011 and 2013. Three of these sanctions were overturned by the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) following an appeal, and the others were annulled by the inferior courts (courts of instance) on the grounds that they were unlawful. In the course of the proceedings, the applicant’s doctoral dissertation was annulled on the grounds of plagiarism and his doctoral degree was revoked, and the court discontinued the proceedings in this respect. On the other hand, the applicant was acquitted of the offence of insult in the proceedings initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged by the rector of the university where he worked. It was also decided to annul the procedure for terminating the applicant’s service by not reappointing him at the end of his term of office.

In addition, during the period in which the disciplinary sanctions were imposed, various medical institutions issued rest reports on the applicant with diagnoses of “depressed mood, anhedonia, insomnia and depressive episodes”.

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicant claimed that his right to protection and improvement of his corporeal and spiritual existence had been violated by psychological harassment.

The Court’s Assessment

In the present case, all the facts that have occurred during the procedure should be evaluated together in order to assess whether the acts to which the applicant claims to have been unjustly subjected have reached an intolerable level of severity and intensity in terms of their impact on the applicant’s life.

In this respect, taking into account the medical reports drawn up for the applicant during the period in which the disciplinary sanctions were imposed, it cannot be said that the said acts of the administration did not reach an intolerable degree of severity and intensity in terms of their impact on the applicant’s life and did not threaten his moral integrity and, consequently, did not amount to psychological harassment. Therefore, the alleged violation of the applicant’s integrity of corporeal and spiritual existence integrity must be addressed in the context of the State’s positive obligations, in accordance with the principles set out above.

In the petitions submitted to the inferior courts, the applicant alleged that the disciplinary investigation and sanctions imposed on him were used as a means of torture, that he was subjected to psychological harassment and that he had to undergo medical treatment during this process. In the present case, it was established that the applicant had been subject to nine different disciplinary sanctions over a period of two years, which had been annulled by the courts or overturned by the Council of Higher Education, and that the applicant had been diagnosed with mental illness during the same period. No assessment was made by the inferior courts, despite the applicant’s serious allegations in this regard, which were supported by events over a period of time.

On the other hand, in the action for damages brought by the applicant against the persons concerned, it was decided to dismiss the action for lack of hostility on the grounds that the action should be brought against the administration and not against the persons. In addition, the applicant’s complaint against the persons concerned for misconduct in office also remained inconclusive, as the Council of Higher Education decided that there was no need for an investigation.

Public authorities must not only identify situations that constitute psychological harassment, but also take prompt and effective action to prevent or remedy such conduct. It can be said that when public authorities are confronted with allegations of psychological harassment, they must act quickly to establish the truth, take measures to eliminate the psychological harassment, prevent its recurrence and ensure that the victim is compensated for the damage suffered, in the interest of the effective exercise of the public service and as a requirement of the positive obligation to protect the corporeal and spiritual existence of the person. However, it is undisputed that in the present case the full remedy action is the remedy that will provide redress in the context of the right to protection and improvement of corporeal and spiritual existence. However, in the circumstances of the present application, it was found that the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant, which clearly existed, could not be compensated as a result of the rejection of the full remedy action. In this respect, the Court concluded that the said rejection did not contain relevant and sufficient grounds to safeguard the guarantees contained in the right to protect and improve one’s corporeal and spiritual existence and to compensate the applicant for the damage suffered.

In conclusion, it was stated that the positive obligations to be assumed by the public authorities in the context of the right to protect and improve the corporeal and spiritual existence of the person had not been fulfilled, since the public authorities had not taken effective measures in the present case and the results reached by the inferior courts in the full remedy action had not been explained with relevant and sufficient reasons.

Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to protection and improvement of one’s corporeal and spiritual existence.