Individual Application

The Facts

A disciplinary penalty was imposed on the applicant, a teacher, due to sharing a social media post in support of a political party, explicitly instigating people to vote for the political party in the upcoming Parliamentary Elections of 7 June 2015. Thereafter, the applicant initiated an action for annulment of the disciplinary penalty before an administrative court. Upon the dismissal of the annulment request, the applicant appealed against the dismissal decision, which was also dismissed by the regional administrative court.

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicant maintained that his freedom of expression had been violated due to being subjected to a disciplinary penalty for sharing a social media post.

The Court’s Assessment

In the present case, the applicant failed to demonstrate that he did not aim to give publicity to the statement, or that he acted within his obligation to exercise due diligence to prevent its public dissemination.  Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the applicant’s social media post, in itself, falls within the ambit of the individual's right to hold political views and should be accorded constitutional protection.  Accordingly, it has been determined that the statements constituted an attempt to influence public opinion either in favour of or against political parties and attained the level of being characterised as a political propaganda.

Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that public officials may face disciplinary penalties proportionate to their acts if their conduct in private life is found to adversely impact their professional duties. Nevertheless, to impose such a penalty, the administrative and judicial authorities must provide relevant and sufficient reasoning to demonstrate the casual impact of the official’s private actions on his responsibilities as entailed by the civil service. Considering the unique potential of influence of the teaching profession and the values inherent therein, it is evident that the teachers’ statements on particular social issues often carry greater resonance in society than those of other public officials or citizens.

In the impugned social media post, the applicant publicly disclosed his political views and led individuals to associate the public office with his political view. This conduct was found to be inconsistent with the administration’s mission of offering impartial provision of public services. Consequently, the sanction in the form of deferment of promotion to a higher grade was deemed necessary and responded to a pressing social need.

In addition to his political statement, several other acts of the applicant were subject to disciplinary investigation, and these acts were also referred in the court decision. The administration opted for imposing a single consolidated penalty on account of his political statement that -out of his other acts- required the most severe penalty, rather than imposing separate sanctions for each act, which was in the applicant’s favour.

Thus, the imposition of the deferment of promotion to a higher grade or dismissal from the civil service depending on the nature of the act in question are among the disciplinary penalties prescribed for punishable acts such as the applicant’s political statements. Accordingly, the Court found proportionate the measure of imposing the deferment of promotion, which is considered as more lenient measure compared to the measure of dismissal from the civil service and which will not impede the individual from sustaining his/her life with income.

Consequently, the Court has found no violation of the freedom of expression.