Individual Application

The Facts

As a result of an investigation into the applicant when he was serving as a teacher in 2000, the applicant was deemed to have withdrawn from civil service for failing to show up to work regularly pursuant to Article 94 of Law No. 657 on the Civil Servants and was dismissed from civil service under Article 98 of the same Law.

The applicant joined a political party in 2001 as a member and held various positions in the party. In the meantime, the act of dismissing the applicant from civil service for failing to show up to work while his membership to a political party had been continuing, was annulled by the instance court in 2008 and the applicant re-assumed his service as a teacher in 2008. Following the return of the applicant to the civil service, the Ministry of National Education initiated an investigation into the applicant for being a member of a political party in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 657 and suspended him from public duty. As a result of the investigation, the applicant was dismissed from civil service by the decision of the Supreme Disciplinary Board of the Ministry of National Education.

The applicant brought an action for the annulment of the relevant act; nevertheless, the administrative court dismissed this challenge finding the impugned act in compliance with the law. The judgment was later upheld by a section of the Council of State; the applicant’s request for rectification was also dismissed by the same section.

The Applicants’ Allegations

The applicant claimed that his freedom of organisation was violated due to the decision to dismiss him from the civil service due to his membership in a political party.

The Court’s Assessment

The obligation of the civil servants to be impartial reflects the impartiality of the state since the impartiality of the state can only be exercised through the work of the civil servants. In this respect, it is logical to place heavy burdens on civil servants in the provision the public services and prescribe strict measures to prevent disruptions in these services.

The purpose of Article 68 of the Constitution enshrining that civil servants cannot join political parties, is to ensure the functioning of an impartial public administration acting on the basis of the rule of law. According to the regulations in question, even a mere implication that the independent public duties performed by a civil servant may be linked to political demands can undermine the objectivity of the state. For the above-mentioned reasons, Law No. 657 stipulates that civil servants are prohibited from joining political parties as a part of their responsibilities of impartiality and allegiance to the state. Moreover, Article 125 of the same Law, indicates that joining a political party and being a member of it is punishable by dismissal from the civil service.

Interference of dismissing civil servants for their membership in a political party is certainly a convenient tool to preserve the principle of impartiality and allegiance to the state. Additionally, it is not possible to indicate that this prescribed regulation is not necessary within the scope of the binding provision of the Constitution. Therefore, the proportionality of the interference must be assessed to reach a conclusion. 

Both the wording of Article 125 of Law No. 657 and the practice of the instance courts indicate that the membership of civil servants to a political party is not accepted. According to the regulation, the relevant authorities and the instance courts examining the decisions of these authorities only assess whether the individuals in question have a membership to a political party and they do not carry out any further evaluation in this regard. In this context, as the individuals satisfy the requirement of joining a political party in Article 125 of the said Law, they are dismissed from the civil service and faced with serious pecuniary and non-pecuniary repercussions. Considering this matter, it is apparent that this regulation constitutes a serious interference with freedom of organisation. 

In the present case, the applicant was not working as a civil servant when he was a member of a political party. However, the applicant became a civil servant while his membership in the political party had been continuing. In addition, the applicant was only a member of a legal political party and no allegation was submitted as to the fact that he had engaged in non-peaceful actions and discourses, taken a stance against the constitutional order, and acted contrary to the democratic social order. Subsequently, it was found that the applicant was a member of a political party and the applicant was dismissed from civil service as a sanction without any chance afforded to him for deciding on terminating his political party membership.

In the application subject to the examination, the fact that the applicant’s membership to a political party gave rise to unacceptable repercussions, could not be unsubstantiated. Within this context, it is understood that more lenient measures such as allowing the applicant a certain period of time to resign from political party membership; offering him the opportunity to prefer either the membership to a political party or civil service or suspending his civil service could be taken pursuant to the provisions of legislation and Article 68 of the Constitution. The direct dismissal of the applicant from the civil service solely on the basis of his membership to a political party is deemed to be the most severe interference incompatible with the principle of last resort Both Article 68 of the Constitution prohibiting the coexistence of civil service and political party membership and Article 33 of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of organisation, can only fully function if they are interpreted based on the right-based paradigm and in the context of the development of pluralist democracy. According to the established practice, it is possible for the administration and the courts to interpret the constitutional provisions in favour of the freedoms.

In the light of the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the freedom of organisation.