Page 104 - iyi-yonetim-ilkleri

Manual On Good Administration Principles

Case Studies

In the Decision of the Constitutional Court dated 28/11/2013 and
numbered. 2013/46 E., 2013/140 K., it is stated that the right to make
statements is among the fundamental rights of individuals which are
inviolable, inalienable and irrevocable and that in order for the right to
make statements to make sense in the disciplinary law and for the effective
use of this right, the defence must absolutely be heard by the decision-
making authority.
Case 1: In the Decision of the12th Chamber of the Council of State dated
02/02/2017 and numbered 2016/8889 E., 2017/127 K., it was stated that
an action was brought before the court by the plaintiff, who was the deputy
manager in Bakırköy Trade Vocational High School, in order to annul the
decision of the High Disciplinary Board regarding “his dismissal from the
civil service”.
As a result of the evaluation of the case, it was stated that in order to impose
a sanction such as dismissal from civil service, it was a legal obligation that
the competent authority make sure that the subject public official knows
the claims on himself, the evidences on which the claim are based, legal
nature of the accusations and the proposed disciplinary sanction, and allow
for making statements of defence; accordingly, the subject official, about
whom the decision of dismissal was proposed by the High Disciplinary
Board, must be granted the right of defence; it was found that the sanction
was imposed on the plaintiff, who was proven guilty as charged, without
hearing his self-defence. It was concluded that the ruling of the court was
not lawful considering the action of the High Disciplinary Board, which left
out and ignored the final defence of the plaintiff, on whom the decision of
the dismissal from civil service was made.
Case 2: In the Decision of the Ombudsman Institution numbered
2017/1492 dated 29/06/2017, the applicant, who had been working as a
contracted nurse in the emergency department in a district public hospital
since November 2015, claimed that he had problems with his superior on
the matters including annual leave and resignation from training nurse
position, was forced to work in the dental clinic without grounds, sine die
and without consideration of his merit, was mobbed and forced to continue
his shift 48-72 hours non-stop, and that the employees worked in the shifts
of each other unlawfully, and requested necessary measures to be taken.
As a result of the examination, it was concluded that the act conducted by
the administration was not unlawful nor illegal. However, in the evaluation
in terms of the principles of good administration it was identified that the
applicant was warned in writing only and the right to be heard and right of
defence were not complied with and the administration was recommended
to comply with these principles.

103