Page 78 - iyi-yonetim-ilkleri

Manual On Good Administration Principles

Case Studies

Case 1: In the Decision dated 29/11/2014 of the Ombudsman Institution
on the application no. 2014/2608, it was stated that the applicant claimed
that his/her son, who had a disability, was deprived of the right to special
education and requested relief.

Although it was evaluated after the examination of the case that no unfair
treatment was in question on the decision of referring the son in question
to a Public Training Centre with a view to ensuring that he would gain
cognitive, daily, social and professional skills, the expression on the subject
complaint that “Directing handicapped individual, who was excluded from
compulsory education, to Public Training Centre with a view to building his
cognitive, daily social and professional skills” attracted notice. As using the
expression “person with disabilities” instead of the word “handicapped”
was required by the principle of courtesy, the fact that more diligence was
expected in this regard was emphasised on the section of the Decision
titled “Evaluation in Terms of the Principles of Good Administration”.
Case 2: In the Decision dated 13/06/2018 of the Ombudsman Institution
on the application no.2017/16076, the applicant requested necessary
actions to be taken against the police officers who used a discourteous
language and adopted attitudes in relation with the applicant. As a result
of the examination conducted by the Ombudsman Institution considering
the record of statement of the police officers and information records, it
was found out that the police officers learned in their first dialogue with
the applicant that the latter was the “Bar President”, upon which the police
officers asked the investigation prosecutors what to do and had to act
in accordance with the directives and instructions, and it was evaluated
that acting in line with the legislation they were subject to and within the
framework of the principles of calmness and courtesy during exercise of
their duties and powers was essential for judicial law enforcement officials
and that the attitudes and behaviours were expected to be diligent and
courteous as required by public officials and that law enforcement officials
should be reminded of the code of conduct duly required by their duties.
Case 3: In the Decision dated 05/12/2017 No. 2017/88 of the Board of Ethics
for Public Officials, it was stated that according to the news in the press,
the Chairperson of the Board yelled by saying the following: “Mind your
own businesses. What is it to you? Look, the situation is getting somewhere
else. It is none of your business! Do not get involved. What a…… Shut up!
Don’t make me turn off the microphone! Shut up! Behave morally! Drop
the subject. Turn off the Microphone… Sit down. Do not yell out while
leaving the room! As a result of the examination, it was understood that the
public official on whom examination was carried out did not act in line with

77