Click to read the article in Turkish
The Constitutional Court has ruled that the dismissal of a worker because of his social media posts violated freedom of expression guaranteed under article 26 of the Constitution.
The verdict concerning the application of Kadri Eroğul was published in the Official Gazette today (August 16).
The verdict will be sent to the Kütahya 1st Labor Court, which had approved the termination of the worker's contract for a retrial.
In the justified decision, it is noted that Eroğul was also the head of an association of subcontract workers, and that the views he express as the head of that association should be considered "views covering social issues within the association's area of interest."
The court also noted that the social media posts subject to the lawsuit did not target anyone personally.
"The applicant used the concept 'manager' in a general sense, but did not use an expression targeting a specific person. The courts, however, considered that some of the addresses of the expressions were the managers of the organization, citing that the applicant is a subcontract worker and those who participated in the criminal case are managers in the same organization.
"It was only possible for the courts of instance to consider that the essential purpose of the applicant was to humiliate the managers of the organization by attributing different meanings to the words he used."
"Exaggerated criticism"
Freedom of expression should be interpreted broadly, allowing exaggeration or even incitement to a degree.
"Moreover, the applicant said the pressure on subcontract workers can only be applied by 'people who don't have managerial and human qualities'; put forward his criticism in an exaggerated way.
"In many of its decisions, the Constitutional Court acknowledged that freedom of expression should be interpreted broadly, allowing exaggeration or even incitement to a degree.
"For this reason, in terms of the expressions that are the subject of the concrete case, it cannot be said that the Constitutional Court should abandon its previous evaluations."
"Ultimately, the courts of instance failed to demonstrate in an objective and convincing manner that the statements that are the subject of the concrete case are of such a nature to resort to an intervention that can be considered as an extremely heavy and last resort, such as termination of employment contract."
What happened?
Kadri Eroğul was working for a private company as part of a fixed-term contract with the Directorate of Public Health.
On his Facebook account, he shared a post about the pressures faced by subcontract workers, which included the expression, "human scums, trash managers."
After this post, some of the managers of the institution filed a complaint and the penal court of first instance convicted Eroğlu. After the deferred verdict became final, the employers terminated his contract.
After his appeals were rejected, Eroğlu filed an individual application with the Constitutional Court. (AS/VK)
