Constitutional Court Decision on the Misassessment of Evidence in Reemployment Lawsuit
Introduction
In its decision dated 11 June 2024, published in the Official Gazette dated 3 October 2023 and numbered 32681, the Constitutional Court (“CC”) ruled, within the scope of individual application no. 2019/7376, that the applicant’s right to a fair trial was violated due to the misassessment of evidence in a reemployment lawsuit.[1]
The factual background of the application examined in this article includes a mutual termination agreement signed between the employee and the employer. Mutual termination agreements, frequently applied under the Labor Law No. 4857, often raise questions regarding whether the employee’s will was vitiated. In such disputes, the way evidence is assessed has critical importance for the right to a fair trial. In this context, the CC’s decision is noteworthy. This article summarizes the individual application subject to the CC’s decision and the judicial process, followed by an analysis of the CC’s reasoning.
Factual Background
The applicant, Yılmaz Korkmaz, was employed as a commercial affairs officer at Türk Telekom A.Ş. Following the termination of his employment through a mutual termination agreement on 2 August 2017, he claimed that his will had been vitiated, that he had been pressured into signing the agreement with the threat of receiving no payments if he refused, and that the agreement was therefore invalid. He subsequently filed a reemployment lawsuit.
The lawsuit was handled before the Ankara 32nd Labor Court. During the proceedings, the Applicant requested the hearing of witnesses, whose testimonies supported his claims of being subjected to pressure during the termination process and being warned that he would not receive his entitlements unless he signed the mutual termination agreement.
On 8 March 2018, the first instance court ruled in favor of the Applicant, holding that the termination of the employment contract was invalid and ordering the Applicant’s reinstatement. The court emphasized that in cases of termination via mutual agreement, the principle of interpretation in favor of the employee should prevail and the specific circumstances of the case must be carefully evaluated.
The employer, Türk Telekom A.Ş., appealed the decision. They argued that the first instance court had failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry and had incorrectly based its judgment solely on the applicant’s allegations and witness testimonies.
The Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, 6th Civil Chamber (“Court of Appeal”), reversed the decision, holding that there was no concrete evidence, other than the Applicant’s abstract allegations, to support the claim that his will was vitiated. It further emphasized that the termination offer had been initiated by the applicant, who had retired shortly thereafter, and that the claims of duress were unsubstantiated. Additionally, the Court of Appeal noted that the applicant had received compensation exceeding severance and unused leave entitlements, including an additional four months’ salary, which constituted sufficient benefit and a valid mutual termination.
Following this final decision, the Applicant brought the case before the Constitutional Court, alleging that the Court of Appeal had failed to consider the witness testimonies on file and that the finding of insufficient evidence was based on an incomplete examination, thereby violating his right to a fair trial.
Evaluation by the Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court emphasized that the right to a fair trial, protected under Article 36 of the Constitution, aims to ensure procedural fairness rather than material justice. While the assessment of evidence by lower courts generally falls outside the CC’s jurisdiction under Article 148 of the Constitution, an intervention may be warranted in cases of manifest arbitrariness or serious error in discretion.
The CC reiterated that its review focuses not on how the evidence was assessed but on whether such assessment was arbitrary or devoid of reasonable basis to the extent that it undermines the fairness of the proceedings. Thus, the CC does not review the outcome of the trial but whether the constitutional guarantees concerning the trial process were respected.
In the case at hand, the Constitutional Court found that the applicant had duly requested the hearing of witnesses, whose testimonies supported his claims. Nevertheless, the CC had disregarded these statements entirely, proceeding as if no witnesses had been heard. However, the witness statements had in fact been included in the file through the first instance court’s request for testimony. The CC determined that ignoring this crucial fact rendered the procedural safeguards of the right to a fair trial ineffective.
Accordingly, the CC held that the Applicant’s right to a fair trial had been violated and ordered a retrial to remedy the consequences of the violation. The CC to which the case would be referred must re-evaluate the matter in a manner that eliminates the deficiency that constituted the ground for the violation.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the Constitutional Court concluded that the failure to consider witness evidence amounted to a violation of the right to a fair trial, despite the existence of a mutual termination agreement that appeared to fulfill formal conditions. This case illustrates the critical importance of a complete and proper evaluation of evidence in ensuring procedural justice.
- Constitutional Court of Türkiye. (2023, October 3). Decision no. 2019/7376. Official Gazette, No. 32681.https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2019/7376
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
As a result of globalization, labor mobility has increased, and many Turkish citizens have started working in foreign countries for Turkish companies or international employers. This situation has inevitably led to the intersection of labor relations with different legal systems. In this regard, Article 27 of Law No...
Determining the applicable law in employment contracts and disputes arising from these contracts requires a balance between the principle of protection of the employee and the parties’ autonomy based on the choice of law...
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right that guarantees individuals the right to express their thoughts and criticisms. However, this right is often questioned within the framework of challenges encountered in business life and ethical norms. In a case brought before the Constitutional Court, the limits of...
The concept of employer’s representative in labour law defines the persons to whom the employer delegates the management and administration authority of the workplace and the enterprise to a certain extent. Although their employment under these names does not directly result in the employment of an...
Employment relations between the employee and the employer may be terminated for various reasons, as in all other contractual relations. Employment contracts may be terminated through mutual agreement between the parties, as well as through the unilateral termination of...
Today, in many employment contracts, the use of tools such as computers, corporate e-mail accounts, and telephones allocated by the employer is limited and the employer’s right to control them is regulated. The employer bases such a supervise and audit right on the management right regulated under Article 399...
The right to initiate a re-employment lawsuit, is one of the job security provisions, stipulated in favor of the employees, of Labor Law No. 4857 ("Labor Law"). This right, aims to prevent arbitrary termination of the employment contract or termination of the contract without a valid reason by an employer...
The dominant position of the employer due to the nature of the employment relationship, the dependency of the employee, and the obligation to work constitute the basis of the employer's right to manage. The right to manage refers to the right to regulate the conduct of the work and the behavior...
A non-compete covenant prohibits employees from competing on their own or a third party's behalf in the same field of activity as their former employer for a certain period of time after the termination of an employment contract. By the execution of a non-compete covenant...
According to Labor Law No. 4857 (Labor Law), the termination of an employment contract without a valid reason does not automatically invalidate the termination. When an employee opens a re-employment lawsuit pursuant to conditions stipulated in the Labor Law, and if the case...