BILIM v. TURKEY
Inadmissible
Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković
1. The applicant, Mr Ertaç Bilim, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Ms Tuğba Tüfek, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. 3. On 5 January 2006 the applicant was dismissed from his employment. In the dismissal notice, it was noted that the poor performance of the applicant had been brought to his attention in previous appraisal interviews and that a prior warning had been issued. It was also indicated that remedial coaching had been provided to the applicant on several occasions during 2005; however, the employer company had not discerned any progress. 4. On 3 February 2006 the applicant initiated proceedings before the Istanbul Labour Court against his former employer, requesting the annulment of his dismissal and asking to be reinstated. During the proceedings, the domestic court requested an expert report to determine if the dismissal notice had been issued in accordance with the relevant legislation and whether the grounds for dismissal given by the employer could be justified. In their report, the experts stated that there had been no procedural shortcomings in respect of the dismissal notice. The experts nevertheless stated that dismissal in such cases should be a last resort and that the applicant could have been given continuous coaching and mentoring to improve his performance. 5. On 14 March 2007 the Istanbul Labour Court gave its judgment and dismissed the applicant’s case. The first instance judge concluded that the dismissal grounds had been notified to the applicant in accordance with the law and that the applicant had been able to put forward his defence submissions. The judge, after taking into consideration the expert report, held that the applicant’s performance had not been satisfactory and that he had not participated in necessary team work exercises. He therefore concluded that the grounds for dismissal had been sufficient. In his appeal petition, the applicant argued that his performance could not be considered as insufficient. On 12 November 2007, finding in line with the first instance court’s reasoning, the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal. 6. Article 20 of the Labour Code in so far as relevant reads: “An employee who alleges that no reason was given for his dismissal or who considers that the reasons indicated were not sufficient as to justify his dismissal shall be entitled to lodge an objection with the labour court within one month of his receipt of the dismissal notice ... ... The first-instance court must apply fast-track procedures and conclude the case within two months. If an appeal is lodged, the Court of Cassation must issue its final verdict within one month. ...”