DENİZ v. TURKEY
Inadmissible
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
1. The applicant, Mr Seyit Rüfai Deniz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Ankara. He was represented before the Court by Mr M.N. Eldem, a lawyer practising in Ankara. 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3. At the time of the events giving rise to the application, the applicant worked as a teacher at a state school in Ankara. 4. On 20 November 2008 a disciplinary investigation was started against the applicant following allegations that he did not have the book of guidelines for teachers to hand during a class inspection, that he did not prepare lesson plans and that he had addressed his hierarchical superior using the secondperson singular instead of the second-person plural, which is deemed more acceptable for the purposes of politeness in the Turkish language. 5. On 4 December 2008, the applicant was requested to submit his defence statements against those allegations. On 15 December 2008, the applicant submitted, inter alia, that he should not be held responsible for not having the book of guidelines for teachers since it had been the school administration’s responsibility to supply the teachers with the necessary materials and the administration had failed to do so. Concerning lesson plans, he stated that there had not been an obligation on his part to prepare them. He also submitted that he had not addressed the principal in the second person singular. 6. On 29 December 2008, the applicant received a disciplinary sanction in the form of a reprimand in respect of those allegations pursuant to section 125(B) of the Civil Servants Act. 7. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an objection with the Directorate of the Ministry of Education, asking for the reprimand to be revoked. This was dismissed on 13 January 2009, in a decision which was not amenable to judicial review. 8. On 24 September 2014, at the applicant’s request, the reprimand was removed from the applicant’s service records pursuant to section 133 of the Civil Servants Act. 9. A full description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in Karaçay v. Turkey (no. 6615/03, §§ 14-16, 27 March 2007) and İsmail Sezer v. Turkey (no. 36807/07, §§ 14-19, 24 March 2015). 10. Section 125 of the Civil Servants Act catalogues certain acts and misconduct according to the disciplinary sanction to which they give rise. Accordingly, section 125(B) defines blameworthy behaviour in carrying out tasks or orders in an incomplete or late fashion, or not carrying out the necessary procedure or failing to maintain, properly use or care for official equipment as misconduct requiring a reprimand, whereas section 125(C) defines the same behaviour, when it is deliberate, as misconduct that requires the sanction of salary reduction. Section 125(B) defines being disrespectful to a superior while on duty as an act that requires a reprimand, whereas section 125(C) defines speaking disrespectfully to a superior as an act that requires the sanction of salary reduction. Likewise section 125(D) punishes any display of humiliating behaviour towards a superior with deferral of promotion to a higher rank for a minimum of one year and a maximum of three years. Furthermore, a civil servant will receive a heavier sanction if he repeats misconduct for which he has previously received a disciplinary sanction during the period for which the sanction remains on his service record. Finally, the list of acts and misconduct in section 125 is not exhaustive in so far as it is provided that acts comparable to those listed under this section will be punished with a disciplinary sanction appropriate to the gravity of the offence.