Erdem & Erdem Law Office | View firm profile
In its judgement of 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 owing to the evidential misassessment in reinstatement proceedings. [i]
The factual background of the application examined in this article comprises a mutual termination agreement entered into between the employee and the employer. Mutual termination agreements, frequently applied pursuant to the Labour Law No. 4857, often raise questions concerning whether the employee’s will was vitiated. In such disputes, the manner in which evidence is assessed has critical importance for the right to a fair trial. In this context, the CC’s judgement is noteworthy. This article summarises the individual application subject to the CC’s judgement 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 consequently invalid. He subsequently instituted reinstatement proceedings.
The proceedings were conducted before the Ankara 32nd Labour 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 favour of the Applicant, holding that the termination of the employment contract was invalid and ordering the Applicant’s reinstatement. The court emphasised that in cases of termination through mutual agreement, the principle of interpretation in favour of the employee should prevail and the specific circumstances of the case must be carefully evaluated.
The employer, Türk Telekom A.Ş., appealed the judgement. They argued that the first instance court had failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry and had incorrectly founded its judgement solely on the applicant’s allegations and witness testimonies.
The Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, 6th Civil Chamber (‘Court of Appeal’), reversed the judgement, 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 emphasised 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 judgement, 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 founded upon an incomplete examination, thereby violating his right to a fair trial.
Evaluation by the Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court emphasised that the right to a fair trial, protected pursuant to Article 36 of the Constitution, seeks to ensure procedural fairness rather than material justice. Whilst the assessment of evidence by lower courts generally falls outside the CC’s jurisdiction pursuant to 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. Consequently, the CC does not review the outcome of the trial but whether the constitutional guarantees concerning the trial process were respected.
In the present case, the Constitutional Court found that the applicant had duly requested the hearing of witnesses, whose testimonies supported his claims. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal 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 court 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 fulfil formal conditions. This case illustrates the critical importance of a complete and proper evaluation of evidence in ensuring procedural justice.
This article was authored by Erdem & Erdem Senior Associate Ece Özsü Alpagut
[i] Constitutional Court of Türkiye. (2023, October 3). Decision no. 2019/7376. Official Gazette, No. 32681. https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2019/7376