Decision of the Constitutional Court of violation of rights due to psychological harassment at work

The Constitutional Court decided that the “right to protection of the material and moral existence of the person” had been violated in the individual claim of a nurse that she had been the victim of psychological harassment by her hierarchical superior At work.

According to the decision published in today’s Official Gazette, the applicant, who worked as a charge nurse in the Department of Anesthesiology and Reamination at Istanbul University Institute of Cardiology, that the doctor, who is in the position of his supervisor, told him for example “You don’t know anything, I don’t want to work with you. I will send you from here”, and that he makes it permanent. He lodged a complaint with the administration of the university and the General Prosecutor’s Office of Istanbul.

After the Attorney General’s decision of lack of jurisdiction, a report on the incident was prepared following the investigation by the university. In the report, it is possible to speak of psychological harassment if the doctor uses insulting remarks that go beyond the limits of criticism. specified. In the report, which indicates that the statements in question are contrary to human rights, even if they are not continuous, it is indicated that it is up to the judicial authorities to make the decision concerning the doctor. has been registered.

In the medical documentation and the scientific evaluation report established on the nurse, to the nurse, “diagnosis of major depressive disorder with somatic complaints” was placed.

Thereupon, the legal action brought by the applicant, alleging that he had been the victim of moral harassment and claiming the payment of 10,000 liras for non-pecuniary damage, was dismissed by the 7th Administrative Court of Istanbul. In the court’s decision, If it is established that damage has been suffered as a result of the investigations to be carried out by the administrative and judicial units concerning the allegations in question, compensation may be awarded.I reported.

Once the decision became final, the petitioner filed an individual petition with the Constitutional Court, alleging that his right to protect and develop his material and moral existence had been violated due to moral harassment.

The Supreme Court, which considered the request, The right of the person to protect his material and moral existence, guaranteed by article 17 of the Constitution, has been violated. governed. In addition, it was decided to send a copy of the decision to the competent court for a new trial.

ON THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE DECISION

In the decision of the Constitutional Court, It has been determined that the petitioner has forwarded his complaints to the administration and the attorney general’s office on several occasions, and that the process is ongoing in accordance with the medical documentation and the scientific evaluation report and the administrative report. expressed.

In the decision, it is stated that the events experienced “reached an unbearable degree of weight and intensity” in terms of their impact on the applicant’s life, The administration is not taking due care to take steps to prevent the doctor’s behavior from happening again. transferred.

“The public authorities must not content themselves with detecting situations constituting moral harassment, but must take effective measures to prevent or compensate for such behavior.” in the decision, in which A disciplinary investigation concluded by the university administration was not carried out. reported.

In the report prepared following the university’s investigation,In the decision, where it is stated that there is no definitive assessment that there is no harassment, and that the administrative tribunal accepts that the university is not at fault on the basis of this report, and shows the plaintiff a way to file a claim for compensation in the civil court, it is specified that the case brought in the administrative court is the way to award reparations under the protection and of the development of the material and moral existence of the person. was determined.

In the decision of the Constitutional Court, which declared that the court’s decision did not contain sufficient justifications, it was noted that:

“As a result, it was concluded that the positive obligations which should be assumed by the public authorities within the framework of the right to protect and develop the material and spiritual existence of the person have not been fulfilled due to the fact that effective measures have not been taken by the public authorities in the concrete case and the conclusions reached by the courts of first instance as a result of the proceedings have not been explained by relevant and sufficient justifications. decided that the right to protect the material and spiritual existence of the person has been violated.

Leave a Comment