Constitutional Court ruling on 3600 additional indicator
The Constitutional Court has annulled the requirement of "having been appointed before January 15, 2023" in the 3600 additional indicator regulation, finding it unconstitutional. It was decided that the ruling will take effect in 6 months due to its conflict with the right to property and the principle of equality.
AA
The Constitutional Court (AYM) has annulled the requirement of "having been appointed before January 15, 2023" included in the regulation granting civil servants the right to a 3600 additional indicator, finding it unconstitutional.
In the decision published in today's Official Gazette, a constitutionality review was conducted regarding the regulation in question within the scope of a case filed by the Ankara 18th Administrative Court. The lawsuit was filed with the request to annul the administrative action regarding the benefit of civil servants working in the general administrative services class from the 3600 additional indicator. The subject of the lawsuit was the phrase "before the date this article enters into force" in the first paragraph of the provisional article 47, which was added to the Civil Servants Law No. 657 in 2022 by Article 5 of Law No. 7417.
In the court application, it was emphasized that the distinction created between civil servants appointed before January 15, 2023, and those appointed after January 15, 2023, "does not rely on a reasonable and justifiable ground."
The Constitutional Court ruled that the regulation was unconstitutional and decided to annul it. It was decided that the ruling would take effect in 6 months.
RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION
In the High Court's decision, it was stated that the Civil Servants Law No. 657 regulates who can benefit from the additional indicator, but this right was limited only to civil servants appointed before January 15, 2023.
Pointing out that a different practice is in question for civil servants who started their duties on or after this date, the decision stated that "there is no objective and reasonable basis for the different treatment."
The court concluded that applying different practices solely based on the appointment date "constitutes a violation of the principle of equality in the context of the right to property" and decided to annul the relevant regulation.