Published in the Official Gazette: Constitutional Court annuls 'decree-law personnel cannot receive compensation' provision

The Constitutional Court has annulled a provision in a Decree-Law (KHK) concerning public officials who were dismissed from their duties by decree-law and subsequently reinstated. The decision has been published in the Official Gazette.

Don't leave your news choices to an algorithm - decide for yourself what you read. Add 12punto to your preferred sources!

Published in the Official Gazette: Constitutional Court annuls 'decree-law personnel cannot receive compensation' provision

The Constitutional Court has annulled a provision in a Decree-Law (KHK) concerning public officials who were dismissed from their duties by decree-law and subsequently reinstated to their positions.

The decision, made by the Constitutional Court upon an application for annulment by the 5th Chamber of the Council of State, was published in the Official Gazette today.

According to the decision, the 4th sentence of the 2nd paragraph of Article 2 of the law regarding the amendment and adoption of the State of Emergency Decree-Law (OHAL KHK) dated February 13, 2018, and numbered 7098, was found to be unconstitutional.

The contested article stipulated that “those who were directly removed from public office by a State of Emergency Decree-Law and reinstated to their duties by another State of Emergency Decree-Law cannot make any compensation claims due to their removal from public office.”

EXPLAINED THE GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT

The Constitutional Court explained the grounds for the annulment as follows:

“The rule allows for application in a way that exceeds the duration of the state of emergency. In other words, the rule does not foresee a regulation limited to the duration of the state of emergency. Therefore, the examination regarding the rule must be conducted according to the oversight regime foreseen by the Constitution for ordinary period rules.”

The Constitutional Court had previously annulled a similar regulation in its decision dated June 30, 2022, with file number E.2018/137 and decision number K.2022/86. Emphasizing that there was no situation requiring a departure from the aforementioned decision regarding the contested rule, the Constitutional Court stated, “The provision that those reinstated to duty within the scope of the rule cannot make any compensation claims due to their removal from public office is incompatible with the state's obligation to provide an effective remedy mechanism against interventions into a person's material and moral existence.”

News Source: 12punto