The Period of Excessive Formalism in the Constitutional Court’s Return-To-Work Decision Has Ended

Details of the Regulation

The applicant filed a lawsuit seeking return to work after the employment contract was terminated while the applicant was working for a private security company. The court of first instance accepted the lawsuit; however, the Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds for lack of a condition of action, reasoning that the request for “return to work” was not clearly marked on the form during the mediation stage and that this matter had not been clarified in the official record. The decision stated that expressions such as “g. adamı işe b.” (return to work) in the final mediation official record reflected the intention of the parties, but that the Regional Court of Appeal had adopted an excessively formalistic approach.

In its examination, the Constitutional Court emphasized that the mediation institution aims to resolve disputes promptly, but that this process must not turn into an obstructive mechanism. According to the Court, although the expressions in the official record show that the parties negotiated a return to work during the mediation meetings, refraining from examining the merits of the lawsuit solely because of the deficiency in the marking on the amount to a disproportionate interference with the right of access to the court.

Accordingly, the Court ruled unanimously that the applicant’s right of access to the court, guaranteed under Article 36 of the constitution as part of the right to a fair trial, had been violated. It ordered that the case file be returned to the relevant court for retrial in order to eliminate the consequences of the violation. The applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damages was dismissed on the reasoning that the finding of violation and the retrial would provide sufficient redress.