20.02.2025 13:10
While the legal process for five lieutenants who were dismissed for reading the oath that was removed from the regulations during the August 30 ceremonies is ongoing, it has also come to light that another lieutenant was expelled from the Turkish Armed Forces due to critical posts related to "TOGG." The Konya 3rd Administrative Court annulled the expulsion decision regarding the lieutenant.
A trainee officer serving in the Army Aviation School Command was investigated for sharing an image containing the note "…only the government can ride…" regarding TOGG, Turkey's first domestically produced car, in a WhatsApp group with his fellow trainees on August 5, 2023. Another post made by the trainee officer in the same group was also the subject of the investigation.
As a result of the investigation, the High Discipline Board of the Land Forces Command issued a decision on June 11, 2024, finding that the lieutenant had committed the act of "engaging in behavior that obstructs service" and imposed the penalty of "dismissal from the Armed Forces." In the reasoning of the High Discipline Board, it was stated that "the WhatsApp posts contained political content and opinions, exceeded the dimension of criticism in citizen relations and internal and external politics, and were damaging to the reputation of the Turkish Armed Forces, thus establishing the act of engaging in behavior that obstructs service."
3. ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CANCELLED THE DISMISSAL DECISION
The lieutenant filed a lawsuit seeking the annulment of the High Discipline Board's decision. The Konya 3rd Administrative Court, which heard the case, unanimously annulled the dismissal decision of the High Discipline Board of the Land Forces Command on January 16, 2025. In the reasoning of the Administrative Court, it was emphasized that the definition of each act subject to a penal sanction must be made, and the law must clearly specify what types of acts are considered crimes and prohibited without leaving any room for doubt. After the definition of the mentioned crime is made, it is also necessary to clearly state the penalty corresponding to the crime and which disciplinary rule was violated by the public official who committed the act considered a crime. The reasoning pointed out that maintaining a fair balance between the acts subject to disciplinary penalties and the sanctions is also a requirement of the rule of law principle.
"ADMINISTRATIONS MUST OBSERVE THE BALANCE BETWEEN CRIME AND PUNISHMENT"
The reasoning stated, "Administrations must observe the delicate balance between crime and punishment when determining and deciding on disciplinary penalties for public officials. While the bodies authorized to impose disciplinary penalties must comply with the legislation, they should also take into account the principles of suitability, necessity, and proportionality, which are elements of the universal legal norms of proportionality." In the reasoning of the Administrative Court, it was noted that there was no dispute regarding the fact that the posts subject to disciplinary penalties were made by the plaintiff, as established by the examination of the information and documents in the file, as well as the investigation report and its annexes. It was stated that the plaintiff accepted in his defense statements that the posts in question were made by him, but he claimed that he had no political intent.
In the reasoning, it was recorded: "In this case, although the actions subject to the lawsuit have been established, it has been understood that the defendant administration could not present concrete information and documents supporting that the posts in question, which are clearly incompatible with the seriousness of the military profession, were made for a political purpose. It was also noted that the plaintiff did not include any political commentary or expressions following the posts in question, and that there was no proportionality between the penalty applied and the act in question, and thus it was concluded that there was a violation of the principle of 'proportionality' in disciplinary law, leading to the conclusion that the actions subject to the lawsuit were unlawful."