The Constitutional Court annulled the decision on wage deductions.

CHP applied to the Constitutional Court (AYM), claiming that some provisions in the amendments made to the Police Higher Education Law in 2022 were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, which examined the application, ruled for the annulment of the expression "to make a collective application or complaint" related to the security guards added to the Village Law dated 1924 by the mentioned legal regulation.

REASONED DECISION OF AYM

In its decision, AYM stated that the types of disciplinary penalties to be imposed on security guards and the acts and situations subject to punishment were legally regulated. The decision indicated that the disciplinary penalties that could be imposed on security guards were organized as warning, reprimand, deduction from salary, and dismissal, and it was expressed that the relevant legal regulation foresaw "deduction from salary for those making collective applications and complaints."

The decision reminded that the rights of "petition" and "access to information" are guaranteed in the Constitution, emphasizing that these rights are "an inseparable part of human rights and freedoms." It was stated in the decision that the deduction from the salaries of security guards as a disciplinary measure for making collective applications and complaints would mean a restriction on the rights of petition and access to information, and it was expressed that fundamental rights could only be restricted under legally defined conditions.

The decision pointed out that security guards, like other individuals, could benefit from the rights of petition and access to information, and it was stated that "the imposition of sanctions on individuals exercising their rights of petition and access to information should only be possible under very exceptional circumstances."