The Constitutional Court found the employee justified as they were dismissed due to the refund of the rate of increase.

The Constitutional Court (CC), ruled that the freedom of expression was violated in the individual application made by the employee who showed his dissatisfaction with the salary increase rate by sending an e-mail to his superiors. According to the decision published in the Official Gazette, Serap Aslan A., who did not like the annual 5.3% increase in his salary, sent an e-mail to the managers and employees at his workplace stating, "Hello, I am returning the increase rate given to me in a envelope to the human resources department. Whoever or whoever determined this rate, let them share it among themselves, for your information." Due to these statements, Serap Aslan A. was dismissed from his job and he filed a lawsuit with the Çatalca 1st Civil Court of First Instance, claiming that his employment contract was unjustly terminated and requesting payment of severance and notice pay. The court ruled that the e-mail constituted a veiled insult that could damage the honor and dignity of the employer or those authorized to represent him and rejected the claim for severance and notice pay on the grounds that the termination was justified. After the local court's decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, Serap Aslan A. made an individual application to the CC. The Supreme Court, ruling in favor of the applicant, decided that the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 26 of the Constitution was violated and ordered the payment of 30,000 TL in non-pecuniary damages to the applicant. A copy of the decision was sent to the Çatalca 1st Civil Court of First Instance for a retrial to eliminate the consequences of the violation of freedom of expression. The reasoning of the decision stated that the applicant expressed his dissatisfaction with the salary increase rate to the employer or representatives authorized on behalf of the employer via e-mail, and that the local court pointed out that this dissatisfaction should be expressed in an appropriate manner. The decision emphasized that freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and necessary conditions for the progress of society and the development of every individual, and that the state should provide the highest guarantee for this freedom. The decision stated that from the content of the e-mail, it can be understood that the applicant tried to bring the discomfort he felt about the low salary increase to the attention of the relevant parties without making any concrete accusations, and included the following statement: "It is not possible to say that the court, which rejected the debt lawsuit filed by the applicant on the grounds that his employment contract was unjustly terminated, was able to establish a fair balance between the applicant's freedom of expression and the honor and reputation rights of the employer or employer representatives. Therefore, it has been concluded that the court did not provide a relevant and sufficient reason for establishing a fair balance between the applicant's freedom of expression and the aim of ensuring discipline, order, and working peace in the workplace."