Misassessment of Evidence in Reinstatement Lawsuits: Constitutional Court Rules Violation of the Right to a Fair Trial

Türeli & Ceylan Law Firm – Labour Law & Litigation

Reinstatement lawsuits are among the most frequently used legal remedies by employees under job security provisions. However, in such cases, the extent to which courts assess the evidence presented can determine the outcome.

In its judgment dated 11 June 2024, application no. 2019/7376, the Turkish Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial due to the lower court’s failure to properly assess witness evidence. This landmark ruling carries important implications for how labour courts must conduct proceedings in employment disputes.

Background of the Constitutional Court Decision

The applicant, Yılmaz Korkmaz, filed a reinstatement lawsuit despite having signed a mutual termination agreement (ikale). He claimed that he had signed the agreement under pressure and not of his free will.

During the proceedings, the applicant submitted witness testimonies supporting his claims. However, the lower courts failed to evaluate these statements, basing their decision solely on the signed agreement.

The Constitutional Court held that:

• The courts failed to assess the evidence in a reasoned manner,
• Especially by entirely disregarding witness statements in the employee’s favour,
• Thereby violating both the right to a reasoned judgment and the principle of a fair trial.

Legal Basis of the Decision

The ruling refers to:

• Article 36 of the Turkish Constitution (Right to a Fair Trial), and
• Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Key legal takeaways from the judgment include:

• Courts cannot selectively assess only the evidence supporting one party;
• All evidence must be evaluated impartially, comprehensively, and in balance;
• Witness testimonies are of critical evidentiary value in employment disputes, especially in proving dismissal-related claims or entitlement to severance benefits.

Implications for Labour Courts

This decision will significantly affect judicial practices in labour courts, particularly in reinstatement claims.

From now on:

• Witness evidence must be explicitly and reasonably assessed in court rulings;
• Courts must refrain from ignoring pro-employee witness statements;
• A balanced approach must be adopted that considers both employer and employee perspectives.

Otherwise, dismissal of reinstatement claims without properly assessing evidence may become the subject of individual applications before the Constitutional Court, likely resulting in a finding of rights violation.

Why the Right to a Reasoned Judgment Matters

The right to a reasoned judgment is a cornerstone of fair trial guarantees, as recognized both in domestic law and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

Failure to uphold this right results in:

• Judgments that lack clarity,
• Inadequate judicial review,
• Perceived injustice and loss of confidence in the judiciary.

Especially in labour law, where witness evidence is often decisive, courts must go beyond mere procedural formalitiesand engage in a thorough and substantive evaluation of such statements.

Proper Evaluation of Evidence Is Crucial in Reinstatement Cases

The 2024 Constitutional Court decision imposes a serious obligation on labour courts to prioritize justice over procedural efficiency.

Inadequate or erroneous assessment of evidence not only undermines the individual rights of the employee but also damages the credibility and integrity of the entire judicial system.