CANCELLATION OF THE RULE STIPULATING THAT DOCTORS WHO HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FROM PUBLIC SERVICE CAN PERFORM THEIR PROFESSION AT THE END OF A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME

22 Sep CANCELLATION OF THE RULE STIPULATING THAT DOCTORS WHO HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FROM PUBLIC SERVICE CAN PERFORM THEIR PROFESSION AT THE END OF A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME

The Rule Under Consideration in the Case

In the case the rule, which decides the construction activities against the national security of the state that is in formation or group membership, or membership in accordance with the relevant legislation in touch with them iltisak or removed from office or public security investigation is evaluated according to the results, excluded from public office of the Medical Association of the state of the offence of exclusion of those who are obliged to provide the service or task after the expiration of a certain period from the date of issuance of the decision of the profession is connected to the provision where I could perform.

Justification of the Cancellation Request

Summarize the case in the petition; the general principles of rule of Law, Science and expertise is contrary to the principles of equality, the principles of objectivity and abstraction with predictable, accessible and understandable since it did not have the characteristics of being, deprived of their constitutional rights of members of certain professions makes a decision without any judicial decree or subjective safety of people with a criminal investigation of the state of emergency declaration as a result of deprivation of rights leads to the situation that is contrary to the presumption of innocence, it has been stated that the right to work and the right to enter public service constitute a violation, and it has been suggested that the rule is contrary to the Constitution.

Assessment of the Court

Article 13 of the Constitution in its article, it is stated that the regulations that limit fundamental rights and freedoms should be appropriate and measured for the reason of the limitation provided for in the Constitution.

Article 48 of the Constitution and 49th. although no limitation reason is provided for the right to work in its articles, it is accepted that rights that are not provided for for a special limitation reason also have some limitations due to the nature of this right.

In order to take advantage of the health services in every region of the country and due to the nature of Health Services revealed deficiencies and delays that would have irreparable consequences considering the fulfillment issues 3359, by law, the scope of the public service obligation expert medical paper medical education for citizenship and exercised their profession that they can’t foreseen those who do not fulfill this obligation under the provision has been taken.

It is understood that the legislator intends to ensure working peace by preventing decency that will occur between doctors who fulfill their obligation of public service and doctors who cannot fulfill this obligation for the reasons stated in the article by regulating that doctors within the scope of the rule can only perform their profession after the period of public service obligations specified in the article in terms of the beginning of the period in which they can perform their profession outside the public.

Article 49 of the Constitution in the article, it is also among the state’s deceptions to ensure the peace of work together with other measures in the context of protecting working life. Within this framework, the rule envisaged for the purpose of ensuring labor peace has a legitimate purpose in the constitutional context.

The rule provided for a measure that would eliminate the beneficial consequences that would arise from the side of doctors who were deemed unsuitable to work in the civil service. The rule imposed a restriction in accordance with the principle of expediency in terms of the purpose of ensuring the desired working peace to be achieved.

However, it is clear that during the period of compulsory service, doctors who remain under the rule are obliged to perform their jobs in the private sector only in areas subject to compulsory service, and other similar measures can be taken to achieve this goal or similar measures can be taken. In this aspect, the rule violates the requirement criterion.

Even if it is accepted for a moment that the rule meets the criterion of necessity, there is no reasonable balance dec the rule that should be found between the public interest that is desired to be achieved with limitation and the right of people to work. Preventing doctors who are not allowed to work in the public sector for national security reasons from performing their professions in the private sector for as long as 450 days places an excessive burden on people.

In this context, the rule may lead to the problem that fewer doctors can provide health care services, contrary to the purpose of the state service obligation application. On the other hand, it is obvious that people covered by the rule will lack professional practice and development, depending on their inability to perform their profession, given the nature of the medical profession, and this can also lead to undesirable consequences for public health. It was concluded that these considerations generally upset the balance of interests, and in this respect, the rule violates the principle of proportionality.

The Constitutional Court has decided that the rule is contrary to the Constitution for the reasons described and that it should be annulled.