A. 3 Of the Law. With Paragraph (4) of Article 4. Examination of the Phrase “… by the Ministry of National Education …” Contained in Paragraph (1) of the Article
The subject of the case of the Teaching Profession Law 3. in paragraph (4) of the article, it is seen that the career steps related to the teaching profession are clearly and clearly regulated. In this respect, it cannot be said that the rule is uncertain and unpredictable, so the rule does not contradict the criterion of legality. In addition, according to the rule, the teaching profession is divided into career steps in accordance with the principles of career and merit. The purpose of creating career steps for the teaching profession is for teachers to progress in their profession in accordance with the principles of career and merit, to ensure their professional development and, accordingly, to improve their personal rights. In the light of these evaluations, it has been concluded that the rule is aimed at the public interest.
4 Of the Law. in the rule containing the phrase “… by the Ministry of National Education …” contained in paragraph (1) of article, it is observed that the basic principles and principles of the qualifications to be sought in teacher candidates and the legal framework are determined by law, but within the framework of these determined qualifications, it may be necessary to determine in accordance with evolving and changing conditions in terms of administrative technique, and the authority to regulate is granted to the administration. In this way, there is no aspect that contradicts the principles of certainty and non-transferability of legislative authority when the legislator leaves the authority to regulate which course will be taught by a qualified teacher candidate to the administration after drawing up the legal framework for the qualifications to be sought in teacher candidates.
The Constitutional Court decided that the rules were not contrary to the Constitution and rejected the cancellation requests on the grounds explained.
B. 5 Of the Law. Examination of the Phrase “… As a result of the evaluation made by the Candidacy Evaluation Commission …” Contained in the Second Sentence of Paragraph (3) of Article (ç) of Paragraph (4) and Paragraph (6) of Paragraph (ç) of Paragraph (ç) of Article (ç) of Article (ç) of Article (ç) of Article (ç) of Article (ç) of Article (ç) of Article (ç) of Article (ç) of Article (ç) of Article (ç) of Article (ç) of Article
5 of the Law No. 7354. in paragraph (6) of the article on the subject of the lawsuit, it is stipulated that the Candidate Teacher Training Program based on the training of candidate teachers during the candidacy process and the formation of the Candidacy Evaluation Commission, as well as other procedures and principles related to the candidate teaching process will be regulated by regulation.
It has been seen that the Nomination Evaluation Commission, which is supposed to evaluate the nomination process according to the rule subject to the lawsuit, its formation, powers, working principles and objective criteria for the evaluation, the scope of the Candidate Training Program have not been clearly and clearly regulated in such a way that there is no room for any hesitation. It has been concluded that the rule is contrary to the necessity of limiting fundamental rights and freedoms by law, due to the provision that an unlimited, indefinite, wide area should be left to regulation without drawing any legal framework on the issue of the right to stay in public services, which is provided for exclusively by law in the Constitution, without defining basic principles.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the rule is contrary to the Constitution and should be canceled on the grounds explained. The subject of the case of Law No. 7354 5. due to the cancellation of paragraph (6) of article (3) of the said article, with the phrase “… as a result of the evaluation made by the Candidacy Evaluation Commission …” contained in the second sentence of paragraph (4) of paragraph (ç), there was no possibility to apply and it was not deemed necessary to check the compliance of the said rules with the Constitution
C. 6 of the Law. Examination of the Phrase “… and those who have completed the studies prescribed for head teacher in the fields of professional development …” Contained in the First Sentence of Paragraph (b) of Paragraph (1) of Article (2) of Paragraph (b) and Paragraph (8) of Paragraph
6 of the Law No. 7354. in order to apply for the written exam for the title of expert teacher according to the subject of the case of paragraph (1) of article (b) of the article (1), it is necessary to have completed the minimum studies prescribed for expert teaching in the fields of professional development. In the first sentence of paragraph (2) of the said article, it is also stipulated that those who have served at least ten years in specialized teaching and have completed the Head Teacher Training Program organized for professional development for at least 240 hours from specialized teachers who have not been punished for stopping progress at the level, and who have completed the studies prescribed for head teacher in the areas of professional development, can apply for a written exam for the title of head teacher, and those who have completed the studies prescribed for head teacher in the areas of professional development contained in the said sentence “… and those who have completed the studies prescribed for head teacher in the areas of professional development…” the phrase constitutes the other rule that is the subject of the lawsuit. In the paragraph (8) of the article on the subject of the case, it is stipulated that the procedures and principles related to progress in the career steps of the teaching profession will be regulated by regulation.
It has been seen that the basic principles, scope and nature of the minimum studies required in the professional development fields, which are among the conditions for advancement on the teaching career steps with the rules subject to the lawsuit, have not been clearly and clearly Deciphered in a way that there is no room for any hesitation. As in the regulation on the right to stay in public services, which was the subject of the previous evaluation, it is stipulated in the Constitution that regulations should be made exclusively by law on a matter related to the personal affairs of public servants. In this context, it has been concluded that the rules are incompatible with the necessity of limiting fundamental rights and freedoms by law, due to the provision that an unlimited, indefinite, wide area should be left to regulation without drawing up any legal framework on a matter related to the personal affairs of public officials, without defining basic principles.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the rules are contrary to the Constitution and should be canceled on the grounds explained.
Klicken Sie hier, um zu unseren weiteren Artikeln und petitionsbeispielen zu gelangen
