What conduct can amount to mobbing against a public official?
Systematic exclusion and stripping of authority
Continuous exclusion of a public official from meetings related to their duties, withdrawal of working tools without reason, narrowing of their powers for the purpose of intimidating a particular employee, and exposure to conduct that damages their professional standing may support an allegation of psychological harassment. The administration has the power to distribute duties according to the lawful requirements of the service; the mere existence of a change of duty is not mobbing.
Arbitrary investigation, requests for statements and pressure to punish
Conducting a disciplinary investigation is a legal power of the administration and, in some cases, its obligation. However, running repeated, unfounded and disproportionate processes in order to intimidate a person is a different matter. Continuous requests for a defense statement about the same event, repetition of unfounded accusations and the administration's disregard of earlier outcomes may be assessed as a whole. Each of the acts is also examined separately for unlawfulness.
Reassignment and temporary assignment
Appointment and temporary assignment are possible because of the requirements of the public service. Nevertheless, the applicant's health condition, the nature of the duty, staffing needs, the treatment of officials in a similar position and the frequency of assignments must be assessed. Unexplained and repeated changes may constitute indications of mobbing; however, in order to obtain annulment of the administrative act, unlawfulness must also be shown concretely with respect to the elements of competence, reason, subject, purpose and form.
Why is the status of the public employee decisive?
Civil servants subject to Law No. 657
The right of civil servants to seek redress, to apply, to complain and to bring an action is regulated in Article 21 of the Civil Servants Law No. 657 (Devlet Memurları Kanunu). In applications and complaints, the chain-of-command principle (silsile) applies; the superior who is the subject of the complaint is bypassed. In administrative disputes arising from the status of a public official, the administrative courts may have jurisdiction.
Public-sector workers
Not everyone working in a public institution is a civil servant. For a public-sector worker employed under an employment contract, the Labor Law and the labor-court regime may apply, depending on the nature of the dispute. The fact that a public institution is the defendant does not by itself make the administrative courts mandatory. The statuses of worker, civil servant, contract staff and other public officials must be established through the specific contract and regulations.
Personnel with a special status
For groups such as academic staff, health professionals, judges and prosecutors, military personnel or law-enforcement personnel, special legislation and disciplinary provisions may be important. The applicable special statute, the special application route and the limits of judicial review may take precedence over the general provisions. For this reason, the same time limit and procedure should not be recommended for every type of personnel.
What does Presidential Circular No. 2025/3 regulate for public institutions?
The prevention responsibility of managers and institutions
Circular No. 2025/3, published in the Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) No. 32833 dated March 6, 2025, addresses the prevention of psychological harassment in the workplace for both the public and private sectors. Employers and managers are expected to assess risks, establish protective policies and inform employees about their rights and application mechanisms. This framework increases the importance of effectively investigating mobbing complaints in a public institution. Text of the Circular.
Confidentiality and prevention of untrue accusations
The Circular also expressly emphasizes the protection of private life and confidentiality while complaints are investigated, and that the reputation of the institution should not be damaged by untrue allegations. For this reason, the administration must pay attention both to the protection of the victim and to the defense and reputation rights of the alleged perpetrator. The purpose of the investigation is not to legitimize a predetermined punishment but to establish the material facts impartially.
First application routes for a civil servant
Internal application and complaint
Within the scope of Article 21 of Law No. 657, a civil servant has the right to complain and to bring an action concerning administrative actions and acts. It is important that the written application be recorded, that the events be described one by one with their dates, that the protective measures requested be indicated, and that it be supported by health and investigation records, if any. The superior who is the subject of the complaint is removed from the chain of command; the content and the addressee of the complaint are determined according to the procedure of administrative law.
CİMER and ALO 170
Circular No. 2025/3 also lists the Presidential Communication Center (CİMER) and ALO 170 application channels. These applications are important for notifying the relevant administration of the events and for obtaining information. However, an application to CİMER or ALO 170 does not by itself suspend the time limit for an administrative action. Any effect on the time limit can be determined only by examining the nature of the application and the special legislation to be applied.
Ombudsman Institution (Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumu)
The Ombudsman Institution (Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumu, KDK) may examine complaints about the acts and actions of the administration within its own admissibility conditions. In the application explanation published by the Institution, the rule that an application is, as a general matter, first made to the relevant administration, the application time limits and, in some cases, the suspensive effect of a KDK application on the time limit for bringing an action are explained separately. The Institution's application time limit and procedural conditions must be checked in their current form in each specific case. KDK application information.
The limit of a TİHEK application
The Human Rights and Equality Institution of Türkiye (TİHEK) may, within its field of duty, examine allegations of workplace bullying (işyerinde yıldırma) based on the grounds of discrimination stated in Law No. 6701. The general concept of mobbing is broader than the discrimination-based definition of TİHEK. Before applying to the Institution, requesting that the relevant party remedy the violation and the other admissibility conditions are important. Not every administrative mobbing file is automatically a TİHEK file. TİHEK application conditions.
Which action is brought in the administrative courts?
Annulment of an administrative act
Against an appointment, change of duty, disciplinary penalty or other administrative act alleged to amount to mobbing, an annulment action (iptal davası) may be brought, depending on its conditions. The subject of an annulment action is a specific administrative act. It must be stated clearly which of the elements of competence, form, reason, subject and purpose of the act is unlawful and why. The phrase “mobbing was committed” does not on its own replace review of the act.
Damage arising from an administrative act: İYUK Article 12
If an administrative act has harmed personality rights or caused pecuniary damage, options concerning the assertion of annulment and full remedy claims together or separately may arise under İYUK Article 12. Triggering events such as the execution of the act, the annulment decision and notification may affect the time limit. The nature of the specific act and the choice of the route of action are important.
Damage arising from an administrative action: İYUK Article 13
If the subject of the action is not directly an administrative act but an administrative action or a malfunction of the service, İYUK Article 13 comes into play. As a general rule, those whose rights have been violated by an administrative action causing damage must apply to the relevant administration and request that their rights be fulfilled within one year from the date they learned of the action and in any case within five years from the date of the action. The time limit for bringing an action runs upon rejection of the request or expiry of the statutory response period. The calculation of the time limit must be examined separately with regard to continuing actions, later discovery and private-law rules.
Time limits: the most frequent mistake
The general sixty-day period under İYUK Article 7
Unless a special statute provides a different period, the time limit for bringing an action in the administrative courts is sixty days. The starting point is calculated according to the event provided for in the legislation, such as notification of the written notice of the act. This general period is not an unchanging period that can be applied on its own to all internal complaints, disciplinary applications or claims for damages.
An İYUK Article 11 application and the remaining period
An application made under İYUK Article 11 to the superior authority, or to the authority that performed the act if there is no superior authority, suspends a time limit for bringing an action that has begun to run, if the conditions are met. The consequence of being deemed rejected if no response is given within thirty days, and the counting of the days that elapsed before the application, are important. Not every petition written to the administration is automatically an Article 11 application; the subject and the request must fall within the scope of this article.
The İYUK Article 13 preliminary application and not merging the time limits
The one-year/five-year preliminary application periods in İYUK Article 13 and the time limit for the full remedy action to be brought upon rejection are different stages. The starting point of the period, learning of the event, continuation of the action and the subject of the application must be assessed separately. It cannot be said that a general complaint sent over the internet automatically satisfies these conditions.
The Constitutional Court and the positive obligation of the administration
Effective protection under Article 17 of the Constitution
In the Constitutional Court decision Ebru Bilgin (Application No: 2014/7998, July 19, 2018), the frequent opening of investigations against a public official, the continuous issuing of warnings and the administration's failure to apply effective protective measures although the health problems were known were assessed. The Court concluded that the positive obligation concerning the right to protect one's corporeal and spiritual existence had been violated. The absence of redress through judicial routes and inadequate reasoning were also important in the assessment of the violation. Official press release of the Constitutional Court (AYM).
In the decision Zülküf Kılıç (Application No: 2018/27032, September 14, 2022), the unlawfulness of successive disciplinary acts concerning an employee at a public university and the need to assess all the events together were emphasized. These decisions explain not that every disciplinary act is regarded as mobbing, but the cumulative effect of the administration's systematic conduct and the obligation of effective protection. AYM 2022 announcement.
An individual application is not the direct first route
An individual application to the Constitutional Court (AYM) is not a free first complaint channel used in place of the ordinary judicial routes. The application is subject to exhaustion of the ordinary remedies and to the individual application's own time limits and admissibility conditions. For annulment of the act or for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, the administrative and judicial routes appropriate to the specific situation must be pursued first.
Whom can a public official sue?
As a rule, an action against the administration
Article 129/5 of the Constitution and the relevant civil-servant law provisions provide that, as a rule, disputes over compensation arising from the faulty acts of public officials in the exercise of their powers are directed at the administration; the administration's right of recourse against the relevant personnel may be reserved. However, different assessments may be made for entirely personal acts of the perpetrator unconnected with the duty, for conduct constituting a crime, and for special statuses. It cannot be assumed that the same administrative route of action will be used against the person of the perpetrator in every case.
Disciplinary and criminal liability are separate
The concept of mobbing itself is not in every case an independent criminal offense. The specific conduct may constitute the elements of insult, threat, sexual harassment or another offense. The administrative disciplinary review and a criminal investigation differ from each other in competence, standard of proof and outcome. The administration should not treat the existence of a criminal investigation as an automatic reason to delay its own preventive measures.
Preparing evidence and the application file
Dated administrative acts and communication records
Appointment and assignment approvals, internal correspondence, meeting invitations, requests for statements, investigation outcomes, work schedules, official complaint records and the administration's responses should be reviewed by date. Treatment of employees in a similar position should be compared with objective staffing needs. The systematic aspect of the alleged practices can be shown through these records.
Health and witness records
The employee's health condition, treatment process, and medical report and leave records, where necessary, are important for damage and causation. However, a medical record alone does not show which conduct the perpetrator carried out. Witnesses should describe concretely the events they directly saw; unnecessary special categories of personal data should not be shared openly.
Determining the application and action route
| Situation faced by the public official | Legal route to be examined | Record to be especially preserved |
|---|---|---|
| Written appointment/disciplinary act | Annulment action, İYUK Article 7 and, if necessary, Article 11 | Date of notification, the act, the reasoning |
| Pecuniary damage caused by an administrative act | Claim under İYUK Article 12 | Relationship between damage and act |
| Administrative action or service fault (hizmet kusuru) | İYUK Article 13 preliminary application and full remedy action | Date of learning, the action, date of rejection |
| Systematic internal pressure | Complaint and protective request under Article 21 of Law No. 657 | Events, complaint and response |
| Bullying based on discrimination | TİHEK, if the conditions are met | Statutory ground of discrimination |
| Rights violation after judicial routes | Individual application to the Constitutional Court (AYM), if the conditions are met | Final decision and notification |
Conclusion
For legal protection to be effective in psychological harassment of a public official, first the status of the personnel must be determined, and then whether the specific pressure is an administrative act, an administrative action, or a process made up of more than one act and action. The documents that prove the mobbing allegation and the legal conditions of the annulment and full remedy claims must be kept separate. The effect of CİMER, internal complaints and KDK applications on the time limit must be calculated separately; the termination-for-cause model of the private-sector worker must not be applied mechanically to a civil servant.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a civil servant apply to a labor court because of mobbing?
For a person with civil-servant status, disputes arising from administrative actions and acts generally fall to the administrative courts. The dispute of a public-sector worker arising from an employment contract may be separate.
Does a mobbing complaint to CİMER suspend the time limit for bringing an action?
Not in every case. The statutory nature of the application and the relevant procedural rule must be assessed separately.
Can a civil servant bring an action against an assignment made to them?
If the conditions are met, yes. The unlawfulness of the act, notification and the time limit for bringing an action must be examined; not every assignment is mobbing.
Is it possible for a public official to bring a compensation action for mobbing?
If the conditions for damage arising from the administration are met, a full remedy action may come into play. The distinction between İYUK Article 12 and Article 13 is important.
What do the one year and five years in İYUK Article 13 mean?
They are the basic periods for the preliminary application to the administration by a person who has suffered damage because of an administrative action; they do not replace the time limit for bringing an action.
Can an application be made to the Ombudsman Institution?
Yes, if the Institution's field of duty, preliminary application and time-limit conditions are met. The effect of the application on the time limit for bringing an action is assessed under the KDK legislation.
Is mobbing a crime?
It cannot be assumed that there is a single, independent type of offense under the name of mobbing. The specific act may constitute insult, threat or another offense.
Is it possible to bypass the superior in a mobbing complaint?
Within the framework of Article 21 of Law No. 657, bypassing the superior who is the subject of the complaint in the chain of command is regulated.
Does TİHEK examine all civil-servant mobbing files?
No. The grounds of discrimination in Law No. 6701 and the other application conditions are important.
Can a direct mobbing application be made to the Constitutional Court (AYM)?
As a rule, an individual application cannot be made without exhausting the ordinary statutory routes. The admissibility conditions are also sought separately.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 657 on Civil Servants, Article 21.
- Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, Articles 7, 11, 12, 13 — UYAP.
- Presidential Circular No. 2025/3, Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) of March 6, 2025, No. 32833.
- Ombudsman Institution (Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumu), application conditions.
- TİHEK, application conditions.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Ebru Bilgin, Application No: 2014/7998, July 19, 2018.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Zülküf Kılıç, Application No: 2018/27032, September 14, 2022.