Introduction In light of the judicial decisions reviewed, it has been determined that the legal process concerning mobbing (psychological harassment) allegations varies depending on the individual’s status (employee or public servant), the nature of the mobbing act (administrative action or personal fault), and the requested outcome (compensation, penalty, or annulment of administrative action). Below are detailed the authorities to which mobbing complaints can be made and the procedures for filing lawsuits.

1. Authorities for Mobbing Complaints

In judicial decisions, it is seen that mobbing complaints can be made through two main channels: administrative and judicial:

  • Public Prosecutor’s Offices: If mobbing acts constitute a crime under the Turkish Penal Code (e.g., insult, threat, torture), complaints are made directly to the Public Prosecutor’s Offices. Applications made to the Public Prosecutor’s Offices in Istanbul, Izmir, Kayseri, and Ankara have been exemplified in the decisions. Even if the public prosecutors decide not to prosecute (“no grounds for prosecution”) on the grounds that no criminal element exists, these decisions may state that the victim can file a lawsuit in the Labor Courts.
  • Ministry of Labor and Social Security Units:
    • Alo 170 Hotline: Employees can report mobbing and pressure allegations to the Ministry of Labor and Social Security’s “Alo 170” hotline.
    • Labor Inspection Board and Regional Directorates: Complaints can be made by petition to the T.R. Ministry of Labor and Social Security, Labor Inspection Board Presidency or to the Regional Labor Directorates. Upon these complaints, labor inspectors conduct investigations, prepare reports, and may make determinations in these reports that “a lawsuit can be filed in the Labor Court”.
    • İŞKUR: In cases where an administrative solution cannot be provided, İŞKUR may notify that the issue needs to be resolved through legal channels.
  • Internal Administrative Applications: Especially public personnel and university employees, before filing a lawsuit, apply to their own institutions (Rectorship, Ministry, etc.) with a complaint, requesting a disciplinary investigation to be opened or the cessation of mobbing.

2. Procedure for Filing a Mobbing Lawsuit and Competent Courts

Where and how a mobbing lawsuit should be filed varies according to the victim’s employment status and the manner in which the mobbing was carried out:

A. Private Sector Employees and Those Covered by Labor Law

  • Competent Court: Labor Courts.
  • Subject of the Lawsuit: Workers file lawsuits in Labor Courts with demands for invalidation of termination due to mobbing, reinstatement, moral compensation, and discrimination compensation.
  • Process: Following reports by labor inspectors or prosecutorial decisions of non-prosecution, the worker can directly apply to the Labor Court to claim their rights based on mobbing. According to Supreme Court decisions, a mobbing allegation falls within the scope of the constitutional right to complain, cannot be a reason for termination, and moral compensation should be awarded when proven.

B. Public Officials (Civil Servants and Academic Staff) The legal path for public officials is divided into two, depending on whether the mobbing was carried out by “an administrative act” or “a personal fault”:

  • Administrative Jurisdiction (Administrative Courts):
    • Scope: If mobbing is carried out through unlawful administrative actions (constant reassignments, disciplinary penalties, assignments, appointments) using hierarchical authority, this is considered a “service fault”.
    • Procedure: The plaintiff must first apply to the relevant administration (e.g., University Rectorship) to request compensation for damages. In case of refusal or silence by the administration, an “Action for Full Redress” (compensation) or an action for annulment of the administrative act is filed in the Administrative Court.
    • Example: In claims of mobbing based on appointment and disciplinary actions involving municipal employees or university personnel, the administrative judiciary is competent according to the decisions of the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.
  • Judicial Jurisdiction (Courts of First Instance):
    • Scope: If mobbing occurs through a public official acting outside their authority, losing its administrative act nature, and involving purely personal animosity, humiliation, disdain, and insult (personal fault), a lawsuit can be filed directly against the perpetrator.
    • Procedure: In this case, the lawsuit is not filed against the administration, but against the individual who committed the mobbing, in the Civil Court of First Instance, seeking non-pecuniary damages. The 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has stated that such actions fall outside the protection of Article 129/5 of the Constitution.

3. Criminal Case Process

If mobbing actions constitute crimes under the Turkish Penal Code (threat, torture/maltreatment, insult, obstruction of union rights):

  • Private Sector: If the public prosecutor files an indictment, the case is heard in the Criminal Court of Peace or the Criminal Court of First Instance.
  • Public Officials: Upon a complaint to the prosecutor’s office, investigation permission may be requested from the administration in accordance with Law No. 2547 or Law No. 4483, or the file may be sent to the competent administrative authority (Rectory, YÖK, etc.). An appeal to the Council of State is open against “men-i muhakeme” (prevention of trial) decisions.
  • Impact on Civil Lawsuit: The Constitutional Court has emphasized that the outcome of a criminal investigation (e.g., non-prosecution) does not preclude the filing of a civil lawsuit, and that a compensation lawsuit is a more effective means of redress.

Additional Information from Secondary Sources (The information in this section has been compiled from secondary summaries found in decision texts) With reference to the decision of the 2nd Chamber of the Council of State (2020/1868); it is understood that in full judicial review cases filed by public officials for moral damages suffered due to mobbing, the claims (e.g., not being assigned qualified work, being marginalized) being supported by inspection board reports is decisive in the compensation ruling. Furthermore, the severity of the distress and sorrow experienced, along with the systematic nature of the events, are taken into account when determining the amount of compensation.