In line with the examined court decisions and high court precedents, the distribution of the burden of proof in mobbing (psychological harassment) claims, general rules of evidence, the principle of “prima facie evidence” and the principles of shifting the burden of proof are detailed below.

1. General Rule: The Burden of Proof Rests with the Claiming Party

In the vast majority of Supreme Court (Yargıtay) and Constitutional Court decisions, it has been stated that the burden of proof in mobbing claims generally belongs to the claimant (usually the employee/victim).

Basic Principle: In accordance with Article 6 of the Turkish Civil Code and general legal principles, the claimant is obliged to prove their claim. In the decisions of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (2010/38293K, 2016/16456, 2019/7243) and the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (2014/2157), it has been clearly emphasized that the employee claiming to have been subjected to mobbing must prove this situation.

Nature of Proof: The party bearing the burden of proof must present concrete evidence (witnesses, health reports, e-mails, etc.) to demonstrate that the acts were systematic, continuous, and targeted their personality and health. Abstract claims, general rumors, or inconsistent statements have not been deemed sufficient to fulfill the burden of proof (Supreme Court 9th Civil Chamber 2016/4860, Supreme Court 7th Civil Chamber 2015/37812).

Administrative Judiciary and Constitutional Court’s Approach: The 12th Chamber of the Council of State (2024/98) and the Constitutional Court (15/11/2023) have stated that an applicant alleging mobbing must support their claim with concrete and legal evidence; otherwise, the claim would remain abstract.

2. Ease of Proof and the Principle of “Approximate Proof”

Due to the inherent difficulty of proving mobbing, judicial decisions have adopted the principles of “approximate proof” and “conscientious conviction” instead of “absolute proof.”

One Hundred Percent Proof Not Required: The 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals (2014/2157) and the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals (2016/36185) have stated that in difficult-to-prove matters like mobbing, definitive and absolute proof (one hundred percent proof) is not required. The rule of seeking conclusive evidence beyond a reasonable doubt belongs to criminal proceedings, while in private law and labor law, conscientious conviction is sufficient.

Circumstantial Evidence and Consistency: The 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals (2015/37812) and the 10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals (2022/5692) emphasized that consistency in the events recounted by the employee and the presence of strong circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for proof. Reaching a conclusion by considering the typical course of events and rules of experience is referred to as “approximate proof.”

Interpretation in Favor of the Employee: It has been stated that if there is doubt regarding the validity and strength of evidence, the principle of interpretation in favor of the employee should be applied, and providing ease of proof in favor of the employee is in line with equity (Court of Appeals 22nd Civil Chamber 2014/2157).

3. Shift of the Burden of Proof

Under certain circumstances, the burden of proof shifts from the asserting party (the employee) to the opposing party (the employer). This situation is considered the most critical stage in proving mobbing in judicial decisions.

Facts Raising Suspicion: According to the decisions of the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (2013/293) and the Constitutional Court (10/3/2016); it is sufficient for the plaintiff employee to put forward “facts that raise suspicion” that mobbing was applied to them.

Employer’s Obligation: When the employee presents strong indications or suspicious facts regarding the existence of mobbing (e.g., health reports, emails), the burden of proof shifts to the defendant employer (or public authority) to prove that mobbing did not occur in the workplace or that the treatment was based on just causes (Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber 2021/12218, Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers 2017/3017).

Conclusion: If the employer cannot prove that mobbing was not applied despite the strong facts presented by the employee, the allegation of mobbing is considered proven.

4. Secondary Sources and Additional Context

The following decisions are secondary sources that support the information in the main texts or indirectly address the burden of proof:

Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber (2019/1136): Confirmed that absolute proof is not required in mobbing cases, and approximate proof is sufficient, but stated that in the specific case, the plaintiff could not even meet this standard.

Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber (2015/12093): Emphasized that in a mobbing allegation in a university setting, the events should be evaluated as a whole, implying that although not directly addressing the burden of proof, the “holistic” weight of the actions is important in proof.

The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (2015/27868): has indirectly shown that in re-employment lawsuits, the burden of proof that the termination was based on a valid reason lies with the employer (Labor Law art. 20/2), but if the mobbing claim remains abstract, this claim will be considered unproven.

Conclusion Assessment: When court decisions are examined in their entirety; the initial burden of proof in a mobbing claim rests with the party making the claim (employee/victim). However, this burden does not require “one hundred percent certainty”. If the victim presents consistent, credible, and doubt-raising “strong indications” (prima facie evidence) regarding the existence of mobbing, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove that mobbing did not occur.

Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary? | 2M Law Office – Istanbul, Tuzla, Gebze, Pendik, Aydınlı, Kartal, Çayırova, Bayramoğlu

Mobbing (psychological harassment) lawsuits are among the most complex labor law disputes due to technical legal criteria such as the distribution of the burden of proof, the prima facie evidence standard, and the shifting of the burden of proof. In practice, even parties with valid claims can suffer difficult-to-remedy losses of rights if the correct evidence is not collected in time or if an incorrect litigation strategy is pursued.

In mobbing lawsuits filed especially in the **Istanbul**, **Tuzla**, **Gebze**, **Pendik**, and **Aydınlı** regions; the failure to provide evidence in accordance with the precedents of the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court can result in the dismissal of the lawsuits. The scope of witness testimonies, the legal nature of health reports, the manner in which correspondence is submitted to the file, and the correct structuring of the systematic nature of the events are of great importance.

Why is Expert Lawyer Support Important?

Establishing the **correct approximate threshold of proof** in a mobbing claim,

Determining **suspicious facts** that will shift the burden of proof to the employer,

Collecting and presenting evidence in a lawful manner,

Overcoming employer defenses in line with Court of Cassation precedents,

Minimizing the risk of dismissal of the case is only possible with the **legal guidance of an expert lawyer** in this field.

Effective Legal Support with 2M Hukuk Law Office

**2M Hukuk Law Office**, based in Istanbul, provides services primarily in **Tuzla, Gebze, Pendik, and Aydınlı** for mobbing and labor law disputes; offering **effective and expert legal support** regarding litigation and mediation processes, evidence strategy development, and file management in accordance with high court precedents. **Expert legal support is vital** to avoid loss of rights in mobbing claims and to manage the process correctly.