Güç v. Turkey

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 214

January 2018

Güç v. Turkey - 15374/11

Judgment 23.1.2018 [Section II]

Article 6

Article 6-2

Presumption of innocence

Dismissal of school caretaker for misconduct while he was still awaiting criminal trial in respect of same incident: no violation

Facts – The applicant, a school caretaker employed at the Public Education Centre, was taken into police custody on suspicion of child molestation, after being caught in an allegedly indecent position with a primary school pupil. He was subsequently charged with sexual abuse, sexual assault and unlawful detention of a minor. While the criminal proceedings were still pending he was dismissed following a disciplinary investigation by Ministry of Education inspectors which found that the applicant had engaged in “shameful and disgraceful conduct that [was] incompatible with the civil service”. The applicant’s appeal to the administrative court was dismissed.

In the Convention proceedings, the applicant alleged that his dismissal and the reasoning employed by the administrative courts when reviewing it were incompatible with Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.

Law – Article 6 § 2: The Court reiterated that the Convention does not preclude that an act may give rise to both criminal and disciplinary proceedings, or that two sets of proceedings may be pursued in parallel. In that respect even exoneration from criminal responsibility does not, as such, preclude the establishment of civil or other forms of liability arising out of the same facts on the basis of a less strict burden of proof.

In the present case the Court was called upon to determine whether the disciplinary and administrative authorities had, through their reasoning or the language used in their decisions, allowed doubt to be cast on the applicant’s innocence even though he had not been found guilty by a criminal court.

The disciplinary investigation was carried out by two inspectors who established the facts independently by taking statements and examining a counsellors’ report on the pupil’s psychological and social stage of development. There was nothing in the disciplinary report to suggest that the inspectors had drawn premature inferences from the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant. At the end of their investigation, and on the basis of a less strict burden of proof, they formed the strong impression that the applicant had subjected the pupil to harassment. In the opinion of the Court, the use of the term “harassment” did not in itself present a problem, as the term is not used solely in connection with criminal-law actions, but also in contexts where a person’s private sphere, including his or her bodily integrity, is violated by non-consensual physical or verbal contact. The disciplinary authorities did not comment on whether the harassment could also be classified as sexual harassment within the meaning of the criminal law. Furthermore, in the Court’s view the fact that the authorities noted that the incident had aroused suspicion against the applicant meant that they had taken account of the need to maintain public confidence in the education system and to dispel any appearance of tolerance of suspicious acts against minors. Against this background, the disciplinary investigation had not overstepped the bounds of its civil jurisdiction in such a way as to violate the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent in the parallel criminal proceedings.

As regards a reference the administrative court had made to a statement given in the criminal proceedings, the Court noted that a civil court’s reliance on a statement made or evidence produced in criminal proceedings was not itself incompatible with Article 6 § 2 of the Convention so long as such reliance did not result in the civil court commenting on the defendant’s criminal responsibility or drawing inappropriate conclusions therefrom. On the facts, the Court considered that the statement alone (which referred to rumours that the applicant had previously engaged in indecent behaviour in other schools where he had worked) did not amount to an imputation of criminal guilt to the applicant. It also noted that the administrative court had not commented on whether the applicant should be found guilty on the charges in the criminal proceedings

The language used in the disciplinary and administrative proceedings had thus been compatible with the requirements of Article 6 § 2.

Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy