Decision Discussion Regarding the Ban on Opening Private Examinations in University Hospitals

MELTEM KARAKAŞ

(ESKİŞEHİR) Speaking about the decision that prevents professors and associate professors working in university hospitals from opening private examinations, Eskişehir Bar Association President Mustafa Elagöz said, “A class discrimination has been made among faculty members.”

Eskişehir Bar Association President Mustafa Elagöz spoke about the decision taken by the Council of State Administrative Case Chambers Board to close the examinations opened by professors and associate professors after January 18, 2014. Stating that the decision is against the principle of equality of the Constitution, Elagöz stated that the Turkish Grand National Assembly should take an urgent decision to eliminate the gap.

“THE ISSUE HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT”

Mustafa Elagöz used the following statements:

“A legal regulation was made. Therefore, with that regulation, faculty members working in university hospitals, especially those with the title of professor and associate professor, were banned from opening private examinations or working in clinics. After this regulation, the issue was referred to the Constitutional Court. Constitutional Court At this point, a regulation regarding Article 564 of the Higher Education Law has been made. This is the regulation that was annulled by the Constitutional Court. Now, with the amendment introduced, faculty members who had special examinations were given. The situation such that these rights remained untouched and they closed their examinations was eliminated. After January 18, 2014, faculty members who wanted to open private examinations did not have the right to open a private practice or work in a private clinic. When the situation came to light, it was taken to court.

“THE DECISION MADE BY THE 10TH CHAMBER OF THE STATE COURT WAS CORRECT”

We had a dual system in the judicial system. A lawsuit process has begun in the administrative court of appeal. There was an appeal to the Council of State for the decisions made by the administrative court. Later, appeals, that is, regional administrative courts, were established. A triple system was adopted. The problem here is; Different decisions were made. During that time period, when an appeal was made to the 10th Chamber of the Council of State, the 10th Chamber of the Council of State made a decision. This decision is the right decision in my opinion. The decision emphasized there was made by emphasizing the principle of equality in Article 10 of the constitution. The 10th Administrative Case Chamber of the Council of State said; He developed the desire that there should be no discrimination between faculty members who had a practice before January 18, 2014, and faculty members who wanted to open a practice after that date with the same status, that this would be contrary to the principle of equality, and that they also had this right. However, as a result of this decision taken by the established regional administrative courts, they insisted and the issue went to the Council of State Administrative Cases Board.

“TEACHING MEMBERS HAD TO CLOSE THEIR EXAMINATIONS”

Here, an adverse decision was made by majority vote and the issue became inextricable. The main issue here, which is against the principle of equality, is that in some provinces, faculty members who opened private practices by relying on these judicial decisions were able to continue their examinations, while in some provinces, faculty members could not open a private practice because the lawsuits were decided against them. Now, after this decision of the Council of State Administrative Case Chambers, the incident has taken a different dimension. Although faculty members with that status, who had taken a decision in their favor, opened private examinations during this process, some of them had to close them again. There is space here. After the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision regarding the period before and after 2014, the Turkish Grand National Assembly did not make any new regulations on this issue. Since no regulation could be made, the issue became a matter of legal controversy.

“GNAT MUST MAKE A DECISION URGENTLY”

Faculty members who have opened examinations since January 18, 2014 can continue their duties in university hospitals as well as performing their duties in private examinations. It is stated that this number is around 350 throughout Türkiye. As a result, a class distinction was made among faculty members. While nearly 350 faculty members benefited from this right, unfortunately other faculty members with the same status were deprived of these rights. There is a confusion here. The Parliament must address this issue immediately. The Constitutional Court needs to make a new regulation to fill this gap created after the annulment decision. “Either everyone needs to be given this right, or they all need to be closed down so that the violation of the Constitution’s principle of equality can be eliminated.”

Eskişehir Law Local Politics News