Violation Decision of the Constitutional Court Regarding the Workplace Finger Reading System


Decision on the Right to Request the Protection of Personal Data from the Constitutional Court

The decision of the Constitutional Court, numbered 2018/11988, regarding the violation of an applicant's right to demand the protection of personal data within the scope of respect for private life, was published in the Official Gazette dated 19 April 2022. The Constitutional Court made evaluations on the processing of biometric data. You can find the decision here.


Violation Subject to Application


The municipality where the applicant works has switched to the fingerprint system for overtime tracking. The applicant claimed that the recording of fingerprints for overtime tracking violated the privacy of his private life and filed a lawsuit in the administrative court for the annulment of the system in question. The administrative court evaluated the issue within the framework of the processing of personal data within the scope of the right to respect for private life and decided that the intervention in question constituted a violation, since there was no legal basis for overtime tracking. The Court of Appeal, which examined the decision of the administrative court, did not find any violation of the legislation in the aforementioned practice, considering that the civil servants are obliged to continue working overtime and the administration has the obligation to supervise it. The matter has been taken to the Constitutional Court.


Evaluation of the Constitutional Court


The Constitutional Court examined the application within the scope of the right to demand the protection of personal data in accordance with Article 20 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court stated that the state has a positive obligation to prevent arbitrary interference by third parties with individuals' fundamental rights and freedoms. He stated that in order for the intervention to be lawful, it must meet the conditions stipulated in Article 13 of the Constitution (i) being prescribed by laws, (ii) being based on justified reasons stipulated in the Constitution, and (iii) being in compliance with the requirements of a democratic society and being proportional. The Constitutional Court examined the application under the condition of being prescribed by law.


The Constitutional Court referred to the Law on the Protection of Personal Data No. 6698 (“KVKK”) and stated that in the concrete case, the fingerprint data of the person can be processed based on the explicit consent of the person or without seeking explicit consent in cases expressly stipulated in the laws. He emphasized that the principle of legality should be ensured in accordance with Article 13 of the Constitution, also in cases where the explicit consent of the persons concerned is present.


In the concrete case, it is fixed that the applicant did not have express consent for the processing of fingerprint data. For this reason, the Constitutional Court has evaluated whether there is a legal regulation stipulating the processing of fingerprint data. In this context, KVKK, Civil Servants Law and Municipality Law were examined. He evaluated that there are provisions regarding the determination of the start and end of daily work within the scope of the Civil Servants Law, but that these provisions are not a clear regulation envisaging the processing of special data for the control of the employee's overtime. Similarly, he stated that within the scope of the Municipal Law, the management and administration of the municipal organization is under the responsibility of the mayor, but there is no clear regulation regarding the processing of special data within the scope of this authority. In the light of these evaluations, the Constitutional Court decided that there is no regulation that allows the processing of biometric data for the purpose of overtime tracking and that determines the basic principles and principles in this regard. In this context, it has determined that the intervention did not meet the legality requirement, without the explicit consent of the applicant and considering that there was no explicit regulation regarding the processing of biometric data.


Conclusion


The Constitutional Court made important evaluations regarding the processing of biometric data in its decision. He evaluated that there should be explicit consent for the processing of biometric data or that this issue should be clearly stipulated in the laws. In this context, he underlined the need for clear regulations regarding the processing of biometric data.


Alanya Lawyer, Alanya Law Firm, Alanya Enforcement Lawyer, Alanya Criminal Lawyer, Alanya Divorce Lawyer,Alanya Foreigners and Citizenship Lawyer,Alanya Real Estate Lawyer,Alanya Law, Alanya Rental Law,Alanya Residence Permit Consulting, Alanya Real Estate Consultant Lawyer-Alanya Family Lawyer, Alanya Labor Lawyer, Alanya Labor Litigation, Alanya Seasonal Worker, Alanya Labor Law, Alanya Best Labor Litigation Lawyer

More content: