| Turkey: Integrity Scorecard Report > Sub-Category: Whistle-blowing Measures | ||
| Indicators | Score | |
| 48 | Are employees protected from recrimination or other negative consequences when reporting corruption (i.e. whistle-blowing)? | 13 |
| 49 | Is there an internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption? | 100 |
| 50 | In practice, is the internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption effective? | 38 |
Indicator and sub-Indicator Details
| 48 | Are employees protected from recrimination or other negative consequences when reporting corruption (i.e. whistle-blowing)? | |||||||
| 48a: In law, civil servants who report cases of corruption, graft, abuse of power, or abuse of resources are protected from recrimination or other negative consequences. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: The status of whistle-blowing has been defined by several laws in Turkey, e.g. Law No. 1905 on Reporting Tax Evasion adopted in 1931. Earlier, Articles 5 and 7 of Law No. 4422 on Organized Crime regulated the protection of eye-witnesses and whistle-blowers, however this law was repealed on March 31, 2005, by Law 5320. According to Article 18 of Law No. 3628, the identities of the whistle-blowers cannot be made public without their consent. However, when the denunciation is valid, the identity of the whistle-blower shall be made public upon the request of the prosecuted person. Internal Circular no 1990/1 also regulates confidentiality of the identity of whistle-blowers. Recently Law No. 5726 on the Protection of Eye-Witnesses, which covers only those who shall testify at the Penal Court, was adopted. In other words, those who report any corruption-related cases do not have any legal protection against recrimination or other consequences. It should be bear in mind that whistle-blowing is not a looked on favorably in Turkish culture. The laws are general and apply to all citizens in the public and private sectors. References: Law No. 1905 on Reporting Tax Evasion adopted in 1931: [ LINK ]. Law No. 4422, Articles 5 and 7: [ LINK ] Law 5320 on the Effecetiveness and the Application Method of Penal Trial, [ LINK ] Law No. 4800 on Transnational Organized Crime Article 24 (Protection of Eye Witness) and 25 (protection of aggrieved persons): [ LINK ] Law No. 3628 on Asset Declaration, Struggle against Bribery and Corruption, Article 18: [ LINK ] Internal Circular No. 1990/1, Nov. 22, 1990, on Whistle-Blowing. Law No. 5726 on the Protection of Eye-Witnesses: [ LINK ]
|
||||||||
| 48b: In practice, civil servants who report cases of corruption, graft, abuse of power, or abuse of resources are protected from recrimination or other negative consequences. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: Reporting corruption is not a widespread practice, nor is it kept confidential. Cultural factors and social control, as well as lack of legal protection for whistle-blowers, are major obstacles. References: V.Yasar Akin, "Türk Vergi Hukukunda Iki Kilit Kavram: Ihbar ve Sikayet" (Two Key Concepts in Turkish Tax Law: Whistleblowing and Compalint), [ LINK ] Bülent Tarhan, Chief Inspector, Prime Ministry, Ankara, September 2008. Turgut Tan, Professor of Administrative Law, Bilkent University, Ankara, September 2008. Atalay Erguven, Chairman of the Association for State Supervision Personnel (DENETDE), September 2008.
|
||||||||
| 48c: In law, private sector employees who report cases of corruption, graft, abuse of power, or abuse of resources are protected from recrimination or other negative consequences. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: The status of whistle-blowing has been defined by several laws in Turkey, e.g. Law No. 1905 on Reporting Tax Evasion, adopted in 1931. Earlier, Articles 5 and 7 of Law No. 4422 on Organized Crime regulated the protection of eye-witnesses and whistle-blowers, however this law was repealed on March 31, 2005, by Law 5320. According to Article 18 of Law No. 3628, the identities of the whistle-blowers cannot be made public without their consent. However, when the denunciation is valid, the identity of the whistle-blower shall be made public upon the request of the prosecuted person. Law No. 4857 only says that labor inspector keeps secret the identity of an employee who reports on the professional, economic or commercial state of the workplace during inspection. This reporting may not be necessarily about any corruption-related activity. Recently Law No. 5726 on the Protection of Eye-Witnesses, which covers only those who shall testify at the Penal Court was adopted. In other words, those who report any corruption related cases do not have any legal protection against recrimination and similar consequences. It should be bear in mind that whistle-blowing is not a favorably looked upon in Turkish culture. Laws are general and apply to all citizens in the public and private sectors. References: Law No. 1905 on Reporting Tax Evasion adopted in 1931: [ LINK ]. Law No. 4422, Articles 5 and 7: [ LINK ] Law 5320 on the Effecetiveness and the Application Method of Penal Trial, [ LINK ] Law No. 4800 on Transnational Organized Crime Article 24 (Protection of Eye Witness) and 25 (protection of aggrieved persons): [ LINK ] Law No. 3628 on Asset Declaration, Struggle against Bribery and Corruption, Article 18: [ LINK ] Internal Circular No. 1990/1, Nov. 22, 1990, on Whistle-Blowing. Law No. 5726 on the Protection of Eye-Witnesses: [ LINK ] Law No. 4857 on Labor, article 93, [ LINK ]
|
||||||||
| 48d: In practice, private sector employees who report cases of corruption, graft, abuse of power, or abuse of resources are protected from recrimination or other negative consequences. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: Reporting corruption is not widespread nor is it kept confidential. Cultural factors and social control, as well as lack of legal protections for whistle-blowers, are major obstacles. References: Bülent Tarhan, Chief Inspector, Prime Ministry, Ankara, September 2008. Turgut Tan, Professor of Administrative Law, Bilkent University, Ankara, September 2008. Atalay Erguven, Chairman of the Association for State Supervision Personnel (DENETDE), September 2008. Perihan Sari, former labor inspector, Ministry of Labor and Social Security, currently Deputy Secretary of Revolutionary Labor Union, September 2008.
|
||||||||
| 49 | Is there an internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption? | |||||||
| 49: In law, is there an internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption? | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: Every public institution also has an internal discipline and inspection mechanism. Either the discipline chief, discipline committee or the inspectors from the relevant ministry or Prime Ministry conduct the investigation upon the request of the relevant authority or byorder of the superior authority. Civil servants generally report such cases to their superiors in a hierarchical manner. According to Law No. 5018 on Public Financial Management and Control, internal auditors can also collect such reports. However, there is no special mechanism to which only corruption cases are reported (see Tahran article in Sources). Three years ago, the government announced the establishment of combat corruption units in every public office, but there was no follow-through (see Yolsuzlukla article in Sources). References: 1982 Constitution, Article 74, [ LINK ] Law No. 3071 Concerning the Use of Right to Petition, [ LINK ] Regulation 2006/10654 Concerning the Working Procedure and Principles of Internal Auditors, Articles 50 and 52, [ LINK ] Law No. 4483 Concerning Trial of Civil Servants and Other Public Servants, [ LINK ] Law No. 5018 on Public Financial Management and Control. [ LINK ] Bülent Tarhan, "Yolsuzlukla Mucadele Alaninda Turkiye Deneyimi ve Kurumsal Yapi Arayislari" (Turkish Experience in Combatting Corruption and Search for Institutional Structure) [ LINK ] and Umut Korkmaz, Kamuda Ic Denetim (Internal Audit in Pubic Sector), www.debud.org/Html/dergi/25/ukorkmaz.pdf Yolsuzlukla mücadele birimi` kuruluyor, [ LINK ]
|
||||||||
| 50 | In practice, is the internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption effective? | |||||||
| 50a: In practice, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption has a professional, full-time staff. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: There is no special mechanism for corruption reporting. Internal auditing is another new mechanism for covering corrupt practices. Auditing and inspection mechanisms in the public sector have been in a state of transition and they either lack sufficient staff or the staff has no real authority. References: Bülent Tarhan, "Yolsuzlukla Mucadele Alaninda Turkiye Deneyimi ve Kurumsal Yapi Arayislari" (Turkish Experience in Combating Corruption and Search for Institutional Structure), [ LINK ] Bulent Tarhan, Chief Inspector, Prime Ministry, September 2008. Atalay Erguven, Chairman of the Association for State Supervision Personnel, September 2008. Kemal Ozsemerci, Chief Auditor, Audit Court, Ankara, September 2008.
|
||||||||
| 50b: In practice, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption receives regular funding. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: There is no direct funding available for internal audit units in public offices. They are allocated money from the budget of the private secretariat of each public office. The process also applies to inspection units that exist inside all public entities, which deal with all undue acts, including corruption, upon the directives of superiors. This is because the government intends to bypass, if not to abolish, these internal inspection, audit and review mechanisms within the public service sector. There should be a proportionality between the funds available and the importance of the units. References: Bülent Tarhan, "Yolsuzlukla Mucadele Alaninda Turkiye Deneyimi ve Kurumsal Yapi Arayislari," [ LINK ] Kidder Açiklamasi Iç Denetim Bütçesi, 2009-2011, [ LINK ] Bulent Tarhan, Chief Inspector, Prime Ministry, September 2008. Atalay Erguven, Chairman of the Association for State Supervision Personnel, September 2008. Kemal Ozsemerci, Chief Auditor, Audit Court, Ankara, September 2008.
|
||||||||
| 50c: In practice, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption acts on complaints within a reasonable time period. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: There is no empirical study to test the effectiveness of the internal auditing, inspection and review mechanisms in Turkey. However, it is assumed that internal audit units act quickly compared to other inspection and review mechanisms, which require the directive of a superior officer in order to take action. In any case, internal audit units only inform the relevant superior. This means resolution of the issue is up to the will and initiative of the superior. References: Bülent Tarhan, "Yolsuzlukla Mucadele Alaninda Turkiye Deneyimi ve Kurumsal Yapi Arayislari" (Turkish Experience in Combating Corruption and Search for Institutional Structure), [ LINK ] Bulent Tarhan, Chief Inspector, Prime Ministry, September 2008. Atalay Erguven, Chairman of the Association for State Supervision Personnel, September 2008. Kemal Ozsemerci, Chief Auditor, Audit Court, Ankara, September 2008.
|
||||||||
| 50d: In practice, when necessary, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption initiates investigations. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: Internal auditors have no authority to investigate but only to report the undue conduct to their superiors. However, internal discipline mechanisms, including inspectors, may initiate investigations upon the request of the relevant authority or the order of the superior. Political circumstances and political will may be influential in this process. Inspection reports may be shelved by the superior. References: Yalcin Bayer, "Bir müfettis raporu ve Bakan Çelik'in tavri" (Report of an inspector and Minister Celik's attitude), [ LINK ] Bülent Tarhan, Yolsuzlukla Mucadele Alaninda Turkiye Deneyimi ve Kurumsal Yapi Arayislari (Turkish Experience in Combatting Corruption and Search for Institutional Structure), [ LINK ] Bulent Tarhan, Chief Inspector, Prime Ministry, September 2008. Atalay Erguven, Chairman of the Association for State Supervision Personnel, September 2008. Kemal Ozsemerci, Chief Auditor, Audit Court, Ankara, September 2008.
|
||||||||
Global Integrity uses a