Objection to Performance Evaluation Score and Legal Remedies

The performance evaluation score is an assessment made by the administration regarding the level of fulfillment of job requirements, work discipline, professional competence, productivity, and work behaviors of public personnel. However, Law No. 657 does not establish a uniform and general "performance grade" system for all civil servants. Depending on the nature of the service, institutions may conduct performance evaluations within the framework of special laws, regulations, internal institutional arrangements, or service requirements.

Therefore, the first issue that must be investigated when objecting to a performance score is as follows:

Under which regulation or special arrangement, for which personnel group, and by which institution was the evaluation conducted?

For instance, evaluation criteria, objection periods, evaluation authorities, and outcomes may differ regarding the police department, foreign service, tax audit units, teaching, or other special personnel regimes.

Nevertheless, the common legal principle remains unchanged: While performance evaluation falls within the discretionary scope of the administration, it is not an unlimited act exempt from judicial review. The scoring must;

be conducted by the authorized evaluating supervisor,

be based on current regulations,

comply with pre-determined criteria,

be supported by concrete observations, records, and documents,

must not be based on personal animosity, arbitrariness, or abstract opinions,

must bear verifiable justification if it worsens the legal status of the affected personnel.

If performance scores affect job status in assignments, relocations, promotions, career advancements, awards, training, professional development, or specific personnel regimes, they may acquire the character of a definitive and executory administrative act that causes a violation of interest. In such cases, administrative appeals and annulment lawsuits come into question.

---

APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Subject	Legal Basis and Significance
Establishment of performance criteria by institutions	Civil Servants Law No. 657, Article 122
Distinction between disciplinary provisions and performance	System under Articles 124 and 125 of Law No. 657
Annulment action	Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, Article 2/1-a
General administrative lawsuit period	Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, Article 7
Administrative application	Article 11 of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK)
Stay of execution	Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK)
Right of judicial recourse against all kinds of acts and actions of the administration	Article 125 of the Constitution
Obligation to indicate legal remedies and time limits	Article 40 of the Constitution

Article 122 of Law No. 657 acknowledges that public institutions may establish evaluation criteria to measure the success, efficiency, and diligence of their civil servants, taking into account the service characteristics of the institutions. However, this authority does not grant institutions a completely discretionary and unmonitored scoring domain.

The administration is obliged to exercise its discretionary power in accordance with the public interest and the requirements of the service. While administrative courts do not conduct a review of expediency, they review the legality of the administrative act in terms of its elements: authority, form, cause, subject matter, and objective.

---

PROCEDURAL LAW ANALYSIS

1. Internal Institutional Objection Route

The special regulation or internal institutional regulation governing the performance evaluation system frequently includes a separate appeal authority and time limit. Time limits vary from one institution to another.

Examples observed in the research are as follows:

Regulation	Deadline and Authority for Appeal
General Directorate of Security In-House Individual Performance Evaluation Regulation	Application to the unit responsible for personnel affairs until the date determined according to the regulation period
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Performance Evaluation Regulation	Review by the Appeal Evaluation Board
Tax Inspection Board Performance Evaluation System Regulation	Appeal to the Presidency within one month from the announcement of the result
Regulations on candidacy performance evaluation in teaching	Appeal to the provincial national education Directorate within five business days from service

For this reason, upon learning of the scoring result, the public servant must access not only the score but also the regulation forming the basis of the evaluation, the service document, the in-house appeal period, and the board decision, if any.

In-house appeals may constitute a mandatory preliminary application under certain regimes, whereas in others, they serve as an administrative review path that does not eliminate the direct right to file a lawsuit. A definitive assessment should not be made without reviewing the specific regulation.

2. Annulment Action

If a performance score directly and currently affects the legal status of a public official, an annulment action may be filed against the score in the administrative court.

Pursuant to Article 2/1-a of the İYUK, any person whose interest is violated may file an annulment action on the grounds that the administrative act is unlawful in terms of authority, form, reason, subject matter, or objective.

Pursuant to Article 7 of the İYUK, the general statute of limitations for filing an action is 60 days starting from the day following the written notification. However, if a different limitation period is provided in a special law or regulation, that period shall apply primarily.

3. Administrative Application Pursuant to Article 11 of the İYUK

Before filing a lawsuit and within the limitation period for filing a lawsuit, a public official may apply to the superior authority—or to the authority that enacted the act, if no superior authority exists—with a request for the withdrawal, modification, or re-evaluation of the act.

Pursuant to Article 11 of the İYUK:

The application suspends the ongoing limitation period for filing a lawsuit.

Failure of the administration to respond within 30 days shall mean that the request has been rejected.

Following an explicit or implied rejection, the remaining limitation period for filing a lawsuit shall resume, taking into account the time elapsed prior to the application.

Since any error in the calculation of limitation periods may lead to a loss of rights, the date of service and the date of the administrative application must be thoroughly documented.

4. Stay of Execution

If a low performance score entails immediate and severe consequences regarding promotion, assignment, upward career mobility, career progression, or the personnel's scope of duty, a stay of execution may also be requested within the annulment lawsuit.

Pursuant to Article 27 of the İYUK, two conditions must be met cumulatively:

The administrative act being clearly unlawful,

The execution of the act causing damages that are difficult or impossible to compensate.

Merely claiming that "the score was given as low" is generally insufficient. The specific concrete consequences resulting from the low score, such as the loss of promotion opportunities, upward career mobility inability to take the examination, reassignment of duty, or career loss, must be documented.

5. Competent and Authorized Court

The competent judiciary branch for an annulment lawsuit to be filed against a performance evaluation score is the administrative judiciary. As a rule, the competent court is the administrative court.

The authorized court is determined by taking into consideration the location of the administrative authority that enacted the act and the special jurisdiction provisions regarding personnel disputes. Therefore, the authority that enacted the administrative act, the place of duty, and the content of the notification must be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Mandatory mediation does not apply to administrative lawsuits to be filed with the request for the annulment of a performance score.

---

CRITERIA SOUGHT FOR THE LEGALITY OF THE PERFORMANCE SCORE

Element of Authority

The evaluation must be conducted by the evaluating supervisor or board authorized by law or regulation. A score given by an unauthorized person, or an evaluation formed under the influence of a person who lacks the authority to participate in the evaluation process even if they appear authorized de jure, may give rise to a dispute of unlawfulness.

Element of Form

It is important that the form is duly executed, the evaluation period is correctly determined, performance observation and follow-up records are kept if necessary, the score is duly notified, and explanations regarding the right of appeal are provided.

Element of Cause

A low score must be supported by concrete actions, behaviors, performance outputs, observations, and records of the personnel during the duty period. Abstract opinions, personal evaluations, or information of a hearsay nature do not constitute a sufficient cause on their own.

Element of Subject Matter

The score given must establish a reasonable relationship between the evaluation scale, criteria, and the concrete situation of the personnel. Relying on events that did not occur during the evaluation period, records belonging to another period, or issues not connected to the score may give rise to allegations of unlawfulness.

Element of Purpose

The purpose of performance evaluation is the efficient and orderly execution of public service. Giving a score for the purpose of punishing or intimidating the personnel, implementing discriminatory practices, or using personal disputes as a management tool raises the allegation that discretionary power has been exercised for purposes other than the public interest.

---

PRECEDENT CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Binding Effect of Case Law

Council of State chamber decisions do not carry general and abstract binding force like statutory provisions. Nevertheless, they serve as a strong guide in terms of demonstrating the review criteria adopted by the Council of State in proceedings concerning the performance evaluation of public personnel.

The following decisions specifically pertain to the performance evaluation system within the police organization. However, the principles they contain should also be carefully considered in other public personnel regimes with respect to the reliance of scoring on concrete data, the importance of evaluation records, and the limits of the administration's discretionary power.

Ruling	Incident	Conclusion	Principle to be Applied in the Document
Council of State 2nd Chamber, E. 2021/1208, K. 2022/2967, T. 25.05.2022	Reddetermination of a low performance score for a police officer following the previous annulment decision	In favor of the public official	The administration must act in accordance with the reasoning of the previous annulment decision and justify the low score with concrete, repeated facts connected to the evaluation period.
Council of State, 2nd Chamber, E. 2021/1967, K. 2022/2941, D. 25.05.2022	Determination of the security superintendent's performance score as 2.61	Against the public official	If disciplinary investigations and performance records are connected to the evaluation period, comprehensive, and sufficient, a low score may be found lawful.
Council of State, 2nd Chamber, E. 2021/2046, K. 2022/4530, D. 27.09.2022	The commissary's objection to the performance evaluation score of 3.64	Against the public official	The claim that personnel should have received a higher score must also be supported by concrete information and documents; mere subjective dissatisfaction regarding standard scores on the evaluation form is insufficient for a lawsuit.

1. Council of State, 2nd Chamber, E. 2021/1208, K. 2022/2967, D. 25.05.2022 — In Favor of the Public Official

The decision concerns the re-evaluation conducted by the administration following a previously annulled performance score. The performance score determined for the police officer for the year 2012 was subject to judicial review in the initial evaluation; the administration determined a new score after the annulment decision.

The Council of State (Danıştay) evaluated that the administration must observe the reasoning of the previous annulment decision, and that the scores lowered against the personnel were not explained by concrete, recurring behaviors connected to the evaluation period. Consequently, the annulment decision rendered in favor of the public official was upheld.

The significant consequence of this decision is as follows:

When re-performing the performance evaluation annulled by the court, the administration cannot establish a new transaction that renders the reasoning of the previous judicial decision ineffective or repeats the same flaw.

This precedent is significant in cases where the reason for giving a low performance score is substantiated; where, despite the previous annulment decision, abstract evaluations of the same nature are repeated; or where the evaluating supervisor gives scores inconsistent with the records.

2. Council of State, 2nd Chamber, E. 2021/1967, K. 2022/2941, D. 25.05.2022 — Against the Public Official

In this decision, a low performance score of 2.61 was given to a chief of police. Although the court of first instance annulled the transaction, the Council of State evaluated the performance evaluation system, scoring scales, performance observation and tracking records, and disciplinary investigations together.

The Council of State concluded that the negative behaviors occurring within the evaluation period and affecting the personnel's job performance were supported by concrete information and documents, and found the low score lawful, thereby reversing the decision in favor of the administration.

The boundary established by the decision is as follows:

In order to successfully file a lawsuit against a low performance score, it should not merely be claimed that the score is unfair; rather, the untruthfulness, lack of periodicity, irrelevance, irregularity, or insufficiency of the records relied upon for the evaluation must be demonstrated in a concrete manner.

This decision indicates that not every low score given by the administration will be deemed unlawful. In cases where the administration is able to establish a coherent link between the evaluation criteria and concrete records, judicial authorities may not interfere with the discretionary power.

3. Council of State, 2nd Chamber, E. 2021/2046, K. 2022/4530, D. 27.09.2022 — Against the Public Official

The decision examined the determination of the 2014 performance score of a commissary serving in the police organization as 3.64. The Council of State emphasized the importance of having concrete records in the performance observation and tracking form, particularly for the lowest and highest scores in the scoring system.

However, in the specific case, it has been evaluated that these exceptional scoring levels were not utilized, and the personnel failed to substantiate their claim that they deserved a higher score with concrete documentation. Accordingly, the administrative act was found to be lawful.

The practical significance of this decision is as follows:

If low or very high scores have been given, registration and observation records carry greater importance.

The personnel's objection to the scores on the evaluation form must be established on a criteria-by-criteria basis.

Abstract claims such as “I was more successful” or “the supervisor had issues with me” are not sufficient.

Task success certificates, written commendations, performance outputs, records indicating the absence of disciplinary penalties, and comparable objective data must be submitted.

---

EVIDENCE EVALUATION AND CORRELATION

In an action for annulment or an objection regarding a performance evaluation score, the plaintiff must substantiate their claim of success and the unlawfulness in the scoring on a documentary basis.

Suggested Addition	Document	Purpose of proof
ANNEX-1	Performance evaluation form	To indicate the given scores, evaluation criteria, and evaluating supervisors
ANNEX-2	Document regarding the notification or awareness of the score	To prove the commencement of the objection and litigation period
ANNEX-3	The institution's performance evaluation regulation	To determine the procedure, scoring system, authority, and review body
ANNEX-4	Performance observation and tracking form	To examine the concrete records cited as the basis for low or high scores
ANNEX-5	Job description, work plan, and target documents	To determine what duties are expected of the personnel
ANNEX-6	Achievement certificates, commendations, awards, and letters of appreciation	To demonstrate the positive performance of the personnel
ANNEX-7	Disciplinary investigation file and its outcomes	To examine the outcomes of the events cited by the administration as the basis for negative scores
ANNEX-8	Defenses, written orders, and assignment letters	To establish whether the personnel have fulfilled their duties
ANNEX-9	In-house training, certificate, and professional development documents	To demonstrate professional competence and development data
ANNEX-10	Internal appeal petition and response letter	Demonstrating that the administrative application remedy has been exhausted and stating the administration's rationale
ANNEX-11	E-mails, EBYS (Electronic Document Management System) correspondence, and duty reports	Substantiating the timing and content of the events forming the basis of the scoring
ANNEX-12	Statements of witnesses or colleagues	Making evaluations in exceptional circumstances where documentary evidence must be supported

For the plaintiff, each evaluation criterion must be addressed individually. For instance, if there are headings on the form such as “communication”, “commitment to duty”, “work quality”, “efficiency” or “discipline”, it must be demonstrated through assignment documents and chronological records why the score given for each heading is contrary to the facts.

---

OPPOSING PARTY'S PROBABLE DEFENSE

“Performance Score Falls Within the Discretionary Power of the Administration.”

The administration frequently puts forward this defense. This defense is correct to a certain extent. The court does not reassess the performance evaluation to assign its own score; it cannot conduct a review of expediency.

However, discretionary power is not unlimited. The plaintiff's argument should not be framed as “the court should award a higher score”, but rather that the score is unlawful in terms of authority, form, reason, subject matter, and objective.

“The Low Score is Based on Disciplinary Investigations and Observation Records.”

This defense was accepted in the ruling of the Council of State (Danıştay) 2nd Chamber, Case No. 2021/1967, Decision No. 2022/2941. Disciplinary files and concrete negative behaviors during the evaluation period may constitute the basis for a low score.

As a counter-argument, the following matters must be investigated:

whether the disciplinary investigation has been finalized,

whether the act occurred during the evaluation period,

whether the same incident was disproportionately used for both the disciplinary penalty and the performance score,

whether there is a decision of acquittal, no grounds for punishment, or no disciplinary penalty resulting from the investigation,

whether a direct connection has been established between the events and the scored criteria.

“The Personnel Has Failed to Prove That They Should Have Received a Higher Score.”

This defense is also set forth in the decision of the Council of State, 2nd Chamber, E. 2021/2046, K. 2022/4530. Therefore, the public official's objection must not be based solely on personal opinion.

The counter-argument must be established based on criteria: Task success certificates, written commendations, mission reports, records demonstrating the fulfillment of objectives, investigation results, and contradictions in the evaluation form must be presented systematically.

“The Low Score Is the Product of Concrete Behaviors and Institutional Records.”

Against this defense, the following must be investigated: whether the records reflect the truth, whether the records belong to the evaluation period, whether the records were presented to the personnel for defense, and whether there is proportionality between the scoring scale and the severity of the incident.

---

JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE

The fundamental questions that the administrative court is expected to focus on when reviewing the performance evaluation act are as follows:

1. Was the evaluation conducted by the authorized supervisor or board?

2. Does the action comply with the applicable regulation and evaluation form?

3. Has the period serving as the basis for scoring been clearly determined?

4. Are the criteria resulting in low scores supported by concrete observations, events, and documents?

5. In a system where performance observation and tracking forms are required to be kept, are these records available?

6. Has the administration utilized events that do not belong to the evaluation period or are irrelevant?

7. Have the personnel's positive achievement certificates, service reports, or defenses been evaluated?

8. Is the action of such a nature as to raise suspicion of personal animosity or non-disciplinary motives?

9. If the score affects the personnel's promotion, appointment, or career, have these consequences been taken into account?

10. Are the remedy, authority, and time limits for objection clearly stated in the notification?

The strongest approach to convincing the court is to focus not merely on the lowness of the score, but on which specific criterion and due to which concrete deficiency the low score is unlawful.

---

LITIGATION STRATEGY

The legal roadmap should generally be established in the following order:

1. Determine the basis of the score: The evaluation form, regulations, supervisor's opinion, and observation records must be obtained.

2. Secure the deadline: The date of notification or awareness must be established in writing; internal administrative appeals and the 60-day litigation period must be calculated together.

3. File the internal administrative appeal on a criteria basis: The reasons why each low score is erroneous must be explained with concrete service documents.

4. Examine the five elements of the administrative act: Allegations of illegality regarding authority, form, cause, subject matter, and objective must be segregated.

5. Evaluate disciplinary records separately: The outcome of disciplinary investigations relied upon by the administration for the performance score and their relationship to the evaluation period must be investigated.

6. Consider a stay of execution if concrete harm arises: Promotion, assignment, or upward career mobility losses must be documented.

7. Properly formulate the subject of the lawsuit: What is requested from the court is not the direct assignment of a specific score, but rather the annulment of the unlawful performance evaluation procedure and that the administration conducts a re-evaluation in compliance with the reasoning of the judicial decision.

Consequently, legal protection against a performance evaluation score is available; however, a successful objection or annulment action stems not from the claim that “the score was given too low”, but from a systematic file demonstrating the unlawfulness of the evaluation procedure in terms of concrete records, objective criteria, procedure, authority, and reasoning.

---

About Us – Contact Information

Atty. Batın YILMAZ

Bar Association Information:

• Istanbul Bar Association No. 1: 77008
• Union of Turkish Bar Associations: 187392

Address:
Yakuplu Mahallesi, Hürriyet Bulvarı Skyport Residence Kat:12 No:133
Beylikdüzü, İstanbul

Contact:
📞 Telephone: 0 532 669 34 90
📞 Alternative Phone: 0 532 732 34 90