Events
In a television programme, the applicant talked about the importance of nutrition and the relationship between depression and nutrition, and gave messages that pharmaceutical companies act with commercial concerns and that you cannot be happy with medication, but you can be happy with a healthy diet. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant for these speeches and the applicant was fined by the decision of the Honour Board of the Istanbul Medical Chamber. The High Honour Board of the Turkish Medical Association (TTB) upheld the said decision. The lawsuit filed by the applicant for the cancellation of the said decision was rejected by the administrative court.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his freedom of expression was violated due to a disciplinary fine imposed on him for his medical statements in a television programme.
Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, according to the TMA, the applicant made a medical evaluation on a subject outside his expertise, harmed public health with unscientific statements, made his own advertisement with his statements, and used an unethical method of discussion with physicians who think differently from him on a medical subject. The administrative court, which examined the applicant’s objection to the fine imposed in line with these opinions, did not concretely demonstrate how the applicant’s statements harmed public health in its evaluations.
The requirement to prove one’s expertise in order to express an opinion restricts freedom of expression to the point of rendering it meaningless. Moreover, the applicant is a cardiology and internal medicine specialist, as well as one of Turkey’s well-known academics and scientists in general. In this context, developments in the field of medicine are in the applicant’s field of interest. Moreover, even if it is accepted that the applicant criticised his colleagues in some of his statements and even exaggerated in these statements, it is not the duty of the judicial authorities to step into the shoes of a scientist and determine the form of expression to be used in a certain situation. Moreover, freedom of expression largely aims at securing the freedom of criticism. Therefore, in the context of discussing issues vital to the life of the individual and society, there should be more tolerance for harsh and polemical statements, especially when they are not directed at any particular person. On the other hand, the harshness of expression cannot be accepted as a justification for interference with expressions of expression.
The fact that the applicant, who has written a large number of books and has a great reputation, points to his books in which he makes more technical explanations while trying to justify his views, is regarded as an advertisement means indirectly narrowing the field of freedom of expression by going beyond the aim to be achieved with the ban on advertisements for physicians. Accordingly, narrowing the freedom of expression under various pretexts cannot be accepted as compatible with the Constitution as it would undermine the foundations of a democratic society.
Considering all the circumstances of the application, it is concluded that the interference with the freedom of expression protected by the Constitution by imposing a disciplinary penalty on the applicant does not correspond to an overriding social need, nor is it proportionate.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that the freedom of expression was violated.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking