Events
The applicant, who is a lawyer, was sentenced to an administrative fine for the posts he made on his account on the social media platform Twitter. The applicant’s objection to the administrative fine was rejected by the criminal court of peace. The applicant objected to the decision of the judge; this objection was also rejected on the grounds that there was no procedural or legal violation in the decision.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his freedom of expression was violated due to the imposition of an administrative fine on the grounds that he made a social media post that could cause violence in sports.
Court’s Assessment
In order to determine whether the imposition of an administrative fine for the applicant’s social media post fulfils a compelling social need and whether it is proportionate, the content of the post, the medium in which it was made, its impact and its consequences must be assessed. In the concrete case, the applicant made some allegations regarding the football match-fixing case in his social media post. As such, it was observed that the applicant shared his personal opinions on social media about a subject that concerns the society, attracts the attention of football fans and has been discussed for a long time.
However, while evaluating the applicant’s statement, it should be taken into consideration that the applicant was in a state of excitement, passion and devotion arising from his belonging to the supporters. The applicant stated that the expression “the fight will be won with a total struggle” should not be understood as a statement that the struggle for rights should be fought by resorting to physical violence, but as a statement of the belief that the injustice done to Fenerbahçe can be eliminated by putting forward the common will of all Fenerbahçe fans.
On the other hand, the existence of a determination or fact that the fans took to the streets after the applicant’s post, that violent actions occurred, that it caused an environment that could jeopardise the security and order of sports competitions has not been demonstrated by the public authorities. The decisions of the relevant authorities also did not include a determination that the applicant’s statements had a content that could offend the fans, officials and managers of other football teams or cause hostile feelings in these persons.
It should also be taken into consideration that the social media sharing platform in question is an area where instant feelings and thoughts are put into words, where these are quickly circulated and intensively used, and that it loses its currency and becomes outdated in a short period of time. In addition, the fact that the number of followers of the social media account where the applicant made the post is not very high limits the objective effect of the statement on a wide audience. As such, the impact of the expression of opinion subject to the penalty was limited under the circumstances of the concrete case.
Considering the fact that the applicant is a Fenerbahçe supporter, has been a manager in supporters’ associations and that the interference with the freedom of expression is carried out through a criminal sanction, it is clear that being penalised with an administrative fine for a social media post will have a deterrent effect on the applicant’s later expression of his views in the discussions on the match-fixing case.
There is no relevant and sufficient justification that the imposition of an administrative fine on the applicant in relation to the social media post fulfils a compelling social need. The interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression is not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Therefore, this interference does not comply with the requirements of democratic society.
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