Events
Plaintiff H.P., he has been serving as a deputy of a political party on the history of the event. The plaintiff attended the party’s district congress together with a deputy. The mayor reacted to the participation of deputies from outside the city to the district congress without his knowledge and made a speech by taking the stand. Then the plaintiff took the stand and answered to the provincial president. This polemic that took place at the district congress was included as news in the copies of Kayseri Yeni Haber newspaper (newspaper), a local newspaper, published on various dates, and also the editor-in-chief of the newspaper made various assessments about the incident in his column in the newspaper.
The plaintiff has filed a non-pecuniary damages claim against the newspaper in the Civil Court of First Instance (Court) for allegedly attacking the rights of personality due to the allegations expressed in the mentioned news and columns. The court decided that with the partial acceptance of the case, the applicant should pay a non-pecuniary compensation of TL 2,000. Upon the applicant’s application for appeal, the district court of justice decided to reject the application for appeal on the basis of the exact amount of the amount.
Count
The applicant alleged that his freedoms of expression and the press were violated by the provision of compensation against him due to the news he had made about a politician.
Evaluation of the Court
In the concrete case, the plaintiff declared that he did not use the statements allegedly made by him in the news and articles, and as a matter of fact, the court decided to accept the case by finding the plaintiff justified. The court based its justification on the expert examination conducted on the CD on which the conversation was recorded and concluded that the news and articles were not true.
It seems that the allegations put forward by the newspaper in the concrete incident were confirmed by the provincial head of the party, who was a party to the polemic and was at the congress at the time of the incident. It is also understood that signatures have been collected by the party members for the initiation of internal disciplinary proceedings due to the alleged words said about the plaintiff. In addition, journalists cannot be expected to prove the accuracy of the claims made by an independent investigation before reporting.
The applicant should also not ignore the fact that the newspaper contains statements sent by the plaintiff to the newspaper on the subject. At the moment, it has been seen that the newspaper has presented to the reader the statements of the plaintiff who denies the allegations together with the allegations made by the provincial president and the other party members at the meeting based on the aforementioned allegations. Considering all these issues together, it should be accepted that the newspaper acts within the scope of its duty and responsibility and that there is not enough evidence that it intentionally deconstructs the facts.
A congressman’s district, the provincial president of the party at the party congress made certain promises to the public by showing the source of the claims that had to be transferred to the protection of honour and reputation of the open and free debate on matters of public interest on the grounds of prevention will result in enforcement, the press will be a serious obstacle to contribute for the discussion of matters of public interest.
The court sentenced the applicant to pay compensation for the news made without adequately discussing the content of the news, the support of the claims expressed in the news with a witness statement, the fact that the applicant had published the plaintiff’s statements, and there was insufficient evidence that the applicant had acted in bad faith. The court of first instance has not established a fair balance between the protection of the freedoms of expression and the press and the protection of the right to dignity and decency. For this reason, the reasons put forward by the court regarding the applicant’s decision to pay compensation cannot be considered relevant and sufficient for the interference with the applicant’s rights to freedom of expression and the press.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the freedoms of expression and the press have been violated on the grounds described.
You can read our other articles and petition examples by clicking here