Events
The applicant, who is a politician, used negative statements about the minister of foreign affairs who was in office at the time when he criticized the Government in a speech he made at an iftar dinner organized by the political party organization of which he is a member.
Minister A.D. (plaintiff) has filed a claim for non-pecuniary damages of TL 10,000 in the First Instance Civil Court (Court) alleging that the applicant’s personal rights were attacked in the aforementioned speech. With the partial acceptance of the case, the court decided that the applicant should pay the plaintiff a compensation of TL 2,000. In the court’s justification, it was stated that the expressions used exceeded the limits of criticism, that political criticism, like any criticism, should be made without exceeding the limit of criticism and without turning to personal rights, and that the statements in question were insulting. The appealed decision was upheld and finalized by the Supreme Court.
Count
The applicant claimed that his freedom of expression had been violated by the provision of compensation against him for the words he had said against the minister of foreign affairs during a speech.
Evaluation of the Court
In the concrete case, it is seen that the Court evaluates the mentioned expression used during the speech in a separate way from the whole speech by quoting it. However, the courts of cassation should evaluate the statements used in deciding whether a restriction is incompatible with freedom of expression in the totality of the incident without breaking it out of context.
It should also not be overlooked that the speech in question was addressed to a limited number of people by a politician belonging to the opposition party during a dinner party with invited guests belonging to his party. The applicant aims to gain an advantage in the political arena by targeting the ruling party and the plaintiff, who is a member of the ruling party, and at the same time to motivate people in the party organization. At this point, it should be recognized that the words used by politicians against each other are clearly part of their political style of creating polemics, creating violent reactions, and consolidating their supporters.
However, it should also be noted that it is possible to express out loud the disturbances that occur on issues that concern the entire society and are not in doubt that they contribute to a public discussion only in democratic regimes where thoughts can be explained without encountering any obstacles.
It is clear that freedom of expression is especially valuable for elected persons who represent their constituents, convey their demands, concerns and thoughts to the political sphere and defend their interests. Therefore, if the intervention is aimed at the freedom of expression of a politician and, in particular, a member of the opposition party, the applications must be subjected to a much stricter audit. In addition, the acceptable limits of criticism are wider compared to an ordinary person, since the current application is passed between politicians who act as people who have cost the public the events that have been the subject of the application. dec For this reason, the plaintiff should show more tolerance for criticism directed at him than ordinary people.
The court did not try to strike a balance between the applicant’s freedom of expression and the plaintiff’s right to the protection of honor and decency. The reasons put forward by the court regarding the applicant’s decision to pay compensation cannot be considered as a relevant and sufficient justification for the applicant’s interference with freedom of expression. It has been concluded that the conviction of the applicant for compensation does not correspond to a mandatory social need.
The Constitutional Court has decided that freedom of expression has been violated on the grounds described.
You can read our other articles and petition examples by clicking here