Events
The Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTÜK) initiated an investigation into a programme broadcast on a television channel owned by the applicant and broadcasting under the Meltem TV logo, and a report was prepared as a result of the investigation. In line with the aforementioned report, it was decided to impose a warning sanction and an administrative fine on the applicant. The applicant filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of the administrative action; the administrative court rejected the lawsuit. The Council of State, which examined the applicant’s appeal request, upheld the decision.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that the imposition of a warning sanction for a programme broadcast on the television channel he owns for encouraging behaviour that harms public health and the imposition of an administrative fine for making secret commercial communication in the same programme violated his freedom of expression.
The Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, the applicant was sanctioned with a warning by RTÜK for various statements made by Dr. M.E. in a television programme on the treatment of diseases with herbal products. According to RTÜK, the said doctor’s remarks targeting science, medicine and medical doctors are likely to damage the public’s trust in doctors and hospitals. These remarks also have the potential to distract people away from real treatment methods and have a negative impact on public health. On the other hand, RTÜK considered the inclusion of hotline numbers for questions at the bottom of the screen, even though no product name was used in the programme, as confidential commercial communication and decided to impose an administrative fine on the applicant in addition to the warning sanction.
The doctor in the programme identified doctors who recommended generally accepted treatment methods with the mentality that was fought against in Çanakkale, and used a language that portrayed doctors as enemies. In the programme, there is a crude, populist, hostile, populist, hostile, and crude hamas discourse that has the capacity to mislead the audience on health-related issues, which is far from objectivity, and which should be avoided even more when it comes to public health. Therefore, it is difficult to say that such a discourse is a scientific and objective transfer of information and that it contributes to a discussion in the field of medicine. In the light of these assessments, it cannot be said that the imposition of a penalty by the competent authorities on the applicant who published a publication within the above-mentioned framework does not correspond to a compelling social need and is contrary to the requirements of the democratic social order. Moreover, the applicant was given a warning, which is a relatively light penalty, on the grounds that he encouraged behaviours that would harm public health. Accordingly, it is concluded that the said penalty is not disproportionate.
At the point of evaluation of the administrative fine imposed on the applicant due to confidential commercial communication, the doctor carried the subject of treatment of diseases with herbal products on the screen with the participation of the studio guests; from time to time, he made telephone connections. The participants who connected to the programme by phone stated that they found a solution to their diseases that they could not find a medical solution thanks to the doctor’s treatment methods and that they now lead a much healthier life. The programme also included hotline numbers for questions at the bottom of the screen. The Constitutional Court has previously examined and decided on a similar issue regarding the provision of contact information in a health-related programme (İlker Erdoğan B. No: 2013/316, 20/4/2016). In the concrete case, there is no reason to depart from this judgement. Accordingly, the conclusion of the courts of first instance that the programme in question was an advertisement is not arbitrary and unfounded.
The Constitutional Court decided that the freedom of expression was not violated for the reasons explained.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking