4th Criminal Chamber, 2013/1460 E., 2014/9900 K.
“Jurisprudence Text”
Communiqué No: 2 – 2011/236560
COURT: Ankara 10th Criminal Court of Peace
DATE: 26/04/2011
NUMBERS: 2009/468 (E) and 2011/490 (K)
OFFENSE: Insult
The judgment rendered by the Local Court was appealed. The case was reviewed based on the duration of the appeal, the nature of the decision, and the date of the offense.
Since there were no grounds for rejecting the appeal, the merits of the case were considered.
A review of the minutes, documents, and reasoning reflecting the hearing process where the conscientious objection was formed revealed no other grounds.
However,
1- The defendant, angry that the complainant, who owed him money, had called him from out of town after stalling him for a while, promising to pay his debt, and that the complainant had not been present at the meeting place and time, recorded a message on his cell phone, saying, “Don’t twist like a dancer, just pay your debt.” The message constituted harsh criticism in response to the complainant’s stalling and did not constitute the crime of insult. Therefore, the conviction was rendered on unlawful grounds, without considering that it constituted a harsh criticism uttered in response to the complainant’s delay and did not constitute the crime of insult.
2- According to the acceptance:
a) The defendant’s defense that, despite coming from out of town to meet with the complainant who owed him money, the complainant neither showed up at the meeting place nor paid the debt, should not be discussed, focusing on the defense and not discussing whether Article 129 of the Turkish Penal Code should be applied.
b) Given that the defendant has no criminal record, no concrete material damage to be compensated for the crime of insult, and that moral damage does not preclude the application of the deferment of the verdict, Article 231/6 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be considered. It was unanimously decided on March 31, 2014, that the conditions in the article be examined and that no decision be made to postpone the announcement of the verdict. It was deemed unlawful and that the defendant M.. O..’s grounds for appeal were found to be valid, and that the approval consideration in the notification be rejected and the case be REVERSED. The case be sent to the main/sentencing court for further proceedings, starting from the pre-reversal stage, and for the case to be concluded.