T.C.
SUPREME
4.law office
E. 2017/2801
K. 2017/4714
T. 18.9.2017
* The DECISION to Withdraw the Disclosure of the Verdict IS NOT BINDING ON THE LEGAL JUDGE (Moral Compensation Based on an Act of Defamation – The Decision of the HAGB Issued by the Criminal Court Is Not a Final Conviction, As Well as the TBK. Md. 74 In the Sense that There is No Binding from the Point of View of a Judge of Law, So It is Necessary to Decide on the Dismissal of the Case from the Point of View of the Defendant )
* MORAL COMPENSATION BASED ON THE ACT OF DEFAMATION (In Criminal Proceedings, the Defendant is Sentenced to 2 Months and 27 Days in Prison and the HAGB is Decided / The HAGB Decision of the Criminal Court is Not a Final Conviction, As Well as the TBK. Md. 74 In the Sense that It is Not Binding from the Point of View of a Legal Judge )
6098/m.74
5271/m.231/5
SUMMARY : The case concerns the claim for non-pecuniary damages based on defamatory acts. The court decided to accept the case on the grounds that it was an attack on the plaintiff’s personal rights. The defendant was tried on the grounds that he had committed a crime of defamation against the plaintiff and was sentenced to 2 months and 27 days in prison, and it was decided to release the disclosure of the verdict, this decision was finalized without objection.CMK’s 231/5. in accordance with the article; “The withdrawal of the disclosure of the provision means that the established provision does not have any legal consequences for the defendant.” The decision of the criminal court, which resulted in the revocation of the disclosure of the verdict, is not a final conviction, nor is it a 74th anniversary of the TBK. in the sense of its article, it is not binding on the legal judge. It is necessary to decide on the dismissal of the case from the defendant’s side, taking into account the facts described above by the court.
CASE: At the end of the trial conducted by the court on the request for moral compensation granted by the plaintiff’s deputy on 27/05/2014 against the defendants; the Supreme Court’s review of the decision issued on the acceptance of the case on 05/03/2015 was requested by the defendants’ deputy within the period, after the acceptance of the appeal petition was decided, the report prepared by the examining judge and the papers in the file were examined and discussed as necessary:
DECISION : 1-) From the point of view of the defendant’s appeals;
According to the articles in the dossier, the evidence on which the decision is based, the reasons that are in accordance with the law, in particular, there is no inaccuracy in evaluating the evidence, appeals that are not in the defendant’s place should be rejected.
2-) From the point of view of the appeals of the other defendant;
The case concerns the claim for non-pecuniary damages based on defamatory acts. The court decided to accept the case, and the decision was appealed by the defendants.
Plaintiff, defendant S. on the date of the incident K.claiming that his personal rights were violated due to an insult to him in the garden of the compensation house, he asked for non-pecuniary compensation.
The defendant has defended the dismissal of the case.
The court decided to accept the case on the grounds that it was an attack on the plaintiff’s personal rights.
Due to the incident under consideration, the defendant was tried on the grounds that he had committed a crime of defamation against the plaintiff, and he was sentenced to 2 months and 27 days in prison, and it was decided to release the explanation of the verdict, this decision was finalized without appeal.
CMK’s 231/5. in accordance with article; “The withdrawal of the disclosure of the provision means that the established provision does not have any legal consequences for the defendant.” The decision of the criminal court, which resulted in the revocation of the disclosure of the verdict, is not a final conviction, nor is it a 74th anniversary of the TBK. in the sense of its article, it is not binding on the legal judge.
During the examination of the criminal file, it was decided to punish the defendant with general statements without discussing which statements constitute a crime of defamation by the criminal court, which witness statements are considered superior to the defendant’s favor and against him, and why the witness statement is respected. After the incident, it is understood that the presence of the defendant’s insulting words and behavior towards the plaintiff was not subsidized when the first witness statements taken in the heat of the prosecution investigation and the witness statements heard during the trial were evaluated together. In accordance with the above-mentioned provision of the law, the conviction provision, the disclosure of which is left undisclosed, is also not binding on the legal judge.
In this case, while the court should have decided to dismiss the case from the defendant’s side by taking into account the facts described above, it was not correct that the defendant was held liable for non-pecuniary damages with the provision facility in writing and the decision had to be overturned for this reason.
CONCLUSION: It was decided unanimously on 18.09.2017 that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED for the benefit of the defendant for the reasons shown in paragraph (2) above, the defendant’s appeals should be rejected for the reasons shown in the first paragraph, and the defendant’s fee should be refunded if requested in advance.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.