Events
The Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTÜK) initiated an investigation into the program broadcast on a television channel owned by the applicant and broadcast with the Meltem TV logo, and a report was prepared as a result of the investigation. In accordance with the said report, it was decided to impose a warning sanction and an administrative fine on the applicant. The applicant filed a lawsuit for the annulment of the administrative procedure and the administrative court dismissed the case. Council of State, which examined the applicant’s appeal request, upheld the decision.
The Allegations
Applicant claimed that the imposition of a warning sanction on a program broadcast on a television channel owned by him for encouraging behavior harmful to public health and the imposition of an administrative fine for making secret commercial communications on the same program violated freedom of expression.
The Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, the applicant, Dr. ME was punished with a warning sanction by RTÜK due to various statements he made about the treatment of diseases with herbal products on a television program. According to RTÜK, the words of the doctor in question targeting science, medicine and medical doctors were of a nature that would damage the public’s trust in doctors and hospitals. These explanations also have the potential to distract people from real methods of treatment and negatively affect public health. On the other hand, RTUK considered the inclusion of the information line numbers for questions at the bottom of the screen as confidential commercial communication, despite the fact that the product name was not used in the program, and decided to impose an additional administrative fine on the Oct. Warning sanction.
The doctor who took part in the program identified doctors who recommended generally accepted treatment methods with the mentality that was being fought in Çanakkale and used language that made doctors look like enemies. There is a rude, populist, hostile, populist and hostile discourse in the program that has the capacity to mislead the audience on health-related issues, is far from objectivity, and should be avoided even more when the subject is public health.
Therefore, it is difficult to say that such a discourse is a scientific and objective transfer of information and contributes to the discussion in the field of medicine. In the light of these evaluations, it cannot be said that the punishment given by the competent authorities to the applicant who published within the framework of the above-mentioned framework does not correspond to a compelling social need and is contrary to the requirements of the democratic social order. In addition, the applicant was given a warning sentence, which is a relatively light penalty, on the grounds that he encouraged behavior that would harm public health. Accordingly, it has been concluded that the punishment in question is not disproportionate.
At the point of evaluating the administrative fine imposed on the applicant due to confidential commercial communication, the doctor brought the topic of treating diseases with herbal products to the screen with the participation of studio guests. From time to time he was making phone calls. The participants who connected to the program by phone stated that they had found a solution to their diseases that they could not find a medical solution for thanks to the doctor’s treatment methods and that they were now living a much healthier life.
Program also included helpline numbers for questions at the bottom of the screen. The Constitutional Court had previously decided by examining a similar issue related to the provision of contact information in a health-related program (Ilker Erdogan B. No: 2013/316, 20/4/2016). In the concrete case, there is no reason to abandon this decision. Accordingly, the opinion of the courts of first instance that there is advertising in the program in question is not arbitrary and unfounded.
For the reasons explained, the Constitutional Court decided that the freedom of expression had not been violated.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.