TC
SUPREME
CRIMINAL CHAMBER
CASE NO: 10893/2016
DECISION NO: 2017/7762
DATE OF DECISION: 10/23/2017
FIND A QUALITY DOG NAME FOR YOU FROM FACEBOOK +9053………. SHARING AND ALSO IN THE FORM OF DESERVING. IF TWO CRIMES ARE COMMITTED IN A SINGLE ACTION, THE MOST NOTORIOUS ONE IS THE ILLEGAL DISCLOSURE OF DATA
IS THE CHARGE.
The decision regarding the defendant’s conviction for unlawfully providing or obtaining data has been appealed by the defendant and the local public prosecutor, and the case file has been reviewed and examined as necessary:
DECISION:
As a result of the trial, the evidence gathered and presented in the decision, the opinion and discretion of the court based on the results of the prosecution, the scope of the case file examined, and the rejection of other objections by the defendant and the local public prosecutor,
However;
Considering the scope of the file and the defendant’s confession, the defendant shared the participant’s personal data, namely their mobile phone number, on Facebook with the post stating, “A quality whore name khadija +9053…………” in this manner, thereby sharing the participant’s personal data, namely their mobile phone number, constitutes the crime of unlawfully possessing data as stipulated in Article 136/1 of the Turkish Criminal Code (TCK) or the crime of insult as stipulated in Article 125/1 of the TCK. The defendant’s multiple acts constitute misconduct under Article 44 of the Turkish Criminal Code, which stipulates that the crime of insult warrants a heavier penalty for unlawfully giving or receiving data. There is no basis for imposing a penalty for the crime of insult. Imposing penalties for both crimes on the defendant results in an excessive penalty, which is contrary to the law.
Furthermore, according to the acceptance and application;
1-) While a 1/6 increase was applied to the defendant pursuant to Article 125/4 of the Turkish Penal Code, resulting in a sentence of 11 months and 20 days, the imposition of an additional penalty on the defendant should have been set at 12 months, as required by law.
2-) Pursuant to Article 53 of the Turkish Commercial Code, the defendant is required to comply with the annulment decision issued based on the Constitutional Court’s decision dated November 24, 2015, numbered 2014/140, published in the Official Gazette dated October 8, 2015.
CONCLUSION:
Since the defendant’s and the local public prosecutor’s appeals requiring reversal are currently upheld, a ruling has been issued pursuant to Article 8 of Law No. 5320. Pursuant to Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, which is currently in force, the request was unanimously rejected on October 23, 2017.