Supreme Court 4th Chamber, E. 2017/907 K. 2019/6261 T. 24.12.2019
Supreme Court Presidency – 4th Civil
Chamber
File No: 2017/907 Decision No: 2019/6261
Date of decision: 24.12.2019
Moral damage • Moral damage • Violation of personal rights • Conclusive evidence
COURT: First Instance Civil Court
Upon the plaintiff’s petition filed against the defendant on 04/08/2015…
Upon the claim for moral damages due to the violation of personal rights through the media and press, the court
at the end of the trial;
Review of the Supreme Court’s decision dated 03/15/2016 regarding the acceptance of the appeal upon the request of the plaintiff’s attorney. The report prepared by the plaintiff’s attorney
and the documents in the file were reviewed and their necessity was discussed.
lass=”yoast-text-mark” />>The case concerns a claim for moral damages due to the violation of personal rights through the press. The court
decided to dismiss the case; the plaintiff appealed the decision.
lass=”yoast-text-mark” />>The plaintiff’s attorney, … The defendant wrote an article titled
“Master of Flies, Let’s Take a Look at Our Flies” published in the June 27, 2015 issue of Söz Haber Newspaper did not aim to humiliate the plaintiff, but rather
aimed to damage the plaintiff’s honor and dignity, thereby violating the plaintiff’s personal rights. Th plaintiff<br />claimed compensation for the moral damages incurred.
The defendant argued that the case should be dismissed.
he court ruled that the expressions used in the article in question constituted harsh criticism.
he case was dismissed on the grounds that it did not constitute an attack on his rights.
>The file indicates that a public prosecution was initiated against the defendant for the crime of defamation due to the column dated 06/27/2015 that is the subject of the lawsuit….
As a result of the trial in file no. 2015/1448 dated 01/20/2017, a substantive judgment was rendered against the defendant.
Apparently, a conviction has been handed down. Pursuant to Article 53 of the Debt Law No. 818 (No. 6098),
although the acquittal decision handed down by the criminal court does not bind the civil judge,
the judge’s independence is not unlimited, and the civil judge has no control over the determination of the material facts by the criminal court.
The conviction is binding on the civil judge and constitutes conclusive evidence for the parties.
In this case, since it has been established in the criminal proceedings that the defendant committed the crime of defamation,
it is not correct to award an appropriate amount of moral damages by evaluating the established facts and the claim together.
It is not correct to rule to dismiss the case.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons stated above, the appealed decision was found to be EXCESSIVE
and, on 12/24/2019, it was unanimously decided to refund the previously paid fee upon request.