TURKISH SUPREME COURT, 4th CIVIL CHAMBER, Case No. 2015/702, Decision No. 2016/173, Date: January 11, 2016
The plaintiff’s attorney’s unjustified claims for moral damages will be reported to the bar association (the bar association will decide whether to initiate a disciplinary investigation by the association; the words used by the defendant in the complaint do not constitute defamation—even if they are offensive. The defendant’s expressed thoughts, value judgments, and statements of a personal critical nature will be protected under the freedom of expression and thought. Th e statements in question will be accepted or rejected, and the claim for damages will be evaluated).
CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR MORAL DAMAGES SUFFERED DUE TO A BASELESS COMPLAINT (The Plaintiff’s Claim That the Attorney Was Unjustly Complained About to the Bar Association / The Words Used in the Defendant’s Complaint Do Not Constitute Defamation – The Defendant Had Reasonable Suspicion and Concrete Indications to File a Complaint Against the Plaintiff/The Case Should Be Dismissed)
RIGHT TO FILE A COMPLAINT (Individuals have the right and authority to initiate legal proceedings and seek punishment against those who harm them. The existence of certain signs and facts justifying the complaint, even if weak or indirect, is sufficient/Based on these, it will be accepted that the exercise of the right to file a complaint is lawful in situations where others could also act as defendants in the same matter.)
FREEDOM TO SEEK REMEDY (Individuals have the right and the will to initiate legal proceedings and seek punishment against those who harm them – The existence of certain signs and facts justifying the complaint, even if weak or indirect, is sufficient.)
2709/Art. 12, 25, 26, 36
6098/Art. 49
4721/Art. 24, 25
SUMMARY:
This case concerns a claim for compensation for moral damages suffered due to an unfounded complaint.
The plaintiff, who works as an attorney, had been removed from the case to negotiate on behalf of his clients. Pursuant to the company’s authority, he had conducted a telephone conversation with the defendant; however, the defendant filed a complaint with the Bar Association regarding these calls, attributing different meanings to them. As a result of this complaint, a disciplinary investigation initiated by the Bar Association’s Disciplinary Committee determined that the case was groundless on the grounds that it did not cause the alleged emotional distress.
Individuals have the right and authority to demand the protection of their rights against those who harm them, to initiate legal proceedings, and to seek punishment by communicating with both judicial authorities and relevant institutions and organizations. The existence of certain indications or events, even if weak or indirect, is sufficient to justify a complaint. Based on this, it must be accepted that the exercise of the right to file a complaint is legally appropriate in situations where others may also act as defendants regarding the same incident. Otherwise, it must be concluded that the complaint was used in a manner that violates the boundaries of freedom of expression and constitutes an attack on moral values.
The words used in the complaint by the defendant constitute a personal value judgment and do not amount to defamation. Unpleasant thoughts expressed by the defendant in the complaint, even if they are offensive, are protected under the freedom of expression and thought. The nature of value judgments in personal statements necessitates the limitation of criticism. Since there are reasonable doubts and concrete indications that the defendant filed a complaint against the plaintiff, the claim must be dismissed in its entirety.
CASE:
The plaintiff AA (represented by attorney Ö. K.) filed a petition with the court on July 31, 2013, seeking non-pecuniary damages for the violation of personal rights against the defendant SG at the conclusion of the proceedings; the defendant’s attorney timely requested the Supreme Court’s decision dated October 27, 2014, regarding the partial acceptance of the case, and after the decision to accept the appeal petition was rendered, the report prepared by the reviewing judge and the documents in the file were examined and discussed as deemed necessary:
DECISION:
The case concerns a claim for compensation for moral damages suffered due to an unfounded complaint. Part of the claim was accepted by the court; the defendant objected to this decision.
The plaintiff is an attorney who, as a licensed lawyer, filed the lawsuit to negotiate on behalf of clients who were dismissed from the company. The competent authority stated that it had conducted a telephone conversation with the defendant; however, the defendant’s telephone conversations… and the bar association, by attributing different meanings to the complaint based on unfounded allegations from a bar association’s disciplinary committee, filed a complaint against itself… They decided to initiate a disciplinary investigation on the grounds that no moral harm had occurred.
The defendant argued that he had exercised his legal right to file a complaint and that the case should be dismissed.
T he court accepted that the statements used in the complaint submitted by the defendant to the law firm constituted an attack on the plaintiff’s personal rights in terms of their meaning, and decided to partially grant the case.
.
The right to file a complaint, that is, the freedom to seek justice, is guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution as follows: Individuals have the right to demand the protection of their rights, the initiation of legal proceedings, and the punishment of those who cause them harm, both before judicial authorities and by contacting competent institutions and organizations.
In addition to the freedom to seek justice guaranteed by the Constitution, Article 12 of the Constitution establishes that everyone possesses inviolable, inalienable, fundamental rights and freedoms inherent to their person, while Article 17 further stipulates that everyone has the right to life and the right to protect and develop their material and spiritual existence. Article 24 specifies the elements of an infringement of personal rights and explains its illegality. Article 25 states that an infringement of personal rights shall be protected through legal action and outlines the penalties for such an infringement.
In situations where the right to freedom of expression and the right to complain conflict, it is inconceivable for the legal system to protect both of these values simultaneously. In such a situation and at that moment, it will be accepted that the right deemed less superior must remain unprotected in the face of the superior right. The freedom to complain, like other freedoms, is not unlimited, and a person may not exercise this right solely to harm another. For the legal protection and recognition of the proper exercise of this right, it is not necessary to have sufficient evidence to warrant the complainant’s punishment or liability.
.
The existence of certain signs and facts, even if weak or indirect, is sufficient to justify the complaint. Based on these, it must be accepted that the legal exercise of the right to complain is appropriate in situations where others could also act as defendants regarding the same incident. Otherwise, it must be concluded that the complaint was used in a manner that violates the boundaries of freedom of expression and constitutes an attack on the values of the right to complain.
According to the information and documents in the file, the representative of the defendant company is a representative of the plaintiff’s attorney. According to the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant made telephone calls to customers regarding overdue receivables arising from labor services and filed a complaint with the bar association. When the petition and the development of the incident are evaluated together, the words used in the complaint constitute a personal value judgment and do not amount to insults or offensive thoughts. Pursuant to Article 26, Paragraph 10 of the Constitution, expressions constituting value judgments protected under the freedom of expression and thought must limit the adoption of personal statements in criticism. Therefore, since the defendant’s complaint against the plaintiff does not indicate a concrete rejection rather than acceptance and is partially inaccurate, the appeal must be dismissed.
CONCLUSION:
On January 11, 2016, by unanimous decision, it was ruled to SET ASIDE the appellate decision for the reasons stated above and, if requested, to refund the advance payment.