Turkish Supreme Court, 4th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2012/35914, Decision No. 2014/2639, dated January 30, 2014
The word “DUDE” is not an insult (the defendant tells the police officer trying to take his statement, “You can’t keep me here, DUDE”—this is a rude form of address; it does not constitute the crime of insult).
The crime of defamation (the words spoken must explicitly constitute a specific act or fact capable of damaging honor and dignity, or an act of profanity; calling a police officer who was attempting to take the defendant’s statement does not constitute the crime of defamation).
Rude manner of address (the defendant telling the police officer trying to take his statement, “You can’t hold me here”; this implies that the client’s honor and dignity will not be harmed and that the elements of the offense of insult are not present)
An act of slander in a witness statement (the defendant insulting a police officer attempting to take a statement—the penalty cannot be increased without first discussing and explaining how the element of public disclosure was established)
(Insulting a police officer attempting to take the defendant’s statement at a police station—the penalty should not be increased until the manner in which the public element was established has been discussed and explained)
5237 / Art. 125
Summary:
For words to be evaluated in the context of the crime of insult, they must either explicitly attribute a specific act or fact, or constitute an act that undermines honor, dignity, and reputation.
It should be noted that the defendant’s rude remarks to the police officer attempting to take his statement—“You can’t keep me here”—do not constitute an insult to the honor, dignity, and reputation of a polytheistic religion; therefore, the elements of the crime of slander have not been established.
According to the confession, given that the act of slander is understood to have taken place in the interrogation room at the police station, increasing the sentence without discussing or explaining how the elements of slander were established is contrary to the law.
Case: The judgment issued by the Local Court was appealed; the appeal period, the nature of the decision, and the date the offense was committed were discussed:
Decision: Since no grounds were provided for the rejection of the appeal, the case was reviewed on its merits.
According to the trial transcripts, documents, and records regarding the reasoning process leading to the granting of a pardon based on conscience, no other grounds were found.
However;
1- The legal value protected by the punishment of defamatory acts is the honor, dignity, and integrity of individuals, and for this offense to be established, the conduct must be carried out with the intent to humiliate the person. In some cases, whether an act constitutes an insult is relative and may vary depending on time, place, and circumstances.
Harsh criticism or insulting remarks directed at public officials or civilian citizens should not be evaluated within the context of the offense of insult; rather, the remarks must constitute a specific act or action—or an act of insult—that could impair honor, dignity, and respect. On the day of the incident, the defendant was a police officer attempting to take a statement. The statement, “You can’t keep me here,” and the rude words he directed at the officer do not constitute an insult to the honor, dignity, and reputation of a polytheist, regardless of the fact that the elements of the crime were not present; therefore, no conviction was handed down.
2- According to the confession, despite the understanding that the act of insult occurred in the interrogation room at the police station, the increase in the sentence based on insufficient grounds—without discussing or explaining how the incident came to public attention—
Conclusion: It was decided by unanimous vote on January 30, 2014, to overturn the ruling regarding the illegality of HT and the charges against it, and to remand the case to the trial court for final disposition, starting from the stage prior to the annulment of the trial; as the defense’s arguments, as set forth in the brief containing the grounds for appeal, were deemed well-founded.