TC
YÜCE
Law Firm
CASE NO: 2016/5240
DECISION NO: 2018/1873
DATE OF DECISION: 14.3.2018
ATTACK ON PERSONAL RIGHTS VIA THE INTERNET – MORAL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM UNLAWFUL ACTS – EXPRESSIONS USED ON A TWITTER ACCOUNT
4721/m. 24, 25
6098/m. 56
SUMMARY:
T he case concerns a claim for moral damages arising from an attack on personal rights via the internet. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had violated his personal rights with statements posted on his Twitter account and sought compensation for the damage. The statements in the post shared by the defendant on their Twitter account, which is the subject of the lawsuit, constitute an attack on the plaintiff’s personal rights. Th e court should decide to pay an appropriate amount of moral damages in favor of the plaintiff.
CASE: Following the Supreme Court’s decision dated 12/29/2015, which rejected the request for review within the time limit made by the court of first instance at the end of the case filed by the plaintiff’s attorney on 06/05/2015 via the internet for moral damages resulting from the violation of personal rights against the defendant, However, after the appeal petition was decided, the judge accepted the review report, and the documents in the file were examined and discussed:
DECISION:
The case concerns a claim for moral damages arising from an attack on a person’s rights. Th e court dismissed the case; the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
The plaintiff’s attorney claimed moral damages, stating that the defendant had violated his client’s personal rights with statements posted on the social networking site Twitter.
T he defendant argued that the case should be dismissed.
The court dismissed the case on the grounds that the defendant’s social media post was critical in nature.
The statements in the tweet shared by the defendant on Twitter, which is the subject of the case, constitute an attack on the plaintiff’s personal rights. Therefore, the court should have awarded the plaintiff an appropriate amount of moral damages. The decision is therefore overturned.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons stated above, it was decided by majority vote on March 14, 2018, to OVERTURN the appealed decision, that there is no need to examine the plaintiff’s other appeals at this time based on the grounds for overturning, and that the fees previously collected will be refunded upon request.
PUBLISH, DISSENT
I do not agree with the majority decision to overturn the items in the file. I believe that the decision is based on evidence and legal grounds, that there is no inaccuracy in the evaluation of the evidence, and that the unfounded objections should be rejected and the ruling, which is in accordance with procedure and law, should be upheld. 03/14/2018