Events
At the time of the incident, I.MG, who was the Mayor of the Metropolitan Municipality, published certain messages and documents about the applicant, who was a member of parliament, via a social media site. The messages in question contained statements targeting the applicant and raised allegations that the applicant’s family was using illegal water. In addition, along with the messages, minutes of the general assembly containing the exact address of the applicant’s spouse’s company, membership information, identity numbers, and signatures of relatives were also shared on the social media account.
The applicant filed a compensation claim against the Mayor in the Criminal Court of First Instance, alleging that his personal data had been violated due to its unlawful acquisition and disclosure. The claim was dismissed on the grounds that the subject matter of the case fell within the scope of freedom of expression. Following the Supreme Court’s confirmation of this decision, the applicant filed an individual application.
Claims
The applicant claimed that his right to request the protection of his personal data under the right to respect for private life had been violated due to the disclosure of his personal information on a social media site.
The Court’s Assessment
In terms of the right to request the protection of personal data within the scope of the protection of private life, the state has an obligation to protect all individuals under its jurisdiction from risks that may arise from the actions of both public officials and other persons. Within the scope of this obligation, judicial authorities must make a careful assessment, taking into account constitutional guarantees regarding the protection of personal data, discuss the circumstances of the specific case, and explain the conclusion reached with sufficient justification.
A person’s signature, identity, subscription and family information, and home and work addresses are considered personal data. The applicant did not consent to the disclosure and accessibility of this information on the social networking site. Furthermore, the applicant claimed that the information obtained and disclosed without consent throughout all stages of the damages lawsuit constituted personal data and that his personal rights had been violated due to the unlawful acquisition and dissemination of this information.
On the other hand,
it has been observed that the courts of first instance assessed the case within the scope of freedom of expression, emphasizing that the parties were politicians and that the messages were critical in nature. There has been no discussion of the extent and manner in which the applicant’s personal data was collected, the legitimate purpose for which this information was used on the social networking site, or the public interest served by its disclosure.
Furthermore, the applicant’s serious allegations that the information seized and disclosed fell within the scope of personal data protection were not assessed by the competent courts. In this case, it cannot be said that the competent courts took a careful decision, taking into account the constitutional guarantees regarding the right to protection of personal data within the framework of respect for private life, and provided a reason specific to the concrete situation.
For the reasons explained, the Constitutional Court ruled that the right to request the protection of personal data within the scope of the right to respect for private life had been violated.