T.C.
SUPREME
4. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
PRINCIPAL NO: 2016/5240
DECISION NO: 2018/1873
DECISION DATE: 14.3.2018

> > ASSAULT ON PERSONAL RIGHTS VIA INTERNET-NON-PECUNIARY COMPENSATION ARISING FROM TORT–STATEMENTS USED IN TWITTER ACCOUNT

4721 / m. 24, 25
6098 / m. 56

Summary: the case is related to the claim for non-pecuniary damages resulting from an attack on the rights of persons via the internet. The plaintiff sought damages by stating that the defendant had assaulted his personal rights with statements he had written on his social networking Twitter account. The wording in the article, which is the subject of the lawsuit and is shared by the defendant via his Twitter account, is an attack on the plaintiff’s personal rights. The court must rule on the appropriate amount of non-pecuniary compensation in favor of the plaintiff.

Case: at the end of the trial made by the attorney of the plaintiff against the defendant on 05/06/2015, upon the request for moral compensation arising from the attack on his personal rights via the internet, the decision of 29/12/2015 on the rejection of the case was reviewed by the Court of Cassation and after the decision was made to accept the appeal:

Verdict: the case relates to the claim for moral compensation arising from the assault on the person’s rights. The court decided to dismiss the case; the sentence was appealed by the acting plaintiff.

The attorney of the plaintiff requested compensation for the moral damage by stating that the defendant had assaulted his personal rights with statements he had written about his client via his social networking Twitter account.

The defendant argued that the case should be dismissed.

The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the defendant’s sharing on the social network was critical.

The statements contained in the article (twette), which is the subject of the lawsuit and which are shared by the defendant via his Twitter account, are an attack on the rights of the plaintiff’s personality. Therefore, the court must rule on the appropriate amount of non-pecuniary compensation in favor of the plaintiff. The decision had to be overturned for this reason.

Conclusion: it was decided by a majority on 14.03.2018 that the Appeal decision was overturned due to the reasons shown above, that there was no room for the investigation of the other appeals of the plaintiff according to the reason for the annulment, and that the fee received in advance should be returned upon request.

POST VOTE AGAINST

Since I am of the opinion that the articles in the dossier, the evidence on which the decision is based and the necessary reasons in accordance with the law, the rejection of Appeals which are not in place, especially in the evaluation of the evidence, and the approval of the provision which is in accordance with the procedure and the law, I do not agree with the14/03/2018