Supreme Court 4. HD., B. 2017/907 D. T. 2019/6261 24.12.2019
T.C. Chairmanship Of The Supreme Court-4. law office
Base Number.: 2017/907
Decision Number.: 2019/6261
Decision date: 24.12.2019
moral damage * moral compensation • assault on personal rights • conclusive evidence
Court :Court of First Instance
Plaintiff … acting lawyer … by petition against the defendant … on 04/08/2015 social
by the court on the request of moral compensation for the violation of personal rights through the media and the press
at the end of the trial; 15/03/2016 day decision on the dismissal of the case examined by the Supreme Court
examination after the decision to accept the appeal was made by the attorney of the plaintiff within the time limit
the report prepared by the judge and the papers in the file were examined and the requirement was discussed.
The case relates to a request for moral compensation for violation of personal rights through the press. Court,
the case was dismissed; the sentence was appealed by the plaintiff.
Attorney of the plaintiff, … written by the defendant in the issue of Söz Haber newspaper dated 27/06/2015
“Lord of the Flies, let’s look at our flies”,
it is aimed at undermining the dignity and dignity of the plaintiff, thus attacking the personality rights of the plaintiff
by stating that he had suffered, he demanded compensation for the moral damage caused.
The defendant argued that the case should be dismissed.
By the court, the statements used in the content of the article subject to the case are heavily critical, personality
the case was dismissed on the grounds that it did not constitute an attack on his rights.
From the scope of the file, about the defendant due to the column dated 27/06/2015, which is the subject of the case
case opened for the crime of insulting the public, … 3. Criminal Court of First Instance 20/01/2017 day and 2015/1448
Esas, 2017/114 decision no.
it is understood a conviction has been handed down. 53 of the Code of Obligations No. 818. article (6098 of TBK
74. article) although the acquittal decision given in the Criminal Court does not bind the legal judge, the law
this independence of the judge is not unlimited, but is related to the determination of material cases of the Criminal Court
the decision of conviction is binding from the point of view of the judge of law and will have the character of conclusive evidence from the point of view of the parties.
In the following case, it is fixed in the criminal trial in which the defendant has committed the crime of defamation, and in the criminal trial
determining an appropriate amount of non-pecuniary compensation by evaluating the completed cases and demand together
the decision to dismiss the case is not correct.
Conclusion: the appeal decision was overturned for the reasons shown above
and it was decided unanimously on 24/12/2019 to return the advance fee on request.