The Evidentiary Nature Of The Audio Recording Presented To The Court In The Divorce Case

12 Jun The Evidentiary Nature Of The Audio Recording Presented To The Court In The Divorce Case

T.C. SUPREME
2. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
E. 2007/17220 K. 2008/13614 T. 20.10.2008

* Divorce (where the husband finds his conduct incompatible with the obligation of loyalty by placing a voice recorder in the house without his wife’s knowledge – no violation of privacy can be mentioned/there is no law )
* Confidentiality of private life ( divorce/husband to the court as evidence in the House of the wife placed outside the knowledge of the device to provide a CD of the audio recording-the evidence obtained if there are reasons for compliance with the law will not be illegal/loyalty obligation to determine the conduct incompatible with the )
* Quality of evidence of voice recordings ( husband to place a voice recorder in the house without the knowledge of the wife to determine the conduct incompatible with the obligation of loyalty – violation of privacy of private life can not be mentioned / divorce must be ruled )

Summary: if the obtaining of evidence is a violation of the rights of persons recognized by the Constitution, there is no hesitation when it is necessary to acknowledge that it was obtained unlawfully. If there are reasons for compliance with the law in obtaining the evidence, then the illegality will be eliminated. Undoubtedly, according to the Constitution, everyone has the right to ask for respect for his private life and family life. The privacy of your private life and family life cannot be touched.
However, the legal obligations area of the marriage is not untouchable for the other spouse. Therefore, suspecting his wife’s Fidelity, plaintiff-defendant, together with common spaces both live in houses, without the knowledge of the spouse by placing a voice recorder, his wife’s non-public conversations record thus, to identify behaviors incompatible with the obligation of loyalty can be a question of breach of privacy and is contrary to law where can not be considered.
Case: at the end of the judgment of the case between the parties, the decision given by the Local Court and shown above the date number of the court of appeal to be examined by the execution of murafaa appointed for the trial on 1410.2008 appellant A.I.D. with proxy Av.G.T. they arrived. The other side didn’t show up despite the notification. After hearing the speech, it was deemed appropriate for the matter to be examined and adjudicated until after the hearing. Today, all the papers in the file have been read and discussed and considered.:
Verdict: in the case; CD of audio recordings presented to the court as evidence by the plaintiff-defendant husband.it was argued that the defendant’s “privacy” was obtained unlawfully in violation of the law, so that it could not be used as evidence;; it is accepted that” the voice recording presented by the plaintiff’s wife as evidence was created illegally by violating the privacy of the private life without the defendant’s knowledge and therefore cannot be respected “and that” no other evidence showing that the defendant acted contrary to his obligation of loyalty has been brought”, the divorce case filed by the plaintiff-defendant husband has been refused.
The evidence presented was obtained through a system prepared by the husband in the residence where the spouses live together, without the defendant’s knowledge. As a result of expert examination, it was determined that the audio recordings in the ( CD) were original and that there were no additions, subtractions, interruptions or copies on them. The defendant-plaintiff does not claim that the recorded conversations did not belong to him, but argues that this evidence was obtained by violating the privacy of his private life.
If the obtaining of evidence is a violation of the rights of persons recognized by the Constitution, there is no hesitation when it is necessary to acknowledge that it was obtained unlawfully. If there are reasons for compliance with the law in obtaining the evidence, then the illegality will be eliminated. Undoubtedly, according to the Constitution, everyone has the right to ask for respect for his private life and family life. The privacy of your private life and family life cannot be touched. (Constitution m, 20/1) however, in a marriage union, it is also a legal obligation for spouses to remain faithful to each other during the continuation of the marriage. ( TMC.m.185/3) the private life of one of the spouses in this field is as closely related to that of his or her other spouse, the life partner whom he or she met by marriage and lived with. Therefore, in marriage, the area of legal obligations related to marriage union is not the private living area of each of the spouses, but the area of family life. In this area, the privacy and immunity of the spouses as a whole, not their individual private lives, is of importance and priority. In this respect the legal obligations area of the marriage is not untouchable for the other spouse. Therefore, suspecting his wife’s Fidelity, plaintiff-defendant, together with common spaces both live in houses, without the knowledge of the spouse by placing a voice recorder , his wife’s non-public conversations record thus, to identify behaviors incompatible with the obligation of loyalty can be a question of breach of privacy and is contrary to law where can not be considered. On the contrary, it is a violation of the privacy of the family life when the defendant accepts friends for an illegitimate purpose to the place where the family is shared. In this respect, it cannot be said that there was any illegality in obtaining the said evidence. Therefore, the investigation and the evidence gathered found that the defendant-plaintiff had taken his friends, including the opposite sex, into joint residence for an illegitimate purpose and acted contrary to his obligation of loyalty. In this case, there is a conflict between the parties in such a way as to shake the common life from its foundation and not allow the continuation of the Union. The plaintiff is right to sue in the face of the events that took place. As it is no longer legally possible to force spouses to live together under these conditions, the rejection of the request was not correct, although the divorce case filed by the plaintiff-defendant husband should also be decided.
Conclusion: with the acceptance of the appeal appeals of the plaintiff-defendant husband, there is no room for the dissolution of the provision for the reason described above, for the examination of the other aspects of the provision according to the reason for the annulment, and for the trial, the power of attorney fee of YTL 550,00, which is appreciatedtaken from A.I.a unanimous decision was made on 20.10.2008, with the way to correct the decision within 15 days of the notification of this decision.