T.C. SUPREME COURT 4. DEPARTMENT OF LAW E. 2015/702, K. 2016/173, T. 11.1.2016
* Due to the plaintiff’s lawyer wrongful moral compensation claims be reported to the bar ( bar decided whether to open a disciplinary investigation by the association, he/she used the words of the defendant in the complaint does not constitute an insult – Even the uncomfortable ones Thoughts expended by the defendant will be protected under freedom of expression and thought in the nature of value judgments and personal Criticism that remains in limit Statements will be accepted/rejected the request for compensation will be )

* REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF MORAL DAMAGE CAUSED BY AN UNFAIR COMPLAINT (Claim that the Plaintiff’s Lawyer was Wrongfully Complained to the Bar / The Words Used in the Defendant’s Complaint Petition Are Not Insulting – There Are Usual Doubts and Concrete Signs that the Defendant Is Complaining About the Plaintiff / The Case Should be Dismissed)

* The right to complain ( to protect the rights of legal action against those who hurt the people themselves may be, and the rights and privileges that you have to ask them to be punished – some circumstantial evidence and facts that would justify a complaint of weak and indirect presence is enough of/based on them, the same event could be others in the face of the defendant, in cases where the law of the use of the right of complaint will be accepted )

* FREEDOM TO SEEK RIGHTS (That People Have the Rights and Powers to Protect Their Rights Against Those Who Have Harmed Them, to Ask For Legal Action and Punishment – That the Presence of Some Signs and Facts that Justify the Complaint, Albeit Weak and Indirect, Is Sufficient Dec

2709/m. 12, 25, 26, 36

6098/m. 49

4721/m. 24, 25

ABSTRACT : The case is related to the request to pay for moral damage suffered due to an unfair complaint.

The plaintiff, working as a lawyer, who had been dismissed from the case in order to negotiate on behalf of clients, the company has the authority he had had a telephone conversation with the defendant, but the defendant complained about the bar’s calls itself by installing different meanings, as a result of the complaint, the claim is unfounded, because by the Disciplinary Board of the Bar Association disciplinary proceedings by stating that they decided to open a place that isn’t for the moral damage suffered was found to prompt you to make.

Persons have the right and authority to request the protection of their rights, legal action and punishment against those who have harmed them, both in front of judicial authorities and by contacting authorized institutions and organizations. The presence of some signs and phenomena that justify the complaint, albeit weak and indirect, is sufficient. On the basis of these, it should be accepted that the use of the right to complain is in accordance with the law in cases where others may act as defendants in the face of the same incident. Otherwise, it should be concluded that the complaint is used in violation of the limits of freedom to seek rights and constitutes an attack on dec values.

Words that are used in the complaint the defendant is a personal value judgement, does not constitute an insult, unpleasant thoughts expended by the defendant in the complaint in question, even the uncomfortable ones, is protected under freedom of expression and thought, the nature of value judgments in personal statements requires the adoption of limit criticism of staying in. If the defendant complains about the plaintiff, the request must be rejected completely with the acceptance that there are usual doubts and concrete signs.

CASE : Plaintiff A. A. the Acting Lawyer is Ö. K. by, defendant S. G. at the end of the trial held by the court on 31/07/2013, the request for moral compensation for the attack on the rights of the person with the petition filed against him; the decision of 27/10/2014 on the partial acceptance of the case was requested by the Court of Cassation during the period, but the acceptance of the appeal petition was decided by the defendant’s deputy, the report prepared by the examining judge and the papers in the file were examined and discussed as necessary:

VERDICT : The case is related to the request to pay for moral damage suffered due to an unfair complaint. A part of the claim was accepted by the court; the decision was appealed by the defendant.

The plaintiff stated that he worked as a lawyer registered with the A… Bar Association, that he had a telephone conversation with the defendant, who was a company official, in order to reconcile on behalf of his clients who were dismissed from the case, but that the defendant had placed different meanings on the phone call

The defendant argued that he was exercising his legal right of complaint and that the case should be dismissed.

The court accepted that the statements used by the defendant in his complaint petition to the bar were offensive to the plaintiff’s personality rights in terms of their meaning and decided to partially accept the case.

The right to complain, in other words, the freedom to seek rights; Article 36 of the Constitution. dec. in the clause; “. . it has been included in the form of “. The freedom to seek rights is guaranteed in this way; individuals have the right and authority to request the protection of their rights, legal action and punishment against those who have harmed them, both in front of the judicial authorities and by dec to the competent institutions and organizations.

Besides the freedom to seek rights guaranteed by the Constitution, it is decisively stated that the Constitution “. “, titled the 12th. apart from the fact that it is stated in Article 17 that everyone has inviolable, inalienable, indispensable basic rights and freedoms related to their personality. in its article, it is also regulated that everyone has the right to live, protect and develop their material and spiritual existence. TMK 24. in its article, the elements of the attack on the rights of the individual are specified and their illegality is explained. 25. in its article, it is explained that an attack on the rights of a person will be protected by a lawsuit, Article 49 of the BC. in its article, the sanction of the attack is regulated.

In cases where the freedom to seek rights and the rights of a person are confronted, it is inconceivable that the legal order dec protect these two values at the same time. It will be accepted that the benefit that is less superior should be unprotected in that event and for that moment in the face of the benefit that should be held more superior. The freedom to seek rights is not unlimited, as in other freedoms, and a person cannot use this right solely to harm someone dec. In order for this right to be protected by law and recognized as being used on the spot, it is also not mandatory that there is sufficient evidence to require that the complainant be punished or held accountable. The presence of some signs and phenomena that justify the complaint, albeit weak and indirect, is sufficient. On the basis of these, it should be accepted that the use of the right to complain is in accordance with the law in cases where others may act as defendants in the face of the same incident. Otherwise, it should be concluded that the complaint is used in violation of the limits of freedom to seek rights and constitutes an attack on dec values.

In the file information and documents from the defendant’s company is a representative of the plaintiff’s attorney, the plaintiff’s case the defendant out of due receivables due to workmanship telephone calls with your clients, the defendant gave a complaint to the bar, when all are considered together of the petition and development of the event, the complaint is a personal value judgement words that are used in, does not constitute an insult, unpleasant thoughts expended by the defendant in the complaint in question, even the ones uncomfortable A. S. 10. article 26 of the Constitution. according to the article, is protected under freedom of expression and thought of staying in the nature of value judgments that limit the adoption of personal statements in criticism is necessary, therefore, that the defendant the plaintiff is complaining about the usual doubts with the acceptance that there were no signs of prompt denial and concrete instead of adoption, because it is not completely partly true, the reversal was required.

CONCLUSION : It was unanimously decided on 11.01.2016 that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED for the reasons shown above and that the fee received in advance should be refunded if requested.

You can read other articles by clicking here.