Summary: The victim, in a home video recorded with his consent; “… I regret to say this, let our prime minister hear this … if he is my prime minister, let him hear my voice … goodbye to you all, trust in Allah, all of you.” according to the words in the format and the scope of the file; the video in question the victim in the image and of the speech of the victim’s private life and personal life related to the field of a nature that would violate the privacy of the defendant due to lack of violation of privacy by the disclosure of the loaded image or sound legal elements of the crime did not occur in the concrete case of the video within the knowledge of the victim’s mobile phone has been disclosed, and transferred to the defendant in the video above-quoted words, compared to the video published by victims should be expected, considering that the defendant’s act 136/1 of the Penal Code. it must also be accepted that it will not constitute a crime to illegally export or seize the data contained in the article and its paragraph.
T.C. Supreme Court 12. Criminal Department E: 2018/5377 K: 2018/11368 K.T.: 28.11..2018
The verdict on the conviction of the defendant for violating the privacy of private life by disclosing images or sounds was appealed by the local Public prosecutor and the defendant, and the file was examined and considered as necessary:
According to the results of the proceedings, the opinion and discretion of the court formed in accordance with the results of the prosecution, the scope of the file being examined, the local Public prosecutor’s office has decided based on incomplete examination, the rejection of other appeals related to subut and not based on the defendant’s reason, but;
1- The video image of the victim …, who works as a cemetery guard, wearing a shroud and criticizing a terrorist organization with those who make politics based on ethnicity, decrying that he is not afraid of death and loves his homeland, the defendant who works in the same cemetery with him and whose friendship relationship has ended due to a problem between them in the event that he is alleged to have committed a crime of violating the privacy of his private life by disclosing images or sounds in article and paragraph and is the subject of acceptance;
“… I regret to say this, let our prime minister hear this … if he is my prime minister, let him hear my voice … goodbye to all of you, entrust it to Allah,” the victim said in a home video recorded with his consent.” according to the words in the format and the scope of the file; the video in question the victim in the image and of the speech of the victim’s private life and personal life related to the field of a nature that would violate the privacy of the defendant due to lack of violation of privacy by the disclosure of the loaded image or sound legal elements of the crime did not occur in the concrete case of the video within the knowledge of the victim’s mobile phone has been disclosed, and transferred to the defendant in the video above-quoted words, compared to the video published by victims should be expected, considering that the defendant’s act 136/1 of the Penal Code. since it is understood that giving or seizing the data in article and paragraph illegally will not constitute a crime, CMK should be acquitted in accordance with article 223/2-a, paragraph and i for violating the privacy of private life by disclosing images or sounds thrown at the accused, while establishing a conviction on the accused on legal and insufficient written grounds,
2- According to acceptance and application:
As a result of the legal result of the conviction of the defendant, whose long-term imprisonment has been postponed, to imprisonment for a crime that he has intentionally committed, Article 53 of the Turkish Commercial Code. deprivation of the right written in paragraph (c) of paragraph (1) of article 53/3 of the same law. article and paragraph of it should also be ruled by taking into account the evil eye and not observing the Constitutional Court’s Article 53 of the TCK. there is an obligation to comply with the cancellation decision dated 08.10.2015, based on 2014/140, decision No. 2015/85, published in the Official Gazette dated 24.11.2015 regarding the deprivation of rights in the article,
Since the appeals of the local Public prosecutor and the defendant are considered to be in place as of this moment, the provision of Law No. 8 of Law No. 5320 for these reasons. article 321 of CMUK No. 1412, which is currently being implemented in accordance with Article. in accordance with the article, it was decided unanimously on 28.11.2018 that it would be overturned against its will.

You can read others by clicking here.