Supreme Court 4. HD., B. 2017\/907 D. T. 2019\/6261 24.12.2019
\nT.C. Chairmanship Of The Supreme Court-4. law office
\nBase Number.: 2017\/907
\nDecision Number.: 2019\/6261
\nDecision date: 24.12.2019
\nmoral damage * moral compensation \u2022 assault on personal rights \u2022 conclusive evidence
\nCourt :Court of First Instance
\nPlaintiff … acting lawyer … by petition against the defendant … on 04\/08\/2015 social
\nby the court on the request of moral compensation for the violation of personal rights through the media and the press
\nat the end of the trial; 15\/03\/2016 day decision on the dismissal of the case examined by the Supreme Court
\nexamination after the decision to accept the appeal was made by the attorney of the plaintiff within the time limit
\nthe report prepared by the judge and the papers in the file were examined and the requirement was discussed.
\nThe case relates to a request for moral compensation for violation of personal rights through the press. Court,
\nthe case was dismissed; the sentence was appealed by the plaintiff.
\nAttorney of the plaintiff, … written by the defendant in the issue of S\u00f6z Haber newspaper dated 27\/06\/2015
\n“Lord of the Flies, let’s look at our flies”,
\nit is aimed at undermining the dignity and dignity of the plaintiff, thus attacking the personality rights of the plaintiff
\nby stating that he had suffered, he demanded compensation for the moral damage caused.
\nThe defendant argued that the case should be dismissed.
\nBy the court, the statements used in the content of the article subject to the case are heavily critical, personality
\nthe case was dismissed on the grounds that it did not constitute an attack on his rights.
\nFrom the scope of the file, about the defendant due to the column dated 27\/06\/2015, which is the subject of the case
\ncase opened for the crime of insulting the public, … 3. Criminal Court of First Instance 20\/01\/2017 day and 2015\/1448
\nEsas, 2017\/114 decision no.
\nit is understood a conviction has been handed down. 53 of the Code of Obligations No. 818. article (6098 of TBK
\n74. article) although the acquittal decision given in the Criminal Court does not bind the legal judge, the law
\nthis independence of the judge is not unlimited, but is related to the determination of material cases of the Criminal Court
\nthe 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.
\nIn 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
\ndetermining an appropriate amount of non-pecuniary compensation by evaluating the completed cases and demand together
\nthe decision to dismiss the case is not correct.
\nConclusion: the appeal decision was overturned for the reasons shown above
\nand it was decided unanimously on 24\/12\/2019 to return the advance fee on request.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 \u2022 assault on personal rights \u2022 conclusive evidence Court :Court of First Instance…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1,211],"tags":[217,223,220,218],"yoast_head":"\n