SUPREME COURT 4. Criminal Department
BASED ON: 2012/16551
The verdict issued by the Local Court was appealed, but the duration of the application and the nature of the decision, as well as the file according to the date of the crime, were discussed:
Since there were no reasons for the refusal of the appeal request, the essence of the work was moved.
The minutes reflecting the trial process in which the conscientious opinion was formed were not found to be in place in the examination conducted according to the documents and the content of the justification.
The value protected by the punishment of insulting acts is the rights of persons over their dignity, honor and dignity, and in order for this crime to occur, the act must be committed in such a way as to offend the specified personal rights of a natural person. The offense of defamation is included in Articles 24 to 30 of the Constitution. articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. the expression regulated in the articles constitutes the limits of freedom. In terms of the act that constitutes a crime, the perpetrator’s freedom of expression, the victim’s dignity, honor and dignity, and the basic rights of personality related to freedom of religion, conscience and opinion conflict. The settlement of the dispute requires the balancing of the aforementioned mutual rights. However, it is clear that abusive acts that are not related to a thought that has been put forward and that cannot be seen in the description of the thought in fact cannot benefit from freedom of expression. The European Court of human rights (ECtHR) case-law in the context of supranational human rights law in interpreting the convention, the functions of influence and sought to destroy their dignity derogatory public officials performing their duties of protection against attacks is mandatory (ECTHR Busuioc – the decision of Moldova, 2004,. prg 64), however, they should show more tolerance towards criticism of their actions and words in the performance of their duties (see ECHR Steur v. The Netherlands decision, 2003, prg. 39) states that. The European Court of Human Rights also recognizes that words consisting of value judgments that are not based on verb attribution and do not require proof can be evaluated within the scope of the right to criticism and freedom of expression, even if they are jarring (see ECHR judgment, 2004, prg. 40, 45; Jerusalem v.Austria decision, 2001, prg. 44; Sokolowski v. Poland decision, 2005, prg. 47; Paturel v. France decision, 2005, prg. 37; Harris/Boyle/Bates/Buckley, The Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ankara 2013, sy. 518-520).
In the examined file, the defendant wrote about the board members who unfairly did not give him permission to investigate officers who did not grant him a license to establish a fish farm, “The Constitution, Laws, Regulations, judiciary do not understand the rights of the law, the executors of the usurper mentality know my account well or in this context, my job is to serve my country, my family, the disabled, my beliefs, I submit the matter to the Turkish authorities with the words of”he insulted public officials because of their duties in the accepted case, establishment of a conviction provision on insufficient grounds without regard to the fact that the sentences remaining in the size of criticism and complaints on the grounds that the accused has been wronged do not constitute the elements of the offense of defamation on the grounds described above,
Since the reasons for the appeal against the law and the defendant’s E… were considered on the spot, it was unanimously decided on 28/01/2014 that the DECISION should be OVERTURNED by rejecting the approval thought in the communique, that the file should be sent to the court of main/sentence to be continued and concluded starting from the pre-trial stage.