Judicial pressure on news about non-exam civil service appointment: RTÜK President Şahin files 100,000 TL lawsuit against BirGün

RTÜK President Ebubekir Şahin has filed a 100,000 TL compensation lawsuit against BirGün Newspaper for publishing a report alleging that his daughter was appointed to a civil service position without taking the KPSS exam. The lawsuit targets the newspaper's legal entity, its chairman of the board, and the journalist who wrote the report.

12punto

Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTÜK) President Ebubekir Şahin has taken legal action following a report revealing that his daughter was appointed to a civil service position without an exam. Şahin filed a 100,000 TL compensation lawsuit against BirGün Newspaper, citing the report that sparked public debate over meritocracy.

A new development has been added to the ongoing discussions surrounding appointments in public institutions and the principles of merit. BirGün Newspaper, which informed the public that RTÜK President Ebubekir Şahin's daughter was made a civil servant without taking the Public Personnel Selection Examination (KPSS), has been targeted with a compensation claim following this disclosure.

THE PARTIES TO THE LAWSUIT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED

In the 100,000 Turkish Lira compensation lawsuit filed by RTÜK President Şahin, not only the reporter who wrote the story but also the newspaper's legal entity and management have been targeted. The individuals and institutions named in the lawsuit are as follows:

BirGün Newspaper (as an institution)

İbrahim Aydın (Chairman of the Board of BirGün Newspaper)

İsmail Arı (The journalist who wrote the report)

The report, penned by journalist İsmail Arı, which alleged that Şahin's daughter gained the right to civil service through exceptional quotas or non-exam transition methods, had caused a significant stir on social media and in the public eye on the day it was published.

The fact that RTÜK President Ebubekir Şahin, who is at the center of the criticism, chose to take journalists and the media outlet to court directly instead of providing a detailed explanation to inform the public has sparked a new debate regarding press freedom and the public's right to information.