Penalty report shared on social media deemed a 'crime'

The 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation has ruled that the publication of penalty reports containing the identification information of public officials on social media is unlawful. In this context, an acquittal decision for an individual who shared such documents on social media was overturned. The High Court concluded that this post constitutes the crime of "unlawfully providing or obtaining data."

The incident reflected in the ruling took place in Antalya. A public official issued an administrative fine to a citizen and delivered the official report to the person. However, the individual who received the fine took a photo of the document where the official's name, surname, badge number, and signature were clearly visible and shared it on their personal Facebook account.

Noticing that no personal data redaction was performed in the post, the public official took the matter to court. Following the complaint, the individual against whom a lawsuit was filed was sentenced to 2 years and 1 month in prison by the court of first instance. The charge was based on the article regarding "unlawfully providing or obtaining data."

However, the defendant appealed this decision. The 11th Criminal Chamber of the Antalya Regional Court of Justice overturned the local court's decision, ruling for the defendant's acquittal on the grounds that "the legal elements of the crime were not met."

Upon appeals, the file was moved to the Court of Cassation. The 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which conducted the appellate review, invalidated the regional court's decision and ruled for a new sentencing. Thus, the acquittal decision was overturned.

RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION

In its ruling, the Court of Cassation stated that the defendant published an image of the penalty report containing the complainant public official's name, badge number, and signature on their social media account. The ruling stated, "It is unlawful to issue an acquittal decision based on reasoning that does not align with the scope of the file, by falling into error in the evaluation of evidence, without considering that the crime of unlawfully providing or obtaining data was proven against the defendant who shared information that qualifies as personal data as it is without redacting it, and that there was no inaccuracy in the court of first instance's acceptance regarding the proof of the crime."