The Constitutional Court (AYM) has ruled that the freedom of expression of CHP leader Özgür Özel was violated in a non-pecuniary damages lawsuit for which he was convicted due to his remarks regarding the then-Vice President Fuat Oktay.
The High Court ordered that 50 thousand TL in non-pecuniary damages be paid to Özel and that the file be sent to the Ankara 25th Civil Court of First Instance for a retrial to eliminate the consequences of the violation.
WHAT HAPPENED?
The legal process began with statements Özel made regarding Fuat Oktay's past roles during press conferences he held at the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) on October 14 and 15, 2020. Özel had leveled harsh criticisms, recalling that Oktay had served as a board member at Türk Telekom and as a senior executive at YİMPAŞ Yozgat İhtiyaç Maddeleri Pazarlama ve Ticaret AŞ, which was affiliated with YİMPAŞ Holding.
In his speech, addressing Oktay, Özel had used the expressions, "You committed a crime at YİMPAŞ. You were lucky that you came to power, it was covered up, you got away with it. But the day will come when you will be held accountable for that too. You committed a crime at Türk Telekom. You handed over all of our taxes to the Hariri family. The day will come when you will be held accountable."
Following these remarks, Fuat Oktay filed a lawsuit for 150 thousand TL in non-pecuniary damages against Özel. As a result of the trial, the Regional Court of Justice ruled that Özel should pay 10 thousand TL in non-pecuniary damages to Oktay. Özel then filed an individual application on the grounds that the decision violated freedom of expression.
AYM: NO FAIR BALANCE ESTABLISHED
In its decision, the AYM stated that Özel's statements were made on a matter of public interest and that, although the expressions were harsh and disturbing in nature, they should be evaluated within the context of political debate.
The reasoning for the decision stated the following:
"The applicant made certain factual allegations on a matter of public interest, accompanied by expressions that could be accepted as sarcastic, harsh, exaggerated, and even disturbing for the addressee. It is clear that he also presented some evidence in his response petition regarding this. However, the court of first instance did not take these into consideration, and the appellate authority concluded that the allegations could not be considered within the scope of freedom of expression. Yet, a politician is someone who, by entering the political arena, has accepted to submit all their actions in the public sphere, including those in the past, to the observation and scrutiny of the public.
Indeed, considering that the applicant's defenses—that there were various allegations that a company where the plaintiff was once on the board of directors was involved in some corruption, and that there were reports made by various media outlets regarding this—were not evaluated by the judicial authorities, it does not seem possible to accept that the applicant's statements constituted a baseless, entirely arbitrary, and personal attack. It has been assessed that a fair balance could not be established between the applicant's freedom of expression and the plaintiff's right to the protection of honor and reputation. For the reasons explained, it must be decided that the freedom of expression guaranteed in Article 26 of the Constitution has been violated."
News Source: 12punto
