Hulusi Akar loses compensation lawsuit filed against Özgür Özel

CHP Chairman Özgür Özel, while serving as group deputy chairman, had leveled criticisms against the then-Minister of National Defense Hulusi Akar during budget negotiations in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM). Stating that his fellow comrades in prison had complained about Akar by saying, "He never even came to visit us once," Özel had used the expressions, "Your fellow soldiers died without granting you their forgiveness. You are a man who carries the curses of his fellow soldiers."

In another speech, Özel's remarks, "As the CHP, we respect offices, but I wish you had not served as Chief of General Staff in that way. If only that Chief of General Staff tenure had never happened," had also sparked controversy.

HULUSI AKAR HAD FILED A COMPENSATION LAWSUIT

Claiming that these statements constituted "insult and slander," Hulusi Akar filed a lawsuit for 500 thousand TL in non-pecuniary damages against Özel. The Ankara 28th Civil Court of First Instance, in its decision dated December 2, 2020, found Akar to be in the right and ordered Özel to pay 15 thousand TL in compensation.

REGIONAL APPELLATE COURT OVERTURNED THE DECISION

According to ANKA, the Ankara Regional Court of Justice, which reviewed the file upon Özgür Özel's appeal, ruled that the conditions for compensation had not been met, overturned the first-instance court's decision, and dismissed the case.

Following this decision, Hulusi Akar appealed the case to the Court of Cassation.

Court of Cassation Upheld Unanimously

The 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which reviewed the file, unanimously upheld the decision of the Ankara Regional Court of Justice, making it final. In its ruling, the Court of Cassation cited decisions by the Constitutional Court (AYM) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), emphasizing that there was no necessity for a restriction on freedom of expression.

The decision stated, "The word 'disgraceful' used by the defendant in response to certain expressions of the plaintiff is a value judgment and a form of harsh criticism directed not at the plaintiff's person, but at the manner in which he performed his previous duties; and that the plaintiff, who entered the political arena after his public service, must endure more criticism due to his current position."

Furthermore, it was noted that "The expressions uttered during the budget negotiations of the Ministry of National Defense must be accepted as harsh and severe criticism within the scope of legislative immunity."

WHAT DOES THE REASONED DECISION SAY?

In the reasoned decision, citing previous rulings of the Constitutional Court, it was emphasized that freedom of expression is one of the fundamental elements of a democratic society. It stated, "Freedom of expression is applicable not only to ideas that are accepted or harmless, but also to those that are disturbing, shocking, and harsh criticisms."

"DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ATTACK ON THE PLAINTIFF'S PERSONAL RIGHTS"

Finally, the Court of Cassation stated that while Özel's words might be rude and hurtful, they should be evaluated as "part of a political polemic." Pointing to the necessity of enduring such criticism in the political arena, it was stated, "The words and expressions uttered by the defendant do not constitute an attack on the plaintiff's personal rights. They are in the nature of harsh and severe criticism and should be evaluated within the scope of freedom of expression."

News Source: 12punto