Events
The applicants are the reporter, owner and publisher of the national newspaper. In the copy of the newspaper dated 2/10/2013, “They made the martyr’s daughter cry!” There was an article titled, “The 10th grade female student was subjected to oppression and persecution in her school where she went with a headscarf.”
The Civil Court of First Instance rejected the claim for compensation brought by the plaintiff against the applicants, stating that his personal rights were damaged due to the related news. After the decision was taken to the appeal court, the Regional Court of Justice decided jointly and severally a total compensation of 5,000 TL against the applicants.
allegations
The applicants allege that their freedom of expression and press were violated as compensation was awarded against them for the news they had published in a national newspaper.
Court’s Evaluation
District Court of Justice; “Some ignorant people, as if spewing their grudges and hatreds just to satisfy their egos, are hostile towards the veiled. Here is another new example…” It concluded that the statements such as ”do not fall within the scope of the right to criticism and freedom of expression, and that by adding the photograph of the plaintiff, an untrue perception was created as if the plaintiff was hostile to religion and the head covering. The court decided that the news as a whole was not in line with the apparent reality and that it constituted an attack on the plaintiff’s personality rights.
One of the main issues on which the appellate authority bases the compensation on in the news about the application is that the claim that the plaintiff teacher mistreated his student because he came to school with his head covered, and in this context, the claims that the student faced negative attitudes do not reflect the truth. Considering the events as a whole, it was evaluated that the people who were the source of the allegations that the student was exposed to heavy pressure and threats due to wearing a headscarf at school – whether it was true or not – were shown in the news, the journalist acted in accordance with his responsibilities in this regard, and the factual allegations were not contrary to the visible reality and were not baseless. .
With the amendment made in the regulation on the dress and clothing of the students in the schools affiliated to the Ministry of National Education, it became possible for middle and high school students to go to school with a headscarf on 27/9/2014. In the period before the change in the regulation, the issue of whether students of this age could go to school with a headscarf was widely discussed, and these discussions were widely publicized. The news was written about an event that was sensitive to the majority of the society in a recent date before the change in the regulation.
It can be accepted that the statements in the news are offensive to the plaintiff. However, according to the Constitutional Court, public officials should be more tolerant of criticism of their actions. Contributing to the decision-making processes of citizens by subjecting the actions and omissions of public officials to a strict control is one of the indispensable requirements of a democratic society. In this context, the fact that an opinion expressed is harsh, criticizing the authorities harshly, using a sharp language, or even being one-sided, contradictory and subjective does not mean that freedom of expression will not benefit from the scope of protection.
It has been evaluated that the statements taken by the Regional Court of Justice as a basis for the evaluation are in the nature of a severe criticism of a student wearing a headscarf at school by his teachers, aiming to draw attention to this issue, and are related to a discussion that has a public interest. In addition, when it was understood that the student was warned in front of his other friends because of wearing a headscarf, he was heavily criticized in the news by the plaintiff’s own behavior; In this respect, it has been concluded that the statements in the news do not constitute an attack without reason.
Despite these determinations, the Regional Court of Justice; without discussing the conditions at the time the expressions subject to the application were used, the context of the expressions and their factual basis, taking some of the expressions out of context and without considering that they have sufficient factual basis, and decided to pay compensation against the applicants.
When the decision of the Regional Court of Justice is evaluated together with the conclusions of the Constitutional Court, it cannot be said that the court struck a fair balance between the applicants’ freedom of expression and the plaintiff’s right to honor and reputation. The reasons given by the Regional Court of Justice to justify its admission of the case against the applicants were not accepted as appropriate and sufficient, and it was concluded that the restrictions imposed on the applicants’ freedom of expression and press within the scope of Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution did not correspond to the social need to justify.
The Constitutional Court, on the grounds held that the freedom of expression and press freedom had been violated.
