T.C. SUPREME COURT 4. LEGAL DEPARTMENT E. 2015/702, K. 2016/173, T. 11.1.2016
- Due to the plaintiff’s lawyer wrongful moral compensation claims be reported to the bar ( bar decided whether to open a disciplinary investigation by the association, he/she used the words of the defendant in the complaint does not constitute an insult – Even the uncomfortable ones Thoughts expended by the defendant will be protected under freedom of expression and thought in the nature of value judgments and personal Criticism that remains in limit Statements will be accepted/rejected the request for compensation will be )
- A REQUEST FOR COMPENSATION FOR MORAL DAMAGE CAUSED BY AN UNFAIR COMPLAINT ( Claimant Lawyer’s Claim that He Was Unfairly Complained to the Bar/The Words Used in the Defendant’s Complaint Petition Are Not Offensive – The Defendant Has the Usual Doubts and Concrete Signs of Complaining About the Plaintiff/The Case Should Be Dismissed )
- THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ( People Have the Right and Authority to Request Legal Action and Punishment to Protect Their Rights Against Those Who Harm Them-The Presence of Some Signs and Facts That Justify the Complaint, Albeit Weak and Indirect, Is Sufficient/Based on These, It Will Be Accepted That the Use of the Right to Complain Is in Accordance with the Law in Cases Where Others May Act as Defendants in the Face of the Same Incident )
- FREEDOM TO SEEK RIGHTS ( People Have the Right and Dec to Request Legal Action and Punishment to Protect Their Rights Against Those Who Harm Them – The Presence of Some Signs and Facts That Justify the Complaint, Albeit Weak and Indirect, Is Sufficient )
2709/m. 12, 25, 26, 36
6098/m. 49
4721/m. 24, 25
ABSTRACT: The case relates to a request for compensation of moral damage suffered due to an unfair complaint.
The plaintiff, working as a lawyer, who had been dismissed from the case in order to negotiate on behalf of clients, the company has the authority he had had a telephone conversation with the defendant, but the defendant complained about the bar’s calls itself by installing different meanings, as a result of the complaint, the claim is unfounded, because by the Disciplinary Board of the Bar Association disciplinary proceedings by stating that they decided to open a place that isn’t for the moral damage suffered was found to prompt you to make.
Persons have the right and authority to request the protection of their rights against those who harm them, to take legal action and to be punished, both in front of judicial authorities and by contacting authorized institutions and organizations. The presence of some signs and phenomena, albeit weak and indirect, is sufficient to justify the complaint. Based on these, it should be recognized that it is legally appropriate to use the right of complaint in cases where others may act as defendants in the face of the same incident. Otherwise, it should be concluded that the complaint is used in violation of the limits of freedom of expression and constitutes an attack on dec values.
Words that are used in the complaint the defendant is a personal value judgement, does not constitute an insult, unpleasant thoughts expended by the defendant in the complaint in question, even the uncomfortable ones, is protected under freedom of expression and thought, the nature of value judgments in personal statements requires the adoption of limit criticism of staying in. A complete rejection of the request is required with the recognition that there are the usual doubts and concrete indications that the defendant is complaining about the plaintiff.
CASE : Plaintiff A. A. acting Attorney Ö. K. by, defendant S. G. at the end of the trial, the court requested moral compensation for the violation of personal rights with the petition filed on 31/07/2013; the decision of the Supreme Court of 27/10/2014 on partial acceptance of the case was requested by the defendant’s deputy within the time limit, and the report prepared by the examining judge and the papers in the file were examined and discussed as necessary after the decision on the acceptance of the appeal petition was made:
VERDICT: The case relates to a request for compensation for moral damage suffered due to an unfair complaint. A part of the request was accepted by the court; the decision was appealed by the defendant.
The plaintiff, a lawyer practising in working as a registered… case in order to negotiate on behalf of clients who had been dismissed from the company, the authority he had had a telephone conversation with the defendant, but the defendant’s phone calls… and the bar complained about itself by installing different meanings to the complaint as a result of unfounded allegations by the disciplinary committee of a bar association… were they decided to open disciplinary proceedings by stating that because that isn’t a place for moral damage suffered was found to prompt you to make.
The defendant argued that he had exercised his right to a legal complaint and that the case should be dismissed.
The court decided to partially accept the case, recognizing that the statements used by the defendant in the complaint petition to the bar constitute an attack on the plaintiff’s personal rights in terms of their meaning.
The right to complain, in other words, the freedom to seek rights; Dec.36 of the Constitution. in the article; “. .”has been featured in the form of. The freedom to seek rights has been secured in this way; people have the right and dec to request that their rights be protected, legal action be taken and punished against those who harm them, both before judicial authorities and by contacting authorized institutions and organizations.
In addition to the freedom to seek rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the Constitution dec again “. ” 12. in addition to the fact that everyone has inviolable, inalienable, inalienable fundamental rights and freedoms depending on their personality in Article 17. in the article, it is also regulated that everyone has the right to life, to protect and improve his material and spiritual being. TMK 24. in the article, the elements of the attack on the rights of personality are specified and its illegality is explained. 25. in Article 49 of the UK, it is explained that an attack on personal rights will be protected by litigation. in the article, the sanction of the attack is regulated.
In cases where freedom of expression and dec rights are confronted, it is unthinkable that the legal system protects these two values at the same time. It will be accepted that the less superior benefit is appropriate to remain unprotected in that event and for that moment in the face of the benefit that should be kept more superior. The freedom to seek dec is not unlimited, as in other freedoms, and a person cannot use this right to harm someone else only. In order for this right to be legally protected and recognized as being used on the spot, it is also not necessary that there is sufficient evidence to require that the complainant be punished or held accountable. The presence of some signs and phenomena, albeit weak and indirect, is sufficient to justify the complaint. Based on these, it should be recognized that it is legally appropriate to use the right of complaint in cases where others may act as defendants in the face of the same incident. Otherwise, it should be concluded that the complaint is used in violation of the limits of freedom of expression and constitutes an attack on dec values.
In the file information and documents from the defendant’s company is a representative of the plaintiff’s attorney, the plaintiff’s case the defendant out of due receivables due to workmanship telephone calls with your clients, the defendant gave a complaint to the bar, when all are considered together of the petition and development of the event, the complaint is a personal value judgement words that are used in, does not constitute an insult, unpleasant thoughts expended by the defendant in the complaint in question, even the ones uncomfortable A. S. 10. article 26 of the Constitution. according to the article, is protected under freedom of expression and thought of staying in the nature of value judgments that limit the adoption of personal statements in criticism is necessary, therefore, that the defendant the plaintiff is complaining about the usual doubts with the acceptance that there were no signs of prompt denial and concrete instead of adoption, because it is not completely partly true, the reversal was required.
CONCLUSION: A unanimous decision was made on 11.01.2016 to OVERTURN the appeal decision for the reasons shown above and to refund the advance payment if requested.
