T.C.
SUPREME
- law office
MAINLY NO: 2016/5240
DECISION NO: 2018/1873
DATE OF DECISION: 14.3.2018
ATTACK ON PERSONAL RIGHTS THROUGH THE INTERNET –NON–PECUNIARY DAMAGES CAUSED BY A TORT-EXPRESSIONS USED ON THE TWITTER ACCOUNT
4721/m. 24, 25
6098/m. 56
ABSTRACT : The case concerns the claim for non-pecuniary damages arising from the attack on the rights of persons through the Internet. The plaintiff sought compensation for the damage by stating that the defendant had attacked his personality rights with statements he had written on the social network Twitter account. The statements contained in the article, which is the subject of the lawsuit and was shared by the defendant via his Twitter account, are an attack on the plaintiff’s personality rights. The court must decide on the appropriate amount of non-pecuniary damages in favor of the plaintiff.
LITIGATION : 05/06/2015 against the defendant by the plaintiff’s attorney on the day through the internet with the petition resulting from a violation of personality rights for non-pecuniary damages made by the trial court on the request at the end of the case to the Supreme Court decision dated 29/12/2015 given for the rejection of the plaintiff’s attorney as requested by examination within the period, but once the petition of Appeal has been decided upon the adoption of the examination by the judge with the report was discussed by examining the papers in the file:
VERDICT : The case concerns a claim for non-pecuniary damages arising from an attack on the rights of a person. The court decided to dismiss the case; the decision was appealed by the deputy plaintiff.
The deputy plaintiff asked for compensation for moral damage, stating that the defendant had attacked his personal rights with statements he had written about his client on the social network Twitter account.
The defendant argued that a decision should be made to dismiss the case.
The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the defendant’s sharing on the social network was critical.
The statements contained in the article (twette), which is the subject of the lawsuit and was shared by the defendant via his Twitter account, are an attack on the plaintiff’s personality rights. Therefore, the court must decide on the appropriate amount of non-pecuniary damages in favor of the plaintiff. The decision had to be overturned for this reason.
CONCLUSION: It was decided by a majority vote on 14.03.2018 that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED for the reasons shown above, that there is no room for the plaintiff’s other appeals to be examined for now according to the reason of the overturning, and that the fee received in advance should be refunded if requested.
POST, VOTE AGAINST
I do not agree with the decision of the majority to overturn the articles in the file, as I believe that the decision is based on the evidence and the lawful reasons, especially the rejection of appeals that are not in place based on the fact that there is no inaccuracy in the evaluation of the evidence and the approval of the provision that is in accordance with the procedure and the law with the rejection of appeals that are not in place.14/03/2018
