Supreme Court 4th HD., E. 2017/907 K. 2019/6261 T. 24.12.2019
T.R. Presidency of the Supreme Court – 4th Civil Chamber
Base No.: 2017/907
Decision No.: 2019/6261
Decision date: 24.12.2019
non-pecuniary damage • non-pecuniary damage • attack on personal rights • conclusive evidence
COURT: Civil Court of First Instance
With the petition filed against the defendant … on 04/08/2015 by the Plaintiff …
Upon requesting non-pecuniary damages due to the violation of personal rights through the media and press, the court
at the end of the trial; Examination of the decision dated 15/03/2016 regarding the rejection of the case by the Supreme Court
After the decision to accept the appeal petition upon request by the plaintiff’s attorney in due time, the examination
The report prepared by the judge and the papers in the file were examined and the necessity was discussed.
The case concerns the request for non-pecuniary damage due to the violation of personal rights through the press. By the court,
it was decided to dismiss the case; The judgment was appealed by the plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s attorney, … Written by the defendant in the issue of Söz Haber Newspaper dated 27/06/2015
The content of the article titled “Lord of the Flies, let’s take a look at our flies” is not intended to humiliate the plaintiff, honor,
that it is intended to damage the honor and dignity of the plaintiff, in this way, the personal rights of the plaintiff are attacked.
He claimed compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused.
The defendant argued that the case should be dismissed.
The court has held that the expressions used in the content of the article subject to the case are in the nature of heavy criticism,
The case was dismissed on the grounds that it did not constitute an attack on their rights.
Within the scope of the file, about the defendant due to the column dated 27/06/2015 which is the subject of the case.
that a public lawsuit was filed for the crime of defamation, … 3rd Criminal Court of First Instance dated 20/01/2017 and 2015/1448
As a result of the trial made on the file numbered 2017/114, the merits were finalized against the defendant.
It appears that a conviction has been made. Article 53 of the Code of Obligations No. 818 (TCO No. 6098)
Although the acquittal decision rendered in the criminal court in accordance with Article 74 does not bind the civil judge,
This independence of the judge is not unlimited, and the criminal court has no control over the determination of the material facts.
The verdict of conviction is binding on the judge of law and will be conclusive evidence for the parties.
In this case; It is established by the criminal trial that the defendant committed the crime of defamation,
judgment of an appropriate amount of non-pecuniary damages by evaluating the finalized facts and the request together
It is not correct to establish a provision regarding the dismissal of the case.
CONCLUSION: The appealed decision was OVERFINED for the reasons shown above.
and it was unanimously decided on 24/12/2019 that the fee paid in advance would be returned upon request.
