Violation Of Freedom Of Expression Due To The Award Of Compensation For Words Said For The Minister Of Foreign Affairs
Events
The applicant, a politician, made a speech at an iftar dinner organised by the organisation of the political party to which he belonged, in which he criticised the Government and made negative remarks about the Minister of Foreign Affairs in office at the time.
Minister A.D. (the plaintiff) filed a lawsuit for non-pecuniary damages amounting to 10.000 TL before the Civil Court of First Instance (the Court), claiming that the applicant’s personal rights had been attacked in the said speech. The Court partially accepted the lawsuit and ordered the applicant to pay 2.000 TL compensation to the plaintiff. In the reasoning of the Court, it was stated that the expressions used exceeded the limits of criticism, that political criticism, like any other criticism, should be made without exceeding the limits of criticism, and without directing towards personal rights, and that the expressions in question were in the nature of insult. The decision was appealed and finalised by the Court of Cassation.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his freedom of expression had been violated by the award of compensation against him for the remarks he had made against the Minister of Foreign Affairs during a speech.
The Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, it is seen that the Court evaluated the aforementioned expression used during the speech separately from the whole speech by quotation marks. However, while deciding whether a restriction is compatible with freedom of expression or not, the courts of first instance are required to evaluate the expressions used within the holistic context of the event without detaching them from their context.
It should not be ignored that the speech in question was made by a politician belonging to an opposition party addressing a limited number of people during a dinner with guests belonging to his party. By targeting the ruling party and the applicant, who was a member of the ruling party, the applicant sought to gain an advantage in the political arena and at the same time to motivate members of the party organisation. At this point, it must be recognised that the words used by politicians against each other are clearly part of their political style, which is intended to provoke polemics, provoke violent reactions and consolidate their supporters.
However, it should also be kept in mind that loudly voicing discomfort on issues that concern the entire society and that no doubt contribute to a public debate is only possible in democratic regimes where ideas can be expressed without any obstacles.
.
It is clear that freedom of expression is particularly valuable for elected officials who represent their constituents, convey their demands, concerns and opinions into the political sphere and defend their interests. Therefore, if the interference is directed against the freedom of expression of a politician, and in particular a member of an opposition party, the applications must be subjected to a much stricter scrutiny. In addition, as the events of the present application took place between politicians acting as public figures, the limits of acceptable criticism are wider than for an ordinary person. The applicant must therefore be more tolerant of criticism of him than an ordinary person.
The Court did not attempt to strike a balance between the applicant’s freedom of expression and the applicant’s right to protection of honour and reputation. Grounds put forward by the Court for ordering the applicant to pay compensation cannot be regarded as a relevant and sufficient justification for the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression. It is concluded that sentencing the applicant to pay compensation does not correspond to a compelling social need.
The Constitutional Court decided that the freedom of expression was violated for the reasons explained.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.