Attack On Personality Rights Via The Internet, Moral Compensation
T.C.
COURT OF CASSATION
4TH CIVIL CHAMBER
CASE NO: 2016/5240
DECISION NO: 2018/1873
DATE OF DECISION: 14.3.2018
>>ATTACK ON PERSONAL RIGHTS VIA THE INTERNET – MORAL DAMAGES ARISING FROM UNLAWFUL ACTS – EXPRESSIONS USED ON A TWITTER ACCOUNT
4721/Art. 24, 25
6098/Art. 56
SUMMARY: The case concerns a claim for moral damages arising from an attack on personality rights via the internet. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated their personality rights through statements made on their Twitter account and seeks compensation for the resulting harm. The statements in question, shared by the defendant on their Twitter account, constitute an attack on the plaintiff’s personality rights. The court should award the plaintiff appropriate moral damages.
CASE: Upon the plaintiff’s attorney filing a petition on June 5, 2015, seeking moral damages arising from an attack on personal rights via the internet, the court ruled as follows at the conclusion of the trial: The decision dated 29/12/2015 dismissing the case was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney within the prescribed time limit, and after the appeal petition was accepted, the case file was reviewed by the examining judge, and the necessary deliberations were made:
DECISION: The case concerns a claim for moral damages arising from an infringement of personal rights. The court dismissed the case; the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
The plaintiff’s attorney claimed that the defendant had violated the plaintiff’s personal rights by posting statements about the plaintiff on his Twitter account and sought compensation for moral damages.
The defendant argued that the case should be dismissed.
The court dismissed the case on the grounds that the defendant’s post on the social media platform was critical in nature.
The statements made by the defendant on Twitter constitute an attack on the plaintiff’s personal rights. Therefore, the court should award the plaintiff appropriate compensation for moral damages. For this reason, the decision must be overturned.
CONCLUSION: The appealed decision was overturned for the reasons stated above, and based on the grounds for overturning, it was decided by majority vote on March 14, 2018, that there was no need to examine the plaintiff’s other appeals at this time and that the advance fee would be refunded if requested.
DISSENTING OPINION
Based on the documents in the file, the evidence supporting the decision, and the legally required reasons, particularly since no inaccuracies were observed in the evaluation of the evidence, I believe that the appeal objections are unfounded and that the decision, which is in accordance with procedure and law, should be upheld. Therefore, I do not agree with the majority’s decision to overturn the decision. 14/03/2018