In The Crime Of Defamation, The Words Spoken In The Crime Of Defamation Must Clearly Constitute The Attribution Of A Concrete Act Or Fact That May Offend Honor, Dignity And Respect, Or The Act Of Swearing – The Defendant’s Calling The Police Officer Who Tried To Take His Statement “Lan” Will Not Constitute The Crime Of Defamation
T.C. YARGITAY 4th Criminal Chamber 2012/35914 Main, 2014/2639 Decision, 30.01.2014 Date
* THE WORD LAN IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF INSULT (The Defendant Said “You Can’t Keep Me Here, Lan” to the Police Officer Trying to Take the Statement of the Accused – It Is in the Nature of Rude Address / The Crime of Insult Will Not Occur)
* THE CRIME OF INSULT (The Words Spoken Must Clearly Constitute the Attribution of a Concrete Act or Fact that May Offend Honor, Honor and Dignity or the Act of Cursing – The Defendant’s Calling the Police Officer Who Tried to Take His Statement a “Lan” Will Not Constitute the Crime of Insult)
* WORDS IN THE NATURE OF Rude Rhetoric (The Defendant Said “You can’t keep me here, man” to the Police Officer Trying to Take the Statement of the Accused – Not Offensive to the Honor, Dignity and Respect of the Complainant / The Elements of the Crime of Defamation Will Not Occur)
* ACT OF INSULT IN THE INTERPRETATION ROOM ( Defendant Insulting the Police Officer Trying to Take the Statement of the Accused – The Penalty Cannot Be Increased Without Discussing and Explaining How the Publicity Factor Occurred )
* INCREASE OF THE PENALTY ( Defendant Insulting the Police Officer Trying to Take the Statement of the Accused in the Statement Room of the Police Station – The Penalty Should Not Be Increased Without Discussing and Explaining How the Element of Publicity Occurred )
5237/m. 125
SUMMARY : In order for the words spoken to be evaluated in the context of the crime of insult, they must clearly constitute the imputation of a concrete act or fact that may offend honor, honor and dignity or the act of swearing.
It should be considered that the elements of the crime of insult do not occur because the words that the defendant is accepted to have said to the police officer who tried to take his statement, in the form of “you can’t keep me here, you can’t keep me here” and in the form of a rude address, are not to the extent of offending the honor, honor and dignity of the complainant.
According to the acceptance, it is against the law to increase the penalty without discussing and explaining how the publicity element is formed, in the face of the understanding that the insulting act took place in the statement-taking room at the police station.
CASE : The judgment given by the Local Court was appealed and the file was discussed according to the duration of the appeal, the nature of the decision and the date of the crime:
DECISION : Since there were no reasons for the rejection of the appeal request, the merits of the case were discussed.
In the examination made according to the content of the minutes, documents and justification reflecting the hearing process in which the conscientious opinion was formed, other reasons were not found to be relevant.
However;
1-The legal value protected by the punishment of insulting acts is the honor, honor and dignity of persons, and in order for this crime to occur, the behavior must be intended to humiliate the person. Whether an act is insulting or not is relative in some cases and may vary according to time, place and situation. All kinds of heavy criticism or disturbing words directed at public officials or civilian citizens should not be evaluated within the context of the crime of insult, and the words should clearly constitute the imputation of a concrete act or fact that may offend the honor, dignity and respect, or the act of swearing. Giving a verdict of conviction without considering that the elements of the crime of insult did not occur because the words in the form of “you can’t keep me here, you can’t keep me here”, which were accepted to be said by the defendant on the day of the incident to the complainant Ö. Ç., the police officer who tried to take his statement, were not to the extent of offending the honor, dignity and respect of the complainant,
2-According to the acceptance, in the face of the understanding that the act of insult occurred in the statement-taking room at the police station, increasing the penalty with insufficient justification without discussing and explaining how the element of publicity was formed,
CONCLUSION : Since it is contrary to the law and the reasons for appeal of the defendant H. T. and the opinion in the notification are deemed appropriate, it was unanimously decided on 30.01.2014 to VACATE the verdict and to send the file back to the original/judgment court in order to continue and conclude the trial starting from the stage before the reversal.