Violation Of Freedom Of Expression And Freedom Of The Press Due To The Award Of Compensation For News Reports
Events
The plaintiff H.P. was an MP of a political party on the date of the incident. The plaintiff attended the district congress of the party together with an MP. Provincial chairman reacted to the attendance of deputies from out of the city to the district congress without his knowledge and made a speech on the rostrum. The plaintiff then took the floor and responded to the provincial chairman. This polemic that took place at the district congress was covered as news in various copies of Kayseri Yeni Haber newspaper (the newspaper), a local newspaper, and the editor-in-chief of the newspaper also made various evaluations about the incident in his column in the newspaper.
The applicant filed a lawsuit for non-pecuniary damages against the newspaper before the Civil Court of First Instance (the Court), claiming that his personal rights had been attacked due to the allegations made in the aforementioned news reports and columns. The Court partially accepted the lawsuit and ordered the applicant to pay 2.000 TL non-pecuniary damages. Upon the applicant’s application for appeal, the Regional Court of First Instance decided that the appeal was rejected on the merits and was final in terms of amount.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his freedom of expression and freedom of the press had been violated by the award of compensation against him for the news he had reported about a politician.
The Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, the plaintiff declared that he did not use the expressions alleged to have been uttered by him in the news reports and articles, and as a matter of fact, the court found the plaintiff right and decided to accept the lawsuit. The court based its reasoning on the expert examination made on the CD on which the speech was recorded and concluded that the news and articles were not true.
In the concrete case, it is seen that the allegations put forward by the newspaper were confirmed by the provincial chairman of the party, who was a party to the polemic and was present at the congress during the incident. It is also understood that the party members collected signatures for the initiation of internal party disciplinary proceedings due to the words allegedly said by the plaintiff. Apart from this, journalists cannot be expected to prove the accuracy of the allegations through an independent research before reporting the news.
It should not be ignored that the applicant newspaper included the statements sent by the plaintiff to the newspaper on the subject. In this case, it has been observed that the newspaper presented the allegations based on the provincial chairman and other party members present at the meeting and the plaintiff’s statements denying the said allegations to the readers together. When all these issues are evaluated together, it should be accepted that the newspaper acted within its duty and responsibility, and that there is insufficient evidence that it deliberately destroyed the facts.
.
Sanctioning the reporting of the allegation that a member of parliament made certain remarks to the provincial chairman of the party at the district party congress on the grounds of protecting honour and reputation will result in the prevention of free and open discussions on issues of public interest, and will seriously hinder the contributions of the press to the discussion of issues of public interest.
The Court sentenced the applicant to pay compensation for the news report without adequately discussing the content of the news report, the fact that the allegations in the news report were supported by witness statements, the fact that the applicant had published the plaintiff’s statements, and the lack of sufficient evidence that the applicant acted in bad faith. The court of first instance did not establish a fair balance between the protection of the freedoms of expression and the press and the protection of the right to honour and reputation. For this reason, the grounds put forward by the court for ordering the applicant to pay compensation cannot be accepted as relevant and sufficient for the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court ruled that the applicant’s freedoms of expression and press freedom were violated.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.