Violation Of The Right To Request Protection Of Personal Data Due To Sharing The Information Belonging To Someone Else On Social Media Account
Events
İ.M.G., who was the Mayor of the Metropolitan Municipality at the time of the incident, published some messages and documents about the applicant, who was an MP, on a social networking website. The aforementioned messages used expressions targeting the applicant and included allegations that the applicant’s family used illegal water. Furthermore, along with the messages, the open address of the applicant’s spouse’s company, subscription information, identity numbers of his relatives and the minutes of the general assembly meeting containing their signatures were shared on the social media account.
The applicant filed a lawsuit for compensation against the Mayor at the Civil Court of First Instance on the grounds that his personal rights had been damaged due to the unlawful seizure and disclosure of his personal data, which was rejected on the grounds that the subject matter of the lawsuit fell within the scope of freedom of expression. The applicant made an individual application upon the confirmation of the aforementioned decision by the Court of Cassation.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his right to request protection of personal data within the scope of the right to respect for private life was violated due to the disclosure of his personal data on a social networking website.
Court’s Assessment
In terms of the right to request the protection of personal data within the scope of the protection of private life, the state has a positive obligation to protect all individuals within its jurisdiction against the risks that may arise from the actions of public authorities and other individuals as well as the person himself. Within the scope of this obligation, judicial authorities are required to make a careful judgement by taking into account the constitutional guarantees regarding the protection of personal data, discuss the circumstances of the concrete case and explain the conclusion reached with sufficient justification.
A person’s signature, identity, subscription and family information, as well as his/her home and work address are considered personal data. The applicant did not consent to the access to the aforementioned information and its disclosure on the social networking website. Furthermore, the applicant claimed at all stages of the compensation case that the information obtained and disclosed without his consent fell within the scope of personal data and that his personal rights were damaged due to the unlawful acquisition and dissemination of this information.
On the other hand, it was observed that the courts of first instance considered the case within the scope of freedom of expression, emphasising that the parties were politicians and the messages were in the nature of criticism. There was no discussion on how and to what extent the applicant’s personal data was obtained, for what legitimate purpose this information was used on the social networking site and what public purpose its disclosure served.
Furthermore, no assessment was made by the courts of first instance of the applicant’s serious allegations that the information obtained and disclosed fell within the scope of the protection of personal data. In this case, it cannot be said that the courts of first instance carried out a careful judgement observing the constitutional guarantees regarding the right to protection of personal data within the scope of respect for private life and provided a concrete case-specific justification.
For the reasons explained, the Constitutional Court decided that the right to request the protection of personal data within the scope of the right to respect for private life was violated.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.