President of the Internet Journalists Association Oguz Demirkaya was sentenced to prison for his comments on certain news articles on the internet. Demirkaya, who took the incident to the upper court, was right this time and he went to his side. to the payment of compensation was decided.

Oğuz Demirkaya, in the news on a website, about the communication consultant of a university rector

He used some expressions as . The communication consultant of the rector, who saw the comments about him, took the subject. to the court took away.

Sentenced to prison and ban from public office

Oğuz Demirkaya is also at Cumhuriyet University Hafik Kamer Örnek Vocational School. was a manager. So he was a public servant. The local court found these statements of Demirkaya to be rude and insulting. 1 year, 2 months, 17 days in prison and ban from public office fined. on his punishment Constitutional Court

Demirkaya, who took the path of , encountered the following result this time;

The Constitutional Court’s determination of the case is as follows:

  • Everyone can express their thoughts through words, writing, pictures or other ways. reserves the right to explain and disseminate.
  • This freedom is free of charge without the intervention of official authorities. includes freebies to give or receive opinions.
  • Measure limiting fundamental rights and freedoms, must meet a social need and should be a last resort.
  • The limitations are in line with the requirements of the democratic social order and cannot be contrary to the principle of proportionality.
  • Freedom to express and disseminate thought for the functioning of democracy is vital.
  • The courts have discretion, but this is under the supervision of the Constitutional Court.
  • With the court decision, the applicant’s an interference with freedom of expression was made.
  • While there are many milder intervention possibilities in the legal system for words that can be considered as “vulgar” in the words of the court, a heavy penalty, and moreover, the ban from public office as a legal consequence of the penalty has been significantly increased in order to protect the reputation that is being tried to be achieved. a disproportionate intervention.

Concluding the individual application in line with these determinations, the Constitutional Court gave the following decisions;

  • that freedom of expression is violated
  • A copy of the decision to eliminate the consequences of the violation of freedom of expression pending retrial to be sent to court
  • Clear to the applicant 13 thousand 500 Dollars non-pecuniary damage to be paid

Constitutional Court, the decision in question unanimous explained.

Like it? Share with your friends!

Michael Lewis


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *