Calling one a 'shady person' not defamation, appeals court rules

Click to read the article in Turkish

An appeals court has upheld the acquittal of Polat Balkan, former chair of the Antalya Bar Association, in the case where he faced "defamation" charges for calling businessperson Fettah Tamince "one of the shadiest and dirtiest persons history has ever seen."

On November 14, 2020, Balkan wrote on his Twitter account, "Fettah Tamince who is one of the shadiest and dirtiest persons this land has ever seen and his collaborators, keep your hands off Antalya!"

On December 9, he had written again, "I am telling knowingly and willfully: Fettah Tamimce who is one of the shadiest and dirtiest persons history has ever seen and his local collaborators are trying to take Antalya hostage... This is the basic struggle."

A defamation case was opened against Balkan upon a complaint by Tamince.

Freedom of expression

In the case held in the 25th Penal Court of First Instance, acquittal was ruled for Balkan for his words on grounds that "the act was not defined as a crime in law."

"Since that, when articles 13. 14. 25. 26 of the Constitution and articles 9/2, 10/2, 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights are evaluated together, words which are disturbing, unpleasant, anomalous, agitative, but not including or provoking violence are also in the scope of freedom of expression,

"Since the suspect is a lawyer and that he was serving as the head of the bar association at the time and had knowledge on many issues due to his position, and that the complainant is a well-known businessperson and that even if the words of the suspect expressed in order to show a reaction to some events happening in Antalya are disturbing the other party, are rude, impolite and they constitute bitter criticism,

"Since that the complainant has to show tolerance to critics even reaching shocking, offending or disturbing levels because he is a known businessperson and since the words are not offending the honor or the reputation of the complainant, it is understood that elements of crime do not exist, and that based on the trial and according to the evidences collected, elements of the offense charged do not exist and that acquittal is ruled for the suspect since the act is not defined as a crime in this form according to article 223/2-(a) of Law number 5271.

Final acquittal

Fettah Tamince objected to the decision. Antalya Regional Court of Justice Penal Chamber 4 approved the decision of the local court in its ruling dated October 6.

"From the minutes reflecting the trial process where the personal conviction was formed, the documents and the examination made according to the content of the grounds of the decision, it was understood that there was no contradiction to law in the court ruling either procedurally or substantially, that there were no lacking evidences or dismissed procedures, that the evaluation was sound in terms of reasoning."

*Article 223/2-(a) of Criminal Procedures Act number 5271: "That the alleged act is not defined as a crime by law." (AS/PE/VK)