Constitutional Court: Prison sentence for column article violated journalist's rights

Click to read the article in Turkish

The Constitutional Court has ruled that a prison sentence given to journalist Halit Basık because of a column article violated his freedom of expression and the press. It has ruled that the journalist shall be paid 13,500 lira (1,608 USD) in compensation.

Basık, who owns the Onuncu Köy newspaper, a local outlet in Hatay, published two articles making allegations against a lawyer in 2013. The lawyer filed a criminal complaint against him because of the articles.

The Hatay 2nd Penal Court of First Instance sentenced the journalist two 2 years and 5 months in prison for "insult."

The journalist appealed the verdict but the 18th Penal Chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld his sentence. He then filed an individual application with the Constitutional Court.

Examining the application within the scope of articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution, which regulate freedom of expression and the press, the high court stated that everyone has the right to express and disseminate ideas.

The fundamental rights and freedoms can only be restricted with laws and in accordance with the relevant articles of the Constitution and these restrictions cannot be against the requirements of the democratic social order and the principle of proportionality.

Verdict without an assessment

The top court stated that the first instance court considered the statements subject to the punishment of the applicant as factual accusations and gave a verdict without an assessment as to why the journalist's allegations constituted a crime.

"It is inevitable in a democratic society that journalists try to inform and even guide the public. Punishment of information and criticism, even if they are disturbing, may lead to the silencing of different voices in society and the public by having a deterrent effect.

"The reasons given by the court of first instance to justify its admission of the case against the applicant were not considered appropriate and sufficient and it was concluded that the limitations applied to the applicant's rights to freedom of expression and press under articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution do not correspond to social needs." (HA/VK)