‘Paying Damages to Erdoğan Doesn’t Violate Freedom of Expression’

* Photo: Anadolu Agency (AA)

Click to read the article in Turkish

The Constitutional Court has announced its ruling in the application of main opposition Republican People's Party's (CHP) former Antalya Metropolitan Mayor Mustafa Akaydın, who was sentenced to pay non-pecuniary damages over his remarks about President and ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) Chair Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

The Constitutional Court has concluded that the freedom of expression of Akaydın has not been violated by being sentenced to pay damages to Erdoğan due to his statements about him.

Akaydın was put on trial over his speech on May 19 the Commemoration of Atatürk, Youth and Sports Day. In his speech there, Akaydın referred to Erdoğan, the then Prime Minister, in following words:

"... We don't want a Prime Minister whose reins are in the hands of Obama, we don't want a Prime Minister that will be swept to the toilet after they are done with him. And we don't want a homeland ruled from Qandil, from İmralı. We want freedom for our intellectuals, commanders, journalists, we want freedom to Silivri, Hasdal and Sincan..."

In response to these remarks, Erdoğan said that his personal rights were violated and filed a lawsuit for non-pecuniary damages of 50 thousand Turkish Lira (TRY) against Akaydın. Announcing its ruling on November 1, 2013, the Ankara 5th Penal Court of First Instance ruled that Akaydın should pay 6 thousand TRY in non-pecuniary damages.

Akaydın: Politicians should be tolerant of criticisms

Akaydın took this verdict to the Constitutional Court in August 2015.

Indicating that politicians should be tolerant of criticisms against themselves, Akaydın argued that being sentenced to prison and to pay damages was a violation of freedom of expression and press.

Ministry of Justice: Prime Minister was insulted

In its opinion submitted to the Constitutional Court, the Ministry of Justice indicated that freedom of expression was not unlimited and peoples' right of honor and reputation should be always safeguarded.

The Ministry further argued that the insults against the Prime Minister in the concrete case did not contribute to political discussions and, thus, the plaintiff did not have the obligation to tolerate these remarks.

The Ministry also stated that the damages to be paid by Akaydın was not unaffordable for him and it was, therefore, a proportional penalty.

Constitutional Court has found it inadmissible

The Constitutional Court has concluded that the application of Akaydın is inadmissible as it is manifestly ill-founded. (HA/SD)