GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF CRIMINAL AFFAIRS OF THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
To Be Sent
ISTANBUL 23. CRIMINAL COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
FILE NUMBER : …….. base,…… decision
ANULLMENT FOR THE SAKE OF LAW
Defendant:
Acting: Attorney
D.Subject: Antalya 23. Criminal Court Of First Instance …. base,………. the decision is a request to apply to the Attorney General’s office of the Supreme Court with the request that the final conviction be overturned in the interests of the law.
INSTRUCTIONS :
Client defendant A.T. about Antalya 23. As a result of the 2017/889 decision of the Criminal Court of first instance, a final judicial fine of us $ 2500 was imposed. Although the court decision was illegal, the client did not have the opportunity to resort to any legal means due to the precise nature of the judicial fine.
The defendant is a rude and immoral doctor who should not be surprised in a society that has been nailed from A to z” on the subject opened under the title “Doctor Who made fun of his gay patient” on the site called “eksisozluk”. The pulp of society is what you’re going to do,” he wrote. The comment written by the client can be considered the most severe criticism. The client has no intent to offend.
The established case law of the Supreme Court stipulates that in order for an act to constitute an insult, the conduct is intended to humiliate the interlocutor. The client’s goal is not to humiliate someone he has never known, but to criticize a doctor who mocks his patient’s sexual orientation. His comments are described by the Supreme Court as “severe criticism.” As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has set general criteria for applying for all defamation offences:
“…The legal value protected by the punishment of insulting acts is the Honor, Honor and dignity of persons, and in order for this crime to occur, the behavior must occur in order to humiliate the person. In some cases, whether a movement is offensive or not is relative and can vary depending on time, place, and situation. Any criticism or insult to public officials or civilians should not be viewed in the context of the crime of offensive words, if the words clearly, honour and dignity, or quality of a concrete act that may offend or fact are required to establish the act of imputation cursing…”
According to Supreme Court practice, “indecent”, “immoral” words intended for criticism do not constitute an offence of defamation:
In the concrete case, it should be noted that the words that the accused used against the participant in the form of “rude, disrespectful”, vulgar expressions and heavy criticism will not constitute a crime of defamation due to the fact that they do not offend the Honor, Honor and dignity of the participant (Supreme Court 18. Criminal Division-decision 2016/6745).
Incoming Penitentiary institutions to deposit money to his wife, the defendant, on the day of the visit, because it is not the child upon being refused entry to the prison with him, unsupervised and 6-year-old child of the prison environment be a lonely place because of the fear of dogs, they’re just made of himself in charge of the checkpoint saying he thought the complainant for the purposes of unfair criticism accepted, “you’re being disrespectful” in the form of the words, the dignity of the complainant, the size is not insulting the honor and dignity, but heavy criticism disturbing, it is rude and disorderly conduct and does not constitute elements of the offence of defamation (Supreme Court 4. Criminal Division-Decision: 2014/32605).
Conclusion and request : as we explained above, which is clearly contrary to the law. The basis of the Criminal Court of First Instance…….., ………… in order to overturn the decision, we request that the Supreme Court apply to the Attorney General’s office for the benefit of the law.08.08.2021
Defence Counsel
