Criminal Department 2017/150 E. , 2017/6231 K.

“text of jurisprudence”

Court : Criminal Court of First Instance
Crime : Violation of the privacy of private life
Verdict : Acquittal

Istanbul Anatolia 2. The decision of the Criminal Court of First Instance to resist dated 26.01.2016, numbered 2015/503-2016/33, was appealed by the participant and upheld in accordance with Article 36 of the Law No. 6763. article 307 of the CMK as amended. § 3. in accordance with the paragraph, the file was sent to our Office for examination of the provision of resistance by the Criminal General Assembly of the Supreme Court; it was considered necessary to re-examine it:
In the file under consideration, the defendant is required to comply with Article 134/2 of the TCC. as a result of the trial, the defendant’s defense, the participant’s statement, the document contained in the file and the entire scope of the file; who’s attending with friends for a while the defendant was taken the exact date of the photo available when you install Facebook on the website cannot be determined exactly so so that that you have installed without consent after he left join with a doubt of the defendant’s benefit cannot be identified in accordance with the principle laid acquittal from guilt in the direction of the provision was established in the following manner…” format, the grounds for acquittal on the basis of dated 13.03.2014, 2013/143 based on Decision No. 2014/133 by participating in the provision upon appeal, the court of Appeals 12. According to the decision of the Criminal Department dated 11.05.2015, based on 2015/35, No. 2015/7819;
“…A friend of the defendant and the attendee’s time, then the end of the friendship, the defendant and the defendant involved with participating together put next to each other during that photo of your own Facebook page, after the end of their friendship even after the removal of the attendee’s photos demanded from the defendant, the defendant in question doesn’t remove the photos in the event,
The file from the scope of the attendee relations with the defendant and together they continued until the month of September of 2012, during the period they are taken, the date when the photos was put on Facebook exactly be determined, although it is put on by the defendant the parties during their time together at that time and the attendee’s own Facebook page that are not in dispute when the attendee’s statement of the defendant in the month of September I wanted to leave himself, but the defendant to continue his association of joining in the month of October 2012 that the defendant allegedly threatened her, where filed a criminal complaint about participating, but then refuses to receive the threat to participate in related action, then by participating in 12/12/2012 perfected in the history of the photos in question was shared from Facebook page, alleging that the defendant’s still a complaint and the indictment as stated in the complaint on the defendant’s Facebook page noted that there is as of the date of photographs, the defendant in his statement at the prosecutor’s office, at the end of the month of December 2012 considering the photos in question have been removed, before the date of the complaint, the participant complained to the defendant about the crime of threatening and the defendant sent a message to the participant in the section “I put it in those pictures, whether I put it on my Facebook or not, I don’t answer to anyone, and you know it that way.” considering the message that the participant should accept that he wants to leave the defendant in September, and although the photos mentioned were shared on the defendant’s own page with the participant’s consent, the participant’s consent could not be mentioned after the participant asked him to remove the photos, and the defendant should remove the photos, even if he did not remove, Facebook does not matter the date of posting the photos on the website, the important thing is that as of the date of complaint, it is understood whether the participant’s consent remains and whether the photos are on Facebook, 134/2-1 of the TCC, which complies with the act of posting the defendant’s photo taken side by side with the participant on Facebook.‘the exact date of uploading the photo taken by the defendant with the participant to the website called Facebook cannot be determined without considering that he should be punished according to the sentence, in other words, after parting with the participant, it cannot be determined exactly whether he uploaded it without his consent ’on the grounds that it may occur and an acquittal decision may be made on the grounds that it does not fall within the scope of the file,
Also according to acceptance and application;
In the short decision that constitutes the basis of the judgment and in the provision part of the reasoned decision, the acquittal provision is established about the defendant, by not showing the applicable law and article 232/6 of the CMK. it is understood that the acquittal provision dated 26.01.2016 was established, stating that it was overturned based on the reasons for ”acting contrary to the article …” and that it was resisted in the previous decision made by the court.
26.11.2013 the General Board of the Supreme Criminal Court, which is dated based on 2013/50, according to the decision of the practice and continuity 2013/525 gained, the decision was made to resist even though formally; in accordance with the decision-making process to discuss the issues that should be discussed in the judgment of reversal, in the aftermath of the destruction research to investigate new evidence based on data collected, the first decision that has been untested and are not included in a provision of the apartment by establishing new and different reasons for the decision; not in the nature of resistance in essence, but as a result of repeating action which was given a new provision to disrupt it. If a provision of this nature is appealed, the examination must be carried out by the relevant department of the Supreme Court.
Although the previous practice was adopted exactly as a result of the trial held by the local court after the decision to disrupt our apartment; “…as a result of the examination and evaluation conducted by our court on the disruption; facebook account of the accused together in the process of the relationship, or the client has expressly consented to this, not removing the pictures from the page at the time of request from the defendant from the end of the relationship will not constitute the elements of the crime in accordance with article 134/2 of the TCK, the relevant article also decriminalizes the unlawful disclosure of the images, whereas in the event that the defendant’s pictures cannot be mentioned when he begins to disclose any illegality, the purpose of the law is to prevent the unlawful disclosure of private images or voices of people, the subject images of the crime are disclosed in accordance with the law from the beginning to a certain stage, at the point where the action will not turn into a crime as soon as one of the parties to the picture, that is, the client’s consent, at this point the elements of the crime of inaction on behalf of the defendant with pictures thrown out of the decision of the court opinion and accumulate in the defendant’s acquittal will be evaluated in the following manner hukmolunmus is…” format and for different reasons 223/2 CMK-in accordance with a provision for the establishment of the Local Court’s decision to resist the recent implementation of it is not new, but is in the nature of the provision, because the provision in compliance with the adoption of the decision belongs to the action performed by determining that temyizen review mission in our apartment:
According to the results of the trial, the evidence collected and shown at the place of decision, the opinion and discretion of the court formed in accordance with the results of the prosecution, the scope of the file being reviewed, the rejection of other appeals of the participant, but;
The defendant, the victim himself in a frame and kissed her on the cheek, and wrapped himself in them both side by side posing on others in daily attire taken by the photographs, within the knowledge of the victim Facebook account after you publish the photos in question, the victim requested to be removed by a victim, and separate from, although it continues to publish, in the event that;
Facebook, in accordance with the consent of the victim, these photos cannot be considered images related to the victim’s private living space and that would violate the privacy of his private life, since the defendant’s personal data photos of the victim continue to be published contrary to the consent of the victim due to the action of the DEC 136/1. a decision to acquit the defendant in accordance with Article 223/2-a of the CMK on legal and insufficient written grounds, without taking into account that a decision of conviction for illegally providing or seizing the data in the article should be made,
Since it is contrary to the law and the appeals of the participant are considered to be in place as of this moment, the provision is therefore in accordance with Article 8 of Law No. 5320. article 321 of CMUK No. 1412, which is currently being implemented in accordance with Article. according to the article, it was decided unanimously on 13.09.2017 that it would be BROKEN against the will.

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir