VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THE PROTECTION OF PERSONAL DATA DUE TO THE SHARING OF INFORMATION BELONGING TO SOMEONE ELSE ON A SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT

Events

I, who was the mayor of the Metropolitan Municipality in the history of the event.M.G., has published some messages and documents about the applicant, who is a deputy, through a social networking site. In the mentioned messages, phrases aimed at the applicant were used, and claims such as that the applicant’s family used illegal water were included. In addition, the minutes of the General Assembly containing the Open address, subscription information, identification numbers and signatures of the applicant’s spouse’s company along with the messages were shared via the social media account.

The applicant’s claim for damages filed in the Court of First Instance against the mayor claiming that his personal rights were damaged due to the unlawful seizure and disclosure of his personal data was rejected on the grounds that the subject matter of the case remained within the scope of freedom of expression. The applicant made an individual application upon the approval of the said decision by the Supreme Court.

Count

The applicant claimed that due to the disclosure of their personal information on the social networking site, the right to request the protection of personal data within the scope of the right to respect for privacy was violated.

Assessment Of The Court

Protection of private life in terms of the right to request the protection of personal data within the scope of a positive obligation of the state authorities and other public and private authority in the area all individuals against risks arising from the actions of individuals and has an obligation to protect oneself. In accordance with this obligation, judicial authorities must conduct a thorough trial, taking into account constitutional guarantees on the protection of personal data, discuss the circumstances of the specific event and explain the result reached with sufficient justification.

Personal data includes a person’s signature, identity, subscription and family information, as well as home and business address. The applicant did not have the consent to access the mentioned information and to disclose it on the social networking site. In addition, the applicant claimed that the information seized and disclosed without his consent at all stages of the compensation case remained within the scope of personal data, and that his personal rights were damaged due to the unlawful seizure and dissemination of this information.

On the other hand, it was seen that the courts of degrees considered the case within the scope of freedom of expression, emphasizing that the parties were politicians and that the messages were critical. There has been no discussion about the extent and how the applicant’s personal data was seized, for what legitimate purpose this information was used on the social networking site, and for what public purpose its disclosure serves.

In addition, no assessment has been made by the courts of Appeal regarding the applicant’s serious claims that the seized and disclosed information remains within the scope of the protection of personal data. In this case, it cannot be said that the courts of degrees conduct a painstaking trial that respects the constitutional guarantees for the right to protect personal data in respect of privacy and provide specific justification for the specific event.

The Constitutional Court has ruled that the right to request the protection of personal data within the scope of the right to respect for privacy has been violated on the grounds described.