Events
İ.M.G., who was the Mayor of the Metropolitan Municipality at the time of the incident, published some messages and documents about the applicant, who was a member of parliament, via a social networking site. In the aforementioned messages, expressions targeting the applicant were used and allegations were made that the applicant’s family used illegal water. In addition, along with the messages, the general assembly minutes containing the full address of the applicant’s spouse’s company, subscription information, identity numbers and signatures of his relatives were shared on the social media account.
The claim for compensation filed by the applicant against the Mayor in the Civil Court of First Instance with the allegation that his personal data were violated due to the unlawful seizure and disclosure of his personal data was rejected on the grounds that the subject of the case was within the scope of freedom of expression. The applicant filed an individual application after the aforementioned decision was upheld by the Supreme Court.
allegations
The applicant claimed that his right to demand the protection of his personal data within the scope of the right to respect for private life was violated due to the disclosure of his personal information on the social networking site.
Court’s Evaluation
In terms of the right to request the protection of personal data within the scope of the protection of private life, the state has a positive obligation to protect all individuals within its jurisdiction against risks that may arise from the actions of both public authorities and other individuals, as well as the person himself. Within the scope of this obligation, the judicial authorities are required to make a careful judgment by observing the constitutional guarantees regarding the protection of personal data, to discuss the circumstances of the concrete case and to explain the conclusion reached with sufficient justification.
A person’s signature, identity, subscription and family information, and home and work address are within the scope of personal data. The applicant did not give consent for the aforementioned information to be accessed and disclosed on the social networking site. In addition, the applicant; He claimed that the information obtained 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 capture and dissemination of this information.
On the other hand, it has been seen that the courts of instance evaluated the case within the scope of freedom of expression, emphasizing that the parties were politicians and that the messages were in the nature of criticism. There was no discussion about the extent and how the applicant’s personal data was captured, for what legitimate purpose this information was used on the social networking site, and what public purpose its disclosure served.
In addition, no evaluation has been made regarding the applicant’s serious claims that the seized and disclosed information of the applicant is within the scope of the protection of personal data by the courts of instance. In this case, it cannot be said that the courts of instance make a careful judgment taking into account the constitutional guarantees regarding the protection of personal data within the scope of respect for private life, and offer a justification specific to the concrete case.
For the reasons explained, the Constitutional Court decided that the right to demand the protection of personal data within the scope of the right to respect for private life was violated.
