Kılıçdaroğlu won the Isle of Man case

Head of cogeneration Kemal Kilicdarogluthe lawyer of Celal Celik, announced that the Isle of Man cases, which had previously been awarded compensation, had been struck down by the Supreme Court. Steel, “In Isle of Man affairs, President Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu was right and we won.” mentioned.

In lawyer Celal Çelik’s social media post, “This time, the Supreme Court taught Erdogan a lesson! In the MAN Island cases, President Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu was right and we won! Rulings worth hundreds of thousands of TL by so-called judges (in 3 cases) who committed crimes have been overturned by the Supreme Court! We will continue to win and teach! Our word is our word!‘ he used the phrase.

CLICK – Statement by Erdogan’s lawyer on the Isle of Man case: some statements do not reflect the truth, court decisions are distorted

The reasons for the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal were as follows:

“The president and those close to him should accept a wider range of reasonable criticism because of the position and reputation of other complainants.”

“It is understood that the defendant, who is the chairman of the main opposition party, made allegations about the illegal transfer of money abroad by the complainant’s relatives in several of his public speeches, and founded these allegations on the investigations carried out by the office of the Attorney General of Ankara. The speech was delivered at the meeting of the party group under the roof of the Turkish Grand National Assembly and is political in nature. The first thing to consider in this case is the position of the parties to the case. On the one hand, there is the defendant, who was the president of the main opposition party at the time of the speeches, and on the other, the complainant, the president-elect and those close to him. Due to the position and recognition of the applicant President and those close to him, who are the targets of criticism, the limits of reasonable criticism must be considered wider. It is clear that the freedom of expression is particularly valuable p for elected officials who convey the demands, concerns and thoughts of the voters they represent in the political arena and defend their interests. For this reason, if the restriction on freedom of expression is aimed at the freedom of expression of a politician and especially of the leader of the main opposition party, as in the concrete case, the claims subject to the lawsuit should be examined much more closely.

“There is a public interest in the discussion”

The second question to consider in our case is whether the allegations made by the defendant in his speeches relate to the public interest. It is clear that the framework of discourses that are closely linked to society remains mainly in the political field and concerns the public. In this context, it is natural that investigations in which the names of relatives of the complainant president are mentioned should be placed under the strict and close supervision of the defendant, who is the leader of the main opposition party. For this reason, in this case, where the reputation and reputation of the plaintiff and the freedom of expression of the defendant are at odds, it is extremely important to consider the interests of the public when making the balancing act. Moreover, the defendant did not directly target the plaintiff and the other plaintiffs, who are his relatives, in his speech, and essentially directed his speech towards the political identity of the plaintiff president. There is a public interest in the discussion.

“Words and expressions used in the political environment fall under freedom of expression even if they have no material basis”

The third issue that must be considered in concrete litigation is to correctly determine whether the words and expressions in question are in the nature of value judgments or material facts. When the statements made by the defendant and the subject matter of this case are assessed as a whole, one part is a value judgment and the other part is a factual value judgment. Words and expressions used in a political environment fall under freedom of expression, even if they have no material basis. Therefore, it is not necessary to prove the allegations made by the defendant.

“There is no determination regarding the falsity of these documents relied upon by the defendant.”

The allegations made by the defendant, which are the subject of the case and in his speeches to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, are based on information and documents related to the movement of bank money, which concern the relatives of the plaintiff president and certain plaintiffs, and which include rapid transfers. According to the response letter of 21/12/2017 given by Halk Bank Galata Commercial Branch, confirmed by the decision of the Ankara General Prosecutor’s Office of 15/01/2018 and numbered 2018/460, there is no continue. The same applies to the bank response letter for the movements of money specified in the report sent as an appendix to the letter from the Commission of Inquiry into Financial Crimes dated 22/12/2017 and numbered E. was found. Furthermore, there is no determination of the falsity of these documents relied on by the defendant.

“Does not constitute an infringement of the personality rights of the complainants”

Thus, when the words and expressions that are the subject of the case are assessed as a whole, they are political statements of public interest and which remain mainly in the political arena. In a democratic society, there is no situation that requires intervention. On the contrary, it should be protected within the framework of freedom of expression in order to protect a democratic society and ensure pluralism. According to the settled case law of the Court of Cassation, the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, as long as it remains within the limits of freedom of expression and does not constitute an infringement of personal rights plaintiffs, it is not appropriate to hold the defendant liable with compensation, The trial court’s decision was reversed.

What happened?

CHP Chairman Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu said during his group meeting on November 21, 2017 that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his family and relatives transferred money to a company established in the Isles of Man.

With this, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, his son Ahmet Burak Erdoğan and Bilal Erdoğan, his daughters Sümeyye Erdoğan Bayraktar, Esra Albayrak, his brother Mustafa Erdoğan, his brother-in-law Ziya İlgen, his relatives Özdemir Bayraktar, Sadık Albayrak, Osman Ketenci and Orhan Uzuner went to court through his lawyers and asked the court for $1 million. He filed a lawsuit for moral damages worth 500,000 TL.

On July 18, 2018, the 20th Civil Court of First Instance of Anatolia ordered Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu to pay a total of 359,000 TL for moral damages to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his family. After the Court of Appeal’s decision to “cancel the proceedings”, the case was again sent back to the local court.

Previously a fine of 197,000 lire

On the other hand, it was decided to pay a total of 197,000 Lira in non-pecuniary damages to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his relatives due to the allegations made by CHP Chairman Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu during the group’s meeting held on November 28, 2017.

In the Isle of Man case, which has been reopened, it was decided to pay 142,000 lire in compensation.

CLICK | Isle of Man case reopened: Kılıçdaroğlu decided to pay 142,000 lira in compensation

Leave a Comment