Numerous civil law defamation claims have been brought before courts in the recent
years. The legal basis for civil law defamation claims in Turkish law is Article 41 and
Article 49 of the Code of Obligations.
Article 41 contains the following stipulations:
A person who wrongfully harms another either intentionally, negligently or imprudently, is under
an obligation to compensate the other party for this harm.
A person who knowingly harms another through an immoral act is also under an obligation to
compensate the other party for this harm.
Article 49, entitled ‘‘Harm to Personal Interests,’’ states the following:
A person whose personal rights have been unlawfully violated is entitled to bring a claim for
monetary compensation for the nonpecuniary damages he has incurred.
The Turkish Code of Obligations provides for a civil law claim for defamation whereby the claimant can ask for monetary compensation instead of blocking access to content. However, most claimants prefer to turn to the Internet Law’s protection when
such is provided. One of the reasons for this preference is that the Turkish Code of
Obligations bans excessive enrichment through compensation while the Internet Law
provisions allow claimants to apply for a direct access ban.
Reports indicate that the Telecommunications Authority has announced plans to
bring defamation carried out online and hacking under the scope of Article 8 of Law
No. 5651, thereby providing people whose personal rights have been violated by online content with an alternative mechanism that would allow them to seek an accessbanning remedy instead of monetary damages under the Law of Obligations or fines
under criminal law. 40 As the procedure for obtaining a remedy under Internet Law is
more expedient than in civil and criminal law cases, this amendment equips the
aggrieved party with a much easier and quicker mechanism against online defamatory
content.
Surveillance
The National Security Bill, or the ‘‘Draft Act on National Information Security Agency
and Its Tasks,’’ does not include a provision on the Internet. The bill envisages the
establishment of a national information security agency as a public body. It requires
the public bodies and agencies as well as private entities (companies, etc.) to provide
‘‘national information’’ necessary to ensure national information security to the security agency when requested to do so. ‘‘National information,’’ however, is vaguely
defined in the bill’s present version. The bill, if enacted, may be used by the government to compel ISPs to supply the state with information on users’ communications
and activities at any time.
352
Turkey
years. The legal basis for civil law defamation claims in Turkish law is Article 41 and
Article 49 of the Code of Obligations.
Article 41 contains the following stipulations:
A person who wrongfully harms another either intentionally, negligently or imprudently, is under
an obligation to compensate the other party for this harm.
A person who knowingly harms another through an immoral act is also under an obligation to
compensate the other party for this harm.
Article 49, entitled ‘‘Harm to Personal Interests,’’ states the following:
A person whose personal rights have been unlawfully violated is entitled to bring a claim for
monetary compensation for the nonpecuniary damages he has incurred.
The Turkish Code of Obligations provides for a civil law claim for defamation whereby the claimant can ask for monetary compensation instead of blocking access to content. However, most claimants prefer to turn to the Internet Law’s protection when
such is provided. One of the reasons for this preference is that the Turkish Code of
Obligations bans excessive enrichment through compensation while the Internet Law
provisions allow claimants to apply for a direct access ban.
Reports indicate that the Telecommunications Authority has announced plans to
bring defamation carried out online and hacking under the scope of Article 8 of Law
No. 5651, thereby providing people whose personal rights have been violated by online content with an alternative mechanism that would allow them to seek an accessbanning remedy instead of monetary damages under the Law of Obligations or fines
under criminal law. 40 As the procedure for obtaining a remedy under Internet Law is
more expedient than in civil and criminal law cases, this amendment equips the
aggrieved party with a much easier and quicker mechanism against online defamatory
content.
Surveillance
The National Security Bill, or the ‘‘Draft Act on National Information Security Agency
and Its Tasks,’’ does not include a provision on the Internet. The bill envisages the
establishment of a national information security agency as a public body. It requires
the public bodies and agencies as well as private entities (companies, etc.) to provide
‘‘national information’’ necessary to ensure national information security to the security agency when requested to do so. ‘‘National information,’’ however, is vaguely
defined in the bill’s present version. The bill, if enacted, may be used by the government to compel ISPs to supply the state with information on users’ communications
and activities at any time.
352
Turkey