THE FACTS

 [8-31] Upon the denunciation that the applicant’s residence posed a risk to public health for being in the nature of a garbage house, the police and municipal police entered into the yard of the applicant’s residence by virtue of the District Governor’s approval of 21 May 2003. The police took paper, plastic, glass materials out of his residence, which was recorded by reporters of two press agencies. On 22 May 2003 and 15 June 2003, the news concerning the applicant and his family was broadcasted through a national TV channel. The applicant brought an action for non-pecuniary compensation before the incumbent court, maintaining that the broadcast of 22 May 2003 constituted an attack against his personal rights as it contained false information such as that he had collected garbage in his house and had had psychological problems. The incumbent court partially accepted the applicant’s action. However, the Court of Cassation quashed the first instance decision as the action should have been dismissed. Complying with the quashing judgment, the first instance court dismissed it. The decision, which was upheld by the Court of Cassation, thereby became final. The final decision was served on the applicant on 25 December 2013.

 On 24 January 2014, the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court.

IV. EXAMINATION AND GROUNDS

32.         The Constitutional Court, at its session of 13 October 2016, examined the application and decided as follows:

 A. The Applicant’s Allegations

33.         The applicant maintained that municipal police officers and news agency employees had entered his residence without his consent; that the footage obtained there were used twice by the respondent media alongside inaccurate information; that these broadcasts had been made respectively on 22 May 2003 and 15 June 2003; that the content of the said news broadcasts impaired his personal rights as they contained false information such as that he had collected garbage in his house and had had psychological problems; that the action for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damages that he filed in relation to the broadcast dated 22 May 2003 was rejected; that however, the action filed by his parents on the same date as well as the other actions filed on 15 June 2003 in relation to broadcasts with a similar content were accepted; and that his rectification request was rejected on the ground that the amount of the compensation claim was below the minimum limit for filing rectification requests. He accordingly alleged that his rights under Articles 20, 21 and 36 of the Constitution had been violated.

B. The Court’s Assessment

34.         The Constitutional Court is not bound by the legal qualification of the facts by the applicant and it makes such assessment itself (see Tahir Canan, no. 2012/969, 18 September 2013, § 16).

35.         Although the applicant alleged that his rights under Articles 20, 21 and 36 of the Constitution were violated, it has been established that the effective remedy in respect of the alleged criminal trespass into residence by public officials and private persons was essentially criminal proceedings; and that subsequent to the investigation initiated upon the applicant’s complaint, the judgment rendered at the end of the criminal proceedings with regard to the applicant became final as of 12 June 2010. Moreover, it has been observed that even though the applicant mentioned two different broadcasts made on different dates (22 May 2003 and 15 June 2003), the application concerned the proceedings under the case file no. E.2013/153, K.2013/216 before the 4^th Chamber of the İzmir Civil Court where the applicant had claimed non-pecuniary compensation in respect of the broadcast dated 22 May 2003. Even though the applicant alleged that his right to privacy was violated as a result of the broadcast of the footage obtained by entering his residence, the examination of the footage contained in the broadcast of 22 May 2003 and the expert report drawn up on the footage indicated that the broadcast in question did not contain any footage taken inside the applicant's residence but footage of the debates between the applicant and his family and public officials in front of the residence, as well as footage of loading of certain materials taken out of the residence onto a truck. Within the scope of these findings, it has been deemed appropriate to examine the application within the scope of the right to protect and improve the corporeal and spiritual existence and the right to a fair trial, as required by the applicant's claims and the nature thereof.

1. Admissibility

a.             Alleged Violation of the Right to a Fair Trial

36. The applicant alleged that his right of access to a court under the relevant Article of the Constitution had been violated, stating that his request for rectification of the judgment had been rejected on account of the fact that amount of the compensation claim had been below the minimum limit for filing rectification requests.

37.         In order for the Constitutional Court to examine an individual application lodged with it on the merits , the right allegedly interfered by the public authority must both be secured by the Constitution and fall within the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) and its additional protocols to which Turkey is a party. In other words, it is not possible to declare an application concerning an alleged violation of a right falling outside the scope of the both the Constitution and the Convention admissible (see Onurhan Solmaz, no. 2012/1049, 26 March 2013, § 18).

38.         Even though the right to legal remedy is laid down under Article 36 of the Constitution where no reason for imposing a restriction is provided for with respect to the right to legal remedy, it is clear that Article 142 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the establishment, duties and powers of the courts, the functioning and trial procedures of the courts shall be regulated by law, as well as Article 141, which entails the conclusion of the cases as quickly as possible, must be taken into account in determining the scope of the right to legal remedies.

39.         Accordingly, the legislator enjoys the margin of appreciation in regulating the procedural laws on condition of being in conformity with the Constitution. The Constitution does not embody a provision recognizing the right to file a request for rectification against all court decisions (see Tufan Şahin, no: 2012/799, 26 March 2013, § 19; and Erendiz Önal, no. 2014/1133). 30 June 2014, §§ 35-47).

40.         The right to file rectification requests against the decisions issued at the end of the appellate review, mentioned in the applicant’s application form, is not one of the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution; nor does it fall within the scope of the Convention and its protocols of which Turkey is a party.

41.         For these reasons, the application must be declared inadmissible for lack of competence ratione materiae without conducting an examination as to the other admissibility requirements on the grounds that the alleged violation, which is the subject matter of the application, falls outside the common protection realm of the Constitution and the Convention.

b.             Alleged Violation of the Right to Protect and Improve the Corporeal and Spiritual Existence

42.         As a result of the examination of the application, the application must be declared admissible as it was not manifestly ill-founded and there was no other ground requiring it to be declared inadmissible.

2. Merits

43.         The applicant alleged that his right to protect and improve his corporeal and spiritual existence was violated due to the use of the footage obtained by means of entering his residence without his consent alongside incorrect information by a media corporation.

44.         In its observations, the Ministry has noted that the issue of the protection of personal reputation is assessed within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention by the European Court of Human Rights (“the ECHR”), stating that in cases where the personal reputation and freedom of the press are at stake, an assessment should be made by the judicial authorities taking into account all circumstances of the incident, as well as the content and presentation style of the news. In this respect, the Ministry made a reference to certain cases and judgments of the ECHR involving similar alleged violations.

45.         In order for an individual application to be examined on its merits by the Court, the right alleged to be interfered by the public authority must be secured both in the Constitution and the Convention as well as the protocols thereto to which Turkey is a party. Accordingly, it is not possible to declare admissible an application on the basis of an alleged violation of any right outside the common protection realm of the Constitution and the Convention (see Onurhan Solmaz, § 18).

46.         Article 17 § 1 of the Constitution, entitled “Personal inviolability, corporeal and spiritual existence of the individual”, reads as follows:

“17. Everyone has the right to life and the right to protect and improve his/her corporeal and spiritual existence.”

47.         Although all legal interests within the private sphere of life are guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention, it has been observed that these legal interests fall under the protection of different articles of the Constitution. In this context, certain legal values included in the notion of private life are regulated in Article 20 of the Constitution, and the right to honour and reputation safeguarded by Article 8 of the Convention is guaranteed within the scope of the right to protect and improve the corporeal and spiritual existence set forth in Article 17 § 1 of the Constitution.

48.         The honour and reputation of the individual fall within the scope of the “spiritual existence” set out in Article 17 of the Constitution (see S.S.A., no. 2013/2355, 7 November 2013, § 29). The State is obliged not to interfere arbitrarily with honour and reputation, which form part of an individual’s spiritual existence, and to prevent third persons’ attacks on them.

49.         In this context the obligation incumbent on the State within the scope of the right to protect and improve the corporeal and spiritual existence is not limited to avoiding arbitrary interference with the mentioned rights, but also includes, in addition to this prioritised negative obligation, positive obligations for ensuring that this right is respected in an effective fashion. The said positive obligations require that measures be taken to ensure respect for the right even in the field of interpersonal relations.

50.         Although Article 17 of the Constitution does not stipulate any restriction grounds in terms of the right to protect and improve spiritual existence, even the rights in respect of which no specific restrictions are provided for are subject to certain limitations arising from the nature of the rights. Moreover, it is also possible to restrict these rights on the basis of the other rules set out in the other articles of the Constitution. In such a context, the safeguard criteria set forth in Article 13 of the Constitution are functional.

51.         In particular, where there is a need to protect more than one fundamental right within the scope of an alleged interference, a balance must be struck between these fundamental rights. In the event that the right to honour and reputation has been interfered with through written or audio-visual communication tools, as is the case in the present application, there is a need to strike a balance between the freedoms of expression and the press and the individual interests of protecting the honour and reputation.

52.         Article 26 of the Constitution, entitled “Freedom of expression and dissemination of thought”, reads as follows:

“Everyone has the right to express and disseminate his/her thoughts and opinions by speech, in writing or in pictures or through other media, individually or collectively. This freedom includes the liberty of receiving or imparting information or ideas without interference by official authorities. This provision shall not preclude subjecting transmission by radio, television, cinema, or similar means to a system of licensing.

The exercise of these freedoms may be restricted for the purposes of national security, public order, public safety, safeguarding the basic characteristics of the Republic and the indivisible integrity of the State with its territory and nation, preventing crime, punishing offenders, withholding information duly classified as a state secret, protecting the reputation or rights and private and family life of others, or protecting professional secrets as prescribed by law, or ensuring the proper functioning of the judiciary.

Regulatory provisions concerning the use of means to disseminate information and thoughts shall not be deemed as the restriction of freedom of expression and dissemination of thoughts as long as the transmission of information and thoughts is not prevented.

The formalities, conditions and procedures to be applied in exercising the freedom of expression and dissemination of thought shall be prescribed by law.”

53.         Freedom of expression means that persons has free access to news and information, the ideas of others, that they cannot be condemned because of their thoughts and convictions, and that they can express, convey, defend and share them freely, alone or together with others in various ways. The freedom of expression which encompasses the freedom of the press includes the rights to express/interpret opinions and convictions and to publish and circulate information, news and criticisms. Freedom of expression informs the individual and society by ensuring the transmission and circulation of thought (see Medya Gündem Dijital Yayıncılık Ticaret A.Ş., [Plenary], no. 2013/2623, 11 November 2015, § 27).

54.         It is a necessity of the pluralist democratic to explain the ideas, including those who are opposites, through by all means, to provide stakeholder to the thought, to realize the thought and to try to convince others about it. In this respect, freedom of expression and dissemination of thought and freedom of the press are vital for the functioning of democracy (see Bekir Coşkun, § 34). In this context, ensuring social and political pluralism depends on the peaceful and free expression of any thought (see Emin Aydın [Plenary], no: 2013/2602, 23 January 2014, § 41).

55.         In Article 26 of the Constitution, the means to be used in the exercise of freedom of expression are defined as "speech, writing, pictures or other media”, and with the use of the expression "other media", it is indicated that all means of expression are under the constitutional protection. Freedom of expression directly affects a significant portion of the other rights and freedoms in the Constitution. The press, which is the main means of disseminating thought through press, in the form of newspapers, magazines or books, is one of the ways in which freedom of expression is exercised (see Bekir Coşkun, § 30).

56.         Freedom of the press is not protected under a separate article but safeguarded within the scope of Article 10 of the Convention on the freedom of expression. Article 10 of the Convention protects not only the content of thoughts and convictions but also the manner in which they are communicated (see Observer and Guardian v. The United Kingdom, no. 13585/88, 26 November 1991, § 59). As frequently emphasized in the ECHR’s case-law, the freedom of expression constitutes one of the main foundations of a democratic society and one of the fundamental conditions for its progress and each individual’s self-fulfilment. The ECHR has reiterated in many judgments that, without prejudice to the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention, freedom of expression applies not only to news and opinions that are accepted or considered harmless or irrelevant by the society, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no “democratic society”. This right safeguarded by Article 10 of the Convention is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom no. 5493/72, 7 December 1976, § 49).

57.         In a free political system, the acts and procedures carried out by the State should be supervised by not only judicial and administrative authorities but also by the press and the public. Written, audio-visual or visual means of public control tightly control the political decisions, actions and negligence of public bodies and facilitate citizens' participation in decision-making processes. In this way, a healthy functioning of democracy and the self-actualization are guaranteed (see Medya Gündem Dijital Yayıncılık Ticaret A.Ş., § 39).

58.         It is not for the judicial authorities to substitute their own views for those of the press as to what technique of reporting should be adopted by journalists. Moreover, it is also as necessary as being free for the press to act with a sense of responsibility in order to fulfil its public duties. Even though recourse may be had to a degree of exaggeration or even provocation in the exercise of freedom of press, this freedom also obliges those concerned to act in good faith in a way that reports accurate and reliable information while respecting the professional ethics (see Kadir Sağdıç, § 53).

59.         Distortion of truth in bad faith can go beyond the limits of acceptable criticism. A truthful statement may be accompanied by emphases, value judgments, assumptions and even implications that may create a false image in the eyes of the public. Therefore, the duty of informing the public necessarily includes duties and responsibilities and limits that the media must comply with on its own motion. These especially apply if the persons whose names are included in expressions in the press are faced seriously accused (see Kadir Sağdıç, § 54).

60.         Similarly, freedom of the press is guaranteed not under a separate article in the Convention but within the scope of Article 10 where freedom of expression is enshrined. Furthermore, it is observed that Article 10 of the Convention protects both the content of the thoughts and convictions as well as the manner in which they are communicated, and these manners include both written and audio-visual means. Even though Article 28 of the Constitution sets out special provisions for the protection of a number of written media means, it is evident that the principles set out in both the Constitutional Court and the ECHR to the effect that the expressions presented by written means should benefit from a wider protection than other forms of expression must also apply for to ideas and opinions presented by means of audio-visual communication. In this context, there is no doubt that the expressions transmitted by written or audio-visual means of communication for the purpose of receiving or reporting news or ideas fall within the protection area of Article 26.

61.         In the present case, it is clear that the footage and comments published on the relevant television channel about the applicant constituted an interference with the applicant's right to honour and reputation. However, it has been observed that the said footage and comments were the subject matter of a TV news, and as regards the present application, it must be assessed whether a reasonable balance has been struck between the applicant's right to honour and reputation and the freedom of expression and dissemination of thought of the broadcaster as well as the freedom of the press in this context.

62.         The applications of a similar nature have been examined by the Court which has noted that failure to protect the individual against verbal attacks or publications affecting honour and reputation may have resulted in a violation of Article 17 § 1 of the Constitution (see Kadir Sağdıç, § 36; İlhan Cihaner (2), no.2013/5574, 30/6/2014, § 42); and that in order for the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Constitution to be applied, the question as to whether the attack on the applicant’s reputation has been carried out in a way that would detriment the applicant's personal enjoyment of the right to respect for reputation must be assessed in view of the particular circumstances of the case (see Kadir Sağdıç,§ 39; and İlhan Cihaner (2), § 45).

63.         The criteria to be taken into consideration in the striking of this balance have already been established in detail. In this context, whether the relevant news or publication contributes to a discussion of general interest, the position of the person being targeted (such as whether he is a politician, public official or an ordinary individual, and his/her degree of famousness), the subject matter of the news, publication, column or article, previous conduct of the person concerned, the content, form and outcomes of the publication and the circumstances in which the news article is published should be considered as a whole (see İlhan Cihaner (2), §§ 66-73; Kadir Sağdıç, §§ 58-66; Nihat Özdemir, no. 2013/1997, 8 April 2015, §§ 54-61; and Ali Suat Ertosun, no. 2013/1047, 15 April 2015, §§ 44-520).

64.         The most important element in this context is the contribution of publishing the news, articles or photographs to a discussion of public interest. The role and position of the targeted person and the nature of the activity which is the subject matter of the news, article, interview and/or photograph should also be assessed in accordance with these criteria. A person who is not recognized by the public should be able to seek more sophisticated protection in terms of the right to respect for his personal reputation. The manner in which the relevant news, interview, photograph or article is published and the manner in which the targeted person is presented through the publication is another point to take into account.

65.         In this context, it is important to explain the material facts behind the expressions which are the subject matter of the case or characterize them as value judgments. At this point, a careful distinction should be made between material facts and value judgments. Whereas material facts can be proved, it must be noted that it is not possible to prove the veracity of value judgments (see Kadir Sağdıç, § 57; İlhan Cihaner (2), § 64; and for the ECHR’s judgment in the same vein, see Lingens v. Austria, no. 9815/82, 8 July 1986, § 46).

66.         In order to acknowledge that the balance between the right to honour and reputation and freedom of the press has been struck, the existence of an interest that outweighs the individual's right to honour and dignity must be brought forward on the basis of concrete facts in accordance with the above criteria.

67.         The applicant alleged that the broadcasting of footage of his house in the relevant TV news, alongside the false statements, built the impression among the public that he and his family had collected garbage; that there was a false statement that he received psychological treatment; that the broadcast was far from objective; that the limits of publishing/broadcasting news were exceeded; that assumptions and false comments were made; and that he was humiliated as a result of the usage of a language that has created hostility in society.

68.         Even though the public authorities did not carry out an interference in the incident giving rise to the present application, the positive obligation incumbent on the public authorities regarding this issue includes the establishment of a legal framework that includes adequate and effective legal mechanisms for the alleged infringements of the fundamental rights stemming from the relations between private law persons, and the balancing of the relevant interests in the course of a trial procedure affording the necessary procedural safeguards.

69.         It is clearly stated in Law no. 6098 that any person who sustains damage as a result of an attack on his or her personal rights may claim non-pecuniary compensation in respect of the non-pecuniary damages sustained. Furthermore, it is observed that there is a legal infrastructure whereby the individuals claiming that their personal rights have been violated through the press may obtain the finding of a violation as well as, if any, redress. However, the judicial authorities, in deciding on these claims, must strike a fair balance between the interests of the individual who claims that his right to honour and reputation have been violated and the freedom of the press within the context of the relevant broadcast. It is thus possible to assess whether the public authorities fall short of its obligation to protect individuals from interferences that exceed the limits of criticism.

70.         The incumbent first instance court has stated that the aim of the safeguard provided to the press regarding the freedom of the press is to ensure that the public is healthy, happy and secure; and that this is possible only if the public is informed about the events taking place in the world and especially in their society and the issues which are of interest to the society. In addition, the first instance court has established that the press is authorized and at the same time responsible for monitoring, inspecting, assessing, disseminating and thus informing, teaching, enlightening and steering of the individuals, and enjoys a distinct position in this respect. However, it has also added that freedom of the press is not unlimited; and that it is a legal obligation not to attack the personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution in the broadcasts. The first instance court has also noted in the decision that in cases where there is a conflict between the freedom of press and personal values, one of these two values must prevail since the legal order cannot be considered to protect two conflicting values at the same time. Putting an emphasis on the necessity of the press to broadcast within the objective limits, the Court has stated that the press should not be held responsible for publishing/broadcasting facts and events which apparently existed at that moment but later turned out to be false. Moreover, it has stressed that even though a public action had been filed against the employees of the defendant company for insulting through the press a result of the complainant's complaint regarding the impugned news, it later was decided that the public action be discontinued due to the statutory time limitation; that the security forces had entered the applicant's house on the basis of the written permission of the District Governorship; and that the masked municipal police officers had found full bags at, and taken them out of, the house and the garden; that the broadcast in question was considered within the scope of the journalism on account of the manner in which it had been reported and was in accordance with the rules of the right to freedom of press as well as reality, public interest, social interest, actuality and intellectual connection between the matter and the expression; that there had been no attack on the complainant's personal rights; that the balance of substance and form had not deteriorated against the applicant; and that it was understood that there had been no unlawful elements in the impugned article.

71.         In the present case, it has been revealed at the end of the examination of the contents of the relevant broadcast that a broadcast similar to that of the cases of garbage houses, which is reported from time to time, was reported with the footage where some bags were removed from the applicant's house; that a truck was loaded with wood, plastic, cardboard, paper, etc.; and that the applicant and his family were taken into custody by the security forces. It has been established that alongside the footage, the report contained the comments that “a truck full of garbage had come out of a retired teacher's house, however that it had not been easy to evacuate the garbage accumulated for years as the police and the municipal police had been attempted to be impeded by the older woman with a broom in her hand and her husband as well as the engineer son who had held them accountable according to European Union norms, that the retired teacher and his family had resisted with their utmost strength not to give away the garbage, that the police and the municipal police had acted together for the evacuation of the house complained of spreading bad smells, that the security forces had encountered the engineer son of the Ö. family (D.Ö.) when they had jumped off the wall as the outer door could not be not opened, that the discussion regarding the court decision became increasingly more tense, that the retired teacher M.Ö. and the retired midwife G.Ö., who had been 70 years old, had supported their son, and that the municipal police and police officers had been determined to follow the orders, that the landlords had been decided to be taken to the police station because they had resisted, but that this had not been easy as G.Ö. had taken a broom in her hand while the father and son had been dragged to the police vehicle, that finally the old woman had been forcibly placed into the police vehicle, that in the meantime cleaning officers had entered the house and started cleaning the garbage inside, that a truck had come out of the house where the Ö. Family had lived for 20 years, and that G. and M. Ö. Couple had received psychological treatment after losing their son H. Ö. in a traffic accident 33 years ago”.

72.         In this context, it must be answered whether the information transmitted during the news broadcast of a news channel contributed to the discussion developed on the basis of the facts and if the content exceeded the desire to satisfy the curiosity of the public. In this connection, the greater the information value for the general public is, the more the person has to tolerate the publication of a news, or article, and conversely, where the interest in informing the public decreases, the importance of protecting the personal honour and reputation carries correspondingly greater weight.

73.         It is observed that the said news broadcast’s subject matter was a phenomenon which is called garbage house cases among the public and it was related to environment and human health. In this context, it must be remembered that the right of the public to receive such information and ideas is added to the function of the press to disseminate information and ideas about the issues of public interest.

74.         In the examination of the broadcast within the meaning of the footage analysis and the expert report, it has been understood that some information about the applicant's mother and father in particular could be considered as value judgment, but the broadcast in question is essentially based on material facts.

75.         The applicant asserted that the security forces entered his residence without a court decision; that he had been awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damages in accordance with the decision of the 2^nd Chamber of the İzmir Administrative Court dated 30 December 2005 at the end of the action for compensation brought against the İzmir Governorship; that in this decision, it was clearly noted that the procedure carried out by the administration had been illegal and the public service had been malfunctioning; that the immunity of his home had been breached; that he had suffered severe grief and sadness; that the grievance and grief had increased due to his presence in the media, as well as that it was concluded that his spiritual integrity had been adversely affected and that the grief caused by the relevant procedure had amounted to compensation for non-pecuniary damage. However, it is evident that the procedure had been carried out by public officials and that footage had been recorded by the press while the full bags had been taken out from the applicant's house and placed in the garbage truck; that within this scope, the broadcast had been based on the facts apparently existed at that moment; and that finding that the procedure in question was unlawful would not lead to a different conclusion regarding the broadcast which is understood to be based on the apparent truth.

76.         In the broadcast in question, it has been observed that the expression, “the engineer son who had held the security forces accountable according to European Union norms” had been used in respect of the applicant alongside the relevant footage. Taking into account that recourse may be had to a degree of exaggeration or even provocation in the exercise of freedom of the press, it cannot be said that the statement in question exceeded the scope and limit of the freedom of the press in such a way that has an effect on the personal values of the applicant.

77.         Moreover, the applicant alleged that that his personal rights had been damaged by the content of the news containing false information that he had collected garbage at home and had psychological problems; that the action for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damages filed by his parents had been accepted; and that the courts issued different judicial decisions on the same legal matter. It has been established that the compensation claim brought forward by the parents of the applicant had been accepted with the decision of the 11^th Chamber of the İzmir Magistrates’ Court dated 28 June 2011; however by the quashing judgment of the Court of Cassation, the case was discontinued due to the expiry of the statutory limitation period; that the action for compensation in question was filed by the applicant’s parents; and that apart from the action which is the subject matter of the case, the applicant and his parents also filed actions against different persons and broadcasting organizations about the broadcast in question and some of these actions have been concluded in favour of the applicant and his family. Moreover, it is possible for the courts to render different judgments with different assessments and in different contexts, particularly in respect of the claims where claimants and defendants are different (see Türkan Bal [Plenary], no. 2013/6932, 6 January 2015, § 57). Within this framework, it is also evident that the expression in the relevant news broadcast that “G. and M. Ö. couple received psychological treatment after losing their son H. Ö. in a traffic accident 33 years ago” did not target the applicant but his parents. Moreover, it has been observed that the broadcast dated 15 June 2003 which was alleged to have the same contents with the broadcast, the subject matter of the present application, and in respect of which judgments had been rendered in favour of the applicant and his family in the relevant actions for compensation differed from the broadcast of 22 May 2003 in terms of text and presentation of the news broadcast.

78.         In the light of the foregoing, it has been established that the news, which is understood to be based on material facts and in compliance with the relevant truth, was about an incident which concerns the environment and human health and thus contributes to a public debate and has the value of informing the public. Moreover, it has been understood that having regard to the manner in which the relevant news was broadcasted and the manner in which the intended person is presented in the content of said the broadcast, the news contained a number of exaggerated statements, but did not contain any statements exceeding the scope and limits of the freedom of the press so as to have an impact on the applicant's personal values; that the courts have also struck a balance between the obligation to protect honour and reputation of the applicant and freedom of the press by addressing these elements; and that judicial authorities provided detailed reasons for their appreciation and there was no finding to the effect that the limits of the margin of appreciation afforded to the judicial authorities had been exceeded due to the findings and provisions contained in the judgment.

79.         Consequently, the Court has found no violation of the right to protect and improve the corporeal and spiritual existence safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution.

V. JUDGMENT

For these reasons, the Constitutional Court UNANIMOUSLY held on 13 October 2016 that

A. The applicant’s request for confidentiality as to his identity in public documents be ACCEPTED;

B. 1. The alleged violation of the right to a fair trial be declared INADMISSIBLE for lack of competence ratione materiae;

2. The alleged violation of the right to protect and improve the corporeal and spiritual existence be declared ADMISSIBLE;

C. The right to protect and improve the corporeal and spiritual existence safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution was NOT VIOLATED;

D. As the conditions for total exemption have not been satisfied in accordance with Article 434 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure no. 6100 dated 12 January 2011, the total court expenses of TRY 206.10 which was not temporarily collected from the applicant due to the grant of the request for legal aid, BE COLLECTED FROM THE APPLICANT;

E. A copy of the judgment be SENT to the Ministry of Justice.