Click to read the article in Turkish / Kurdish
The Constitutional Court has announced its ruling regarding the objection of bianet against an access ban imposed on its news article "İntihal: Aradaki Farkı Bulun" (Plagiarism: Find the Difference) published in 2011.
In the justified ruling of the Constitutional Court, which is dated March 7, 2019 and was published on the Official Gazette today (April 26), it has been indicated that "freedom of expression and freedom of press as per the Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution have been violated."
The Constitutional Court has also unanimously ruled for a retrial so that the consequences of the violation in question could be eliminated.
What happened?
The news article of "İntihal: Aradaki Farkı Bulun" (Plagiarism: Find the Difference) by Işıl Cinmen was published on October 17, 2011. The news was about Ömer Dinçer, the then Minister of National Education.
After this article was published, Dinçer stated that his personal rights were violated and requested an access block for the news, which was also published in several other websites. On July 8, 2015, the İstanbul 9th Penal Court of Peace ruled for an access block for the article.
In response to this verdict of access block, bianet appealed to the upper court and objected to the ruling. The objection of bianet was rejected by the İstanbul 10th Penal Court of Peace on August 3, 2015.
Appeal to Constitutional Court: It is true and current
After the rejection of their objection, bianet and IPS Communication Foundation made a personal application to the Constitutional Court via attorney Meriç Eyüboğlu on September 11, 2015.
In the appeal of bianet, it was emphasized that the publication of the news article in question has public interest and the news is true and current.
It was further indicated that the related access ban violates the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression and press.
Justified ruling published today
The justified ruling of the Constitutional Court was published on the Official Gazette today (April 26). In the ruling of the court, it has been emphasized that "the publication of the news article in question has undoubtedly contributed to a discussion with a high public interest."
Accordingly, underlining that "the related verdict of access ban does not accord with the necessities of a democratic social order," the court has futher stated, "It shall thus be ruled that freedom of expression guaranteed by the Article 26 of the Constitution and freedom of press guaranteed by the Article 28 of the Constitıtion have been violated."
Concluding the verdict, the Constitutional Court has ruled that a copy of its verdict shall be sent to the İstanbul 9th Penal Court of Peace for a retrial so that the consequences of the violation in question could be eliminated. (HA/SD)
-132.jpg)
