COURT OF APPEALS:

The Court of Appeals 4^th Law Chamber held the publishing of private telephone conversations in the news contrary to the law. The decision was based on a complaint regarding private phone talks that had been published in the news in the context of the Ergenekon trial.

The complainant had put forward that private phone talks included in the attachment of the Ergenekon indictment and conversations that were not related to the trial had been published in the news. The plaintiff had filed a compensation claim against the newspaper for material and non-pecuniary damages.

The Ankara 16^th Civil Court of First Instance initially dismissed the claim. The court deemed "the news taken from the attachment of the indictment, which is an official document, conform to the visual reality".

The Court of Appeals quashed the local court's verdict by majority vote. The superior court emphasized that the private phone talks that did not contain any element of crime were made with people whose identities were disclosed but who were not related to the case. The court decided that the conversations should not have been published.

The court decreed that the publication of phone talks that were unrelated to the trial did not contribute to the public benefit. The court held that the news were an attack on the privacy of the plaintiff's personal life, on his freedom of communication and personal rights.

The decision read, "Communication information regarding the field of personal life shall not be disclosed without the consent of the person regardless of the situation considering that the privacy of personal life [...] may not be touched".

One member of the Court of Appeals 4^th Law Chamber gave a dissenting vote. The objection was reasoned as follows:

"The sued newspaper published the indictment and its attachments without making any addition or comment. It is known that news on this topic were published in the media and open sessions were held during the investigation and especially after the indictment was accepted. This has to be evaluated in the scope of press freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution. The conditions for an attack on personal rights were not fulfilled. The news was true and real and its publication was of public benefit. It was up-to-date and the balance between its essence and format was not disturbed. In this aspect the publication complied with the law". (ÖÖ/ŞA/VK)