by Ferhat Canbolat* and Günhan Gönül Koşar**

Abstract This article seeks to explore the freedom of the press and the protection of personality rights in Türkiye from the perspective of the ECtHR. First, this article reviews the freedom of the press in Türkiye. Second, it examines personality rights as a limit to the freedom of the press under Turkish law. To this end, the concept of personality rights, their protection and personality rights as a limit to the freedom of the press are analysed. Third, it examines the ECtHR’s approach to limits to the freedom of the press and how this compares with the approach of Turkish courts. Finally, it analyses the ECtHR’s Sağdıç v. Turkey judgment.

Keywords: freedom of the press, personality rights, privacy, reputation, journalism.

(2024) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 1 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article

Introduction

Freedom of the press, or freedom of the media, has been recognised and protected by the international community through the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) because of its importance and its character as the watchdog of democratic societies in the modern world. Freedom of the press is guaranteed by Article 10 of the ECHR which stipulates freedom of expression. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is the final judicial arbiter for the violation of the ECHR by the party states. Türkiye has been a member state of the ECtHR, and the ECHR has been in force in Türkiye since 18 May 1954.

Under Turkish law, the freedom of the press is considered an indispensable element of a democratic society. It is guaranteed both in the Turkish constitution and in various legislative provisions. At the same time, personality rights constitute a limit to the freedom of the press under Turkish law. Contrary to the common law approach, a general concept of personality rights is accepted under Turkish law. This refers to a single and general right over all personal values such as life, health, bodily integrity, honour and dignity (reputation), privacy, name, image and voice. Cases where the freedom of the press and the right to personality clash have been brought before Turkish courts many times.

The ECtHR has also recognised that the freedom of the press is in frequent competition with the right to privacy. The ECtHR has developed extensive case-law and set the relevant criteria for balancing the right to respect for private life and the right to freedom of expression. In fact, on February 9, 2021, in the case of Sağdıç v Turkey, the ECtHR gave judgment in a case where applicant’s reputation had allegedly been breached by the press. The ECtHR ruled in favour of the applicant and concluded that his right to respect for private life was violated by the Turkish courts when they failed to protect the applicant’s reputation against attacks caused by press articles. However, the decision of the court was taken by a majority of five, with two other members of the court delivering a strong dissenting opinion. It is worth examining whether the judgment reflects a shift in the court’s jurisprudence and whether Turkish jurisprudence is in line with the ECtHR’s.

This article will first review freedom of the press in Türkiye. Then, personality rights as a limit to the freedom of the press under Turkish law will be examined. To this end, the concept of personality rights, their protection and personality rights as a limit to the freedom of the press under Turkish law will be analysed. Afterwards, the ECtHR’s approach to limits on the freedom of the press and how this compares with the approach by Turkish courts will be examined. Finally, the Sağdıç v. Turkey judgment of the ECtHR concerning Türkiye will be analysed.

I. Freedom of the Press in Türkiye and Personality Rights as a Limit

A. Freedom of the Press in Türkiye

In democratic societies, the freedom of the press is recognised because of the duties which the press performs, in particular informing the public about political, economic, scientific and artistic events, initiating discussions and finding solutions on matters of public interest, and also revealing abuses as the ‘watchdog’.^[1] In Turkish legal literature, the duties of the press are expressed briefly as informing the public on matters of importance (informing function) and as helping the public form an opinion by criticising particular important matters (criticism function).^[2]

Due to the roles that the press plays in democratic societies, the freedom of the press is protected under Turkish law by the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye^[3], by the Press Law^[4] and by the European Convention of Human Rights. Article 28 of the Turkish Constitution bears the heading ‘Freedom of the Press’ and reads as follows:

The press is free and shall not be censored. The establishment of a printing house shall not be subject to prior permission or the deposit of a financial guarantee. The State shall take the necessary measures to ensure the freedom of the press and information.

Press Law Article 3/1 reads as follows: ‘The press is free. This freedom includes the rights to obtain information, disseminate, criticise, interpret and create works.’

Under Turkish law, the highest court for civil law affairs is the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay). The importance of the freedom of the press has been repeatedly expressed in the judgments of the Turkish Court of Cassation as follows:^[5]

The freedom of the press is regulated in Article 28 of the Constitution and in the Articles 1 and 3 of the Press Law No 5187. It is observed that these regulations guarantee the free broadcasting of the press. The purpose of the assurance provided to the press is to realise that the society can live in a healthy, happy, and safe way. This is realised when the society is informed about the issues that occur in the world and especially the issues that occur in their society or those that concern their society. The press is authorised and responsible for monitoring, researching, evaluating, disseminating events, and thus informing, teaching, enlightening and guiding people. For these reasons, the press has a different position. It is for this reason that distinct criteria should be sought as a condition for the resolution of such cases, and a different method should be followed in cases which would generally be deemed unlawful. In cases where a non-press related behaviour incident would be deemed unlawful, a press broadcast may fall within the limits of the law. However, the freedom of the press is not limitless; it is a legal obligation not to attack personal rights, which are included in the fundamental rights and freedoms section of the Constitution and in the 24th and 25th Articles of the Turkish Civil Code and which are also guaranteed by special laws.

In summary, under Turkish law, the freedom of the press is considered an indispensable element of the democratic society, and it is guaranteed both in the Turkish constitution and in various legislative provisions.

B. The Concept of Personality Rights and Their Protection under Turkish Law

Under Turkish law, personality rights constitute a limit to the freedom of the press. Contrary to the common law approach, a general concept of personality rights is accepted under Turkish law and refers to a single and general right over all personal values such as life, health, bodily integrity, honour and dignity (reputation), privacy, name, image and voice.^[6] Therefore, from a Turkish law perspective, the term ‘personality right’ should be preferred over ‘personality rights’.^[7] The purpose of the broadly formulated general clause is to allow the highest level of flexibility and, room for manoeuvre for the balancing of interests in the field of personality rights protection.^[8]

The general personality right is an innate right that is granted to a person because they are a human being. These rights ensure the integrity of one’s own free and independent existence.^[9] The definition provided here is extracted from case law and literature as personality rights are not defined in the Turkish Civil Code,^[10] nor any other legislation, with the purpose of having the academia and jurisprudence concretise the content of this right in accordance with the requirements and the developments of the age since the advancement of technology and changes in society lead to the emergence of both new types of attacks and new personal values that need protection.^[11] According to the Turkish Court of Cassation, ‘The scope and framework of personality values should be determined depending on the ordinary course of life, established value judgments and experience of life.’^[12]

Under Turkish law, the term ‘picture’ or ‘image’ includes photograph, video, film or a part of a television or similar programme, painting or cartoons drawn by a brush etc.^[13] One of the personality values, reputation (the term ‘honour and dignity’ is used in Turkish) refers to the social value attributed to a person, primarily by their social circle, and then by the society, according to that person’s actions.^[14] In this respect, reputation is a relative concept.^[15] On reputation, the Turkish Court of Cassation has ruled that, ‘honour and dignity express the value given to a person because they have the moral qualities required or accepted as such by their society’.^[16]

As mentioned, and in contrast to common law, under Turkish law, the right to privacy is protected as part of the general right of personality. The so-called theory of spheres is applied to determine the scope of privacy. According to this theory, applied both by Turkish and Swiss law^[17], a person’s life can be divided into three spheres: public sphere, private sphere, and secret sphere.^[18] Public sphere refers to the life environment consisting of events that are known to everyone either because these events have taken place in public or because they been publicised by the person concerned such as a public ceremony, mall, football game or library. The private sphere refers to the sphere of life that consists of events that one wants to be known only by certain people such as places shared with friends and family, working or resting areas. Finally, the secret sphere covers the events that the person wants to keep as a secret, except for those people very close to them such as illnesses, private diary, sexual orientation, private letters. While there may be a clear statement of will of the person to keep the event as a secret, the person’s will to keep it is as secret can also be implicitly deduced from general life experiences. The relevant person’s will must be taken into account in the private and secret sphere.^[19]

In light of all these explanations, under Turkish law, privacy refers to the area formed by the private sphere and the secret sphere together and it is included in the general right of personality as a personal value.^[20] The important point here is that while it is possible for the private sphere to be the subject of a report when the required conditions are met (as will be explained below), the secret sphere can be the subject of a report only if the person concerned has consented. Even if the person who is the subject of a press report is a public figure, that person’s secret sphere is protected by the law. In the absence of the consent of the person concerned, a press report which ventures into the secret sphere violates that person’s right to privacy and is illegal. Although a person may be a public figure, it should be considered that the secret sphere of that person should be respected, but the private sphere is narrower than that of an ordinary citizen.

Personality rights are protected under Turkish law: in the Constitution^[21], in the Turkish Civil Code, in the Personal Data Protection Law and in various other legislative provisions.^[22] The Turkish Civil Code is the main piece of legislation for the protection of the personality. The Turkish Civil Code recognises a general personality right that includes personal values as explained above and provides remedies for the breach thereof, such as lawsuits for the prevention of a threatened infringement, for the cessation of an existing infringement and for the declaration that an infringement is unlawful if it continues to have effects, as well as lawsuits for pecuniary damages, non-pecuniary damages, disgorgement of profits, and action for correction and publication (Articles 23-25 of the Turkish Civil Code).

In case of the violation of personality rights by the press, in addition to the legal remedies provided in the Turkish Civil Code, the injured party may also apply for the right to correction and reply as stipulated in Article 14 of the Press Law.^[23] They may also request the content be removed from the broadcast and access to be blocked pursuant to the Law No 5651 on the Regulation of Broadcasts via Internet and Prevention of Crimes Committed through Such Broadcasts (Articles 9 and 9/A). Since the Law on the Protection of Personal Data regulates the protection of personal data, the injured party can also apply to the remedies provided under this law.

C. Personality Rights as a Limit to the Freedom of the Press according to Turkish Law

It is possible that a report by the press violates a person’s personality rights such as the right to privacy. Many cases, where the freedom of the press and the right to personality clash, have been brought before Turkish courts. The Turkish Court of Cassation has developed criteria on how these two rights are to be balanced. According to the Turkish Court of Cassation: ^[24]

The basic criterion is the public interest. While both written and visual media fulfil this function, they should especially take into account the veracity of the news report, the existence of public benefit, the existence of social interest, the actuality of the event, and also the balance between essence and form of the report. Again, the press should report within objective limits. The press should not be held responsible for the report of events that apparently seemed to be real at that moment and are later discovered not to be real.

The following will explain how these criteria are to be used in order to determine whether the freedom of the press or personality rights will be given priority in an individual case:

The first criterion applied by the Turkish Court of Cassation is the ‘apparent reality’. The apparent reality condition means that the news report should reflect the facts. However, this criterion does not refer to absolute truth; rather, it refers to ‘apparent reality’. To expect the press to find out the absolute truth, and to allow news to be reported only afterwards would hinder the press from fulfilling its duties, and it would also suppress freedom of the press. According to the Turkish Court of Cassation, ‘apparent reality’ refers to the facts determined to be existing at the time of the news report, and the facts accepted by the average reasonable reader in the way they are reported. In the assessment of whether a statement can be categorised as defamatory, many legal orders take into consideration the perception of the average reasonable reader as a decisive criterion.^[25]

The press should not be held responsible for reporting events that appeared to be real at the moment of reporting but which were later found out not to be real.^[26] The principle of apparent reality applies not only to informative reporting but also to critical, evaluative and interpretative publications.^[27] However, the press may not abuse this criterion for escaping responsibility. The press must perform due care to find out the truth. For example, the Turkish Court of Cassation held that a publication which merely mentioned a more than eight month old critical report of an inspector without also mentioning an ensuing public lawsuit which resulted in the acquittal of the claimant amounted to a violation of the personal rights of the claimant.^[28] As will be explained in detail below, the apparent reality criterion is also discussed in the ECtHR’s Sağdıç judgement, and the ECtHR ruled that this criterion had been improperly applied by the Turkish courts.

The second criterion applied by the Turkish Court of Cassation is ‘public benefit and social interest’. According to the Court of Cassation, news should be reported only if there is public benefit and social interest in this report.^[29] This criterion plays a crucial role in cases where it is discussed whether the report violates the right to privacy. In these cases, a distinction is made between private individuals and public figures, keeping in mind that even public figures have a protected secret sphere.

The ‘social interest’ criterion has so far not been defined by the Turkish courts. As a matter of fact it is a criterion that is mentioned as an addendum to ‘public benefit’ and referred as ‘public benefit and social interest’. The present authors argue that Turkish courts should clearly separate between these two criteria and refine their analysis accordingly in light of the ECtHR’s jurisprudence as explained below. At the same time, it can be said that once the person who is subject of the report is a public figure, there is a presumption of social interest since public figure means a person who attracts the public’s attention for playing a role in public life for reasons such as politics, science, economy, art, sports, and social life. ^[30] In order for a report to be protected under the freedom of the press rather than violating the right to privacy, the public must have a legitimate interest in obtaining information about that person. The concept of a public figure is a relative concept in terms of both time and place. ^[31] Accordingly, the judge must evaluate whether the person subject to the report is a public figure according to the characteristics of the individual case.

The third criterion applied by the Turkish Court of Cassation is ‘actuality’. Actuality means that the incident that is the subject of the report either took place recently, or at least that the effects of the incident are still ongoing. Re-reporting an incident that occurred a long time ago has the potential to create the impression that the incident happened recently. Therefore, if there is no public benefit in bringing forward a past incident that is long forgotten and does not provide any reason to be remembered, this report may be found to have violated a personality right. The Turkish Court of Cassation found a publication to be unlawful where an allegation that the claimant had faced and had been acquitted of four years ago was published as if it were the latest news and as if the incident were real.^[32]

The fourth and final criterion applied by the Turkish Court of Cassation to determine whether a report of the press violates personality rights is ‘the balance between essence and form’. Balance between essence and form means the compatibility between the content and the form of the report. In other words, there must be intellectual cohesion between the content and the statement. The most important point in balance between essence and form is the fine line between criticism and insult. Criticism can sometimes be harsh; however, it cannot be insulting. In this case, the balance between essence and form will be disturbed and the report shall be considered unlawful.

Not only does the content of the publication create a perception for the audience, but also the expressions used, and the placement of the headline or the picture. Accordingly, even if the news reported is true, the language used should be in the format and to the extent required by the commentary.^[33] Therefore, even if the content of the report reflects the truth and there is public benefit and social interest in the report, if the balance between the form and the format is disturbed, then the report shall be considered in violation of personality rights, frequently the personal value of reputation and/or privacy

II. The ECtHR’s Approach to Limits on the Freedom of the Press and Comparisons with the Turkish Courts’ Approach

The ECtHR is the competent legal authority for the violation of the ECHR by the party states and the ECHR has been in force in Türkiye since 18 May 1954.^[34] The freedom of the press has been recognised and protected by the international community through the ECHR, because of its importance and its character as the watchdog of the democratic societies in the modern world. The freedom of the press is guaranteed by Article 10 of the ECHR which stipulates freedom of expression. Another right protected by the ECHR which frequently is in competition with the freedom of the press is the right to privacy. The right to respect for private and family life is protected under Article 8 of the ECHR. According to the ECtHR, private life is a broad concept, which includes elements relating to the identity of a person, such as name, image, and physical and moral integrity.^[35] A person’s reputation is part of their personal identity and moral integrity, and these are a matter of private life even if the criticisms of the person are expressed in the context of a public debate.^[36] However, for Article 8 to apply, the damage to reputation must reach a certain threshold of seriousness and have been carried out in such a way as to harm the personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life.^[37]

The ECtHR has developed extensive case-law and set the following relevant criteria for balancing the right to respect for private life and the right to freedom of expression:^[38] the contribution to a debate of general interest; the notoriety of the person concerned; the subject of the report; the prior conduct of the person concerned; the content, form and consequences of the publication; and the method of obtaining the information and its veracity. These criteria and and thus also possible inspiration for Turkish law from the jurisprudence of the ECtHR can be summarised as follows:

– The contribution to a debate of general interest: The report should contribute to a debate of general interest.^[39] The ECtHR avoids making a definition of public interest and states that its scope depends on the circumstances of the case.^[40] This criterion is useful and can shed light on cases in Turkish courts. In our opinion, the criterion of ‘public interest and social interest’ applied by Turkish courts should be examined as two separate criteria rather than a single criterion. The concept of ‘public interest’, as such, is too vague and should be clarified. For this reason, the ECtHR’s ‘contribution to a debate of general interest’ criterion should be applied by Turkish courts.

– The notoriety of the person concerned and subject of the report:^[41] The ECtHR makes a distinction between private individuals and public figures. The Court states that due to the public’s right to be informed, the private life of public figures can be the subject of the report. However, this rule does not extend to reports that have the sole aim of satisfying the curiosity of a particular readership or to reports that include exclusive details of a public figure’s private life. It is safe to say that the ECtHR’s approach to public figures is similar to the Turkish courts’ approach. Although the ECtHR does not apply the theory of spheres, the approach of the ECtHR corresponds to that taken by Turkish courts as the ECtHR protects the secret sphere of public figures as well.

– Prior conduct of the person concerned^[42]: The conduct of the person concerned prior to publication of the report is also taken into account, and additionally also whether a certain photo or the related information have already appeared in an earlier report. However, the mere fact that a person has cooperated with the press on previous occasions does not deprive this person of all protection against the report in question. Although Turkish courts do not state prior conduct of the person concerned as a specific criterion for cases in which the freedom of the press and personality rights are in competition with one another, under Turkish law, consent as a factor is to be taken into consideration. Consent can make the report lawful, whereas absence of consent can cause the report to be unlawful.

– Methods of obtaining information and its veracity:^[43] These are likewise taken into consideration. The freedom of the press prevails if the journalists are acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis. The journalists must provide ‘reliable and precise’ information in accordance with the ethics of journalism. This implies that it is not permissible to obtain information in a way that violates the privacy of the person as a subject of the report. For example, in the case of a photograph, the conditions in which the photograph was taken must be considered as in Tüzünataç v. Türkiye where the photographs and videos of two kissing actors on the terrace were taken by reporters at 5 AM in the morning secretly with a long-lens camera. Upon rejection by the national courts of the actress Ms. Tüzünataç’s lawsuits, the ECtHR found national courts in failure to protect right to respect for the private life.^[44] Although the method of obtaining the information is not a separate criterion applied by Turkish courts, the veracity of the report is a criterion to be taken into consideration under the ‘apparent reality’ criterion. In our opinion, in addition to the criteria foreseen by the Turkish Court of Cassation, in light of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, the method of obtaining the information should also be considered as an additional criterion.

– Content, form and consequences of the publication:^[45] According to the ECtHR, the way in which the photo or report are published are taken into consideration.^[46] This criterion corresponds to what Turkish courts refer to as ‘balance between essence and form’. In parallel to Turkish law, according to the ECtHR, ‘The extent to which the report and photo have been disseminated may also be an important factor, depending on whether the newspaper is a national or local one, and has a large or a limited circulation.’^[47]

Having compared the criteria applied by the ECtHR and the Turkish Court of Cassation, we reach the following conclusion:^[48] The criteria employed by the Turkish Court of Cassation are generally appropriate to determine whether there is a violation of personal rights by the press. However, these criteria should be developed further in light of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. In particular, the following criteria should be applied under Turkish law: Apparent reality, actuality, contribution to a debate of general interest, social interest, balance between essence and form and, finally, the method of obtaining information.

As the authors propose to regroup the criteria used by Turkish courts by making them more detailed and more specific, reformulating the test will make a difference in practice in terms of future decisions. In particular, the separation of ‘public benefit’ and ‘social interest’ criteria will result in a more detailed and reasoned examination by Turkish courts. Thus, the public benefit and social interest criteria will not be directly applicable to every news concerning a public figure. Rather, when the criteria are reformulated as proposed by the authors, the social interest criterion will have to be evaluated in detail in contrast to current practice. As mentioned above, although there is a presumption that social interest exists if the person concerning the news is a public figure, this assessment is only a presumption and social interest may not exist in the specific news in question such as the living conditions of a former child actor who have chosen to live away from limelight. Therefore, the adoption of the reformulated test will prevent Turkish courts from reaching questionable conclusions in cases where the freedom of the press and personality rights are at stake; thus, will help to correctly establish the balance between the two fundamental rights. For example, if Turkish courts had applied the reformulated criteria suggested by the authors, they would have decided that personality rights were violated in the Tüzünataç v. Türkiye case.^[49] As a result, Türkiye would not have been found to have violated the ECtHR.

Finally, based on the judgments of the Turkish Court of Cassation, the following point can be included as a contribution to the ECtHR: It would be beneficial for the ECtHR to apply the theory of spheres and to make the distinction between ‘private sphere’ and ‘secret sphere’, which is applied by both the Turkish and Swiss jurisprudence and literature. We think that the theory of spheres would be helpful, especially in cases where it is claimed that the right to privacy is violated. The ECtHR’s adoption of this distinction would result in more effective protection, predictability and fairness.

III. Freedom of the Press and the Protection of Personality Rights in Türkiye from the Perspective of the European Court of Human Rights: Analysis of the Sağdıç v Turkey judgement

A. Sağdıç v Turkey

On 9 February 2021, in the Sağdıç v Turkey judgment, the ECtHR held that national courts had violated the applicant’s right to private life by having failed to uphold the applicant’s reputation after it had been breached by the press. This decision was taken by a five to two majority, and the outvoted two members of the court delivered a strong dissenting opinion. It is worth examining whether the judgment reflects a shift in the Court’s jurisprudence and whether Turkish jurisprudence is otherwise in line with the ECtHR’s.

This case concerns several articles published by two daily newspapers, Taraf and Yeni Şafak, in 2009 regarding the investigation phase of a criminal organisation case against former Navy Commander Vice Admiral Kadir Sağdıç. These articles reported that prosecutors who were conducting the investigation had discovered an action plan according to which religious minorities were to be targeted in order to create conditions for overthrowing the government. It was alleged that the plan was drawn up by a group of navy soldiers, including the applicant. No source was cited in these articles. The applicant’s full name and photograph were published alongside these articles and he was identified as one of the main contributors of the planned attacks. When the newspaper articles were published, the investigation was still ongoing, and the indictment had not yet been prepared by the public prosecutor. Sağdıç, who was convicted on the indictment, was later acquitted after a retrial.

Meanwhile Sağdıç applied to the Turkish courts arguing that the articles in the press violated his right to privacy and reputation. The court of first instance, having applied the balancing criteria of the Turkish Court of Cassation, rejected the applicant’s request in 2011.^[50] Sağdıç appealed to the Turkish Court of Cassation, which rejected the appeal in 2013.^[51] Thereupon, Sağdıç submitted an individual application to the Turkish Constitutional Court, which again was rejected in 2015.^[52] The Turkish Constitutional Court ruled against the applicant with a majority of 12 to 3. The Court applied criteria which mirror closely those of the ECtHR. These are the contribution to a debate of general interest, the prominence of the individual involved and the subject matter of the report, the individual’s previous conduct, the content, form, and repercussions of the publication, and the conditions under which the news was published. It must be underlined that the Turkish courts of first instance and the Court of Cassation continue to apply the criteria that are examined in detail in this paper.

The dissenting members of the Turkish Constitutional Court emphasised that the disputed articles were published during the investigation and before the indictment was drawn up. The publications in question were based on leaked information from a leak in the investigation file, which at this time was confidential. In their view, the publications violated the reputation of the applicant by designating him as guilty and making him a target in the eyes of the public.^[53]

Then, Sağdıç applied to the ECtHR in 2016. He claimed that the newspapers had published false and slanderous allegations about him when he had not yet been indicted, in complete disregard for the principle of confidentiality of the investigation; therefore, these reports seriously damaged his honour and dignity. Moreover, the applicant argued that the incriminating material against him was part of a plot carried out by a criminal terrorist organisation (a parallel state structure). The applicant claimed that, due to this terrorist plot, he was dismissed from his post in the naval force and deprived of his liberty for three and a half years. He argued that the newspapers concerned were able to publish these allegations with complete impunity thanks to the complicity of certain police officers and magistrates. Furthermore, the applicant emphasised that, even if he was acquitted of all charges in March 2015, the criminal proceedings were preceded by a dishonest campaign that denigrated his character.

The Turkish Government did not submit observations on the admissibility or merits of the case, limiting their observations to the question of just satisfaction under Article 41 of the ECHR. In other words, the Turkish Government did not defend the judgments which had been handed down by the Turkish courts.

The ECtHR, by a five to two majority, ruled in favour of Sağdıç on the grounds that it was not sufficient for journalists to rely only on leaked investigative documents, but that they should have also carried out their own investigations. The dissenting opinion stated that the content of an investigative criminal file was newsworthy and—contrary to the majority opinion—journalists could not be expected to carry out their own independent research. Since Türkiye did not submit an appeal the decision became final as of 31 May 2021.

The Court ruled in favour of the applicant mainly for two reasons: First, the Court found that the articles did not conform to the standards of responsible journalism.^[54] Second, the national courts did not duly balance the applicant’s right to respect for his private life with the freedom of the press in accordance with the ECtHR’s criteria.^[55]

The Court applied its relevant criteria and reached the following conclusions: First, the Court found that the subject was clearly of general interest and that the articles contributed to a debate of public interest.^[56] The Court then went on to examine the veracity of the allegations published about the applicant. It was noted that the credibility of the sources cited in an article should be evaluated from the perspective of the situation as it appeared to the journalists at the time in question, rather than in hindsight, based on later court findings. The Court stated that when the articles in question were published, the criminal investigation was still ongoing and covered by the confidentiality. The authors of the articles did not cite any source in support. According to the Court, when considering the situation ex ante, there was nothing to suggest that the journalists could rely on the investigation documents without conducting their own inquiries.^[57]

Having thus stated that there must be serious reasons for journalists not to verify factual statements with defamatory potential,^[58] the Court emphasised that the contested articles were particularly denigratory for the applicant for the following reasons: First, the applicant’s full name and photograph were published in the margins of some of the articles. Second, titles such as ‘Sağdıç, the moderate conspirator’ or ‘The [plan] Cage initialed by the pasha balancer’, directly implicated the applicant. Third, when read collectively, these articles asserted, even before any official criminal proceedings had been initiated, that the applicant was a member of a criminal organisation, established by a group of conspiratorial soldiers with the intent of overthrowing the government. Therefore, the publication of allegations which attributed particularly serious facts to the applicant and which were covered by the confidentiality of the investigation at the material time, entailed the risk of exposing the applicant to public revenge. Having reached the conclusion that the standards of responsible journalism were not met and that the right to privacy and the freedom of the press had not been properly balanced for the above-mentioned reasons, the ECtHR ruled in favour of the applicant.

According to the dissenting opinion, the core of the issue was whether the newspapers were protected by Article 10 of the ECHR when publishing confidential information about a criminal investigation. The dissenting judges reiterated the criteria to be applied in specific cases where the freedom of the press and the right to privacy in criminal proceedings needed to be balanced:^[59] (1) the manner in which the newspapers came into possession of the information in question; (2) the content of the impugned article; (3) the contribution of the impugned article to a public-interest debate; (4) the influence of the impugned article on the criminal proceedings; (5) the infringement of the accused’s private life; and (6) if any, the proportionality of the penalty imposed.^[60]

As to the first criterion, the dissenting members stated that there was nothing to indicate that the newspapers acted unlawfully or had actively sought to obtain information about the pending criminal investigation.^[61] As to the second criterion, the newspapers did not make any independent accusations against the applicant, nor had it been alleged that the articles contained defamatory value judgments concerning the applicant.^[62] As to the third criterion, it is unquestionable that the articles concerned an issue of great public interest.^[63] As to the fourth criterion, there was nothing to indicate that the articles influenced or were apt to influence the criminal proceedings.^[64] As to the fifth criterion, the articles did not reveal any purely private information, but concerned alleged criminal offences of a serious nature, which became public a few months later.

In summary, the dissenting members found that the domestic courts had appropriately balanced the competing interests.^[65] They also argued that it would be an impossible task for the press to actively and independently verify the veracity of the prosecutor’s accusations against the applicant before publishing the articles.

B. The Evaluation

Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of a democratic society since, as a ‘public watchdog’, the press performs an important task indispensable for democracy.^[66] Meanwhile, the freedom of the press and the right to protection of personality rights are two highly competing rights. Neither the right to freedom of expression of the press nor the personality rights of the individual should take absolute priority. Instead, given that the two rights are, in principle, equally significant, it is necessary to identify additional balancing criteria which will tip the scale depending on the specific circumstances of the case.^[67] As Koziol has rightly stated: an infringement of personality rights is permitted only as long as it is necessary and sufficient for the realisation of the right to freedom of expression.^[68]

There is a fine line between the right to protection of privacy and the freedom of the press. The balancing should be done diligently in terms of each individual case. It is necessary to apply the criteria with the utmost scrutiny. In journalistic practice it is often difficult to weigh the freedom of the press and personality rights because they largely elude clear legal regulation and, ultimately, have to be reviewed by the courts depending on the specifics of the individual case.^[69] In Sağdıç v Turkey, the line was, actually, so thin that it divided the decision-making authority. However, it is safe to say that in this case, the ECtHR did not raise the bar for responsible journalism. The Court simply stated that the news articles were not responsible journalism, but merely a conscious effort to steer public opinion.

The professional activity of responsible journalism enjoys the protection of Article 10 of the ECHR. As the ECtHR qualified in Sağdıç v Turkey:^[70]

… the protection that Article 10 provides to the press is subject to the condition that the journalists act in good faith in order to provide accurate and credible information and respect the principles of responsible journalism. The concept of responsible journalism is a concept which covers not only the content of the information collected and/or distributed by journalistic means […] , but which also includes the lawfulness of the behaviour of journalists.

Therefore, for the protection of the freedom of expression, the rules of responsible journalism must be abided by. Additionally, the lawfulness of the journalist’s conduct and their public interaction with the authorities while performing journalistic functions must be considered.^[71]

The problematic issue in the reports at hand is not only the content of the information given, but also the style of delivery of the news. The form in which these had been presented did not properly correlate to their substance. In these reports, the purpose of creating an unfavourable public opinion was carried out under the guise of a press activity. Considering the expressions used and the style of delivery of the news, the activity in the press reports is considered even below tabloid journalism, in complete contrast to performing the public watchdog function. These news reports failed to meet even the standards of tabloid journalism; instead, they represented a deliberate attempt to shape an unfavourable public opinion of the applicant. For all these reasons, the ECtHR’s decision is commendable and does not raise the threshold for responsible journalism as one might fear, and only concludes that the personality rights of the applicant have been violated.

Finally, in line with both the ECtHR’s judgments and Turkish case law, in order for responsible journalism, the journalists must be aware that they use a right in accordance with the requirements of a democratic society, that they must act in good faith trying to reach the accurate information, and that they must strike a balance between substance and form of the news. For this reason, instead of aiming to create a negative public opinion, the responsible journalist should consider the balance between the freedom of the press and personality rights and determine the style of delivery of the news as both the collection and presentation of information and the content of the news must be lawful.

Conclusion 

The criteria that the ECtHR has consistently confirmed in its case law for obtaining a proper balance between the freedom of the press on the one hand, and the right to respect for one’s private life on the other, are highly commendable. These criteria are: the contribution to a debate of general interest, the notoriety of the person concerned, the subject of the report, the prior conduct of the person concerned, the content, form and consequences of the publication, and the method of obtaining the information and its veracity. These criteria should be examined in detail individually and on the specific circumstances of each case. Having applied these criteria in the Sağdıç v Turkey judgment, the ECtHR reached a convincing decision which strikes an appropriate balance between the freedom of the press and personality rights.

The Turkish Court of Cassation has also developed a set of criteria for situations where the freedom of the press and personality rights are in competition with each other and require to be balanced. This set of criteria are as follows: apparent reality, public benefit and social interest, actuality, and finally, balance between essence and form. The criteria used by the Turkish Court of Cassation are useful. However, in the light of the ECtHR judgments, we believe that the criteria to be used by Turkish courts in violation of personality rights by the press should be determined as follows: apparent reality, actuality, contribution to a debate of general interest, social interest, balance between essence and form, and the method of obtaining information.

It would be beneficial for the ECtHR to apply the theory of spheres and to make the distinction between ‘private sphere’ and ‘secret sphere’, which is applied by both the Turkish and Swiss judicature and literature. We think that the theory of spheres would be helpful, especially in cases where it is claimed that the right to privacy is violated. The ECtHR’s adoption of this distinction would result in more effective protection, predictability, and fairness.

 

* LL.M. (Kırıkkale University), PhD (Ankara University); Associate Professor of Law, Lawyer, Member of Ankara Bar Association, Türkiye. email: ferhatcabolat@gmail.com, ORCID: 0000-0003-2894-7119. ↑

** LL.M. (College of Europe), PhD (Hacettepe University); Academic Visitor at the University of Oxford, The Institute of European and Comparative Law, Assistant Professor of Law, Hacettepe University Faculty of Law, Ankara, Türkiye. email: gunhangonul@hacettepe.edu.tr, ORCID: 0000-0002-2695-6954. ↑

1. M Teitler, Der rechtskräftig verurteilte Straftäter und seine Persönlichkeitsrechte im Spannungsfeld zwischen öffentlichem Informationsinteresse, Persönlichkeitsschutz und Kommerz, Zürcher Studien zum Privatrecht Band/Nr. 205 (Schulthess 2008) 57 ff; H Hausheer and RE Aebi-Müller, ‘Persönlichkeitsschutz und Massenmedien – Eine Darstellung der aktuellen privatrechtlichen Ausgangslage’ (2004) recht 139; S Reisoğlu, ‘Basın Özgürlüğü ve Kişilik Haklarının Korunması’ Prof. Dr. Turgut Akıntürk’e Armağan (Beta 2008) 295. ↑
2. MK Oğuzman, Ö Seliçi and S Oktay-Özdemir, Kişiler Hukuku Gerçek ve Tüzel Kişiler (Filiz 2015) 205; S Helvacı, Türk ve İsviçre Hukuklarında Kişilik Hakkını Koruyucu Davalar (Beta 2001) 121-2; J G Akipek, T Akıntürk and D Ateş, Türk Medeni Hukuku Başlangıç Hükümleri, Kişiler Hukuku (15^th edn, Beta 2019) 387; DB Belli, Basın Yoluyla Kişilik Hakkına Saldırılardan Doğan Hukuki Sorumluluk (Yetkin 2008) 62-64. ↑
3. Constitution of Republic of Türkiye [Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası], available at <https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.2709.pdf> accessed 1 February 2024. ↑
4. Press Law [Basın Kanunu] No 5187, Official Gazette: 26 June 2004/25504. ↑
5. The Court of Cassation has confirmed this several times with slight differences in expression in its various judgments. Instead of many, see Court of Cassation Assembly of Civil Chambers (‘ACC’), No E 2011/4-278 K 2011/376 1 June 2011. All translations are provided by the authors. Unless otherwise stated, all the Court of Cassation judgments mentioned in this paper have been obtained from the internet data bank, www.kazanci.com. ↑
6. OS Aydos, ‘Basın Yoluyla Kişilik Hakları İhlâllerinde Manevî Tazminat’ (2012) XVI (2) Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 3; B Acabey, ‘Basın Özgürlüğü ve Bu Özgürlüğün Bir Sınırı Olarak Kişilik Hakkı’ (2013) (8) Yaşar Üniversitesi Dergisi Prof. Dr. Aydın Zevkliler Armağanı 15; S Özel, ‘Basın Yoluyla Kişilik Hakkı İhlallerinde Hukuka Uygunluk Unsurunun Yargıtay Kararlan Işığında Değerlendirilmesi’ (2004) I Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Prof. Dr. Erden Kuntalp’e Armağan Özel Hukuk 163; R Serozan, ‘Kişilik Hakkının Korunmasıyla İlgili Bazı Düşünceler’ (1977) 11 (14) İstanbul Üniversitesi Mukayeseli Hukuk Enstitüsü Mukayeseli Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi Yeni Seri 93; M Ayan and N Ayan, Kişiler Hukuku (9^th edn, Adalet 2020), 91 ff; B Öztan, Medeni Hukuk’un Temel Kavramları (44^th edn, Yetkin 2019) 287 ff; M Dural and T Öğüz, Türk Özel Hukuku Cilt II Kişiler Hukuku (22th edn, Filiz 2021) 101; E Özsunay, Gerçek Kişilerin Hukuki Durumu (Fakülteler Matbaası 1979) 149; A Arpacı, Kişiler Hukuku (Gerçek Kişiler) (Beta 2000) 108 ff; AM Kılıçoğlu, Şeref, Haysiyet ve Özel Yaşama Basın Yoluyla Saldırılardan Hukuksal Sorumluluk (4th edn, Turhan 2013) 3-4; Oğuzman, Seliçi and Oktay-Özdemir (n 2) 155; Akipek, Akıntürk and Ateş (n 2) 343 ff; Helvacı (n 2) 50 ff. ↑
7. H Hatemi, Kişiler Hukuku (8th edn, On İki Levha Publishing 2020) 66. Some personal values, to which the legislator attaches special importance, are not only protected by the general provision, but also envisaged specifically, such as Arts 26-27 of Turkish Civil Code stipulating right to one’s name. ↑
8. A Warzilek, ‘Comparative Report’ in H Koziol and A Warzilek (eds), The Protection of Personality Rights against Invasions by Mass Media (Springer 2005) 618. ↑
9. R Serozan, Medeni Hukuk Genel Bölüm/ Kişiler Hukuku (8th edn, Vedat 2018) 455 ff; Özsunay (n 6) 97; Öztan (n 6) 287; Arpacı (n 9) 103; Oğuzman, Seliçi and Oktay-Özdemir (n 2) 154; Akipek, Akıntürk and Ateş (n 2) 343; Dural and Öğüz (n 6) 103. ↑
10. Turkish Civil Code [Türk Medeni Kanunu], Law No 4721, Official Gazette: 8 December 2001/24607. ↑
11. C Cramer, ‘Persönlichkeitsschutz und Medienfreiheit Vorschläge für eine Güterabwägung nach kontextbezogenen Fallgruppen’ (2008) Basler juristische Mitteilungen 122; R Zulauf and M Sieber, ‘Entstauben oder Entsorgen: Die Figur der Person der Zeitgeschichte hat ausgedient – eine Neupositionierung tut Not’ in M Grosz and S Grünewald (eds), Recht und Wandel Festschrift für Rolf H. Weber (Schulthess 2016) 117; F Canbolat, ‘Güncel Gelişmeler Işığında Kişilik Hakları ve Korunması’, in E Badur and G Turan Başara (eds), Evrensel Hukuk İlkeleri Işığında Türk Medeni Hukukunda Değişimler Sempozyumu (Seçkin 2016) 226; H Tandoğan, ‘Şahsiyetin Akit Dışı İhlallere Karşı Korunmasının İşleyiş Tarzı ve Basın Yoluyla Olan İhlallere Karşı Özel Hayatın Korunması’ (1963) 20 (1) Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 11; Hausheer and Aebi-Müller (n 1) 130; Dural and Öğüz (n 6) 103; Serozan (n 9) 455; Akipek, Akıntürk and Ateş (n 2) 345; Özsunay (n 6) 98; Arpacı (n 9) 105 ff. ↑
12. Court of Cassation ACC No E 2007/4-224 K 2007/228 (2 May 2007). ↑
13. Oğuzman, Seliçi and Oktay-Özdemir (n 2) 197. ↑
14. Hausheer and Aebi-Müller (n 1) 137; Kılıçoğlu (n 6) 87; Akipek, Akıntürk and Ateş (n 2) 387; Öztan (n 6) 292; Oğuzman, Seliçi and Oktay-Özdemir (n 2) 168; Dural and Öğüz (n 6) 130 ff; Özsunay (n 6) 116; Ayan und Ayan (n 6) 101. ↑
15. Dural and Öğüz (n 6) 130; Öztan (n 6) 292; (n 6) 90. ↑
16. Court of Cassation ACC No E 2012/4-179 K 2012/412 (27 June 2012). ↑
17. As a part of modernisation, Türkiye translated and accepted Swiss Civil Code and Swiss Code of Obligations in 1926. ↑
18. U Saxer, ‘”Caroline” und die Privatsphäre Prominenter in der Schweiz’ (2005) Medialex Zeitschrift für Kommunikationsrecht 23; A Büchler and M Frei, ZGB Kommentar Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch Orell Füssli Kommentar (Orell Füssli 2011) Art 28 N 5; S Hrubesch-Millauer and M Bosshardt, Personenrecht (2th edn, Dike 2021) 64; Cramer (n 11) 128; SS Akkurt, Sosyal Medyada Gerçekleşen İhlâller Karşısında Kişilik Hakkının Korunması (Seçkin 2020) 67; S Özel, Uluslararası Alanda Medya ve İnternette Kişilik Hakkının Korunması (Seçkin 2004) 31; Sanem Aksoy Dursun, ‘Yargı Kararları Işığında Özel Hayata Saygı Hakkının Basın Özgürlüğü ile İlişkisi’ in Sanem Aksoy Dursun and Arzu Genç Arıdemir (eds) Kişilik Haklarına İlişkin Güncel Sorunlar (On İki Levha Publishing 2021) 37; Belli (n 2) 36 ff; Dural and Öğüz (n 6) 138; Helvacı (n 2) 60; Kılıçoğlu (n 6) 118; Serozan (n 9) 466. On the other hand, Aebi-Müller criticises the sphere theory as insufficient claiming that it causes gaps in the protection of personality rights. RE Aebi-Müller, CHK – Handkommentar zum Schweizer Privatrecht, Personen- und Familienrecht – Partnerschaftsgesetz, Art. 1-456 ZGB – PartG (Schulthess 2016) Art 28 N 22. However, we find the theory of spheres worthy when it is applied in the light of concrete events. ↑
19. Saxer (n 18) 24. ↑
20. F Canbolat and G Gönül Koşar, ‘Basın Yoluyla Kişilik Hakkının İhlalinin Tespitinde Kullanılan Yargıtay ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Ölçütlerinin Değerlendirilmesi’ (2020) 151 Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi 279. ↑
21. Art 17/1 of the Turkish Constitution titled ‘Personal Inviolability, Corporeal and Spiritual Existence of the Individual’ is as follows: ‘Everyone has the right to life and the right to protect and improve their corporeal and spiritual existence.’ ↑
22. The Personal Data Protection Law [Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu], No 6698, Official Gazette: 7 April 2016/29677. ↑
23. Art 13 of Press Law stipulates that, in periodicals, the owner of the work, the owner of the publication and its representative, if any, are jointly and severally liable for the material and moral damages arising from the acts committed through the printed works. In indefinite publications, the author, the publisher or, if the publisher is not known, the printer are jointly and severally liable. ↑
24. Court of Cassation ACC No E 2011/4-278 K 2011/376 (1 June 2011); Court of Cassation ACC No E 2006/4-540 K 2006/601 (27 September 2006); Court of Cassation ACC No E 2008/4-263 K 2008/262 (19 March 2008); Court of Cassation ACC No E 2005/4-644 K 2005/701 (7 December 2005). ↑
25. Warzilek (n 8) 621. ↑
26. Court of Cassation ACC No E 2003/4-167 K 2003/176 (19 March 2003); Court of Cassation ACC No E 2011/4-278 K 2011/376 (1 June 2011); Court of Cassation ACC No E 2008/4-263 K 2008/262 (19 March 2008); Court of Cassation ACC No E 2005/4-644 K 2005/701 (7 December 2005). ↑
27. Court of Cassation ACC No E 2011/4-278 K 2011/376 (1 June 2011). ↑
28. Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber No E 2001/8795 K 2001/12714 (24 December 2001). ↑
29. Court of Cassation ACC No E 2008/4-263 K 2008/262 (19 March 2008). ↑
30. For the definition of public figure see LM Kurt, ‘Kamuya Mal Olmuş Kişi Kavramı’ (2017) 66 (3) Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 602; Kılıçoğlu (n 6) 234; Serozan (n 9) 474; Canbolat and Gönül Koşar (n 20) 283. ↑
31. Kurt (n 30) 594-5. ↑
32. Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber No E1987/8085 K 1988/334 (19 January 1988). ↑
33. Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber No E 2001/4584 K 2001/9053 (4 October 2001). ↑
34. ‘Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’, İnsan Hakları Hukuku Bilgi Bankası <https://insanhaklarimerkezi.bilgi.edu.tr/tr/content/49-avrupa-insan-haklar-sozlesmesi/> accessed 1 February 2024. ↑
35. Von Hannover v Germany App no 59320/00 (ECtHR, 24 June 2004) para 50. ↑
36. Pfeifer v Austria App no 12556/03 (ECtHR, 15 November 2007) para 35, Petrie v Italy App no 25322/12 (ECtHR, 18 May 2017) para 39. ↑
37. Axel Springer AG v Germany App no 39954/08 (ECtHR, 7 February 2012) para 83, Bédat v Switzerland App no 56925/08 (ECtHR, 29 March 2016) para 72. ↑
38. Von Hannover v Germany App no 40660/08 and 60641/08 (ECtHR, 7 February 2012) paras 108-113; Axel Springer AG v Germany (ECtHR, 7 February 2012) paras 89-95]; Sağdıç v Turkey App no 9142/16 (ECtHR, 9 February 2021) para 30; Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v France App no 40454/07 (ECtHR, 10 November 2015) para 93. ↑
39. von Hannover v Germany (ECtHR, 7 February 2012) para 108 ff. ↑
40. von Hannover v Germany (ECtHR, 7 February 2012) para 109; Axel Springer AG v Germany (ECtHR, 7 February 2012) para 90. ↑
41. von Hannover v Germany (ECtHR, 7 February 2012) para 110; Axel Springer AG v Germany (ECtHR, 7 February 2012) para 91. ↑
42. von Hannover v Germany (2012) para 111; Axel Springer AG v Germany (ECtHR, 7 February 2012) para 92; Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v France (ECtHR, 10 November 2015) paras 52-3. ↑
43. Axel Springer AG v Germany (ECtHR, 7 February 2012) para 93. ↑
44. Tüzünataç v Türkiye (ECtHR, 7 March 2023) para 49. ↑
45. von Hannover v Germany (ECtHR, 7 February 2012) para 112; Axel Springer AG v Germany (ECtHR, 7 February 2012) para 94. ↑
46. Jokitaipale and Others v Finland, No 43349/05 (ECtHR, 6 April 2010) para 68. ↑
47. Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v Finland App no 53678/00 (ECtHR, 16 November 2004) para 47. ↑
48. For a detailed analysis, see Canbolat and Gönül Koşar (n 20) 297-8. ↑
49. Tüzünataç v Türkiye App no 14852/18 (ECtHR, 7 March 2023). ↑
50. İzmir 8th Civil Court of First Instance (21 February 2011). ↑
51. Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber (12 February 2013). ↑
52. Constitutional Court of Republic of Türkiye App no 2013/6617 (08 April 2015) available at <https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2013/6617> accessed 1 February 2024. ↑
53. Ibid. ↑
54. Sağdıç v Turkey (ECtHR, 9 February 2021) para 42. ↑
55. Ibid para 44. ↑
56. Ibid para 34. ↑
57. Ibid para 41. ↑
58. Ibid para 39. ↑
59. Bédat v Switzerland (ECtHR, 29 March 2016) paras 56-82. ↑
60. In the present case, the last criterion is not relevant as the domestic courts ruled in favour of the newspapers. ↑
61. Sağdıç v Turkey (ECtHR, 9 February 2021) Dissenting opinion para 9. ↑
62. Ibid para 10. ↑
63. Ibid para 11. ↑
64. Ibid para 12. ↑
65. Ibid para 18. ↑
66. W Berka, ‘Grundfreiheiten und Menchenrechte’ in H Koziol and A Warzilek (eds), The Protection of Personality Rights against Invasions by Mass Media (Springer 2005) 505. Bédat v Switzerland, No 56925/08 (ECtHR, 29 March 2016) para 50. ↑
67. H Koziol, ‘Protection of Personality Rights against Invasions by theMass Media: Summary and Outlook’ in H Koziol and A Warzilek (eds), The Protection of Personality Rights against Invasions by Mass Media (Springer 2005) 685. ↑
68. Ibid 686. ↑
69. B Kommenda, ‘Der Persönlichkeitsschutz gegenüber Massenmedien aus der Sicht eines Medienmitarbeiters’ in H Koziol and A Warzilek (eds), The Protection of Personality Rights against Invasions by Mass Media (Springer 2005) 417. ↑
70. Sağdıç v Turkey (ECtHR, 9 February 2021) para 27. ↑
71. Pentikäinen v Finland App no 11882/10 (ECtHR, 20 October 2015) para 90. ↑