Individual Application

The Facts

In a television broadcast, the applicant discussed the importance of nutrition and the link between depression and nutrition. She conveyed the messages that pharmaceutical companies were acting in pursuance of commercial interests and that happiness could be achieved not with medications, but with a healthy diet. As a consequence of the impugned statements, the applicant was subjected to a disciplinary investigation, at the end of which a disciplinary fine was imposed on her by the decision rendered by the Honor Board of the Istanbul Medical Chamber. The High Board of Discipline of the Turkish Medical Association (TMA) upheld the impugned decision. The appeal lodged by the applicant against this decision was dismissed, with final effect, by the administrative court.

The Applicants’ Allegations

The applicant maintained that her freedom of expression had been violated by the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on account of her medical statements presented in a television programme.

The Court’s Assessment

In the present case, TMA considered that the applicant had made a medical assessment on a subject beyond her field of expertise, had endangered public health with her non-scientific statements, had promoted herself with her statements and had employed an unethical method of discussion with physicians who disagreed with her on a medical issue. The Administrative Court, which examined the applicant’s appeal against the fine imposed on the basis of the impugned considerations, failed to demonstrate in a concrete manner how the statements of the applicant were detrimental to public health.

The requirement to prove having pertinent expertise in order to express an opinion restricts freedom of expression to the extent that would render it meaningless. In addition, the applicant is a cardiologist and internal medicine specialist, as well as one of the most renowned academics and scientists in Türkiye. In this regard, developments in the field of medicine are of interest to the applicant. Moreover, it is not for the judicial authorities to substitute itself for a scientist and determine the form of expression to be used in a particular situation, even if it is acknowledged that in some of her statements the applicant was critical of her colleagues and even went so far as to exaggerate her statements. Furthermore, freedom of expression is to a large extent about securing right to criticise. Therefore, in the context of discussing issues vital to the life of individuals and society, more tolerance should be afforded to harsh and controversial statements, especially when they are not directed at any particular person. In addition, the harshness of the statement cannot be regarded as a justification for interfering with the expression.

The consideration that the reference made by the applicant, who has published a large number of books and enjoys a good reputation, to her books, in which she provides more technical explanations and attempts to ground her views, is a self-advertisement amounts to an indirect restriction of freedom of expression, since it goes beyond the aim pursued by the prohibition on advertising for physicians. Accordingly, restricting freedom of expression under various pretexts cannot be deemed constitutional, as it would undermine the foundations of democratic society.

Accordingly, having regard to all the circumstances of the present case, is the Court has concluded that the interference with the freedom of expression safeguarded by the Constitution by imposing a disciplinary sanction on the applicant did not correspond to a pressing social need and was not proportionate.

Consequently, the Court has found a violation of freedom of expression.