Individual Application

The Facts

İ.M.G., who was a metropolitan mayor at the material time, published certain messages and documents with respect to the applicant, an MP, via a social networking site. The messages contained expressions targeting the applicant as well as allegations such as that the applicant’s family had been using illegal water. In addition to these messages, İ.M.G. also shared the minutes of general meeting, containing the full address and subscription data of the company of the applicant’s husband, as well as identity numbers and signatures of her relatives.

The applicant brought an action for compensation against İ.M.G. for the unlawful acquisition and disclosure of her personal data. However, it was dismissed by the incumbent court as the impugned act fell into the scope of the freedom of expression. On appeal, the first instance decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation. Hence, the applicant filed an individual application.

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicant claimed that her right to the protection of personal data under the right to respect for private life had been violated for disclosure of her personal data via a social networking site.

The Court’s Assessment

From the standpoint of the right to the protection of personal data under the right to respect for private life, it is incumbent on the State, as a positive obligation, to protect all individuals under its jurisdiction against the risks which may result from the acts and actions of public authorities, other individuals as well as of the individual himself. Within the scope of this obligation, the judicial authorities are required to conduct a rigorous trial observing the constitutional guarantees regarding the protection of personal data, to discuss the particular circumstances of the case and to explain with sufficient justification the conclusion reached.

Signature, identifying information, subscriptions, information regarding family as well as residence and workplace addresses are among personal data. In the present case, the applicant did not consent to the acquisition and disclosure of such information belonging to her. The applicant also claimed during the compensation proceedings that the information obtained and disclosed without her consent were personal data, and that her personal rights were impaired due to the unlawful acquisition and dissemination of the relevant information.

In addition, the inferior courts considered the applicant’s case within the scope of the freedom of expression, emphasising that the parties were politicians and the impugned messages amounted to criticism. They failed to discuss how and in which scope the applicant’s personal data had been obtained and which legitimate aim had been pursued as well as what public interest had been served through the disclosure of relevant data via a social media account.

The inferior courts also failed to address the applicant’s serious allegations that the acquired and disclosed information should have been considered as personal data. Therefore, it is obvious that the inferior courts failed to conduct a rigorous trial observing the constitutional guarantees regarding the protection of personal data within the scope of the right to respect for private life, and they also failed to provide relevant justification in the particular circumstances of the case.

Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to the protection of personal data under the right to respect for private life.