A news report that disturbs a person does not by itself make the publication unlawful; that a report is news does not remove all responsibility. Public interest, the factual basis, the reliability of the source, the language used and the position of the person concerned are assessed together. The court must strike a concrete and reasoned balance between press freedom and the protection of honour and reputation.
This article compares the application lodged by the publisher, Güneş Basım Yayım Organizasyon ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. (Application No. 2018/24677, January 28, 2021), with the application lodged by the person reported on, Ali Suat Ertosun (13) (Application No. 2019/25813, April 13, 2023). The two files differ in applicant, claim and procedural outcome; these differences should be kept in view when reading the decisions.
How does the press's right to report meet the right to personality?
Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of the press, while Article 17 guarantees the protection of honour and reputation under concrete conditions. The press contributes to the public's access to information and to the scrutiny of public power. This function is particularly important on subjects such as public resources, politics and the functioning of the judiciary.
The subject of a news report is not left unprotected either. Incorrect factual allegations, headlines that distort context, or disclosures of private life unrelated to public debate may give rise to a personality-rights problem. The balance must be struck on the basis of the whole report and the circumstances in which it was published.
Legal characterisation: Imposing criminal or compensation liability on a publisher may raise the question of state interference with freedom of expression. A claim that the person was not adequately protected against an attack, however, concerns the state's positive obligation. The same conflict raises different constitutional questions for different applicants.
Fact, opinion and the reporting of someone else's allegation
A verifiable description of an event is a factual allegation. A value judgment contains an evaluation, and its truth is not expected to be proved by the same method. Even so, serious comments may matter where they rest on a sufficient factual basis. The report, the commentary and the quotation should be presented so that the reader can tell them apart.
Reporting someone else's allegation is different from putting the same allegation forward as the publisher's own established knowledge. Clearly identifying the source, not distorting the transmission and the public value of the report all matter. However, a statement that "someone else said it" does not automatically provide blanket protection for every publication.
What did the Constitutional Court (AYM) assess in the Güneş Basım Yayım decision?
The applicant, a publishing company, had been ordered to pay compensation over a news report about a politician. The report included allegations that had previously been voiced in other media and in political statements. The Constitutional Court examined whether the sources of these allegations were identified, whether the publisher presented them as its own established knowledge or as the subject of reporting, and the public interest in the report.
Direct quotation from the decision
“Even if the applicant is not expected to prove the truth of the allegations in the report in every respect, it is expected that the applicant support these allegations with concrete facts”
Source of the quotation: AYM, Güneş Basım Yayım Organizasyon ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti., Application No. 2018/24677, January 28, 2021, para. 42. Only the part of the sentence before the citation bracket is quoted.
The court did not disregard the duties and responsibilities of the journalist. It focused on the difference between transmitting, with the sources shown, allegations already made public, and the publisher producing a new and independent accusation (paras. 43–49). It concluded that the first-instance assessment did not adequately address all the circumstances of the report.
The court's ruling: By majority vote, the court found a violation of freedom of expression and freedom of the press under Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution. A retrial and non-pecuniary damages were ordered. Because there was a dissenting opinion, the result should not be described as unanimous.
Why must the outcome of the Ali Suat Ertosun (13) decision be named differently?
In this file the applicant is not the publisher but the person reported on. The applicant claimed that honour and reputation had not been protected. The Constitutional Court assessed the source of the report, whether the allegations were factual or value judgments, the public interest and the applicant's public role.
The reasoning at paras. 20–27 addresses the journalist's duty to investigate factual allegations. The court stated that journalists are not expected to prove facts with the rigour of a prosecutor; what matters is the apparent state of affairs at the time of publication, reasonable sources and good-faith efforts at verification. It also did not accept that every previously published allegation may be repeated indefinitely.
The court's ruling: The claim that the right to protection of honour and reputation had been violated was found inadmissible, as it was manifestly without foundation. This outcome is not in the same procedural category as a merits ruling of "no violation". The reasoning explains why the application was found inadmissible, but the type of ruling should still be reported accurately.
Our assessment: These two decisions do not show that the publisher will always win. In one, the reasoning concerned the justification for a sanction against press freedom; in the other, the examination concerned whether the state fulfilled its duty to protect personality. What the decisions share is an assessment of the concrete publication and its context rather than abstract labels.
Which legal distinctions matter when preparing a report?
Public interest and public curiosity
Public interest is not the same as everything a reader is curious about. A distinction must be drawn between matters relating to the performance of a public function or contributing to public debate, and the private sphere unrelated to a person's public function. Being well known does not mean that a person's entire private life may be published without limit.
Persons exercising public power may have a broader duty to tolerate criticism. However, this principle does not automatically protect baseless factual accusations or attacks intended merely to demean. The connection with the public function and the purpose of the report should be explained.
Apparent reality and verification efforts
What information the report relied on at the time of publication matters. The nature of the source, access to documents, the weight of the allegation and the opportunity to obtain the opposing view are assessed together. Although the same research steps are not mandatory in every case, closer scrutiny may be expected for serious allegations.
Information that emerges later does not automatically change the circumstances in which an earlier publication was made. However, learning of new information that requires correction may become important for how the publication is kept online. A permanently accessible internet archive may require separate consideration of the relationship between current presentation and the historical record.
Consistency of headline, image and text
Where an allegation presented as such in the text is written in a headline as if it were a proven crime, the meaning of the whole publication may change. The choice of image may also link the person with the wrong event. For this reason, not only the text but also the headline, subheading, photo caption and social media post should be examined together.
Direct quotations should be given with their source. The publisher's commentary and the words of the person quoted should be kept apart, and an omission must not reverse the meaning. Using quotation marks does not by itself remove the legal effect of a distorting context.
What must a person claiming harm from a report show?
The expression or image that targets them, why the factual allegation is wrong, which area of personality it affects, and the scope of the publication should be explained. A general statement of discomfort with the whole report may not make the actual dispute visible. The dated copy and the address of the publication should be preserved.
The protection sought must also be specific. Correction, reply, a finding of unlawfulness, stopping an attack and compensation are different claims. The procedure for correction and reply under the Press Law and the time limits and conditions of a general personality-rights action are not the same. The applicable route should be examined separately for the type of publication.
For internet publications, the procedure under former Article 9 of Law No. 5651 should not be used as the current general route. Since that provision was annulled, general civil-law routes and specific regulations have become important. The scope of a content-removal request should be justified together with its effect on press freedom. The assessment of an access block directed at an entire platform from the standpoint of freedom of expression is described in the article social media platform access ban and freedom of expression.
What reasoning is expected in a court decision?
The decision should assess the publication's contribution to the public interest, the person's position, the factual basis, the form of the publication and the effect of the sanction. Not every criterion needs the same length in every decision; however, essential elements that could change the outcome of the dispute should not be left unanswered.
The amount of compensation and the scope of interference with the publication are also important. Even where the aim is to protect personality, it should be examined whether the sanction creates disproportionate pressure on reporting. On the other hand, a reference to freedom of expression does not justify ineffective protection against a serious and unlawful attack.
After ordinary remedies have been exhausted, an individual application to the Constitutional Court is generally made within thirty days. The application should show which fundamental-rights element the court disregarded and how this affected the result. An individual application is not an ordinary appeal that merely asks for the amount of compensation to be re-determined.
For more on this subject, see qualified rights in Constitutional Court decisions, the limit between freedom of expression and insult, the legal limits of freedom of science and art and the presumption of innocence and the right not to be stigmatised. Our office's work in this field is presented on the Constitutional Court and ECtHR applications page.
Conclusion
The balance between press freedom and the protection of reputation is struck through the verifiable basis of a report and its public function. Claims concerning publisher liability and claims concerning the protection of personality rights are examined separately. The Güneş Basım Yayım and Ali Suat Ertosun (13) decisions show the importance of accurately conveying both the reasoning and the type of ruling. A quotation with a clear source, measured language and concrete evidence strengthen the assessment for both sides.
Frequently Asked Questions
If an allegation published in another newspaper is repeated verbatim, does responsibility end?
No. The source, the accuracy of the transmission, the language used and the public context are assessed. A previous publication does not automatically make every repetition lawful.
Is a journalist expected to provide definitive proof like a prosecutor?
The Constitutional Court (AYM) focuses on apparent reality in journalism, reasonable sources and good-faith research. However, factual allegations must have an adequate basis; the duty to investigate does not disappear altogether.
Can the private life of a public official always be reported?
No. The connection with the public function and the public interest matter. Being well known does not give unlimited authority to disclose every area of private life.
Did the Ali Suat Ertosun (13) decision find that there was no violation?
The ruling was that the claim was inadmissible because it was manifestly without foundation. The assessment in the reasoning and the procedural category of the ruling should be kept separate.
Does the headline alone affect the legal assessment of a report?
Yes. The headline, image and text together determine the meaning the reader takes away. Cautious wording in the body does not in every case remove the effect of a headline containing a definitive accusation.
Sources and legal bases
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Articles 13, 17, 26 and 28.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Güneş Basım Yayım Organizasyon ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti., Application No. 2018/24677, January 28, 2021, paras. 37–50 and the ruling.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Ali Suat Ertosun (13), Application No. 2019/25813, April 13, 2023, paras. 20–29 and the ruling. Access to the decision links may require a login session.
- Law No. 4721, the Turkish Civil Code, Articles 24–25; Law No. 5187, the Press Law, Article 14.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Qualified Rights: Summaries of Decisions, June 2025, sections on press freedom and the protection of reputation.