Criticism of Politicians and the Limit of Insult: The Osman Palçik Decision and the Individual Application to the Constitutional Court

Harsh criticism directed at a politician is not an insult merely because it is disturbing or shocking. The statement as a whole, its connection with public debate, its factual basis, the addressee’s office and the severity of the sanction must be assessed together. At the same time, political identity does not eliminate personality rights; not every statement and not every allegation falls within freedom of expression. [K1, K2]

In the Osman Palçik case, in which Attorney Umut Güneş represented the applicant, the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM) decided on December 15, 2020 that freedom of expression had been violated and that a retrial should be held. According to the outcome reported by Güneş & Güneş Law Firm, which followed the case, the proceedings after the AYM decision ended in an acquittal. The AYM’s finding of a constitutional violation and the criminal court’s later acquittal are different stages of the same process.

This article explains the concrete reasoning of the decision and, as of October 14, 2026, the path to follow in defending against an allegation of insult and in an individual application. The full text of the decision is provided separately; the outcome of the decision does not in advance guarantee an acquittal in another case.

What events does the Osman Palçik decision concern?

The applicant is a person who worked as a columnist for a local newspaper and had previously served as a municipal council member. The dispute arose from remarks made in a Facebook comment dated May 9, 2017 about M.G., who was the Mayor of Kemer on the date of the events. The statement under review includes the phrase “imar rant hırsızı” (“zoning-rent thief”). [K1, §§9–16]

The local court assessed the remarks as publicly insulting a public official because of his duty. The Kemer 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance (Kemer 2. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi) imposed a judicial fine of TRY 7,080 on the applicant on January 19, 2018. An individual application was made after the review through the ordinary appeal routes. The first-instance file indicated in the AYM’s judgment for the retrial is file E.2017/320, K.2018/54; these numbers must not be used as the number of the later acquittal decision.

The account of the events in the decision also covers the investigations and proceedings concerning the mayor. However, those files cannot be presented as proof of established guilt. The AYM text reports acquittal decisions based on insufficient evidence with respect to the bribery and extortion charges, and a decision not to prosecute with respect to another allegation. These outcomes in favor of the other side must be kept separate from the applicant’s later acquittal.

Why did the AYM hold that freedom of expression was violated?

The AYM examined whether a balance appropriate to the circumstances of the case had been struck between freedom of expression and the protection of honor and reputation. The assessment was not based solely on the dictionary meaning of the disputed word. The comment as a whole, the political position of the addressee, the connection with events that had reached the public, and the reasoning of the criminal court were considered together. [K1, §§26–45]

The statement as a whole and the context in which it was made

Extracting a few words from a sentence can change the function of the statement. The news item, the post, earlier comments, the date and the subject of the conversation must be visible in the same file. In the Osman Palçik decision as well, the meaning of the comment within the relevant debate was significant. What the applicant’s criticism was directed at, and its connection with the addressee’s public activities, were assessed. [K1, §§35–38]

This approach does not mean that every word used in every political debate will be protected. An attack on private life unrelated to public activity, a threat, or a baseless and serious allegation of an offense may lead to a different result. In a legal review, the whole narrative must first be explained, and then the place of the disputed word within that narrative.

The distinction between an allegation of fact and a value judgment

The claim that a particular event occurred is not the same as a person’s assessment of a situation. A factual claim is directed at a verifiable fact; in the case of a value judgment, an expectation to prove the truth of the opinion by the same method cannot be established. However, whether a value judgment also has a sufficient factual basis connected with the event may be assessed. [K1, §§39–41]

The AYM assessed the statement in the file within the whole of the events. For this reason, the decision does not create a list of words that anyone may use freely anywhere. In a defense, news items and files should be used not to declare a person guilty again, but to explain the background of the debate on the date the statement was made and the basis of the assessment.

A politician’s broader tolerance of criticism

Politicians must tolerate a wider limit of criticism for their public activities than ordinary persons. This principle is linked to democratic oversight and the openness of public debate. An assessment of an elected mayor’s public duty and an attack directed at an event in his private life are not treated in the same way. [K1, §§42–43]

Broader tolerance does not mean leaving reputation entirely unprotected. The AYM’s balancing review includes the criticism’s contribution to the public interest, the manner of expression, the person’s role and the effect on the personality right. The fact that a statement is found to be harsh cannot by itself replace the whole review.

The court’s reasoning and the effect of the sanction

A court must explain, with case-specific reasoning, why interference with freedom of expression is necessary. A concluding sentence such as “the limit of criticism has been exceeded” may be insufficient without a discussion of the context, the factual basis and the positions of the parties. In the Osman Palçik file, the AYM concluded that the lower courts had failed to strike the necessary balance. [K1, §§44–45]

A judicial fine is also an interference with freedom of expression. The mere fact that a prison sentence was not imposed does not make a constitutional review unnecessary. The chilling effect of the threat of punishment on future participation in debates of public interest is also part of the assessment. However, the type and severity of the penalty are not the only element of the review.

What was the AYM’s ruling, and how is the acquittal a separate stage?

The AYM held that freedom of expression, guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution, had been violated, and ordered that the decision be sent to the Kemer 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance in order to redress the violation and its consequences. TRY 6,000 in non-pecuniary damages and TRY 3,894.70 in litigation costs were awarded in the applicant’s favor. These amounts are historical outcomes of the decision; they are not a fixed tariff for a current application. [K1, §§48–54 and the operative part]

The AYM’s decision for a retrial does not mean that it replaced the criminal court and directly issued an acquittal. Redress under Article 50 of Law No. 6216 aims at having the relevant court eliminate the violation and its consequences. This route is not identical to the conditions for the renewal of proceedings, the extraordinary remedy in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK). [K1, K3]

In this file, the later outcome reported by the firm is an acquittal. The event therefore should not be left at the “violation found” stage. The correct account is: “The AYM found a violation of freedom of expression; after the retrial process, the applicant was acquitted.” The CMK paragraph on which the acquittal rests, and whether the decision has become final, must not be asserted separately without seeing the relevant criminal court document.

The AYM judgment did not order that the TRY 7,080 amount of the first fine be paid separately as pecuniary damages. Consequences such as the refund of a fine that has been paid, enforcement and the correction of records are examined separately in light of the later criminal court judgment and the state of the proceedings. Non-pecuniary damages and the refund of the amount of the fine must not be confused with each other.

When can political criticism turn into the offense of insult?

Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) regulates the attribution of a specific act or fact capable of offending a person’s honor, dignity and reputation, as well as the act of swearing (sövme). The basic penalty is imprisonment from three months to two years or a judicial fine. Which statement constitutes an offense is not determined by looking at the word alone; the addressee, the context, the manner of expression and the other elements are examined. [K4]

In the case of insulting a public official because of his duty, the lower limit cannot be less than one year under Article 125/3-a. However, not every politician is a public official in every situation. Nor is every statement directed at a public official necessarily considered to have been made because of his duty. The person’s capacity and the link between the statement and the duty must be shown separately.

As to publicity (aleniyet), it matters to whom the post is open. Not every social media message is automatically public. The visibility settings of the account and the post, the circle that can access it and the form of publication are examined. If the publicity requirement is met, the increase in Article 125/4 comes into play. Preserving this context when taking a screenshot is important for the defense.

Do proof of the allegation and the right of defense provide automatic protection?

The provisions on proof of the allegation in Article 127 of the TCK are not the same mechanism as the constitutional distinction between fact and value judgment. The existence of an investigation cannot be regarded as conclusive proof that the alleged offense was committed. A later acquittal or decision not to prosecute likewise requires that the debate be reported honestly. [K4]

The immunity for claims and defense in Article 128 of the TCK also does not apply to every social media post. The connection of the claim and defense made before judicial or administrative authorities with the dispute, and the other conditions of the provision, are required. The repetition in public of an assessment that could be used in a petition must be examined separately.

Allegations of threat, unlawful disclosure of personal data or other types of offenses are assessed separately. The reasoning of the Osman Palçik decision in the context of insult does not create a general immunity for different acts.

What changed in 2026 with respect to complaint, prepayment and mediation?

Is the complaint period the same in every insult file?

In complaint-dependent cases, the general period is six months from the date the act and the perpetrator became known. Under the special provision in Article 73 of the TCK, for the offense of insult, whose investigation and prosecution depend on a complaint, the complaint period cannot in any event exceed two years from the date the act was committed. The date of the act and the transitional provisions must be examined separately. [K4]

Insulting a public official because of his duty, on the other hand, is an exception to the complaint requirement in Article 131 of the TCK. For this reason, the result “the case ends if the complaint is withdrawn” cannot be applied to all insult files. The legal characterization and the link to the duty must be determined first.

The scope of prepayment and the exception for insulting a public official

As a result of the amendments made by Law No. 7571 and incorporated into the current texts, insult under Article 125 of the TCK, except the case of insulting a public official because of his duty in Article 125/3-a, has been brought within the prepayment (önödeme) arrangement in Article 75. In Article 253/3 of the CMK, insult is left outside victim–offender mediation (uzlaştırma). [K4, K5]

However, no single-type procedure can be proposed without seeing, in an existing file, the date of the act, the entry-into-force and transitional provisions, earlier mediation steps and the stage of the file. The later regulation cannot be described as if it had been applied, without any assessment, to the 2017 act in the Osman Palçik decision.

Prepayment is not an acquittal decision. Once its statutory conditions are met, it may lead to different consequences concerning the termination of the investigation or prosecution. The defense that the statement does not constitute an offense, the period for the notification and the legal effects of the payment option must be examined together. No definite recommendation should be given on whether to pay without seeing the file.

How is a defense prepared in the investigation and the criminal case?

The first step is to determine exactly what the allegation is. It is checked whether there are different words or posts among the complaint petition, the statement record, the indictment and the evidence. If it is disputed who owns the account and who made the post, the issue of attribution is explained separately from the freedom of expression review.

Instead of only a cropped image of the post, its full accessible context is preserved. The date, the link, the news headline, the comment thread, the visibility setting and, if any, the edit information are recorded. Preserving records must not mean republishing the disputed statement and widening the interference with the personality right. An image produced afterwards cannot be submitted in place of deleted content.

The defense explains why the statement contributes to a debate involving the public interest, the position of the addressee, its character as a value judgment or a fact, the concrete bases, and why the criminal interference is disproportionate. Instead of taking only the concluding sentence from an AYM decision, the similar and different aspects should be shown in relation to the concrete file.

Academic assessments likewise emphasize the importance of the reason a statement was made. However, examining the reason for a statement does not automatically lead to lawfulness or a sentence reduction. The constitutional balancing, the elements of the offense and the statutory grounds for reduction must not be confused with one another. [K9]

How is an individual application to the AYM made, step by step?

Effective ordinary remedies are exhausted first

An individual application is not a first remedy that replaces the ordinary appeal routes. The available and effective ordinary remedies for the file must be exhausted, and the substance of the freedom of expression complaint must have been brought before the relevant authorities. Merely obtaining a first-instance decision is not sufficient for an application in every file. On the other hand, waiting in order to resort to an extraordinary remedy that need not be used does not protect the time limit. [K3, Arts. 45–47]

The current and personal effect of the violation must be explained. It is not sufficient to ask the AYM only to reweigh the evidence or to change the interpretation of a statute. The application shows which public authority’s act or decision violated which constitutional guarantee, and how.

How is the 30-day application period calculated?

Under Article 47 of Law No. 6216, an individual application is, as a rule, made within 30 days from the date the ordinary remedies were exhausted or, where there is no remedy, from the date the violation became known. It is important when the final decision became known. Opening and reading the decision on UYAP (the national judiciary information system) may cause the period to start before paper service. The records of when the applicant or the lawyer learned of the decision must be assessed together. [K3, K6]

In calculating the period, the final decision, the UYAP transaction records, the service document and, if any, the e-service record are filed together. An automatic extension should not be assumed on the thought that “service was made on the lawyer later” or “we were in the judicial recess.” The last day must be determined on the concrete calendar.

Where an application could not be made in time because of a valid excuse, the possibility of applying within 15 days from the end of the excuse, together with evidence of the excuse, is provided for. This provision is not a routine additional period; the AYM assesses separately whether the excuse is valid. [K3, Art. 47/5]

How are the events, the violation and the request described in the form?

The current application form must be used, and the events should be described in a short and clear chronology. The necessary attachments should be prepared, such as the full post, the investigation and trial decisions, the petitions for ordinary remedies, the final decision, the documents showing when the decision became known, and the power of attorney. A request for fees or legal aid is also handled in accordance with the legislation. [K3, K7]

In the freedom of expression section, the statement as a whole, the contribution to public debate, the person’s role, the factual basis, the severity of the interference and the deficiencies in the court’s reasoning are linked to the concrete case. Requests for retrial, damages and costs are stated clearly; if pecuniary loss is claimed, the documents and causation are explained.

The application must be made through the procedures and channels that the AYM currently accepts. Sending an ordinary e-mail or forwarding the file to another institution does not replace a properly made individual application. A delivery and registration receipt should be obtained, and any notices of deficiency should be followed.

What outcomes may the review have?

The application may be found inadmissible for reasons such as the time limit, unexhausted remedies, the right of application, or being manifestly ill-founded. After admissibility, the conclusion on the merits may also be that there is no violation. Resembling an earlier violation decision does not mean that all stages will be passed automatically.

The AYM does not, like an appeal court, reassess all the evidence and correct every legal error. Its task is to examine the constitutional rights guarantees within the scope of the individual application. If a violation is found, redress is determined according to the source and consequences of the violation. [K2, Art. 148, K3, Arts. 49–50]

What steps follow after a violation decision?

Once the retrial decision reaches the relevant court, the state of the file is followed. The court must decide in a way that redresses the violation and its consequences. Redress cannot consist merely of creating a new file number or repeating the earlier reasoning. Article 153 of the Constitution and Article 50 of Law No. 6216 are important at this stage. [K2, K3]

After the criminal court’s decision, the available appeal routes and the state of finality, enforcement records, a fine that has been paid, the criminal record and litigation costs are handled according to the file. For compensation awarded by the AYM, the payment method and period in the operative part are followed. In the Osman Palçik decision, payment was arranged to be made within four months from the application to the Ministry of Treasury and Finance following service of the decision, with the statutory interest specified in case of delay. [K1, operative part]

If the AYM decision and the later acquittal are to be presented together, the identity of the documents should be kept clear. The 11-page document attached to this article is the AYM’s full decision. The information on the later acquittal rests on the firm’s statement about the outcome of the file; an acquittal judgment that has not been shared has not been presented as though it were attached.

Does an acquittal automatically end a damages action?

Criminal liability and civil liability for a personality right are not the same. A claim for damages may be made under Articles 49 and 58 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK). Under Article 74 of the TBK, an acquittal decision does not determine the civil judge’s assessment in every respect and automatically; specific findings of material fact, the reasoning of the judgment and the nature of the dispute are also significant. [K8]

For this reason, neither the result “if there is an acquittal, no damages can be claimed” nor “if a penalty was imposed, every amount claimed will be paid” is correct. The balance between freedom of expression and the personality right must also be struck in a private-law dispute. The AYM’s reasoning on the same statement cannot be ignored; but the assessment is made on the concrete claim and the parties.

Conclusion

The Osman Palçik decision shows that harsh words directed at a politician should not be punished by tearing them out of their context. The value judgment, the factual basis, the public debate, the addressee’s political role and the court’s reasoning must be considered together. The decision is not a permission to use particular words without limit.

In the file in which Attorney Umut Güneş acted as counsel, the AYM found a violation of freedom of expression and ordered a retrial. The outcome of the later proceedings reported by the firm is an acquittal. Distinguishing these two stages correctly makes visible both the legal meaning of the decision and the result reached in the file.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does every harsh statement directed at a politician fall within freedom of expression?

No. The public interest, the context, the factual basis, the person’s position and the nature of the statement are assessed together. Political identity does not eliminate personality rights.

Is the outcome in the Osman Palçik file an acquittal?

According to the outcome reported by the firm that followed the case, the proceedings after the AYM decision ended in an acquittal. The AYM’s judgment of December 15, 2020, on the other hand, is a decision finding a violation of freedom of expression and ordering a retrial.

Did the AYM directly issue an acquittal?

No. The AYM identified the constitutional violation and sent the file to the relevant criminal court so that its consequences could be redressed. The acquittal is the result of the later criminal proceedings.

Can the word in the decision be used as is in another post?

The decision does not give a general permission on a word-by-word basis. The same word may lead to a different legal result in a different context, with a different addressee and a different state of the evidence.

Does the opening of an investigation prove an allegation of an offense?

No. An investigation and a determination of guilt by a final judgment are different. Later outcomes such as acquittal and non-prosecution must also be reported honestly.

Is insulting a politician always insulting a public official?

No. Whether the person is a public official and whether the statement was made because of his duty are examined separately. Political identity alone is not sufficient.

Is a social media post always considered public?

No. The access settings of the account and the post, to whom the content is open and the concrete form of publication are assessed. The same result cannot be established for every online message.

Does mediation apply in insult files in 2026?

The current Article 253/3 of the CMK leaves insult outside victim–offender mediation (uzlaştırma). Article 75 of the TCK contains a prepayment arrangement with an exception for insulting a public official because of his duty. In older files, the date of the act and the transitional provisions must be examined separately.

Does making a prepayment mean an acquittal?

No. Prepayment and acquittal are different institutions. The conditions and time limits of the notification, the legal characterization of the act and the termination result are assessed according to the file.

Should I wait for paper service when applying to the AYM?

Learning of the final decision through UYAP may start the period earlier. The 30-day period must be calculated together with the records of the applicant and the lawyer; paper service should not be assumed to be the starting point in every case.

Is the AYM an appeal court that re-examines the entire criminal file?

No. It examines constitutional rights violations. An application that only asks for the evidence to be reassessed and does not give concrete form to a constitutional complaint may not be sufficient.

If the AYM finds a violation, is the same compensation paid in every file?

No. The TRY 6,000 in non-pecuniary damages in the Osman Palçik decision is a historical result specific to that file. It is not a fixed or guaranteed amount for every new application.

Does an acquittal decision eliminate all private-law claims?

No. The reasoning of the acquittal and its findings of material fact are assessed separately from the conditions of the damages claim. The balance between freedom of expression and the personality right is also important in private law.

Sources and legal bases

[K1] Constitutional Court, First Section, Osman Palçik, Application No. 2018/25073, December 15, 2020; Official Gazette, January 21, 2021, issue 31371. Full decision: the 11-page PDF provided together with this work. Can be searched by application number in the AYM Case-Law Information Bank. Applicant’s counsel and events §§9–16; reasoning §§26–45; redress §§48–54 and operative part.

[K2] Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Arts. 13, 17, 26, 28, 148 and 153.

[K3] Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, Arts. 45–50.

[K4] Turkish Penal Code, Law No. 5237, Arts. 73, 75, 125, 127, 128 and 131; current text including the amendments made by Laws No. 7531 and No. 7571.

[K5] Code of Criminal Procedure, Law No. 5271, in particular Art. 253; the relevant amendment and transitional provisions.

[K6] Constitutional Court, Individual Application, announcements and decision notices on lateness and on learning of the final decision through UYAP.

[K7] Constitutional Court, Frequently Asked Questions on Individual Application, explanations on the form, application procedure, time limits and fees.

[K8] Turkish Code of Obligations, Law No. 6098, Arts. 49, 58 and 74.

[K9] Hüseyin Ozan Adıyaman, “Evaluating the Reason for the Act of Insult: A Study in the Framework of ECtHR and Constitutional Court Case Law” (Turkish title: “Hakaret Fiilinin Sebebinin Değerlendirilmesi: AİHM ve AYM İçtihatları Çerçevesinde Bir İnceleme”), Anayasa Yargısı, 43(1), 2026, pp. 429–486; DOI: 10.55792/anayasayargisi.2001046.

Information on the outcome of the file: Statement of Güneş & Güneş Law Firm on the acquittal following the AYM decision. The date, file number and finality information of the later acquittal judgment have not been provided for this work.