14.10.2026 12:54
In Izmir, a defendant who sent 45 messages in the same day to a relative who explicitly stated that they did not want to be disturbed received a sentence of 2 months and 15 days in prison for the offense of 'disturbing the peace and tranquility of persons'. The acquittal decision issued by the appellate court was reversed by the Court of Cassation, and the sentence given in the retrial was unanimously upheld by the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation.
The 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld the sentence of 2 months and 15 days' imprisonment imposed on the defendant who sent 45 messages to a relative on the same day for the offense of 'disturbing the peace and tranquility of persons'.
A person in Izmir filed a complaint, alleging that his relative sent him a large number of messages on the same day. In the complainant's petition, he stated that he initially replied to the messages sent from a number not saved in his contacts in order to find out who the sender was, and that after learning who it was, he stated that he did not want to be disturbed, but despite this, the messages continued. At the 3rd Criminal Court of First Instance of Izmir, a case was filed against the defendant who sent 45 messages to his relative on the same day for the offense of 'disturbing the peace and tranquility of persons'. At the conclusion of the trial, the defendant, who was considered to have continued his act despite the complainant's statement that he did not want to be disturbed, was sentenced to 2 months and 15 days' imprisonment.
COURT OF APPEAL ISSUED AN ACQUITTAL DECISION
Upon the defendant's objection to the decision, the case file was transferred to the 25th Criminal Chamber of the Izmir Regional Court of Justice. The appellate court stated that there was mutual correspondence between the parties, that the defendant said at the end of the conversation, 'If you were disturbed, I would never send a message,' that the messages were sent on the same day, and that no further messages were sent afterward. The court, on the grounds that it could not be accepted that the defendant acted solely with the aim of disturbing the other party's peace and tranquility and that the 'persistence' element required for the offense to be constituted was fulfilled, overturned the local court's decision and rendered an acquittal judgment.
COURT OF CASSATION OVERTURNED THE ACQUITTAL DECISION
Upon the acquittal decision being appealed, the case file came before the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation overturned the decision. In the Court of Cassation's decision, it was stated that although the person receiving the messages informed the defendant that he did not want to be disturbed and would otherwise file a complaint, the defendant ignored this warning and sent a total of 45 messages. The Court of Cassation found the rendering of an acquittal decision, when a conviction judgment should have been rendered for the defendant, to be contrary to law and overturned the decision.
PRISON SENTENCE UPHELD UNANIMOUSLY
Following the Court of Cassation's reversal decision, the 25th Criminal Chamber of the Izmir Regional Court of Justice, which reconsidered the case file, sentenced the defendant to 2 months and 15 days' imprisonment for the offense of 'disturbing the peace and tranquility of persons'. The decision was appealed again by the defendant's lawyer. The defendant's lawyer requested acquittal, arguing that the person, who was his client's relative, only wanted to ask about his well-being, that there was no intent to disturb, and that the elements of the offense were not constituted. In its decision, the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which examined the case file, stated that the trial proceedings were conducted in accordance with procedure and law, that the evidence was evaluated in the reasoned decision, that the defendant's act was established, and that the legal characterization of the offense and the sanction were determined correctly. The Chamber ruled that there was no unlawfulness in the appellate court's decision, and decided to reject the defendant's appeal on the merits and to uphold the sentence of 2 months and 15 days' imprisonment unanimously.