13.12.2025 00:40
The 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld the judicial fine of 7,080 Turkish Lira imposed on the detained Mayor of Istanbul, Ekrem İmamoğlu, for insulting the former Governor of Ordu, Seddar Yavuz. The decision was made by a majority vote, with two judges dissenting.
The imprisoned Mayor of Istanbul, Ekrem İmamoğlu, had his fine of 7,080 lira upheld by the Court of Cassation for insulting former Ordu Governor Seddar Yavuz. Two member judges argued that the decision should be evaluated within the scope of freedom of expression.
The 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation reviewed the fine imposed by the local court and deemed lawful by the appellate court, which was based on the incident where Ekrem İmamoğlu insulted Seddar Yavuz, who was the Governor of Ordu at the time, in the VIP lounge of Ordu-Giresun Airport in 2019.
Seddar Yavuz was appointed as the Governor of Malatya on July 10, 2024 REQUEST FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE REJECTED The Chamber did not find the objections of İmamoğlu's lawyers regarding the "rejection of the request for recusal of the judge, the failure to hear witnesses, and the insufficient discussion of video recordings" to be valid.
The justification stated that the words spoken exceeded the limits of "harsh criticism," noting, "In the concrete case, it has been understood that the words accepted to have been spoken by the defendant were of a nature to offend the honor, dignity, and reputation of the complainant and constituted the elements of the crime of insult."
The court stated that there was no unjust act against İmamoğlu in the VIP application, and therefore the conditions for a reduction in response to the unjust act under Article 129/1 of the Turkish Penal Code were not met. The justification included, "According to the currently valid circular of the General Directorate of Personnel and Principles of the Prime Ministry dated 23.06.2002 and numbered 2002/23, which determines the Turkish dignitaries who will benefit from the VIP lounges, there is no unjust act originating from the complainant indicating that the defendant cannot benefit from VIP services, and therefore the conditions required for the application of Article 129 of Law No. 5237 have not been met, and no legal violation has been seen in the court's discretion and justification."
"THE ELEMENT OF PUBLICITY DID NOT OCCUR"
In the justification stating that the element of publicity did not occur, it was noted, "According to Article 125/4 of Law No. 5237, it is not sufficient for others to be present at the scene for the publicity, which is foreseen as an aggravating reason, to occur; the possibility of the insult being seen, heard, and perceived by an indeterminate number of people and everyone must be present in places open to the public without any restriction; therefore, due to the fact that the act in question took place in the VIP lounge of Ordu-Giresun Airport, which can only be entered and exited by those permitted in the circular, it has been understood that the element of publicity did not occur in the incident."
THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE ALLEGED CRIME...
The 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation decided to reject the grounds for appeal and upheld the fine imposed on İmamoğlu. The file will be sent to the Ordu 4th Criminal Court for necessary proceedings. In the Chamber's decision, it was stated, "Based on witness statements regarding the defendant's words in the case and the records of various audio and video content related to the incident, some witness statements and the defendant's defense were not taken into account, and it has been concluded that the defendant committed the alleged crime, and in accordance with the criteria set forth in Article 61 of Law No. 5237, the court's discretion and justification for determining the basic penalty and applying a discretionary reduction is found to be appropriate, thus it is necessary to decide to reject the grounds for appeal."
TWO MEMBERS VOTED AGAINST Two dissenting members emphasized the importance of freedom of expression for politicians in their dissenting opinion. Citing the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the members stated that the limits of criticism towards public officials and political actors should be broader, arguing that the words constituted "political criticism within the scope of freedom of expression" rather than insult. The members stated, "We oppose the majority's view that the decision to uphold the conviction instead of acquitting the defendant due to the non-existence of the crime of insult should have been overturned."