Güler Kömürcü - Özel hayatlara tecavüz ve emsal dosya

Özel hayatlara tecavüz ve emsal dosya

12 Mayıs 2011

Birileri, kendilerine muhalif görüp hedef haline getirdikleri kişileri, kurumları yıllardır izliyor, gözlüyor, hukuk dışı, ahlak dışı her yöntemi uygulayarak, belden aşağı vuruşlarla kirli operasyonlar, itibar infazları yapmaya devam ediyorlar.

...

Bakınız son 5 yıla, teker teker örnek vermeye artık gerek kaldı mı efendim?!

Röntgenci çeteler, özel hayatların gizliliğinin uluslararası kanunlarla da korunduğunu bile bile yasa tanımadan eylemlerini sürdürüyorlar. MHP’ye yapılan son ahlaksız vuruş bir anlamda tekrarın tekrarı oldu…

Kaset operasyonu ve bu ahlaksız, hukuksuz servis üzerinden rant sağlamaya çalışanların topunu birden (!) durdurmanın en etkin yolu yine hukuka başvurmak… Tam bu noktada, AKP ise TBMM Adalet Komisyonu'nda kabul ettirdiği tasarı ile özel hayatla ilgili bilgilerin haberleştirilmesini suç olmaktan çıkarmaya çalışıyor. İsmi bile bilinmeyen bir internet sitesine, bir kişi hakkında yüklenecek bütün bilgiler, burada ifşa edildiği gerekçe gösterilerek istenildiği gibi haberleştirilebilecek. Efendim, ne dediniz?!

Uluslar arası hukuk bu konuda çok açık; bırakın yasadışı yollar üzerinden özel hayatların deşifresini, yasal bir operasyon kapsamında dahi suça konu teşkil etmeyen, özel hayatların gizliliği kuralını ihlal ederek, kişilerin mahremlerine girip, aileleri, dostları, aşk, evlilik hayatı, kişisel bilgileri ve benzeri her anlamda özel hayat kapsamına giren konuşmalarını, görüntülerini deşifre edenlerin, kamuya yayanların suç işlediğini belirtiyor.

Buyrun AİHM (Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin) emsal kararına bakınız. Ötesini tartışmaya gerek yok. Türkiye’de son dönem yaşatılanlar adına çook önemli bir emsal dosyadır bu. Bütün madur edilmek istenilenlerin derhal yasal haklarını kullanması umuduyla (meslekdaşlarım da artık özel hayatın gizliliği konusunu tartışırken aşağıdaki çerçeve dışında savunacak tezleri olmadığını farkederler umarım!) ;

AİHM’İN EMSAL KARARI: İtalyan Sosyalist Partisi lideri ve bir dönem başbakan olan Benedetto (Benito) Craxi hakkında 1994'te "Temiz Eller" operasyonu kapsamında çok sayıda dava açıldı. Craxi, bu süreçte Tunus'a kaçtı. İtalyan polisi Craxi'nin tüm görüşmelerini dinledi. Telefon kayıtları, savcılık tarafından mahkemeye delil olarak sunuldu. Savcı, bu telefon kayıtlarının bir bölümünü duruşmalarda da okudu. Bu kayıtlar basına da yansıdı. 1998'de 4 yıl ceza alan Craxi, yayımlar nedeniyle AİHM'ye başvurdu. Craxi, özellikle özel görüşmelerinin dava dosyasına konulmasının hak ihlali olduğunu savundu.2000'de Tunus'ta yaşamını yitiren Craxi'nin AİHM'deki davasını ailesi sürdürdü. AİHM, davayı 2003'te sonuçlandırdı.Kararda, Craxi davasında, basında çıkan bazı telefon görüşmelerinin tamamen özel nitelikte olduğu, suçlamalarla ilgisinin bulunmadığı ya da çok az ilgisinin bulunduğu anlatıldı. Konuşmaların yayınlanmasının "sosyal ihtiyaç"la ilgisinin olmadığının vurgulandığı kararda, "Başvurucunun haberleşmesine saygı hakkına yapılan müdahale orantılı değildir" denildi.Kararda, görüşme tutanaklarının duruşmada okunmasının hukuka uygun olmadığı vurgulandı ve İtalya, Craxi'nin ailesine 6 bin Euro tazminat ödemeye mahkûm edildi.

(CASE OF CRAXİ)

*Kararın orijinal metnine dair *

395
17.7.2003 CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CRAXI v. ITALY (no. 1) The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment in the case of Craxi v. Italy (no. 1) (application no. 25337/94). The Court held

by six votes to one that there had been a violationof Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in that the respondent State had failed to provide safe custody of the transcripts of telephone conversations and to subsequently carry out an effective investigation as to how those private communications were released into the public domain; and

unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the failure of the Italian authorities to comply with the statutory procedures before the intercepted telephone conversations were read out at a court hearing.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded each of the applicant’s heirs 2,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)

1. Principal facts The applicant, Benedetto Craxi, was an Italian national born in 1934. He was General Secretary of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) from 1976 to 1993 and Prime Minister of Italy from 1983 to 1987. He lived in Hammamet (Tunisia) from 1994 until his death on 19 January 2000. His widow, daughter and son subsequently informed the Court that they wished to continue the proceedings. Between January and May 1994 Mr Craxi was served with numerous notices of prosecution during the so-called "clean hands" campaign in Italy. He was charged with corruption, dishonest receipt of money, concealment of dishonest gain and illegal financing of political parties. He did not appear at trial. In judgments of 29 July and 7 December 1994 he was sentenced to prison in absentia. The public prosecutor obtained an order for Mr Craxi’s telephone calls between Italy and his home to be intercepted. A specialist branch of the Italian police intercepted his calls between 20 July and 3 October 1995. At a hearing on 29 September 1995 in the Metropolitana Milanese trial, the public prosecutor filed the transcripts of the intercepted telephone conversations with the court registry and asked that they be admitted in evidence against Mr Craxi. The prosecution subsequently read out a number of extracts in court. The contents of certain telephone conversations and the names of the people speaking were subsequently published in the press. Ultimately, the District Court decided not to use the information yielded by the intercepted telephone conversations. On 16 April 1996 Mr Craxi was sentenced to eight years and three months’ imprisonment and to a fine of 150 million Italian lire (about 77,468 euros). On 24 July 1998 the Milan Court of Appeal reduced his prison sentence to four years and six months.

2. Procedure and composition of the Court The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 16 June 1994 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared partly admissible on 7 December 2000. Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows: Christos Rozakis (Greek), President,
Peer Lorenzen (Danish),
Giovanni Bonello (Maltese),
Nina Vajić (Croatian),
Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian),
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian),
Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), judges, and also Søren Nielsen, Deputy Section Registrar.

3. Summary of the judgment

Complaints The applicant complained that the release into the public domain of intercepted telephone conversations of a private nature had breached Articles 8 (right to respect for private life), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (limitation on restrictions of use of rights) of the Convention. He complained in particular of the public prosecutor’s decision to deposit the transcripts in the court registry.

Decision of the Court

Article 8 of the Convention

The European Court of Human Rights observed that some of the conversations published in the press had been of a strictly private nature and had had little or no connection with the criminal charges brought against the applicant. In the Court’s view, there had been no pressing social need to publish them. In ascertaining whether the interference complained of could be attributed to the State and therefore engage Italy’s responsibility before the Convention institutions, the Court noted that private newspapers had published the extracts and the applicant had not suggested that those newspapers might in some way be under the control of the public authorities. The Court concluded that the divulging of the conversations through the press had not been a direct consequence of any act by the public prosecutor, but had probably been the result of a malfunctioning of the registry or the press obtaining information from one of the parties to the proceedings or from their lawyers. It considered that the onus was on the Government to provide a plausible explanation as to how they had reached the media and that they had not done so. Nor had there been an inquiry into the circumstances in which journalists had had access to the transcripts. The Government had not fulfilled its obligation to secure Mr Craxi’s right to respect for his private life. The Court considered, with regard to the reading out of the intercepted telephone conversations at the hearing of 29 September 1995, that the Italian authorities had failed to follow the statutory procedures. No preliminary hearing had been held in which the parties and the judge could have excluded the parts of the intercepted conversations that were not relevant to the judicial proceedings and thus provided a substantial safeguard for the right secured by Article 8. The interference had not therefore been in accordance with the law. The Milan District Court’s interpretation of the domestic provisions had amounted to a recognition of the lack of safeguards to protect the rights secured by Article 8 of the Convention. That interpretation raised serious concerns about the State’s compliance with its obligation to endorse the effective protection of those rights. The Court considered it unnecessary to examine the complaints raised under Articles 14 and 18. Judge Zagrebelsky expressed a partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment. *** The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

http://www.pict-pcti.org/news_archive/03/03jul/ECHR_071703b.htm