Post by account_disabled on Mar 6, 2024 6:31:08 GMT
Insulting a Public Official Due to His Position According to Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code, which regulates the crime of insult, the first qualified circumstance that aggravates the punishment is the commission of the crime against a public official due to his/her duty. First of all, this should be said about qualified situations. While regulating qualified situations, the law does not include the distinction between insult in presence and insult in absentia, which are regulated as the basic form of the crime. Therefore, the conditions required for the crime of insult in absentia as stated above will not be sought here. It will be necessary to determine which situations fall within the scope of the concept of a public official due to his/her duty. This determination is of great importance both in terms of the punishment of insult and whether the crime is subject to complaint.
In one of its decisions, the Supreme Court clearly stated France Telegram Number Data what should be understood from the concept of 'due to duty'. Namely: “… Insults that occur while on duty but not because of one's duty will constitute the simplest version of the crime of insult regulated in Article 125/1, and its investigation and prosecution will depend on the complaint of the victim. As for what exactly should be understood from the concept of "due to duty"; There must be a causal link between the public duty performed and the act of insult. Insulting a Public Official Due to His Position According to Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code, which regulates the crime of insult, the first qualified circumstance that aggravates the punishment is the commission of the crime against a public official due to his/her duty. First of all, this should be said about qualified situations. While regulating qualified situations, the law does not include the distinction between insult in presence and insult in absentia, which are regulated as the basic form of the crime.
Therefore, the conditions required for the crime of insult in absentia as stated above will not be sought here. It will be necessary to determine which situations fall within the scope of the concept of a public official due to his/her duty. This determination is of great importance both in terms of the punishment of insult and whether the crime is subject to complaint. In one of its decisions, the Supreme Court clearly stated what should be understood from the concept of 'due to duty'. Namely: “… Insults that occur while on duty but not because of one's duty will constitute the simplest version of the crime of insult regulated in Article 125/1, and its investigation and prosecution will depend on the complaint of the victim. As for what exactly should be understood from the concept of "due to duty"; There must be a causal link between the public duty performed and the act of insult.
In one of its decisions, the Supreme Court clearly stated France Telegram Number Data what should be understood from the concept of 'due to duty'. Namely: “… Insults that occur while on duty but not because of one's duty will constitute the simplest version of the crime of insult regulated in Article 125/1, and its investigation and prosecution will depend on the complaint of the victim. As for what exactly should be understood from the concept of "due to duty"; There must be a causal link between the public duty performed and the act of insult. Insulting a Public Official Due to His Position According to Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code, which regulates the crime of insult, the first qualified circumstance that aggravates the punishment is the commission of the crime against a public official due to his/her duty. First of all, this should be said about qualified situations. While regulating qualified situations, the law does not include the distinction between insult in presence and insult in absentia, which are regulated as the basic form of the crime.
Therefore, the conditions required for the crime of insult in absentia as stated above will not be sought here. It will be necessary to determine which situations fall within the scope of the concept of a public official due to his/her duty. This determination is of great importance both in terms of the punishment of insult and whether the crime is subject to complaint. In one of its decisions, the Supreme Court clearly stated what should be understood from the concept of 'due to duty'. Namely: “… Insults that occur while on duty but not because of one's duty will constitute the simplest version of the crime of insult regulated in Article 125/1, and its investigation and prosecution will depend on the complaint of the victim. As for what exactly should be understood from the concept of "due to duty"; There must be a causal link between the public duty performed and the act of insult.