The Constitutional Court made a very remarkable decision regarding the bilateral relations of people. The court, which examined the case of a couple who was in the process of divorce, ruled that the parties could not access the data on their smartphones using spyware, and it unanimously decided that this situation was unlawful.
A woman gained access to all her information with the spyware she installed on her divorced husband’s smartphone. He then presented this information to the court as evidence. The Ezine Civil Court of First Instance accepted the evidence in question. The man, who claimed that what his wife did was a crime, filed a criminal complaint. In the indictment prepared by the Attorney General’s Office, it was stated that the woman acted unlawfully. However, the court that examined the indictment and the appeal did not yield any results. No results could be obtained from the courts, which ruled that the data in question would only be used for divorce proceedings. This time, the man made an individual application to the Constitutional Court.
Spouse stalking with spyware is against constitutional guarantees
According to the man, whose phone was monitored by spyware, call records, messages, information on social media accounts, e-Government password, bank account information, photos and videos, and GPS data on his phone had passed into his wife’s hands without permission. Examining the incident, the Constitutional Court made the following assessments:
- It is clear that the approach of the courts of rank, which will result in the fact that the spouses do not have a private life space against each other, is contrary to the constitutional guarantees.
- As a result, it has been concluded that the right to demand the protection of personal data within the scope of the right to respect for private life regulated in Article 20 of the Constitution has been violated, since the conditions required by the positive obligation to be undertaken by the public authorities regarding the establishment of an effective judicial system have not been fulfilled in the concrete case.
- It has been decided that the right to request the protection of personal data within the scope of the right to respect for private life has been violated due to the fact that the fundamental allegations regarding the clarification of the incident were not investigated by the court, the investigation was not deepened, and the conclusion was reached with reasons that are not suitable for the concrete incident. Accordingly, it is understood that the violation resulted from the actions of the court. The appellate authority did not remedy the violation either.
These evaluations have created a job for the woman who is in the divorce phase. Because the high court officials decided that the woman should be tried again. The following statements were included in the written statement:
- The claim that the right to request the protection of personal data has been violated is acceptable,
- The right to demand the protection of personal data within the scope of the right to respect for private life, which is guaranteed in Article 20 of the Constitution, has been violated,
- To send a copy of the decision to the court for retrial in order to eliminate the consequences of the violation of the right to request the protection of personal data,
was unanimous.
52188
