Post by account_disabled on Mar 6, 2024 23:43:18 GMT -6
The applicant stated to the Constitutional Court that his conversation regarding the debt relationship was recorded and disclosed in a planned manner and with criminal intent. Prosecutor's Office decided that there was no need for prosecution on behalf of the public (KYOK), considering that no issue regarding the applicant's private life was discussed and that recording did not have the element of intent to constitute a crime. The Constitutional Court evaluated the application within the scope of protection of personal data, which is among the elements of private life.
In the decision of the Constitutional Court, Recording France Telegram Number Data and using a non-public conversation made with a justified expectation that confidentiality will be protected, against the person's consent, constitutes an attack on personal data, The act of recording conversations must be evaluated in the context of interference with the applicant's private life, The limits regarding the assessment that actions that constitute a violation of the right to privacy are within the scope of the state of necessity are unclear, Actions that constitute interference with private life should be evaluated within the scope of proportionality and the purpose of the action should be taken into account, The necessity of concrete
Evaluation of conflicting interests against the right to privacy, A categorical approach, such as giving absolute priority to the purpose of obtaining evidence, will leave the person insecure in terms of the right to request the protection of personal data. Evaluations have been made regarding the Constitutional Court, in the concrete case, Constitutional Art. He stated that the right to respect for private life, which is protected in Article 20, includes the protection of personal data and decided that this right was violated in the concrete case.
In the decision of the Constitutional Court, Recording France Telegram Number Data and using a non-public conversation made with a justified expectation that confidentiality will be protected, against the person's consent, constitutes an attack on personal data, The act of recording conversations must be evaluated in the context of interference with the applicant's private life, The limits regarding the assessment that actions that constitute a violation of the right to privacy are within the scope of the state of necessity are unclear, Actions that constitute interference with private life should be evaluated within the scope of proportionality and the purpose of the action should be taken into account, The necessity of concrete
Evaluation of conflicting interests against the right to privacy, A categorical approach, such as giving absolute priority to the purpose of obtaining evidence, will leave the person insecure in terms of the right to request the protection of personal data. Evaluations have been made regarding the Constitutional Court, in the concrete case, Constitutional Art. He stated that the right to respect for private life, which is protected in Article 20, includes the protection of personal data and decided that this right was violated in the concrete case.