At the very outset of an investigation, the appointment of trustees to a media organization cannot be regarded merely as a technical measure concerning company management. Especially where criticism that the allegations are abstract is taken into account, this practice moves to the center of a broader legal debate in terms of press freedom, the principle of proportionality, and democratic public oversight.
The appointment of trustees to Tele1 is considered a sign of a harsher period in the field of the press, described as “testing the limits”; concerns are voiced that, if the necessary social and legal reaction does not emerge, similar interventions may also be directed at other critical broadcasters such as Sözcü TV and Halk TV. In this context, the issue is not limited to the administrative structure of a single media organization; it is a matter of protecting the pluralistic media order.
Why Is the Appointment of Trustees at the Outset of an Investigation Controversial?
The appointment of trustees is a severe protective measure that may be resorted to in criminal investigations or prosecutions. External intervention in company management, especially where a media organization is concerned, may have direct effects on editorial policy, editorial independence, and the public’s right to receive information.
For this reason, abstract assessments alone should not be considered sufficient for such a measure to be applied. In legal review, the following questions in particular become important:
- Are the allegations forming the basis of the measure supported by concrete facts?
- Could the same objective have been achieved through a less restrictive measure?
- Was the appointment of trustees necessary at such an early stage of the investigation?
- Were the effects of the measure on media freedom assessed?
- Does the decision produce consequences that would silence or deter public debate?
Although the appointment of trustees to a media company may appear on paper to concern company management, in practice it may produce consequences capable of affecting the editorial line. For this reason, the rule of law requires the strictest review of proportionality and reasoning in such interventions.
Press Freedom Is Not Only the Right of Journalists, but of Society
Press freedom is assessed within the framework of the guarantees under the Constitution concerning freedom of expression and freedom of the press, as well as the protection of freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. This freedom is not merely a professional privilege of journalists or media companies; it is a fundamental democratic guarantee enabling society to access different views and to scrutinize public power.
For this reason, severe interventions targeting media organizations must be examined in the following two respects:
| Apparent Aspect of the Intervention | Legal Effect |
|---|---|
| Appointment of trustees to company management | Interference with property, management, and commercial activity |
| Possible effect on the media organization’s editorial line | Risk in terms of press freedom, freedom of expression, and the public’s right to receive information |
Particularly with respect to press organs engaged in critical broadcasting, the spread of such measures may create a climate of pressure that could result in “getting used to it” and “remaining silent.” From a legal perspective, this risk must be assessed not only as an individual grievance, but also in terms of the democratic social order.
Abstract Allegations and the Principle of Proportionality
The legitimacy of protective measures is directly linked to the concreteness of the facts on which they are based and whether the measure is necessary. Resorting to one of the most severe measures at the beginning of an investigation, before it is possible for evidence to be debated and the right of defense to be effectively exercised, raises serious questions in terms of proportionality.
Proportionality review is addressed in three main stages:
- Suitability: Does the measure serve the legitimate aim sought to be achieved?
- Necessity: Could the same aim have been achieved through a less restrictive measure?
- Proportionality stricto sensu: Is the harm caused by the intervention balanced against the public interest sought to be secured?
Where media organizations are concerned, this review must be carried out with even greater sensitivity. This is because the intervention affects not only the company’s shareholders or managers, but also the journalists employed there, viewers, and the sphere of public debate.
The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Detailed Statement and the Issue of Judicial Ethics
While the investigation is ongoing, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office making a detailed statement about the file is also controversial from the perspective of judicial ethics. In criminal procedure, the investigation phase is a stage in which both the material truth is investigated and individuals’ right not to be stigmatized must be protected.
Detailed public statements at this stage may give rise to the following risks:
- Damage to the presumption of innocence,
- Presenting suspects or relevant persons as guilty in advance before the public,
- Harm to the perception of the impartiality of judicial authorities,
- The file contents becoming subject to public pressure and debate,
- Making the effective exercise of the right of defense more difficult.
For this reason, investigative authorities must use extremely limited, balanced, and impartial language when providing information. Otherwise, the statement may be criticized as serving to construct a particular perception rather than to inform the public.
The Legal Meaning of the Criticism of “Political Judicial Practices”
Criticism that the judiciary acts under political influence is one of the most serious legitimacy debates from the standpoint of the rule of law. Even if a judicial act formally appears to be a legal decision, it may create the impression that it performs a political function in terms of its timing, the field it targets, the language used, and the consequences it produces.
The appointment of trustees to Tele1 and the making of a detailed statement regarding the file are, in this context, regarded among the examples that strengthen the criticism of “political judicial practices.” The fundamental issue here is not only that judicial decisions must comply with the law, but also that they must appear impartial and independent.
The rule of law requires the judiciary to make decisions based on concrete evidence and legal reasoning, not in order to persuade the public. An approach whereby “everything is permissible for the sake of the perception intended to be imposed” is incompatible with the fundamental guarantees of the criminal justice system.
The Legal Dimension of Solidarity with Tele1 and Merdan Yanardağ
Support for Tele1 and Merdan Yanardağ should not be viewed merely as solidarity with a broadcaster or a journalist. This support has a broader meaning in terms of protecting press freedom, critical journalism, and the right to public debate.
Remaining silent in the face of severe measures targeting critical media organizations may lead to the normalization of similar interventions. For this reason, the pursuit of legal remedies and the monitoring of the process by bar associations, professional organizations, press organizations, and civil society are part of democratic oversight.
What Does This Mean in Practice?
The appointment of trustees to Tele1 and the detailed statements of the investigative authority have consequences that must be closely monitored from the perspectives of media law and criminal procedure:
- The trustee measure, with respect to media organizations, is not merely managerial; it is a severe intervention that directly affects press freedom.
- Resorting to such a measure at the beginning of the investigation and on the basis of abstract allegations must be seriously questioned in terms of proportionality and necessity.
- The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office making a detailed statement about the file is problematic in terms of judicial ethics, the presumption of innocence, and the right not to be stigmatized.
- Failure to generate the necessary legal and social reaction may pave the way for similar interventions targeting other critical media organs.
- Standing with Tele1 and Merdan Yanardağ means, in a broader sense, defending the pluralistic press order and the democratic rule of law.