The crime of insulting the president within the framework of ECHR judgments

This study aims to examine the offense of "insulting the president", regulated under Article 299 of the Turkish Penal Code, in the context of the structural changes that occurred in the executive branch following the 2017 constitutional amendment and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In this study, which employs the normative legal method, national and international legal texts, judicial decisions, and academic literature are examined comparatively. This special criminal provision, inherited from monarchical periods, aims to protect both the personal dignity of the president and the authority of the state. However, following the year 2017, the transformation of the president into an active political actor who exercises executive power alone, rather than maintaining a neutral character, has made the disproportionate and restrictive effect of this provision on freedom of expression even more controversial. The approach adopted by the ECtHR, especially in the judgments of Şorli v. Turkey and Eon v. France, shows that granting special criminal protection to heads of state is not in line with the principles of a democratic society and that critical expressions should be tolerated to a greater extent. In this context, the study proposes that the offense of insulting the president be abolished and instead evaluated within the framework of Article 125/3 of the Turkish Penal Code, which governs the offense of "insulting a public official". This model will both ensure the protection of state authority by punishing insults related to official duties and safeguard personal criticism, thereby strengthening democratic oversight mechanisms. In conclusion, this thesis proposes a structural and normative solution for the re-evaluation of the offense of insulting the president within the framework of freedom of expression and the principles of a democratic state governed by the rule of law.