Law No. 6112 does not load liability onto one person. Article 46/1 builds a three-layer structure and protects the undertaking’s own liability in its closing sentence: “Liability arising from a broadcast belongs to the responsible editor together with the person directing the broadcast or making the programme. This provision does not remove the responsibilities of the broadcasting undertaking under this Law.”
Three layers
| Layer | Who | Character |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The person directing the broadcast or making the programme | The person who carries out the actual broadcast decision |
| 2 | The responsible editor | The office of responsibility the Law creates |
| 3 | The broadcasting undertaking | Its own statutory responsibilities continue |
The Law joins the first two layers with the word “together”. The existence of a responsible editor does not relieve the person directing the broadcast, and vice versa.
The exception: liability passes to the executive
Article 46/2 alters the chain in a single situation: “However, where the persons authorised to manage and represent the company have decided on a broadcast without it passing through the examination of the responsible editor or against their consent, liability in that case passes to those persons who decided on the broadcast.”
There are two alternative conditions and either suffices: the broadcast did not pass the responsible editor’s examination, or it was made against their consent.
A separate regime for damages
Article 18/6 attaches liability in damages to different persons: “For pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage arising from broadcasting services that infringe the personality rights of natural and legal persons, the media service provider undertaking together with the producer of the programme shall be jointly and severally liable.”
| Type of liability | Who is liable | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Liability arising under the Law (administrative) | Person directing the broadcast or making the programme + responsible editor + undertaking | Art. 46/1 |
| Where the broadcast did not pass the responsible editor | Persons authorised to manage and represent the company | Art. 46/2 |
| Damages for infringement of personality rights | Undertaking + producer of the programme (joint and several) | Art. 18/6 |
| Administrative fine and measure | The media service provider undertaking | Art. 32 |
| Broadcast recording offences | The responsible editor | Art. 33/3, 33/4 |
| Broadcasting without a licence | Natural persons; for legal persons, board members and the general manager | Art. 33/1 |
The producer and presenter ban on programme suspension
Article 32/4 produces a further consequence attaching to individuals: where broadcasting of a programme is suspended as an administrative measure, “the producer of the programme or its presenter where there is one, who is responsible for the commission of the act giving rise to the sanction, may not make or present any other programme, at the same or a different media service provider undertaking, under any name, for the duration of the suspension”.
Administrative sanctions are addressed to the undertaking
The administrative fine and measures in Article 32 are addressed to the media service provider undertaking. Decisions are served on the undertaking’s registered electronic mail address notified to RTUK (Art. 32/10) and fines are paid within one month of notification (Art. 32/11). Whether the undertaking may recover the fine internally from the person responsible is a separate question under the employment contract and the general law.
Criminal liability runs in parallel
Article 32/3 is clear: where the breach of a duty or prohibition constitutes a criminal offence, the administrative fine or measure is imposed without any requirement that an investigation or prosecution be brought for that offence. The administrative and criminal tracks run in parallel; neither waits for the other. Under Article 33/5 RTUK joins public prosecutions brought under the Law.
Competent court and service
Under Article 47/1 the provisions of Notification Law No. 7201 apply to service under the Law. Under Article 47/3 the Ankara administrative courts have jurisdiction in actions against the Supreme Council. An action against an administrative sanction decision is brought, under Article 32/9, within fifteen days of notification of the act.
The live broadcast example is in the live broadcast guide and the responsible editor’s conditions in the responsible editor guide.