The Concepts of Person and Personality Rights
The Concept of Person
The concept of “person” is a key concept in philosophy, psychology, legal science, theology, pedagogy, and sociology, and it defines the status of human existence. There are various views explaining the concept of person in legal terms. According to Locke’s definition, persons do not necessarily have to possess a body. Peter Strawson, on the other hand, argues that beings without a body cannot be individualized or identified. The concept of person forces us to accept that human existence cannot be reduced to just a biological characteristic and that a person is the bearer of the dignity possessed by humans.[1]
The concept of person is one of the most important and fundamental concepts of law. Law, in its simplest definition, is a set of rules that regulate the relationships between individuals and the state in societal life, and these rules are enforced with the support of public power. In this context, law exists in relation to persons. When the legal order establishes its rules, it primarily defines the concept of person. In law, the term “person” refers to beings that can have rights and obligations, that is, beings that can possess rights and duties. In other words, entities with rights are considered persons from a legal perspective. The concept of person is not a natural concept but a legal one, meaning that which entities can have rights and duties, and thus be considered persons, is a matter determined and defined by the legal system. Indeed, modern legal systems have not recognized only humans as persons. In addition to humans, communities of people and even property groups that meet the conditions sought by the law are also recognized as persons. When we define persons in this way, we can see the distinction between human beings as a species and a “person” as an entity that can possess rights and duties through the powers provided by law. Every individual human being, as part of the human species, is at the forefront of entities naturally recognized as persons by the law.
Types of Persons
Natural Persons
The concept of “person,” which refers to entities that can have rights and obligations, unquestionably includes every individual of the human species, i.e., natural persons. According to Bahri Savcı, “A person fulfills a human function by exercising the rights they possess. The human function is ‘development.’ It is the process of using the possibilities for development available to humans to improve oneself.”[2] The rights of natural persons, who possess rights and obligations, undoubtedly include the most fundamental rights, such as the right to demand from the state and other individuals the conditions or prerequisites necessary to realize the opportunities and activities essential for a dignified life. In other words, human beings have fundamental rights that are inherent in their dignity, which cannot be surrendered or transferred in any way. These rights are related to the conditions that allow the person to exercise their possibilities, and the carriers of these rights are individual human beings. One of the means used to establish and protect these conditions is the rule of law. Through its institutions and legal norms, the state ensures the protection of these fundamental rights and makes it possible for individuals to access them. The state regulates the conditions for the use of these rights and the fulfillment of related claims. It also removes obstacles that might prevent access to these rights.
When we ground human rights by taking human dignity into account, it naturally follows that the bearers of human rights are the individual human beings, or natural persons. This perspective necessitates an evaluation of personal data protection from a human rights standpoint, taking natural persons into consideration. It also requires that the protection of personal data concerning entities other than natural persons be assessed based on the degree to which it is linked to human dignity and human rights principles. Otherwise, we would be compelled to adopt different approaches.
Legal Entities
The ability to possess rights and obligations is not only granted to natural persons by law but also to legal entities. Generally, legal entities are defined as organized groups of people and property, formed for a specific purpose, and structured to be independent and continuous. Under the Turkish Civil Code, legal entities are defined as “organized groups of people with an independent existence (associations, companies, etc.) and independent property groups dedicated to a specific purpose (foundations, etc.).” These legal entities can possess all rights and obligations, except those that are inherently tied to human characteristics, such as gender, age, or kinship. Additionally, they can exercise legal capacity through their necessary organs. Legal entities are categorized into two types: public law legal entities and private law legal entities. Fundamentally, there is no structural or organizational difference between public and private law legal entities. The difference lies in their creation, dissolution, operation, areas of activity, and the legal rules they are subject to. According to Article 46 of the Turkish Constitution, the concepts of the State and public legal entities are used together, and Article 123 stipulates that public legal entities may be established by law or presidential decree. Examples of public legal entities organized as groups of people include provincial administrations, municipalities, and village legal entities, while examples of public legal entities organized as property groups include public economic enterprises.
After explaining these concepts briefly, if we aim to connect them to human rights, when we base human rights on human possibilities, we see that the true bearers of human rights are humans, and in this context, natural persons. In general, with few exceptions, the rights held by legal entities are rights granted to them by the legal system outside of human rights. On the other hand, we must also acknowledge that rights such as property rights, which are not directly related to human capabilities, may be possessed by legal entities as well. Considering that legal entities can exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations through their organs, we must remember that they are required to respect human rights when fulfilling their duties, and that the organs of legal entities consist of natural persons.
The Concept of Personality
As we briefly defined the concept of person in a legal sense earlier, a person is an entity capable of possessing rights and obligations. In this sense, the person occupies the center of the legal system, as the bearer of the rights granted by it. On the other hand, a person, in addition to possessing rights and obligations, is surrounded by various values such as life, physical integrity, privacy, and secrets, which determine their position in society and reflect their existence.[3] A person is, in fact, a holder of these values within the legal framework.
In legal terms, the concept of personality encompasses all values that constitute a person’s material and immaterial existence, including life, physical integrity, privacy, secrets, and similar aspects. In other words, personality refers to all the material and immaterial values that a person possesses because they are a person, such as their rights and legal capacity, and the values that the law considers worthy of protection, like life, physical integrity, and privacy.[4] Derived from the concept of person, personality expresses all the personal values protected by the legal system, which are associated with the legal rights and duties of the person.[5]
To explain this in more detail, the concept of personality includes both personal values rooted in a person’s physical existence (such as life, body, and physical and mental health) and external values related to their place and role in society (such as honor, dignity, reputation, economic freedom, name, privacy, and the right to a secret and private life). In short, personality includes all values that a person, by virtue of being a person, is inseparably linked to.[6]
The legal system, which grants persons the ability to possess rights and obligations, also provides them with the opportunity to protect and preserve their entire personality, which consists of these values. The relationship between the values within the concept of personality and human dignity—those characteristics and activities that distinguish humans from other living beings—helps us understand the connection between the concept of personality and human rights. Furthermore, the link between personal data, the concept of personality, and human dignity helps us understand the connection between personal data and human rights.
However, it is important to note that not all values covered by the concept of personality always overlap with those covered by the concept of human dignity. The concept of personality also carries a subjective element. It is certain that the values contained within the concept of personality, which exist in every individual of the human species, will be part of human dignity. However, subjective characteristics such as fame or reputation, which belong to a specific individual, will be included in the concept of personality but will not necessarily fall under human dignity.
The Concept of Personality Rights
As mentioned earlier, in the legal sense, personality rights refer to the rights that are absolutely protected by the legal system and are closely linked to an individual’s life, physical and mental health, bodily integrity, freedom, privacy, secrets, and other material and immaterial values. These are rights that are inherent to the person and are essential for the realization of human potential. It would not be incorrect to say that all personal values a person has in order to realize their human possibilities are encompassed under the concept of personality rights. The values in question are not limited and should be defined based on the specifics of each case.
In Egger’s classification, personal values (or entities) are divided into two categories: **internal personal entities** and **external personal entities**. Internal personal entities refer to the values a person possesses by virtue of being human. These include values related to bodily integrity (such as life, body, health, etc.) and mental or spiritual values (such as the right to mental integrity, freedom, personal labor, etc.). On the other hand, external personal entities are referred to as values related to one’s social relationships. These values determine a person’s status in society and include honor, dignity, personal identifiers (such as name, professional titles, coats of arms, trade marks, and other commercial identifiers), as well as images and voices.
Personality rights can also be classified into categories such as “rights over bodily integrity”, “rights over mental integrity”, “rights over privacy”, and “rights over economic integrity”.
Personality Rights
The concept of personality rights is not explicitly defined in the Turkish Civil Code. However, the need for personality rights arises from the human condition: the right to exist, to develop, to be free, to use one’s capabilities, and to be respected. These rights are essential for fulfilling the requirements of being human.
In various rulings, the Turkish Court of Cassation has defined **personality rights** as “the rights that are absolutely protected by law and are closely tied to the individual, covering the values that constitute a person’s personality. These rights include the person’s life, physical and mental health, bodily integrity, freedom, honor, dignity, privacy, and secrets.[7] An attack on any of these elements is considered a violation of personality rights. However, due to the dynamic nature of personality rights, which change depending on time and context, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive and restrictive enumeration of their scope.”
In conclusion, personality rights protect the essential personal values that make someone who they are, and the legal system recognizes the need for these rights in safeguarding human dignity, freedom, and the fundamental aspects of life.[8]
[1] Yener Ünver- Damjan Korosec, ‘’Kişilik hakları’’ Türkiye Slovenya Karşılaştırmalı Hukuk Sempozyumu, Özyeğin Üniversitesi Alman Hukuku Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi, Seçkin Yayınları, Ankara 2015, p. 13-14.
[2] İnsan Haklarının Felsefi Temelleri, Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu, Ankara 1996, p.58
[3] Fatma Esenyal Hanaz, Kişilik Haklarının İhlalinde Sorumluluk ve Uygulanacak Hukuk, (Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü,2018) s. 34
[4] Mustafa Dural-Tufan Oğuz, Türk Özel Hukuku Kişiler Hukuku, Filiz Kitabevi, İstanbul, 2014, s. 8
[5] Ergun Özsunay, Gerçek Kişilerin Hukuki Durumu, 4. B., İstanbul 1979, s. 97.
[6] Rona Serozan, Kişilik Hakkının Korunmasıyla İlgili Bazı Düşünceler, Mukayeseli Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, Y. 11, S. 14, 1977, s. 93.
[7] Ahmet Kılıçoğlu, Şeref Haysiyet ve Özel Yaşama Basın Yoluyla Saldırılardan Hukuksal Sorumluluk, Ankara, p.6.
[8] Yargıtay Büyük Genel Kurulu’nun 06.07.2018 tarih ve E.2017/5, K.2018/7 sayılı Kararı
Av.Yalçın TORUN
WARNİNG
The copyright for the written text published on our website above belongs to **Attorney Yalçın TORUN**. This written text is stored with a time-sensitive electronic signature for the purpose of establishing authorship rights. The written texts on our website may be freely used by our fellow attorneys in their petitions, but the full text, part of it, or a summary may not be published on other websites without proper attribution.