
AI-generated summary
KVKK published a principle decision that sets clear limits for employers to monitor employees' communication tools. This decision aims to balance the control power of employers and the privacy rights of employees.
In the principle decision published in the Official Gazette, it was emphasized that the fact that communication tools belong to the employer does not give unlimited control authority. KVKK said, "The fact that the communication tools belong to the employer or are present at the workplace does not alone grant the employer unlimited and absolute control authority."
The employer will have to inform the employee in advance about the prohibitions and limits regarding private use. The scope of the audit, under what circumstances the content will be accessed and how long the data will be stored will also be explained to the employee. Content auditing can only be done in exceptional cases where access is mandatory. Secret monitoring and methods that indiscriminately record all employee transactions will be considered unlawful.

At the Istanbul 33rd High Criminal Court, the undetained defendant Deniz Dörtyol argued that he was forced to pay bills through Kültür AŞ and Medya AŞ, and that he was forced to pay with threats during the dismantling of advertising areas and the tender process; He stated that he had to pay all invoices issued by Kültür AŞ between 2019-2021.

At the hearing at the Istanbul 33rd High Criminal Court, the defendant Ali Nuhoğlu argued that it was wrong to carry out the Cebeci dump site operations through a single person and that more appropriate results could be achieved with the management of İSFALT. He also stated that Ekrem İmamoğlu had knowledge of the purchase process of two villas in Sarıyer, that they were purchased at the request of Tuncay Yılmaz and that he paid 31 million lira. He stated that Murat Gülibrahimoğlu put pressure on the municipal bureaucrats and that Fatih Keleş acted as Ekrem İmamoğlu's advisor.

The hearing was held at the Istanbul 33rd High Criminal Court, and the defendants Derya Dağdeviren and Ahmet Sari, who were not detained within the scope of the corruption investigation against Esenyurt Municipality, stated; Dağdeviren claimed that he wanted to file a criminal complaint against Orhan Yıldırım, while Sari claimed that Ertan Yıldız and Fatih Keleş were asked for money and paid extortion during the process of collecting their receivables related to the Havaist work and the IMM tender.

Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office ordered journalists İsmail Saymaz, Murat Ağırel and Şaban Sevinç to be present for testimony on the grounds that they made misleading statements to the public within the scope of the fund investigation.

In the case heard at the Istanbul 33rd High Criminal Court, the defendants Tuğrul Doğu Işık and Binali Sarıtaş presented their defense. Sarıtaş claimed that he had to pay bribes in order to receive payments in Ağaç A.Ş. tenders.

The Ministry of Justice shared the chronology of the funding investigation carried out by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office and announced that there was an attempt to make the process a subject of political polemic and that the main opposition leader's leak allegations were unfounded.