HUKUKA UYGUNLUK NEDENİ OLARAK ZORUNLULUK HALİ VE USUL HUKUKUNDA TANIKLIK ALMAN CEZA KANUNU m. 203’TEKİ SUSMA YÜKÜMLÜLÜĞÜNÜN İHLALİNİN GEREKÇESİNİ OLUŞTURUR MU?

Öz

Kendisine emanet edilen ya da belirli mesleklerin bir üyesi olarak veya başka şekilde öğrendiği (örnek olarak sadece doktorlar ve avukatlardan bahsedeceğim) "başkasına ait sırrı yetkisiz olarak ifşa eden..." kişi (bir yıla kadar hapis veya adli para cezası ile) cezalandırılacağı, StGB § 203/1’de düzenlenmiştir. Kanundaki açık düzenlemelerin yanı sıra bir sırrın ifşasının haklı bulunup bulunamayacağı ve bunun mahkemede kullanılıp kullanılamayacağı tartışmalara sebep olmaktadır. Bu tartışmaların etrafında şekillendiği ilk alan, StGB § 34’te yer alan zorunluluk hali nedeni ile hukuka uygunluk imkanı ile ilgilidir. İkincisi ise, StGB § 203’ü ihlal eden bir ifadenin, mahkemedeki bir tanıklık bağlamında yapılmış olması halinde, kullanılıp kullanılamayacağı sorusu ile ilgilidir. Bu çerçevede, StGB § 34 hasta veya müvekkilin işlediği ağır bir suçtan dolayı hakkında ceza kovuşturmasını sağlamak için gizliliğin ihlal edilmesini haklı çıkarır mı? sorusuna yanıt bulmak gerekmektedir. Herkesin – ağır bir suçun faili de olsa-, kendisini takibata maruz bırakacağından korkmadan, tıbbi yardım ve hukuki tavsiye alma hakkına sahip olduğu düşüncesinden hareketle sadece hasta veya müvekkilin tamamlanmış bir suçunu ortaya çıkarmak için susma yükümlülüğünün ihlalini hiçbir şekilde haklı görmeyen çoğunluk görüşüne katılmak gerekir. Sorun teşkil eden bir diğer husus ise masum bir kişi hakkında kesin hükmün verildiği, ancak susma yükümlülüğü olan kişinin hasta veya müvekkilin verdiği bilgilerden veya somut belirtilerden bu kişinin fail olduğuna dair bilgi edinmesidir. Bu soruna ilişkin sunulabilecek çözüm, bir yandan-yeniden yargılamayı mümkün kılmak için- gerçeklerin açıklanmasına izin vermek, diğer yandan da kanıt oluşturan belgelerin hasta veya müvekkil aleyhine kullanılmasını yasaklamak olacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tanıklık
• Hukuka Uygunluk Nedeni
• Zorunluluk Hali

Rechtfertigender Notstand und prozessuale Zeugenaussage als Gründe für einen Bruch der Schweigepflicht nach § 203 StGB?

Öz

The disclosure of a secret belonging to another, learned either in the capacity as a custodian of that secret, as a member of certain professions, or in any other manner (for the purpose of this discussion, I will only mention doctors and lawyers) without authorization, is punishable under StGB § 203/1 with imprisonment of up to one year or a fine. In addition to the explicit provisions of the law, the legitimacy of disclosing a secret and its admissibility in court is a subject of debate. The discussions revolve around two main areas: the first concerns the possibility of justification under the duress of necessity as provided in StGB § 34. The second pertains to the question of whether a statement violating StGB § 203, if made in the context of testimony in court, can be used. In this framework, the question of whether the violation of confidentiality to facilitate criminal prosecution against a patient or client for a serious crime they committed can be justified under StGB § 34 needs to be addressed. Considering the view that everyone – even if they are the perpetrator of a serious crime – has the right to seek medical help and legal advice without fear of prosecution, it is necessary to agree with the majority opinion that sees no justification whatsoever for breaching the duty of confidentiality merely to reveal a completed crime of a patient or client. Another issue arises when a person, who is under a duty of confidentiality, gains information indicating that a patient or client is the perpetrator based on information provided by the patient or client or on concrete indications, especially in cases where an innocent person has been wrongly convicted. A possible solution to this issue could be to allow the disclosure of facts to enable a retrial while prohibiting the use of documents created as evidence against the patient or client. Another question that requires consideration within the context of StGB § 34 is whether the breach of confidentiality to prevent a legal harm originating from the patient or client can be justified. The prevailing view in the doctrine accepts the breach of confidentiality in such situations if the interests in disclosure outweigh the patient's or client's interest in confidentiality, in the sense of StGB § 34. The question of whether a witness statement made by a doctor or lawyer in court can be justified if it breaches the duty of confidentiality and whether it can be used against the patient or client is answered affirmatively in established case law, on the grounds that StPO § 53/1 grants these individuals the right to refuse to testify but does not impose a duty to refuse, hence allowing the use of such testimony. In the decisions made on the subject, it was stated that if a reliable person culpably violates professional confidentiality in court, this situation will not affect the admissibility of the statement within the scope of procedural law, and it was stated that the defendant does not have a right in procedural law to exercise the witness's power of silence. It is left to the witness whether he wishes to expose himself to the risk of criminal prosecution. Likewise, in a decision of the Federal Supreme Court, it was decided that a patient's explicit refusal to give permission to his doctor to testify would not constitute a violation of procedural law. These decisions have been accepted in the doctrine because the judge will not evaluate whether the judge made an unauthorized statement within the meaning of StGB § 203. However, it is necessary to agree with the critical view that the substantive illegality of the statement should also result in its procedural inadmissibility.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• disclosure of a secret

Kaynakça

1. Beulke, Werner. Strafprozessrecht, 13. Aufl. 2016.
2. Dannecker, in: Graf/Jäger/Wittig, Wirtschafts- und Steuerstrafrecht, 2. Aufl. 2017,
3. Eisele, in: Schönke/Schröder, StGB, 30. Aufl. 2019, § 203
4. Fischer Thomas. 66. Bası (C.H. Beck Yayıncılık, 2019), §203.
5. Freund,GA 1993
6. Gössel, Karl Heinz/Dölling, Dieter. Strafrecht Besonderer Teil 1, 2. Aufl. 2004, § 37
7. Haffke, GA 1973
8. Horst Woesner, 'Fragen ärztlicher Geheimhaltungspflicht' NJW 1957, 692, 694.

9. Jäschke, ZStW 131 (2019)
10. Krenkel Beryll. “Anlass für eine Reform der ärztlichen Schweigep-flicht?”, ZJS 2015, 271-275.
11. Lenckner, NJW 1965
12. Michalowski,, Sabine. "Schutz der Vertraulichkeit strafrechtlich rele-vanter Patienteninformationen", 1997, ZStW 109 (1997), 519, 531.Schünemann, in: LK-StGB, 12. Aufl. 2010, § 203.
13. Michalowski, Sabine. "Schutz der Vertraulichkeit strafrechtlich rele-vanter Patienteninformationen", 1997, ZStW 109 (1997). 519-544.
14. Mittelbach, MDR, 1956.
15. Rogall, NStZ 1983
16. Roxin, Claus/Schünemann Bernd, Strafverfahrensrecht, 27. Aufl. 2017, § 24
17. Schünemann, Bernd. Der Strafrechtliche Schutz von Privatgeheimnis-sen, ZStW 90 (1978), 11, 51–57.