Article 8 of Internet Law No. 5651 (Law No. 5651 on Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed by Means of Such Publications) sets up a distinct group within publications on the internet: publications in respect of which there is sufficient ground for suspicion that their content constitutes certain offences. In practice this group of offences is called a catalogue offence. The word itself does not appear in the Law; the term "catalogue" is never used in the text of Law No. 5651. What the Law establishes is a closed list fixed by enumeration in Article 8(1). For content falling on that list, a decision blocking access may be issued directly by the President of BTK of his own motion, without waiting for a judicial decision. That is precisely the point that makes the difference for a news site.
What purpose does the notion of a catalogue offence serve?
The opening of Article 8(1) reads, verbatim: "Removal of content and/or blocking of access shall be ordered in respect of publications made on the internet where there is sufficient ground for suspicion that their content constitutes the following offences." The threshold here is not a conviction, but sufficient ground for suspicion. In other words, the measure is applied without waiting for the outcome of a trial.
That the list is closed is a safeguard in the operator's favour: if a piece of content does not fall within one of the items enumerated in Article 8(1), it cannot be blocked of the authority's own motion under the Article 8 procedure. For an alleged offence not on the list, an ordinary criminal investigation applies; for the privacy of private life, Article 9/A; and for claims of infringement of personal rights, the general provisions. For an overall view of which law applies to which type of publication, see the matrix in which law applies to which type of publication.
The full list of catalogue offences — Article 8(1), clause by clause
The list consists of four subparagraphs: (a), (b), (c) and (ç). Because subparagraph (a) is itself divided into seven sub-clauses, there are ten separate offence items in total. The listings below are taken verbatim from the text of the Law. Note one detail: sub-clause 2 of subparagraph (a) refers only to the first paragraph of Article 103 of the Turkish Penal Code, not to the whole article.
Subparagraph (a) — seven offences in the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237
The subparagraph opens as follows: "a) Contained in the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 of 26/9/2004;" — the following seven sub-clauses then come, and the subparagraph closes with the word "offences":
- 1) Incitement to suicide (Article 84)
- 2) Sexual abuse of children (Article 103, first paragraph)
- 3) Facilitating the use of narcotic or stimulant substances (Article 190)
- 4) Supply of substances dangerous to health (Article 194)
- 5) Obscenity (Article 226)
- 6) Prostitution (Article 227)
- 7) Providing a place and facilities for gambling (Article 228)
Subparagraphs (b), (c) and (ç) — offences in special statutes
- b) Offences contained in Law No. 5816 on Offences Committed Against Atatürk of 25/7/1951.
- c) (Added: 25/3/2020-7226/32) Offences contained in Law No. 7258 on the Organisation of Betting and Games of Chance in Football and Other Sports Competitions of 29/4/1959.
- ç) (Added: 13/10/2022-7418/32) Offences contained in the first and second paragraphs of Article 27 of the State Intelligence Services and National Intelligence Organisation Law No. 2937 of 1/11/1983.
Subparagraph (b) has been on the list since the first version of the Law in 2007. Subparagraph (c) was added in 2020 by Law No. 7226, bringing unlawful betting content within the catalogue. Subparagraph (ç) was added by Law No. 7418 of 13/10/2022 — that is, by the same package of amendments that brought internet news sites within the scope of the Press Law — and covers the offences in the first and second paragraphs of Article 27 of Law No. 2937. For a news site operator this subparagraph is the newest and the most demanding item on the list.
| Clause | Underlying statute | Added to the list |
|---|---|---|
| a (7 sub-clauses) | Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 | The first version of the Law (2007) |
| b | Law No. 5816 | The first version of the Law (2007) |
| c | Law No. 7258 | 25/3/2020 - 7226/32 |
| ç | Law No. 2937, Art. 27(1)-(2) | 13/10/2022 - 7418/32 |
Who issues the decision?
Article 8(2) reads verbatim: "A decision on removal of content and/or blocking of access shall be issued by a judge at the investigation stage and by the court at the prosecution stage. At the investigation stage, in urgent cases, removal of content and/or blocking of access may also be ordered by the public prosecutor."
Where the prosecutor issues the decision, the text binds two further periods: the prosecutor submits the decision for the judge's approval within twenty-four hours, and the judge gives a decision within twenty-four hours at the latest. The Law goes on: "If the decision is not approved within that period, the measure shall be lifted immediately by the public prosecutor." The same paragraph, in a sentence added by Law No. 6518, provides that blocking may also be ordered "for a limited period, where this is considered capable of achieving the objective" — a basis rarely used on the defence side. Under Article 8(3), a copy of the decision issued is sent to the Authority (BTK) for implementation.
Within how many hours is it applied?
Article 8(5) reads verbatim: "The requirements of a decision on removal of content and/or blocking of access shall be carried out immediately and within four hours at the latest from the moment the decision is notified." That period was originally twenty-four hours; it was reduced to four hours by Article 127 of Law No. 6552 of 10/9/2014. The four hours run not by reference to the technical team's working hours but by reference to the moment the decision is notified; a publishing organisation without an on-call rota will miss that period on a notification arriving at midnight.
In what circumstances does the decision fall away?
- A decision of non-prosecution (Art. 8(7)): the decision becomes automatically void; the prosecutor sends a copy of the decision to the Authority, stating the internet address concerned.
- Acquittal (Art. 8(8)): the decision becomes automatically void; the court sends a copy of the acquittal to the Authority, stating the internet address concerned.
- Removal of the content from publication (Art. 8(9)): the access blocking decision is lifted by the public prosecutor at the investigation stage and by the court at the prosecution stage. This means that if you take down the content you have contested you may request that the block be lifted; but the result does not follow automatically — it arises through a decision of the prosecutor or the court, so you have to apply.
What happens if the decision is not complied with?
| Type of decision | Sanction | Legal basis |
|---|---|---|
| A decision issued as a protective measure | For the responsible persons of the content, hosting or access provider, a <b>judicial fine of 500 to 3,000 days</b> | Art. 8(10) |
| A decision issued as an administrative measure | An <b>administrative fine of TRY 10,000 to 100,000</b> imposed by the President | Art. 8(11) |
| Still not complied with 24 hours after the administrative fine | For the access provider, <b>revocation of the authorisation</b> by the Authority | Art. 8(11) |
Routes of challenge
- Against decisions issued as protective measures: under the last sentence of Article 8(2), an objection may be lodged in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271.
- Against administrative fines: under Article 8(12), a challenge is brought in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act No. 2577.
- The competent court: under Article 8(15), judicial decisions at the investigation stage are given, in places where there is more than one criminal court of peace, by the criminal courts of peace designated by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors.
- Objection by the Authority: under Article 8(13), judicial and court decisions sent to the Authority may also be objected to by the Authority in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The rule that blocking must be URL-based
Article 8(17) (Added: 17/10/2019-7188/36) reads verbatim: "Decisions on blocking of access issued under the second, fourth and fourteenth paragraphs of this Article shall be issued by the method of blocking access to the content (in the form of a URL etc.) in respect of the publication, part or section in which the infringement occurred. However, where it is technically impossible to block access to the content relating to the infringement, or where the infringement cannot be prevented by way of blocking access to the content concerned, a decision blocking access to the whole of the internet site may be issued." The rule is URL-based blocking; a block on the whole site is the exception and is subject to two alternative conditions. When a block on the whole site arrives because of a single report, this paragraph is your strongest ground of objection.
How does a piece of news content fall within a catalogue offence?
The catalogue offence list does not target news content; but the way a report is made can bring the content within its scope. The Law provides for no exception such as "journalistic purpose". The risk mostly arises not from the report itself but from the image, video, screenshot, link or quotation attached to it.
- Obscenity (TCK Art. 226): the use of uncensored images or video in reports of criminal incidents; embedding "leak" material in a report.
- Sexual abuse of children (TCK Art. 103(1)): conveying details capable of identifying the child victim, such as images, a name, a school or a neighbourhood.
- Facilitating the use of narcotics (TCK Art. 190) and supply of substances dangerous to health (TCK Art. 194): details containing the method of supply, information about the seller, a production recipe or an ordering address.
- Gambling (TCK Art. 228) and the betting offences under Law No. 7258: putting the name, domain name, entry address or advertising image of an unlawful betting site into a report; this is today the item most frequently encountered on news sites.
- Prostitution (TCK Art. 227): conveying material containing an advertisement, a link or contact details for the purposes of prostitution.
- Law No. 5816: reproducing a quoted post as a full text, uncensored and without distancing.
- Law No. 2937, Art. 27(1)-(2): content in the nature of a disclosure of the identities of members of the National Intelligence Organisation.
The common denominator here is the site conveying material belonging to another by adopting it. Under Article 4(2) of Law No. 5651, a content provider is as a rule not liable for content belonging to another to which it provides a link; but where it is manifestly clear from the manner of presentation that it has adopted the content and intended the user to reach it, liability arises under the general provisions. Carrying the name of a betting site into a headline triggers precisely that exception.
A quick pre-publication check
CATALOGUE OFFENCE RISK - PRE-PUBLICATION CHECK
[ ] Does the report contain the name, domain name or entry address of an
unlawful betting/gambling site? -> Mask it or take it out
(Law 7258 / TCK 228)
[ ] Is a betting logo or poster visible in an advertising image, a
screenshot or a video? -> Blur it
[ ] Do the images of a criminal incident contain obscene material?
-> Do not publish (TCK 226)
[ ] Is there a child victim? Are you sure no detail capable of
identifying them remains? -> Name, school, neighbourhood, the name
of a close relative, a recognisable image: take all of it out
(TCK 103(1))
[ ] Does a report on narcotics/dangerous substances contain the method
of supply, information about the seller, or a recipe?
-> Take it out (TCK 190 / 194)
[ ] Does the quoted post contain expressions falling within Law 5816?
-> Do not give the full text; convey it at a distance
[ ] In giving a source link, do you appear to have adopted the content?
-> Review the language of presentation (Law 5651, Art. 4(2))
IF A NOTIFICATION ARRIVES
[ ] Which article is the basis? (Art. 8 / Art. 8/A / Art. 9/A)
[ ] Type of decision: a decision of a judge or court, or a decision of
the President of his own motion?
[ ] Is the demand for "removal of content"? If it is of the President's
own motion, the underlying phrase has been annulled by the
Constitutional Court - put it on the record.
[ ] Is the decision URL-based or site-wide? If site-wide, question
whether the conditions in Art. 8(17) are met.
[ ] When did the 4-hour compliance period start? (the moment of notification)
[ ] Objection: protective measure -> Code of Criminal Procedure;
administrative fine -> Administrative Procedure Act No. 2577For further headings to watch at the level of broadcasting principles you can use the items in the RTÜK broadcasting principles checklist; for definitions of the concepts, see the Turkish press law glossary.
Most of the catalogue offence risk is not editorial but a technical archive problem: embedded images in old reports, third-party advertising slots and automated content feeds. If your publishing infrastructure lacks image masking, fast content withdrawal and URL-based archive management, meeting the four-hour period is difficult. KEYDAL news software manages these workflows from a single panel.