There is no single answer to this question. What refusal costs depends on what it is you are refusing. Failing to comply with a court order and declining to meet a warning notice sent by a lawyer are two entirely different pictures. The first corresponds to a judicial fine, the second at most to the risk of a lawsuit. In this article we separate out four of them from the text of Internet Law No. 5651 (Law No. 5651 on Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed by Means of Such Publications).
First draw the distinction: what are you refusing?
Under Law No. 5651 removal and blocking rest on a decision; and the decision comes either from a judicial or from an administrative authority. There is a third type as well: a demand resting on no authority at all, made directly by the person or their representative. Confusing these three leads you to miscalculate the cost of a refusal. To separate out the type of request, use the flow set out in our article on what to do when a removal request arrives.
| What you are refusing | Is refusal technically possible? | Direct consequence |
|---|---|---|
| A judge's or court's order (Art. 8(2)) | No — the order is binding | Art. 8(10): judicial fine of 500 to 3,000 days |
| An administrative decision by the President of BTK (Art. 8(4)) | No | Art. 8(11): administrative fine |
| An Article 8/A decision | No | Art. 8/A(5): administrative fine of TRY 50,000 to 500,000 |
| An Article 9/A measure | Blocking is applied at the access provider in any event | The content stays on the site but cannot be reached |
| A letter from a person or a lawyer | Yes | No sanction in Law 5651; risk of an action under the general provisions |
| An FSEK copyright request | Yes, but risky | FSEK Additional Art. 4(3): suspension of service via the public prosecutor |
Article 9/A: your refusal does not stop the process
On a privacy application the process does not depend on your consent. Under Article 9/A(3) the President notifies the request immediately to the Access Providers Union, and access providers shall carry out this request for a measure immediately and within four hours at the latest. The blocking is therefore applied not on your server but at the access provider layer. Refusing to take the content down will not keep it reachable from within Turkey.
Against that, the Law contains two safeguards under which the process comes to an end of its own accord. Article 9/A(5), verbatim: the requesting person submits the request to a criminal judgeship of peace for decision within twenty-four hours of the hour at which the request was made; the judge announces the decision within forty-eight hours at the latest and sends it directly to the Authority — failing which, the measure of blocking access lapses automatically. Further, under paragraph 7, where the content subject to blocking has been removed from publication, the judge's decision becomes automatically void.
Article 8: the decision already comes from an administrative or judicial authority
In catalogue offence files the decision is issued by a judge, a court or a public prosecutor; and, within the scope of Article 8(4), ex officio by the President of BTK. What reaches you here is not a request but a decision. Refusal is not a legal option; what you can do is comply with the decision and also object to it. The last sentence of Article 8(2) says so expressly: an objection may be lodged, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, against a decision issued as a protective measure.
The Law provides in three places that a decision falls away automatically, and these operate in your favour. Article 8(7): if a decision of non-prosecution is given at the end of the investigation, the decision becomes automatically void. Article 8(8): if an acquittal is given at the prosecution stage, it again becomes automatically void. Article 8(9): where the content constituting a catalogue offence is removed from publication, the access blocking decision is lifted by the public prosecutor at the investigation stage and by the court at the prosecution stage.
The sanction for failing to comply with a decision
Law No. 5651 sets up two separate regimes here: a judicial fine for protective measure (judicial) decisions, and an administrative fine for administrative measure decisions. The person to whom each is addressed, and the route of challenge, also differ.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A DECISION - MAP OF SANCTIONS
Art. 8(10) Failure to comply with a protective measure (judicial) decision
THE RESPONSIBLE PERSONS of CONTENT, HOSTING or ACCESS PROVIDERS
-> JUDICIAL FINE of 500 to 3,000 days
(converted by Law No. 6518 from "6 months to 2 years'
imprisonment")
Art. 8(11) Failure to comply with an administrative measure decision
-> ADMINISTRATIVE FINE of 10,000 to 100,000 new Turkish liras
-> If the access provider still fails to comply within 24 hours
of the fine: REVOCATION OF THE AUTHORISATION
Art. 8/A(5) Access providers, and the content and hosting providers
concerned, that fail to comply with an 8/A decision
-> ADMINISTRATIVE FINE of TRY 50,000 to 500,000
Art. 8/A(4) Failure to give information about the perpetrator despite a
judicial order
-> JUDICIAL FINE of 3,000 to 10,000 days
ROUTES OF CHALLENGE
Against administrative fines -> Administrative Procedure Act No. 2577
(administrative court), Art. 8(12)
Against a blocking/removal decision -> objection under the Code of
Criminal Procedure No. 5271, Art. 8(2)There is an important detail as regards Article 8(11): by the decision of the Constitutional Court dated 11/10/2023, E.2020/76, K.2023/172, the phrase ...on the content, hosting and access provider concerned,... in the first sentence of that paragraph was annulled. In other words, the wording that formed the basis for applying the administrative fine to the content provider and the hosting provider, where an administrative measure decision is not complied with, has been removed from the text.
Article 5 — being notified in your capacity as a hosting provider
If your news site hosts reader comments, a forum or user uploads, then in respect of that area you are acting in the capacity of a hosting provider. Article 5 frames that capacity in two sentences, and both are decisive for you:
LAW No. 5651, ARTICLE 5 (verbatim quotation of the relevant paragraphs,
unofficial translation):
"(1) The hosting provider is not obliged to monitor the content it hosts
or to investigate whether an unlawful activity is involved.
(2) (Amended: 6/2/2014-6518/88) The hosting provider is obliged to remove
from publication the unlawful content it hosts where it is notified in
accordance with Articles 8 and 9 of this Law.
(6) (Added: 6/2/2014-6518/88) An administrative fine of one hundred
thousand Turkish liras to one million Turkish liras shall be imposed by
the President on a hosting provider that fails to make the hosting
provider notification or fails to fulfil its obligations under this Law."Three conclusions follow. First, you have no general monitoring obligation — you are not required to vet comments in advance. Second, the removal obligation arises only upon being notified. Third, and most importantly: of the two articles to which paragraph 2 refers, Article 9 has been annulled. The only basis left in operation is Article 8. So, in your capacity as a hosting provider, the removal obligation triggered by notification can now draw its source only from Article 8. For the whole of this distinction between capacities, see hosting provider or content provider.
Article 4 — as a content provider you are liable in any event
For the reports, opinion columns, headlines, images and videos you produce yourself, your capacity is that of a content provider, and Article 4(1) says in a single sentence: The content provider is liable for any content it makes available on the internet. No fault, no notification and no warning is required here. Refusing a removal request does not increase that liability; but nor does taking the content down extinguish it retroactively.
Article 4(2) then establishes the linking exception: The content provider is not liable for content belonging to another to which it provides a link. However, where it is manifestly clear from the manner of presentation that it has adopted the linked content and intended the user to reach that content, it is liable under the general provisions. If the request concerns an external link, your defence lies in that paragraph: a manner of presentation showing that you did not adopt the content and did not intend to direct the reader there.
If you refuse a personal rights claim
Here one has to be honest: Law No. 5651 contains no functioning procedure for this claim. Article 9, which governed removal of content from publication and blocking of access on the ground of infringement of personal rights, was annulled in its entirety by the decision of the Constitutional Court dated 11/10/2023, E.2020/76, K.2023/172, and the annulment took effect on 10/10/2024. No new provision has been enacted in its place. The expression "personal rights" appears nowhere in the text of the Law today.
The practical consequence is this: when you refuse a request advanced on personal rights grounds, no accelerated administrative removal or blocking process rooted in Law No. 5651 runs. The routes open to the requesting party lie outside Law No. 5651 — the right of reply and correction under Press Law No. 5187, and actions before the general courts under the Turkish Civil Code and the Turkish Code of Obligations. If the claim concerns the privacy of private life, Article 9/A comes into play; if it makes out a catalogue offence, Article 8 does. These are separate and narrow doors.
The three concrete risks of refusal
- Access blocking. If the request falls within Article 8, Article 8/A or Article 9/A, blocking is applied at the access provider layer independently of your will. If the scope of the decision is widened it may extend to the whole site — we have examined the conditions for that possibility, with the text of the provisions, in what to do if the whole site is blocked.
- Fines. Failure to comply with a judicial decision gives rise to a judicial fine of 500 to 3,000 days under Article 8(10); failure to comply with an Article 8/A decision gives rise to an administrative fine of TRY 50,000 to 500,000 under paragraph 5 of that article.
- A damages action. Law No. 5651 sets up an administrative and criminal framework; it does not prevent a person from bringing claims for the loss suffered before a civil court under the general provisions. The strict liability in Article 4(1) will form a basis against you in such an action.
What you should do when you refuse
A refusal is an editorial decision and it needs to be reasoned. The internal decision form below is designed both to keep the file in order and to serve as evidence of editorial diligence in any subsequent proceedings.
INTERNAL DECISION FORM - REFUSAL OF A REMOVAL REQUEST
File no : 2026/........
Date/hour of request: ....../....../.......... ....:....
Requesting party : ..............................................
Basis of request : [ ] Art. 8 [ ] Art. 8/A [ ] Art. 9/A [ ] court order
[ ] FSEK Additional Art. 4 [ ] no basis given
URL demanded : https://...................................
A. DOES THE REQUEST REST ON A DECISION?
[ ] Yes -> THERE IS NO OPTION TO REFUSE. Comply with it, and ALSO object.
Hour of compliance: ....:....
Route of challenge: [ ] Code of Criminal Procedure
[ ] Administrative Procedure Act No. 2577
[ ] No -> go to B.
B. EDITORIAL ASSESSMENT (a written answer to every item)
1. What source/document does the report rest on?
2. Has the allegation been verified? Where is the verification record?
3. Was the view of the person concerned obtained? If not, why not?
4. Is there an error in the report requiring an update or correction?
5. What is the public interest justification?
6. Is there an element touching the privacy of private life (an image,
an address, health, family life)? If so, can that element alone be
removed?
C. DECISION
[ ] Request not granted - the reasons are set out above.
[ ] Partly granted: ......................... removed/corrected.
[ ] A reply and correction text accepted for publication.
D. NOTIFICATION
Date/hour the reply was sent: ....../....../.......... ....:....
Channel and record of dispatch: ...............................
Decision taken by: Responsible Editor / Editor-in-Chief - Name Surname, signatureAgreeing is not costless either
Taking content down is not always the safe option. Quietly deleting a published report damages the integrity of the archive and sets a precedent for later requests. The text of the Law also keeps the two apart: Article 8(9) and Article 9/A(7) treat removal of the content from publication as a ground for the decision to fall away; but no provision compels you to take content down in the face of an unresolved request. The workable middle course is usually partial correction: correcting the element that is wrong, removing a single image that intrudes on private life, and adding a dated update note to the page.
Whichever course you choose, your decision has to be traceable: version history, a record of who changed what and when, and what the removed URL was. You can measure whether your site is ready under these headings with the legal compliance checklist.