What Is the Right to Be Forgotten in Turkey and How Is It Used?

Placing the term

There is no article of any law in Turkish law opened under the heading "right to be forgotten". The following Turkish terms, when searched in the official texts of the relevant laws, are not found at all:

The practical consequence is this: a request that reaches you saying "right to be forgotten" does not, on its own, rest on any article of any law. The person making the request must point either to a concrete provision or to a court decision. To see the legislative equivalents of these concepts together, you can look at our glossary of Turkish press legislation.

The provision used for this purpose was Article 9 of Law No. 5651 — and that article has been annulled

In practice, the "right to be forgotten" was operated through Article 9 of Law No. 5651. The heading of the article as in force was "Removal of content from publication and blocking of access"; before it was amended by Article 93 of Law No. 6518 its heading had been "Removal of content from publication and right of reply". Today, in the official text of Law No. 5651, there is not a single paragraph of text under Article 9. The full state of the article in the text is as follows:

ARTICLE 9- (Amended: 6/2/2014-6518/Art. 93)
(Annulled by the judgment of the Constitutional Court dated
 11/10/2023, E.: 2020/76; K.: 2023/172)

(unofficial translation)

The entry in the Law's table of entry into force confirms this: "Judgment of the Constitutional Court dated 11/10/2023, E: 2020/76, K: 2023/172 — Articles 8, 9 — Nine months after the publication of the judgment in the Official Gazette (10/10/2024)". The article has therefore ceased to be in force in its entirety as of 10/10/2024, and no new provision has been put in its place.

• The application periods in Article 9 (24 hours, 48 hours, two days) — since there is no provision, there are no periods either.
• The procedure in Article 9 for applying to the criminal judgeship of peace.
• The URL-based blocking principle contained in Article 9. (The URL principle continues to live on separately and independently in Article 8(17), Article 8-A(3) and Article 9-A(4).)
• The provision in Article 9 for applying "by the warning method first to the content provider and, if no result is obtained, to the hosting provider". By contrast, the definition of the "warning method" still stands in Article 2(1)(r) — the definition exists, the provision that made it work does not.
• The paragraph on the removal of the association with search engines. Because the text of that paragraph was annulled and taken out of the Law, it cannot be reproduced verbatim from today's official text.

The annulment has also left a problem of cross-references: other articles of the Law still refer to Article 9. Article 5(2) speaks of the hosting provider's removal obligation "where it is put on notice in accordance with Articles 8 and 9 of this Law"; Article 8(15) says "a decision of a judge given under Articles 9 and 9/A"; Additional Article 4(3) and Additional Article 4(9) also refer to Article 9. Those references have today lost their subject matter.

The neighbouring provision still standing: Article 9/A of Law No. 5651

The provision unaffected by the annulment, and the one that actually operates today, is Article 9/A — blocking of access to content by reason of privacy of private life (Added: 6/2/2014-6518/Art. 94). Its scope, however, is narrow: it answers only an allegation of infringement of the privacy of private life. Requests such as "this story bothers me", "it is an old matter, it should no longer be visible" or "it should not come up in search results" do not fall within the scope of that article.

Article 9/A(1) and (2) read verbatim as follows (unofficial translation): "(1) Persons claiming that the privacy of their private life has been infringed by reason of the content of a publication made on the internet may apply directly to the Authority and request the application of the measure of blocking access to the content. (2) The request so made shall include the full address (URL) of the publication causing the infringement of the right, an explanation of the respects in which the right has been infringed, and information proving identity. Where any of this information is missing, the request shall not be processed." Paragraph 4 limits the scope of the blocking: "The blocking of access shall be applied by way of blocking access to the content (in the form of a URL) as regards the publication, part, section, image or video infringing the privacy of private life." Note this: the "blocking of the entire site" exception found in Article 8(17) and Article 8-A(3) does not exist in Article 9/A.

The periods in Article 9/A

From the publisher's point of view there are three points of defence. First, paragraph 4: the blocking must be limited to the URL and the relevant image or video. Second, paragraph 5: if the applicant does not go to the judge within 24 hours and the judge does not announce a decision within 48 hours, the measure lapses of its own accord. Third, paragraph 7: "Where the content subject to the blocking of access has been removed from publication, the judge's decision becomes void of its own accord." In addition, under paragraph 6 the President may challenge the judge's decision by way of objection under the provisions of Law No. 5271.

The data protection dimension: Law No. 6698

The second ground in the "right to be forgotten" debate is Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698. The term does not appear in that law either; but erasure, destruction and anonymisation and the rights of the data subject are regulated in it.

Article 7 — erasure, destruction or anonymisation

The article is headed "Erasure, destruction or anonymisation of personal data". Paragraph 1 verbatim (unofficial translation): "Personal data which has been processed in accordance with the provisions of this Law and other relevant laws shall nevertheless be erased, destroyed or anonymised by the data controller, of its own motion or upon the request of the data subject, where the reasons requiring its processing have ceased to exist." Paragraph 2: "Provisions in other laws relating to the erasure, destruction or anonymisation of personal data are reserved." Paragraph 3 leaves the procedures and principles to a regulation. The key phrase here is "where the reasons requiring its processing have ceased to exist"; the person making the request has to show that, and simply saying "I do not want it" does not set Article 7 in motion.

Article 11 — rights of the data subject

The article is headed "Rights of the data subject" and paragraph 1 opens: "Everyone has the right, by applying to the data controller, in relation to themselves;" — followed by the subparagraphs below, the paragraph closing with the words "to those rights". Note two things as you read: subparagraph (e) ties the erasure request directly to the conditions in Article 7, that is, it does not give an unconditional right of erasure; and there is no subparagraph in the list reading "removal from a search engine" or "removal from the archive".

• a) to learn whether personal data is being processed,
• b) to request information about it, where personal data has been processed,
• c) to learn the purpose of the processing of personal data and whether it is used in accordance with that purpose,
• ç) to know the third parties in the country or abroad to whom personal data is transferred,
• d) to request the rectification of personal data where it has been processed incompletely or incorrectly,
• e) to request the erasure or destruction of personal data within the framework of the conditions laid down in Article 7,
• f) to request that the operations carried out under subparagraphs (d) and (e) be notified to the third parties to whom the personal data has been transferred,
• g) to object to a result arising against the person themselves through the analysis of the processed data exclusively by automated systems,
• ğ) to claim compensation for the damage where the person suffers damage by reason of the unlawful processing of personal data,

Application and complaint periods — Articles 13 and 14

Under Article 13(1) the data subject conveys their requests to the data controller in writing or by such other methods as the Board may determine. Article 13(2) verbatim (unofficial translation): "The data controller shall conclude the requests contained in the application, according to the nature of the request, in the shortest time and within thirty days at the latest, free of charge." Under Article 13(3) the data controller accepts the request or rejects it giving reasons, and notifies its answer in writing or electronically.

Under Article 14(1), where the application is rejected, the answer is found insufficient or no answer is given in time, the data subject may complain to the Board within thirty days of learning of the answer and in any event within sixty days of the date of application. Article 14(2): "Recourse may not be had to complaint without exhausting the application route under Article 13." Article 14(3) says: "The right of those whose personality rights have been infringed to claim compensation under the general provisions is reserved."

Article 28 of Law No. 6698 — the freedom of expression exception

Article 28(1)(c) of Law No. 6698 reads verbatim (unofficial translation): "The processing of personal data for artistic, historical, literary or scientific purposes, or within the scope of freedom of expression, provided that it does not infringe national defence, national security, public security, public order, economic security, privacy of private life or personality rights, and does not constitute an offence." In that case the provisions of the Law do not apply.

When a request to remove an archived story arrives

As matters stand today, the grounds the person making the request can advance are limited to the following:

• Article 9/A of Law No. 5651 — only where there is an allegation of infringement of the privacy of private life; direct application to BTK, URL-based, with the 24/48 hour periods.
• Article 8 of Law No. 5651 — where the content falls within the scope of a catalogue offence; this is not a personality-rights route but a criminal procedure route.
• Article 11(1)(e) together with Article 7 of Law No. 6698 — where the reasons requiring the processing of the personal data have ceased to exist; application to the data controller, answer within 30 days.
• The right of reply and correction under Press Law No. 5187 — this secures not the removal of the content but the publication of a correction text. For how it works, see our model petition for a reply and correction text.
• The general provisions — proceedings before a civil court under the Civil Code and the Code of Obligations. Once a court decision arrives, the argument is over.

What cannot be advanced is this: the accelerated removal procedure based on Article 9 of Law No. 5651 (the article has been annulled); a request based on the text of Law No. 5651 to "remove the association from a search engine" (there is no such provision in the Law); an unconditional erasure request based on Law No. 6698 (the conditions of Article 7 are required); and an independent statutory ground headed "right to be forgotten" (there is none in the legislation).

Flow for handling a request

REQUEST TO REMOVE AN ARCHIVED STORY — ASSESSMENT FLOW

1. PUT THE REQUEST ON RECORD
   [ ] Date and time of arrival
   [ ] Identity of the person making the request and proof document
   [ ] The FULL URL complained of (one by one)
   [ ] The legal ground relied on (with the article number)

2. CLASSIFY THE GROUND
   [ ] Is there a court/judge's decision? -> Comply with it, mind
       the period (Art. 8(5): 4 hours)
   [ ] Is it a BTK notification?          -> Check whether it falls
       within Art. 9/A
   [ ] Only "right to be forgotten"?      -> Ask for a concrete
       provision
   [ ] "Pursuant to Art. 9 of Law No. 5651"? -> The article has been
       annulled (Constitutional Court 11/10/2023, E.2020/76,
       K.2023/172; effective 10/10/2024)
   [ ] Art. 11(1)(e) of Law No. 6698?     -> Answer within 30 days

3. EXAMINE THE CONTENT
   [ ] Is the story still accurate? Has there since been an
       acquittal or a decision not to prosecute?
   [ ] Do the reasons requiring the processing of personal data
       still subsist?
   [ ] Is there an image/video infringing the privacy of private
       life?
   [ ] Is the identity of a child or a victim disclosed?

4. DECIDE AND ANSWER IN WRITING
   [ ] Accept: remove / update the content / add an explanatory note
   [ ] Partial acceptance: remove only the relevant image or
       paragraph
   [ ] Reject: reject GIVING REASONS, as required by Art. 13(3) of
       Law No. 6698
   [ ] Notify the answer in writing or electronically and keep the
       record of it

5. PUT THE ARCHIVE ON RECORD
   [ ] When, at which URL, and what change did you make?
   [ ] Show the date of the change on the content itself
       (Law No. 5187, Art. 4: update dates are to be stated)

For this flow to work, your publishing system must offer URL-based archive management, content version history and display of the update date. To assess all incoming requests within the same framework, keep our legal compliance checklist for internet news sites and our article on which law applies to which type of publication beside you. On the infrastructure side, these features come ready in the KEYDAL news publishing software.

What we cannot tell you

This article conveys only what follows from the texts of the laws. The scope of the concept of the "right to be forgotten", the circumstances in which an archived story will be removed, and whether the passing of time is on its own sufficient, are shaped largely by judicial decisions. Because we do not have a compilation of case law to hand, we make no claim here of the kind "in these circumstances a court will decide as follows". As regards a concrete request that reaches you, the person who has to make that assessment is your lawyer.