The draft law amending Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed Through Such Publications, which aims to reorganise the application and protection mechanisms available to individuals whose personal rights are violated through publications on the internet, was submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye on 27 November 2025.
The draft not only seeks to fill the normative gap that arose following the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision rendered in 2023 but also introduces a new approach that aims to establish a balance between legal certainty, clarity, proportionality and fundamental rights in interventions concerning personal rights. As emphasised in the general preamble of the draft law (pp. 8–10), the protection of individuals’ material and moral integrity and the freedom of expression must be assessed together, and it is necessary to remedy violations committed in the digital environment by means of rapid, effective and proportionate tools.
The regulations introduced by the draft can be considered under the following headings:
- Re-definition of Basic Concepts
With the draft amendment, certain concepts set out in the Definitions section of the Law are updated and the aim is to eliminate ambiguities encountered in practice.
The concept of “removal of content” is rephrased in the draft as “removal of content from the internet environment”, thereby clearly defining the scope of the technical implementation. This definition shows that the content removal process refers to an operation that results in the actual removal of the content from the digital environment, not merely in the reduction of its visibility, and it seeks to eliminate inconsistencies arising in particular from the different technical practices of international platforms.
The “warning method” is expanded to cover not only the application of the relevant person, but also notifications made by any person or institution alleging the existence of a rights violation. As stated in the general preamble, this regulation is envisaged in order to facilitate individuals’ access to legal remedies and to ensure that allegations are quickly communicated to platforms.
- Making the Measure of Taking Content Offline “Reversible”
Under the draft, where the measure of taking the content offline is implemented, the content is to be removed in a way that allows it to be “reinstated when necessary”. This approach is considered to be in line with the principle of proportionality underlined in the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision, as it responds to criticisms that the intervention should be reversible and that the complete elimination of the content should not be viewed as an inevitable consequence.
For digital platforms, this regulation requires both the strengthening of technical storage (archiving) infrastructures and the creation of operational processes that will allow the removed content to be re-uploaded. In the general preamble, it is stated that, taking into account the frequency and impact of violations occurring in the digital environment, such a flexible system is necessary both for the protection of individuals’ rights and for preventing the unnecessary restriction of freedom of expression.
- Re-regulation of the Application Procedure and the Framework for Judicial Review
In place of the provision titled “Removal of Content and Blocking of Access” annulled by the Constitutional Court, the draft introduces a new regulation under the heading “Violation of Personal Rights”.
Accordingly, persons alleging that their personal rights have been violated may apply to the criminal judgeship of peace and request the removal of the content from the internet environment, the blocking of access, or the simultaneous implementation of both measures.
The remedy is re-structured in line with the current systematic of the Law, thereby establishing a more clear framework intended to reduce discrepancies between the practices of different judgeships. As also stated in the general preamble, the objective is to ensure the effective use of legal remedies and to obtain rapid results.
- Introduction of the “Prima Facie Violation” Criterion and the Possibility of Rendering a Decision Within 24 Hours
One of the most significant innovations in the draft is that the criminal judgeships of peace may, “without the need for detailed examination”, render a decision within 24 hours in cases where the violation is prima facie apparent.
This regulation constitutes an emergency intervention mechanism for the protection of personal rights, taking into account that violations in the digital environment spread rapidly and have a high impact. As reflected in the general preamble, this approach is designed to enable the judge to act swiftly, particularly in cases where delay may cause irreparable harm.
Where the violation is not prima facie apparent, the application will be rejected, thereby preventing the process from leading to arbitrary practices.
- Introduction of a Protection Mechanism Parallel to the Right to be Forgotten
The draft provides that, upon request by individuals whose personal rights have been violated, the judge may decide that their names shall not be associated with the URLs subject to the violation.
Where such a decision is rendered, the judge will also determine which search engines are to be notified.
This regulation establishes a protection similar to the right to be forgotten shaped by the Court of Justice of the European Union’s “Google Spain” judgment and strengthens individuals’ control over the content associated with their names in the digital environment. In the general preamble, particular emphasis is placed on the need to protect individuals’ reputations and to limit the unlimited sphere of influence of digital memory.
- Strengthening the Principle of Proportionality in Blocking Access
The draft explicitly provides that decisions on blocking access must be limited solely to the content in which the violation has occurred.
However, in exceptional cases
(i) where blocking access on a URL basis is not sufficient to eliminate the violation, or
(ii) where the decision on removing the content is not complied with,
it will be possible to block access to the entire website, provided that the reasons are expressly stated.
This regulation is a natural consequence of the principle of proportionality underscored in the general preamble and aims to ensure that measures involving blocking access to entire websites are exceptional.
- Implementation of Decisions Through ESB and Finalisation Within Four Hours
According to the draft, decisions rendered by the criminal judgeships of peace will be sent directly to the Association of Access Providers (ESB) and will be transmitted by ESB to the relevant access providers as well as hosting and content providers.
The requirement that the decision be implemented within four hours at the latest aims to enhance the effectiveness of judicial processes regarding the protection of personal rights.
This regulation represents the practical reflection of the objective, stated in the general preamble, “to prevent the irreparable harm caused by delay”.
- Explicit Regulation of the Possibility of Hearing the Parties
Under the draft, it is explicitly regulated that the judge or the authority examining the objection may, where deemed necessary, hear the parties.
This provision strengthens both the applicant’s right to an effective remedy and the content providers’ opportunity to express their objections concerning freedom of expression. In the general preamble, it is also emphasised that the intervention should be implemented in a proportionate manner and in a way that takes into account the interests of the parties.
In light of all these points, the draft law amending Law No. 5651 offers a holistic approach that considers, together, content management on digital platforms, the protection of personal rights, rapid judicial intervention and technical feasibility.
The regulations envisaged in the draft aim to ensure that digital content leading to widespread violations of personal rights is rapidly brought under control, while at the same time establishing a framework consistent with the principle of proportionality to protect freedom of expression from undue interference.
If the regulations enter into force:
- Digital platforms will need to renew their infrastructures for content removal and storage,
- Search engines will need to develop compliance mechanisms for the new notification processes,
- ESB will need to strengthen its technical and operational capacity, and
- Criminal judgeships of peace will need to establish a more systematic decision-making mechanism.
For detailed information and professional support during the compliance process, feel free to contact us.
This Legal Alert has been prepared for general information purposes only on current legal issues, and the evaluations contained in this Legal Alert do not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. It is not possible to impose any liability on SRP-Legal Law Office due to the content of this Legal Alert. It is recommended to obtain the opinion of a legal advisor regarding your questions and enquires within the scope of this Legal Alert.
