A public institution cannot justify refusing an information request merely by writing the name of an exception provision. It must be assessed whether the request concerns an existing document or requires new research, which protected interest disclosure would affect, and whether partial access is possible. Some information requests also connect with freedom of expression when the information is necessary for public debate.
This article examines Law No. 4982 on the Right to Information (4982 sayılı Bilgi Edinme Hakkı Kanunu) and the decision in Yaman Akdeniz (2) [Plenary Assembly], Application No. 2016/6815, 15 February 2023. Not every refusal of an information request automatically amounts to a violation of freedom of expression. The statutory right of access to information and the common sphere of protection for an individual application to the Constitutional Court (AYM) must be assessed separately.
Is the right to information the same as the right of petition?
Article 74 of the Constitution and Law No. 4982 contain safeguards concerning access to information. An information request generally aims to reach information and documents that the institution holds, or must hold by virtue of its duties. Resolving an administrative problem, taking an action or assessing a general complaint may, however, be subject to a different procedure.
Using a channel such as the Presidential Communication Center (CİMER) does not mean that all requests share the same legal nature. The content of the application and the legal framework under which it is processed matter. Response periods and objection routes for an information request must not be confused with those for a petition or complaint.
Under Law No. 4982, an institution cannot be required to give an opinion on any subject, provide legal advice or carry out new research. However, disclosing an existing record in an appropriate form is not the same as conducting new research. Likewise, an institution that treats information as non-existent merely because it requires classification or access work must also justify that position.
Why were the three requests in the Yaman Akdeniz (2) decision separated?
The applicant had requested statistics on internet access blocks from the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK). The first two requests concerned numerical information that the institution had published within the system and categories it had previously used. The third request concerned information that required a more detailed classification and new work. Blocking an entire platform is addressed separately in blocking access to a social media platform and freedom of expression.
The Constitutional Court examined the applicant's academic and civil society activities, the contribution of the request to public debate and whether the information was held by the administration. It concluded that the first two requests were not of the same nature as the third. This distinction shows why a petition must be prepared clearly and in separate parts.
Direct quotation from the decision
“Finally, it must be assessed whether the requested information exists, in other words whether it is ready and available for use.”
Source of the quotation: Constitutional Court (AYM), Yaman Akdeniz (2) [Plenary Assembly], Application No. 2016/6815, 15 February 2023, § 64.
This criterion does not mean that the institution must produce new data for every request. The decision separates statistics arising from the existing system from detailed requests that require separate research and classification (§§ 64–76). The actual scope of the request matters more than the heading used.
What is the Constitutional Court's ruling?
Ruling of the Constitutional Court (AYM): The Court unanimously found a violation of freedom of expression under Article 26 of the Constitution in respect of the first and second information requests and ordered a retrial. The third request was held inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. The complaint of a trial within a reasonable time was also held inadmissible because the ordinary remedies had not been exhausted.
The decision should therefore not be presented as ordering disclosure of all the requested information. The findings of violation and of inadmissibility are separated by request. Moreover, the ruling was based on a constitutional link established through freedom of expression, not only through the name of the right to information.
In which circumstances is an information request linked to freedom of expression?
In § 53 of the decision, the Court sets out four criteria. They are assessed together and according to the circumstances of the case. Holding a particular professional title alone does not establish the link.
The purpose of the request and the public nature of the information
The information must be a necessary means for forming and expressing an opinion. The link may be shown through research, news, a report or a public debate being prepared. Abstract curiosity and a concrete need to inform the public are not the same. The public-interest character of the information also matters. The exercise of public power, the management of resources or the monitoring of interferences with rights may show this link. By contrast, a personal interest in another person's private information does not form the same constitutional basis. A person's access to their own data may, however, be connected with other rights.
The applicant's role and the availability of the information
Journalists, researchers, academics and civil society actors that inform the public can play an important role in circulating information. This role must be shown through concrete activity. In the Yaman Akdeniz (2) decision, the applicant's work on the internet and freedom of expression was therefore taken into account. Finally, the information must be ready and available. A statistic that the institution previously published in the same categories, and a detailed analysis that would have to be produced with new parameters for the applicant, do not impose the same burden. The Constitutional Court has not accepted an unlimited constitutional obligation to collect information that the administration does not hold.
How is the reasoning for a refusal reviewed?
Applying the exception to concrete information
Exceptions such as state secrets, economic interests, investigations, private life or trade secrets are examined on their own terms. That a requested document is related to an investigation does not automatically mean that every piece of information in it must remain secret for the same reason. The harm that disclosure would cause must be assessed.
In the decision, the grounds put forward by the public authorities for the first two statistical requests, namely their separate research and investigation justifications, were not found sufficient. The difference between a request for statistics and a request for the contents of an investigation file concerning specific individuals was important. This result cannot be generalised to mean that all investigation documents will be disclosed.
Partial access and separable information
If part of a document falls within an exception, the possibility of separating the disclosable part must be assessed. Article 9 of Law No. 4982 regulates this separation. Whether the remaining information can be provided after personal data or confidential parts are removed is examined on the concrete document.
Stating in the request that partial access is also sought may make the dispute clearer. However, if the applicant does not use such wording, the institution's legal obligations do not disappear automatically. The refusal must be understandable in its scope and reasoning.
What are the response, BEDK objection and lawsuit deadlines?
Under Article 11 of Law No. 4982, access to information or documents is, as a rule, provided within fifteen business days. Where information must be obtained from another unit, the opinion of another institution is needed, or several institutions are concerned, the period may be extended under the statutory conditions up to thirty business days. The extension and its reasons must be notified before the first fifteen business days have run.
A refusal may be challenged before the Access to Information Evaluation Board (Bilgi Edinme Değerlendirme Kurulu, BEDK) within fifteen days of service of the decision. The Board must decide within thirty business days. The fifteen-day objection period and the institution's fifteen-business-day response period are not the same. A lawful objection to the Board suspends the period for applying to the administrative courts.
In administrative litigation, the general period for bringing an action is sixty days under the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), unless a special provision applies. For applications left unanswered, the thirty-day implied rejection rule in Article 10 of Law No. 2577 and the conditions of the specific application must be assessed separately. The institution's response, the objection to the Board and the running of the action period must be calculated on a single timeline.
These explanations are not a personal calendar requiring an action to be filed on the same day for every application. The dates of service, application and knowledge must be determined from the documents in the file. In particular, automatically applying the old sixty-day implied-rejection rule to unanswered applications may create a risk of losing rights.
How should an effective information request be prepared?
The requested information or document must be specific as to institution, period and scope. If several requests are made separately, it is possible to track which section the institution answered. Where information previously published by the institution is requested, the earlier publication or data category may be indicated. Where no new research is requested, the link with the existing record must be expressly established.
Where a link to freedom of expression is claimed, explain which public work the information is needed for. A title alone is not enough; the relationship between the information and the planned disclosure should be shown. The request should not be expanded with unnecessary personal data or unrelated files.
The application record, the institution's answer, the service document, the BEDK objection and decision, and the judicial documents should be kept. If the grounds for refusal have changed, the change may be shown in chronological order. Against a claim that the institution does not hold the information, concrete records showing that it exists must be submitted.
How is the scope of an application to the Constitutional Court set?
An individual application concerns rights within the common sphere of protection of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. It cannot be assumed that every dispute under Law No. 4982 falls within that sphere. The criteria in the Yaman Akdeniz (2) decision are important for establishing the instrumental link between an information request and freedom of expression.
Effective ordinary remedies must be exhausted, and the general thirty-day period for an individual application must be observed. The application must clearly show the scope of the information requested, its public purpose and whether it exists, and must set out objections to the grounds for refusal. The Constitutional Court is not a body that produces new data in place of the institution, nor the first authority to decide all document requests.
For details on the subject, see our articles on qualified rights in Constitutional Court decisions and the scope of the right to an effective remedy. For the firm's work in this area, see the page on Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights applications.
Conclusion
In information access disputes, the precision of the refusal reasoning matters as much as the scope of the request. The Yaman Akdeniz (2) decision clarifies the relationship between access to existing information and a request for new research, and the intersection of a statutory right with freedom of expression. A properly prepared request and careful recording of deadlines help administrative and judicial review work effectively.
Frequently Asked Questions
Must the institution answer every question by conducting new research?
No. Access to information that exists, or that the institution must hold by virtue of its duties, is different from a request for separate research and analysis. The institution must make this distinction concrete.
Is the response period fifteen days or fifteen business days?
The general response period is fifteen business days. The fifteen-day period for an objection to the Board against a refusal is a different period. The distinction between calendar days and business days must be preserved.
Does an objection to the BEDK affect the period for bringing an action?
A lawful objection to the Board suspends the period for applying to the administrative courts. The remaining period after the decision must be calculated on the specific file, from the dates of service and of the objection.
Were all requests accepted in the Yaman Akdeniz (2) decision?
No. A violation of freedom of expression was found in respect of the first two requests; the third request was held manifestly ill-founded. The distinction between the requests must be preserved.
Can a refusal of an information request always be brought before the Constitutional Court?
Ordinary remedies, time limits, victim status and the conditions of the common sphere of protection are required. Not every statutory dispute over access to information automatically constitutes a violation of freedom of expression.
Sources and legal bases
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Articles 26 and 74; Law No. 4982 on the Right to Information, Articles 5, 7, 9, 11–13 and the exception provisions.
- Constitutional Court, Yaman Akdeniz (2) [Plenary Assembly], Application No. 2016/6815, 15 February 2023, §§ 52–76, 79–98 and the operative part; the link may require signing in.
- Annotated Law on the Right to Information in Light of BEDK Decisions, 2025 (BEDK Kararları Işığında Açıklamalı Bilgi Edinme Hakkı Kanunu, 2025), explanations of applications, responses and objections.
- Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), Articles 7 and 10 and related time-limit provisions; Law No. 6216, Articles 45–50.
- Constitutional Court, Qualified Rights: Summaries of Decisions, June 2025 (AYM, Nitelikli Haklar: Karar Özetleri, Haziran 2025), section on access to information and freedom of expression.