Removing Content From the Internet and Blocking Access: A 2026 Legal Application Guide

What is the difference between removing internet content and blocking access?

Removing the content at its source

Removing content means that a news item, article, image or other data is taken down by the content provider or hosting provider. If the content has been removed from the platform entirely, the publication at that source can ordinarily no longer be accessed. However, copies on other websites, screenshots, archives or search caches are not deemed to have been deleted automatically. Separate action may be needed for republications at multiple URLs.

Blocking access to a specific URL or site

Blocking access means restricting the internet connection by particular technical methods. As a rule, this measure does not delete the data at its source. Content blocked in Türkiye may remain accessible in other countries. A measure targeting a URL and a measure covering a domain name or an entire site do not carry the same weight. The statutory basis, necessity and proportionality must be examined separately; where possible, the specific content creating the violation should be targeted.

Removal from search results and the right to be forgotten

A search engine's not listing a particular link in a search made with a person's first name and surname is called removal from search results or delisting. This solution may not eliminate the news source. Removal of a news archive, blocking of access to a URL and a link not appearing in a name search are not interchangeable results. The balance between personal data law and freedom of expression and the press is decisive on this route.

Correction and reply, retraction, compensation and criminal investigation

For content on an internet news site that is untrue or violates a person's honor and dignity, a correction and reply may be requested under Article 14 of the Press Law No. 5187. Depending on the specific conditions, prevention or cessation of the attack under Articles 24-25 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), compensation under Articles 49 and 58 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) and, if there are elements of an offense, an application to the chief public prosecutor's office come into play. Filing a criminal complaint does not, by itself, automatically result in the content being removed or access being blocked.

Which provisions of Law No. 5651 apply in 2026?

Why is the Constitutional Court's annulment of Article 9 important?

By its decision E.2020/76, K.2023/172 of October 11, 2023, the Constitutional Court annulled Article 9 of Law No. 5651. The decision was published in the Official Gazette of January 10, 2024; after a nine-month postponement, the annulment entered into force on October 10, 2024. The system in the former text of the article, under which a person alleging a violation of personality rights went directly to the criminal judgeship of peace and a decision was given within 24 hours, can no longer be cited as a current route of application. [1] [2]

This annulment decision does not mean that all unlawful publications on the internet are left unprotected. Routes provided under other laws and under the provisions of Law No. 5651 that remain in force, with different conditions, continue. However, a new access block should not be requested on the basis of the annulled Article 9 without a different legal basis. The focus of the Constitutional Court's criticism has been the inadequacy of guarantees for freedom of expression and of the press, the reasoning of decisions and the insufficient balancing of conflicting rights.

The effect of Law No. 7590 of July 31, 2026

By Law No. 7590, adopted on July 24, 2026 and published in Official Gazette No. 33326 of July 31, 2026, the institutional duty and authority expressions in some provisions of Law No. 5651 were amended. In the current law, the relevant "President" refers to the head of the Cyber Security Presidency (Siber Güvenlik Başkanı); the application authorities in sections such as Article 9/A are read within the framework of this new institutional arrangement. References to BTK or TİB in older texts are not by themselves sufficient to identify the current authority. Law No. 7590 has not reinstated Article 9. [2] [3]

Social network amendments to enter into force on November 1, 2026

Some amendments made by Law No. 7578 to additional Article 4 of Law No. 5651 and additional Article 5 on gaming platforms will enter into force on November 1, 2026. These include provisions requiring social network providers of a certain scale to give a reasoned reply to user applications within 48 hours, and provisions on child users, parental controls and the implementation of certain urgent decisions. These new rules, which had not yet entered into force as of October 25, 2026, should not be used as the legal basis of an application today. The version to be applied should be checked according to the date of the application and of the decision. [2] [4]

Who is responsible for which content on the internet?

Content provider, hosting provider, access provider and social network provider

The main categories of responsibility are regulated in Article 2 and following of Law No. 5651. A content provider is the person who produces or presents the data to users. A hosting provider is the person who provides the systems on which content is hosted. An access provider offers users the means of connecting to the internet. A social network provider may, in addition, be subject to obligations within the framework of the special definition in the law and the conditions in additional Article 4.

The functions of the author of a news item, the company operating the newspaper, the organization providing server services and the internet service provider are not the same. To remedy the violation, it is necessary to apply to the right addressee, with the right content address and the right legal request. For example, an access provider alone cannot delete the text of a news item; a social media platform, on the other hand, may have tools to remove a post within its own service or limit its visibility.

The position of collective use providers and internet cafés

Hotels, cafés, educational institutions and other businesses that offer internet use for a limited time at workplaces are assessed separately under the definition of collective use provider in Law No. 5651. Collective internet use for commercial purposes may carry special obligations. That a connection is provided from a particular business does not mean that the business is the content provider or the author of every post made over the internet. Record retention and lawful information sharing should be examined within the limits of legislation and the protection of personal data.

Technical differences between domain name, IP and URL blocking

Blocking by domain name refers to interference with the resolution of the internet domain name or with access to that address; IP-based blocking refers to a restriction aimed at the technical network address; and URL-based blocking refers to targeting a specific page or file address. Limiting access of other users or services that have no connection with the content may raise a problem in terms of the proportionality of the interference. The use of more intrusive technical methods such as deep packet inspection requires separate assessment within the framework of statutory authority, technical necessity and fundamental rights. The legal purpose and the technical result of a measure must be proportionate to one another.

The evidentiary value of internet identity and IP address

An IP address is a technical network identifier; by itself it is not the definitive identity of the natural person who made the publication. The possibilities of dynamic addresses, shared connections, network address translation, shared devices and incorrect time records must be assessed. For identification and criminal liability, it may be necessary to examine the IP, timestamp, port, provider records and other evidence together. Investigating personal information by unlawful methods or exposing it over the internet may itself cause a violation of rights.

Which application route should be considered for which violation?

How is removal of internet content requested for a violation of personality rights?

Prevention or cessation of the attack under TMK Art. 24 and Art. 25

A person's honor and reputation, private life, name, image and other personality values are protected by law. While TMK Art. 24 provides protection against an unlawful attack on personality rights, Art. 25 regulates prevention of the threat of an attack, cessation of a continuing attack, and a declaration of the unlawfulness of an attack whose effects continue even if it has ended. Depending on the conditions, notification of the decision to third parties or its publication may also be requested.

In a request directed at internet content, it must be shown by which specific expressions of the publication it unlawfully interferes with personality rights, the relevant URL, the responsible person and the specific interference requested. TMK Arts. 24-25 do not automatically restore all the procedures and 24-hour time limits of the annulled Article 9 of Law No. 5651. The court's jurisdiction, procedure, notification and enforcement of the decision are determined by the nature of the specific action and request.

When can an interim injunction be requested?

Articles 389 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) may allow an interim injunction where obtaining the right would become considerably more difficult or serious harm would arise from delay. In a request made for an internet publication, the scope of the measure, the need for provisionality, prima facie proof, security, hearing the other side and the gravity of the interference with freedom of expression are assessed together.

A request for an injunction cannot automatically be framed as stopping the publication altogether or blocking access to the website as a whole. It must be explained why targeting the specific sentence, image, video segment or URL causing the violation is proportionate in terms of the public interest in the news item and the publisher's right of defense. The time limit for requesting enforcement of the injunction under HMK Art. 393 and the supplementary obligations under Art. 397 must be followed separately according to the specific decision.

An interim injunction is not a final judgment

An interim injunction does not mean that the merits of the dispute over the contested content have been decided conclusively. The reasoning and extent of the injunction may be changed, lifted or, depending on the conditions, continued at later stages of the proceedings. The specific decision should be relied on as to the enforceability, addressee, notification and enforcement of an injunction; a provisional protection order should not be presented as final proof of being in the right.

Claims for non-pecuniary and pecuniary compensation

If an unlawful publication has harmed personality values, non-pecuniary compensation under TBK Art. 58 and, if the conditions are met, pecuniary damages under TBK Art. 49 may be requested. The amount of compensation depends on the gravity and spread of the publication, the concrete harm, fault and the causal link. Even if the content was removed earlier, it cannot be said that the right to sue for harm already incurred automatically falls away. A separate assessment must be made of the preclusive period and limitation according to the type of claim and the date of the incident.

How does an application under Law No. 5651 Art. 9/A on the confidentiality of private life work?

Subject of the application and information required

Article 9/A of Law No. 5651 regulates a separate and special procedure for blocking access to internet content that a person claims violates the confidentiality of their private life. The application must contain the full URL of the publication causing the violation, the respects in which the violation interferes with private life, and information suitable for verifying identity. An incomplete application may not be processed. Because of the 2026 amendments, one should proceed through the "Presidency" and the competent application channel under the current law. [2] [3]

Whether something is of a private-life nature is not determined solely by the discomfort of the person published about. Whether the image or information is intimate, the person's consent, the purpose of publication, the public interest, the person's degree of public exposure and the scope of the publication are important. Although a violation of private life is a subtype of a violation of personality rights, not every statement damaging to reputation is a violation of private life within the meaning of Art. 9/A.

What do four hours, twenty-four hours and forty-eight hours mean?

Under the procedure in Art. 9/A, the measure notified by the Presidency to the Union is to be carried out by access providers immediately and at the latest within four hours. The person requesting blocking of access must submit the request to the decision of the criminal judge of peace within twenty-four hours of the application. The judge announces the decision within forty-eight hours at the latest; if approval is not obtained under the statutory conditions, the provisional measure lapses automatically. Retaining written/digital records of the application and the decision is important for monitoring the time limits. [2]

The law also provides a mechanism of ex officio measures and judicial approval in separate cases where delay would be prejudicial to the confidentiality of private life. These different procedures must not be confused with one another and the competent authority must be identified correctly.

If the content has been published in another country

That content violating private life is hosted on a foreign server does not mean that Turkish law cannot be applied at all. However, a national access block and global deletion of the content are different outcomes. The platform's legal addressee, its domicile, foreign law and the possibility of international notification/enforcement are assessed separately.

Offenses under Law No. 5651 Art. 8 and access blocking

The scope of the catalog offenses should not be interpreted broadly

Article 8 of Law No. 5651 is a procedure specific to publications as to whose content there are sufficient grounds for suspicion that it constitutes certain offenses. Within this scope are, under the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), incitement to suicide (Art. 84), sexual abuse of children (Art. 103/1), facilitating the use of narcotic or stimulant substances (Art. 190), supplying substances dangerous to health (Art. 194), obscenity (Art. 226), prostitution (Art. 227), providing a place and means for gambling (Art. 228), and certain offenses under Law No. 5816, Law No. 7258 and Article 27/1-2 of Law No. 2937 on State Intelligence Services and the National Intelligence Organization. The catalog articles and their application over time should be assessed on the basis of the current text of the law. [2]

Insult, slander, damage to commercial reputation or the falsity of a news item is not, by itself, a ground for application listed in the Law No. 5651 Art. 8 catalog. For these facts, depending on the conditions, reliance must be placed on the TMK, TBK, the Press Law, KVKK or the relevant criminal provisions.

Competent authority, proportionality and enforcement of the decision

The authority to decide under Art. 8 varies according to the investigation, prosecution and the administrative conditions listed in the law. The scope of the decision, its enforcement and the route of objection are assessed separately. Some expressions in the law have been affected by the Constitutional Court's annulment decision; all the content-removal powers of the earlier version cannot be read as continuing unchanged today. The act with which the publisher is confronted must be clearly identified.

Law No. 5651 Art. 8/A: Urgent measure for public safety

Article 8/A regulates the exceptional authority provided, for the reasons shown in the law such as the right to life, the safety of persons' life and property, national security, public order, prevention of the commission of offenses or protection of public health and, if the conditions are met, in cases where delay would be prejudicial. Certain administrative decisions given under the procedure in the law are submitted to the approval of the criminal judge of peace within twenty-four hours, and if the judge does not decide within forty-eight hours, the measure lapses. In terms of method, the distinction between a URL-focused intervention and, in cases of necessity, an intervention directed at the whole site is observed. [2]

A person's characterizing the publication of negative news about themselves as a danger to public order does not make Art. 8/A directly applicable. The authority of the administration is limited by the principles of legality and proportionality. The addressees of such decisions may also explore routes of application in terms of enforcement, reasoning, objection and violation of rights.

How is social media content removed and what is the platform's responsibility?

How should a notice to the platform be prepared?

Facebook, Instagram, X, YouTube, TikTok and other platforms may use their own complaint, privacy, fake account, copyright and harassment notice systems. The platform's representative or notice address in Türkiye should be verified from the official record for the specific service; a uniform application channel or a guaranteed removal time should not be attributed to different platforms.

The application should state the permanent link to the content at issue, the date of the post, the part creating the violation, the legal grounds of the violation, any statement that consent was not given, and the solution requested. The whole of the alleged content should not be re-shared; intimate images should be reported only through the necessary secure channel. A platform application and a judicial application are legally separate stages.

Additional Article 4 of Law No. 5651 and the 2026 amendments

Additional Article 4 contains provisions on the representation, application, reporting, implementation of court decisions and, under certain conditions, liability for compensation of social network providers. For example, failure to remove content, or to block access to it, within 24 hours despite notification of content whose unlawfulness has been established by a judge's or court's decision may, under the conditions of the relevant provision, bring into play the social network provider's liability for the damage incurred. This route of compensation does not mean an obligation to remove immediately and automatically upon every complaint. [2]

The new additional Article 4/3, which will enter into force on November 1, 2026, imposes on social network providers at the specified access threshold the obligation to give a reasoned positive or negative reply within 48 hours at the latest to applications made by persons. It should not be claimed that this is in force today; the legislation to be applied should be chosen according to the date of the specific application. [4]

Fake accounts, impersonation profiles and continuous repeat publication

Where a fake account is opened with a person's name and photograph, an intimate image is re-uploaded, or the same allegation is copied to different URLs, the evidence concerning the account, the content and the impersonated identity must be kept separate. The URL of each post, the date/time record, the profile link and the platform's reply letters should be kept. One should not proceed on the assumption that an access-block decision previously obtained applies automatically to new URLs under every legal regime.

Deletion of personal data and the right to be forgotten

Application to the data controller under KVKK

Under Articles 7, 11 and 13 of the Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698, if the conditions for processing personal data have ceased to exist, the data subject may request deletion, destruction or anonymization. The data controller must conclude the request within thirty days at the latest. However, if the conditions for data processing continue, a rejection may be reasoned. With regard to news publications and personal data processing, freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the statutory exceptions must be assessed separately. [5] [6]

Time limits for a complaint to the Personal Data Protection Board

For a complaint to the Personal Data Protection Board, an application to the data controller must first be made. In the event of a rejection of the reply or its inadequacy, or failure to reply within thirty days, the Board can be approached. As a rule, thirty days from the date of the reply and in any case a limit of sixty days from the date of the first application are observed. A complaint to the Board and a claim for compensation based on the general provisions are not the same body; the distinction of time limit and authority must be maintained. [6]

Delisting a first-name and surname result from a search engine

The Personal Data Protection Board's decision No. 2020/481 of June 23, 2020 accepts that applications for delisting links appearing in searches made with persons' names may be examined within the scope of the right to be forgotten. First the search engine is assessed as a data controller and the conditions of a proper application; then the circumstances of the specific case are investigated. Removal of the result does not show that the source of the news item has been removed. [7]

Does every negative news item give rise to the right to be forgotten?

No. The time that has passed since publication, the currency and accuracy of the data, the person's status as a public figure, the public interest in the news item, freedom of expression and of the press, the effect on the person's life, the sensitivity of the information and new developments concerning the same incident are assessed. The present consequences of a criminal investigation, an acquittal decision or a closed incident in a person's past must be explained concretely. A mere statement "it disturbs me" is not sufficient for removal in every case.

Right of reply and correction on an internet news site

The two-month application period under Press Law Art. 14

Under Press Law No. 5187 Art. 14, if a periodical publication has published something that violates a person's honor and dignity or is untrue concerning them, the injured person may send an appropriate correction and reply text within two months of the date of publication. The text must not contain elements of an offense, must not violate the legally protected rights of third parties and must comply with the length limits in the law. The status of an internet news site must exist in the specific case; not every social media account has this status automatically. [8]

The internet news site's one-day obligation and application to the judgeship

On an internet news site, the responsible editor must, within one day at the latest of the date on which a correction and reply text complying with the law is received, publish it in connection with the relevant publication, in the same font size and with the visibility conditions required by law. If the publication has been removed or access to it has been blocked, the correction and reply text is published for one week, with the first 24 hours on the home page. In cases of failure to publish within the statutory period or publication contrary to the law, a route of application to the criminal judge of peace is provided within 15 days of the end of the relevant period or of the contrary publication. This procedure is not the same as the annulled application under Law No. 5651 Art. 9. [8]

Publications involving copyright, trademark, image and trade secrets

For photographs, videos, music, software, book extracts, logos or other content used without permission, authorship and ownership of rights must first be documented. Private-law claims under the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works No. 5846, the platform's copyright notice and appropriate judicial measures are assessed separately. The automatic deletion of all publications cannot be requested without examining whether the use rests on quotation, permission, license, exception or another lawful reason.

Trademark infringement and legitimate consumer criticism are not the same. It is not always possible to remove a competitor company's negative news item or review merely on the ground that it harms commercial reputation. A request appropriate to the nature of the incident should be framed with regard to the Industrial Property Law No. 6769, the provisions on unfair competition and the protection of personality rights. In the disclosure of trade secrets, the secret nature of the information, how it was obtained and the concrete risk arising from the publication are important.

How is evidence preserved before a publication is removed?

URL, date, content and screen recording should be kept together

Removal of the publication from the internet may also cause the evidence to be lost. For this reason, before the application, the full URL, date/time, page title, the whole visible content, the account that made the post, the comments connected with the publication and, if necessary, audio/video recordings should be preserved consistently. A screenshot alone does not prove the first publication date of the content or the real perpetrator in every case.

Application for, and evidentiary value of, a notary's e-verification

For the electronic verification service, it may be necessary to make a verification application for the accessible URL using the current e-service channel of the Union of Turkish Notaries, to have the application record received and to complete the notarial act. The issuance of an application number and the notarial certification are not the same stage. The application method, fee and technical support conditions should be verified from the Union of Turkish Notaries' official channel at the time of the act.

Limits of a notary's e-verification

The Union of Turkish Notaries' electronic verification applications may help document the appearance of specific internet content at the time of verification. However, a notarial verification does not definitively determine the unlawfulness of the content, who made the post or that an offense was committed. Electronic verification and the court's assessment of evidence are different acts. For closed groups within a platform, deleted content, dynamic feeds or pages requiring login, the technical limits of the method must be assessed separately.

Avoiding a violation of rights while preserving evidence

Another person's account must not be accessed without permission, secret or intimate data must not be spread to the public again, and unverified identities must not be declared guilty. Where needed, court preservation of evidence, public prosecutor's office acts or the platform's preservation mechanisms are assessed lawfully. Personal data are processed in the application only to the extent necessary; unnecessary disclosure of information about persons who are not parties to the case is avoided.

Practical roadmap for a request to remove or block content

1. Classify the violation: Write separately the possibilities of personality rights, private life, catalog offense, data deletion, copyright, press correction or public safety.
2. Preserve the evidence: Keep the full URL and date, screen recording, the visible account of the poster, any notarial verification, correspondence and platform notices.
3. Find the right addressee: Distinguish the content provider, social network provider, search engine, data controller, news site or the competent judicial/administrative authority.
4. Frame the request narrowly and clearly: Instead of assuming that the whole website will be closed, give reasons for which measure is required for which URL and which sentence/image.
5. Calculate the statutory time limits: There are different time limits for Art. 9/A, KVKK and Law No. 5187; and separate obligations for enforcement of an interim injunction and for the main action.
6. Document the outcome of the application: Follow the delivery and notification records, the platform's reply, the date on which the decision was sent, the status of compliance and new copy URLs.
7. Complete the post-decision stage: Separately verify the final legal result in each of the removal, delisting, correction, compensation and criminal applications.

Documents to check before making a legal request

• The full internet address or addresses subject to the violation;
• The current screenshot of the publication and a date and time record;
• An explanation of which part of the news item, photograph, video or comment constitutes the violation;
• Documents showing that the person concerned is the right holder and documents necessary for the application;
• Records of the application to the platform or data controller and of delivery/reply;
• Earlier and later versions of the content, content changes, addresses of repeated posts;
• Any correction, acquittal, decision of non-prosecution, court decision or official record;
• Documents supporting the allegation of harm and urgency;
• Authorization documents, representation documents and only the necessary identity details.

How may a publisher or user object to an access-blocking decision?

The publisher's freedom of expression and of the press is an element that must be assessed legally as much as the reputation and private-life rights of the person named in the publication. In an access-blocking decision, the statutory basis, the authority issuing the decision, the scope of the decision, the reasoning on proportionality, the authority for objection and the time limit must be read from the specific decision. The same general time limit or the same authority does not apply to every access-blocking decision. The routes of criminal procedure, special law, administrative justice and individual application must not be confused.

The publisher may rely on documents showing that the content is true, the public interest, the currency of the news item, the person's public function, the limits of criticism and the possibility of protection by a narrower measure. Where the publication as a whole has been closed, it should be discussed whether the result could be achieved by targeting the single relevant URL. Notification of the decision to its addressee, its implementation and any later change of its scope should also be recorded.

Constitutional Court case law: Reputation, the right to be forgotten and freedom of the press

The N.B.B. decision: The currency of an old news item and personal interest

The decision of the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court of March 3, 2016, Application No. 2013/5653, N.B.B. emphasized the importance of protecting a person's moral existence in the face of old internet news items that have lost their currency. The assessment in the decision is not that every old news item must be deleted, but rather rests on the balance between the historical, social and public value of the publication and the interference the person has suffered. [9]

The Keskin Kalem pilot decision: An effective legal remedy in access blocking

In the pilot decision of October 27, 2021, Application No. 2018/14884, Keskin Kalem Yayıncılık ve Ticaret A.Ş. and Others, the Constitutional Court pointed to structural problems regarding freedom of expression and of the press and the right to an effective application in the then Article 9 procedure for blocking news on the internet. The decision shows the drawbacks of resorting to wide-ranging internet blocks without a reasoned and reviewable examination. [10]

The 2023 annulment decision: The former Article 9 cannot be used in a new application

The norm review decision E.2020/76, K.2023/172 rests on the conclusion that the system provided in the former Article 9 was inadequate in terms of legal guarantees and freedom of expression. In a new complaint of violation of personality rights after October 10, 2024, repeating the text of the former Art. 9 or its 24-hour decision procedure would therefore be a significant legal error. [1]

The most frequent mistakes and risks of loss of rights

• Relying on the annulled Law No. 5651 Art. 9: In a present-day personality rights dispute, the wrong authority and application route may be chosen.
• Treating every insult as a catalog offense under Art. 8: An Art. 8 measure cannot be taken on the basis of an act that is not in the catalog.
• Presenting every violation of reputation as a violation of private life: The special conditions of Art. 9/A are overlooked.
• Equating content deletion with an access block: Sources and copies outside Türkiye are overlooked.
• Confusing delisting from search results with deletion of the news archive: The legal requests are different.
• Taking only a screenshot: The URL, date and context of the content may be missing.
• Treating a notarial verification as conclusive evidence of an offense: The limited evidentiary function of the verification is extended excessively.
• Treating a platform's internal application as a court decision: The legal nature of the decisions and the routes of enforcement are different.
• Not assessing the public interest in the news item at all: The request may be weakened from the standpoint of freedom of the press and of expression.
• Treating the relevant time limits as one: KVKK, press correction, protection of private life and interim injunctions are subject to different time regimes.
• Applying rules not yet in force in 2026: The November 1, 2026 amendments cannot automatically be applied to an application made on October 25.
• Overlooking authority and power of representation: Authority is specifically examined for applications on behalf of a natural person, a company, an heir or a guardian.

Conclusion

In a request to remove internet content or block access, the first question should be "Why is the content unlawful?" and the second "Which authority, with what power and in what scope, can act for this violation?" An application made without answering these two questions carries the risk of relying on the wrong procedure, especially after the annulment of Article 9 of Law No. 5651. Disputes concerning confidentiality of private life, catalog offenses, public safety, personal data, copyright and personality rights are resolved by different rules. Proving the publication URL by URL, correctly calculating the statutory time limits, framing a proportionate request and checking whether the content has actually been removed after the decision are decisive for the effective protection of rights.

Frequently Asked Questions

How can a news item about me on the internet be removed?

First it is determined which right the news item violates. A reasoned application to the news site or platform; depending on the conditions, TMK Arts. 24-25, Press Law Art. 14, KVKK or other judicial routes are assessed. A new application must not be made on the basis of the annulled Law No. 5651 Art. 9.

Is Law No. 5651 Art. 9 in force in 2026?

No. The Constitutional Court's annulment decision E.2020/76, K.2023/172 took effect on October 10, 2024. Law No. 7590 has not re-regulated Art. 9.

Can one go directly to the criminal judgeship of peace over a social media post?

The former Art. 9 procedure cannot be used merely by asserting that the post violates personality rights. If there is an independent special provision in force, such as confidentiality of private life, an application can be made under its conditions. The Press Law's right of reply and correction route is also a separate application.

What should I do if my private photograph was shared without permission?

Record the full URL of the content securely, use the platform's urgent privacy notice channel and assess the conditions of an application under Law No. 5651 Art. 9/A. If there is an offense and a violation of personal data, separate routes may also exist. Do not spread the intimate content again on the pretext of collecting evidence.

Within how many hours is an access block applied for private life?

Under Law No. 5651 Art. 9/A, an implementation period for access providers of at most four hours for a properly notified measure, 24 hours for submission of the application to the judge and 48 hours for the judge to decide are provided. These are not general time limits applicable to every internet complaint.

Is a post containing an insult removed under Law No. 5651 Art. 8?

A mere allegation of insult is not among the catalog offenses of Art. 8. Depending on the conditions, protection of personality rights, platform notices and criminal law routes are assessed.

If a link is removed from a search engine, is the news item also deleted?

No. Delisting from search results in most cases affects only the visibility of the link in specific first-name and surname queries. The news item may remain accessible on the source site.

Must a certain number of years pass for the right to be forgotten?

There is no single time limit in years that applies automatically to every incident. The currency of the publication, the public interest, its accuracy, the person's social position and the interest in access to information are assessed together.

Must one go to court before applying to Google or another search engine?

For a delisting and personal data request, an application to the search engine's data controller first comes into play, depending on the applicable procedure. An application to the data controller is mandatory before a complaint to the KVKK Board; the conditions of other legal routes may differ.

Within what time is a deletion request under KVKK answered?

The data controller answers the application as a rule within 30 days at the latest. For a complaint to the Board, the time limits of 30 days from learning the reply and 60 days from the first application are observed.

How is a retraction or right of reply requested for an internet news item?

Under Press Law No. 5187 Art. 14, a text complying with the law is sent to the relevant responsible editor within two months of publication. The internet news site's obligation and the criminal judgeship of peace procedure in the event of contrary conduct are assessed separately.

Within how many days does a news site publish a correction and reply?

An internet news site is obliged to publish a correction and reply text complying with the law within one day at the latest after receiving it. Press Law No. 5187 Art. 14 applies for the other conditions.

Is it mandatory to have a notary e-verification made?

It is not absolutely mandatory for every internet dispute. However, it may be useful for documenting the content of alterable digital publications on a particular date. Unlawfulness and the identification of the perpetrator are matters the court will assess separately.

Is a site blocked in Türkiye also deleted worldwide?

No. A national access block generally affects access in Türkiye. Separate action may be needed for deletion of the source, access from abroad, copy publications and the search index.

What can be done if access to lawful content has been blocked by mistake?

The relevant objection or lifting route may be used by examining the article on which the decision is based, the authority that issued it, the time limit for application and the reasoning. The publisher's freedom of expression and of the press and the possibility of a narrower measure should be specifically discussed.

How will the November 1, 2026 amendment affect applications?

Law No. 7578 provides new obligations such as certain social network providers giving a reasoned reply within 48 hours to applications. Because this provision will enter into force on November 1, 2026, the date of the application and of the act should be taken into account in applying it.

Sources

1. Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi), norm review decision E.2020/76, K.2023/172 of October 11, 2023; Official Gazette, January 10, 2024, No. 32425. Link
2. Ministry of Justice, UYAP Legislation (Adalet Bakanlığı, UYAP Mevzuat), current consolidated text of Law No. 5651, in particular Arts. 2, 4-6/A, 8, 8/A, 9, 9/A and additional Art. 4. Link
3. Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete), issue No. 33326 of July 31, 2026; Law No. 7590. Link
4. Ministry of Justice, UYAP Legislation, entry-into-force notes of November 1, 2026 on Law No. 7578 and the amendments to additional Art. 4 of Law No. 5651. Link
5. Personal Data Protection Authority (Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurumu), Regulation on the Deletion, Destruction or Anonymization of Personal Data, Art. 12. Link
6. Personal Data Protection Authority, Right of Complaint and application time limits. Link
7. Personal Data Protection Board (Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurulu), decision No. 2020/481 of June 23, 2020: delisting of search engine results. Link
8. Official Gazette, October 18, 2022, No. 31987, internet news site provisions added to Press Law No. 5187 Art. 14 by Law No. 7418 Art. 7. Link
9. General Assembly of the Constitutional Court, N.B.B. [GK], Application No. 2013/5653, March 3, 2016. Link
10. General Assembly of the Constitutional Court, Keskin Kalem Yayıncılık ve Ticaret A.Ş. and Others [GK], Application No. 2018/14884, October 27, 2021. Link