Freedom of expression protects the right to express thoughts and opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas. Press articles, social media posts, academic statements, works of art and public criticism may fall within this protection. Protection is not limited to words that the majority of society accepts. Disturbing and harsh criticism may also form part of democratic debate. However, there are limits for the rights of others, the prevention of violence and other legitimate aims provided for by law. [1] [2]
Imposing a sanction for an expression requires examining the context of the statement and the weight of the sanction, not only its content. Labels such as “insult,” “public order” or “institutional reputation” are not sufficient reasons on their own. Who spoke, to whom the statement was directed, what debate it contributed to, whether it contains a factual claim or a value judgment, and how it relates to any concrete danger must be explained. This guide addresses the constitutional review criteria and the remedies through actual decisions.
The constitutional scope of freedom of expression
Spoken, written and digital expression
Article 26 of the Constitution protects the expression of thought through speech, writing, images or other means. For the press, Article 28 is relevant, and for science and the arts, Article 27 is also important. Sharing content in a digital environment does not remove this protection; however, the scope of access, the permanence of the post and its reach may be taken into account in the assessment. [1]
Sharing, quoting or criticising a post does not always carry the same meaning. The text accompanying a share and the whole conversation, including earlier and later messages, must be examined. Drawing intent and meaning from a single screenshot may lead to erroneous results. On the other hand, a claim of context does not automatically neutralise an explicit threat or a personal attack in the content.
Access to information and the public function of the press
Protection does not belong to the speaker alone; society also has an interest in receiving information and opinions. The use of public resources, administrative acts, elections, the environment and social problems may therefore call for strong protection. It is also important that a person reporting facts exercises the necessary care regarding factual claims and takes into account their sources and the apparent reality.
Press freedom does not protect without limit the unnecessary exposure of private life or serious allegations that have no factual basis. News value and curiosity are not the same thing. It must be possible to explain why a personal detail in a piece of content is necessary for public debate.
How is the lawfulness of a restriction examined?
Legality and legitimate aim
The interference may take the form of a criminal conviction, an administrative or disciplinary sanction, compensation, a publication ban or an access ban. The interference must have a sufficiently precise, accessible and foreseeable legal basis. The limits provided in Articles 13 and 26 of the Constitution must be observed, and the restriction must be consistent with the requirements of a democratic social order and proportionate. [1] For the effect on freedom of expression of protective measures applied during criminal proceedings, see the article on limits of freedom of expression in judicial control and other protective measures.
The fact that a provision is written into a decision does not by itself prove that its application is lawful. A link must be established between the expression and the element the norm requires. In particular, for sanctions based on broad concepts, it must be clear which behaviour of the applicant fell within the prohibited scope and on what legal ground.
Relevant and sufficient reasoning
The court's reasoning must assess the expression as a whole and within the circumstances of the event. If the applicant's public debate, criticism, satire, quotation or factual grounds affected the outcome, it is expected that these will be examined. The fact that an expression is rough or disturbing does not make constitutional assessment unnecessary.
The reasoning may show the position of the person targeted, the extent to which the statement was disseminated and the consequences that followed. The reputation and honour of the other party are also protected. However, a balance must be struck between the means used to protect that right and the weight of the restriction on the expression.
Deterrent effect of the sanction
Even if a sentence has been deferred or the announcement of the judgment has been postponed, the possibility that it may be enforced in future can create pressure on expression. The amount of compensation, the professional impact of a disciplinary sanction and the scope of an access ban are also important. For this reason, it cannot be assumed that an interference is minor merely because “the prison sentence was not actually served” or “only a warning was given.”
The reverse is also true: the fact that a sanction has consequences in the sphere of expression does not in itself show a violation. Whether it is necessary to achieve the legitimate aim, and whether the same result could be reached by a milder method, is assessed in the concrete case.
In the academic review of the restriction regime, Çamak draws attention to reading together the safeguards in Article 13 of the Constitution and the special grounds for restriction in Article 26. Kula's study on public officials also addresses the content of the statement and the importance of public interest in a democratic society. These assessments require avoiding generalisations such as “a civil servant must remain silent on every matter” or “every word on a public matter is free.” [11] [12]
How are criticism, value judgment and insult distinguished?
A factual allegation differs from commentary
A statement such as “the municipality awarded a particular tender irregularly” and an assessment such as “this administration is unsuccessful” are not the same kind of statement. For factual allegations, the basis and the effort to verify them are important. Value judgments cannot be expected to be mathematically proven; however, even very severe evaluations must have an adequate factual context.
When preparing a defence, rather than focusing only on the dictionary meaning, the whole statement and the subject of the debate should be shown. The conduct criticised, the date of the statement, the source documents and the medium in which the expression was published are presented together. Irrelevant private-life details or words aimed only at humiliation are assessed differently.
Boundaries for public officials and politicians
The margin of tolerance may widen for criticism directed at the performance of public duties and political activity. However, the honour and reputation rights of politicians do not disappear. Whether the criticism concerns public affairs, whether it turns into a personal attack, and the context of the language used are all assessed. The categories of public official, politician and private individual should not be treated as identical in every case. The freedom of expression of military personnel within the obligation of political neutrality is addressed in the article on freedom of expression of soldiers.
Provisions such as the offence of insult under Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (TCK) and the immunity for allegations and defence under Article 128 are examined under their own conditions. Not every statement made before judicial bodies is automatically immune; its connection to the dispute and the conditions required by law are important. [3]
Application criteria from Constitutional Court and ECtHR decisions
Bekir Coşkun: political criticism and the threat of punishment
In the decision of the Plenary Assembly of the Constitutional Court in the case of Bekir Coşkun, Application No. 2014/12151, June 4, 2015, a criminal penalty and the deferment of the pronouncement of judgment applied because of a newspaper column were examined. The Court assessed the nature of the public debate, the limits of criticism directed at politicians and the effect of the threat of punishment on the columnist, and held that freedom of expression and freedom of the press had been violated. [4, §§ 61–72]
The decision shows that a harsh style does not on its own justify a sanction. However, it cannot be concluded from this that all political statements are unlimited. In an application, the whole column, its target, the public issue discussed and the effect of the sanction should be presented together.
Zübeyde Füsun Üstel and others: context and connection to violence
In the decision of the Plenary Assembly in the case of Zübeyde Füsun Üstel and Others, Application No. 2018/17635, July 26, 2019, the punishment of academics for a declaration they had signed was examined. The majority assessed the context of the concrete statements and their connection to violence, determined that the interference did not comply with the requirements of a democratic social order, and held that freedom of expression had been violated. The decision contains dissenting opinions. [5, §§ 115–139]
The Court's examination of an expression within the scope of protection does not mean that it endorses the content of that expression. The practical contribution of the decision is that a claim that a statement encourages or legitimises violence must be shown through the words used and the circumstances of the event, not through abstract labels. Academic status does not automatically exempt each expression from sanction.
Handyside: the breadth of protection is not unlimited
The ECtHR's judgment in Handyside v. United Kingdom, Application No. 5493/72, December 7, 1976, is one of the basic decisions explaining that freedom of expression covers disturbing ideas. However, in the concrete case the Court found no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in relation to the interference applied to a publication aimed at children. [6, §§ 48–59]
Quoting only the part of the judgment that emphasises freedom, while omitting that no violation was found, would be misleading. The decision shows that an expression within the scope of protection may still be restricted under certain conditions. Moreover, the concrete assessment made in 1976 cannot be applied directly to every publication or online content today; context and current norms are examined separately.
Access bans and content removal on the internet
The legal route used in an access ban or removal decision must be determined. Measures relating to crime, claims concerning private life and other personality rights are not subject to the same procedure. Because Article 9 of Law No. 5651 has been annulled, old petition samples must be checked carefully. The route under Article 9/A concerning private life carries separate conditions. [7] Where an access ban on an entire social media platform is at issue, it is examined separately in the article on access ban on an entire social media platform and freedom of expression.
Where a measure limited to specific content may be sufficient instead of a ban on an entire publication, the scope should be discussed. The URL that was blocked, the reasoning of the decision, its notification or the date it came to the party's knowledge, and the right of objection must be documented. Failure to hear the publisher, inability to access the decision, or unanswered decisive objections may be relevant to procedural safeguards.
A person claiming a violation of personality rights must also frame the request proportionately. Instead of demanding the complete deletion of a news archive, it may be assessed whether a more limited measure, proportionate to the source of the infringement, would suffice. Freedom of expression and the protection of private life must be considered together.
Which remedy should be used in case of a rights violation?
| Interference | First route to examine | Basic record to prepare |
|---|---|---|
| Criminal investigation or conviction | The defence, the relevant objection and the remedies available under law | Full text of the expression, indictment, minutes and judgment |
| Disciplinary penalty against a public official | Special administrative objections and administrative litigation | Disciplinary file, connection to duties, defence and notification |
| Sanction or dismissal by a private employer | Mediation and labour litigation, depending on the type of employment dispute | Contract, policy, post, notice of termination |
| Compensation or civil ruling relating to publication | The relevant civil proceedings and remedies | News source, public interest, damage and reasoned judgment |
| Access ban | The objection route under the special regulation on which the decision is based | Full decision, list of URLs and record of notification |
| Constitutional problem at the end of ordinary remedies | Individual application to the Constitutional Court | Earlier constitutional objections, final decision and time-limit records |
There is no single common time limit for each row. In particular, the periods for reinstatement, objection to a criminal sentence and administrative lawsuits differ from each other. A general complaint written to an unauthorised authority cannot be assumed to replace the relevant legal remedy. Not only the heading of a petition but its content, its addressee and its arrival in time are important. [8] [9] [10]
How should the claim be framed in an individual application to the Constitutional Court?
The link between the event, the expression and the sanction
First, the full content of the statement or publication is presented. Then the context, target, public interest, factual basis and form of publication are explained. Afterwards, a comparison is made with the reasoning of the court or administration: Which defence was not examined? Which risk was not concretised? Why was a milder interference not discussed? What was the effect of the sanction?
The application should not consist only of the sentence “I have freedom of expression.” Likewise, adding dozens of decisions to the file is not sufficient if their relationship with the concrete event is not explained. The features that differ should be stated as well as the similarity to a precedent. Counter-arguments such as violence, hatred or personal reputation should be discussed, explaining why they do not justify the sanction in the concrete case.
Time limits and exhaustion of remedies
Under Law No. 6216, effective ordinary remedies must be exhausted. The essence of the complaint must be raised before these bodies, and as a rule a thirty-day period from learning of the final decision must be observed. Records such as the date of learning before the UYAP system, service and notification to a representative are assessed together. Applying to an extraordinary remedy that did not need to be used does not by itself restart the time limit. [8]
The Constitutional Court is not a general retrial or appellate body. The claim must show how constitutional guarantees were violated. If a violation is found, a retrial and, where the conditions exist, compensation may be requested. A retrial is carried out to remove the causes of the violation; it cannot be said that a particular outcome on the merits is guaranteed in every case.
Evidence and common application errors
The full form of digital content, the date of sharing, its link, the sequence of the conversation and the scope of access must be preserved. Quotations of the words themselves, the sources of the news and any reply or correction statements can be placed in the file. Presenting a document after altering it, selecting only the sentence favourable to oneself, or treating the rights of the other party as wholly insignificant undermines the credibility of the application.
A significant error for lawyers is to regard the defence on the elements of the criminal norm and the defence on constitutional proportionality as alternatives to each other. Both can be built together. In addition, the procedural regime in force on the date of the event, the type of decision and the applicable remedy must be checked as of the present time. The historical HAGB procedure mentioned in an old Constitutional Court decision should not be used alone to determine the remedy for a new file.
Submission of the application and the electronic channel
Article 47 of Law No. 6216 provides for applications made directly to the Constitutional Court, through courts or through representations abroad. Attorneys may also file individual applications electronically since October 1, 2025, through the UYAP Attorney Portal. Saving the form and completing the submission are not the same thing; the signature, attachments, fees or a request for legal aid, and the application record must be checked. This possibility does not mean that all electronic communication channels are valid. [13]
For details on the subject, you may also see our article on qualified rights in Constitutional Court decisions.
Conclusion
At the centre of the review of freedom of expression lie context, public interest, conflicting rights and the weight of the sanction. A harsh criticism is not automatically an insult, just as freedom of expression does not protect every attack. An effective application shows the whole expression and the gap in the court's reasoning, is supported by concrete evidence, and uses the correct remedy within the time limit.
Frequently asked questions
Is every harsh criticism considered an insult?
No. The whole expression, its target, its factual basis and its relationship to public debate are assessed. However, mere humiliation or a personal attack may not enjoy the same protection.
Are the limits of criticism wider for politicians?
The margin of tolerance may be broader for criticism of public activities. Nevertheless, honour and reputation rights do not disappear; a concrete balance is struck.
Does deleting a post end the possibility of a sanction?
Deletion may be relevant in assessing dissemination and harm; it does not automatically remove past conduct. Lawfully preserving the content and its context is important for the defence.
Can I not apply to the Constitutional Court if a prison sentence was not enforced?
A sanction that is not actually enforced may still have a deterrent effect. The nature of the interference and the admissibility conditions are assessed separately.
Do Constitutional Court decisions on freedom of expression apply to all similar expressions?
The principles of a decision provide guidance; however, if the context, target, dissemination, factual basis or sanction differ, the result may change. Automatic matching based on a single sentence should not be done.
Can I still use an old petition based on Article 9 of Law No. 5651?
In the current text, Article 9 is listed as annulled. An old template should not be used before the remedy in force that suits the concrete request has been determined.
Sources and legal bases
[1] Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Arts. 13, 26, 27, 28 and 148.
[2] European Convention on Human Rights, Arts. 10 and 35.
[3] Law No. 5237, Turkish Penal Code, in particular Arts. 125 and 128.
[4] Constitutional Court, Bekir Coşkun [Plenary Assembly], Application No. 2014/12151, June 4, 2015.
[6] ECtHR, Handyside v. United Kingdom, Application No. 5493/72, December 7, 1976.
[7] Law No. 5651, current text and annulment notes.
[8] Law No. 6216, Arts. 45–50.
[9] Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure.
[10] Law No. 2577, Administrative Procedure Law.
[13] Constitutional Court, Bireysel Başvurular UYAP Avukat Portalı Üzerinden Alınmaya Başlandı.