The basic distinction between confidentiality of private life and protection of personal data
Why is an intimate image under special protection?
What is protected is not only facts that a person does not wish others to know, but also images and sounds relating to the person’s private sphere of life. The protected interest is personal autonomy, the confidentiality of private life and the individual’s power of disposition over his or her own intimate sphere.
An image as personal data, and the special provision
An intimate image may qualify as personal data where it makes a person identifiable. Nevertheless, where the provisions of TCK Article 134 on the recording and disclosure of private-life images apply, mechanically applying Article 136 may lead to an error in the legal characterization of the offense. The relationship between concurrence of offenses (içtima) and the special provision must therefore be assessed.
Related guide: Offenses against Sexual Integrity: TCK 102–105, Elements of the Offenses, Penalties, Evidence and Court of Cassation Case Law.
TCK Article 134/1: violation of the confidentiality of private life and recording of images
Scope of the basic offense
TCK Article 134/1 punishes the violation of the confidentiality of private life with imprisonment from one to three years. If the confidentiality is violated by recording an image or sound, the penalty is doubled. It cannot be assumed that every photograph or every audio recording necessarily relates to the person’s private sphere of life.
Consent at the recording stage and its limits
Permission given for an image to be taken within a defined scope does not of itself authorize the data to be used in every medium or disclosed to third parties. Consent is assessed by reference to which processing it relates to and whether it was given of free will.
TCK Article 134/2: disclosure of the image
Disclosure and the circle of recipients
TCK Article 134/2 provides a penalty of imprisonment from two to five years for the unlawful disclosure of images or sounds relating to private life. Disclosure may not be limited to publication to a wide audience; making the content known to a person who has no authority to see it may be significant in a specific case.
Re-sharing a published photograph
The fact that a photograph was previously sent to one person does not mean that unlimited consent was given for it to be shared with third parties. Moreover, an everyday photograph that is publicly accessible, a private-life image and an intimate recording of private content cannot be forced into the same legal category.
TCK Articles 135–136 and 139: personal data offenses and the complaint
Recording and dissemination of personal data
TCK Article 135 makes the unlawful recording of data an offense; Article 136 does the same for the unlawful giving, dissemination or obtaining of data. Whether an intimate image falls within the special provision is determined by the nature of the data and the conduct alleged.
Why does the complaint regime depend on the characterization of the offense?
Under TCK Article 139, offenses within Article 134 are, as a general rule, subject to complaint; as regards Articles 135–136, the relevant exception applies. Examining an incident under the wrong offense heading may therefore produce different consequences for preclusive periods or for the procedural condition for prosecution.
The special provision on protecting statements made at the Child Monitoring Centre
TCK Article 136/2 contains a special aggravation relating to statements and images recorded under CMK Article 236/5–6. These are not an ordinary social media video but a sensitive record in criminal procedure.
The distinction between TCK 134 and 136 in Court of Cassation case law
12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Ceza Dairesi), 2015/4273
In the decision dated 09.03.2015, E. 2014/19089, K. 2015/4273, TCK Article 134/2 was considered the special provision with regard to the sending of intimate sexual-life images to third parties. The decision shows the practical importance of distinguishing the data offense from the intimacy offense.
12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2019/9056
In the decision dated 18.09.2019, E. 2018/8360, K. 2019/9056, the disclosure of a private-life image without consent was discussed within the violation of the confidentiality of private life, and the effect of withdrawal of the complaint on the case was assessed. The outcome of the case in that incident, by reason of the complaint requirement, is also significant.
Recording and disclosure together with blackmail
Recording an image, sending it to other persons, and demanding a benefit under the threat of disclosing it may be separate acts. The formation of each offense, the moment of its completion and the question of concurrence must be addressed separately.
Digital evidence and the authenticity of the content
The original file, metadata and the integrity of the record
Where possible, the screenshot, the file metadata, the recording device, access logs and platform data are examined together. Whether the file has been altered, by which account it was shared and when it was disseminated may be important. Where evidence has been obtained unlawfully, a separate assessment is required.
Re-sending the image to others
Documenting the victimization does not justify needlessly duplicating the image and passing it on to third parties. Content involving children in particular must be submitted to the competent authorities through a secure procedure.
Removal of online content and legal application options
Investigation and platform applications
Where there is suspicion of an offense, an application to the competent judicial authorities, legal measures aimed at stopping the spread of the content, and the platforms’ existing notice mechanisms are assessed separately. The current conditions for application and judicial review concerning the confidentiality of private life under the current Article 9/A of Law No. 5651 are examined in a separate section.
Compensation and personality rights
Unauthorized disclosure may result in a violation of personality rights and in pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage. Liability under TBK Articles 49 and 58 raises evidentiary issues different from the assessment of proof in the criminal file.
The effect of the characterization of the offense on the defense
A publicly accessible photograph versus intimate content
In the defense, the private-life nature of the image, the circle in which it was disseminated, the scope of consent and the conduct attributed to the accused are distinguished. The special elements of Article 134 cannot be bypassed merely by saying that the image is personal data.
The indictment and the safeguard of an additional defense
If a change in the legal characterization requires an additional defense under CMK Article 226, that right must be granted. The judgment must rest on lawfully obtained evidence discussed at the hearing and must show which provision was applied and why.
Legal characterization review between a private-life image and personal data
The importance of the special provision in TCK Article 134
That an image showing private life qualifies as personal data does not mean that the act will in every case be punished under TCK Article 136. In the decision of the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 09.03.2015, E.2014/19089, K.2015/4273, the giving to third parties of an image relating to the sexual intimacy of private life was treated as an act to be assessed under TCK Article 134/2. In the decision 18.09.2019, E.2018/8360, K.2019/9056, to the same effect, the relationship between personal data and a private-life image, and the priority of the special provision, were discussed.
The general principle here is that an image being personal data and its being a private-life image are not mutually exclusive facts, but that in criminal law the special statutory provision applicable to the same act must be correctly identified. A photograph of a public event, a personal telephone number, a recording of an intimate conversation and a video of a sexual relationship cannot be mechanically placed under the same protective provision.
TCK Article 134/1 and Article 134/2 regulate different acts
TCK Article 134/1 deals with the violation of confidentiality and a violation committed by recording; the second paragraph deals with the unlawful disclosure of an image or sound relating to private life. The person who made the recording and the person who disclosed it may be different. That consent existed at the time of recording does not show that permission was given for later disclosure. Conversely, accepting that an image was obtained lawfully does not make every sharing act unlawful without examining the other circumstances of the incident. Facts concerning the content, scope and withdrawal of consent must be substantiated with evidence.
Section 9/A of Law No. 5651 as currently in force with regard to internet publication
Application details and judicial review changed in 2026
In violations of private life on the internet, Article 9/A of Law No. 5651 allows a person whose confidentiality of private life has been violated to apply directly to the relevant Presidency (Başkanlık) and request that access to specified URLs be blocked. As regards the paragraphs amended by Law No. 7590 of 24.07.2026, the current application format and the name of the competent authority must be used as the basis. The request must contain the exact URL causing the violation, the respects in which the violation occurred and the identity information required by the law. An incomplete application may not be processed.
Article 9/A/3 of the Law provides that the Presidency forwards the request to the Association (Birlik) for implementation and that access providers carry out the measure within four hours at the latest. The applicant’s submission of the request to the decision of the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimi) within 24 hours of the time of application, and the judge’s ruling within the period stated in the law, are decisive for the continuation of the measure. This explanation does not mean that all of the access-blocking provisions of Law No. 5651 are subject to the same procedure; for a violation of private life, Article 9/A applies separately. <https://www.lexpera.com.tr/mevzuat/kanunlar/internet-ortaminda-yapilan-yayinlarin-duzenlenmesi-ve-bu-yayinlar-yoluyla-islenen-suclarla-mucadele>
Removing content, blocking access and a criminal investigation are different things
Access blocking is a protective measure that restricts access to a given address from Türkiye. The platform’s actual removal of the content, the prevention of re-uploading and the deletion of the file at the source of the content are different technical and legal steps. The preservation of digital data in a criminal investigation should be planned so that it does not conflict with a request for removal of the content. Unnecessary intimate data must not be spread in a request to remove a publication.
Separating the complaint, withdrawal and the consequences under substantive law
TCK Article 139 and the effect on the procedural condition of different offense characterizations
With regard to offenses under TCK Article 134, the complaint requirement in Article 139 produces different consequences from those for offenses under TCK Articles 135–136. In the reasoning of the decision of the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 18.09.2019, E.2018/8360, K.2019/9056 as accessed, it appears that applying TCK Article 134/2 because of the sharing of a private-life image changed the outcome of the proceedings with regard to the complaint and withdrawal. Correctly characterizing the fact that “an image was disseminated” therefore affects not only the amount of the penalty but also whether the investigation can continue.
Personality rights and compensation outside the criminal process
The unlawful dissemination of a private-life image may result in pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage under TBK Articles 49 and 58. The provisions on proof and liability that apply in a criminal judgment and in a private-law action are not the same. In a specific case, the scope of the violation, the harm it caused and the appropriate causal link are discussed. In public-facing publications, disclosing the victim’s identity and images must be particularly avoided.
Scope of consent in intimacy offenses, digital duplication and review of the special provision
Consent to an image being taken is not consent to its publication
In the legal assessment of private-life images, the moment the recording is made, the storage of the recording, another person’s access to the image and the disclosure of the image are distinct. A person’s permission for a particular image to be taken does not mean that he or she automatically approves that image later being sent to third parties or shared on a social media account. Conversely, the mere presence of a personal photograph on a device does not mean that the act of recording always constitutes an offense. Unlawfulness and consent must be assessed separately for each act that took place.
Legal priority between TCK Article 134 and Article 136
In its decisions of the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, dated 09.03.2015, E.2014/19089, K.2015/4273 and dated 18.09.2019, E.2018/8360, K.2019/9056, the character of TCK Article 134/2 as a special provision was emphasized with regard to the unauthorized disclosure of images relating to sexual and physical intimacy. In the second decision in particular, a direct connection was drawn between the incorrect characterization of the act under TCK Article 136 and the complaint requirement in TCK Article 139. Therefore, even where the image is also personal data, no conclusion should be drawn on the offense and the procedural condition without determining which special criminal norm applies. If the recording under review does not relate to the intimate part of private life, other data offenses may come into play.
Sending files, closed groups and public posting
Disclosure need not necessarily take the form of publication on a publicly accessible internet page. Showing or sending a private-life image to a person with no authority may also give rise to a discussion of unlawful disclosure, depending on the specific circumstances of the act. The number of unauthorized persons, the accessibility of the link, the purpose of the sending and the scope of consent must be investigated through evidence. An automatic copy made by the platform, a new publication deliberately created by the user, and another person’s taking over of an account are different subjects of attribution.
Blocking access on the internet and preserving the record: two separate legal aims
Period and authority under Article 9/A of Law No. 5651
Article 9/A of Law No. 5651 gives a person who claims that the confidentiality of his or her private life has been violated by an internet publication, under the current statutory procedure, the possibility of applying directly to the Presidency, stating the URL and the grounds of the violation. The periods for submission to the judge and for maintaining the measure after the application are particularly important under the Article. Because the amendments of 24.07.2026 under Law No. 7590 affect the names of the relevant authorities, the addressee of an application taken from older texts should not be used. The territorial and URL scope of the measure must not be confused with complete deletion of the content from its source. Source: Article 9/A of Law No. 5651, current consolidated text.
Making sure evidence is not lost when content is removed
Removal of the publication may be necessary to protect the victim; however, before removal, the URL, the date and the reliable records showing the sharing that can be identified must be documented lawfully. This requirement does not mean sending intimate images to everyone. In sharing records concerning children in particular, the secure evidence-gathering procedures of the competent authority should be used, bearing in mind the risks of re-traumatization and of itself constituting an offense.
The criminal complaint, the content measure and compensation are independent
The application of an access measure under Article 9/A of Law No. 5651 does not mean that all the elements of the offense under TCK Article 134 have been proved for a conviction. A criminal investigation examines the perpetrator’s act and intent; in a civil action, the conditions of a violation of personality rights, damage and liability are discussed separately. The complaint requirement in TCK Article 139 and the periods under TCK Article 73 do not disappear merely because the digital content has been removed.
Related articles: Blackmail and Threats with Sexual Images: TCK 107, Digital Evidence, Characterization of the Offense and Victims’ Rights; Hidden Cameras in Hotels and Rental Villas: Privacy of Private Life, KVKK, Criminal Investigation and Compensation Rights; Respect for Private Life and Protection of Personal Data: Violations and Application Routes.
Conclusion
The distinction between recording or disclosing an intimate image in violation of private life and the unlawful transfer of personal data is not merely a matter of naming; it can directly affect the characterization of the offense, the complaint requirement and the legal consequence of the judgment. The nature of the image concerned, consent and the circle of recipients of the sharing must be assessed together.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the penalty for recording an intimate image without permission?
TCK Article 134/1 provides imprisonment of one to three years for the basic form; where the violation is committed by recording an image or sound, the penalty is doubled.
Are recording and disclosure the same offense?
No; recording falls under TCK Article 134/1 and unlawful disclosure under Article 134/2, and they may involve separate elements.
Is sharing an intimate image an offense under TCK 136?
If a private-life image is involved, the special provision in Article 134 must be examined first; not every photograph is the same.
Is TCK 134 subject to complaint?
Under the regime in TCK Article 139, it is in general subject to complaint; the date of the offense and the specific circumstances are examined separately.
Can I send on to someone else an image that was previously sent to me?
The first sharing does not give unlimited permission to disclose it to third parties; consent and lawfulness are assessed separately.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 5237, Turkish Criminal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu) (in particular the relevant articles), Ministry of Justice UYAP Legislation (Adalet Bakanlığı UYAP Mevzuat). mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
- Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), relevant procedural and evidentiary provisions. mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
- Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu) (to the extent applicable to the subject). mevzuat.gov.tr
- Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, E. 2014/19089, K. 2015/4273, 09.03.2015
- Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, E. 2018/8360, K. 2019/9056, 18.09.2019
- Gunes & Gunes Law Firm, related publication: The Offense of Unlawfully Obtaining, Giving or Disseminating Personal Data (TCK 136)