Can a Secret Voice Recording Be Used as Evidence? Conditions of Lawfulness, Criminal Risk and Court of Cassation Practice

Whether a secret or unauthorised voice recording can be used in court depends less on what the recording says than on how, when, by whom and for what purpose it was obtained. The basic rule in Turkish law is that unlawfully obtained evidence cannot be relied upon in a judgment. For this reason, the fact that a conversation reveals an important truth or proves the dispute does not in itself make the recording lawful.

That said, the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) may, in certain exceptional situations, accept a secret recording as lawful: where a crime or unlawful attack directed at a person is under way at that moment, the incident develops suddenly, obtaining other evidence or applying to the competent authorities is practically impossible, and the recording is made solely to preserve evidence that would otherwise be lost. This exception is interpreted narrowly; it does not create a general permission to make recordings.

Important warning: Being a party to a conversation does not in every case make secretly recording it lawful. Criminal liability and the evidentiary value of the recording in the proceedings are assessed separately.

Short Answer: Which Secret Voice Recording Can Be Evidence?

A secret voice recording may exceptionally acquire the character of evidence if the following criteria are met together in the specific case:

• There must be a crime or unlawful attack being committed at that moment against the person making the recording or a close relative.
• The incident must have developed suddenly and unexpectedly.
• Obtaining the evidence by another method or reproducing it later must be practically impossible.
• There must be no opportunity at that moment to preserve the evidence by applying to the police, the public prosecutor's office, the employer, the management or another competent authority.
• The recording must not have been planned in order to make the other party talk, to provoke or entrap them, or to manufacture evidence for later use.
• The recording must be limited to the necessary duration and scope; proportionality must be observed.
• The recording must contain no cutting, insertion, editing, change of speed or selective transmission that distorts the context.
• The recording must not be circulated on social media or among unrelated persons; if necessary, it must be used only before the competent authorities and within the proceedings.

The basic criterion formulated in the decision of the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu) dated 21.05.2013 is the existence of a sudden situation in which, with respect to a crime being committed against the person, there is no possibility of obtaining evidence again or of applying to the competent authorities. The Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi), in its decision dated 29.09.2022, emphasised that the aim of "obtaining evidence" cannot be given categorical priority and that necessity, proportionality, alternative means, planning and the integrity of the recording must be examined concretely.

Quick Assessment Table

Legal Framework of Voice Recording

Constitutional Guarantees

The voice-recording debate lies where several fundamental rights intersect:

• The right to respect for private and family life is protected by Article 20 of the Constitution.
• Freedom of communication and the confidentiality of communication are guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution.
• Under Article 38/6 of the Constitution, findings obtained unlawfully cannot be accepted as evidence.

For this reason, the court must look not only at the content of the recording but also at the purpose of the person who made it and at the seriousness of the interference with the private life, communications and personal data of the person recorded.

The Prohibition of Unlawful Evidence in Criminal Procedure

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK):

• Evidence obtained unlawfully is rejected (CMK Art. 206/2-a).
• The alleged offence can only be proved with evidence obtained lawfully (CMK Art. 217/2).
• The reasoned judgment must indicate the evidence that was rejected and the evidence obtained by unlawful methods (CMK Art. 230/1-b).
• A judgment based on evidence obtained by unlawful methods may constitute an absolute ground of unlawfulness (CMK Art. 289/1-i).

Therefore, even if the content of the recording reflects the truth, a conviction cannot be based on it if the method of obtaining it was unlawful. However, once the recording is excluded, the other lawfully obtained evidence in the file may be assessed separately.

Voice Recordings in Civil Cases: Being a Document Is Not the Same as Being Evidence

Article 199 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) counts audio and video recordings within the concept of a "document". However, the fact that a piece of data is a document does not mean that it is lawful evidence. Under HMK Art. 189/2, evidence obtained unlawfully cannot be taken into account by the court in proving a fact.

The fact that the case is a divorce, an employment receivable, compensation, a commercial dispute or a receivables case does not change this basic rule. The type of dispute affects only how the balancing between rights and the possibility of "proving otherwise" will be assessed.

Criminal Liability and Evidentiary Value Are Separate Questions

Two different questions must be asked about the same voice recording:

1. Has the person who made the recording committed an offence?
2. Can the recording be relied upon in the judgment in the case being heard?

That an act does not constitute the elements of a particular offence does not mean that the recording can be used in every proceeding. Conversely, submitting a recording to the file does not retroactively and automatically make the act of recording lawful.

Legal Distinctions by Type of Recording

Consent-Based Recording

Where the participants in the conversation have been clearly informed about the recording and have consented, the risk of unlawfulness is significantly reduced. The consent must be provable, based on free will, specific and consistent with the purpose of use. A notice such as "the meeting will be recorded for quality purposes" does not mean that consent has been given for the recording to be later disclosed to the public or used for an unrelated purpose.

Face-to-Face and Non-Public Conversations

Recording by a Third Person Who Is Not a Party to the Conversation

In the established explanations of the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, TCK Art. 133/1 regulates the listening to or recording, by means of a device and without the consent of those concerned, of a non-public face-to-face conversation by a person who is not a party to it. Placing a hidden listening device in a room, listening behind a door with a technical device or recording other people's private conversation on a phone carries serious risk within this scope.

Recording by a Person Taking Part in the Conversation

In the practice of the Court of Cassation, TCK Art. 133/2 concerns the recording, by one of the participants and without the consent of the others, of a non-public "discussion" in which at least three persons take part. In a face-to-face conversation between two persons, a recording by one of them does not automatically fall under TCK Art. 133/1; however, where the conversation relates to private life, TCK Art. 134 and other provisions may come into play.

Consequently, the approach of "I was a party to the conversation; I can record it as I like" is not legally correct. Being a party is only one of the factors that matter in determining which offence applies.

Telephone, WhatsApp, Zoom and Similar Communications

In communication established by telephone, video call, online meeting, voice messaging or similar means, the confidentiality of communication is protected separately. A person's recording of a phone call to which they are a party is not the same typical act as a third person's listening in on the communication. Even so, the following are assessed separately:

• The private-life content of the call,
• Whether the recording was planned in advance,
• Whether the other party was provoked,
• With whom the recording was shared,
• Whether there was really a necessity for the recording.

A person's public disclosure of the content of a communication to which they are a party, without the other party's consent, may constitute a separate offence under TCK Art. 132/3.

Hidden Devices, Spyware and Continuous Surveillance

Placing a hidden recording device in a home, vehicle, room or workplace, installing spyware on a phone, or carrying out long-term and systematic eavesdropping is by nature far from the sudden-incident exception. These methods generally involve advance planning, continuous surveillance and disproportionate interference.

That the person is a spouse, employee, partner or relative does not change this result by itself. Marriage, an employment relationship or living together does not give a person unlimited surveillance authority.

Criteria for a Secret Voice Recording to Be Exceptionally Considered Lawful

The assessments in judicial decisions cannot be reduced to a single mathematical formula. Nevertheless, the following criteria are recurring principles that are considered together.

1. A Crime or Unlawful Attack Must Be Under Way at That Moment

The recording must have been made not to create a new conversation in order to prove a past incident later, but to establish a threat, insult, blackmail, sexual harassment, bribe demand or similar unlawful act taking place at that moment.

An Attempt to Obtain a Confession About a Past Incident Afterwards

Calling the other party after the incident is over and steering them with questions, arranging a closed-door meeting or trying to obtain a confession by constructing a scenario generally does not fall within the sudden-incident exception. In the decision of the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation dated 24.09.2025, the recording of a telephone call made after the incident was not accepted as lawful evidence.

2. The Incident Must Have Developed Suddenly and Unexpectedly

Preparing the recording device days in advance, organising the meeting specifically for the purpose of recording, or the person's steering the conversation towards a particular result weakens the claim of sudden development.

The Difference Between Being Prepared and Recording a Sudden Incident

The mere fact that a phone has a recording feature does not mean planning. What is decisive is whether the conversation was staged to produce evidence. On the other hand, preparing the recording application in advance, instructing a witness to "record the phone" or deliberately initiating the conversation may show that the person acted in a planned way.

3. There Must Be No Other Way of Obtaining Evidence

If the incident can be established by an eyewitness, a security camera, messages, e-mails, call detail records (HTS), a workplace record, a bank record, an official application or other objective evidence, a secret recording may not be regarded as necessary.

That "proof is difficult" does not on its own legitimise a secret recording. The criterion sought is that it was genuinely not possible to preserve in any other way the evidence that would be lost at that moment.

4. There Must Be No Opportunity to Apply to the Competent Authority at That Moment

If the person had no practical opportunity at the time of the incident to apply to the police, the public prosecutor's office or another competent authority, the aim of preventing the loss of evidence becomes significant. By contrast, keeping systematic recordings, without any official application, for a situation that has long been known and is recurring makes it harder to apply the exception.

5. The Purpose Must Be to Preserve Evidence

The purpose of the recording must be to preserve evidence that would otherwise be lost so as to submit it to the competent authority, and not revenge, humiliation, exerting pressure, gaining leverage in an employment relationship, damaging reputation in a social circle or publication.

Purpose Is Assessed Together With Later Use

Submitting the recording to the file after it is made and spreading it to a group of friends, the workplace, the family or social media do not produce the same legal result. Unnecessary sharing may also weaken the claim of the original legitimate purpose.

6. The Recording Must Be Necessary and Proportionate

The Constitutional Court states that the aim of obtaining evidence cannot be given automatic priority. Therefore:

• The recording must cover only the necessary conversation,
• Long-term surveillance must not be carried out,
• Unrelated conversations of third persons must not be recorded,
• Areas of private life unrelated to the dispute must not be entered,
• If a lighter method is sufficient, that method should be preferred.

7. There Must Be No Staging, Provocation, Entrapment or Steering

The court examines how the person making the recording started the conversation, what questions they asked, whether they angered the other party and whether they steered the answers towards a particular result.

The Distinction Between Unlawfully Obtaining and Producing Evidence

Recording an existing sudden incident is not the same as "turning into evidence", by staging a conversation, an incident that does not exist or has ended. The Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) has held that a recording created through staging solely to produce evidence in a divorce case cannot be relied upon in the judgment.

8. The Integrity and Source of the Recording Must Be Verifiable

Even where a recording was lawfully obtained, its technical reliability is examined separately. The following points are important:

• Preservation of the original file and the recording device,
• The creation date and technical metadata of the file,
• Whether there is any cutting, insertion or editing,
• To whom the voices belong,
• The context of the beginning and end of the conversation,
• The conformity of the transcript with the original audio.

The 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation requires a technical examination that is open to review as to the time, setting and conditions of the recording, the possibility of insertions and deletions, the identity of the speakers and whether it covers the incident as a whole.

9. The Recording Must Be Used for a Limited Purpose and Within a Limited Circle

There is a difference in nature between a recording submitted to the public prosecutor's office or the court with the section and explanation directly relevant to the dispute, and the disclosure of the recording to the public. However, the mere fact that it was submitted to the court does not automatically make the act of recording lawful. The manner of the initial obtaining is still examined against all of the criteria.

Secret Voice Recording in Criminal Proceedings

Typical Features of Accepted Cases

The examples accepted in criminal proceedings generally share the following picture:

• The victim is at that moment faced with a threat, insult, blackmail or similar act.
• The conversation was not specially staged by the victim.
• Because the incident took place between two persons, there is no witness or other objective evidence.
• The recording is short, limited to the incident and made to preserve evidence.
• The recording was submitted to the competent authority; it was not circulated publicly or to unrelated persons.

The Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation accepted this approach in its decision File No. (E.) 2012/1270, Decision No. (K.) 2013/248, and continued the narrow exception line in its decisions E. 2017/475, K. 2018/139 and E. 2018/39, K. 2020/485.

Typical Features of Cases Found Unlawful

The following conduct may lead to the recording being treated as prohibited evidence:

• Calling the other party after the incident and getting them to talk,
• Trying to obtain an admission with prepared questions,
• Making a person talk in a closed space by pressure or threat,
• Making long-term and numerous recordings,
• Having a third person record the conversation,
• Selectively cutting the content of the recording or taking it out of context,
• Making the recording the sole or decisive evidence without examining technical objections.

In its decision dated 12.05.2025, the 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation treated as prohibited evidence the taking of a person into a closed room and making them talk under pressure while recording it. In its decision dated 23.10.2025, the 6th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation held that long-term and planned reciprocal recordings and a weak voice-recognition finding were not sufficient for a conviction.

Does the Case Necessarily End if the Recording Is Excluded?

No. An unlawful recording cannot be relied upon in the judgment; however, if the victim's statement, witness testimony, messages, camera footage, bank records, location data or other lawful evidence exist, these may be assessed independently. Indeed, in the decision of the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation dated 24.09.2025, the recording made afterwards was not regarded as lawful, yet the sufficiency of the other evidence in the file was separately addressed.

How Is It Determined Whose Voice It Is?

If a person claims that the voice is not theirs, that the recording was edited or that it is incomplete, an expert or digital forensic examination may be required. A mere transcript does not in every case replace technical verification. In particular for a recording that would lead to a conviction, the original file, the device, the metadata and comparison samples are important.

Secret Voice Recording in Divorce and Family Law

A Divorce Case Is Not a General Exception to Secret Recording

Some older decisions assessed recordings relating to the duty of fidelity in the shared home more broadly. However, those decisions cannot be interpreted as a general rule giving one spouse unlimited and continuous authority to watch the other.

When HMK Art. 189/2, the Constitutional Court's proportionality approach and current Court of Cassation decisions are considered together, the possibility of filing for divorce does not on its own give rise to an authority to make secret recordings.

Marriage Does Not Remove Private Life

That spouses share the same residence does not mean they may enter each other's private sphere without limit. Telephone calls, personal correspondence, health information, private conversations and communications with third persons receive separate protection according to the specific case.

In the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2019/3848, K. 2020/156, the husband's secret recording of the wife's telephone calls with her mother was treated as unlawful evidence.

Is Recording in the Shared Home Always Lawful?

No. The shared home is not an area where recording is free. The assessment examines:

• Whether the spouse making the recording took part in the conversation,
• Whether the device was secretly placed in advance,
• Whether the recording was of the nature of continuous surveillance,
• Whether the other spouse knew that a recording was being made,
• Whether private conversations unrelated to the dispute were recorded,
• Whether there were other, less intrusive means of evidence.

In the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, E. 2020/26, K. 2022/1434, the recording was not regarded as secret because of facts showing that the spouse was aware of the filming, and it could be assessed as evidence. The decisive aspect of this decision is not the shared home but the assessment of knowledge of and consent to the recording.

Hidden Listening Devices and Spyware

Placing a listening device in the home or vehicle, installing spyware on a spouse's phone or continuously recording a spouse's conversations while they are away from home is incompatible with the criteria of sudden incident and necessity. In current divorce decisions there is a strong tendency not to base the judgment on recordings obtained by such methods.

Recordings Created Through Staging

Creating a recording by steering the spouse with particular questions, angering them or arranging for another person to call them by agreement may be regarded as "producing evidence" rather than "obtaining existing evidence". In the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, E. 2011/703, K. 2012/70, a recording created through staging solely to be used in a divorce case was not relied upon in the judgment.

Social Media Content Is Not the Same as a Secret Voice Recording

Establishing a publicly published social media post differs from secretly recording a private conversation. Even so, for social media printouts too, it is examined to whom the account belongs, whether the content is public, whether access was lawful, whether the screenshot was altered and the date of the post.

For the assessment of evidence in divorce proceedings, see also the pages Divorce Law Services and Family Law Services.

Voice Recording in Labour Law and at the Workplace

An Employee Recording a Sudden Insult or Threat

In the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2017/25269, K. 2018/12510, the employee's recording, during a telephone call and at a time when there was no other means of proving it, of insulting words directed at them was not regarded as unlawful, and the dismissal made solely because of this recording was held invalid.

This decision does not mean that employees may secretly record every meeting or workplace conversation. The sudden incident, the absence of other evidence, the scope of the recording and its purpose of use must still be proved concretely.

Can Continuous Recordings Be Made to Prove Mobbing?

Because mobbing often develops over a process, there may be difficulty in proving it. However, this difficulty does not give authority for unlimited and continuous recording. The employee should also preserve less intrusive evidence such as e-mails, records of changes of duties, written instructions, performance documents, witness statements, health records, workplace notices and a notarised warning notice (ihtar).

If a sudden insult or threat occurs in a particular conversation, a separate assessment can be made. On the other hand, recording all workplace conversations with a hidden device for weeks may be regarded as disproportionate.

The Employer Monitoring Employees by Sound

The employer's notifying that there is a security camera does not mean that consent has also been given for the camera to record sound. Sound recording in addition to video is a more intensive interference. For the employer, the following must be assessed together:

• Clear and prior information,
• A specific and legitimate purpose,
• Data minimisation,
• Proportionality,
• Retention period,
• Access authority and security,
• The limits of surveillance in labour law and the rules on the protection of personal data.

In the decision of the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2015/28830, K. 2018/15646, the point that employees knew they were being monitored by camera but did not know that their voices were being recorded was specifically addressed.

For discussions at the workplace and assessments of dismissal, the content titled Quarrels and Fights at the Workplace is also related.

Voice Recordings in Receivables, Commercial, Consumer and Other Civil Cases

The absence of a written document in a receivable or contractual relationship does not give either party a general authority to secretly make the other talk. HMK Art. 189/2 applies in all private-law disputes.

Secretly Recording an Admission of Debt

A person's calling the other party with questions prepared in advance and trying to obtain an admission of debt may be assessed as planned production of evidence. By contrast, regarding the recording of a conversation that develops spontaneously within an ongoing dispute, where the person recording is a party and submits it only to the court, the criminal-law consequence may differ. In the decision of the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2021/5406, K. 2024/2934, it was held that a person's submitting to a receivables case a communication to which they were a party did not constitute an offence under the circumstances of the specific case.

This decision does not mean that the recording will necessarily be accepted as evidence in the civil case. The absence of criminal liability and the admissibility of the evidence under the HMK are separate matters.

Commercial Meetings and Corporate Conversations

If meetings need to be recorded, the safest method is to give clear information before the meeting begins and to obtain the participants' consent. If consent is not given, methods such as meeting notes, a signed minute, a confirmation e-mail, an annex to the contract or notification through a notary should be preferred.

What Should Be Done Before the Voice Recording Is Submitted to the Court or Prosecutor's Office?

1. The Original File and Device Should Be Preserved

The recording should not be converted to another file format, cut, subjected to a noise-reduction filter or compressed via a messaging application. The original recording device should be preserved where possible.

2. Technical Integrity Should Be Documented

Creating a digital hash value (for example SHA-256) when copying the file may help show that the file has not been altered afterwards. This step does not on its own ensure lawfulness; it only supports technical integrity.

3. A Timeline of the Incident Should Be Prepared

What happened before the recording, how the conversation started, at what moment the recording was made, why no other evidence was available, which authority was applied to after the recording and with whom the file was shared should be written down clearly.

4. A Transcript May Be Prepared, but the Original Sound Is Fundamental

A transcript of the conversation may make the court's examination easier. The speakers, unintelligible passages and time codes should be shown in the transcript. However, the transcript does not replace the original recording.

5. The Ground of Lawfulness Should Be Explained in the Petition

It is not sufficient simply to submit the recording as "evidence". Why the recording was necessary, why the incident developed suddenly, why other evidence was not available, why the scope of the recording is proportionate and how sharing was limited must be explained with concrete facts.

6. An Expert Examination May Be Requested

If voice attribution, an allegation of editing, file metadata or integrity is in dispute, an expert examination that is open to review should be requested. The examination should not be left at the level of "the voice seems similar"; the method, the comparison material and the margin of error should be explained.

7. Unnecessary Sharing Should Be Avoided

The recording should not be sent to persons other than the attorney in the case and the competent authorities. Transfer to family members, colleagues, media organisations or social media users may exceed the need to present evidence and may give rise to separate liability.

For the presentation and discussion of evidence in criminal proceedings, the content titled The Role and Importance of the Lawyer in Criminal Cases may also be consulted.

Which Offences Can an Unauthorised Voice Recording Raise?

The applicable article is determined by the type of communication, whether the person making the recording was a party to the conversation, the private-life nature of the content and whether the recording was shared.

This table does not mean that every recording will constitute all of these offences at the same time. The elements of the offences, the rules on concurrence, intent, grounds of justification, complaint conditions and the date of the act are examined separately in the specific case.

Complaint Period

Under TCK Art. 139, a complaint is in principle required for the offences within Articles 132, 133 and 134; the general complaint period is six months from learning of the act and the perpetrator. The offences within TCK Articles 135 and 136 are not subject to a complaint. Calculating the period before it is settled which offence has been committed may lead to a serious loss of rights.

For detailed information on personal data offences, see the article The Offence of Obtaining, Giving to Another or Disseminating Personal Data.

Can a Voice Recording Be Shared With Others?

Submitting to the Court Is Not the Same as Making It Public

There is a fundamental difference between submitting the recording, to the extent necessary, to the public prosecutor's office, the court or a lawyer, and publishing it on social media, giving it to the press or sending it to a crowded messaging group. Disclosure may give rise to independent liability under TCK Art. 132/2-3, 133/3, 134/2 or 136.

"I Only Sent It to My Family" Is Not Always a Sufficient Defence

The scope, purpose and necessity of the sharing are assessed. Although in some decisions limited transfer for the sole purpose of ensuring that the recording is submitted to the proceedings has been assessed differently, sending it to an unrelated or wide circle cannot be regarded as safe.

Removal From the Internet and Access Measures

If the voice recording has been published online, in addition to the criminal investigation, remedies for protection of personality rights, removal of the content, blocking of access, compensation and protection of personal data may come into play. The route to follow is determined by the nature of the publication and the platform. For media and communication disputes, the page Media and Communication Law Services is related.

What Should a Person Who Learns They Were Recorded Without Their Knowledge Do?

1. Document the Existence of the Recording and the Manner of Its Spread

Message screens, links, dates of sending, user names, witnesses and file information should be preserved without alteration. Where possible, a notarial record or an expert technical determination should be considered.

2. Do Not Resort to Counter-Recording or Threats

Threatening the person who made the recording, entering their account without permission or spreading counter-recordings may create new legal problems.

3. Assess the Criminal and Private-Law Routes Together

Depending on the act, routes such as a complaint to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, prevention and cessation of the attack on personality rights, pecuniary or non-pecuniary compensation, removal of the content and blocking of access may come into play.

4. Do Not Let the Complaint Period Run

For offences subject to complaint, the six-month period can be critical. Even if it is uncertain which type of offence will apply, a legal assessment should be made without delay when the incident is learned.

5. If the Recording Has Been Submitted in a Case, Make the Objection to the Evidence Concrete

Instead of merely saying "the recording is unlawful", how the recording was made, planning, the sphere of private life, alternative means of evidence, the possibility of editing, missing context, voice attribution and the extent of spread should be explained; where necessary, production of the original recording and the device and an expert examination should be requested.

The Direction Shown by Current Judicial Decisions

2013: The Basic Formula of the Narrow Exception

In its decision E. 2012/1270, K. 2013/248, the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation stated that a recording made by a person, concerning a crime being committed against them, in a sudden situation in which there is no possibility of obtaining proof again and of applying to the competent authority, may be accepted as lawful.

2016–2020: The Prohibition of Staging and Technical Review

The criminal chambers of the Court of Cassation excluded recordings created through planned meetings, provocation and steering, and required a technical examination of the time of the recording, its setting, the identity of the speaker, insertion-deletion and integrity. In civil proceedings too, the line was maintained that a recording created through staging solely for the case cannot be used.

2022: Emphasis on Proportionality From the Constitutional Court

In its decision Application No. 2018/16857 dated 29.09.2022, the Constitutional Court held that a voice recording falls within personal data and private life, that priority cannot be given in advance to the aim of obtaining evidence, and that an effective examination must be made in terms of alternative means, necessity, proportionality, planning and the integrity of the recording.

2025: A Clearer Limit for Post-Incident and Planned Recordings

In its decision E. 2022/169, K. 2025/352, the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation did not regard a recording of a conversation held after the incident as lawful evidence. The 6th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in its decision E. 2023/17657, K. 2025/8915, treated long and planned recordings as prohibited evidence, and the 2nd Criminal Chamber, in its decision E. 2022/12221, K. 2025/8720, treated as prohibited evidence a recording aimed at obtaining an admission by pressure.

The current direction is not to grant broad freedom to secret recording, but to subject the exception to a concrete and strict review of necessity and proportionality.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a secret voice recording an offence in every case?

No; but a recording made without consent in principle carries serious criminal and private-law risk. If narrow conditions exist in the specific case, such as a crime or unlawful attack developing suddenly, being unable to obtain other evidence and being unable to apply to the competent authority, lawfulness may be argued. These conditions do not apply automatically.

If I am a party to the conversation, am I free to record it?

No. Being a party matters in determining the type of offence, particularly under TCK Art. 133/1; but it does not remove the rules on private life, communication, personal data, disclosure and unlawful evidence.

Can I make a recording while I am being threatened or insulted on the phone?

If the incident is taking place at that moment, develops suddenly and there is no possibility of obtaining other evidence, the recording may exceptionally be accepted as lawful. Deliberately starting the call, provoking the other party or calling again and getting them to talk after the incident is over may change the result.

If I call after the incident and get them to confess, will the recording be evidence?

It is generally high-risk. The current approach of the Court of Cassation places recordings planned after the incident and aimed at obtaining an admission by questioning outside the sudden-incident exception.

Can I secretly record my spouse in a divorce case?

A divorce case is not a general permission for secret recording. The shared home does not give unlimited authority of surveillance over the spouse. Placing a device, recording the spouse's telephone calls with third persons or continuous following is unlawful in most cases.

Can a video or audio recording made at home, which my spouse knew about, be used?

If consent or knowledge of the recording can be proved, the secret-recording discussion changes. Even so, the purpose of use, the scope and the protection of the parts unrelated to private life are still examined.

Can I record every meeting to prove mobbing at work?

No. Systematic recording may be regarded as disproportionate. First of all, written instructions, e-mails, witnesses, health documents, changes of duties and official applications should be preserved. A particular incident involving a sudden insult or threat may be assessed separately.

Can an employer record employees' voices with a camera?

Information that a camera exists is not automatic consent to sound recording. For sound recording, a legitimate purpose, clear prior information, necessity, proportionality, data minimisation and security conditions are separately required.

Are WhatsApp or Zoom calls subject to the same rules when recorded?

Yes. That the means of communication is digital does not remove the protection of communication and private life. That the platform technically offers a recording feature does not legally give unlimited authority to record.

Can I send the voice recording to my lawyer?

Limited transfer to a lawyer for legal assessment is not the same as making it public. Even so, the file should be sent by a secure method, should not be sent to unnecessary third persons and the original should be preserved. Sending it to the lawyer does not automatically make an unlawfully obtained recording lawful.

Can the recording be published on social media?

In principle no. Publication on social media exceeds the purpose of presenting evidence and the limit of necessity; it may give rise to offences of disclosing communication, private life, conversations and personal data, a violation of personality rights and liability for damages.

Will a cut or edited voice recording be evidence?

A cut recording creates problems of reliability and context. The absence of the original file, the impossibility of examining an allegation of editing and not being able to see the conversation as a whole can seriously reduce its evidentiary value. If a transcript or a cleaned copy is to be submitted, the original recording must also be preserved.

How long do I have to file a complaint?

For the offences within TCK Articles 132–134, a six-month complaint period applies in principle from learning of the act and the perpetrator. The offences in TCK Articles 135–136 are not subject to a complaint. The incident should be assessed without delay in order to determine the correct type of offence.

Conclusion: In a Voice Recording, the Method of Obtaining Is Examined Before the Content

That a secret voice recording proves a dispute does not on its own make that recording lawful evidence. What matters is whether the recording was made during a suddenly developing and ongoing attack, without the possibility of obtaining other evidence or applying to the competent authority, in order to protect the evidence from being lost, without staging or steering, and within a necessary and proportionate scope.

Being a party to the conversation, filing for divorce, alleging mobbing at work or giving the recording only to the court is not sufficient on its own. The integrity of the recording, the scope of private life, alternative evidence, the manner of sharing and all the circumstances of the specific case are assessed together.

If a voice recording has been made, or if a recording made about you has been used in a file, before widening the spread of the recording a legal and technical assessment should be made, the original file should be preserved, and the time limits and possible criminal liability should be addressed together.

Selected Legislation and Case Law

Main Legislation

• Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Arts. 20, 22 and 38/6.
• Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (CMK), Arts. 206/2-a, 217/2, 230/1-b and 289/1-i.
• Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK), Arts. 189/2 and 199.
• Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (TCK), Arts. 132–139.
• Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698.

Selected Judicial Decisions

• Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, E. 2012/1270, K. 2013/248, dated 21.05.2013.
• Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, E. 2017/475, K. 2018/139, dated 03.04.2018.
• Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, E. 2018/39, K. 2020/485, dated 01.12.2020.
• Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, E. 2022/169, K. 2025/352, dated 24.09.2025.
• Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, E. 2011/703, K. 2012/70, dated 15.02.2012.
• Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, E. 2020/26, K. 2022/1434, dated 02.11.2022.
• 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2019/3848, K. 2020/156, dated 14.01.2020.
• 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2017/25269, K. 2018/12510, dated 04.06.2018.
• 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2016/2135, K. 2017/5583, dated 28.06.2017.
• 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2021/5406, K. 2024/2934, dated 04.06.2024.
• 6th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2023/17657, K. 2025/8915, dated 23.10.2025.
• 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2022/12221, K. 2025/8720, dated 12.05.2025.
• Constitutional Court, Application No. 2018/16857, dated 29.09.2022.