Presumption of Innocence and the Right Not to Be Stigmatised: Violations and Remedies

Opening an investigation into a person, ordering their detention or arrest, preparing an indictment, or the existence of a conviction that is not yet final does not justify declaring that person guilty. The presumption of innocence protects a person until guilt has been established by a final judgment. The right not to be stigmatised concerns the prevention of unnecessary accusations of crime, disproportionate disclosure of investigation information and practices that damage a person's reputation. Protection may continue after the criminal file has closed, on different legal grounds. [1, Arts. 17, 20, 36, 38; 2, Arts. 6/2, 8]

These rights, however, do not ensure that every investigation is discontinued, that every disciplinary measure is annulled or that every news report published in the past is deleted. The correct remedy is determined by the person or institution that carried out the interference, the expression used, the stage of the criminal file and the redress sought. A reasoning of an administrative court that implies guilt, a publication on a private news website and a record drawn up by a penal institution are not dealt with under the same procedure.

This guide explains the routes of application in Türkiye by reference to current legislation and to the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights. Alongside decisions finding violations, applications that were found not to disclose a violation and were declared inadmissible have also been examined. The date of review of the legislation and sources is October 12, 2026; procedural provisions of older decisions have not been carried over as current rules.

What does the presumption of innocence and the right not to be stigmatised protect?

The constitutional basis of the presumption of innocence

Paragraph 4 of Article 38 of the Constitution provides that no one may be treated as guilty until guilt has been established by a final judgment. Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights contains the same guarantee. The Constitutional Court assesses this protection together with the right to a fair trial in Article 36 of the Constitution. The guarantee is not directed only at criminal judges; administrative authorities, the police and other public officials also may not present a person as guilty without a final judgment in the course of their duties. [1; 2; 18, §§ 37–48]

The presumption of innocence also affects the burden of proof. The prosecution must establish the accusation with lawfully obtained evidence. The failure of the accused to prove innocence cannot by itself be a ground for conviction. Article 223(2)(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure treats it as a ground for acquittal where it is not established that the accused committed the offence charged. However, the principle that doubt benefits the accused does not prevent the court from evaluating the evidence or examining the concrete arguments in the defence. The problem is where unexplained gaps are filled against the accused by assumption. [3, Arts. 217, 223; 17, § 26]

Article 15 of the Constitution also states that no one may be treated as guilty until guilt has been established by a court decision. Extraordinary periods do not mean that this guarantee is wholly disapplied. However, whether an administrative measure contains a declaration of guilt is determined by examining the legal criteria and reasoning of the measure itself. [1, Art. 15; 20, §§ 30–33]

The wider field of application of the right not to be stigmatised

The right not to be stigmatised describes a field of protection aimed at ensuring that a person is not associated with a crime without justification, and at protecting dignity, honour and reputation. In legal scholarship it is explained as a consequence of the presumption of innocence or as a broader guarantee connected with it. Fatih Akıncı's study addresses, in particular, the confidentiality of investigations and the decision that there is no room for an investigation among the instruments of this protection. [27, pp. 177–202]

In an application it is not enough to say only "my right not to be stigmatised has been violated". Depending on the nature of the accusation, the presumption of innocence, the protection of honour and reputation, private life, the protection of personal data or the right to an effective remedy must be made concrete. For example, the unnecessary disclosure of private-life information in a newspaper may raise an issue under Articles 17 and 20 of the Constitution, even if it is not connected with criminal proceedings. In an individual application to the Constitutional Court, the condition of the common scope of protection of the Constitution and the Convention is also required. [1; 2; 13, Art. 45]

Distinguishing closely related rights

These fields may be present together in the same event. Their use interchangeably at random makes it harder to identify the correct competent authority and the correct request. [1; 2; 21; 23]

When does protection begin and how long does it last?

The investigation stage and the period of a conviction that is not final

Acceptance of an indictment is not necessarily required before protection applies. What matters is that a criminal accusation has been levelled at the person and that the accusation has become something that affects his or her situation. For the Convention, a criminal accusation is a concept that does not depend only on the status used in national law. For this reason, the fact that the person has not yet been formally named as accused does not make it legitimate for public authorities to present him or her as guilty. [24, §§ 35–41; 28]

A conviction at first instance is not the same thing as finality. While appellate or cassation review is continuing, it may correctly be reported that the judgment exists and is not yet final; the person may not be presented as definitively guilty. The Constitutional Court's decision in Emrah Karayazı particularly emphasises this distinction. Before the stage at which the conviction stands is considered, it is examined whether guilt has become final. [21, § 39]

Protection after acquittal or non-prosecution

The second aspect of the guarantee becomes important when the criminal process ends without a conviction. Public authorities may not produce reasoning that renders an acquittal meaningless or that treats the person as guilty despite a decision that there is no room for prosecution. The connection between a later dispute and the earlier criminal process is examined by reference to whether the decision relies on the criminal file, re-evaluates the evidence, or uses language on criminal liability. [18, §§ 38–40; 25; 26]

Not every acquittal rests on the same reasoning. A finding that the act was not committed by the accused and a failure to prove that the charged offence was committed are different judicial reasonings. Even so, a definitive acquittal may not be devalued by saying "he is in fact guilty but could not be proven guilty". On the other hand, the same conduct may be assessed under different conditions for private law or disciplinary law. This distinction requires reading together the outcome of the criminal proceedings and the legal basis of a different liability. [3, Art. 223; 6, Art. 74; 25, §§ 123–126]

How is stigmatisation prevented at the investigation stage?

Abstract denunciation and the decision that there is no room for an investigation

Article 158(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for two alternative situations: where the reported act is clearly understood, without the need for inquiry, not to constitute an offence, or where the denunciation and complaint are abstract and general in nature. In these cases a decision is taken that there is no room for an investigation; the person complained of may not be given the status of suspect. Proceedings and decisions are recorded in a special system, and the law restricts the authorities that may see these records. [3, Art. 158/6]

This provision does not mean that every anonymous denunciation or every complaint that does not yet contain all the evidence will be rejected. A notification containing a specific event, time, person and verifiable facts may require an investigation. When the Chief Public Prosecutor learns of a situation that gives the impression that an offence has been committed, he or she examines whether there is a basis for bringing a public prosecution and collects evidence both in favour of and against the suspect. In this way the right not to be stigmatised is assessed together with the victim's request for effective investigation. [3, Art. 160]

When preparing an application, it should not be said merely that the denunciation was unjustified; it should be explained which part remained abstract, which element does not constitute an offence, and why this conclusion can be reached without the need for inquiry. The existing text of the denunciation and the documents that clarify it may be submitted for the prosecutor's assessment. However, the opening of an investigation alone does not give rise to legal or criminal liability of the prosecutor or of the complainant.

A decision of no room for investigation (SYOK) and a decision of non-prosecution (KYOK) are different. SYOK relates to not initiating an investigation under the conditions set by the law. KYOK is issued at the end of an investigation for reasons such as the absence of sufficient evidence to create reasonable suspicion for a public prosecution, or the absence of any possibility of prosecution. Against SYOK an objection may be made under the procedure in Article 173, by reference in Article 158(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Acceptance of the objection starts the investigation; it does not establish that the person is guilty. [3, Arts. 158, 172, 173]

Confidentiality, the right of defence and leaks of information

Article 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure accepts the confidentiality of investigative steps, subject to statutory exceptions and provided that the rights of defence are not harmed. The purpose of this rule is not only the success of the inquiry; it is also important to prevent persons from being condemned in public on the basis of allegations not yet verified. Confidentiality may not be used as a general justification to remove entirely the defence counsel's access to the file; access and restriction are assessed under the conditions of Article 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [3, Arts. 153, 157; 27]

Where a statement record, a communication record or private-life information in the file has leaked to the internet, the source, content and manner of dissemination of the publication must be identified. It cannot be assumed that every leak came from the police. However, where there are concrete indications relating to the protection of the document in the hands of the State, the investigation of those indications may be requested. The separate elements of the relevant offences are examined in respect of breach of confidentiality, unlawful disclosure of personal data or violation of private life. [4, Arts. 134, 136, 285]

Detention and other measures are not decisions of guilt

The presumption of innocence does not entirely prohibit the application of arrest, detention or judicial control where the statutory conditions are met. The purpose of the measure, the required degree of suspicion, its proportionality and its reasoning are examined separately. The presentation of detention to the public as if the sentence had begun is not the same complaint as the lawfulness of a detention order. In the former a declaration of guilt is at issue; in the latter different guarantees are discussed, principally personal liberty and security. [1, Arts. 19, 38; 3, Arts. 100, 101, 109] For a review of the proportionality of judicial control applied because of the expression of opinions, see the article the limits of freedom of expression in judicial control and other protective measures.

It is useful for the defence to put these two problems forward in separate requests: an objection to the measure or a request for release is directed to its own competent authority, while the statement that declares the person guilty and its consequences are shown on the appropriate route of application. The removal of a publication by the press does not replace a release order; nor does release alone restore reputation. Press freedom and reputation

Which statements in public communications may give rise to a violation?

The boundary between informing the public and declaring guilt

Public authorities may inform the public about an ongoing investigation in a measured manner. However, the statement must not present the allegation as established fact or present the person as the perpetrator of the offence. Accurate information that "an investigation is being conducted" and a statement that "it has emerged that he committed the offence" do not have the same legal effect. The addition of the word "allegation" to a statement does not in itself make the whole text lawful. The heading, the image, the statement as a whole and the authority of the body are assessed together. [24; 28]

In Allenet de Ribemont v. France, senior police officers presented the applicant, without any reservation, as one of the instigators of a murder. The ECtHR held that this statement had led the public to believe in his guilt and was of a nature that prejudged the assessment by the competent judicial authority, and found a violation of Article 6(2) of the Convention. The decision shows that the statements of public authorities other than judges are also reviewed. [24, §§ 35–41]

How is a claim of violation made concrete?

The application must contain the whole of the statement, its date, the capacity of the speaker, the medium in which it was published and the elements which make the person identifiable. Even where no name is given, the office, a photograph, the event or other details may make the person recognisable. Where, on the other hand, a general statement cannot be linked to the applicant, the condition of personal and direct effect remains open to dispute.

The status of the criminal file at the time the statement was made must also be documented. A conviction handed down later does not retrospectively justify every earlier declaration of guilt in advance. The examination is carried out by reference to the legal situation and the context at the time the words were spoken. The need of the public authority to inform the public about an investigation must also be discussed without being ignored. [21, § 39; 24; 28]

How do acquittal and HAGB affect disciplinary or administrative measures?

Separating criminal liability from disciplinary liability

Whether conduct constitutes an offence under criminal law and whether it is contrary to the working order of an institution are different problems. For this reason a disciplinary investigation may be conducted while the criminal case continues. An acquittal, a non-prosecution decision or HAGB does not automatically remove a disciplinary sanction in every case. However, the administrative authority must make its own assessment; it may not reach its conclusion by treating a person whose guilt has not become final as criminally guilty. [18, §§ 45–55]

In the application of Galip Şahin, the Constitutional Court examined a disciplinary process conducted while the criminal case was continuing. The administrative authorities had assessed the communication records in terms of service requirements and disciplinary conduct, and had not concluded that the applicant had committed the organised-crime offence in the criminal file. The Court held that the presumption of innocence had not been violated. The criterion in practice is not that no information from the criminal file may be used, but within which responsibility that information is evaluated and how. [18, §§ 49–55]

A HAGB decision may not be used as a final conviction

A deferral of the announcement of the judgment (HAGB) is not identical to a final conviction. The current text of Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced by Law No. 7589 that entered into force on July 31, 2026, also contains the principle that the judgment produces no legal consequences other than the provisions on forfeiture. In examining earlier HAGB decisions, the date of the decision, the transitional provisions to be applied and the remedy must be determined separately. The appeal route provided by the current law and the regime of objection applicable to earlier decisions must not be confused. [3, Art. 231 and Provisional Art. 6]

In the decision in Eyüp Erdem, the request for registration on the mediation register had been rejected. The administrative court built a reasoning, based on the HAGB decision, that gave the impression that the offence had been committed by a final judicial decision; it had not separately assessed the relevant facts for the purposes of contact or association. The Constitutional Court held that the presumption of innocence had been violated and ordered a retrial. The meaning of the decision is not that the applicant must be registered; it is that the dispute must be re-examined with reasoning consistent with the constitutional guarantee. [19, §§ 14–22]

Ömer Çınar, who did not agree with the decision, argued that the requirement of contact or association in the mediation legislation is separate from final conviction, and that reference to the process resulting in HAGB within that framework did not constitute a violation. The majority, however, regarded as decisive that the concrete reasoning contained no independent assessment and that its language imposed criminal guilt. This difference of opinion shows that an application should not be limited to stating only that a HAGB exists. [19, dissenting opinion]

Not every reference to a HAGB or criminal file is a violation

In the decision in Kürşat Eyol, the Constitutional Court examined the reasoning of the administrative court as a whole; it found that the termination of service did not rest only on the HAGB decision, and that an independent disciplinary situation had also been assessed. The application was found manifestly ill-founded. This decision shows that mention of a HAGB in an administrative dispute is not an automatic violation. The personnel legislation and remedies in the earlier decision cannot be carried over to all current measures. [17, §§ 26–33]

In the case of Recep Aslan too, the Constitutional Court observed that the administrative proceedings had assessed the matter by the criteria of administrative law rather than criminal guilt. The higher court had also expressly stated that no adverse conclusion could be drawn against the applicant from a conviction that was not final. The complaint of breach of the presumption of innocence was regarded as manifestly ill-founded. This result shows that a violation cannot be found from a single sentence without examining the entire decision and the corrective reasoning of the higher court. [20, §§ 30–33]

Which routes are available for press and online publications?

Press freedom and protection of reputation are assessed together

Reporting on an ongoing investigation is not in itself prohibited. The contribution to public debate, the factual basis of the publication, the language used, the person's public position, the impact of images and the stage of the proceedings are all important. Presenting the person in a headline as a definitively guilty person is different from conveying the allegation and the defence in their context. The assessment of accuracy at the date of publication does not mean that later developments are of no importance. [1, Arts. 17, 26, 28; 23]

The conduct of a private publisher does not allow an application to be made directly to the Constitutional Court against that publisher. The ordinary routes of private law are used first. In an individual application it may be discussed whether public authorities discharged their duty to protect the person's reputation and struck a balance between conflicting rights. In publications that have no sufficient connection with a criminal accusation, the principal basis of review may be honour and reputation or private life rather than the presumption of innocence. [13, Art. 45; 23, §§ 53–75]

Content removal and a private-life measure are different routes

Relying on former Article 9 of Law No. 5651 to apply to a criminal court of peace for infringement of personality rights is not the current general route. The Constitutional Court's annulment decision, E.2020/76, K.2023/172, entered into force on October 10, 2024; in the consolidated text examined today, the article has been annulled. For attacks on honour and reputation, Articles 24–25 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), Article 58 of the Code of Obligations (TBK) and, where the conditions are met, the provisions on interim measures in Article 389 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) are assessed. [5; 6; 7; 10; 30]

For internet content that violates the confidentiality of private life, Article 9/A of Law No. 5651 is a separate mechanism. From July 31, 2026, the competent authority under the Law for an application is the Cyber Security Presidency. This does not mean that every complaint of insult or damage to reputation may be sent to that authority. The application must include the full internet address, an explanation of the violation of private life and information verifying identity. The applicant must submit the request to the criminal judgeship of peace within 24 hours from the time of application. The judge announces the decision within 48 hours at the latest; if the statutory conditions are not met, the interim measure lapses automatically. [10, Arts. 2, 9/A]

The existence of several routes does not mean that they make one another unnecessary. Removal of content from the source, blocking of access from Türkiye, removal from search results carried out by name and compensation are different outcomes. The request must be framed so as to show the unlawful part and the technical result sought. Disproportionate requests aimed at an entire website or archive may raise a separate issue for freedom of expression. [7, Arts. 389–391; 10; 16; 23]

Old news and the right to be forgotten

In N.B.B., the Constitutional Court examined the easy accessibility, in an internet archive, of news reports concerning criminal proceedings many years earlier. It was not contended that the news had been untrue when first published. The time that had passed, the fact that the applicant was not a public figure and the weakening of current public interest were considered together; a violation of the right to protection of honour and reputation was found. This is not a decision finding a violation of the presumption of innocence. [23, §§ 67–75]

The decision does not require that all old news be deleted. Historical value, scientific purpose, current public interest, the person's social role and the adequacy of more limited means are important. Anonymisation, updating the report with the outcome information, or removal from the results of a search by name may be sufficient in some events. The procedure of the period in N.B.B. must not be read as meaning that former Article 9 of Law No. 5651 can be used today. [23, §§ 50–52, 70–74; 10]

Decision No. 2020/481 of the Personal Data Protection Board deals with requests to remove results from the index which appear in search engines when searching by first name and surname. An application to the data controller must come first; depending on the outcome, the route of complaint to the Board may be used. The time for the data controller's reply and the time for complaint to the Board are different. The Board is not a court of compensation; a claim for compensation arising from the personality right is pursued separately under the general provisions. The exceptions of the Personal Data Protection Law and the dimension of freedom of expression must also be assessed. [12, Arts. 13–15, 28; 16]

The right of reply and correction

Article 14 of Press Law No. 5187 regulates the route of reply and correction in periodicals and internet news websites that meet the conditions. A person who has suffered harm may send a text of appropriate content to the responsible editor within two months from the date of publication. The obligation to publish on an internet news website is, as a rule, fulfilled no later than one day after the text is received; where it is not complied with or is published improperly, the judicial application process provided in the Law is assessed. [11, Art. 14]

This route does not bring every social media account within the scope of the Press Law. In addition, the text of the reply and correction must not contain insults or statements violating the rights of third persons. Keeping the notification and delivery documents makes it possible to show in a later application that the time limit and the obligation had arisen. Removal of a publication does not in every case eliminate the need for a reply and correction; the special provision of the Law is also taken into account for internet news websites. [11]

Where is an application made and what is requested?

The civil law route against a private person or publisher

For an unlawful attack on personality rights, under Article 25 of the TMK it may be requested that the danger of attack be prevented, that an ongoing attack be stopped, or that the unlawfulness of an attack whose effects continue be declared. Publication of the judgment or correction, and where the conditions are met material or non-pecuniary compensation, may also arise. As a rule the competent court is the civil court of first instance; the special nature of the dispute may give rise to other rules of jurisdiction. Article 25 of the TMK provides for the possibility of applying to the court of the person's own place of residence or of the defendant's place of residence. [5, Arts. 24–25; 6, Arts. 49, 58; 7, Art. 2]

The defendant should not be determined arbitrarily from the account name shown on the screen alone. The persons and bodies that carry out, manage or are responsible under a special provision for the publication must be identified. Where an interim measure is requested, the harm that delay would cause, the right to be protected, the target content and the measure of the request are explained. The rules on approximate proof and security may apply. An interim measure does not mean that the substance of the case has been definitively won. [7, Arts. 389–392]

Costs of the proceedings should also be considered at the outset. Court fees, service costs, expert or evidence-preservation costs and the attorney's fee that may be imposed on the opposing party are not the same item. In general the party against whom judgment is given is liable for the costs of the proceedings; partial acceptance and special provisions may change the result. Where the applicant has no ability to pay, the conditions of legal aid are examined. A definite total cost cannot be given without seeing the amount claimed and the current tariff applicable. [7, Arts. 323, 326, 334–340]

The applicant must assert the attack on his or her own rights; in transactions with a lawyer or legal representative, the power of representation and the necessary documents must be submitted. In particular in applications concerning children, legal representation and the need not to disclose identity publicly are assessed together. A foreigner may also be affected by a public act or publication in Türkiye; citizenship alone is not a bar to an individual application in respect of rights that are not confined to citizens. Where the foreign publisher or records abroad are concerned, jurisdiction, service and the enforceability of the decision must be examined separately. It cannot be assumed that a decision given in Türkiye will automatically be enforced in all countries. [7, Arts. 51–54, 71–77; 13, Art. 46]

The act or statement of a public authority

For violations arising from an administrative act, the annulment of the act and, where necessary, a full-remedy action are used; for loss arising from an administrative action, the relevant prior application and full-remedy rules are assessed. Standing, competence and jurisdiction depend on whether the statement was made within the scope of public duty or as personal conduct, and on special laws. It should not be assumed that every statement by a public official will give rise to a compensation action against that official personally. [1, Arts. 40, 125; 8, Arts. 2, 7, 12, 13]

Every petition submitted to the administration does not suspend the period for bringing an action. An effective application falling within Article 11 of İYUK must be distinguished from a mere petition for information or complaint. In a full-remedy action based on an administrative action, the prior application in Article 13 and the dates of learning are important. Bringing an annulment action does not automatically suspend the execution of the act; where the conditions are met, a stay of execution must be requested separately. [8, Arts. 11, 13, 27]

Penal institution records and effective review

Where a document drawn up in a penal institution or an activity carried on there undermines the presumption of innocence, a complaint to the enforcement judge may be considered according to the nature of the act. Law No. 4675 provides a period of 15 days from learning of the act and, in any event, 30 days from the act or activity. An objection may be made against the enforcement judge's decision within two weeks of notification. A complaint does not have an automatically suspensive effect; suspension or deferral may be requested under the statutory conditions. [9, Arts. 5–6]

In the case of Emrah Karayazı, the expression "active organisation member" used in an information form of the institution was complained of at a time when there was no final conviction. The enforcement judge did not consider the substance, on the ground that there was no institutional decision, and did not forward the petition to another competent authority. The Constitutional Court held that the effective remedy right linked to the presumption of innocence had been violated. The operative part of this decision must not be confused with a direct and independent finding of a violation of the presumption of innocence. [21, §§ 36–46]

When is a criminal complaint meaningful?

The concrete event may contain the elements of offences such as insult, slander, violation of the confidentiality of private life, unlawful disclosure of personal data or violation of the confidentiality of an investigation. The application may be made to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office or to the police. However, there is no single offence type that can be applied to every event under the name "violation of the presumption of innocence". It must be explained which act constitutes which element of which offence. [3, Art. 158; 4, Arts. 125, 134, 136, 267, 285]

The fact that a complaint ends in non-prosecution or acquittal does not by itself show that the original complainant committed the offence of slander. For slander under Article 267 of the Turkish Penal Code, statutory elements such as whether the complainant attributed to the person an act that he or she knew had not been committed are examined separately. A good-faith exercise of the right of access to a court and a request for investigation must not be punished merely because no result was obtained. A criminal complaint does not automatically remove the content, nor does it of itself secure compensation. [4, Art. 267; 5; 6]

How should application periods be separated?

There is no single "time limit for an application on the ground of stigmatisation". For the same publication, the time limits for reply and correction, an application to the data controller, compensation and individual application may all be different. The table below shows the general starting points; special provisions, transitional rules and the status of notification must be examined separately in the concrete file.

Table sources: Article 14 of the Press Law; Articles 13–14 of the Personal Data Protection Law; Article 9/A of Law No. 5651; Articles 5–6 of Law No. 4675; Articles 7 and 13 of İYUK; Article 72 of the TBK; Article 173 of CMK; Article 47/5 of Law No. 6216; Article 35 of the ECHR. [2; 3; 6; 8–13]

Where an interim measure has been obtained before an action is brought, the obligation to bring the main action under Article 397 of the HMK must also be followed. The law takes as its basis a period of two weeks from the date on which the application for the measure to be implemented was made. The use of one application route does not automatically suspend the period of another application. Periods expressed in days, weeks and months must not be converted into one another by approximation. [7, Art. 397]

How is an application to the Constitutional Court and the ECtHR prepared?

Which routes must be exhausted before going to the Constitutional Court?

The Constitutional Court is neither a first-instance body for applications nor an appeal authority that re-examines every court decision. The available, effective ordinary remedies must be properly exhausted, and the essence of the violation must be presented to these authorities in time. The relevant administrative action and appeal routes for a statement in an administrative decision implying guilt, the appropriate personality right route for a special publication and the special complaint route for activity in a penal institution are assessed differently. A complaint to CİMER or a disciplinary complaint does not automatically replace the necessary judicial route. [13, Arts. 45–48]

In addition to the possibilities of applying directly to the Constitutional Court, through the courts or through overseas representations, and from the penal institution under the relevant procedure, since October 1, 2025 lawyers have also been able to make individual applications through the UYAP Lawyer Portal. Filling in the form on a computer or saving a draft does not show that the application has been completed; the sending and the registration receipt must be checked. The electronic route does not change the conditions of admissibility or the 30-day period. [13, Art. 47; 15; 29, Art. 63]

As regards time limits, the service of the final decision, its opening on UYAP or learning of it in some other way must be documented. Waiting for service may create a risk where the decision was learned of earlier. A claim of valid excuse also cannot be put forward in the abstract; the conditions of the excuse regime in Article 47/5 of Law No. 6216 and its 15-day period must be checked separately. Where legal aid is requested, financial position and expenses must be documented to show inability to pay; the failure to pay court fees, or the submission of any request without payment, may constitute a deficiency. [13, Art. 47; 29]

In Hüseyin Aşkan the Constitutional Court determined from the file transaction record the date on which the final judgment of the Court of Cassation was opened and read by a lawyer on UYAP. As the application was not made within 30 days of that learning date, it was declared inadmissible on account of being out of time. Accordingly, adding only a service document to the file does not remove the effect of the earlier record of learning. [32, §§ 20–31]

Connection between event, statement, document and result in a claim of violation

The application must first identify the statement or act complained of. It must then explain the status of the criminal file at that date, the connection of the statement with the applicant, why it was not merely a transmission of information, and the harm it caused. Only part of the reasoning should not be selected; it must be assessed together with the whole decision. Earlier applications and petitions in the course of appeal must show that the violation was presented to the relevant authorities.

In Ali Sunar, the applicant alleged that the investigation had lasted a long time and that this file had led to arrest in another case and to his removal from public office. The Constitutional Court found that the connection with the arrest in the other file had not been shown by information and documents, and that the reasoning of the administrative case did not rely on the proceedings in question. The complaint of breach of the presumption of innocence was regarded as manifestly ill-founded, and the reasonable-time complaint was found inadmissible because the routes of application had not been exhausted. [22, §§ 12–20]

This decision shows that an investigation that lasts a long time does not in itself amount to declaring a person guilty. A complaint about duration must also be directed to the correct route. Under the current Article 5/A of Law No. 6384, a reasonable-time application may be made to the Compensation Commission while the process is continuing or within one month from learning of the final result. The three-month period of the transitional regime applicable to earlier applications in Ali Sunar cannot be applied to all new applications. [14, Art. 5/A; 22]

Redress sought and the ECtHR stage

From the Constitutional Court a finding of violation may be requested, together with a retrial to remedy the consequences of the violation and, where the conditions are met, compensation. The amount and connection of material damage and the reasons for the claim for non-pecuniary damage must be explained. A finding of violation does not automatically mean acquittal, return to office, release or payment in every case. In Emrah Karayazı, the retrial was considered sufficient redress and the claims for compensation were rejected. [13, Art. 50; 21, §§ 44–46]

At the ECtHR stage, the exhaustion of the rights under the Convention and of domestic remedies must be shown separately. The general four-month period is assessed by reference to the final domestic decision appropriate to the nature of the application. It should be remembered that a late or irregular application to the Constitutional Court may also cause problems for the ECtHR. The completeness of the application form to the ECtHR and the conditions of Article 47 of the Rules of Court are important; an ordinary e-mail or an incomplete written complaint is not regarded as sufficient. [2, Arts. 34–35; 31]

For the general application procedure, the current official form is completed, the printout is signed and it is sent to the Court by post with the necessary annexes. The fact that applications to the Constitutional Court can be made through UYAP does not mean that an application to the ECtHR can be made through the same portal. The valid making of the application and its being admissible are separate stages. [31]

In Allen v. the United Kingdom, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR examined the rejection of the compensation claim of an applicant whose criminal conviction had been quashed. Considering together the language used and the context of the compensation regime, it concluded that there had been no violation of the presumption of innocence. The judgment shows that there is no guarantee that all compensation claims must be accepted after acquittal; nevertheless, a reason for rejection may not attribute criminal guilt to the person. [25, §§ 123–134]

In Nealon and Hallam v. the United Kingdom, the Grand Chamber did not find contrary to the Convention the limited compensation regime applied to persons whose convictions had been quashed, by 12 votes to 5. The majority emphasised that the specific rejection decisions did not attribute criminal guilt to the applicants. The dissenting opinions, however, argued that the criterion introduced for compensation weakened post-acquittal protection. This judgment concerns the special regime in the United Kingdom and cannot be substituted for the CMK compensation conditions in Türkiye. [26, §§ 168–183 and dissenting opinions]

Compensation arising from protective measures such as arrest or detention in Türkiye is examined separately within the framework of Articles 141–144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Law No. 6384. An acquittal alone does not generate an automatic payment under the name of "compensation for stigmatisation". The competent heavy criminal court and the Compensation Commission must be distinguished by identifying the paragraph on which the claim is based and the dates of finality and notification. [3, Arts. 141–144; 14, Arts. 2, 5/B]

How are evidence and requests organised?

Proof of the facts is as important as legal characterisation. The applicant should record the full address and complete content of the internet material; he or she should not rely on a screenshot taken only of the headline with an uncertain date. Where necessary, a notarial record or a request to a court for preservation of evidence may be made. These steps are not compulsory in every file; the risk of the content being changed or removed and the difficulty of proof are assessed. [7, Arts. 400–405]

Hypothetical example: Suppose a public authority sent a letter to a person's employer, after a decision of non-prosecution had been given in respect of that person, stating in definite terms that the person had committed a particular offence. The application is not completed merely by adding the non-prosecution decision. The content of the letter and the date on which it was sent, the public authority concerned, the decision taken by the employer, earlier objections and the redress sought must be explained together. If there is a defence that the loss of employment arose from another cause, documents relating to that defence must also be discussed. In this way the compensation claim does not rest on a hypothetical account of loss.

In preparing the file, the accusation should not be spread again unnecessarily. Personal and sensitive information should be submitted only to the extent that the relevant authority needs it; where a public filing is made, third parties and children must be protected. If there is a request in the Constitutional Court that identity be kept confidential in publicly available documents, its reasons must be stated in the form. [12; 29]

Mistakes that lawyers and applicants should avoid

• Treating acquittal as an automatic result for every dispute: The conditions of disciplinary, private law and public law liability must be examined separately. The language on criminal guilt must be separated from an independent ground of liability.
• Explaining a violation only through case names: The similarity of the precedent to the facts, the relevant paragraph and the result of the judgment must be shown. Mislabelling the outcome weakens the legal basis of the application: Galip Şahin is a case in which no violation was found, and N.B.B. is a decision in the field of honour and reputation.
• Relying on an old remedy or time limit: Former Article 9 of Law No. 5651 that has been annulled, the Article 9/A authority that has changed, the remedies for HAGB in different periods and the two-week period under Article 173 of CMK must be checked against the current texts.
• Choosing the wrong party or authority: A private publisher, a public administration, the personal conduct of a public official and the activity of a penal institution are not subject to the same litigation scheme. The addressee of the request and the competent authority must be made concrete.
• Replacing all routes of redress with a criminal complaint: A criminal complaint does not of itself secure suspension of the content, reply and correction or a claim for compensation. Time limits must be monitored separately.
• Submitting a single sentence out of its context: The whole statement or decision and the reasoning of the higher court must be included, and the connection of the words with the applicant must be shown.
• Converting a Constitutional Court application into a new appeal petition: A connection must be shown between the public act that constitutes the violation, the constitutional guarantee, its effect and the redress. It is not sufficient merely to say that the evidence was wrongly assessed.
• Making the request disproportionate or vague: It must be stated clearly which URL, which record or which reasoning is problematic, and what is sought, whether correction, suspension or compensation.

These checks are intended to prevent a well-founded claim from failing for lack of procedure or proof; they do not guarantee that the application will be accepted.

Conclusion

The presumption of innocence guarantees that a person will not be treated by the State as guilty before guilt is final. The right not to be stigmatised points to a field of protection which includes the prevention of unnecessary accusations and statements that damage reputation. Effective use of these guarantees does not depend merely on a decision of acquittal or non-prosecution; the statement, act and result that constitute the violation must be shown concretely.

The key to the strategy of an application is correctly matching the source of the interference with the redress sought. Annulment of a public act, suspension of a private publication, removal from search results, reply and correction, a criminal complaint and compensation have different functions. The routes to the Constitutional Court and the ECtHR are not the first applications that replace these.

An effective file brings together a request directed to the correct authority, verified dated documents, a statement whose context has been preserved and case law that is genuinely connected with the concrete event. What must be protected is not only the outcome of the criminal case, but the person's right to be assessed within the legal order without being pre-emptively treated as guilty.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the presumption of innocence protect only defendants?

No. Suspects at the investigation stage are also protected; a criminal accusation within the meaning of the Convention does not always begin with the acceptance of an indictment. In addition, after outcomes other than a conviction, in related proceedings the person may not be attributed criminal guilt. The person's status in the process and the effect of the accusation are assessed together. See the section Start and duration of protection.

If a first-instance court imposes a sentence, can the person be declared guilty?

A conviction that is not final cannot be used as the basis for a declaration of definitive guilt. The existence of the judgment and the stage of the appeal may be correctly reported; the person must not be presented as definitively guilty by concealing the status of finality. The decision in Emrah Karayazı explains this distinction. See the section Investigation stage and the period of a conviction that is not final.

Does the right not to be stigmatised prevent an investigation from being opened?

Not in every case. Investigating a concrete suspicion of crime is the duty of the prosecutor. Under the conditions of Article 158(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a decision that there is no room for an investigation is given and the person is not given the status of suspect. The abstract nature of a notification must be distinguished from one that is concrete but not yet verified. See the section Abstract denunciation and SYOK.

Are SYOK and non-prosecution the same decision?

No. SYOK concerns not initiating an investigation in the circumstances determined by the law. KYOK, commonly known as non-prosecution, is given where, at the end of an investigation, the conditions for a public prosecution are not met. The legal stage and the reasoning of the two decisions are different; neither is a conviction. See the section Protection at the investigation stage.

Does acquittal automatically remove a disciplinary sanction?

Not in every case. The elements of the disciplinary conduct and the independent evaluation of the evidence are examined. However, a disciplinary authority or administrative court may not construct a reasoning of criminal guilt that nullifies the acquittal. A decision determining that the act was not committed and a finding of insufficient proof must also not be treated in the same way. See the section Disciplinary and administrative measures.

Can an administrative measure be founded on a HAGB decision?

A HAGB may not be used in place of a final conviction. However, the facts in the criminal file may be independently assessed under the conditions of the relevant administrative legislation. The outcome depends on whether the measure relies only on the HAGB and whether the reasoning attributes criminal guilt to the person. See the section The HAGB decision and the decision in Eyüp Erdem.

Can every negative news item about me be removed?

No. A balance is struck between the protection of reputation and freedom of expression and the press. The news value, the factual basis, the person's public position and the language used are important. Appropriate redress may be sought for inaccurate or disproportionate content; a negative character alone is not a ground for removal. See the section Press freedom and reputation.

If I am acquitted, are all news reports in the internet archive deleted?

No automatic deletion results. The currency of the report, the continuing public interest, subsequent developments and more limited measures are assessed. Updating the content, anonymisation or removal from the results of a search by name may be sufficient in the concrete case. The decision in N.B.B. also rests on the special circumstances of its facts. See the section Old news and the right to be forgotten.

For an infringement of personality rights, does one go directly to the criminal judgeship of peace?

The former general procedure based on the annulled Article 9 of Law No. 5651 is not the current route. In attacks on personality rights, a civil action and, where the conditions are met, an interim measure are assessed. Article 9/A on violation of private life is a separate provision and includes judicial review. See the section Content removal and a private-life measure.

Is an application for violation of private life still made to the BTK?

Under the text of Article 9/A of Law No. 5651 in force since July 31, 2026, the competent authority is the Cyber Security Presidency. The condition of submitting the application to the judge within 24 hours must also be followed. This route does not apply to every complaint of reputation or insult. See the section Current authority and procedure.

Does removal from a search engine delete content from the internet?

No. Not showing a result in a search by a specific first name and surname is not the same as deleting the source page. The request must explain which links it covers and why they are necessary. The order and time limits of the application to the data controller and the complaint to the Board apply separately. See the section The right to be forgotten and the Personal Data Protection Law.

Is a person who makes an unfounded complaint necessarily punished for slander?

No. Acquittal or non-prosecution does not by itself prove all the elements of slander. It is examined whether the complainant attributed to the person an act he or she knew had not been committed, and whether the other statutory conditions are met. The freedom to seek access to justice must be distinguished from malicious accusation. See the section Conditions for a criminal complaint.

Can an application be made directly to the Constitutional Court against a newspaper or social media user?

No individual application is made directly against a private person. The appropriate domestic remedy is used first. Afterwards, the protective obligation of public authorities and the adequacy of judicial review may arise. Failure to exhaust the remedy suited to the concrete event creates a risk of inadmissibility. See the section Routes to be exhausted before the Constitutional Court.

Can an individual application to the Constitutional Court be made through UYAP?

Yes; since October 1, 2025 lawyers have been able to make an application through the UYAP Lawyer Portal. This possibility does not change the application period or the form and document conditions. One should not rest on a saved draft; it must be verified that the application was sent and recorded. See the section Routes to be exhausted before the Constitutional Court.

If a violation is found, is compensation paid automatically?

No. Depending on the nature of the violation, a retrial may be regarded as sufficient redress. If compensation is sought, the damage, the amount and the connection with the violation must be justified. A Constitutional Court finding of violation does not automatically replace an acquittal, a return to office or release. See the section Redress and the ECtHR stage.

Is a screenshot alone sufficient for an application?

It may not be sufficient in every file. The full internet address, the date, the whole content, information identifying the publisher and documents showing the state of the criminal file should be prepared together. Where there is a risk of change or deletion, a suitable method of preservation of evidence may be considered. See the section Evidence and requests.

Sources

Legislation and official application sources

[1] Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, in particular Arts. 15, 17, 19, 20, 26, 28, 36, 38, 40, 125 and 148. Current text.

[2] European Convention on Human Rights, in particular Arts. 6, 8, 10, 13, 34 and 35. ECHR Turkish text.

[3] Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure, in particular Arts. 100–109, 141–144, 153, 157–160, 172–173, 217, 223, 231 and Provisional Art. 6. Current text.

[4] Law No. 5237, Turkish Penal Code, in particular Arts. 125, 134, 136, 267 and 285. Current text.

[5] Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code, Arts. 24–25. Current text.

[6] Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations, Arts. 49, 58, 72 and 74. Current text.

[7] Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure, in particular Arts. 2, 51–54, 71–77, 323, 326, 334–340, 389–397 and 400–405. Current text.

[8] Law No. 2577, Administrative Procedure Law, in particular Arts. 2, 7, 11–13 and 27. Current text.

[9] Law No. 4675, Enforcement Judges Law, Arts. 4–6. Current text.

[10] Law No. 5651, in particular Art. 2, the annulled Art. 9 and the Art. 9/A in force; amendments by Law No. 7590. Current text.

[11] Law No. 5187, Press Law, Art. 14. Current text.

[12] Law No. 6698, Personal Data Protection Law, in particular Arts. 11, 13–15 and 28. Current text.

[13] Law No. 6216, Arts. 45–50. Current text.

[14] Law No. 6384 on the Duties and Working Procedures of the Compensation Commission, Arts. 2, 5/A and 5/B. Current text.

[15] Constitutional Court, 13th Anniversary of Individual Applications to the Constitutional Court, 2025; announcement of applications through the UYAP Lawyer Portal. Official announcement.

[16] Personal Data Protection Board, decision No. 2020/481 dated 23/6/2020, removal from the index of search results made by first name and surname. Decision and assessment criteria.

Constitutional Court decisions

[17] Constitutional Court, Kürşat Eyol, Application No. 2012/665, 13/6/2013, §§ 26–33. Decision.

[18] Constitutional Court, Galip Şahin, Application No. 2015/6075, 11/6/2018, §§ 37–55. Decision.

[19] Constitutional Court, Eyüp Erdem, Application No. 2022/109266, 7/1/2026, §§ 14–22 and the dissenting opinion of Ömer Çınar. Decision.

[20] Constitutional Court, Recep Aslan, Application No. 2024/28913, 6/5/2026, §§ 30–33. Decision.

[21] Constitutional Court, Emrah Karayazı, Application No. 2021/37913, 28/1/2026, §§ 26–46. Decision.

[22] Constitutional Court, Ali Sunar, Application No. 2022/6674, 13/1/2026, §§ 12–20. Decision.

[23] Constitutional Court Plenary, N.B.B., Application No. 2013/5653, 3/3/2016, §§ 48–75. Decision.

[32] Constitutional Court, Hüseyin Aşkan, Application No. 2017/15649, 21/7/2020, §§ 20–31. Decision.

European Court of Human Rights decisions

[24] ECtHR, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, Application No. 15175/89, 10/2/1995, §§ 35–41. HUDOC.

[25] ECtHR Grand Chamber, Allen v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 25424/09, 12/7/2013, §§ 93–104, 123–134. HUDOC.

[26] ECtHR Grand Chamber, Nealon and Hallam v. the United Kingdom, Application Nos. 32483/19 and 35049/19, 11/6/2024, §§ 168–183 and dissenting opinions. HUDOC.

Scholarship and supplementary sources

[27] Akıncı, Fatih, "The Right Not to Be Stigmatised", Journal of the Turkish Justice Academy, Year 11, Issue 43, July 2020, pp. 177–202. Full text.

[28] Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, Key Theme – Article 6 (criminal): Presumption of innocence, updated 28/2/2026. Guide.

[29] Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, provisions on the individual application form, annexes, representation and applications. Official text.

[30] Constitutional Court, official announcement concerning Law No. 5651 in respect of decision E.2020/76, K.2023/172 dated 11/10/2023. Explanation of the annulment decision.

[31] European Court of Human Rights, information for applicants and Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. Application information.

---