This is the English version of a Turkish article. The original, with further detail and linked petition templates, is at İnternette Hakkınızdaki İçerik: Kaldırma ve Unutulma Hakkı.
The fastest remedy against online content infringing personality rights is an order blocking access from the criminal judgeship of the peace under Article 9 of Act no. 5651. The judge decides as a rule within twenty-four hours. It is independent of the criminal and civil routes, and all three can run together.
Something untrue has been published about you, you have been targeted in a forum comment, or a news item from years ago is still the first result for your name.
Act no. 5651 and the right to be forgotten provide separate routes for these situations. This article explains which to use when.
The Fastest Route
Article 9 of Act no. 5651 gives anyone — natural or legal person, institution or body — who claims that their personality rights have been infringed by content published online two options:
- to apply to the content provider, or where that is not possible to the hosting provider, for the content to be taken down
- to apply directly to the criminal judgeship of the peace for access to the content to be blocked
There is no order of priority between them; you can go straight to the judge.
The judge decides within twenty-four hours at the latest, without a hearing. It is among the fastest judicial protections in Turkish law.
A blocking order is made in respect of the publication, part or section where the infringement occurred (by URL). The whole site is not blocked, only the content in question.
The order goes directly to the association of access providers and is implemented within four hours.
| Route | What it achieves | Where |
|---|---|---|
| Blocking access | The content becomes inaccessible | Criminal judgeship of the peace |
| Removal of the content | The content is taken down | Criminal judgeship of the peace |
| The right to be forgotten | Removal from search results | Judgeship of the peace / the search engine |
| Right of reply and correction | Publication of your answer | The news site, then the judgeship |
| Criminal complaint | For insult or false accusation | The prosecutor |
| Non-pecuniary damages | Compensation for the harm | The civil court |
A blocking order does not delete the content; for a permanent solution, removal and the compensation routes should be considered alongside it.
Making the Application
What the application to the judgeship must contain:
- The full address (URL) of the content, separately for each item. The site's general address is not enough.
- Screenshots showing the date and time; ideally with a notarial or electronic record.
- An explanation of the infringement: which personality right the content infringes, and how.
- Your identity and contact details.
An objection lies against the decision, and the person who posted the content may object too.
One important point: a blocking order is not a definitive finding that the content is unlawful. It is fast and provisional protection.
The Right to Be Forgotten
The right to be forgotten is different. Here the content may not be unlawful at all — it may be a report that was accurate when published — but it has lost its currency and affects the person's present life disproportionately.
The Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation have recognised the right. What is weighed: how current the content is, whether the public interest in it continues, whether the person is a public figure, and the nature of the content and its effect on them.
In practice it is exercised in two ways: removal of the content entirely, or removal from search engine results. The second is granted more often: the report stays in the archive, but does not appear when your name is searched.
The Personal Data Protection Board also considers requests to de-index results appearing for searches on a person's name. For that route, apply to the search engine first, and complain to the Board if nothing follows.
The Right of Reply
There is a third route: asking not for removal but for your own answer to be published.
Where content on an internet news site infringes a person's rights, they may require a reply and correction to be published, in the same place and in the same typeface. Where the site does not publish it, the criminal judgeship of the peace can be asked to order publication.
This is often the most effective route for a factual dispute: rather than a blocked page, the reader sees your answer.
A blocking application must identify each item of content by its URL; the site's general address will not do. Capture the pages with the date and time visible — ideally with a notarial or electronic record — because content disappears long before the case does.
Frequently Asked Questions
How quickly can content be blocked?
The criminal judgeship of the peace decides within twenty-four hours at the latest, without a hearing, and the order is implemented within four hours.
Is the whole site blocked?
No. The order is made by URL, for the publication, part or section where the infringement occurred.
What is the right to be forgotten?
The removal of content, or of search results, that was lawful when published but has lost its currency and now affects the person disproportionately.
How do I get something out of search results?
Apply to the search engine first, and complain to the Personal Data Protection Board if that produces nothing. The judgeship of the peace can also order it.
Does blocking mean the content was unlawful?
No. It is fast, provisional protection, not a definitive finding — which is why the removal, criminal and compensation routes are considered alongside it.