The Turkish Constitutional Court ruled that two articles from the law No.7253 on amending the regulation on the internet No.5651 are unconstitutional and violate freedom of expression. The first provision the Court reviewed was the amendment to Article 8 of Law No. 5651, which aimed to change the language concerning content removal and access blocking. However, concerns arise from Article 38 of the Constitution, which allows measures against crime suspects but emphasizes temporary actions linked to the criminal justice process.

The Court found that the altered rules empower the President of the Information Technologies and Communications Authority (BTK) to take final measures based on crime detection without judicial review during investigations. This contradicts the presumption of innocence, as individuals may face penalties before a final court decision. Therefore, the Court concluded that such administrative actions, like content removal, violate the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in Court and annulled it.

The second amendment was about Article 9 of Law No. 5651, interpreting phrases to broaden content removal and access blocking authorities. While aimed at addressing online publications, they raise concerns about limiting freedom of expression and press, potentially impacting online journalism. The Constitutional Court's previous decisions highlight issues with the application of Article 9, noting unclear scope and a lack of procedural guarantees. As such, the court concluded that"

"The rules in question limit freedom of expression by allowing the content of publications made on the internet to be removed from publication and/or to block access to these publications, and freedom of the press, considering that this publication may also be a publication within the scope of online journalism. In accordance with Article 13 of the Constitution, such a limitation must be made by law and must comply with the reasons for limitation stipulated in the Constitution, the requirements of the democratic social order and the principle of proportionality."

Additionally, the Court found that the rules lack a gradual intervention method and may result in indefinite content blocking, constituting a serious interference with freedoms. The evaluation underscores the need for clearer boundaries, procedural safeguards, and proportionate decisions in line with democratic principles.

Why does it matter?

The decision of the Constitutional Court, which is the final, is a step forward in ensuring protection from arbitrary censorship. Gurkan Ozturan, Coordinator of Media Freedom Rapid Response at the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, told BIRN that since the implementation of the law in 2020, 1,200 online news articles were blocked in the first year. Ozturan also hopes to see "a decision also on the other restrictive and invasive laws that hinder media freedom and the right to free expression."