Personality Rights Violations on Social Media in Türkiye: Remedies After the Annulment of Article 9 of Law No. 5651

Insulting posts, false allegations, unauthorised use of photographs or fake accounts on the internet and social media can seriously harm personality rights. For many years the most common remedy in Türkiye was to ask a criminal judgeship of peace to block access to content under Article 9 of Law No. 5651. That route is no longer available.

Article 9 of Law No. 5651 has been annulled

By its decision of 11 October 2023 (E. 2020/76, K. 2023/172), the Constitutional Court annulled Article 9 of Law No. 5651, which allowed persons claiming a violation of their personality rights to request removal of content and blocking of access from criminal judgeships of peace. The annulment took effect on 10 October 2024.

In practice, criminal judgeships of peace now reject such applications for lack of a legal basis. For example, in its decision of 2 June 2026 (miscellaneous no. 2026/5810), the Mersin 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace rejected an application, stating that Article 9, on which it was based, had been annulled and that blocking access or removing content on grounds of personality rights violation was therefore not legally possible.

What remedies are available today?

1. Applying directly to the platform or content provider

The first and often fastest step is to use the reporting mechanisms of the platform where the content is published or to apply in writing to the content provider. Content may be removed under the platform's own rules. Keeping a record of this application and its outcome is also useful for later legal proceedings.

2. Privacy: Article 9/A of Law No. 5651

The annulment does not cover Article 9/A on privacy. Under this provision, a person claiming that an online publication violates their privacy may apply directly to the Presidency of the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) for access to be blocked. The application must include the full URL, an explanation of how the right is violated and identity information. The applicant must submit the request to a criminal judge of peace within twenty-four hours; the judge decides within forty-eight hours.

3. Civil action and interim injunction

Articles 24 and 25 of the Turkish Civil Code allow a person whose personality rights are unlawfully infringed to sue to prevent a threatened infringement, to stop an ongoing infringement and to establish the unlawfulness of an infringement even after it has ended. Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages may also be claimed. An interim injunction to remove content during the proceedings may be requested under Articles 389 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. This route has become even more important since the annulment of Article 9.

4. Criminal complaint

If the post also constitutes a crime (such as insult, defamation, threats, violation of privacy or unlawful dissemination of personal data), a complaint may be filed with the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. For offences requiring a complaint, such as insult, the complaint period is generally six months from learning of the act and the offender. For fake or anonymous accounts, information may be requested from platforms during the investigation to identify the offender. Access blocking for catalogue offences listed in Article 8 of Law No. 5651 is subject to a separate regime.

5. Personal data protection and the right to be forgotten

If the post amounts to unlawful processing of personal data, an application may be made to the data controller and then to the Personal Data Protection Board. For outdated content harmful to the person, the right to be forgotten may also be relevant; we have covered this in a separate article.

Preserve evidence immediately

• Save the full URL of the content.
• Take screenshots showing the date and time of the post, the username and the profile link of the posting account.
• Document information showing its spread, such as comments and share counts.
• If necessary, have the content recorded by a notary or expert; content can be deleted quickly.

Balancing with freedom of expression

Not every negative comment violates personality rights. When balancing criticism and freedom of expression against the protection of personality rights, courts consider together the truthfulness of the statement, the public interest, the proportionality of the language used and the person's public role.

Conclusion

With the annulment of Article 9 of Law No. 5651, a fast administrative-judicial route for personality rights violations has disappeared; platform reports, interim injunctions and actions before civil courts, and criminal complaints have come to the fore. Which route to take should be decided according to the nature and urgency of the violation.

This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.