In the digital landscape of 2026, the internet forgets nothing by default. A youthful indiscretion, an outdated news article about a long-dismissed court case, or historical financial struggles can remain permanently indexed on search engines, defining an individual’s identity indefinitely. This permanent digital archive often clashes with a fundamental human aspiration: the ability to turn a new page in life.
To resolve this conflict, modern legal systems have developed the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF)—known in Turkish jurisprudence as “Unutulma Hakkı”. This legal mechanism allows individuals to request the removal, de-indexing, or deletion of historical, outdated, or irrelevant personal data from internet search results and digital archives.
This comprehensive guide analyzes the constitutional foundations, statutory mechanisms, and judicial procedures required to successfully exercise the Right to be Forgotten under Turkish law.
1. Conceptual Framework: What is the Right to be Forgotten?
The Right to be Forgotten is not an absolute right to erase history; rather, it is a specialized legal tool designed to protect an individual’s digital reputation, privacy, and the free development of their personality.
Core Definition
Under Turkish law, the RTBF gives individuals the authority to request that personal data, which was initially published legally but has lost its currency, relevance, or public value over time, be removed from public access or unlinked from search engine queries associated with their name.
Crucial Distinctions: Content Removal vs. De-indexing
A common point of confusion for applicants is the difference between removing content from its source and de-indexing it from a search engine:
| Action | Mechanism | Legal Effect |
| De-indexing (Delinking) | Targeting search engines (e.g., Google, Yandex). | The original web page remains online, but it will no longer appear when a user searches for the applicant’s name. |
| Content Erasure | Targeting the source website (e.g., a news portal or blog). | The data is permanently deleted from the host server, making it completely inaccessible to anyone. |
In most RTBF cases, courts and data protection authorities prefer de-indexing because it balances the individual’s right to privacy with the public’s right to historical preservation and freedom of information.
2. Constitutional and Statutory Foundations in Türkiye
The Right to be Forgotten is not explicitly named in a single specific article of the Turkish Constitution or the primary statutes. Instead, Turkish courts have established the RTBF by weaving together several constitutional guarantees and statutory provisions.
Constitutional Grounding
The Constitutional Court of Türkiye (Anayasa Mahkemesi – AYM) anchors the Right to be Forgotten within two key articles of the Turkish Constitution:
- Article 17 (Right to Protect and Develop One’s Material and Spiritual Existence): The court views an unblemished digital reputation as an essential component of an individual’s spiritual existence.
- Article 20 (Privacy and the Protection of Personal Data): This article explicitly grants everyone the right to demand the protection of their personal data, which includes the right to request its correction or deletion.
Statutory Grounding
On a statutory level, the RTBF relies on two primary legislative pillars:
- The Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698 (KVKK): Specifically Article 7, which mandates that personal data must be deleted, destroyed, or anonymized when the legal reasons requiring its processing no longer exist.
- The Internet Law No. 5651: Specifically Article 9, which outlines the judicial procedure for blocking access to or removing content that violates personality rights.
3. The Landmark Decisions Shaping Turkish RTBF Jurisprudence
The practical application of the Right to be Forgotten in Türkiye has been meticulously shaped by landmark rulings from the highest courts. Legal practitioners must align their petitions with these established precedents.
The Constitutional Court’s N.B.B. Decision (2015)
The foundational milestone for the RTBF in Türkiye is the Constitutional Court’s N.B.B. Application (No: 2013/5653). The applicant sought the removal of digitized news articles from 1998 detailing a past criminal conviction for which she had served her sentence and rebuilt her life.
The Constitutional Court ruled in her favor, establishing that keeping such historical data easily accessible via a simple name search violated her right to protect her spiritual existence. The court explicitly noted that the public interest in accessing news from nearly two decades prior was heavily outweighed by the applicant’s right to social reintegration.
The Yargıtay General Assembly Decision (2015)
In a parallel development, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Supreme Court of Appeals (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) recognized the RTBF in a case involving an academic who sought the erasure of details regarding a past sexual assault case from a legal textbook database. Yargıtay defined the RTBF as:
“…the right of an individual to demand that past negative experiences, which have been forgotten by society over time, not be brought back to the public agenda through digital tools, thereby allowing the individual to sustain their life without being tied to their past.”
4. The Balancing Test: How Courts Evaluate RTBF Applications
The Right to be Forgotten is never granted automatically. Because it inherently conflicts with freedom of the press (Article 28 of the Constitution) and the public’s right to access information, judges and authorities apply a strict multi-factor balancing test.
When evaluating an RTBF application, Turkish authorities analyze the following core elements:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ RTBF BALANCING TEST CRITERIA │
└────────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
┌─────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼ ▼
┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐
│ PASSAGE OF │ │ PUBLIC PROFILE │ │ ACCURACY & │
│ TIME │ │ OF APPLICANT │ │ SCIENTIFIC VALUE│
└─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘
Is the information Is the individual a Is the data true,
outdated or historical? public figure or politician? or does it serve an
Has it lost its relevance? Public figures have less academic, historical,
privacy protection. or statistical need?
1. The Passage of Time
How many years have passed since the event occurred and the initial publication was made? There is no strict statutory limitation, but jurisprudence generally looks favorably on data that is older than five to ten years, depending on the severity of the topic.
2. The Public Profile of the Applicant
Is the applicant a politician, a high-ranking public official, or a celebrity? Public figures are subject to a higher threshold of public scrutiny. Consequently, their historical data is more likely to remain in the public interest compared to a private citizen.
3. The Subject Matter and Accuracy of the Data
Does the content contain accurate historical facts, or is it based on unverified allegations? For instance, an archived news report about an individual being arrested loses its legal validity and public interest if that individual was subsequently acquitted of all charges.
4. Scientific, Statistical, or Historical Value
Does the data contribute to an ongoing socio-political debate, scientific research, or historical archives? Purely commercial or sensationalist content receives a lower level of protection than investigative journalism or academic literature.
5. Step-by-Step Legal Roadmap to Deleting Past Data
If an individual or business intends to invoke the Right to be Forgotten in Türkiye, they must execute a structured, dual-track legal strategy. An incorrect procedural move can lead to a dismissal of the case on technical grounds.
Track A: The Data Protection Authority (KVKK) Route
This route is ideal when targeting search engines like Google to secure a de-indexing order.
Step 1: Direct Application to the Data Controller
Under Article 11 of the KVKK, the applicant must first submit a formal, written application to the search engine or website host (the data controller). For Google, this is typically done through their dedicated online legal removal webforms adapted for Turkish jurisdiction. The application must clearly state the URLs involved and the legal justifications based on the RTBF balancing test.
Step 2: The 30-Day Response Window
The data controller has a statutory obligation to respond to the request within 30 days free of charge. They will either accept the request and de-index the URLs or reject it with a statement of grounds.
Step 3: Lodging a Complaint with the KVKK Board
If the search engine rejects the application or fails to respond within 30 days, the applicant has 30 days from the rejection date (or 60 days from the initial application date if ignored) to lodge a formal complaint with the Personal Data Protection Board (Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurulu).
The Board will review the case against its established guidelines. If it finds a violation, it will issue a binding administrative order instructing the search engine to de-index the content under penalty of significant administrative fines.
Track B: The Judicial (Law No. 5651) Route
This route is preferred when the content is actively violating personality rights and immediate action is required through the court system to block or remove the content.
Step 1: Petitioning the Criminal Court of Peace
The applicant, through their legal counsel, files a petition with the competent Criminal Court of Peace (Sulh Ceza Hakimliği) under Article 9 of Law No. 5651. The petition must include:
- The precise URL addresses containing the historical data.
- A detailed explanation of how the persistence of this data damages the applicant’s personality rights, professional career, or family life today.
- Notarized or timestamped printouts of the web pages as evidence.
Step 2: The 24-Hour Judicial Review
The judge is required by law to evaluate the petition and render a decision within 24 hours without holding a public hearing. The evaluation is conducted entirely on the merits of the written petition and evidence provided.
Step 3: Enforcement via the Access Providers Union (ESB)
If the judge grants the request, the court order is transmitted electronically to the Access Providers Union (Erişim Sağlayıcıları Birliği – ESB). The ESB is statutorily mandated to forward the order to all relevant internet access providers and hosting companies within Türkiye. These entities must execute the blocking or removal order within 4 hours of receipt.
6. Real-World Applications: Common RTBF Scenarios
To better understand how the Right to be Forgotten applies in daily practice, consider these three prevalent scenarios faced by legal professionals:
Scenario 1: Archived Criminal Records and News Articles
An individual was involved in a minor bankruptcy or criminal trial ten years ago. They served their probation or paid their fines, and their official criminal record (adli sicil kaydı) has been legally cleared or archived under Turkish law. However, typing their name into Google still brings up a sensationalized news headline from the date of the arrest.
- Legal Resolution: This is a classic RTBF case. Because the state has officially deemed the individual rehabilitated by clearing their record, keeping the digital record accessible nullifies the purpose of rehabilitation. Courts consistently order search engines to de-index such articles.
Scenario 2: Outdated Professional or Corporate Information
A former doctor or lawyer was subject to an institutional disciplinary investigation early in their career, which was reported on a niche trade blog. Years later, the charges were proven false, or the penalty expired, but the old forum threads rank at the top of search results, deterring new clients.
- Legal Resolution: The applicant can demand de-indexing by demonstrating that the data no longer reflects their current professional status and causes direct material and commercial harm.
Scenario 3: Non-Consensual Past Media (Images or Videos)
An individual participated in a reality television show or a public interview years ago, or had private images leaked online by an ex-partner. The media continues to circulate on social networks and archived forums.
- Legal Resolution: If the media causes ongoing psychological distress or violates the fundamental right to privacy (Article 134 of the TCC), the courts will bypass mere de-indexing and order a total removal of the content from Turkish hosting servers under Law No. 5651.
7. Challenges and Limitations of the Right to be Forgotten
While the RTBF is a powerful tool for individual privacy, its execution faces significant technical and geopolitical hurdles that legal counsel must anticipate.
The Territoriality Problem
A de-indexing order issued by a Turkish court or the KVKK Board is strictly binding within the borders of the Republic of Türkiye. When Google complies with a Turkish RTBF order, it removes the search result from google.com.tr and blocks it for users browsing from Turkish IP addresses.
However, if an individual searches for the same name using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) or from an overseas location via google.com, the defamatory or historical content may still appear. Achieving global de-indexing requires complex international legal maneuvers, typically involving the jurisdiction where the search engine’s parent company is headquartered.
The Archival Preservation Dilemma
Press organizations frequently oppose RTBF requests, arguing that removing articles damages the integrity of digital news archives and amounts to censorship or historical revisionism. Turkish jurisprudence has sought a middle ground: instead of ordering a newspaper to delete an article from its internal digital archive, courts increasingly command that the article be hidden from external search engine crawlers using specific web protocols (e.g., adding a "noindex" tag to the page’s HTML code). This keeps the archive intact for researchers while protecting the individual from casual name searches.
8. Conclusion: Securing Your Digital Future
The Right to be Forgotten represents a vital legal shield in an era of absolute digital permanence. Under Turkish law, through the strategic application of KVKK mechanisms and Law No. 5651 procedures, individuals possess real, actionable paths to reclaim control over their digital identities.
However, successfully exercising the RTBF requires a delicate touch. It demands balancing constitutional rights, gathering pristine digital forensic evidence, and surviving a rigorous judicial balancing test. As internet infrastructure and artificial intelligence continue to evolve, staying aligned with the latest precedents of the Constitutional Court and the decisions of the Personal Data Protection Board remains the only way to ensure that your past does not dictate your future.
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer for Readers
This text is prepared strictly for informational, educational, and search engine optimization purposes. It does not constitute formal legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship. Digital reputation and personal data protection laws are highly dependent on the chronological timeline, public status, and specific facts of each case. If you or your organization are seeking to initiate a data deletion or de-indexing procedure in Türkiye, you should consult a qualified attorney registered with a Turkish Bar Association to evaluate your specific circumstances.
Yanıt yok