KÜHEYLAN HUKUK
Constitution Art.20, Art.11-14 of the KVKK No. 6698, Resolution 2020/481 of the KVK Board and Constitutional Court N.B.B. Within the scope of its decision, the Guideline was prepared on the basis of legislation in force as of 2026 and official sources dated November 2026.
The right to be forgotten is the right to request that information which is lawful at the time of its publication, but which has lost its current and public benefit over time, be removed from being accessible, especially in searches made with the person's name. For the first time in Turkey, the decision of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Law dated 17.6.2015 and N.B.B. dated 3.3.2016 of the Constitutional Court. He is known for his decision. There are three ways today: direct application to the search engine and publisher, complaint to the Personal Data Protection Board if no response is received, and case in first instance court of law. Law No. 5651 9. Since the clause has been revoked, the way to appeal to the magistrate for the right to be forgotten is no longer available.
What is the Right to be Forgotten and Where is its Legal Basis?
There is no law article in Turkish legislation entitled "the right to be forgotten". Right, 17th Amendment to the Constitution. With the right to develop material and spiritual existence in Article 20. It is derived from the right to privacy and protection of personal data in its article. In its decision dated 17.6.2015 and numbered E.2014/4-56, K.2015/1679, the General Assembly of the Supreme Court clearly recognized the right to be forgotten when considering the mention of persons mentioned in the judicial decision years later without a nickname in a book.
General Assembly of the Constitutional Court, 3.3.2016 N.B.B. In his decision (B. No. 2013/5653) considered the denial of a newspaper's request to remove news that had been accessible for years in its Internet archive as a violation of its right to honour and dignity. The court stated that measures should be weighed together, such as the content of the news, the time from publication, whether it remains up-to-date, its historical or scientific value, its relation to the public good, and whether the person who is the subject of the news is a public figure.
The right to be forgotten can have two different consequences. The first is the removal of content from its source on the site where it was published, or the anonymity of the person's name. The second is that the content remains on the site, but does not show as a result of searches in the search engine with the person's name and surname (exclusion from index). The second way is less interference with freedom of expression and press, as it protects the person while maintaining the integrity of the news archive, and is more readily accepted in practice.
The Grand Office of the European Court of Human Rights ruled in its Hurbain - Belgium judgment of 4.7.2023 that a court order on the anonymity of the driver's name in the newspaper archive did not violate freedom of expression. This decision strengthened the tendency for more measured solutions to be preferred, such as anonymization rather than deletion of the archive.
In its decision dated 23.6.2020 and numbered 2020/481, the Personal Data Protection Board acknowledged that search engine operators were responsible for listing results in searches made with the person's name. According to this, the person is the 11th of the KVKK to search engine first. It applies under its clause. For this purpose, Google offers a separate removal form for users in Turkey. Each URL requested to be removed in the application, the combination of the name and surname used in the search and the reason for removing it must be shown separately, with documents such as the decision that there is no room for acquittal or prosecution.
The Board has also made public the measures to be taken into consideration in the evaluation with a document. These measures cover topics such as a person's public role, the accuracy, quality of information (whether there is special-qualified personal data), the up-to-dateness of information, the harm it does to the person and the public interest in access to information. The search engine implements a balance test based on these criteria.
KVKK 13. According to the article, the data controller must finalize the application within thirty days at the latest. In the event that the application is rejected, the answer is insufficient, or there is no response in its duration, the person may file a complaint with the Board within thirty days from the date he learns the answer, and in any case within sixty days from the date of the application (m.14). These deadlines are strictly enforced; the application date and answer must be stored in a demonstrable manner.
If the board finds the complaint justified, it may instruct the search engine to remove relevant results from the index. The administrative judicial path against board decisions is clear. The board process aims to remove search results, not delete content from the source site.
9th Law No. 5651, which used to be used frequently. The application for a settlement based on the article has not been processed since 10.10.2024 due to the cancellation of the article by the Constitutional Court. Deletion or anonymization of content on the source site today, 24 and 25 of the Turkish Civil Code against the publisher. On the basis of its articles, the principal may be requested with a lawsuit to be filed in the court of law. A precautionary measure may also be requested in the case.
Deletion on the source site The court of first instance; Art.25 of the TCO and precautionary measure
Event Summary Form: Fictional example: The case against an architect in 2013 on charges of misconduct resulted in acquittal in 2016 and the decision was finalised. However, in searches made with the architect's name, old news of the trial process comes out first, with no mention of acquittal in the news. Process: The finalization acquittal decision was provided and the search engine was applied for each URL on separate grounds. A complaint was filed with the Personal Data Protection Board within fifteen days of the search engine's refusal to apply. In parallel, notices were sent to news sites at the request of anonymisation or addition of acquittal information. Conclusion: The long absence, the lack of a public figure, and the acquittal of the trial, resulted in the Constitutional Court's N.B.B. It coincides with the criteria in its decision. The board is expected to give instructions to remove it from the index. If news sites respond negatively, a request for anonymization may be filed in the first instance court of law.
How long does it have to be?
There is no fixed time in the law. The assessment is made according to the quality of the news; it can be seen as being sufficient for a longer period of time in reports of grave crimes and public duties, while a shorter time in trivial events of ordinary individuals.
Can politicians and public officials benefit from the right to be forgotten?
It may be useful; but in information about public duty, the public interest in access to information often outweighs. The length of time and the connection of information to the task is decisive.
Will the result removed from Google be completely deleted?
Oh, no. Content remains on the source site and can be accessed through different search terms or direct link. Further action must be taken against the source site for full deletion.
Is it enough that the criminal record has been deleted?
It is a strong foundation, but alone it is not enough. The update of the news, public interest and time in between are evaluated together.
Can the complaint to the board and the case be carried out at the same time?
Yeah. The board process is intended for search results and the legal case is for content on the source site; two paths complement each other.
• Application to the magistrate's office under the revoked 5651 m.9. • Not showing URLs and search terms individually in the search engine application. • Abduction of thirty- and sixty-day periods for the certificate complaint. • Beraat, where there is no room for prosecution or that judicial record deletion documents are not added to the application. • Refer only to the search engine and not request anonymity of content on the source site.
The right to be forgotten is a balancing tool that prevents a past event from determining one's present. The establishment of this balance depends on the selection of the right authority, supporting criteria with documents and meticulous monitoring of KVKK deadlines. Küheylan Law Office provides legal support in the preparation of applications to search engines, complaints from the Personal Data Protection Board and lawsuits to be filed for anonymization or removal of content on the source site.
Important Legal Notice: The legal statements contained in this guide are prepared by the Küheylan Law Office for general informational purposes and do not qualify as legal counsel. Application forms of search engines and the application of the Board may change. Legal support from a lawyer is recommended before application and litigation processes. © 2026 Küheylan Law Office. All Rights Reserved.
KÜHEYLAN HUKUK