Skip to content

The Authority to Block Access in Türkiye

As detailed in earlier EngelliWeb reports covering 2018–2024, the authority to issue or to request access blocking decisions in Türkiye has been conferred by various laws, regulations and other arrangements both on judicial bodies (courts, criminal judgeships of peace and public prosecutors) and on a large number of administrative institutions. Although access blocking decisions are predominantly issued by criminal judgeships of peace under Articles 8, 8/A, 918 and 9/A of Law No. 5651, at the investigation stage public prosecutors may also order access blocking under Article 8. Furthermore, public prosecutors have been granted access blocking authority for the remedy of copyright infringements under Supplementary Article 4(3) of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works No. 5846.

The strategy of expanding Türkiye’s digital censorship mechanisms through administrative bodies was, as of 2025, deepened to extend to the tourism sector as well. The paragraph added to Article 33 of the Law on the Encouragement of Tourism No. 2634 by Article 7 of Law No. 7565 of 20 November 2025 granted the Ministry of Culture and Tourism direct authority to block access to Internet content. This arrangement marks the evolution of an administrative supervision mechanism, previously confined by Article 4(1)(e) of Law No. 7464 to residential rentals alone, into a sectoral power extending to all accommodation and tourism establishments. A decision issued under this power takes effect as an administrative measure and is forwarded directly to the Association of Access Providers, without any prior judicial decision; the approval of the criminal judgeship of peace is sought only after the decision has been issued, and within a forty-eight-hour window. This structure reflects a model in which access blocking is first applied, with judicial review entering belatedly and in limited form; it structurally narrows the possibility of effective objection.

More importantly, the access blocking authority granted to the Turkish Football Federation in connection with combating piracy in football broadcasting was, by a decision adopted in June 2025, annulled by the Constitutional Court.19

In light of the legislative changes made in 2025, the following bodies and institutions hold or may exercise the authority to block access or to request it:

  • the Presidency and relevant ministries20

  • until its abolition,21 the Telecommunications Communication Presidency (“TİB”)22

  • after the abolition of TİB, the President of the Information and Communication Technologies Authority23

  • the Information and Communication Technologies Authority2425

  • the Association of Access Providers (“ESB”)26

  • the Ministry of Health, Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency (“TİTCK”)27

  • the Capital Markets Board28

  • the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry29

  • the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Tobacco and Alcohol Department30

  • the National Lottery Administration, Games of Chance Department31

  • the Turkish Jockey Club32

  • the Sports Toto Organisation Presidency33

  • the Presidency of Religious Affairs, High Council of Religious Affairs34

  • the Presidency of Religious Affairs, Mushaf Examination and Recitation Board35

  • the Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTÜK)36

  • the Supreme Election Council37

  • the Ministry of Trade, Directorate-General for Consumer Protection and Market Surveillance38

  • the Ministry of Treasury and Finance39

  • all “authorized bodies” within the scope of the Law on Product Safety and Technical Regulations40

  • the provincial directors of industry and technology under the Ministry of Industry and Technology41

  • the governorships and the Ministry of the Interior42

  • the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency43

  • the Turkish Football Federation44

  • “persons concerned” under the Child Protection Law45

  • the Advertising Board46

  • the Ministry of Trade47

  • the Ministry of Justice48

  • the Ministry of Health, Directorate-General for Health Services49

  • the Ministry of Culture and Tourism50

As can be seen, more than thirty institutions and organisations have been granted, under various arrangements, the authority to block access or to request access blocking, with a large portion of these powers being exercised by way of “administrative measure”, sent to BTK or to the Association of Access Providers without requiring judicial approval. This practice, which is legally problematic, effectively bypasses judicial review.

As of 2025, accordingly, the scope of access blocking authority in Türkiye has expanded extraordinarily. The access blocking measure, which in previous years was applied through only a limited number of judicial bodies and certain administrative institutions, may now be ordered by dozens of different administrative institutions and regulatory authorities. This expansion of authority poses a serious problem not only for freedom of expression and the press, but also for the principles of legal foreseeability, accountability and judicial review.

Through these administrative decisions, the grounds for which are often not disclosed to the public and which are not subject to judicial review, access blocking institutionalises Internet censorship and turns content control into a systematic instrument of control. Virtually all of these measures, applied through BTK and ESB in particular, are put into effect under the rubric of “administrative measure”, without any judicial decision. This forecloses effective avenues of objection and significantly weakens the right to seek a remedy.

This state of affairs demonstrates that access blocking measures, which should be “exceptional” in the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in the digital sphere, have been transformed into a “general and ordinary practice”. Moreover, the fact that, when these institutions are granted access blocking authority, no requirement of technical infrastructure capability, transparency obligation or oversight mechanism is provided for, creates a space open to arbitrariness.

All these developments show that Türkiye’s position with respect to freedom of expression and freedom of the press, guaranteed under Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution, and the right to an effective remedy laid down in Article 40, is becoming increasingly alarming. The limitation of access blocking powers, their subjection to oversight, and their availability only on the basis of judicial decisions, are now an urgent democratic necessity for the protection of freedom of expression.

  1. The Constitutional Court annulled Article 9 of Law No. 5651, the annulment decision entering into force on 10.10.2024. Constitutional Court, E. 2020/76, K. 2023/172, 11.10.2023, Official Gazette no 32425, 10.01.2024. ↩

  2. This provision was annulled by Constitutional Court decision E. 2024/75, K. 2025/134 of 17.06.2025. The annulment will take effect nine months after publication in the Official Gazette (14.07.2026). ↩

  3. Article 8/A(1) of Law No. 5651, entitled “Content removal and/or access blocking in cases where delay would be prejudicial”, provides that in cases where delay would be prejudicial, upon the request of the Presidency or of ministries concerned with the protection of national security and public order, the prevention of the commission of crime or the protection of public health, the President of BTK may issue a content removal and/or access blocking decision in relation to publications on the Internet. The decision shall be notified by the President immediately to access providers and to the relevant content and hosting providers. The requirements of the content removal and/or access blocking decision shall be implemented immediately and in any event within four hours of notification. Under Article 8/A(2), the content removal and/or access blocking decision issued by the President upon the request of the Presidency or of the relevant Ministries must be submitted by the President for the approval of the criminal judgeship of peace within twenty-four hours. The judge shall give his or her decision within forty-eight hours; failing this, the decision lapses automatically. ↩

  4. TİB was abolished in August 2016 by Decree-Law No. 671 on the Regulation of Certain Institutions and Organisations under the State of Emergency. ↩

  5. Authorised in respect of access blocking under Articles 8, 8/A and 9/A of Law No. 5651, with judicial approval being required for administrative measure decisions issued under Articles 8/A and 9/A. ↩

  6. Ibid. ↩

  7. Pursuant to the 17th power added (Supplement: 13/10/2022-Law 7418, art 38) to Article 60(17) of the Electronic Communications Law No. 5809, BTK may decide to throttle the Internet traffic bandwidth of an over-the-top service provider by up to 95 per cent, or to block access to the relevant application or website, where that provider has failed to comply with the obligations set out in Article 9(14) of the same Law, has failed to pay an administrative fine imposed by BTK under Article 60(16) within the prescribed period, has failed within six months of BTK’s notification to comply with the obligations set out in BTK’s regulations, or is providing the service without authorisation. The decision is forwarded to the Association of Access Providers for implementation by access providers. ↩

  8. Under Article 19 of the Regulation on Market Surveillance and Inspection of Radio Equipment (Official Gazette, 27.03.2024, no 32502), BTK has been empowered, where a non-compliant device that has been placed on the market or made available on the market is promoted or sold on the Internet, to issue a notice to the intermediary service provider requesting the removal of the content, and, if the notice is not complied with within 24 hours, to order the blocking of access to the content. ↩

  9. Under Article 9(9) of Law No. 5651, where publications identical to those subject to an access blocking decision issued by a criminal judgeship of peace under Article 9 (concerning violations of personality rights) are published at other Internet addresses, the Association of Access Providers was empowered, upon application by the person concerned, to apply existing criminal judgeship of peace decisions to those addresses. This power was annulled by the Constitutional Court, the annulment entering into force on 10.10.2024. ↩

  10. The Ministry of Health is empowered under Article 18 of the Law on Pharmaceutical and Medical Preparations No. 1262 to order the immediate blocking of access where the promotion or sale of unlicensed, counterfeit or similar medical preparations is conducted via the Internet. This power is exercised by the Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency (“TITCK”) within the Ministry of Health, and decisions taken by the Agency are notified to BTK for implementation pursuant to Law No. 1262. ↩

  11. The Capital Markets Board is empowered to request access blocking under Article 99 of the Capital Markets Law No. 6362 (“measures to be applied to unauthorised capital market activities”). Under Article 99(3), where unauthorised capital market activities are found to be conducted via the Internet, the Board may apply to the courts in accordance with the access blocking legislation if content and hosting providers are within Türkiye; if they are abroad, BTK may decide on access blocking upon the Board’s application. Article 99(4) (Supplement: 17/4/2017-Decree-Law 690-67; adopted as amended: 1/2/2018-Law 7077-57) further provides that, where information is obtained regarding the collection of funds from the public through crowdfunding platforms without authorisation by the Board, or the conduct, vis-à-vis persons resident in Türkiye, of leveraged transactions abroad and derivative transactions subject to the same rules, BTK may, upon the Board’s application, block access to the relevant websites. In 2024, the Board was also granted access blocking authority in respect of unlawful activities of crypto-asset service providers. Pursuant to Article 99/A(3) of Law No. 6362 (Supplement: 26/6/2024-Law 7518-8), the Board may issue content removal and/or access blocking decisions in respect of Internet publications. The Board’s decisions are forwarded to the Association of Access Providers for implementation. ↩

  12. Under Article 10(10) of the Regulation on the Market Surveillance and Inspection of Fertilisers Used in Agriculture, where a non-compliant product placed on the market or made available on the market is promoted or sold via the Internet, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry shall notify the intermediary service provider, by electronic mail or other means of communication using contact details, domain name, IP address and similar information from the website, to remove the content. If the content is not removed by the intermediary service provider within twenty-four hours, the Ministry shall decide on the blocking of access to the content relating to the non-compliant product and notify BTK for implementation. The same procedure applies where the website belongs directly to the economic operator. Access blocking decisions issued under this paragraph are issued by means of URL-based blocking (Official Gazette, 09.06.2021, no 31506 (Duplicate)). ↩

  13. The Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock is empowered under Article 8(2)(k) of Law No. 4733 on the Regulation of the Tobacco, Tobacco Products and Alcohol Market to decide on access blocking pursuant to the procedures set out in Law No. 5651 where tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, ethyl alcohol, methanol, macaron, rolling tobacco or leaf cigarette paper (added by Article 13 of Law No. 7255 of 28.10.2020) are sold to consumers via the Internet. This authority is further reflected in Article 26(1) of the Regulation on the Procedures and Principles for the Sale and Presentation of Tobacco Products and Alcoholic Beverages (Official Gazette, 07.01.2011, no 27808). In practice this authority is exercised by the Tobacco and Alcohol Department within the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and the resulting access blockings are implemented through the Association of Access Providers rather than through BTK. ↩

  14. Under Article 7 of the Regulation on Games of Chance Conducted in the Virtual Environment (Official Gazette, 14.03.2006, no 26108), entitled “Application to the Administration and to judicial authorities”, the National Lottery Administration, Games of Chance Department, may apply to the competent judicial authorities to request the suspension of services and broadcasts of service providers serving virtual environments and/or websites on which games of chance are played, and the punishment of prohibited acts. Where the competent judicial authority orders the cessation of activities of virtual environments on which games of chance are played, the National Lottery Administration shall immediately notify BTK for the implementation of access blocking under Article 8 of the Regulation. ↩

  15. Under the Horse Racing Law No. 6132, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is empowered to organise horse races within the borders of Türkiye and to accept mutual betting on races held domestically and abroad. The Ministry has delegated the right and authority to organise mutual betting on horse races to the Turkish Jockey Club. In practice, access blocking decisions taken by the Turkish Jockey Club are implemented by BTK. ↩

  16. The Sports Toto Organisation Presidency is empowered under Article 5 of Law No. 7258 on the Regulation of Betting and Games of Chance in Football and Other Sports Competitions (Amended: 12/7/2013-Law 6495-3) to apply the access blocking provisions of Law No. 5651 to offences within the scope of that Article. The empowerment of the Sports Toto Organisation Presidency is laid down in the Regulation on the Duties, Powers and Responsibilities of the Sports Toto Organisation Presidency (Official Gazette, 21.12.2008, no 27087). ↩

  17. The Presidency of Religious Affairs, High Council of Religious Affairs, has also been empowered to block access in respect of certain content. Following the Constitutional Court’s annulment of the access blocking authority set out in Article 5 of Law No. 633 on the Establishment and Duties of the Presidency of Religious Affairs by its decision of 07.12.2023 (E. 2018/117, K. 2023/212), the provision was re-enacted by Law No. 7549 of 29.05.2025 (Official Gazette, 04.06.2025, no 32920). Under the new arrangement, where publications under the name of Qur’an translations or interpretations are found by the High Council of Religious Affairs to be objectionable from the perspective of the fundamental characteristics of Islam, the competent judicial authority shall, upon application by the Presidency of Religious Affairs, order the suspension of publication, the seizure and the destruction of such publications. Where the publication is made on the Internet, the judicial authority shall, upon application by the Presidency, order content removal and/or access blocking. These decisions are forwarded to the Association of Access Providers for implementation. While a right of objection within two weeks is provided, the lodging of an objection does not suspend implementation of the decision. See also the Regulation on Criteria for the Printing and Publication of the Qur’an (Official Gazette, 02.11.2022, no 32001), art 11. ↩

  18. The access blocking power in respect of Qur’an publications not bearing the approval and seal of the Mushaf Examination and Recitation Board, or published with errors, was annulled by the Constitutional Court by its decision of 07.12.2023 (E. 2018/117, K. 2023/212); however, the provision was re-enacted by Law No. 7549 of 29.05.2025 (Official Gazette, 04.06.2025, no 32920). The amendment to Article 6 of Law No. 633 provides that, where Qur’an publications printed, published or prepared in electronic form without the approval or seal of the Board are offered on the Internet, the competent judicial authority shall, upon application by the Presidency, order content removal and/or access blocking. These decisions are forwarded to the Association of Access Providers for implementation. While a right of objection within two weeks is provided, the lodging of an objection does not impede implementation of the content removal or access blocking decision. The seizure and destruction order becomes final only upon rejection of the objection or expiry of the objection period. See also the Regulation on Criteria for the Printing and Publication of the Qur’an (Official Gazette, 02.11.2022, no 32001), art 11. ↩

  19. RTÜK was empowered by Article 29/A added to Law No. 6112 on the Establishment of Radio and Television Enterprises and Their Broadcasting Services in 2018 (Supplement: 21/3/2018-Law 7103-82) to request access blocking where broadcasting services are provided on the Internet without a licence. Under this provision, media service providers holding a temporary broadcasting right and/or broadcasting licence from the Supreme Council may transmit their broadcasts on the Internet in accordance with this Law and Law No. 5651. Media service providers wishing to provide radio, television and on-demand broadcasting services solely via the Internet must obtain a broadcasting licence from the Supreme Council, and platform operators wishing to transmit such broadcasts via the Internet must obtain a broadcasting transmission authorisation from the Supreme Council. Where the Supreme Council establishes that broadcasting services are transmitted on the Internet by real or legal persons who do not hold or whose temporary broadcasting right and/or licence has been revoked, the criminal judgeships of peace may, upon the Supreme Council’s request, order content removal and/or access blocking. These decisions are forwarded to BTK for implementation. Article 8/A(3) and (5) of Law No. 5651 apply to such decisions. Access blocking may also be applied to broadcasting services of media service providers or platform operators under the jurisdiction of another country that the Supreme Council establishes are broadcasting in violation of international treaties to which Türkiye is party and of this Law, and to broadcasting services made in Turkish or featuring commercial communication directed at Türkiye even where the broadcast language is not Turkish. The Regulation on the Transmission of Radio, Television and On-Demand Broadcasts via the Internet was published in 2019 (Official Gazette, 01.08.2019, no 30849). ↩

  20. The Supreme Election Council may, under Article 55/B of Law No. 298 on the Basic Provisions on Elections and Voter Registers (“Propaganda in the press, communication tools and on the Internet”), request access blocking in respect of publications prohibited during the period of ten days preceding voting day, including publications in the written, oral and visual press, and the dissemination by any means of opinion polls, surveys, forecasts, mini-referenda conducted through information and communication phone lines, and the like, in favour of or against a political party or candidate or in a manner influencing voters. In practice, access blocking decisions taken on the basis of this power, which should be applied only “temporarily”, have been implemented without any time limit, and via the Association of Access Providers. ↩

  21. The Directorate-General for Consumer Protection and Market Surveillance within the Ministry of Trade has begun issuing access blocking decisions under Article 80 of the Law on the Protection of Consumers No. 6502, concerning chain-letter and pyramid sales schemes. Paragraph 3 of that Article provides that “the Ministry shall be authorised to conduct the necessary investigations regarding pyramid sales schemes and, where applicable, to take the necessary measures, including the cessation of the electronic system in our country, in cooperation with the relevant public institutions or organisations”. Decisions taken on this basis are also forwarded for implementation to the Association of Access Providers, notwithstanding the absence of an express empowerment to that effect in the legislation. ↩

  22. Under Article 7(1) of Law No. 7194 on the Digital Services Tax and Amendments to Certain Laws and Decree-Law No. 375 (Official Gazette, 07.12.2019, no 30971), entitled “Tax security”, digital service providers within the scope of this Law who fail to fulfil their declaration and payment obligations under the Tax Procedure Law No. 213 of 4/1/1961 within the prescribed period, or their authorised representatives in Türkiye, may be served with a notice by the tax office competent to assess the digital services tax, using contact details, domain name, IP address and similar information from the website by means of the notification methods set out in Law No. 213, by electronic mail or by any other means of communication, and the situation shall be announced on the website of the Revenue Administration. Under Article 7(2), if these obligations are not fulfilled within thirty days of the Revenue Administration’s announcement, the Ministry of Treasury and Finance shall decide to block access to the services provided by the digital service providers until the obligations are fulfilled; this decision is forwarded to BTK for notification to access providers. The requirements of the blocking decision are fulfilled by access providers within twenty-four hours of notification. See also the General Communiqué on the Application of the Digital Services Tax (Official Gazette, 20.03.2020, no 31074), G. Tax Security. ↩

  23. Under Article 17(2) of the Law on Product Safety and Technical Regulations No. 7223 (Official Gazette, 12.03.2020, no 31066), entitled “Other powers of the competent body relating to inspection”, where a non-compliant product placed on the market or made available on the market is promoted or sold on the Internet, the competent body shall notify the intermediary service provider by electronic mail or other means of communication, using contact details, domain name, IP address and similar information from the website, to remove the content. Where the content is not removed by the intermediary service provider within twenty-four hours, the competent body shall decide on the blocking of access to the content relating to the non-compliant product and notify BTK for implementation. The same procedure applies where the website belongs directly to the economic operator. Access blocking decisions under this paragraph are issued by URL-based blocking. Under Article 3 of this Law (“Definitions”), “competent body” covers public institutions “which prepare, implement or supervise technical regulations relating to products”. This power has been exercised since 12.03.2021. See also the Framework Regulation on the Market Surveillance and Inspection of Products (Official Gazette, 10.07.2021, no 31537), art 16(5); and the Regulation on the Market Surveillance and Inspection of Products Placed on the Market through Distance Communication Means based on Law No. 7223 (Official Gazette, 30.10.2024, no 32707), art 101, which entered into force on 01.04.2025. ↩

  24. Under Article 32(1) of the Ministry of Industry and Technology Regulation on Market Surveillance and Inspection (“Decision to block access to content”), where the content is not removed by the intermediary service provider within twenty-four hours of notification by the provincial directorates of industry and technology, the provincial director at the location of the intermediary service provider’s headquarters shall decide on the blocking of access to the content relating to the non-compliant product and notify BTK for implementation (Official Gazette, 14.07.2021, no 31541). See also the Ministry of Labour and Social Security Regulation on Market Surveillance and Inspection (Official Gazette, 21.10.2022, no 31990), art 29. ↩

  25. Paragraph 3 added to Article 6 of the Law on Fundraising No. 2860 by Article 7 of Law No. 7262 of 27.12.2020 provided that, where unauthorised fundraising activity is detected on the Internet, the relevant governor’s office or the Ministry of the Interior shall notify the content and/or hosting provider, by electronic mail or other means of communication, using contact details, domain name, IP address and similar information from the website, to remove the content relating to the fundraising activity. Where the content is not removed within twenty-four hours by the content and/or hosting provider, or where information regarding the content and hosting provider cannot be obtained or notification cannot be made for technical reasons, the relevant governor’s office or the Ministry of the Interior shall apply to a criminal judgeship of peace for an access blocking decision in respect of the content. The judge shall give a decision within twenty-four hours without holding a hearing, and shall forward it directly to BTK for implementation. Objection may be lodged against this decision under the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 of 4/12/2004. Access blocking decisions under this paragraph are issued by URL-based blocking. This provision was found by the Constitutional Court to be contrary to Articles 13 and 26 of the Constitution and annulled. The annulment entered into force on 03.01.2025. Constitutional Court, E. 2021/28, K. 2024/11, 18.01.2024, Official Gazette, 03.04.2024, no 32509. ↩

  26. Under Article 150(3) of the Banking Law No. 5411 (“unauthorised activity”), in respect of real and legal persons who carry out banking activities or accept deposits or collect participation funds without obtaining the requisite authorisations, upon the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency’s request to the competent Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office (or, where a case has been filed, to the court adjudicating the case), the criminal judgeship of peace (or the court) shall temporarily suspend the activities and advertisements of the relevant business premises, seize their announcements and, where it is established that these violations have been committed via the Internet, block access to the Internet sites if the content and hosting providers are within Türkiye. These measures shall continue until lifted by judicial decision. Objection may be lodged against these decisions (Amended paragraph: 20.02.2020-Law 7222, art 17). The newly added paragraph 4 of Article 150 provides that, where the violations referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) are committed through Internet sites whose content and hosting providers are abroad, access to those Internet sites shall be blocked by BTK upon the Agency’s application (Added paragraph: 20.02.2020-Law 7222, art 17). A similar authority has been granted to the BRSA by Article 46 of the Financial Leasing, Factoring, Financing and Savings Finance Companies Law No. 6361, paragraph 4 of which provides that, where financial leasing, factoring, financing and savings finance activities are carried out without the authorisations required under that Law and “where such violations occur on the Internet, the Agency may issue content removal and/or access blocking decisions. The decision is forwarded to BTK for implementation” (Supplement: 04.03.2021-Law 7292, art 11). ↩

  27. Under Supplemental Article 1 of Law No. 5894 on the Establishment and Duties of the Turkish Football Federation, concerning the protection of broadcasting rights: (1) where it is established that broadcasts of football matches within the borders of the Republic of Türkiye are unlawfully made available on the Internet, the Board of Directors shall decide on the blocking of access (by URL or similar means) in respect of the broadcast, section or part in which the violation occurred. Where technically the blocking of access to the infringing content cannot be performed, or where the violation cannot be prevented by blocking access to that content, an access blocking decision may be issued in respect of the entire website. This decision is forwarded to the Association of Access Providers for implementation under Article 6/A of Law No. 5651 of 4/5/2007 on Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed by Means of Such Publications. Objection to this decision may be lodged with the criminal judgeship of peace within one week. An administrative unit shall be established within the TFF to carry out the operations relating to access blocking. The Board of Directors may delegate its authority under this Article to persons serving in the administrative unit. (2) Where it is established that broadcasts of football matches outside the borders of the Republic of Türkiye are unlawfully made available on the Internet, the provisions of paragraph (1) shall apply upon the request of the broadcasting rights holder. Such request requires the broadcasting rights contract to be notified to the TFF and rights holding to be proven. (3) The procedures and principles relating to the application of this Article shall be determined by directive issued by the Board of Directors (Supplement: 21.12.2021-Law 7346, art 29). This provision was annulled by Constitutional Court decision E. 2024/75, K. 2025/134 of 17.06.2025. The annulment will enter into force nine months after publication in the Official Gazette (14.07.2026). ↩

  28. Under Article 41/G(1) of the Child Protection Law No. 5395 (“Content removal or access blocking”), “persons who allege that their personality rights have been violated by the publication on the Internet of audio or video recordings taken at the time when a child is handed over to, or received from, a person under a child custody handover or personal contact arrangement by an expert or teacher may request content removal or access blocking under Article 9 of Law No. 5651 of 4/5/2007 on Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed by Means of Such Publications” (Supplement: 24.11.2021-Law 7343, art 45). See also the Regulation on the Implementation of Court Orders and Interim Measures Concerning the Handover of Children and the Establishment of Personal Contact with Children (Official Gazette, 04.08.2022, no 31913), art 53. ↩

  29. Pursuant to the power added to paragraph 12 of Article 77 of the Law on the Protection of Consumers No. 6502 (“penal provisions”) (Supplementary sentences: 24/3/2022-Law 7392, art 15), the Advertising Board may, in addition to imposing administrative fines, decide to block access (by URL or similar) in respect of the broadcast, section or part in which the violation occurred where the violation has been committed via the Internet. Where it is technically not possible to block access to the infringing content, or where the violation cannot be prevented by blocking access to the content, the entire website may be blocked. This decision is forwarded to the Association of Access Providers for implementation under Article 6/A of Law No. 5651. Application may be made to the criminal judgeship of peace against this decision; objection to the criminal judgeship of peace’s decision may be made under the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 of 4/12/2004. This power was annulled by the Constitutional Court by decision published in the Official Gazette on 27.10.2023 (E. 2022/70, K. 2023/152, 13.09.2023), the annulment entering into force on 27.07.2024. A new provision was, however, inserted in place of the annulled provision by Law No. 7511. Accordingly, the Advertising Board (Amended sentences: 23/5/2024-Law 7511, art 19) may, where the violation occurs via the Internet, decide that notification be made for the removal of the content and, where the content is not removed within twenty-four hours despite this notification, decide on access blocking. Where it is not possible to notify the addressee, the Board may decide directly on access blocking. The access blocking decision is forwarded to the Association of Access Providers for implementation. The access blocking decision is essentially limited to the content in which the violation has occurred. However, where it is technically not possible to block access to the infringing content, or where the violation cannot be prevented by blocking access to that content alone, an access blocking decision may also be issued in respect of the entire website. ↩

  30. Under the amendments made to paragraph 3 of Article 12 of the Law on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce No. 6563 (“penal provisions”) (Supplement: 1/7/2022-Law 7416, art 6), the Ministry may issue content removal and/or access blocking decisions in respect of electronic commerce intermediary service providers and electronic commerce service providers who act contrary to Law No. 6563. These decisions are forwarded to the Association of Access Providers for implementation. The requirements of content removal and/or access blocking decisions transmitted by the Association to the relevant content and hosting providers and access providers shall be immediately fulfilled by them. Application may be made to the criminal judgeship of peace against a content removal and/or access blocking decision; objection to the criminal judgeship of peace’s decision may be made under the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 of 4/12/2004. ↩

  31. Under Article 111/b of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (Supplement: 24/11/2021-Law 7343, art 13), the authority to block access has been granted in respect of sales by electronic auction. This Article provides that “in respect of Internet sites that prevent the safe conduct of sales transactions on the electronic sales portal, or that harm the rights and interests of the electronic sales system and of tender purchasers, the provisions of Article 8/A of Law No. 5651 of 4/5/2007 on Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed by Means of Such Publications shall apply”. See also the Regulation on the Procedures for Sales to be Carried Out Electronically under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (Official Gazette, 08.03.2022, no 31772), art 24(1). ↩

  32. Under Article 12(1)(e) of the Regulation on Promotion and Information Activities in Health Services (Official Gazette, 12.11.2025, no 33075), the Ministry of Health has been granted the authority to intervene in respect of Internet content. Under this arrangement, in respect of health-related promotion and information made through social sharing and Internet sites that endangers human health and adversely affects or impedes the diagnosis and treatment process, application is to be made to the competent authorities for access blocking under the provisions of Law No. 5651. Unlike previous arrangements, this provision directly ties the access blocking request to the mechanisms of Law No. 5651 and, by providing that a separate criminal complaint will be lodged where the act constitutes a crime, separates the administrative measure from the criminal procedure. See also the Regulation on the Inspection of Health Claims (Official Gazette, 13.06.2023, no 32220), art 9(4). ↩

  33. The access blocking authority of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism rests on two distinct legal bases. First, under Article 4(1)(e) of Law No. 7464 on the Tourism-Related Rental of Residences and Amendments to Certain Laws, where platforms fail, despite the Ministry’s warning, to remove the listing content within twenty-four hours in relation to tourism-related rental activities, the Ministry may decide on content removal and/or access blocking limited to the broadcast, section and part in which the violation has occurred (Official Gazette, 02.11.2023, no 32357). Second, under Article 33 of the Tourism Encouragement Law No. 2634, as amended by Article 7 of Law No. 7565, platforms enabling the electronic commerce and promotion of accommodation establishments are required to verify the certificate numbers in the Ministry’s database and to include these numbers in their activities. In respect of content that acts contrary to this obligation or that promotes uncertified accommodation establishments, where the content is not removed within twenty-four hours despite the Ministry’s warning, an administrative fine of twenty-five thousand Turkish Lira is imposed for each listing; in addition, the Ministry may decide on URL-based content removal and/or access blocking (Official Gazette, 05.12.2025, no 33098). Decisions taken under both arrangements are forwarded to the Association of Access Providers (ESB) for implementation and submitted to a criminal judgeship of peace for approval within twenty-four hours. Where the judge fails to issue a decision within forty-eight hours, the access blocking decision lapses automatically. ↩