What changed in the protection of personal data with this decision?

With this decision, it was confirmed that the practice of investigating and prosecuting the offenses of unlawfully giving or obtaining personal data by the state without being subject to a complaint is in conformity with the Constitution. The current status quo continues.

On what grounds did the Constitutional Court reject the request for annulment?

The AYM rejected the request for annulment, stating that the rule aims to protect the private life of individuals and ensure public order, and that this situation is not contrary to the principles of the rule of law and equality.

Was the decision taken 'unanimously'?

Yes, the Constitutional Court unanimously decided on the rejection of the objection.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULINGS14 July 2026

Decision from the Constitutional Court: Ex Officio Prosecution for Data Breaches!

Official titleDecision of the Constitutional Court Dated 16/4/2026 and Numbered E: 2026/34, K: 2026/81

The Constitutional Court unanimously rejected the request of the Osmaniye 13th Criminal Court of First Instance for the annulment of the phrase "unlawfully giving or obtaining data" in Article 139 of the Turkish Penal Code.

Details of the Regulation

The Osmaniye 13th Criminal Court of First Instance applied to the Constitutional Court (AYM) during a lawsuit filed regarding the offense of unlawfully giving or obtaining personal data, considering that the relevant phrase in Article 139 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) was contrary to Articles 2 (Rule of Law), 10 (Equality), and 20 (Privacy of Private Life) of the Constitution. The rule subject to the objection regulates that the investigation and prosecution of the offenses of unlawfully recording, giving, obtaining, and failing to destroy personal data are not subject to a complaint.

In its examination, the AYM stated that the rule subject to the objection aims to prevent the unauthorized obtaining or presentation of personal data to third parties within the scope of protecting the private life of individuals. The Court drew attention to the fact that unlawfully giving or obtaining personal data may harm not only individual interests but also the sense of trust regarding the protection of personal data in society and public order. It emphasized that it is within the discretion of the legislature to remove the prosecution of certain offenses from being subject to a complaint, taking into account factors such as the gravity of the offenses and their importance in terms of public order.

The AYM expressed that the rule does not pursue a purpose other than the public interest and is not contrary to the principle of the rule of law. Furthermore, it stated that applying different procedural rules to types of offenses in different legal positions does not violate the principle of equality. Consequently, ruling that there was no non-conformity with Articles 2, 10, and 20 of the Constitution, it unanimously decided on the REJECTION of the objection. This decision confirms that the authority of public bodies to act ex officio in offenses related to the protection of personal data is in conformity with the constitution.

REGAS Commentary

This decision certifies that the absence of a complaint requirement in the prosecution of offenses such as the unlawful obtaining or dissemination of personal data is in conformity with the Constitution. For citizens, this means that the state will continue to take an active role in protecting their personal data and that such offenses will be pursued regardless of a complaint. This situation is an element that can strengthen individuals' trust in data security, especially in the digital age where personal data is widely used. It reflects an approach that observes the balance between public order and individual rights.

Questions You Might Have

What changed in the protection of personal data with this decision?: With this decision, it was confirmed that the practice of investigating and prosecuting the offenses of unlawfully giving or obtaining personal data by the state without being subject to a complaint is in conformity with the Constitution. The current status quo continues.
On what grounds did the Constitutional Court reject the request for annulment?: The AYM rejected the request for annulment, stating that the rule aims to protect the private life of individuals and ensure public order, and that this situation is not contrary to the principles of the rule of law and equality.
Was the decision taken 'unanimously'?: Yes, the Constitutional Court unanimously decided on the rejection of the objection.

Key Terms

İtiraz Yolu: When courts consider that a provision of law to be applied in a case before them is unconstitutional, their application to the Constitutional Court for the annulment of the provision of law in question.
Hukuk Devleti İlkesi: The principle that the state must adhere to the law in all its actions and transactions, respect human rights, establish a fair legal order, and ensure legal certainty.
Eşitlik İlkesi: It is the equality of everyone before the law without discrimination based on language, race, color, sex, political opinion, philosophical belief, religion, sect, or similar reasons. It expresses the application of the same rules to those who are in the same legal position.
Kişisel Veri: Any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person.
Şikayet: The will of the victim or the person damaged by the crime to apply to the competent authorities to request the investigation or prosecution of an act.

Follow Turkish legal developments

REGAS analyzed all 39 items in the Official Gazette of 14 July 2026; we published only 3 of them here.

REGAS summarizes every change in the Turkish Official Gazette in plain language and notifies you.

The REGAS app is currently Turkish-only. If you would like English in the app, the best way to make it happen is to support the developer: get the app and just say so.