A report on an investigation that ended in acquittal or a long-settled dispute can still be the first result when an investor, employer or customer searches a name. People asking how to remove old news in Türkiye, or whether the right to be forgotten (unutulma hakkı) applies to them, usually want one of two things: the article removed or corrected at its source, or the link dropped from searches on their name. Turkish law offers both, through different routes and decision-makers. This article explains where the right comes from, how it is balanced against press freedom, and four routes (publisher, search engine, Personal Data Protection Board, civil court) with what each can achieve.
Where the right to be forgotten comes from in Turkish law
No Turkish statute uses the words “right to be forgotten”. The courts and the data protection authority built it from existing provisions.
- Court of Cassation, 2015. In its decision of 17 June 2015 (E. 2014/4-56, K. 2015/1679), the General Assembly of Civil Chambers (Hukuk Genel Kurulu) considered a book that reproduced a criminal judgment without redacting the victim’s name. It held that, absent an overriding public interest, negative past events held in digital memory fall within the right to be forgotten, and that publishing her name without anonymisation infringed it.
- Constitutional Court, 2016. In N.B.B. (application no. 2013/5653, Plenary, 3 March 2016), a newspaper’s online archive still carried three reports from 1998 and 1999 about a drug-use case that had ended in a judicial fine. The Court found a violation of the right to protection of honour and reputation (Article 17 of the Constitution), while stressing that the right cannot be expected to apply to every archived item and that an online news archive as a whole is protected by press freedom.
- Data protection law. Article 7 of the Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698 (KVKK) requires personal data to be erased, destroyed or anonymised once the reasons for processing no longer exist, and Article 11 lets the data subject ask for this. In decision 2020/481 of 23 June 2020, the Personal Data Protection Board assessed delisting requests under these provisions and Article 20(3) of the Constitution, and treated search engine operators as data controllers.
Article 28(1)(c) of the KVKK excludes processing for artistic, historical, literary or scientific purposes or within freedom of expression, provided it does not violate national security, public order, privacy or personality rights (among other interests) or constitute a crime. In our reading, this is why a publisher’s archive is usually assessed under press freedom and personality rights, and the KVKK route targets mainly search engines. See our glossary entry on the right to be forgotten.
How the balance is struck
The right to be forgotten does not erase lawful journalism: accurate reporting on matters of public interest is protected, and the law does not support suppressing it. Alongside decision 2020/481 the Board published 13 criteria it considers first; the main ones:
- Public role: requests from politicians, senior officials, business people, well-known artists and athletes, religious leaders and some professionals are less likely to succeed, though their private-life information can still be delisted.
- Minors: information published when the person was a minor is more likely to be delisted.
- Accuracy: inaccurate or misleading information favours delisting; the complainant must prove the inaccuracy. If accuracy is disputed in an ongoing investigation or trial, action may be deferred until it ends.
- Time: the passage of time favours delisting, but has limited effect for public figures and historical or scientific data. Old, relatively minor offences are more likely to be delisted than recent, serious ones.
- Nature of the data: professional information is harder to delist; sensitive data (health, sexual life, religion), identifying or financial details, and information creating risks such as stalking are easier.
- Source: journalism is weighed against press freedom and its contribution to public debate; information the person published, or published under a continuing legal obligation, weighs against delisting. For insulting or defamatory content, the Board considers the courts the better forum.
The Constitutional Court in N.B.B. used similar factors. An acquittal is not a listed criterion, but it goes to accuracy and currency; Google’s help page notes that a report on a trial that ended without conviction may become out of date more quickly.
Four routes and what each achieves
The first question is whether the source must change or whether disappearing from name searches is enough.
| Route | What it achieves | Who decides | Timing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Request to the publisher | Update with the outcome, anonymisation, removal or a noindex tag; the source itself changes | The publisher, voluntarily | No statutory deadline for old reports |
| Delisting request to the search engine | Link removed for searches on the person’s name; the page stays online | The search engine operator | Reply within 30 days at the latest (KVKK Art. 13) |
| Complaint to the Board | Instruction to delist if the balance favours the person | Personal Data Protection Board | File within 30 days of the reply (60 days of the request at most); no answer in 60 days means deemed refusal |
| Civil action (TMK Arts. 24-25) | Order ending the infringement, declaration of unlawfulness, compensation | Civil court of first instance | No fixed timeline; the slowest route |
The route many older guides still describe, an access-blocking application under Article 9 of Law No. 5651, no longer exists: the Constitutional Court annulled it with effect from 10 October 2024 and nothing has replaced it as of November 2026 (see our article on platform liability). Article 9/A remains for violations of the privacy of private life, which, in our view, an ordinary report on a past investigation rarely is. Our article on content removal after 2024 explains why delisting is not deletion.
Working with the publisher and the search engine
The publisher. A reasoned, documented request often achieves more than a threat. A publisher can be asked to add an update stating the outcome (acquittal, decision not to prosecute, settlement), replace the name with initials, remove a photograph, or add a noindex instruction so that search engines drop the page while the archive stays intact. N.B.B. itself points to such less intrusive measures. Attach a copy of the final decision. The right of reply and correction under Article 14 of Press Law No. 5187 rarely helps here: the text must be sent within two months of publication.
The search engine. Each search engine is a separate data controller and needs its own request. According to Google’s legal help pages (November 2026), delisting applies only to searches related to the person’s name; the request lists the URLs, explains how the content relates to the requester and why it should go, and gives the search terms. Google says it defers significantly to a court ruling in the requester’s favour and notes that Türkiye has its own version of the right. In October 2026 the President of the Personal Data Protection Authority told Anadolu Agency that Google had opened a Türkiye-specific option and must say within 30 days whether the content can be removed, in line with the 30-day period in Article 13 of the KVKK. We did not find that option described on Google’s own help pages, and forms change, so check the current form before filing.
The EU dimension. For people in the EU, Article 17 of the GDPR and the CJEU’s Google Spain judgment (C-131/12, 13 May 2014) apply, subject to the freedom of expression exception in Article 17(3)(a). In Google v CNIL (C-507/17, 24 September 2019) the CJEU held that EU law requires delisting on the versions for all Member States, with measures that effectively prevent or seriously discourage EU users from reaching the link, but not worldwide, although national authorities may, after their own balancing, order worldwide delisting. Our article on foreign platforms covers cross-border content; EU law questions are for local counsel.
The Board, the courts and the criminal record
Complaint to the Board. If the search engine refuses, answers inadequately or does not answer in time, the person may complain within 30 days of learning of the reply and in any case within 60 days of the request (KVKK Art. 14); the controller must be asked first. If the Board does not answer within 60 days, the complaint is deemed rejected; if it finds a violation, the controller must comply within 30 days of notification (Art. 15). The Board’s decision reaches the search result, not the source. Our guide to data subject requests covers the request stage from the controller’s side.
Civil action. Where the source must change, the route is the civil court of first instance under Articles 24 and 25 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK). An attack on personality rights is unlawful unless justified by consent, an overriding private or public interest, or legal authority; the claimant may ask the court to prevent a threatened attack, end an ongoing one, or declare unlawful one whose effects continue. Expect a long process: interim relief removing content before judgment is often refused. Once domestic remedies are exhausted, an individual application to the Constitutional Court is possible; N.B.B. itself reached the Court through the former Article 9 route.
The criminal record is separate. Erasure of criminal record and archive entries under Article 12 of Law No. 5352 on Criminal Records removes the state record, not news archives or search results, though it is useful evidence in every route above.
Where to start
- List the URLs, search terms and publication dates; record the results with date and time.
- Gather documents that change the picture: a final acquittal or non-prosecution decision, a settlement, a court ruling, a record erasure.
- Decide whether you need a corrected source or disappearance from name searches; that sets the route.
- Write to the publisher first and keep the correspondence.
- File a delisting request with each search engine for each name variant, citing the criteria that fit your facts; diarise the 30-day reply period.
- If refused or unanswered, prepare the Board complaint within the 30 and 60-day limits; if the report is defamatory or the source must go, consider a civil action instead.
- Do not create fake content to push results down, misstate facts in a request or pressure journalists: these create new liabilities and weaken a genuine claim.
Frequently asked questions
Can I have old news about me deleted in Türkiye?
Sometimes, but deletion and delisting differ. The publisher can delete or anonymise voluntarily, and a civil court can order removal under Articles 24 and 25 of the Civil Code after weighing press freedom. A search engine, or the Board on complaint, can remove the link from searches on your name while the page stays online. The outcome depends on the facts.
I was acquitted. Will the old report disappear automatically?
No. Neither an acquittal nor the erasure of a criminal record under Law No. 5352 changes news archives or search results by itself. Both are strong evidence on the accuracy and currency of the report. Use the decision with the publisher, in delisting requests and, if refused, in a Board complaint.
Can a company use the right to be forgotten for its own name?
Generally not through data protection law. The KVKK protects natural persons only, and Google states that corporations and other legal entities usually have no right to delist content. A company can still approach the publisher and, where a report unlawfully harms its reputation, bring a civil action. Executives named in the report can request delisting for searches on their own names.
Does a delisting obtained in Türkiye apply worldwide?
Usually not. Search engines apply delistings territorially: Google, for example, does not apply EU delistings to its services for non-EU countries, in line with the CJEU’s 2019 Google v CNIL judgment, which held that EU law does not require worldwide delisting. A delisting under Turkish law should be expected to work mainly for searches from Türkiye, and the page remains available at its source.
Sources. Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698 (Articles 7, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 28; English text); Personal Data Protection Board decision 2020/481 of 23.06.2020 and its delisting criteria; Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Articles 24 and 25); Press Law No. 5187 (Article 14); Law No. 5352 on Criminal Records (Article 12); Law No. 5651 (Articles 9 and 9/A); Constitution, Articles 17 and 20; Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers, 17.06.2015, E. 2014/4-56, K. 2015/1679; Constitutional Court, N.B.B., no. 2013/5653, 03.03.2016; Constitutional Court, E. 2020/76, K. 2023/172, 11.10.2023 (RG 10.01.2024, No. 32425); Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), Article 17; CJEU C-131/12 Google Spain and C-507/17 Google v CNIL; Google Legal Help, Right to be forgotten overview (November 2026).
This article is general information and not legal advice; a specific situation should be assessed with counsel.
Author
More from Vircon Insights
Complaint Sites and Google Reviews in Türkiye: Which Posts Can Be Removed, and How
November 13, 2026Removing Content from Google, Meta and X from Türkiye: What a Turkish Order Achieves and Which Foreign Channels Work
November 13, 2026Esports Player Contracts in Türkiye: Employee or Athlete, the Labour Law Exclusion, Image Rights and the Club-Player-Publisher Triangle
October 23, 2026KVKK for Game Studios: Telemetry, Device Identifiers, Ad SDKs and the Data That Leaves Türkiye Every Session
October 22, 2026Loot Boxes, Gacha and the Gambling Line in Türkiye: Law 7258, Article 228 of the Criminal Code and the Advertising Board
October 20, 2026Equity Crowdfunding in Türkiye: How a Startup Raises Through a Licensed Platform Under Communiqué III-35/A.2
October 17, 2026Related Practice Areas
Privacy & Cybersecurity
KVKK and GDPR compliance, breach response, cybersecurity governance.
View service →Corporate Law
Share transfers, capital increases, board structuring, governance.
View service →Gaming & Esports Law
Studio funding rounds, chain of title, publishing and platform agreements, esports.
View service →