Pilot Decision of the Constitutional Court on the Access Barrier

The Constitutional Court signed a very important decision as a result of the applications made regarding the broadcast ban on certain news on the internet. In the decision published in the Official Gazette, the Constitutional Court ruled with a publication ban. freedom of expression and press and the right to an effective application have been violated. decided. In addition, it is necessary to examine similar applications together with the pilot decision. 1 year postponement ruled.

The Constitutional Court combined 9 individual applications regarding the access ban on news due to legal contact. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that access to news interference with freedom of expression and press stated. Some of the reasons for the decision were as follows:

There are no concrete fixes:

“In the 9th article of the Law (Law No. 5651 on Regulation of Broadcasts on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed Through These Broadcasts), the scope of the way of blocking access is limited to the internet broadcasting which constitutes a crime. there is no statement. Moreover, a criterion/threshold value has not been determined for the size of the weight that the tort of personal rights must reach in order to use this method. In addition, there is the impression that all of the procedures to prevent access brought by the law in question are in the nature of a precautionary measure.

In the decision, it was stated that the media did not comply with its duties and responsibilities in the decisions of the criminal judgeships of peace, and that the truth was distorted maliciously. no concrete findings reported. In addition, it was stated in the following statements that the intervention was not proportionate:

“Moreover, it has not been determined that a criminal investigation and prosecution has been initiated in relation to any of these news reports after the decision to block access. Therefore, the news that are the subject of concrete applications seem to have been blocked for an indefinite period. interference with freedom of expression and press was not considered proportional.“

It was emphasized that the current system should be reconsidered:

already operating in order to prevent similar violations. The current system needs to be reworked. The following statements were also used in the cited decision:

“Undoubtedly, it is at the discretion of the legislature to make the legal regulations, which is an important part of the state policy to be adopted in the organization of the internet environment. Of course, the parliament may also prefer to make new legal arrangements while remaining within the existing system. In this case, interventions to the online environment will be made in order to comply with the requirements of the democratic social order in accordance with Article 13 of the Constitution and not to violate Article 26 of the Constitution. in new regulations It was concluded that it would be beneficial to consider the minimum standards.”

You can go to the decision published in the Official Gazette by clicking this link to examine the decision and to get information about the news and the applicants.