Turkey’s Constitutional Court has ruled that journalist Bülent Kılıç’s right to an effective remedy was violated in connection with the protection of his honor and reputation after a newspaper described him as a “French agent.” The court found that lower court proceedings failed to provide effective protection against the alleged reputational harm.
Kılıç, represented by the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA), had filed an individual application with the Constitutional Court after the pro-government daily Akit published a news story labeling him a “French agent.” The high court concluded that his right to an effective remedy, as safeguarded under Article 40 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 17, which protects moral integrity, had been breached.
MLSA: One of the rare rulings awarding damages
Veysel Ok, co-director of MLSA, described the ruling as a turning point for press freedom in Turkey.
“Newspapers with similar editorial policies have in the past and still today published stories targeting many journalists, human rights defenders, and well-known public figures,” Ok said. “However, those harmed by this publishing policy have generally been unable to obtain compensation for the damage they suffered. This ruling shows that media outlets that systematically attack personal rights will now face consequences.”
Ok also underlined the practical importance of the decision. “Numerous lawsuits have been filed against newspapers that publish content aimed at targeting individuals. But these cases often ended without result due to technical grounds. Moreover, these newspapers would attempt to circumvent such rulings by changing their corporate structure. The Constitutional Court’s decision has delivered genuine justice and paved the way for compensation. We hope it will serve as a deterrent precedent for other media organizations following similar editorial policies,” he said.
Requests to remove content and block access were rejected
With legal support from MLSA, Kılıç had applied to Criminal Judgeships of Peace under Article 9 of Law No. 5651 — the law regulating online publications, as it stood at the time the story was published — requesting the removal of the content and blocking of access on the grounds that it violated his personal rights.
His requests were rejected. Objections to those decisions were also dismissed by the Criminal Judgeships of Peace, exhausting the available remedies at that level. Kılıç then lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court through MLSA’s legal unit.
What the application argued
According to the summary of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, Kılıç argued that the online content had a damaging impact on his reputation and that his requests for access blocking and content removal were rejected without sufficient or reasoned justification.
He claimed violations under multiple constitutional rights, including the right to protection of honor and reputation, the right to be forgotten, the right not to be stigmatized, the right to privacy, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial. The court examined the case primarily within the framework of the right to an effective remedy in connection with the protection of honor and reputation.
Constitutional Court: “Effective protection was not provided”
In its decision dated Dec. 24, 2025 (Application No. 2021/22090), the First Section of the Constitutional Court concluded that the rejection process before the Criminal Judgeships of Peace failed to provide protection sufficient to address the applicant’s complaints regarding his personal rights.
The court held that, during the period in which the access-blocking and content-removal mechanism was applied, procedural safeguards were inadequate and did not offer an effective remedy against interferences with personal rights.
As a result, the court ruled that the right to an effective remedy under Article 40 of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 17, had been violated.
Damages awarded; civil courts remain an option
The Constitutional Court awarded non-pecuniary damages in favor of Kılıç.
It also noted in its ruling that if the content in question remains accessible, the applicant may pursue further action before civil courts to seek the termination of ongoing violations.
