The Constitutional Court of Turkey has ruled that the rejection of activist Efruz Kaya’s request to block anti-LGBTQ+ news reports by the Islamist and pro-goverment daily Yeni Akit constitutes a rights violation in what is a first in Turkey.
The court found in favor of Kaya, who sought to block homophobic news reports published after she appeared in a video for the 2019 Transgender Day of Remembrance. Her request for access restrictions had been denied by the Criminal Judgeships of Peace.
Efruz Kaya, a civil society worker represented by the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA), had her application upheld by the Constitutional Court on January 25, 2024. This marks the first ruling by the court that non-prevention of hate speech against LGBTQ+ individuals constitutes a rights violation.
In November 2019, Kaya appeared in a video commemorating the Transgender Day of Remembrance. Following this, Yeni Akit, Doğru Haber, and İLKHA published news reports targeting her sexual identity on November 21 and 22. Kaya’s request to remove these reports was denied, as were the MLSA lawyers’ appeals against these decisions.
Subsequently, the MLSA Legal Unit took the case to the Constitutional Court, which ruled that the rejection of Kaya’s request violated her right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court also recognized the violation of her right to an effective remedy.
The court accepted Kaya’s demand to block the reports containing derogatory terms such as "LGBTQ+ pervert," "deviant," and "homosexual pervert." Additionally, the court awarded her 10,000 Turkish Lira in damages for the moral harm caused by the rights violation.
Key points from the ruling
The decision, which also evaluated similar cases including "Atalay Candelen and others," emphasized the lack of effective protection against attacks on personal rights. The Constitutional Court stated that the provisions under Article 9 of Law No. 5651 failed to offer sufficient safeguards for freedom of expression and personal rights protection. Moreover, it noted that the private legal remedy, identified as potentially offering a reasonable chance of success for third-party interventions in personal rights, had been closed to access-blocking requests by Supreme Court precedent.
The court concluded that the current rejection of access-blocking requests left the applicants without an effective legal recourse to protect their honor and reputation, thus violating their rights to an effective remedy related to the protection of their honor and reputation (for a detailed assessment, see I.D. and others, §§ 83-98).
