Analysis of the Constitutional Court’s Decision No. 2022/58084
The Constitutional Court’s 2022/58084 application number and 17 September 2025 decision (“Decision”) was published in the Official Gazette on 16 February 2026 and announced to the public. The Decision is noteworthy in terms of the application of the Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698, particularly with regard to determining the limits of data processing activities carried out within the scope of freedom of expression.
In the case in question, a local internet news site published a student’s YKS exam result certificate, including their name, surname, photograph, higher education programme placement, and placement score, without explicit consent. the Personal Data Protection Board, in its Decision dated 06/01/2022 and numbered 2022/13, imposed an administrative fine of 30,000 TL on the data controller. The applicant filed an individual application claiming that the sanction violated freedom of expression and press freedom.
The Constitutional Court accepted that the administrative fine constituted an interference with freedom of expression and the press; however, it stated that the interference required a balancing act between the right to the protection of personal data guaranteed by Article 20 of the Constitution and the freedom of expression and the press regulated by Articles 26 and 28.
In this context, it was stated that the interference must be examined within the framework of the legitimate aim, the requirements of a democratic society, and the principle of proportionality. The Court accepted the interference as legitimate, stating that it was based on the aim of protecting personal data and private life, and based its balancing analysis on the criterion of ‘public interest’.
The decision concluded that the fact that a person had passed the university entrance examination did not constitute a public interest sufficient to justify the publication of the examination results document together with photographs and identity information. It was assessed that the news item was not of sufficient weight to prompt a general debate in society and that the publication of all elements of personal data constituted an intervention exceeding the purpose of reporting the news.
The court also clearly stated that the availability of information on the internet does not automatically make the reprocessing and unlimited processing of such data lawful. This finding is significant in terms of the principles of data minimisation and proportionality.
In this respect, the Decision clearly states that the assessment of the lawfulness of the processing of personal data in the context of digital media activities must be based on concrete and objective criteria, rather than an abstract claim of ‘news value’. It confirms that the exception of freedom of expression cannot be interpreted broadly and that, in cases where it conflicts with the right to the protection of personal data, a careful balancing of interests must be carried out in each specific case.