THE PROVISION ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF NAME CHANGE IS ANNULLED!
With its decision dated 22/2/2024 and numbered 2023/34, the Constitutional Court (“CC”) annulled the provision of Article 27/2 of the Turkish Civil Code (“TCC”) regarding the announcement in the newspaper after the name change within the scope of the right to request protection of personal data. The annulled provision reads as follows: “The change of name can only be requested from the judge based on justified reasons. The change of name shall be recorded and announced in the civil registry.”
In the Constitutional Court application, in summary; it was argued that the rule is unconstitutional by stating that there is no regulation on how the announcement of the court decision regarding the change of name will be made in the rule subject to the objection, in practice, the judgment paragraph of the relevant decision is announced in the newspaper, and by making the announcement in this way, personal data such as the person’s previous name, current name, mother and father’s name, place of registration and date of birth become known to everyone, and no legal consequences are attached to the announcement of the change of name.
In its assessment, the Constitutional Court emphasized that everyone has the right to demand the protection of personal data concerning him/her pursuant to Article 20/3 of the Constitution. In addition; “Personal data may only be processed in cases stipulated by law or with the explicit consent of the person. The principles and procedures regarding the protection of personal data shall be regulated by law.” The Constitutional Court stated that the protection of personal data is guaranteed within the scope of the right to demand respect for private life. In addition to the above-mentioned evaluations;
As stated in other decisions of the Constitutional Court; personal data refers to all information related to a person and includes not only information that reveals the identity of the individual such as name, surname, date of birth, but also information such as telephone number, social security number and in this context, a person’s name clearly qualifies as personal data,
The rule subject to objection imposes a limitation on the right to request the protection of personal data by stipulating that the change of name must be announced,
Pursuant to Article 13 of the Constitution, regulations restricting the right to request the protection of personal data must be made by law and must be proportionate and in accordance with the reasons for restriction set forth in the Constitution and the requirements of the democratic social order,
Pursuant to Article 20/3 of the Constitution; personal data may only be processed in cases stipulated by law or with the explicit consent of the person, and the principles and procedures regarding the protection of personal data shall be regulated by law,
In this context, the Constitutional Court stated that the formal existence of a legal regulation to limit the right to request the protection of personal data is not sufficient, and that the rules must be specific and foreseeable in a way that does not allow arbitrariness.
As a result of these assessments, the Constitutional Court found that the relevant rule stipulates the announcement of the name change, but there is no regulation on what the scope of the announcement will be, what information in the nature of personal data will be included in the announcement, the form and procedure of the announcement; there are no legal guarantees to ensure that the scope of the information to be included in the announcement is specific and predictable in a way that does not allow arbitrariness; and decided to annul the relevant part of the provision on the grounds that it is contrary to Articles 13 and 20 of the Constitution.
GRC LEGAL Comment: We observe that the Constitutional Court has recently made important decisions in terms of securing the protection of personal data and the right to privacy. The annulment of the “announcement” provision in Article 27/2 of the TMK has prevented certain personal data of individuals from becoming publicly known, and the Constitutional Court’s decision underlines that legal guarantees for the protection of personal data must be specific and foreseeable. In our opinion, when the right to request the protection of personal data and the benefit sought to be provided by the announcement of the name change, which does not have a clear counterpart, are subjected to a balance test, it is clear that the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the person should be prioritized; this decision of the Constitutional Court is extremely appropriate.