In the objection application numbered 2025/120 filed before the Constitutional Court (“CC”), it was alleged that Article 27(2) of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (the “Law”), which provides for the publication of court decisions regarding name changes on the announcement portal of the Press Advertisement Agency, is unconstitutional, within the scope of a lawsuit filed for the correction of the civil registry.
In the case subject to the application, it was stated that, due to the publication of name change decisions on a publicly accessible platform in a manner that includes personal data such as the individual’s former and new name, date of birth, parents’ names, and place of civil registry, such information becomes accessible to everyone and the individual’s former and new identity details can be linked. On the grounds that this situation may lead to the misuse of personal data, the Küçükçekmece 5th Civil Court of First Instance argued that it constitutes an interference with the rights to the protection of personal data and respect for private life under Articles 13 and 20 of the Constitution, and therefore applied to the CC by way of objection for the review of the constitutionality of the relevant provision.
Assessment of the CC
The CC determined that the regulation under review, by requiring the publication of court decisions regarding name changes on the announcement portal of the Press Advertisement Agency, leads to the disclosure of the individual’s identity information to the public. In this context, the CC accepted that making information such as the individual’s former and new name, date of birth, parents’ names, and place of civil registry accessible to everyone constitutes an interference with the right to the protection of personal data safeguarded under Article 20 of the Constitution.
As a requirement of the rule of law, the CC stated that such interference must be examined in light of the principles of legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality.
Accordingly, the CC concluded that:
➢ In terms of legality, the regulation is set out in the Law in a clear and foreseeable manner;
➢ In terms of legitimate aim, informing third parties who may be affected by the name change and preventing potential harm to them constitutes a legitimate aim in the public interest;
➢ In terms of proportionality, the publication facilitates informing third parties of such change and, in itself, cannot be regarded as a restriction contrary to the requirements of a democratic society, and thus, at first glance, serves a legitimate aim.
However, the CC particularly focused on the proportionality stricto sensu (balancing) aspect within its proportionality assessment. In this context, the Court emphasized that any restriction on the protection of personal data must be limited to what is necessary to achieve the intended aim and must not impose an excessive burden on the individual.
The CC, with respect to the regulation in question:
➢ noted the absence of any limitation regarding the scope of the personal data disclosed,
➢ the lack of any regulation concerning the duration of access to the decisions published on the Press Advertisement Agency’s portal, and
➢ that this situation leads to personal data being made publicly accessible for an indefinite period, and evaluated that these factors give rise to serious risks in terms of the right to the protection of personal data.
The CC further emphasized that, in certain cases, refraining from the publication of a name change may serve the overriding legal interest of the individual; however, the current regulation does not grant the judge any discretion in this regard. For these reasons, the CC concluded that the fair balance between public interest and the individual’s rights has been disrupted and that the restriction is disproportionate, and accordingly held that the regulation is contrary to Articles 13 and 20 of the Constitution.
On the other hand, the CC separately assessed the regulation concerning the recording of name changes in the civil registry. In this context, the Court:
➢ stated that the regulation is also based on a legal ground,
➢ held that recording changes in individuals’ identity information in the civil registry serves a legitimate aim in terms of public order and legal certainty, and
➢ noted that the procedures and principles regarding the maintenance, storage, and protection of civil registry records are regulated under the relevant legislation and that the necessary safeguards are provided within the scope of the Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698 (“PDPL”), and, taking these into account, concluded that the restriction is proportionate.
Accordingly, the CC held that there is no unconstitutionality with respect to the rule concerning registration in the civil registry and rejected the objection in this regard.
Entry into Force
Taking into account that the annulment may give rise to a legal vacuum that could adversely affect the public interest, it was decided that the annulment provision shall enter into force nine months after its publication in the Official Gazette dated 01 April 2026.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinions
While concurring with the majority decision of the CC, some members submitted additional reasoning, stating that the regulation is unconstitutional particularly in terms of the necessity limb of the proportionality principle. It was emphasized that, in cases where name change decisions are published on the Press Advertisement Agency’s portal, the disclosure of personal data such as the individual’s place of civil registry, date of birth, parents’ names, and former name and surname—information that does not need to be known by third parties—raises concerns in terms of the necessity requirement.
It was further noted that the Turkish Identification Number system, which is widely used in practice, has become the primary identifier in legal transactions. Therefore, it was argued that there is no need for the additional publication of name change decisions, since third parties can already become aware of such changes through the processing of civil registry records in the course of their transactions. Moreover, considering that third parties who suffer harm may file a lawsuit within one year from the date they become aware of the name change, it was stated that the publication requirement does not serve a necessary legal function in this regard.
On the other hand, some members dissented from the majority decision. In the dissenting opinions, it was argued that, considering the potential effects of a name change on third parties, the Press Advertisement Agency’s portal constitutes an important means for becoming aware of such changes, and that the publication requirement is necessary for the protection of third parties and the maintenance of legal certainty.
It was further stated that the procedures and principles regarding the publication of personal data are regulated under the PDPL and the relevant legislation; therefore, there is no need for an additional regulation concerning the duration and method of publication.
In response to the criticism that no discretion is granted to judges, it was also emphasized that various legal mechanisms already exist to protect individuals in certain special circumstances. In this regard, it was noted that exceptional situations are regulated under the legislation, particularly with respect to:
➢ protective measures related to witness protection in criminal proceedings, and
➢ special regulations concerning the protection of the family and the prevention of violence against women.
Within this framework, the dissenting members maintained that the regulation in question is not unconstitutional and that the balance struck between the right to the protection of personal data and the public interest has not been disrupted.