Case Summary and Outcome

The Constitutional Court of Türkiye held that the state’s refusal to provide an academic with requested statistical information, despite a final court order, violated his freedom of expression under Article 26 of the Constitution. An academic and civil society actor had sought data on the number of prosecutions and investigations authorised under specific articles of the Turkish Penal Code. The Court reasoned that the administration possessed the data, the necessary infrastructure, and a statutory duty to provide it, and its refusal to comply with a binding judicial decision served no legitimate aim. It held that denying access to such information, which was crucial for public oversight and academic work, did not meet a pressing social need in a democratic society. The Court consequently ordered the disclosure of the information and awarded compensation to the applicant.

Facts

The applicant, Yaman Akdeniz, is a law professor and founder of civil society organisations focused on cyber-rights and freedom of information. On 17 December 2019, he submitted a request to the Ministry of Justice’s General Directorate of Criminal Affairs seeking statistical data on the number of requests for permission to prosecute under Article 299 of the Turkish Penal Code (insulting the President) between 2014-2018 and how many were granted, as well as the total number of requests for permission to investigate under Article 301 (denigrating the Turkish nation) and the number granted. Prosecution under these articles requires permission from the Minister of Justice.

The General Directorate of Criminal Affairs rejected his request on 31 December 2019, stating that compiling the information required “separate or special work” and was therefore discretionary under Articles 7 and 8 of the Right to Information Act (Law No. 4982). Following a recommendation from the Public Ombudsman in favour of disclosure, Akdeniz renewed his request on 19 October 2020, which was again rejected on 11 November 2020 on the same grounds.

Akdeniz then filed a lawsuit at the Ankara 23rd Administrative Court, which dismissed the case on 14 April 2021, upholding the administration’s discretion. Upon appeal, the Ankara Regional Administrative Court overturned this decision on 14 October 2021. It found that the duty to produce such statistics fell to the General Directorate of Judicial Records and Statistics and that, under Article 7 of Law No. 4982, the initial authority should have forwarded the request there instead of rejecting it.

Relying on this final judgment, Akdeniz submitted a new request to the General Directorate of Judicial Records and Statistics on 15 November 2021. However, on 15 December 2021, that Directorate also rejected the request, reiterating that the data could only be obtained through “separate and specific work, research, investigation and analysis.” [para. 9] Akdeniz then filed an individual application with the Constitutional Court on 13 January 2022, alleging a violation of his freedom of expression.

Decision Overview

The Second Section of the Constitutional Court delivered the judgment. The primary issue before the Court was whether the administration’s refusal to provide the requested statistical information, in defiance of a final judicial order, violated Akdeniz’s freedom of expression under Article 26 of the Constitution.

The applicant argued that he had exhausted all domestic remedies and that the final judicial decision created a binding obligation on the administration to provide the data. He maintained that his information request fell within the scope of freedom of expression and that the refusal amounted to an unlawful interference with that right. He further contended that the request served the public interest, related to significant legal debates, and was integral to his role as an academic and public watchdog. He asserted that the administration either already possessed the data or could obtain it without disproportionate effort, given that the relevant procedures were formally recorded in the National Judicial Network Information System.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Justice argued that the application was inadmissible because the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. It claimed he should have challenged the second refusal through a new administrative lawsuit before applying to the Constitutional Court. The Ministry also contended that the applicant was essentially requesting the compilation of new statistical data that was not maintained in the detailed form he sought.

The Court began by examining the admissibility of the application. It reiterated that the right to obtain information serves democratic transparency and that access to official data can fall within the scope of freedom of expression, particularly where a final judicial decision imposes a duty of disclosure. It found such a duty existed due to the Regional Administrative Court’s final judgment.

The Court emphasised that free investigation, acquisition, and transmission of news, ideas, and information depend on access to information sources. It described the right to obtain information as essential for enabling citizens to monitor governing authorities and for safeguarding the rule of law. It further stressed that, given the state’s role as custodian of first-hand information, denial of access to such information may impede the exercise of freedom of expression. The refusal therefore constituted an interference with Article 26, and the application was declared admissible.

The Court referred to its earlier judgment in Yaman Akdeniz (2), which set out when information requests fall within Article 26. While Article 26 does not confer a general right of access to information, the Court identified two circumstances where refusal may amount to interference: (1) where a final court decision imposes a duty on the state to provide information, and (2) where access to the information is instrumental for exercising freedom of expression.

On the merits, the Court applied the proportionality standard, stating that for an interference to be justified in a democratic society, it must pursue a legitimate aim and meet a “pressing social need.” The Court found that the administration’s justifications for refusal were neither relevant nor sufficient. It noted that the General Directorate of Judicial Records and Statistics had a statutory duty to “determine, collect, classify and evaluate statistical information.” [para. 27] The Court also observed that in accordance with the Turkish Statistics Law No. 5429, keeping and publishing crime and justice statistics falls within the Directorate’s duties, and among the objectives of the General Directorate is “monitoring the progress of court cases, crime and criminal activity, and their distribution throughout the country.” [para. 27]

The Court further noted that the Ministry’s own published reports contained highly detailed data on virtually every matter within the Ministry’s scope. It specifically examined the 2021 Judicial Statistics Report published on the Directorate’s official website and found that it contained extensive data covering more than a hundred data points across various categories. The Court therefore rejected the administration’s claim that the data were unavailable, noting that the requested information was in fact “available in the General Directorate’s database, albeit not in terms of content but in terms of subject matter and in a more expanded form.” [para. 28]

The Court additionally underscored the applicant’s role as an academic and civil society actor, noting that the statistics he requested were directly connected to his public-watchdog function and concerned issues of clear public interest. It highlighted that offences under Articles 299 and 301 are inherently linked to freedom of expression and remain consistently relevant. The Court further observed that, given Akdeniz’s position in the public sphere, providing accurate information would help counter disinformation, whereas withholding it diminishes the public’s ability to access reliable data on offences with significant implications for freedom of expression.

In conclusion, the Court held that the interference lacked a legitimate aim and did not satisfy a pressing social need. It therefore found a violation of Article 26 of the Constitution. As a remedy, it directed that the judgment be sent to the General Directorate of Judicial Records and Statistics to remedy the violation and fulfil Akdeniz’s information request. The Court also awarded the Akdeniz 34,000 TL (approx. USD 1,030) in non-pecuniary damages and 30,664.10 TL (approx. USD 930) in costs.