TÜRKIYE Law and Practice Contributed by: Bora Yazıcıoğlu, Kübra İslamoğlu Bayer, Simge Yüce and Yiğit Aktimur, YAZICIOGLU Legal
2. Privacy Litigation 2.1 General Overview
ment to the field, though it lacked detailed objec - tives for legislative modifications. In its updated 2024–2025 Action Plan, the National AI Strategy outlines ambitious goals, including establishing a Central Public Data Centre, creating an Inter - national AI Studies Monitoring and Coordination Committee to oversee global AI developments, and drafting regulations for AI governance. The 12th Development Plan (2024–2028), issued by the Presidency of Strategy and Budget (PSB), identifies the development of an ethical-legal framework for AI as a key objective. Addition - ally, the Medium-Term Programme (2025–2027), published by the PSB and adopted by Presiden - tial Decree on 5 September 2024, commits to introducing legal reforms to harmonise Türkiye’s legislation with the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act. The Grand National Assembly of Türkiye estab - lished the Parliamentary Research Commission on 5 October 2024 to explore steps to “harness AI’s benefits, establish its legal framework, and mitigate associated risks.” The president of the commission stated that they aim to complete their report by May 2025. Last but not least, a Draft Bill on Artificial Intel - ligence was submitted to the Turkish Grand National Assembly on 25 June 2024. This draft bill aims to ensure the secure, ethical, and fair use of AI technologies. Although its approval is unlikely, it marks a significant milestone as the first legislative initiative in this field. 1.6 Interplay Between AI and Data Protection Regulations Unlike the European Union, Türkiye currently lacks legislation specifically addressing AI that directly impacts data protection.
Tracking privacy litigation trends in Türkiye is challenging due to the limited accessibility of case law. Only Constitutional Court decisions are required to be published in the Official Gazette, while decisions from other courts remain largely unpublished. This lack of transparency makes it challenging to predict how the courts will inter - pret and apply data protection laws, hindering the ability to identify clear trends in privacy litiga - tion at this stage. In 2024, the Constitutional Court published only a few decisions directly related to personal data protection. These decisions primarily addressed employment privacy, with a focus on workplace monitoring of employee communications and employees’ access rights to their personal data. These decisions can be interpreted as a growing trend in privacy litigation related to workplace privacy (see 4.3. Employment Privacy Law ). Additionally, the Constitutional Court has also issued decisions indirectly related to the pro - tection of personal data, addressing broader legal principles such as the criteria for imposing administrative fines, with a particular focus on the principle of legal certainty. In recent years, the “right to be forgotten” has also gained increasing attention in Türkiye despite not being explicitly defined in the DP Law. Prompted by the CJEU’s landmark 2014 decision, Turkish courts have gradually recog - nised this right, with the Turkish Supreme Court first referencing it in 2015. The Constitutional Court has since issued eight published deci - sions on the matter, finding a rights violation in only one case. Nevertheless, references to the right to be forgotten are rising, and more data
480 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook