Open Records Laws › Turkey

Turkey

Bilgi Edinme Hakkı Kanunu

Bilgi Edinme Hakkı Kanunu, Kanun No. 4982 (Law on the Right to Information, Law No. 4982)

RTI Rating: 74 (source)

Response Timeline

Initial Response
15 days
Extension
15 days
Residency Required
None

15 working days from receipt of request. May be extended to 30 working days total when information requires retrieval from another unit, another institution's input, or involves multiple institutions. Applicant must be notified of extension and reasons within initial 15-day period.

How to Submit a Request

Accepted Methods

  • {'notes': 'Written petition (may be handwritten if legible)', 'method': 'written_petition'}
  • {'notes': 'Postal mail to the institution', 'method': 'mail'}
  • {'notes': "Email to institution's designated information unit email address. Legal entities must provide entity name, address, authorized person's ID number, and power of attorney", 'method': 'email'}
  • {'notes': 'Electronic submission using electronic signature per Law No. 5070 (ID number not required)', 'method': 'electronic_signature'}

Standard forms available (EK-1 for individuals, EK-2 for legal entities) but not mandatory. Petitions may be handwritten if legible. Each institution must publish a dedicated email address for information requests.

Required Elements

  • Applicant name and surname (or legal entity title)
  • Applicant residence or work address
  • Applicant signature
  • Specification of the information or document sought
  • For legal entities: authorized person signature with authorization certificate

Fees

Article 10 allows institutions to charge applicants for "the cost of the procedure" but provides no standardized fee schedule or rates. Applicants are notified of costs and have 15 working days to pay before application is deemed withdrawn. No fee waivers are provided for impecunious requesters.

Exemptions

  • State Security
    Information whose disclosure clearly causes harm to the security of the state, foreign affairs, or national defence
  • Economic Interests
    Documents harming state economic interests or causing unfair competition
  • State Intelligence
    Information about civil or military intelligence unit duties (no harm test)
  • Administrative Investigation
    Information that violates privacy, endangers personal security, or compromises ongoing administrative investigations
  • Judicial Investigation
    Information creating criminal offense risk, obstructing investigation, or violating fair trial rights
  • Individual Privacy
    Health records, family life, honor, dignity, and professional interests
  • Communication Privacy
    Information violating communication privacy
  • Trade Secrets
    Commercial or financial information held confidentially
  • Intellectual Property
    Copyright-protected materials
  • Internal Regulations
    Non-public personnel or internal affairs documents
  • Internal Opinions
    Internal opinions and deliberations (generally within scope unless institution decides otherwise)
  • Recommendation Requests
    Requests for recommendations (outside scope entirely, no harm test)
  • Classified Information
    Formerly classified materials if still exempt under other articles
  • Non-Reviewable Transactions
    Transactions exempt from judicial review

Turkey provides 14 exemption categories, most requiring demonstrable harm. However, Articles 18 (state intelligence) and 27 (recommendation requests) lack explicit harm tests, creating categorical denials. Public interest override is severely limited: Article 21.2 permits disclosure of personal information only "due to public interest considerations" with 7 days advance notice and written consent—applying to one exception only. No general public interest override exists across other exemptions.

Appeal Process

1

1

2

2

3

3

Turkey's appeal system is severely limited and largely ineffective. The Board of Review has jurisdiction only over denials based on State Secrets (Article 16) and Economic Interests (Article 17), leaving most denials without specialized oversight. The Board's independence and effectiveness are questioned, with decisions often failing to interpret the law liberally. Mail-only submission (or E-Devlet portal) creates additional barriers. Many institutions simply ignore requests by not responding, or misuse exemption clauses to deny access. Even when courts rule in favor of requesters, institutions frequently continue refusing compliance. The Ombudsman provides an alternative path since 2010 but lacks binding enforcement authority.

Sources & References