Page 145 - iyi-yonetim-ilkleri

Manual On Good Administration Principles

outlet. The claim of the applicant continued that although the request for
the removal of publications was accepted, it was decided by the appeal
authority to annul the decision on the removal of the content from the
publication, and that the rights defined in Articles 12, 17, 20, 25, 26, 27 and
32 of the Constitution were violated due to the rejection of the requests by
the judicial authorities for the removal of the news content that continued
to be published on the mentioned websites.
As a result of the examination, the Constitutional Court stated that the
processing of personal data covered a wide range of processing such as
disclosure, recording, transferring, making available, storage, retention of
data; therefore, any personal data processing that made news accessible
online must be evaluated within this scope, and that although personal
data could only be processed by law or with the explicit consent of the data
subject, it stated that a news report made within the scope of the freedom
of expression and freedoms of press laid down in the Constitution would
be the exception to these limits. The Court noted that the right to data
protection applied not only during the period of data processing but after
the processing, as well and this right included the request for rectification
and erasure of data; accordingly, the individual had the right to be forgotten
by asking for the prevention of the recollection of his behaviours, which
were not misrepresented and which had been reported in the past; in
conclusion, the Court approached the case with the right to be forgotten
by associating it with the right to data protection.

Case 4: In the Decision dated 27/02/2019 of the Constitutional Court on
the application no. 2014/7256, the applicant claimed that the crime he
committed when he was under eighteen years old was registered in his
personal records and therefore his right to privacy was violated, his right to
work as a public servant was taken away and his rights to privacy and work
were violated.
As a result of the examination by the Constitutional Court, it was found
out that the data on criminal conviction were personal data, the reason
for the applicant not to have been appointed as a public servant was
based on the fact that the records of the crime committed by the applicant
before the age of eighteen were shared with the public authorities, which
referrd to the disclosure of his personal data. The Court concluded that the
information on the criminal proceedings against the applicant, which was
stored by the official authorities, was of personal nature in the sense of the
right to privacy and that sharing such personal data with public institutions
and using it in security investigations constituted an interference with the
right to privacy guaranteed by Article 20 of the Constitution.

144