Although the latest ruling has been welcomed by lawyers and opposition lawmakers, doubts persist over whether Parliament will introduce the kind of legal reform urged by the Court to safeguard freedom of the press and expression

YILDIZ YAZICIOĞLU, ANKARA

The Constitutional Court (AYM) has annulled the provision of law granting the Press Advertising Agency (BİK) the authority to impose bans on public advertising and announcements for newspapers, magazines and online news outlets. The Court ruled that the provision violated constitutional safeguards for freedom of expression and fundamental rights. With the annulment of Article 49 of Law No. 195 on the Establishment of the Press Advertising Agency, the legal basis for BİK’s long-disputed practice of cutting off public advertisements has effectively been removed. Yet, despite the initial relief expressed by jurists and opposition MPs, uncertainty remains over whether Parliament will take the necessary legislative steps to align the law with constitutional principles.

In its judgment dated 17 June 2025, published in the Official Gazette on 13 October, the Court underlined the breadth and unpredictability of BİK’s discretionary power. The ruling noted that the annulled provision failed to define “which acts or practices” by newspapers, magazines or online outlets might trigger sanctions, or “for how long and to what extent” such sanctions could be imposed. Instead, the law merely referred in general terms to the authority of BİK, leaving the limits of its power undefined.

The Court had previously identified structural flaws in the same article during an earlier individual application and had called on Parliament to address them. In a pilot judgment delivered on 10 March 2022, which combined applications from Cumhuriyet, Evrensel, Sözcü and BirGün newspapers, the Court found that the public advertising bans imposed by BİK violated applicants’ right to freedom of expression and of the press. It also examined Article 49 of Law No. 195 that provided the legal basis for BİK sanctions and concluded that the provision “lacked the clarity and precision required of a legal norm,” failing to meet the legality requirement under Article 13 of the Constitution.

Following that decision, BİK’s Board of Directors announced that it would suspend proceedings related to the “Press Ethics Principles” criticized in the judgment until a new legislative framework was adopted. However, in the three years since, no legislative action has been taken to address the structural deficiencies identified by the Court.

In its latest constitutional review judgment published on 13 October, the Court reiterated its earlier findings and struck down paragraph 49(a) of Law No. 195 for violating Articles 13, 26, and 28 of the Constitution, which regulate restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press, respectively.

The Court also annulled the provision governing appeals against BİK’s sanction decisions, finding it unconstitutional under Articles 13 and 36. The now-repealed rule had stipulated that newspapers, magazines or online outlets penalized by BİK could appeal within ten days to a civil court of first instance, which would deliver a final decision under a simplified procedure.

The Court held that this rule imposed a disproportionate restriction on the right to judicial review, violating the guarantees of access to justice and the right to a fair trial under Article 36, as well as the broader constitutional standard on limiting fundamental rights under Article 13.

Lawyer Tekşen: ‘We are not sure the ruling will be implemented’

The Constitutional Court’s ruling originated from a broader struggle within Turkish journalism for the right to seek justice. The Ankara-based Journalists’ Association filed a lawsuit against the repeated advertising bans imposed on its online newspaper, 24 Saat. In 2023, during this case, the Bakırköy 9th Civil Court referred the matter to the Constitutional Court for constitutional review—leading to the annulment ruling that has now set a crucial precedent.

Speaking to Expression Interrupted, the association’s lawyer Gökhan Tekşen recalled that in its 2022 pilot judgment combining several individual applications, the Constitutional Court had already found that BİK’s sanctions based on the “Press Ethics Principles” lacked clarity and violated the principle of legal certainty.

Tekşen noted that despite this earlier decision, no amendment was made to the punitive provision in Law No. 195, and the recent annulment ruling has now made a new legislative framework inevitable.

“This time the Court examined the article in substance and filled an important legal gap,” Tekşen said. “Law No. 195, the founding law of BİK, dates back to 1961. It might have remained in force if not for the way it has been applied in recent years. But BİK’s practices gradually became arbitrary, narrowing the space for press and expression freedoms. The law itself was a framework law, while its sanctions were defined by regulation -- meaning, at the discretion of BİK’s board. We challenged this as incompatible with press freedom, and the Constitutional Court annulled the provision on constitutional grounds. Now a new legal regulation must follow. In that sense, the Journalists’ Association’s case has opened the way for reform.”

Whether such a reform will actually materialise now depends largely on the attitude of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and its coalition partner, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which dominate Parliament’s legislative agenda. Lawmaking in recent years has rarely followed a pluralistic approach that treats opposition proposals on equal footing; instead, it has been driven by the AKP-MHP majority. The key question, then, is whether Parliament will adopt a new version of Law No. 195 that truly protects freedom of the press and expression in line with the Court’s judgment.

Tekşen believes that the implementation of the ruling must be closely monitored and that press associations should urgently intervene, drafting and submitting a legislative proposal through opposition channels. “When the government presents its own bill,” he said, “we will see whether it complies with the Constitutional Court’s requirements or not. I’m not overly optimistic, but we shouldn’t assume the worst before the process begins. Still, past experience tells us this: the Court has handed down many significant rulings, yet successive governments have often enacted laws that ignore or even contradict them. That’s why the concern is justified, and I share it. To achieve a reform in favour of freedoms, press unions and professional associations should come together to draft their own proposal and present it to opposition parties.”

‘The law became problematic as its application changed over time’

Constitutional law expert Nihal Cengiz told Expression Interrupted that the roots of the dispute lie in the structural flaws of the 1961 legislation examined by the Constitutional Court. “The law reviewed by the Court dates back to 1961,” she explained. “At the time, laws were drafted in broad and concise terms -- more focused on regulating administrative processes than protecting rights and freedoms. But these general provisions later evolved into tools that were applied more intensively and disproportionately. That’s where the problem began.”

Cengiz recalled that the Constitutional Court had already found a violation of rights on the same issue in 2022, adding: “Parliament should have acted after that ruling, but it did not. Eventually, following a referral from a local court, the Constitutional Court emphasised the structural problem and annulled the provision.”

She underlined that the Court’s latest decision carries vital implications for media outlets, since public advertising revenue is a lifeline for their survival. “When those funds are cut, it’s not only economic freedom that suffers, freedom of expression is also harmed. The Court is essentially saying that if such sanctions are to exist, their limits must be clearly defined,” Cengiz said.

Emphasizing the principle of proportionality highlighted in the judgment, she added: “Not all media outlets are the same in scale or income. Although the Court does not state this explicitly, I interpret its reasoning as an acknowledgment that sanctions should vary accordingly. Rather than leaving such discretion to BİK, the conditions must be precisely set out in law.”

Finally, Cengiz reminded that the ruling is binding on BİK: “Under the principle of the Constitutional Court’s binding authority, BİK must refrain from imposing new sanctions until Parliament enacts a revised law. The provision underpinning those penalties has now been annulled, and the agency is obliged to comply with the Court’s decision.”

BİK’s autonomy effectively dismantled under the Directorate of Communications

Since Turkey’s transition to the Presidential System of Government in September 2018, state control over the media has visibly intensified. Under the newly centralised structure led by the Presidency’s Directorate of Communications, a series of legal changes have effectively eroded the autonomy of the Press Advertising Agency (BİK).

By Presidential Decree No. 2018/154, signed by President and ruling AKP Chair Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the authority to oversee BİK was transferred to the Directorate of Communications. This move dismantled the autonomous framework originally envisaged by the 1961 law, which had established BİK as an independent body managed jointly by media representatives and academics in line with the liberal spirit of the 1960 Constitution. From 2018 onward, the agency became directly subordinate to the executive branch.

Although previous governments had also used BİK to influence newspapers through a “carrot-and-stick” approach, this mechanism has grown far more systematic under the AKP. In particular, the inclusion of online news outlets within the public advertising and announcement system has turned BİK into a key instrument of economic pressure -- a central pillar of the government’s expanding control over the media.

Opposition calls for BİK’s powers to be curbed in line with the Constitutional Court’s ruling

Journalist-turned-politician Sevda Karaca, an MP from the Labour Party (EMEP) representing Gaziantep, recalled that Evrensel newspaper had its right to publish public advertisements permanently revoked by BİK. She said the agency has long used advertising revenues as a tool of punishment, and that the Court’s ruling now makes a new legislative framework inevitable.

“I believe the government will grow even more repressive in the coming period, seeking to further silence dissenting voices,” Karaca told Expression Interrupted. “These punitive mechanisms are being used not only to suppress speech but also to bring media outlets under economic control. That’s why journalist MPs and opposition parties bear a major responsibility. They should act together, consult press organizations, and pressure the government to pass a new law.”

Utku Çakırözer, a Republican People’s Party (CHP) MP for Eskişehir and a former journalist, said the ruling should also serve as a warning for RTÜK, the media regulator criticized for imposing heavy fines and broadcasting bans on opposition TV channels. In a post on X, he wrote: “We’ve said it repeatedly: the Constitutional Court has confirmed that BİK’s advertising and announcement bans were unlawful. BİK can no longer intimidate newspapers and news sites with arbitrary penalties. This decision should also set an example for RTÜK, which has silenced television stations through unlawful sanctions.”

CHP parliamentary group deputy chair Murat Emir likewise described the ruling as a clear legal response to the government’s long-standing practice of exerting economic pressure on the press. “The Court annulled BİK’s authority to impose advertising and announcement bans under the structure subordinated to the Presidency’s Directorate of Communications,” he said. “Because the law failed to define which acts warranted what penalties, this mechanism had become a means of disciplining unfavourable news through financial pressure.”

Emir also cited BİK’s sanction data: “In 2020, there were 803 days of ad suspensions; in 2021, 639 days, most of them targeting a handful of critical newspapers. Between 2022 and 2024, BİK maintained a continuous line of pressure across local and national media. The permanent revocation of Evrensel’s ad rights in 2022 symbolized the structural nature of this policy.”

“This annulment is a legal response to the government’s economic stranglehold on critical media,” Emir said. “BİK’s advertising bans have been one cog in the Presidency’s bureaucratic machinery of media control. The Constitutional Court’s judgment reminds us that this system must be realigned with the principles of the rule of law. Public advertising and announcements cannot be rewards for loyalty or penalties for criticism; they are public resources. The press cannot be silenced.”