Today, almost every aspect of our private lives is recorded on digital devices. In this context, the limits of the State’s authority to access such data have become one of the most debated issues in modern criminal procedure. The recent annulment decision rendered by the Constitutional Court regarding Article 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”) constitutes a landmark step that redefines the delicate balance between the effectiveness of criminal investigations and the protection of individuals’ constitutional rights.
In this article, we will examine the background of the annulment decision, its legal grounds, and its potential implications, particularly for corporate processes and compliance with personal data protection requirements.
Background of the Process: How Did the Annulment Request Arise?
The process giving rise to the decision originated from a smuggling case before the Bursa 1st Criminal Court of First Instance. During the investigation, digital materials used by the defendant, such as computers and digital records, were seized, forensic copies were taken from these devices, and the data was examined.
However, the court hearing the case had concerns as to whether the provisions of Article 134 of the CPC, which constituted the legal basis for these actions, provided sufficient safeguards for the right to the protection of personal data and the right to privacy. Accordingly, the court applied to the Constitutional Court through constitutional review proceedings.
What Did the Constitutional Court Annul and on What Grounds?
The Constitutional Court found the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 134 of the CPC, concerning search and copying, and the first sentence of the second paragraph, concerning seizure, unconstitutional and annulled them. The grounds for annulment shed light on the requirements of a modern state governed by the rule of law:
- Lack of Certainty and Foreseeability: The Court emphasized that the limits of interference with digital data, as well as search and seizure decisions, must be clearly defined in a manner that leaves no room for arbitrariness.
- Forensic Image and Right of Defence: The absence of statutory safeguards sufficient to protect data integrity and the principle of equality of arms in relation to the procedures for providing a copy, or forensic image, of the seized devices or data to the suspect or defence counsel was considered a deficiency.
- Data Destruction and Retention Processes: The lack of a legal regulation on how long large amounts of personal data found on devices but unrelated to the investigation would be retained, and through which procedures such data would be destroyed, was found to be contrary to the principle of proportionality.
Corporate Investigations, Employment Law and the Data Protection Dimension
Although this annulment decision directly concerns the field of criminal procedure, its implications are expected to be felt much more broadly in the business world and in corporate compliance processes.
In internal investigations conducted by companies in relation to white-collar misconduct, competition law violations, disclosure of trade secrets, or employer-employee disputes, the review of digital materials such as company computers, phones, and e-mails is a frequently used method. The high standard introduced by the Constitutional Court regarding the “right to privacy” and the “protection of personal data” in the examination of digital data once again confirms the level of care employers must exercise in internal investigations in order to comply with the principles of the Law on the Protection of Personal Data and constitutional limitations.
The filtering of irrelevant data, transparency of review processes, and ensuring the integrity of the findings obtained as evidence in line with international standards are no longer merely preferable, but necessary for companies seeking to minimize their legal risks.
Conclusion and Expectations
Since a significant part of individuals’ private lives is now stored on digital devices, it is of great importance that the limits of the State’s authority to access such data be clearly defined.
The decision emphasizes the need to strike a balance between the effectiveness of criminal investigations and the protection of individuals’ fundamental rights. The Constitutional Court does not prohibit access to digital evidence altogether; rather, it requires such access to be subject to clearer rules and stronger safeguards. In this respect, the decision constitutes an important precedent that strengthens the scope of the right to the protection of personal data in the digital age and reminds the legislature of its obligation to introduce more detailed regulations.
The decision also demonstrates that criminal procedure law must be updated in light of technological developments. In the processes of obtaining and examining digital evidence, both the protection of public order and the safeguarding of individuals’ constitutional rights must be ensured. Therefore, the decision contains significant constitutional assessments regarding the protection of fundamental rights in the digital age.
Due to the period granted to the legislature to introduce a new regulation, the annulment decision will enter into force in February 2027. During this nine-month transition period and thereafter, we anticipate that objections based on the procedural validity of digital materials, particularly “unlawfully obtained evidence” objections in ongoing criminal proceedings, will gain significant importance.
The integration of technological developments by both lawmakers and practitioners through the filter of the rule of law will be one of the most critical legal agendas of the coming period.
You may access the full text of the decision through this link.