Individual Application

The Facts

The applicant, a lecturer at a faculty of law, is the founder of two initiatives: a non-governmental organisation named cyber-rights.org, and a website, bilgiedinmehakki.org. Pursuant to the Right to Information Act, the applicant applied to the Information Technologies and Communications Authority (“the Authority”), seeking statistical information on decisions to block access to websites. In his application, the applicant first requested detailed statistics on access blocking decisions issued due to catalogue crimes listed in Article 8 of Law no. 5651, respectively under the categories ex officio and judicial, as well as, on the number of decisions to block access which had been issued on other grounds. Following the Authority’s denial of the applicant’s request, the latter filed an appeal before the Right to Information Assessment Board (“the Board”). However, the Board rejected the applicant’s appeal.

Subsequently, the applicant brought an action for annulment of the impugned denial by the Authority. The latter argued, in procedural terms, that the applicant’s action should have been brought before the Council of State, and in substantive terms, that the applicant’s request cannot be accepted in accordance with the relevant legislation. Thus, the Authority requested the dismissal of the case, and the incumbent administrative court dismissed the case. Upon the applicant’s appeal, the Council of State upheld the administrative court’s decision.

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicant claimed that his freedom of expression had been violated due to denial of his request for statistical information on decisions to block access to websites.

The Court’s Assessment

Considering the applicant’s position as an academic studying in the field of internet law and human rights, it has been concluded that his acts should be afforded protection similar to the one inherent in freedom of the press. The Court has found that for the applicant, accessing the information in dispute was a prerequisite for the articulation of his thoughts, thus considered this information essential for the formulation of his ideas.

In the present case, in consideration of the applicant’s requests, it has been observed that his request for information from the administration, despite his ability to compile it from publicly available sources, did not impose a significant burden on the administration. Nor did he request information based on more detailed parameters due to the insufficient information obtained in accordance with the parameters used by the administration or the information that was not even in the possession of the administration. It has been concluded that the request for statistics on decisions to block access, aimed at contributing to public debate on a matter clearly in the public interest, was essential for the applicant. As an academic focusing on the freedom of expression on the internet and an active participant in non-governmental organizations fighting internet censorship, such information was deemed crucial for his studies on violations of the freedom of expression in the online sphere.

Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the freedom of expression.