Constitutional Court Decision on Certain Amendments Introduced under Law No. 7511

The decision examined certain amendments made under:

• Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”),
• Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection (“Law No. 6502”),
• Law No. 5174 on the Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Türkiye and Chambers and Commodity Exchanges,
• Law No. 6585 on the Regulation of Retail Trade (“Law No. 6585”),

while the section concerning Law No. 6585 on the Regulation of Retail Trade was registered under a separate docket

I. Certain Amendments Introduced by the Law, Requests for Annulment, and the Constitutional Court’s Reasoned Decisions

1. Request for Annulment Regarding the Amendments Introduced to Law No. 4054 through Article 4 of the Law
Under the amendment made to Article 43 of Law No. 4054 through the Law, new powers were granted to the Competition Board to enable the more effective use of the “commitment” and “settlement” mechanisms during investigation processes. It was also stipulated that investigations initiated by the Competition Board must be notified to the relevant parties within 15 days and that sufficient information regarding the allegations must be provided.

In the petition requesting annulment, it was argued that the parties were not afforded adequate opportunities for defense following the initiation of an investigation, and that the parties’ rights to prepare responses and defenses were weakened at the stage of notification of the investigation decision. The applicants further claimed that procedural safeguards relating to the investigation process had not been clearly regulated.

The Constitutional Court rejected these allegations and dismissed the request for annulment. that:.

In its decision, the Court essentially stated ;

• the parties concerned are able to obtain information regarding the allegations and evidence,
• submit defenses, and
• seek judicial review against the Board’s decisions

 The Court further emphasized that the details of the investigation procedure fall within the legislator’s discretionary authority and concluded that the relevant regulations were not contrary to the principle of the rule of law. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court held that the amendments introduced by the Law concerning the Competition Board’s investigation procedures are in compliance with the Constitution.


2. Request for Annulment Regarding the Amendments Introduced to Articles 63 and 77 of Law No. 6502 through Articles 18 and 19 of the Law
The amendments introduced to Articles 63 and 77 of Law No. 6502 through the Law primarily expanded the intervention mechanisms concerning commercial advertisements published in digital media and misleading content directed at consumers, as well as the sanctioning powers of the Advertisement Board in this regard.

For the first time, the Advertisement Board was explicitly granted powers such as removal of content, blocking access, issuing notifications electronically, and implementing technical measures through the Association of Access Providers. Under the regulation, the primary measure envisaged is the removal of unlawful advertising content; where this is not possible, blocking access to the relevant URL; and where this also proves technically impossible or where the violation continues, blocking access to the entire website.

In the action for annulment, the applicants argued that these regulations were incompatible with the constitutional principles of freedom of expression, freedom of enterprise, property rights, and proportionality. In particular, it was argued that URL-based access blocking may not always be technically feasible and that, in practice, this could often result in the blocking of access to the entire website. It was further claimed that the Advertisement Board had been granted excessively broad powers of a judicial nature, including the authority to remove content, impose access bans, and completely eliminate digital visibility. In addition, the applicants maintained that access blocking constitutes a severe form of interference by its very nature and that such authority should be exercised directly by judicial authorities rather than by an administrative board. It was also asserted that access-blocking decisions could lead to serious economic consequences, particularly for e-commerce platforms, digital sales channels, and social media accounts, thereby amounting to a disproportionate interference with the freedom of enterprise.

The Constitutional Court evaluated the regulations particularly within the framework of the principles of “proportionality” and “gradual intervention,” rejected the allegations, and dismissed the request for annulment.

In its decision, the Court essentially stated that:

• the regulation does not directly provide for blocking access to an entire website, and that the primary measures are the removal of content or URL-based access blocking,
• blocking access to an entire website constitutes an exceptional measure that may only be applied in cases of necessity,
• the protection of consumers, prevention of misleading advertisements, and ensuring trust in the digital commerce environment should be regarded as legitimate public interest objectives,
• judicial remedies against the Advertisement Board’s decisions remain available, and suspension of execution may also be requested.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the regulations do not disproportionately restrict freedom of expression or freedom of enterprise and do not violate the principle of the rule of law. In this respect, the Constitutional Court held that the powers granted to the Advertisement Board concerning the removal of digital content and blocking of access are constitutional.


3. Amendments Introduced to Law No. 6585 through Article 21 of the Law
Through the Law, administrative sanctions aimed at combating excessive price increases and stockpiling practices were increased . Accordingly:

• administrative fines ranging from TRY 100,000 to TRY 1,000,000 for each violation were introduced for those engaging in excessive price increases,
• administrative fines ranging from TRY 1,000,000 to TRY 12,000,000 for each violation were introduced for those engaging in stockpiling practices,
• furthermore, it was stipulated that the Ministry of Trade would be authorized to close the workplaces of manufacturers, suppliers, and retail businesses for up to six days where it is determined that they have committed the offense of stockpiling at least three times within a calendar year.

The Constitutional Court decided to sever the requests for annulment concerning Law No. 6585 from the main action file and register them under a separate docket, in order to conduct a more comprehensive examination of the nature of these sanctions and their effects on property rights and the freedom to work.

Accordingly, the constitutionality review concerning excessive pricing sanctions and workplace closure penalties has not yet been resolved within this decision, and the examination is continuing under the newly registered case file.


You may access the relevant Constitutional Court Decision here.


Aslı Kınsız, Managing Associate
Ece Koçlar, Trainee Lawyer