Türkiye'nin Üçlü Dijital Düzenlemesi: KVKK, 5651 Sayılı Kanun ve 4054 Sayılı Kanun'un Kantçı Deontolojik Analizi

Öz

Türkiye, GDPR ile uyumlu bir dijital yönetişim aktörü olarak sunulmakta; ancak aynı anda üç hukuki bakımdan tutarsız araç işletmektedir: AB veri koruma standartlarını kısmen yansıtan Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu (KVKK); önceden yargısal denetim olmaksızın idari platform engelleme yetkisi tanıyan ve geniş kapsamlı çevrimiçi ifadeyi suç olarak tanımlayan 5651 Sayılı Kanun; ve bireysel haklar konusunda sessiz kalırken Dijital Piyasalar Yasası'nın kapı bekçisi eşiklerini benimseyen 4054 Sayılı Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun'un taslak değişikliği. Mevcut literatürde bu üç araç, bütünleşik bir etik çerçeve aracılığıyla birlikte hiç analiz edilmemiştir. Bu makale, Türkiye'nin üçlü dijital düzenleyici çerçevesinin iç tutarlılığını değerlendirmek amacıyla Kantçı deontolojik teoriyi — özellikle kategorik buyruğu ve kişilere her zaman amaç olarak davranılması ilkesini — uygulamaktadır. KVKK'nın deontolojik ilkeleri kısmen karşıladığı, 5651 Sayılı Kanun'un bu ilkeleri yapısal olarak ihlal ettiği ve 4054 Sayılı Kanun taslak değişikliğinin çelişkiyi derinleştiren biçimde deontolojik açıdan sessiz kaldığı savunulmaktadır. Bu üçlü tutarsızlığın, Türkiye'nin Avrupa Birliği yeterlilik kararı alamamasının yapısal bir açıklamasını oluşturduğu ve çözümünün her bir araca yönelik deontolojik ilkelere dayalı hedefli yasal reformlar gerektirdiği sonucuna varılmaktadır. Bulgular, GDPR ile uyumlu dijital düzenleyici rejimlerdeki yetki alanı çelişkilerini tespit etmeye yönelik özgün bir analitik çerçeve sunmakta ve Türk dijital yönetişimi için üç somut reform önerisi getirmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital Düzenleme
• Kantçı Deontoloji
• Kişisel Verilerin Korunması
• İnternet Sansürü
• AB Yeterlilik Kararı
• Kapı Bekçisi Düzenlemesi
• Türk Dijital Hukuku
• KVKK

Türkeis Dreifache Digitale Regulierung: Eine Kantisch-Deontologische Analyse von KVKK, Gesetz Nr. 5651 und Gesetz Nr. 4054

Öz

Die Türkei präsentiert sich als DSGVO-konformer Akteur der digitalen Governance, betreibt jedoch gleichzeitig drei rechtlich inkohärente Instrumente: das Gesetz zum Schutz personenbezogener Daten (KVKK), das die EU-Datenschutzstandards teilweise widerspiegelt; das Gesetz Nr. 5651, das administrative Plattformsperrungen ohne vorherige richterliche Genehmigung ermächtigt und breit gefasste Online-Meinungsäußerungen unter Strafe stellt; sowie den Entwurf zur Änderung des Wettbewerbsschutzgesetzes Nr. 4054, der die Torwächter-Schwellenwerte des Gesetzes über digitale Märkte übernimmt, dabei jedoch individuelle Rechte unberücksichtigt lässt. In der bisherigen Forschung wurden diese drei Instrumente noch nicht gemeinsam durch einen einheitlichen ethischen Rahmen analysiert. Der vorliegende Beitrag wendet die kantisch-deontologische Theorie — insbesondere den kategorischen Imperativ und den Grundsatz, Personen stets als Zweck und niemals bloß als Mittel zu behandeln — an, um die innere Kohärenz des dreifachen digitalen Regulierungsrahmens der Türkei zu bewerten. Es wird argumentiert, dass das KVKK deontologischen Grundsätzen teilweise entspricht, das Gesetz Nr. 5651 diese strukturell verletzt und der Entwurf zur Änderung des Gesetzes Nr. 4054 in deontologischer Hinsicht schweigt und damit den Widerspruch vertieft. Diese dreifache Inkohärenz, so die Schlussfolgerung des Beitrags, liefert eine strukturelle Erklärung für das anhaltende Scheitern der Türkei beim Erhalt eines EU-Angemessenheitsbeschlusses; ihre Auflösung erfordert gezielte gesetzgeberische Reformen bei jedem einzelnen Instrument, die auf deontologischen Grundsätzen beruhen. Die Ergebnisse tragen einen originären analytischen Rahmen zur Identifizierung von Zuständigkeitswidersprüchen in DSGVO-angrenzenden digitalen Regulierungsregimen bei und unterbreiten drei konkrete Reformempfehlungen für die digitale Governance der Türkei.

La Réglementation Numérique Tripartite de la Türkiye : Une Analyse Déontologique Kantienne du KVKK, de la Loi n° 5651 et de la Loi n° 4054

Öz

La Türkiye se présente comme un acteur de la gouvernance numérique conforme au RGPD, tout en opérant simultanément trois instruments juridiquement incohérents : la loi sur la protection des données à caractère personnel (KVKK), qui reflète partiellement les normes européennes de protection des données ; la loi n° 5651, qui autorise le blocage administratif de plateformes sans autorisation judiciaire préalable et ériger en infraction pénale des formes d'expression en ligne définies de manière large ; et le projet de modification de la loi n° 4054 sur la protection de la concurrence, qui adopte les seuils relatifs aux contrôleurs d'accès prévus par le règlement sur les marchés numériques tout en passant sous silence les droits individuels. Aucune recherche existante n'a analysé ces trois instruments conjointement à travers un cadre éthique unifié. Le présent article applique la théorie déontologique kantienne — en particulier l'impératif catégorique et le principe de traiter les personnes toujours comme une fin et jamais seulement comme un moyen — afin d'évaluer la cohérence interne du cadre réglementaire numérique tripartite de la Türkiye. Il soutient que le KVKK respecte partiellement les principes déontologiques, que la loi n° 5651 les viole structurellement, et que le projet de modification de la loi n° 4054 garde un silence déontologique de nature à aggraver la contradiction. Cette incohérence tripartite, conclut l'article, fournit une explication structurelle à l'échec persistant de la Türkiye à obtenir une décision d'adéquation de l'Union européenne, et y remédier requiert des réformes législatives ciblées pour chaque instrument, fondées sur des principes déontologiques. Les résultats contribuent à un cadre analytique original permettant d'identifier les contradictions juridictionnelles dans les régimes réglementaires numériques adjacents au RGPD et proposent trois recommandations concrètes de réforme pour la gouvernance numérique turque.

TÜRKİYE’S TRIPARTITE DIGITAL REGULATION: A KANTIAN DEONTOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF PDPL, LAW NO. 5651, AND LAW NO. 4054

Öz

Turkey presents itself as a GDPR-aligned digital governance actor, yet simultaneously operates three legally inconsistent instruments: the Law on Protection of Personal Data (KVKK), which partially mirrors EU data protection standards; Law No. 5651, which authorises administrative platform blocking without prior judicial authorisation and criminalises broadly defined online expression; and the draft amendment to Competition Law No. 4054, which adopts Digital Markets Act gatekeeper thresholds while remaining silent on individual rights. No existing scholarship has analysed these three instruments together through a unified ethical framework. This article applies Kantian deontological theory, specifically the categorical imperative and the principle of treating persons as ends in themselves, to evaluate the internal coherence of Turkey's tripartite digital regulatory framework. It argues that the KVKK partially honours deontological principles, Law No. 5651 structurally violates them, and the draft amendment to Law No. 4054 is deontologically silent in ways that compound the contradiction. This tripartite inconsistency, the article concludes, provides a structural explanation for Turkey's continued failure to obtain EU adequacy recognition, and resolving it requires targeted legislative reforms to each instrument grounded in deontological principles. The findings contribute an original analytical framework for identifying jurisdictional contradictions in GDPR-adjacent digital regulatory regimes and offer three concrete reform recommendations for Turkish digital governance.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital Regulation; Kantian Deontology
• Personal Data Protection
• Internet Censorship
• EU Adequacy Decision
• Gatekeeper Regulation
• Turkish Digital Law
• PDPL

Kaynakça

1. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2000] OJ C364/1
2. European Convention on Human Rights (as amended by Protocol No 14, CETS No 194, 2010)
3. Law No 5651 on the Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed Through Such Publications (Türkiye), enacted 4 May 2007, as amended by Law No 6518 (2014), Law No 7253 (Official Gazette No 31202, 29 July 2020), and Law No 7418 (Official Gazette No 31987, 18 October 2022)
4. Law No 6698 on the Protection of Personal Data (Türkiye) (PDPL), Official Gazette No 29677, 7 April 2016, as amended by Law No 7499, Official Gazette No 32487, 2 March 2024
5. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons about the processing of personal data [2016] OJ L119/1 (GDPR)
6. Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector [2022] OJ L265/1 (Digital Markets Act)
7. Turkish Competition Authority, Draft Amendment to Law No 4054 on the Protection of Competition (October 2022, revised November 2023 and June 2024) (unenacted as of May 2026)
8. Turkish Penal Code (TCK), art 217A, inserted by Law No 7418 (Official Gazette No 31987, 18 October 2022)

9. Case C-293/12 and C-594/12 Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Others EU:C:2014:238 (Grand Chamber, 8 April 2014)
10. Case C-203/15 and C-698/15 Tele2 Sverige AB v Post-och telestyrelsen and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Tom Watson and Others EU:C:2016:970 (Grand Chamber, 21 December 2016)
11. Case C-362/14 Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner EU: C:2015:650 (Schrems I)
12. Case C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18 La Quadrature du Net and Others v Premier ministre and Others EU: C:2020:791 (Grand Chamber, 6 October 2020)
13. Case C-252/21 Meta Platforms Inc and Others v Bundeskartellamt EU: C:2023:537 (Grand Chamber, 4 July 2023)
14. Case C-311/18 Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems EU: C:2020:559 (Schrems II)
15. Brownsword R, Law, Technology and Society: Reimagining the Regulatory Environment (Routledge 2019)
16. Ezrachi A and Stucke ME, Virtual Competition: The Promise and Perils of the Algorithm-Driven Economy (Harvard University Press, 2016)
17. Kant I, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Gregor M tr, Cambridge University Press 1997)
18. Kant I, The Metaphysics of Morals (Gregor M tr, Cambridge University Press 1996)
19. Korsgaard CM, ‘Introduction’ in Kant I, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Gregor M tr, Cambridge University Press 1997)
20. O’Neill O, A Question of Trust: The BBC Reith Lectures 2002 (Cambridge University Press 2002)
21. Akdeniz Y and Altıparmak K, Turkey: Freedom of Expression in Jeopardy (English PEN/PEN International 2020) https://www.englishpen.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Turkey_Freedom_of_Expression_in_Jeopardy_ENG.pdf accessed 1 May 2026
22. Balamir Coskun G, ‘Turkey’s New Internet Law and Its Effects on Freedom of Media’ (Reset DOC, 12 July 2021) https://www.resetdoc.org/story/turkey-internet-law-freedom-media/ accessed 1 May 2026
23. Broadbent M and Strezewski J, ‘Turkey Considering New Digital Competition Legislation’ (CSIS, May 2024) https://www.csis.org/analysis/turkey-considering-new-digital-competition-legislation accessed 1 May 2026
24. Cleary Gottlieb, Digital Markets Regulation Handbook: Türkiye (Cleary Gottlieb 2025) https://content.clearygottlieb.com/antitrust/digital-markets-regulation-handbook/turkey/index.html accessed 1 May 2026
25. Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL), ‘Status and Composition’ https://www.cnil.fr/en/cnil/status-composition accessed 1 May 2026
26. Costa-Cabral F and Lynskey O, ‘Family Ties: The Intersection of Data Protection and Competition Law in EU Law’ (2017) 54(1) Common Market Law Review 11
27. Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Letter to the Speaker of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (CommHR/DM/sf 062-2022, 4 October 2022)
28. European Commission, ‘Adequacy Decisions’ (European Commission 2025) https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/international-dimension-data-protection/adequacy-decisions_en accessed 1 May 2026
29. Floridi L and others, ‘AI4People- An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations’ (2018) 28(4) Minds and Machines 689 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
30. Freedom House, Freedom on the Net 2024: Turkey Country Report (Freedom House 2024) https://freedomhouse.org/country/turkey/freedom-net/2024 accessed 1 May 2026
31. Human Rights Watch, Joint Open Letter to Social Media Companies on Censorship in Türkiye (HRW, 8 May 2025) https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/05/08/joint-open-letter-social-media-companies-censorship-turkiye accessed 1 May 2026
32. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), ‘Comments Before the Turkish Competition Authority Regarding Act No 4054 on the Protection of Competition’ (ITIF, 10 June 2024) https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/10/comments-before-the-turkish-competition-authority-regarding-act-4054/ accessed 1 May 2026
33. Kinikoglu B, ‘Implementing a New Data Protection Law: Lessons from the Turkish Experience’ (2023) 13(1) International Data Privacy Law 25
34. Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurumu (KVKK Board), ‘Personal Data Protection Law’ https://www.kvkk.gov.tr/Icerik/6649/Personal-Data-Protection-Law accessed 1 May 2026
35. Kluwer Competition Law Blog, ‘A New Age for Digital Markets in Turkey? The Draft Amendment to the Law No 4054 on the Protection of Competition’ (25 October 2022) https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2022/10/25/a-new-age-for-digital-markets-in-turkey-the-draft-amendment-to-the-law-no-4054-on-the-protection-of-competition/ accessed 1 May 2026
36. Reporters Without Borders, ‘Turkey: International Delegation Condemns Passage of Disinformation Law’ (RSF, 14 October 2022) https://rsf.org/en/turkey-international-delegation-condemns-passage-disinformation-law-and-issues-call-protect-safety accessed 1 May 2026
37. Schwartz PM, ‘Global Data Privacy: The EU Way’ (2019) 94 New York University Law Review 771
38. Spahn A, ‘Digital Objects, Digital Subjects and Digital Societies: Deontology in the Age of Digitalisation’ (2020) 11(4) Information art 228 https://doi.org/10.3390/info11040228
39. Venice Commission (Council of Europe), Opinion on Law No 5651 (CDL-AD(2016)011, 2016) https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2016)011-e accessed 1 May 2026