The Personal Data Protection Authority has prepared the “Principle Decision on the Requirement for Data Controllers to Arrange Explicit Consent Form and Information Texts Separately” (“Principle Decision”), which was published in the Official Gazette No. 33203 dated March 24, 2026.

In the Principle Decision, the concepts of explicit consent form and privacy notice are examined within the scope of the legislation, and evaluations are provided regarding unlawful practices frequently encountered in practice. In summary, the Authority has emphasized the following matters:

• The purpose of privacy notices is to provide information and they do not have the nature of a contract; therefore, expressions indicating a declaration of will such as “I have read and accept,” “I have read and give consent,” or “I have read and approve” should be avoided, and expressions such as “I have read and understood” should be preferred.
• Explicit consent form is a declaration of will based on information and is therefore different from the privacy notice. It should include a statement such as “I give my explicit consent for the processing of my personal data.”
• When the processing of personal data depends on the condition of explicit consent, the privacy notice and the explicit consent form must be arranged under separate headings as distinct texts.
• If the privacy notice and the explicit consent form are arranged on the same page, they should be structured under separate headings with a separate declaration obtained for each text.
• If the processing of personal data is based on other legal grounds stipulated in the Law No. 6698 rather than explicit consent, fulfilling the obligation to inform alone is sufficient, and no separate consent should be obtained.
• The texts should be prepared by each data controller in accordance with their own organization and sectoral activities.
• The texts should use clear, understandable, and simple language; general, ambiguous, incomplete, misleading, or incorrect information should be avoided, as well as unnecessarily detailed, complex, or lengthy texts.

Additionally, the Authority has included examples of good and bad practices in the annex to the Principle Decision.

If the practice is not properly implemented, data controllers are subject to administrative fines in accordance with Articles 12 and 18 of the Personal Data Protection Law.

The full text of the Principle Decision can be accessed here.

Best Regards,
Balay, Eryiğit & Erten

Within the scope of the Personal Data Protection Board’s (“Board”) Principle Decision published in the Official Gazette dated February 28, 2026 dated February 11, 2026 and numbered 2026/266 (“Decision”), certain shopping practices carried out under loyalty card programs were evaluated.

Pursuant to the relevant Decision, it has been stated by the Board that the practices whereby a shopping transaction is carried out by third parties by informing the cashier of a customer’s mobile phone number or loyalty card number without the data subject’s knowledge and consent, issuance of invoices or similar documents in the name of the data subject, and recording purchase transaction in the data subject’s account:

• cannot be based on any of the data processing conditions set forth under Article 5 of Law No. 6698 (“Law”) and would lead to unlawful personal data processing activities,
• could constitute a violation of the principle of “being accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date” set forth under Article 4 of the Law,
• may constitute a violation within the scope of the obligation to ensure personal data security as regulated under Article 12 of the Law.

Within this scope, the Board has stated that:

• the practices enabling the aforementioned shopping transactions must be terminated,
• the necessary technical and administrative measures must be taken by data controllers,
• different verification mechanisms must be implemented in loyalty card practices depending on the type of transaction such as membership verification, earning points/discounts/promotions, and redeeming points, and the level of risk associated with such transactions.

A six-month compliance period from the date of publication of the Principle Decision has been granted to data controllers to establish the aforementioned verification mechanisms.

You can access the full text of the Decision here.

Best Regards,
Balay, Eryiğit & Erten

With the Constitutional Court (“AYM”) decision dated 06.11.2025 and numbered E.2023/174, K.2025/224, published in the Official Gazette dated 17.02.2026 and numbered 33171, it was held that the phrase “…where it deems necessary…” in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 15 of the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 4054 (“Law No. 4054”) is not unconstitutional, and the objection was dismissed.

The decision is significant, within the scope of the incidentality (objection) applications filed by the 13th Chamber of the Council of State and the Ankara 11th Administrative Court, in terms of the scope of the on-site inspection power regulated under Article 15 of Law No. 4054 and the relationship of this power with fundamental rights safeguards.

The constitutional review subject to the objection was conducted under two headings:
(i) the phrase “…where it deems necessary…” in Article 15/1 of Law No. 4054; and (ii) the second sentence of the third paragraph added to Article 15 by Article 25 of Law No. 4971 dated 1/8/2003. The referring courts argued that these provisions were contrary to Articles 2, 13, and 21 of the Constitution.

In the decision;

• With respect to the phrase “…where it deems necessary…” in Article 15/1 of Law No. 4054, it is seen that the rule was reviewed within the framework of the rule-of-law principle (Article 2 of the Constitution); and, considering that it serves a legitimate aim within the scope of the State’s positive obligation to protect competition (Article 167 of the Constitution), the Court concluded that there was no unconstitutionality.
• The majority of the Constitutional Court stated that the challenged rule was not considered to fall within the scope of Articles 13 and 21 of the Constitution (proportionality / inviolability of domicile), and therefore did not conduct a separate constitutional review on that basis.
• As for the objection concerning the second sentence of the third paragraph later added to Article 15 of Law No. 4054, the application was assessed in terms of the “applicable provision” requirement in the concrete cases and was dismissed due to the Court’s lack of jurisdiction (applicability / applicable-provision issue).
• Dissenting opinions were submitted and appended to the decision. In particular, the dissents emphasize that, in practice, on-site inspections involve access to areas of undertakings that are not freely accessible to everyone as well as to electronic data systems; therefore, the safeguards of the inviolability of domicile under Article 21 of the Constitution (such as a judge’s warrant / cases of urgency / judicial approval within 24 hours) should be at the center of the debate; and they raise criticisms that a broad phrase such as “where it deems necessary” leaves interferences with fundamental rights to the discretion of the administration.

With this decision, since no annulment or consequence affecting the entry into force arose with respect to the phrase “…where it deems necessary…” in Article 15/1 of Law No. 4054, the normative framework regarding the Competition Authority’s on-site inspection power continues unchanged; however, it is assessed that the inviolability-of-domicile / judicial-safeguard debates emphasized in the dissents will remain on the agenda in practice (particularly regarding areas of the workplace not open to everyone and the examination of electronic data).

You can access the full text of the legislative amendment regarding notifications to employees to be made via KEP dated 24/07/2025 here.

Best Regards,
Balay, Eryiğit & Erten

Significant amendments have been introduced to the Communiqué No. 2010/4 on Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring Competition Board Clearance, as published in the Official Gazette dated 11/02/2026, through the Communiqué No. 2026/2 on Amendments prepared by the Competition Authority. The key aspects of these amendments are set out below.

The definitions of the relevant undertaking, transaction parties, and technology undertakings have been updated.

The concept of “related undertaking” has been clarified to encompass the acquiring party or the person/economic units subject to the merger or acquisition. In particular, the term “transaction party” has been elaborated to explicitly indicate the economic entities to which the relevant undertakings belong and the units subject to the transaction. Additionally, in the definition of technology undertakings, digital platforms have been explicitly mentioned and highlighted as a separate category.

Turnover thresholds for mergers and acquisitions requiring the merger clearance of the Board have been updated.

• With the changes to the turnover thresholds in mergers and acquisitions, it has become mandatory to obtain the Board’s merger clearance for a transaction to be legally valid if the following conditions are met: the total Turkish turnovers of the transaction parties, previously 750 million TRY, now reach 3 billion TRY; and the Turkish turnovers of at least two of the transaction parties, previously 250 million TRY each, now reach 1 billion TRY; or in acquisitions, the assets or operations subject to the transaction, and in mergers, the Turkish turnover of at least one of the transaction parties, previously 250 million TRY, now reach 1 billion TRY, and the global turnover of at least one of the other transaction parties, previously 3 billion TRY, now reaches 9 billion TRY.
• In merger transactions where at least one of the transaction parties is a technology undertaking established in Turkey, as well as in transactions involving the acquisition of such undertakings, the turnover thresholds set forth in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the first paragraph, which were previously not applied to the transaction party subject to the transaction, are now applied at 250 million TRY.

Conceptual additions and amendments have been made to terms such as dominant position, competition, and undertaking.

A fourth paragraph has been added to Article 13 of the Communiqué, whereby the Board will now specifically consider the significant activities of the transaction parties in the markets or related markets in which joint ventures operate, as well as the likelihood that coordination may eliminate competition. The market structure, effective competition, and dominant position criteria set out in the previous first and second paragraphs have been retained.

Significant changes have been made to the Notification Form annexed to the Communiqué to simplify the notifications to be submitted to the Board.

• In Section (2) of the Notification Form, subparagraph (b), the phrase “if there is no affected market in Turkey” has been revised to: “for transactions involving an affected market, it will be mandatory to answer the long-form questions requesting detailed information on market dynamics if (i) in horizontal overlaps, the combined market shares of the parties exceed 15%, and/or (ii) in vertical overlaps, at least one of the parties’ market shares exceeds 20%.” A market share threshold has thus been introduced.
• Another addition to the content of the Notification Form has been made under subparagraph (3). According to this newly added subparagraph, the information to be submitted regarding transaction parties that are venture capital investment partnerships, venture capital investment funds, venture capital companies, or individual private equity investors is limited solely to matters directly related to their activities in Turkey, and the transaction party subject to the transaction is excluded from this scope.

It has been stated that the changes to the turnover thresholds and other conditions in the Communiqué will also apply to ongoing transactions. The amendments came into effect on the date of publication. The Amendment Communiqué can be accessed via this link.

Best Regards,
Balay, Eryiğit & Erten

The “Regulation Amending the Regulation on Workplace Opening and Operating Licenses,” which was put into force by Presidential Decision No. 10852, was published in the Official Gazette dated 10 January 2026 and numbered 33133. The Regulation entered into force on the date of its publication.

With this Regulation, a new “Provisional Article 9” has been added to the Regulation on Workplace Opening and Operating Licenses, which was put into force by the Council of Ministers’ Decision dated 14/7/2005 and numbered 2005/9207, to come after Provisional Article 8.

Pursuant to the newly added “Provisional Article 9,” in accommodation facilities (i) that are required to obtain a fire brigade report within the scope of the Regulation and (ii) that have been granted a period of time to remedy deficiencies requiring a procurement process for materials in accordance with Provisional Article 4 of the Regulation on Fire Protection of Buildings, which was put into force by the Council of Ministers’ Decision dated 27/11/2007 and numbered 2007/12937, if, as a result of inspections carried out by the competent authorities, a fire brigade report demonstrating compliance with the Regulation on Fire Protection of Buildings cannot be submitted, such workplaces shall be immediately suspended from operation until 31/5/2026 within the scope of Additional Article 3.

This period shall be used for eliminating non-compliances or deficiencies required for the issuance of the fire brigade report and/or for carrying out construction works and renovations within the buildings for this purpose; during this period, the continuation of operations shall not be permitted. If the fire brigade report cannot be submitted at the end of this period, the business opening and operating license of the relevant workplaces shall be revoked and they shall be closed.

This regulation may give rise to the risk of suspension of activities and ultimately revocation of licenses, particularly for accommodation facilities that are found to have deficiencies in terms of fire safety. Therefore, it is of importance for accommodation facilities and their operators to:

• Urgently assess the requirement for a fire brigade report and their current compliance status,
• Manage the necessary renovation/construction planning and procurement processes,
• Prepare the documents to be submitted during inspection processes,
• Establish a timetable to obtain the fire brigade report by 31/5/2026.

The full text of the decision can be accessed at: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/10.01.2026

Best Regards,
Balay, Eryiğit & Erten

Published in the Official Gazette dated 12 October 2025, the Communiqué on the Designation of Nitrate-Sensitive Areas, Environmentally Friendly Agricultural Practices, and the Implementation, Monitoring and Reporting of the Nitrate Action Plan (Communiqué No: 2025/17) introduces a comprehensive new framework to prevent nitrate pollution in waters arising from agricultural activities.

Purpose and Scope

The Communiqué aims to regulate the processes for identifying nitrate-sensitive areas, defining the principles of environmentally friendly agricultural practices, and preparing, implementing, monitoring, and reporting the Nitrate Action Plan. Its scope covers both administrative and technical aspects, including area designation, farm inspections, fertilizer management, and sustainable agricultural production practices.

Definitions and Conceptual Framework

The Communiqué includes an extensive set of definitions. Key terms include Environmentally Friendly Agricultural Practices (Annex-1), Certificate of Compliance for Environmentally Friendly Agricultural Practices, NİBİS (National Nitrate Information System), Nitrate Action Plan, Nitrate-Sensitive Area/Zone, and Manure Management Plan. These definitions establish the administrative and technical foundation for subsequent obligations.

Designation of Nitrate-Sensitive Areas

Nitrate-sensitive areas are designated through the combined assessment of hydrogeological and hydrological sensitivity, nitrogen pollution load, and agricultural pollution monitoring data. Nitrogen loads from crop production and livestock are calculated separately on a settlement basis (kg N/ha and total kg N) using the coefficients in Annex-5. The Ministry determines sensitive areas at the village/neighbourhood level, updates the list every four years, and publishes updates on its official website.

Environmentally Friendly Agricultural Practices

These practices include rules regarding land management, nutrient and irrigation management, manure management, plant protection products, and farm record-keeping. They are mandatory in nitrate-sensitive areas and voluntary in non-sensitive areas under the Nitrate Action Plan (subject to certain exceptions).

Nitrate Action Plan

The Nitrate Action Plan is prepared in line with the measures set out in Annex-7 and is mandatory in nitrate-sensitive areas. In non-sensitive areas, enterprises producing 3,500 kg or more of nitrogen per year are also subject to mandatory manure management provisions. The Plan is monitored and updated every four years and published on the Ministry’s website.

Monitoring and Inspection

Monitoring is carried out under two programs: the Water Pollution Monitoring Program and the Farm Monitoring Program. Farm monitoring results are recorded in NİBİS, and annual and four-year reports are prepared. At least 1% of farms are inspected each year at the district level. Enterprises found to be compliant may be issued a Certificate of Compliance, while those failing to remedy non-compliance within six months will have their certificates revoked.

Animal Manure Management

Enterprises producing 1,600 kg or more of nitrogen per year are required to have an environmentally friendly manure storage facility. The storage requirement also applies to capacity expansions or new facilities benefiting from grants, subsidies, or loans. Specific storage conditions are defined for nomadic small ruminant farms. Contracts must be executed (Annex-9 and Annex-10) for the transfer of manure to greenhouses, farms, or biogas/compost/organic fertilizer facilities. Storage capacity is calculated according to Annex-11, while transport and record-keeping are documented under Annex-12.

Training and Administrative Sanctions

The Ministry organizes annual training and extension programs for farmers and provides training sessions for authorized personnel and agricultural consultants. In cases of non-compliance, the Certificate of Compliance is revoked, and relevant legal provisions are applied.

Repealed Legislation

The Communiqué on the Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Prevention of Nitrate Pollution from Agricultural Sources in Waters (No: 2016/46), published in the Official Gazette dated 11 February 2017 and numbered 29976, has been repealed. References made to the repealed communiqué shall be deemed to refer to the new one.

The Communiqué entered into force on 12 October 2025 and is implemented by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. It establishes an integrated system for implementation, inspection, and reporting in the fight against nitrate pollution.The new regulation introduces significant technical and administrative obligations, particularly for livestock farms, greenhouse operations, and biogas/compost facilities. It is therefore crucial for agricultural enterprises to align their manure management, storage, and record-keeping systems with the provisions of the Communiqué.

You can access the full text of the Communiqué (in Turkish) at:

https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/10/20251012-4.htm

Best Regards,
Balay, Eryiğit & Erten