Published on 2 March 2026
 
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 28772/21
İFADE ÖZGÜRLÜĞÜ DERNEĞİ
against Türkiye
lodged on 28 May 2021
communicated on 12 February 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant association’s complaints regarding the legislative amendment to the Law on Associations which introduced an obligation to report to the administration the personal data of association members and of those whose membership has ended, and which imposed administrative fines on association executives in the event of non‑compliance with this obligation.
On 26 March 2020 Law No. 7226 introduced amendments to the Law on Associations. Pursuant to these amendments, the names, dates of birth and identity numbers of association members, as well as of those whose membership had ceased, had to be notified within forty‑five days from the date of acquisition or termination of membership. The amendments further provided that association executives who failed to comply with this obligation would be subject to an administrative fine of 500 Turkish liras (approximately 70 euros at the material time). A six‑month transitional period was granted for the notification of information concerning existing members. On an unspecified date, the applicant association submitted the relevant information to the associations unit of the competent administrative authority.
On 21 October 2020 the applicant association lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court and argued that the obligation to transmit personal data of its members and former members to an administrative body constituted an interference with the freedom of association, as safeguarded under Article 33 of the Constitution and Article 11 of the Convention. The applicant association further submitted that the measure also amounted to an interference with the right to the protection of personal data, as guaranteed by Article 20 of the Constitution and Article 8 of the Convention.
On 7 December 2020 the Constitutional Court declared the individual application inadmissible.
The applicant association complains under Articles 8 and 11 of the Convention of the legislative amendment to the Law on Associations introducing an obligation to report to the administration the personal data of its active and former members, and which imposed administrative fines on association executives in the event of non-compliance with this obligation.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  Has there been an interference with the applicant association’s freedom of association, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of the legislative amendment to the Law on Associations introducing an obligation to report to the administration the personal data of its active and former members, and which imposed administrative fines on association executives in the event of non-compliance with this obligation (see, for the general principles, Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani v. Italy, no. 35972/97, §§ 15-16, ECHR 2001-VIII)?
If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2 (for the Court’s general case-law on this issue, see Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, § 96, ECHR 2004‑I; Partidul Comunistilor (Nepeceristi) and Ungureanu v. Romania, no. 46626/99, § 49, ECHR 2005-I (extracts); and Magyar Keresztény Mennonita Egyház and Others v. Hungary, nos. 70945/11 and 8 others, § 79, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?
In particular, does the legislation that imposes an obligation on the applicant association to report the personal data of its current and former members to the authorities meet the requirement of being “prescribed by law”? In this regard, under what conditions are the reported personal data stored? Which persons or institutions have access to this information, and for what purposes may such information be used? What sanctions, if any, does the legislation provide for the unlawful use of this information and what are the safeguards provided by law against their arbitrary use (for the Court’s general case-law on the matter, see Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I)?
 
2.  Bearing in mind the questions above, has there been an interference with the applicant association’s rights safeguarded by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention by the impugned legislative amendment (see for the general principles Bernh Larsen Holding AS and Others, no. 24117/08, §§ 90 and 107, 14 March 2013)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see, for the general principles, Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 124, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Catt v. the United Kingdom, no. 43514/15, §§ 94‑128, 24 January 2019; and Klaus Müller v. Germany, no. 24173/18, §§ 48‑50, 19 November 2020)?