Exploring the Brussels Effect Through a Turkish Lens

The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation has reshaped privacy standards far beyond its borders. A newly published study in the Computer Law & Security Review examines how this influence reaches Türkiye indirectly, shaping the country’s Personal Data Protection Act even as full legislative alignment remains a work in progress.

Elif Küzeci and Oguzhan Yesiltuna authored the analysis, which appears in the September 2026 issue. Their work focuses on the first decade of Türkiye’s data protection framework and the selective ways national institutions have drawn on European standards.

Origins of Türkiye’s Data Protection Framework

Türkiye recognized the protection of personal data as a constitutional right in 2010. The Personal Data Protection Act, known locally as KVKK or Law No. 6698, entered into force in 2016. Drafted with the earlier EU Data Protection Directive in mind, the law established core principles such as lawfulness, purpose limitation, and data minimization.

Before 2016, protections existed in scattered provisions across the constitution, criminal code, and sector-specific rules. The new statute created the Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurumu, or KVKK authority, tasked with oversight, complaints, and enforcement.

Defining the Par Ricochet Dynamic

The authors introduce the concept of “par ricochet” to describe how the GDPR influences Turkish practice without direct legal force. Rather than wholesale adoption, the effect travels through the interpretations and decisions of the Turkish data protection authority and the Constitutional Court.

These bodies act as surfaces that reflect or refract European approaches depending on institutional priorities, enforcement culture, and domestic policy choices. The result is selective alignment rather than complete convergence.

Core Concepts and Persistent Gaps

Both the GDPR and the Turkish statute define personal data as information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. Turkish law, however, provides fewer illustrative examples and less detailed guidance on identifiability.

Processing is understood broadly in both frameworks as any operation performed on data. Yet the Turkish act lacks some of the GDPR’s explicit expansions on automated decision-making and profiling. These differences have prompted the authority and courts to fill gaps through case-by-case reasoning.

Enforcement Culture and Institutional Choices

The KVKK authority holds investigatory, corrective, and advisory powers. Its board issues decisions on complaints and conducts inquiries. Over the past decade, the authority has referenced European standards in selected rulings, particularly on data subject rights and security measures.

At the same time, it has maintained distinct positions shaped by Turkish administrative traditions. This selective borrowing illustrates the par ricochet mechanism at work.

Photo by Andre William on Unsplash

Constitutional Court Jurisprudence

The Turkish Constitutional Court has addressed data protection in several notable applications. One prominent case involved the right to be forgotten, where the court drew on European precedents while adapting them to domestic constitutional balancing.

These decisions demonstrate limited but meaningful engagement with GDPR principles, especially around access, rectification, and erasure. The court’s approach remains cautious, prioritizing constitutional text and national security considerations where they intersect with privacy claims.

Legislative Progress Through 2024 Amendments

In 2024, Türkiye enacted amendments addressing long-standing divergences. Changes covered international data transfers, the processing of special categories of personal data, and the structure of administrative fines.

The updates introduced conditions for cross-border transfers that more closely mirror GDPR mechanisms, including adequacy decisions and appropriate safeguards. Special-category rules were refined to align with explicit consent and substantial public interest grounds. Fine structures were recalibrated to reflect proportionality principles seen in European enforcement.

Further revisions are anticipated through 2026, including potential steps toward the modernised Council of Europe Convention 108 and a framework for law-enforcement data processing.

Implications for International Data Flows and Research

Academics and institutions handling cross-border research data benefit from greater predictability. Universities and research centers operating in or with partners in Türkiye now navigate a landscape where certain transfer mechanisms have been clarified.

Multinational companies and collaborative projects gain clearer compliance pathways, though residual differences in rights such as data portability and the precise scope of special-category processing continue to require careful mapping.

Stakeholder Perspectives and Ongoing Challenges

Legal scholars note that selective alignment allows Türkiye to preserve policy flexibility while advancing EU candidacy goals. Business associations highlight reduced friction in data transfers as a competitive advantage for the Turkish market.

Privacy advocates emphasize the need for continued legislative updates to close remaining gaps in data subject rights and enforcement transparency. The authority’s growing body of decisions provides practical guidance that complements the statutory text.

Future Outlook and Next Steps

The study concludes that substantial convergence has occurred through interpretation and targeted reform, yet full alignment requires additional legislative and international commitments. Signature and ratification of the modernised Convention 108, together with a dedicated law-enforcement framework, remain priorities.

Continued dialogue between the KVKK authority, the Constitutional Court, and European counterparts will shape how the par ricochet effect evolves in the coming years.

Photo by Annual Report Design Agency - Report Yak on Unsplash

Access the Full Analysis

Readers interested in the detailed examination can consult the original publication in the Computer Law & Security Review. The article offers extensive case analysis and forward-looking recommendations for policymakers and practitioners alike.