Transfer to an open prison is not determined by applying a single ratio to the length of the sentence. Direct enforcement in an open institution and transfer from a closed institution to an open one are different routes. On the second route, the time spent in the institution, the period remaining until conditional release, the nature of the offense, good conduct and other obstacles to enforcement are assessed together. For some convicts, the board decision must also be approved by the enforcement judge. [1][2]
The amendments made in 2025 and the provisional enforcement provisions have made some of the general statements in older internet texts unusable. In particular, the current provision must be applied with regard to second recidivism, the July 31, 2023 date threshold and the institution to which a person is to be sent after a violation of supervised release. The date on which the legislation and case law in this article were last checked is October 14, 2026.
What Is an Open Prison and How Does It Differ from Release?
An Institution Focused on Acquiring a Trade and Reintegration into Society
Article 14 of Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures provides that in open penal institutions priority is given to work and the acquisition of a trade; that there are no physical barriers against escape and no external security personnel; and that supervision and control are carried out by the institution’s staff. An open institution is an institution in which the sentence is served. The duty to comply with the rules and the leave and work arrangements continue. [1]
Transfer to an open institution does not mean that a person gains an unrestricted right to be outside continuously or to work in any job they wish. The institution’s program and the relevant leave rules are applied separately. For this reason, the date of transfer and the days on which a person can actually be outside the institution should not be treated as the same thing.
Supervised Release and Conditional Release Are Separate Stages
To move from an open institution to supervised release, Article 105/A and, where applicable, the provisional provisions are examined separately. Conditional release is likewise another stage with its own conditions and a judicial decision. Acceptance of a request for transfer to an open institution does not by itself cause these later procedures to take place. [1]
In the application file, the current status of the institution, the ground relied on for transfer to an open institution and the likely next stage of enforcement must be clearly distinguished. Confusing three different dates in a spreadsheet can lead to the request being based on the wrong legal ground.
Who Can Be Admitted Directly to an Open Penal Institution?
Categories Based on the Length of the Sentence and the Type of Offense
The categories of direct open enforcement are set out in the second paragraph of Article 14 of Law No. 5275. For prison sentences totaling three years or less for intentional offenses, the statutory exceptions concerning terrorism, organization-related offenses, offenses against sexual inviolability, second recidivism and revocation of conditional release are taken into account. For negligent offenses, a prison sentence totaling five years or less is also separately regulated. [1][2]
Persons whose judicial fine is converted into imprisonment during enforcement, and persons subjected to coercive imprisonment under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İcra ve İflas Kanunu), are also among the other categories in the law. Because their sentences and enforcement features differ, being in an open institution directly does not mean having the same rights at later stages. For example, for imprisonment converted from a fine, Article 105/A separately contains an exclusion from its scope. [1]
Summons and Surrender Procedures
For admission directly to an open institution, the summons document, the institution to which the person is to surrender and the time limit must be examined carefully. Article 9 of the Regulation provides for surrender within ten days to the notified institution and for the procedures to be followed if the person does not surrender on time. For the institution to which apprehension or surrender is to take place, the current text must be relied on. [2]
If there is a documentable event that prevented surrender, it is important to notify the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı) in good time. The summons process differs from the process of applying to the directorate in supervised release; the time limits of the two bodies cannot be used in place of one another.
General Periods for Transfer from a Closed Prison to an Open Prison
If the Total Sentence Is Less than Ten Years
Under the general rule in Article 6 of the Regulation, a convict whose total sentence is less than ten years is required to have spent at least one month in a closed institution, to have shown good conduct, and to have seven years or less remaining until conditional release. This general framework is applied together with the special provisions on offenses and institutions. [2]
The completion of one month is not, by itself, a transfer decision. The convict’s good conduct, pretrial detention in another case and the obstacles in the Regulation are examined separately. It is precisely here that one sees that the file does not consist solely of a calendar calculation.
If the Total Sentence Is Ten Years or More
The general rule is that one-tenth of the total sentence be spent in a closed institution. The period remaining until conditional release and the good conduct requirement are preserved here as well. This one-tenth calculation is not the same as the one-tenth condition added to Article 105/A in 2025 for supervised release. The basis and legal purpose of the calculation differ between the two provisions. [1][2]
Solely to illustrate the ratio logic, in a fixed-term prison sentence of twelve years in total, one-tenth of the total sentence is taken as the basis when the general closed-institution condition is assessed. However, a definite transfer date cannot be derived from this without examining whether the offense falls into a special group, the credit for time already served, the period actually spent in the institution and the other conditions. This example is not a personal enforcement calculation.
Different Periods for Certain Offenses and Institutions
Limits on the Period Remaining Until Conditional Release
The Regulation provides narrower periods than the general seven-year limit for certain categories of sentence and offense. The table below shows the main distinctions; the sub-items of the relevant offense and the other conditions must be checked against the full text. [2]
| Category | Period remaining until conditional release | Additional point to be examined |
|---|---|---|
| General fixed-term prison regime | Seven years or less | Minimum period in a closed institution according to the amount of the total sentence, and good conduct |
| Life imprisonment | Five years or less | Scope of Art. 6/1-b of the Regulation and other conditions |
| High-security closed institution regime | Three years or less | One-third of the total sentence being spent in these institutions with good conduct |
| Offenses under Turkish Penal Code (TCK) Arts. 142, 148, 149, 188 and 190 | Less than five years | Art. 6/2-a of the Regulation and the general conditions |
| TCK Arts. 102 and 103, and the specified cases of killing, injury and ill-treatment against a spouse | Less than three years | The exact offense and subparagraph in Art. 6/2-b of the Regulation |
| Persons benefiting from the relevant special provisions or TCK Art. 221 | Less than two years | Verification of the scope of Art. 6/2-c of the Regulation from the judgment |
| Terrorism or organized crime convicts found by the board to have left the organization | Less than one year | Art. 6/2, subparagraph (ç), of the Regulation and the other conditions |
In the table, the expressions “less than” and “or less” are deliberately distinguished. In a calculation made on the exact limit day, this difference may matter. Where several sentences are enforced, it must be shown judgment by judgment for which offense the special periods are applied.
Assessment of Leaving the Organization
For terrorism and organized crime offenses, the relevant special route of transfer provides for the determination of leaving the organization by decision of the administration and observation board, and for less than one year remaining until conditional release. This determination must be made on the basis of the convict’s file and concrete data. It cannot be assumed that the special condition has been examined merely on the strength of a general sentence about good conduct. [2][3] In connection with this subheading, the article on leave for convicted persons may also be consulted.
In this category, the composition of the board and the judge’s approval are also important. In the petition, the assessment of leaving the organization, the time condition and general good conduct should be shown without being confused with one another.
Is an Open Prison Possible in Cases of Second Recidivism?
The Effect of the 2025 Amendment
The relevant subparagraph of the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Regulation on Transfer to Open Penal Institutions (Açık Ceza İnfaz Kurumlarına Ayrılma Yönetmeliği), which contained a categorical obstacle for persons to whom the second-recidivism provisions apply, was repealed by the amendment of June 4, 2025. For this reason, the old general statement that “a person who is a recidivist for the second time can never be transferred to an open prison” does not reflect the current regulation. [2]
However, the exception in Article 14 of Law No. 5275 concerning direct open enforcement continues separately. Starting in an open institution directly is different from transfer from a closed institution to an open one. It is also wrong to interpret the amendment to the Regulation as if it had removed all the obstacles on the route of direct open enforcement. [1][2]
What Information Is Needed in the File?
How recidivism was applied in the judgment, whether second recidivism is present in the final judgment, the conditional release calculation and the periods spent in the institution are examined. Other offense-related or enforcement-related obstacles are checked separately. The amendment does not make transfer automatic; it requires a reassessment within the correct legal framework.
Early Transfer to an Open Institution Three Years Ahead under Provisional Article 10
The Offense Date Criterion and Offenses Outside the Scope
After the amendment that entered into force on December 25, 2025, the sixth paragraph of Provisional Article 10 takes as its basis offenses committed on or before July 31, 2023. Explanations built on the earlier version of the article, which required being in an institution on a specified date, should not be confused with the current offense date criterion. [1]
The following are left outside the scope: killing offenses under TCK Art. 82/1-d, e and f; killing offenses resulting from the collapse or damage of buildings in an earthquake; the sexual inviolability offenses specified in the article; offenses regarded as relating to state security; and offenses committed within the scope of terrorism and organizational activity. The list of exceptions is not the same as the lists in the other provisional articles. [1]
Periods That Must Be Spent in Closed and Open Institutions
For convicts within the scope, it is required that they spend at least one month in a closed institution if the total prison sentence is less than ten years, and at least three months if it is ten years or more, and that three years or less remain until normal transfer to an open institution. When these conditions are met, early transfer to an open institution comes into question. [1]
Three-year early supervised release, which is regulated in the same paragraph, is subject to separate conditions; among them are a request and at least three months in an open institution. The three months required for transfer from closed to open and the three months required in an open institution before supervised release should not be described as if they were a single condition that can stand in for one another. [1]
Good Conduct and Early Recovery Assessment
Board Decision and Judge’s Approval
Transfer from closed to open requires a good conduct assessment under Article 89. For a prison sentence of ten years or more in total and for certain offenses listed in the law, a special board structure applies, and the decision to transfer to an open institution is carried out after the approval of the enforcement judge. [1][3]
The decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) dated April 27, 2023, E.2023/3264, K.2023/2437, distinguishes the ordinary interim assessment from these special assessments. It is not correct to make every six-month review subject to the requirement of an expanded board chaired by the public prosecutor. On the other hand, whether the transfer procedure falls within a special scope must always be determined. [5]
Early Transfer of up to One-Tenth Based on Early Recovery
The ninth paragraph of Article 32 of the Regulation on Observation and Classification Centers and the Evaluation of Convicts provides for a possibility of transfer up to one-tenth of the total period required to be spent in a closed institution earlier, for a convict with good conduct who exceeds the specified development threshold and who is assessed as showing early recovery. The implementing principles are set out by the General Directorate. [3]
This third provision differs both from the one-tenth in the general closed-institution period and from the one-tenth condition in supervised release. The expression “one-tenth” alone does not show which legal procedure is being described. The legal basis article of the advantage requested and the current scoring arrangement applied in the file should be stated.
Inability to Transfer to an Open Institution and Return to a Closed Institution
Permanent or Temporary Obstacles
Aggravated life imprisonment, certain organization-related situations, a history of escape and the other obstacles in the Regulation are assessed separately. Pretrial detention in another case, health or age problems related to compliance with institutional conditions, and disciplinary punishments that have not been lifted also matter according to the circumstances of the specific case. A general refusal cannot be founded without showing the duration and legal nature of the relevant obstacle. [2]
When sentences are aggregated because of another conviction that becomes final later, the period remaining until conditional release may exceed the open institution limits. In such a case, the new judgment and the current sentence calculation sheet (müddetname) may affect the earlier institutional status. The existence of an earlier transfer decision does not prevent examination of the changed total calculation. [2]
Discipline, Escape and Re-Transfer
Escape from an open institution, pretrial detention in another case and certain disciplinary situations other than a reprimand may result in sending the person to a closed institution. The finalization of a disciplinary punishment matters in general; the statutory state of danger to institutional order or personal safety is regulated separately. [1][2]
Re-transfer to an open institution is examined under Article 13 of the Regulation. Disciplinary punishments other than escape, a first escape from an open institution and a second escape are not subject to the same consequence. After a first escape, the lifting of the disciplinary punishment, the other conditions and the assessment of not escaping again matter; in the case of a second escape, a special obstacle applies. [2]
A referral made under the sixth or seventh paragraph of Article 105/A because of a violation of supervised release, however, is served in an open institution under Article 12 of the current Regulation. This referral must be distinguished from return to a closed institution because of a separate disciplinary act committed while in an open institution. [1][2]
How Is an Effective Application Against a Refusal Decision Constructed?
First Classify the Ground for Refusal
| Ground for refusal | Record to be checked | Point to be explained in the petition |
|---|---|---|
| Time condition not met | Current sentence calculation sheet, judgment and credit decisions | Which start and end dates are wrong |
| Special offense obstacle | The offense article and qualified form in the judgment | The exact equivalent in the Regulation and whether it is applicable |
| Negative good conduct finding | Board decision, service reports and score table | Concrete data, reasoning and contradiction |
| Second recidivism | The judgment and the version of the legislation applied | The distinction between direct open enforcement and transfer from closed |
| Provisional provision not applied | Offense date and institution records | The scope of Provisional Art. 10/6 and the minimum periods in the institution |
The application should not merely state that transfer to an open institution is wanted. It should explain why each ground for refusal is wrong, what the relevant document shows and what legal result is requested. It may also be requested that institution records that are not in hand be obtained.
The Limit of the Court of Cassation’s Judicial Review
In the decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated December 14, 2023, E.2023/5842, K.2023/7990, judicial review of a favorable assessment of transfer to an open institution was examined. It was stated that if there is a deficiency or an erroneous assessment, this must be made concrete and the matter sent back to the administration for reassessment. It was not considered appropriate to take the administration’s place and decide solely on the basis of a different opinion. [4]
The decision of the Plenary Assembly of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi) in Çağlar Yılmaz, Application No. 2022/81860, dated January 8, 2026, discusses the same approach to review in the context of supervised release. The majority did not find the examination made on the basis of contradictions in the reports arbitrary in the specific case and held the application inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded. This decision is not a decision on transfer directly to an open institution; it shows the relevant framework for review of a good conduct decision. [6]
Time Limits for Complaint and Objection
For a complaint to the enforcement judgeship against an administrative act, the rule of fifteen days from becoming aware and, in any case, thirty days from the act is taken into account. An objection against the decision of the enforcement judge, on the other hand, is made within two weeks from notification. The objection petition is submitted to the judgeship that gave the decision and is examined by the relevant High Criminal Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi). [7][8]
It must be borne in mind that the application does not stop the act automatically. If the necessary conditions exist, a request for a stay or for suspension of enforcement is separately explained. As regards an individual application to the Constitutional Court after the ordinary remedies, the concrete claim of a right violation and the application time limit tied to the date of becoming aware are also assessed separately. For a separate assessment of the subject, the article on transfer from a prison to another institution may be consulted.
For further details on related topics, you may also see our articles on conditions and application for supervised release and on good conduct and objection to the decision of the administration and observation board.
Reasoned Assessment and Judicial Review in Organization-Related Files
What Does Decision No. 2026/2780 Protect?
In the decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated April 10, 2026, E.2025/105, K.2026/2780, a decision for three more months of observation was given on a request for transfer to an open institution, stating that sufficient conviction had not been formed on leaving the organization. The objection authority annulled the board’s decision because there was no concrete and reviewable reasoning. The Court of Cassation likewise saw no unlawfulness in this annulment and rejected the request for reversal in the interest of the law. [9]
The importance of the decision lies not in eliminating the condition of leaving the organization, but in showing that the assessment of this condition cannot be left without reasons. It must be possible to understand which statement of the convict conflicts with which record, what observation exists concerning the continuation of the organizational link, and why the favorable data were not regarded as sufficient. In the application, instead of the mere statement “I am sincere,” the concrete records that the board did not assess and the deficiencies in the decision should be shown.
Does an Annulment Concerning Good Conduct Take the Place of a Decision on Transfer to an Open Institution?
In the decision of the same Chamber dated April 10, 2026, E.2025/39, K.2026/2774, two separate outcomes are found together. The criticism of the abstract reasons for the negative assessment of good conduct was considered well founded; on the other hand, finding a request for supervised release appropriate without investigating transfer to an open institution or the right to transfer, and the assessment of leaving the organization, was made a ground for reversal. [10]
For this reason, it is useful to open three separate columns in the file: good conduct, the conditions for transfer to an open institution and the conditions of the later enforcement procedure that is requested. A favorable result in one column does not show that the others are automatically completed. In the concluding part of the petition, it must be clear which decision’s annulment is requested and the completion of which missing examination is requested.
How Do Multiple Judgments and a New Judgment Affect Open-Institution Status?
The Nature of the Offenses Matters as Much as the Total Sentence
The third paragraph of Article 6 of the Regulation, when determining the offense to be used as the basis for transfer to an open institution where sentences are enforced in aggregate, points to the offense for which the shortest period is required until conditional release. For this reason, the calculation cannot be made on the total number of years alone. The offense article in each of the judgments, the special transfer limit and the date of conditional release after aggregation must be shown together. [2]
For example, if in a hypothetical file another conviction with a narrower transfer period is added to a general fixed-term prison sentence, the date on which the earlier open-institution decision was based may not be enough to explain the new situation. In the new calculation, it must be stated which judgment affects the transfer limit and which records of credit for time served were used. As regards the calculation, the examinations of the enforcement of multiple sentences and aggregation (içtima) and of objection to the sentence calculation sheet (müddetname) should also be considered.
Not Every Negative Good Conduct Decision Means Return to a Closed Institution
Article 38 of the Regulation on Observation and Classification limits the consequences of a negative good conduct assessment made at the stage of leaving the institution. Unless there is an express decision to the contrary, earlier good conduct assessments relating to measures such as education, work, transfer and special leave are not affected by it. Before a ground for return to a closed institution has materialized and an express decision to that effect has been taken, a negative assessment cannot by itself be regarded as a ground for return to a closed institution. [3]
This distinction is particularly important in practice: the rejection of a request for supervised release may not mean that the current status of remaining in an open institution ends at the same time. Whether there is a separate return decision alongside the refusal decision should be investigated; if there are two acts, the reasoning, the authority and the application time limits should be examined separately for each.
Conclusion
Examining a transfer to an open prison requires determining the correct route of enforcement. Direct open enforcement, transfer from closed, early transfer and re-transfer after return to a closed institution are subject to different conditions. When the current legislation, a judgment-by-judgment calculation of periods and a reasoned good conduct assessment are considered together, the legal objection to be raised against a refusal decision also becomes clear. For details of the subject, the article on work, wages and insurance rights in prison may be consulted.
For legal support in criminal proceedings and enforcement processes, you may look at our criminal law attorney services.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is One Month in a Closed Prison Enough to Move to an Open One?
No. This period is the general minimum condition for some convicts. The remaining period, the category of offense, good conduct and other obstacles are examined together. [2]
Can a Second-Time Recidivist Never Be Transferred to an Open Prison?
Such a categorical result cannot be drawn under the current regulation. The general obstacle in the Regulation was removed in 2025. However, the direct open enforcement exception and the other conditions of transfer continue separately. [1][2]
Is It Enough on Its Own That the Offense Was Committed Before July 31, 2023?
No. The offense exceptions in Provisional Art. 10/6, the period that must be spent in the institution and the remaining period until normal open transfer are also examined. [1]
Is a Favorable Decision of the Good Conduct Board Applied Immediately?
For the categories of sentence and offense listed in the law, the approval of the enforcement judge is required. The presence of the other conditions is also checked. [1]
Does Transfer to an Open Prison Directly Provide Supervised Release?
No. Supervised release has separate period and application conditions arising from the general or provisional provisions. [1]
Is the Time Limit for Objecting to an Enforcement Judge’s Decision Seven Days?
Under the current Law No. 4675, the period is two weeks from notification. It should not be confused with the complaint period against the board’s administrative act. [7]
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures, in particular Arts. 14, 89, 105/A, 107–108 and Provisional Arts. 10–11. Source link; reviewed: October 14, 2026.
- Regulation on Transfer to Open Penal Institutions, in particular Arts. 5–13; the official consolidated text including the amendments of June 4, 2025. Source link; reviewed: October 14, 2026.
- Regulation on Observation and Classification Centers and the Evaluation of Convicts, in particular Arts. 13–17 and 32–37. Source link; reviewed: October 14, 2026.
- Court of Cassation, 1st Criminal Chamber, E.2023/5842, K.2023/7990, December 14, 2023, reasoning 9–10 and holding. Judicial review in transfer to an open institution; reversal in the interest of the law.
- Court of Cassation, 1st Criminal Chamber, E.2023/3264, K.2023/2437, April 27, 2023, reasoning 6–8 and holding. Distinction between interim assessment and the composition of the special board; reversal in the interest of the law.
- Constitutional Court Plenary Assembly, Çağlar Yılmaz, Application No. 2022/81860, January 8, 2026, §§37–40 and holding. Good conduct review in the context of supervised release; inadmissibility, dissenting opinions are separate.
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships, Arts. 4–6. Source link; reviewed: October 14, 2026.
- Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271, Arts. 267–271. Source link; reviewed: October 14, 2026.
- Court of Cassation, 1st Criminal Chamber, E.2025/105, K.2026/2780, April 10, 2026. II/2 and III; reasoned assessment. Full text reviewed; access may require signing in.
- Court of Cassation, 1st Criminal Chamber, E.2025/39, K.2026/2774, April 10, 2026. II/5 and III; investigation of the other enforcement conditions. Full text reviewed; access may require signing in.