As a rule, imprisonment converted from a judicial fine (adli para cezası) is not absorbed within the 28-year conditional release period calculated for more than one fixed-term prison sentence. However, this does not mean that every convicted person automatically stays in a penal institution for five years on top of the 28 years. First, it is determined which stage the fine is at: payment, public-benefit work or enforcement in a penal institution. Converted imprisonment that has not reached the stage of enforcement in the institution cannot be included in the aggregation decision; once it reaches that stage, it retains its own specific regime. The decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi) dated May 22, 2026 explains both this distinction between stages and how the sentence calculation sheet (müddetname) is to be drawn up accordingly. [1]
The 28-year limit is not a general release rule that ends all sentences
Article 107/3-e of Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures provides that, in the case of conviction to more than one fixed-term prison sentence, the period that must be spent in the penal institution for conditional release is at most 28 years. This limit does not mean that all the sentences imposed are reduced to 28 years or that all enforcement relationships end at the end of this period. The period required for conditional release differs from the total sentence and from the date of release upon entitlement (hak ederek tahliye). [1]
The rate applicable to each sentence must be determined separately
Different enforcement rates may apply across several enforceable judgments (ilam). First, the conditional release calculation is made for each sentence by assessing the nature and date of the offense, the final judgment, recidivism status and the applicable special provisions. Then, for the group of sentences to which Article 107/3-e can be applied, the total of the periods found is compared with the 28-year upper limit. If the total is lower, 28 years are not served merely because there is more than one sentence; if it is higher, the relevant upper limit is taken into account. [1]
For example, hypothetically, if the periods required for conditional release for two sentences subject to the same general upper limit are 10 and 12 years, the total is 22 years. If these periods are 18 and 14 years, the 28-year limit is considered instead of the 32-year total. The example is not a calculation of credit for time served, a special enforcement regime, transfer to supervised release or a specific release date. It only shows on which total the upper limit has effect. [1]
Good conduct and special enforcement provisions must not be overlooked
Conditional release is not merely an arithmetic operation; good conduct and the other statutory conditions are also required. Moreover, 28 years is not a common ceiling that can be applied to all life and aggravated life sentences or to all the different special enforcement regimes. Files involving organization-related offenses, terrorism, recidivism, age or special transitional provisions must be examined under their own rules. The focus of this article is the relationship between the period calculated under Article 107/3-e and imprisonment converted from a judicial fine; it is not a single time-to-serve calculation table for all offenses. [1]
Aggregation (içtima) does not remove the independence of the sentences or their enforcement regime
Aggregation in enforcement is the combination of different final sentences in an aggregation decision so that the conditional release provisions can be applied. It must not be confused with the concurrence of offenses or the joinder of files during the trial. Under Article 99 of Law No. 5275, each sentence is independent of the others and separately retains its existence. The aggregation decision does not turn different sentences into a new sentence whose legal consequences are identical in every respect. [1]
The provision added to Article 99 by Law No. 7242 provides that prison sentences converted from judicial fines that have reached the stage of enforcement in a penal institution are also included in the aggregation decision. For this reason, both extreme assessments are wrong: these sentences are neither incapable of ever being aggregated, nor are they included in the aggregation decision unconditionally as soon as the decision converting them into imprisonment is made. The decisive condition is reaching the stage of enforcement in the institution. [1] [2]
This distinction also determines the scope of the bar on aggregation: the statement “The two types of sentence cannot be aggregated” applies only where the imprisonment converted from the fine is still at the public-benefit work stage. For a sentence that has reached the stage of enforcement in the institution, however, the express aggregation provision of the law applies; even so, the bar on conditional release and the special time limits are preserved. [1] [2]
Under the general regime, non-payment of a judicial fine does not mean being sent directly to prison
Conversion into imprisonment and the stage of enforcement in the institution are distinct
Under Article 106/3 of Law No. 5275, if no payment is made despite a duly notified payment order, the number of days corresponding to the unpaid portion is converted into imprisonment by decision of the public prosecutor, and a decision is made to have the person work in a public-benefit job. Since only the unpaid portion is taken as the basis, prior payments, instalments and the remaining debt must be determined correctly. Under the general procedure, the existence of this decision does not mean that all remaining days will be spent in prison immediately. [1] [3]
Two hours of work count as one day. The daily working time is set by the supervised release directorate (denetimli serbestlik müdürlüğü) at no less than two and no more than eight hours. If the work program, warnings and recommendations are not complied with, the days corresponding to the time worked are deducted, and the remaining part is enforced in an open penal institution. Working hours and calendar days must not be treated as identical; the records of work actually performed must be taken as the basis. [1] [3]
The summons and the work program must be examined on the actual enforcement file
Article 41/7 of the Regulation on Supervised Release Services (Denetimli Serbestlik Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği) governs applying within ten days of the summons of the relevant prosecutor’s office and the notification of the consequences of failing to apply. Applying to the prosecutor’s office and the notification procedures after the file is sent to the directorate are not the same stage. The conclusion that “the public service was not performed, so the prison term will now be served” must not be reached without reviewing the notification, the application record, any excuse and any violation procedure. [4]
The fact that the convicted person is in the institution because of another sentence relates to their actual inability to take part in a work program to be carried out outside. Instead of this situation automatically being treated as non-compliance with the program, the holding provision in the regulation must be applied. Conversely, it is also not correct to present a sentence that has actually reached the stage of enforcement in the institution at the end of a duly conducted process as if it were still only at the work stage. [1] [4]
The public-benefit work file of a convicted person who is currently in prison is held pending
Under Article 41/7 of the Regulation, where a person subject to a public-benefit work decision for failure to pay a judicial fine is in a penal institution, the sanction is held at the judgments enforcement bureau (ilamat bürosu) of the relevant Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı) to be enforced after the person’s release. The years the convicted person spends inside do not automatically complete the pending work obligation. [1] [4]
In the case underlying the Court of Cassation’s decision of May 22, 2026, too, the 2,520 days of converted imprisonment were at the public-benefit work stage. The Chamber stated that this sanction of the convicted person, who was in the institution because of directly imposed prison sentences, could be applied after their conditional release. Accordingly, the review first distinguished between being in the institution because of another sentence and reaching the stage of enforcement in the institution because of this fine. [1]
| Stage of the judicial fine | Result regarding aggregation | Relationship with the 28-year limit |
|---|---|---|
| Payment process ongoing | There is not yet any converted imprisonment that has reached the stage of enforcement in the institution | The debt does not lapse automatically |
| At the public-benefit work stage; convicted person in the institution for another sentence | Converted imprisonment at this stage is not included in the aggregation decision; the file is held pending | It is not absorbed within the directly imposed prison sentences |
| Has reached the stage of enforcement in an open institution at the end of the statutory process | Included in the aggregation decision under the conditions of Article 99 | Its own enforcement regime and the limits of Article 106/7 are preserved |
| Remaining balance duly paid or sanction completed | The current enforcement record is taken as the basis | The part already carried out is not enforced again |
The table shows the general regime. Special provisions that exclude public-benefit work, such as the Check Law, and exceptions for offenses committed on earlier dates are explained separately below. [1] [3] [8]
What distinctions did the Court of Cassation’s decision of May 22, 2026 clarify?
The dispute concerns absorbing 2,520 days of converted imprisonment within 28 years
The decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated May 22, 2026, E.2024/1070, K.2026/4225 concerns an aggregation decision and a sentence calculation sheet drawn up because of convictions for aggravated fraud. In the aggregation decision of the İzmir 1st Enforcement Judgeship (İzmir 1. İnfaz Hâkimliği) dated January 2, 2023, 2,520 days converted from a judicial fine were also included alongside the directly imposed prison sentences. In the sentence calculation sheet of the Balıkesir Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor dated January 10, 2023, conditional release was calculated on the basis of the 28-year limit. [1]
The convicted person’s application concerning the calculation was rejected by the Balıkesir Enforcement Judgeship, and the objection to that decision was rejected by the Balıkesir 1st High Criminal Court (Balıkesir 1. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi). The dispute was brought before the Court of Cassation at the request of the Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı) through reversal in the interest of the law (kanun yararına bozma) under Article 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK). This decision is not an ordinary appeal decision or a unification-of-case-law decision. [1]
The Chamber distinguished both the wrong aggregation stage and the wrong calculation of the period
The reasoning of the decision has two steps. In the first step, including the converted imprisonment, which was still at the public-benefit work stage, in the aggregation decision was found inappropriate. In the second step, it was explained that, if this imprisonment later reaches the stage of enforcement in the institution, it cannot be absorbed within the upper limit calculated for the directly imposed prison sentences. [1]
In the Chamber’s words, converted prison sentences must:
“be enforced by being added to the conditional release (şartla tahliye) period, without being absorbed within the upper limits”. [1: II/8]
This assessment is based on the bar on conditional release in Article 106/9. Being included in the aggregation decision does not make the part that is not subject to conditional release eligible for that right. Conversely, a sanction that has not yet reached the stage of enforcement in the institution cannot be presented as an existing and definite additional period in prison either. [1]
The decision requires the specific sentence calculation sheet to be redrawn with correct explanations
The Court of Cassation required that the 28-year period be taken as the basis for the directly imposed prison sentences and that the sentence calculation sheet show that the 2,520 days converted from the fine were not yet at the stage of enforcement in the institution. It must also be explained that, if this sentence later reaches the stage of enforcement in the institution, it will be enforced without being absorbed within the 28 years and, since it arises from more than one judgment, not exceeding five years and without a conditional release calculation. [1: II/10]
As a result, the decision of the Balıkesir 1st High Criminal Court dated July 7, 2023, Miscellaneous Matter (Değişik İş) No. 2023/1036 was unanimously reversed in the interest of the law. This result does not mean that a new sentence calculation sheet automatically comes into being in every similar file or that five years are directly added for every convicted person. The judgments and the current stage of the fine must be assessed by the competent authority. [1]
“28 years plus five years” is not an automatic result in every file
Under Article 106/7, imprisonment to be served in place of one judicial fine cannot exceed three years; in the case of conviction to judicial fines by more than one judgment, the total period cannot exceed five years. These are not fixed sentence amounts to be applied in every file but maximum limits on imprisonment in the institution. If there is a smaller balance, a payment made or work completed, the person cannot be made to serve three or five years by disregarding these. [1]
First hypothetical example: The fine file of a person to whom the 28-year limit is applied for directly imposed prison sentences is at the public-benefit work stage. If, after release, the person duly completes the program or pays the remaining amount, they need not stay in the institution for an additional five years merely because there is a record of converted imprisonment. [1] [3]
Second hypothetical example: 200 days of converted imprisonment arising from a single judgment, with no other payment or credit, have reached the stage of enforcement in the institution. As a rule, these 200 days are not reduced by the conditional release rate and are not absorbed within the 28 years. The existence of the three-year maximum limit does not cause the 200 days to be increased to three years. [1]
Third example, based on the figure in the decision: If all 2,520 days of converted imprisonment arising from more than one judgment reach the stage of enforcement in the institution, the five-year limit in Article 106/7 applies. In the request for reversal in the interest of the law quoted in the decision, the equivalent of five years in days was shown as 1,825 days. These figures are not a person-specific release date; credit, work, payment and the order of enforcement must be determined separately. [1]
Application of the five-year imprisonment limit also does not mean that the rest of the fine is necessarily erased. Article 106/11 provides that, where the period of imprisonment or work does not entirely extinguish the fine, the remaining amount is collected under Law No. 6183. The upper limit on the period restricting liberty and the fate of the monetary debt are separate matters. [1]
Conditional release, enforcement under supervised release and public-benefit work are different
As a rule, conditional release does not apply to converted imprisonment
Article 106/9 provides that the conditional release provisions do not apply in enforcing imprisonment converted from a judicial fine. For this reason, the one-half or other rate that may apply to directly imposed prison sentences cannot automatically be applied to converted imprisonment. The fact that the article takes the judicial fine as the basis with regard to deprivation of rights also shows that the legal nature of the sentence does not change entirely merely because its form of enforcement has changed. [1]
Not being able to benefit from Article 105/A does not mean that the supervised release directorate has no role at all
Article 105/A/4 states that convicted persons whose sentences were converted into imprisonment because they did not pay a judicial fine cannot benefit from the procedure of enforcement by applying the supervised release measure under that article. This is a provision separate from the bar on conditional release in Article 106/9. The direct basis of the bar on early transfer to supervised release is Article 105/A/4. [3]
Nevertheless, public-benefit work under Article 106/3 is carried out by the supervised release directorate. The Directorate General of Prisons and Detention Houses (Ceza ve Tevkifevleri Genel Müdürlüğü) also lists enforcement under Article 105/A and work in lieu of a fine under Article 106/3 as separate types of decision. Accordingly, the generalization that “this person can have no connection whatsoever with supervised release” is not correct. [7]
The distinction here is as follows: Article 105/A governs the enforcement outside the institution of the part of the prison sentence remaining until conditional release; Article 106/3 governs public-benefit work in lieu of an unpaid judicial fine. The fact that the same administrative unit performs the task does not mean that the two legal institutions are the same. Whether Article 105/A can be applied to directly imposed prison sentences is also assessed separately on the basis of all judgments and personal circumstances. [3] [7]
Later payment and historical exceptions may change the enforcement result
Payment of the remaining amount may end the related converted imprisonment or work
Under Article 106/8, payment of the amount corresponding to the days other than those spent in prison or in public-benefit work ends the related imprisonment or work. However, if another prison sentence of the convicted person is ongoing, paying the fine alone does not result in release with regard to all files. The payment must be recorded against the correct judgment and the enforcement calculation updated. [3]
A judicial fine imposed on children cannot be converted into imprisonment if unpaid
Article 106/4 provides that judicial fines imposed on children cannot be converted into imprisonment if they are not paid. For collection, reference is made to the eleventh paragraph. For this reason, the explanation of converted imprisonment and upper limits concerning adult convicted persons cannot be applied directly to judgments concerning children. [1]
Old offense dates and the source of the fine must be examined together
In Section II/7 of the Court of Cassation’s decision, judicial fines imposed directly for offenses committed after June 1, 2005 were distinguished from judicial fines converted from short-term imprisonment for offenses committed after March 1, 2008. It was also stated that, where a judicial fine converted from short-term imprisonment for offenses committed in the period June 1, 2005–March 1, 2008 is not paid, it is possible for the conditional release provisions to be applied. [1]
Accordingly, the sentence “conditional release never applies to imprisonment converted from a judicial fine, on any date or in any situation” is too broad. The offense date and whether the sentence was imposed directly or converted from a short-term prison sentence must be determined together. The review of the more favorable law under older provisions cannot be carried out solely by looking at the date on which the decision became final. [1]
Special provisions such as the Check Law may depart from the general work sequence
Article 5/11 of Law No. 5941 on Checks provides that the relevant judicial fines are converted directly into imprisonment, without a public-benefit work decision, if they are not paid. For this reason, the public-benefit work stage in the 2026 decision cannot be transposed in the same way to all fine files. The special statutory basis is decisive in determining the stage of enforcement. [8]
Absolute statements should also be avoided regarding deferral of enforcement. Article 106/9 reserves the provisions of Article 16. This article is not a separate guide examining all the conditions of deferral on health or other special personal grounds; if such a ground exists, the relevant provision and documents must be assessed separately. [1]
Review of the sentence calculation sheet must be carried out by reading every judgment separately
The sentence calculation sheet is the enforcement document concerning the convicted person’s sentence period and the dates of admission to and release from the institution. Looking at a single result date is not enough. It must be possible to trace the legal nature of each judgment included in the aggregation decision, the rate by which it was calculated, the period credited and the stage the fine is at. [1] [5]
| Record to be reviewed | Question to ask | Error to be prevented |
|---|---|---|
| Final judgment and offense date | Directly imposed imprisonment, directly imposed fine, or fine converted from imprisonment? | Calculating different regimes with a single rate |
| Aggregation decision | Were all, and only, the eligible sentences that can be included under Article 99 aggregated? | Premature aggregation or a missing judgment |
| Payment order and collection records | Are the notification and the remaining balance correct? | Re-converting a part already paid |
| Public-benefit work and violation records | Has the stage of enforcement in the institution actually been reached? | Treating a pending file as direct prison time |
| Credit and actual enforcement records | Was previous work or imprisonment recorded correctly? | Missing or duplicate credit |
| Explanations in the sentence calculation sheet | Is the separate result of the 28-year period and of the converted imprisonment clear? | Absorbing the fine within the upper limit |
This document table is a preparation plan. It does not replace the legal calculation to be made by the competent authority. In particular, if a new judgment arrives, the aggregation decision is dissolved, a payment is made or the work sanction turns into enforcement in the institution, the sentence calculation sheet may need to be reassessed. [1] [5]
The time limits for an application concerning the sentence calculation and for an objection to an enforcement judgeship decision are not the same
Resolution of doubt in the calculation may be requested under Article 98/1-b
Article 98/1-b of Law No. 5275 provides that a decision is to be requested from the enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği) if there is doubt in the calculation of the sentence to be served or a claim as to whether the sentence can be carried out partially or fully. The decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated November 7, 2024, E.2024/6621, K.2024/7422 accepted that this application concerning the sentence calculation in the sentence calculation sheet is not subject to a time limit. [2] [5]
In that case, the application against the sentence calculation sheet was not examined on the ground that 15 days had passed since notification. The Court of Cassation stated that the merits of the calculation dispute had to be examined and reversed the decision of the objection authority in the interest of the law. The decision does not concern whether the enforcement rate requested by the convicted person is necessarily correct, but that the application cannot be excluded from review because of the time limit. [5]
The time limit must be observed for other enforcement complaints and for objections to a decision already issued
For complaints against acts, decisions or activities under Article 5 of Law No. 4675, there are rules of 15 days from learning of the act and, in any case, 30 days from the act. The approach specific to the sentence calculation in the sentence calculation sheet cannot be generalized into an unlimited right of application against every warning under supervised release or all enforcement acts. [5] [7]
An objection against a decision issued by the enforcement judgeship, by contrast, is a separate legal remedy. Under Article 6 as amended by Law No. 7499, an objection may be filed within two weeks of notification for decisions issued on or after June 1, 2024. The high criminal court that will examine the objection and the form of application must be determined from the relevant decision and the law. The old seven-day explanation must not be used as if it were the current rule. [6]
An Article 98 application does not automatically defer enforcement; depending on the particulars of the case, a stay or deferral may be ordered separately. Reversal in the interest of the law is also not an ordinary appeal that the convicted person files directly with the Court of Cassation. The fact that the decision reviewed was issued through this route does not justify neglecting the ordinary remedies that could be used in time. [1] [2]
Related articles: Criminal Enforcement Guide: The Process from Finality to Release; Crediting Periods of Pretrial Detention and Police Custody Against the Sentence; Recidivism and the Enforcement Regime Specific to Repeat Offenders; Can a Prison Sentence Be Converted into a Judicial Fine? TCK 50.
Conclusion
As a rule, imprisonment converted from a judicial fine does not disappear within the 28-year upper limit of directly imposed prison sentences subject to conditional release. Nevertheless, a file pending at the public-benefit work stage and a file that has reached the stage of enforcement in a penal institution are not subject to the same result. In the first, the condition for aggregation has not yet arisen; in the second, aggregation is possible, but the separate enforcement regime of the converted imprisonment is preserved. [1]
The Court of Cassation’s decision of May 22, 2026 highlights not only the “additional period” issue but also the necessity of explaining the correct stage in the sentence calculation sheet. Without assessing payment, work, credit, the three- and five-year limits and the historical and special statutory exceptions together, one cannot say “everything ends at 28 years” or “five more years are added for everyone.” A correct enforcement calculation is one that preserves the legal differences between sentences while aggregating them. [1] [3] [8]
Frequently Asked Questions
Does an aggregation decision turn the sentences into a single sentence?
No. Aggregation is carried out for enforcement purposes; the independence of each sentence and the provisions applicable to it are preserved. Aggregation does not give imprisonment converted from a fine a right to conditional release. [1]
Does everyone with more than one prison sentence stay for 28 years?
No. In a file to which Article 107/3-e applies, 28 years is the upper limit. If the total of the individual calculations is lower, that total, the special provisions and the other enforcement conditions are assessed. [1]
Can imprisonment converted from a fine never be aggregated?
It can. Under Article 99, it must have reached the stage of enforcement in the institution. The situation of a sanction pending at the public-benefit work stage is different. [1] [2]
Is being in prison for another sentence treated as failure to comply with the work obligation under the fine?
The regulation provides a holding arrangement for a person who is in the institution. Instead of the person being treated as having violated the outside work sanction merely because they are inside, this provision is assessed. [1] [4]
Must three or five years of imprisonment necessarily be served for a judicial fine?
No. These are upper limits. The calculation is based on the actual balance, the number of judgments, payment, work and credit. A small amount of converted imprisonment is not increased merely because a limit exists. [1]
Is a fine that exceeds the imprisonment limit erased?
It is not erased automatically. Article 106/11 provides that the remaining amount is pursued under the procedure for the collection of public receivables. The period of imprisonment and the outcome of the monetary debt are separate. [1]
Isn’t public-benefit work also carried out by the supervised release service?
Yes. However, this work under Article 106/3 is not the same as the procedure of early enforcement outside the institution under Article 105/A. The administrative unit being common does not merge the legal bases. [3] [7]
Can a person be released from prison once a payment is made later?
Article 106/8 may apply when the value of the remaining days of the relevant fine is paid. If there is another ground for imprisonment or pretrial detention, the payment does not remove all grounds. [3]
Can a different practice apply to offenses committed on older dates?
Yes. In particular, for fines converted from short-term imprisonment, the period June 1, 2005–March 1, 2008 was addressed separately in the Court of Cassation decision. The offense date and the source of the sanction must be examined together. [1]
If no application was made against the sentence calculation sheet within 15 days, can a calculation error no longer be corrected?
With regard to resolving doubt in the sentence calculation under Article 98/1-b, the Court of Cassation accepted that there is no time limit. However, the two-week period for objecting to an enforcement judgeship decision already issued and the time limits for complaints about other acts must be observed separately. [5] [6]
Sources and legal bases
- Court of Cassation, 1st Criminal Chamber, E.2024/1070, K.2026/4225, May 22, 2026. Full decision; in particular II/2–10 and III. The provisions of Articles 99, 106 and 107 of Law No. 5275 quoted in the decision were assessed together with the specific stage of enforcement. Full decision record.
- Law No. 7242, Articles 41–42: amendments to Articles 98 and 99 of Law No. 5275. Ministry of Justice, Directorate General for Legal Services (Hukuk Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü), publication of the statutory text titled “Criminal Enforcement Law” (Ceza İnfaz Yasası). Ministry text.
- Law No. 6545, Articles 80–81: amendments to Article 105/A/4 and Article 106/3, 8 and 11 of Law No. 5275. TBMM adopted text.
- Regulation on Supervised Release Services, Article 41/7. Publication of the Ministry of Justice Kars Open Penal Institution (Kars Açık Ceza İnfaz Kurumu); the provision also appears in Section II/5 of decision no. [1]. Regulation text.
- Court of Cassation, 1st Criminal Chamber, E.2024/6621, K.2024/7422, November 7, 2024. Time limit for applications concerning the sentence calculation in the sentence calculation sheet; in particular II/6–7 and III. Full decision record.
- Law No. 7499: amendment of the objection period in Article 6 of Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu) and its application in time. TBMM adopted text.
- Ministry of Justice, Directorate General of Prisons and Detention Houses, Department of Supervised Release (Denetimli Serbestlik Daire Başkanlığı), Frequently Asked Questions: in particular questions 2, 11, 12 and 32. The administrative explanations were used without being substituted for the statutory provision. CTE explanations.
- Law No. 6728, Article 63: the provision in Article 5/11 of Law No. 5941 on Checks on conversion into imprisonment without applying public-benefit work. TBMM adopted text.