A judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) finding a violation in a criminal case does not, as a rule, automatically annul the criminal conviction in Türkiye. Reopening of the proceedings, suspension of execution and release are claims that must be assessed separately. The core of the application is not merely the existence of a violation judgment, but the link between the identified breach and the conviction, together with the steps needed to remedy it. Judgments that expressly require release are assessed separately from general procedural violations. [1; 2; 7]
Under Article 311(1)(f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (CMK), the basic time limit for a request for reopening is one year from the date the ECtHR judgment became final. This period must not be confused with the period for objecting to a refusal, the thirty-day period for an individual application to the Constitutional Court (AYM), or the four-month period for a new ECtHR application. A sound legal preparation keeps these calendars separate and ties the ground of violation to the relevant evidence and a concrete request. [1; 2; 14]
How does an ECtHR judgment affect a criminal conviction?
Under Article 46 of the ECHR, States parties to a case must abide by final judgments of the ECtHR. This obligation is not limited to paying the compensation awarded. Bringing the violation to an end, removing its continuing consequences and, where necessary, adopting general measures to prevent similar violations also form part of the execution of the judgment. Which individual measure is required follows from the reasoning of the judgment and its operative part. [2, Art. 46]
One of the principal domestic instruments in criminal proceedings is retrial under CMK Article 311 et seq. A final conviction is reopened for examination; however, this route is not the re-filing of an earlier appeal petition under another name. The reasons and evidence that address the violation identified by the ECtHR must be shown. [1, Arts. 311 and 317]
Are retrials following an ECtHR decision and an AYM decision governed by the same procedure?
No. Where the AYM orders a retrial under Article 50(2) of Law No. 6216, this creates an obligation specific to the court to which the violation judgment was sent. The court may not again examine, through the admissibility filter of CMK, whether a ground for retrial exists; it must start the proceedings without waiting for a party's application. [14]
Where the request is based on an ECtHR judgment under CMK Article 311(1)(f), however, the national court applies the conditions and examination stages provided by the law. In the Yaşar Alat decision, the Plenary of the AYM expressly distinguished these two institutions. This distinction shows why a petition prepared for the AYM may be inadequate when simply transferred, with only the name of the court changed, to the post-ECtHR procedure. The examination of the conditions cannot be interpreted as a power to reopen the ECtHR's finding of violation. [3, §§58–61; 14, Art. 50]
Which ECtHR judgments can serve as a basis for reopening proceedings?
The link between the violation and the conviction
CMK Article 311(1)(f) requires that the criminal judgment was delivered in violation of the Convention or its additional protocols, and that the judgment rests on that breach. Two separate questions must therefore be answered in the application: which right did the ECtHR find to have been violated, and by which act? How did that act contribute to the formation of the judgment sought to be reopened? [1]
By way of example, a statement taken without access to a lawyer and used decisively for a conviction, the reliance on the testimony of a witness who could not be examined, or the failure to consider objections capable of affecting the outcome, are violations that may be linked to the judgment. On the other hand, the length of proceedings alone, or an unlawfulness during an earlier period of pre-trial detention, does not of itself show that the conviction rests on the same violation. The content of the violation is as important as its name. [1; 4; 8; 9]
Abdi Cengiz illustrates this limit. In its decision of May 6, 2026, the AYM accepted that the ECtHR's finding of a violation regarding the procedure for detention at the outset of the investigation did not remove the legal link of the detention maintained on the basis of a subsequent conviction. A complaint about personal liberty concerning the continuation of execution after the request for reopening had been rejected was declared manifestly ill-founded. The complaint of unfair trial concerning the rejection of the reopening request was declared inadmissible for lack of competence ratione materiae. The decision does not mean that all detention violations are without consequence; it shows that the concrete violation must be linked to the judgment and to the current detention. [4, §§17–22]
Friendly settlement and unilateral declaration
CMK Article 311(1)(f) also provides for reopening where the application against a criminal judgment is struck out following a friendly settlement or a unilateral declaration. For this reason, not only decisions with "violation" in their title are examined. The content of the strike-out decision, the admitted violation and undertakings of the State, the relevant criminal judgment and the information on finality are assessed together. [1]
A strike-out decision is not, however, a release document in itself. In Ulaş Dil, the AYM held by majority that, after a unilateral declaration, the continuation of deprivation of liberty was not a violation of rights, even though a reopening process had started. This example shows that the existence of a ground for reopening and the legal assessment of the continuing deprivation of liberty are separate matters. [6, §§25–32]
Does the enforcement of the sentence bar the application?
Under CMK Article 313, the fact that the judgment has been executed, or that the convicted person has died, is not an obstacle to a request for reopening. On death, the spouse, ascendants, descendants and siblings named in the law may apply and, in their absence, the Minister of Justice may apply. However, the time limit and other conditions of the application do not disappear. The completion of the sentence does not start a new one-year period. [1]
The application should set out the current state of execution together with the continuing consequences of the conviction. Ending the restriction on liberty does not necessarily remove the continuing legal effect of the judgment, so the removal of that effect may be a separate need. The argument "the sentence has already been served" is not, by itself, a sufficient ground for rejection in view of the express wording of the law. [1]
How is the one-year period calculated?
The starting point is, as a rule, the date the ECtHR judgment became final; it is not the date of obtaining the Turkish translation, the announcement in the press or the later discovery of the judgment. The finality note on the first page of the judgment, the HUDOC citation and, where necessary, a notice from the Registry of the Court should be placed on file. [1; 2]
Under Articles 28 and 44 of the ECHR, decisions of Committees and judgments of the Grand Chamber are final. Chamber judgments become final when the parties declare that they will not request referral to the Grand Chamber, when no request is made within three months, or when the panel rejects the request. For this reason, three months is not automatically added to every decision. In the case of strike-out decisions following a friendly settlement or a declaration, the type of decision and the information on finality must also be checked separately. [2, Arts. 28, 43–44]
A concrete example shows this difference: the judgment in Abo v. Türkiye was delivered on November 13, 2025 and became final on March 23, 2026. For CMK Article 311(1)(f), the date to be used is the verified date of finality, not the date of the judgment in November or a hypothetical date in February. The calendar prepared on the basis of these dates should also show the date of the application and the statutory period calculation. [5, cover page]
| Step | Basic time limit or timing | Point to verify in the file and distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Request for retrial based on an ECtHR judgment | One year from finality | CMK Art. 311(1)(f); type of judgment and finality record |
| Objection to refusal of the retrial request | Current general rule of two weeks | Date of knowledge under CMK Art. 268; transitional provision examined separately |
| Individual application to the AYM | As a rule, thirty days | Final remedy exhausted and date of knowledge of the final decision |
| New ECtHR application over a new violation | As a rule, four months | Exhaustion of effective domestic remedies for the new complaint; the old file's time limit does not revive automatically |
The periods in this table cannot be substituted for one another. For the start of the objection period, the provision on "knowledge" in CMK Article 268 must be considered. For decisions given on or after June 1, 2024, the two-week rule applies; for earlier decisions, the former provisions are examined under CMK Provisional Article 6(1)(c). [1; 2; 14]
It is also necessary not to overlook, for old ECtHR files, the scope rule of CMK Article 311(2) on February 4, 2003. Provisional Article 2 introduced a transitional three-month period, starting from the entry into force of the provision, for certain decisions under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers as of June 15, 2012. This historical exception does not open a new three-month period for every old file today. The earlier date of application, the finality and the record of supervision of execution must all be checked together. [1]
To which court and how is the application made?
Under CMK Article 318, the request is submitted to the court that delivered the judgment. If the court has since been closed or the file transferred, the competent successor court and the place where the file is kept must be determined. Sending the application only to the enforcement prosecutor's office or to the Ministry of Justice is not the same as making a properly filed request for retrial before the competent court. [1]
General provisions on remedies apply under CMK Article 317. The convicted person's or the defence counsel's identity, the representation relationship, the case and decision numbers of the court, the parts of the judgment to be reopened and the statutory ground must be stated expressly. Where there are several convictions for several offences, it must be explained which of them the violation affected. In order to have all operative parts of the judgment set aside on the same ground, a connection must be established for each of them. [1]
Applying to the court that delivered the judgment does not mean that the same judge may take part again. CMK Article 23(3) prohibits a judge who took part in the earlier proceedings from taking part again in the same matter in a retrial. The composition of the earlier judgment and that of the panel dealing with the retrial should be compared; where there is a ground of prohibition or a concern about impartiality, it must be raised with specific records. [1]
The backbone of the petition: judgment, link, act and claim
Although it is necessary to attach the ECtHR judgment, it is not sufficient on its own. The petition should set out side by side the relevant paragraph of the judgment, the corresponding reasoning of the domestic court and the redress sought. For example, the statement "my right of defence was violated" should be followed by identification of which statement, on which page, was decisively used, why it could not be effectively challenged, and what act should be carried out in the reopened proceedings.
| Violation or problem | Document to be linked | Concrete claim to be stated |
|---|---|---|
| Decisive statement taken without counsel | ECtHR reasoning, statement and place-indication records, conviction reasoning | Remedy of the effect of the impugned use; re-evaluation on lawfully obtained evidence |
| Witness could not be examined | Witness statement, summons and hearing records, earlier requests for examination | Hearing of the witness and opportunity to put questions; assessment of whether the absence could be compensated by safeguards |
| Decisive defence left unanswered | Defence petition, its annexes, reasoned judgment and the relevant paragraph of the ECtHR judgment | Substantive review of the claim affecting the outcome and, where necessary, evidence review |
| Continuation of execution | Final judgment, execution record, current sentence calculation, any release order | Separate and urgent assessment under CMK Art. 312; deferral or stay of execution and release where the conditions are met |
This table is not the automatic output of a petition template. The connection that must be proved cannot be established by retelling the whole of the earlier proceedings. The focus of the application is the effect of the deficiency identified by the ECtHR on the judgment and its continuing consequences. The burden of proof for a criminal charge remains with the prosecution in the reopened proceedings; the applicant cannot be required to prove his or her innocence. [1; 9, §§87, 90]
At which stages does the court examine the request for retrial?
The first stage is the examination of admissibility. Under CMK Articles 318 and 319, the court examines, without holding a hearing, the form of the request, the legal ground relied on and whether the evidence supporting it has been set out. Where the conditions are met, the request is served on the Public Prosecutor, who is to give an opinion, and on the other party concerned. Under the current provision, the period for that opinion is two weeks. [1]
At the second stage, where necessary, evidence is gathered under CMK Article 320 and the parties' views are obtained. If the claims are not sufficiently confirmed, the request is dismissed under Article 321; otherwise a retrial is ordered and a hearing is scheduled. At this stage, rejecting the request on the ground that "there is other evidence" in order to neutralise the ECtHR violation is open to legal review. Specific grounds for rejection in the law cannot be applied to every file beyond their scope. [1]
The third stage is the retrial hearing and judgment. Under CMK Article 323, the earlier judgment may be upheld or set aside and a new judgment delivered. Where the conditions in CMK Article 322 are met, acquittal without a hearing is also possible. The acceptance of a retrial therefore does not mean that an acquittal has been decided in advance; what is essential is an assessment that the violation has been effectively remedied. [1]
The Abo v. Türkiye case illustrates the importance of the reasons for rejection. The domestic courts rejected the request on the ground that the absence of defence counsel could not be remedied by a retrial and did not affect the substance of the conviction. The ECtHR found a violation of the right to a fair trial because those reasons did not engage sufficiently with the concrete file. It also found a separate violation in the delay in examining the request for retrial. This decision shows that the content and reasoning of the rejection, not merely its label, are decisive. [5, §§68–72, 83–106]
How are suspension of execution and release requested?
The application does not automatically stop execution
CMK Article 312 draws a clear distinction: a request for retrial does not defer execution; the court may decide to defer or stop execution. For this reason, it must be stated whether execution has not yet begun or is ongoing, and the decision must be requested separately from the court. Where there is an urgent issue of liberty, it must be explained why this request should not be left until the end of the retrial examination. [1]
The request must show the seriousness of the violation, its decisive effect on the conviction, the continuing consequences of the deprivation of liberty and, where the ECtHR has given an express individual measure, that measure. The current enforcement document, other criminal or detention orders and the sentence calculation must be examined; without this, a "release on the spot" outcome cannot be predicted. The stopping of the execution of one judgment does not, by itself, remove another independent ground of detention. [1]
Distinction between detention based on conviction and pre-trial detention
It is wrong to assume that once a retrial has been accepted, the person automatically reverts to the status of a detained defendant. The legal position of the earlier judgment and the decisions taken by the court must be examined. In Yaşar Alat, the majority held, relying on the continued validity of the earlier judgment under CMK Article 323, that detention during the retrial process was based on the conviction, and that the applicant's right to liberty had not been violated in the concrete case. The dissenting opinions criticised the continuation of detention on the basis of the same judgment after the violation finding. [3, §§61–66 and dissenting opinions]
This divergence of opinion must be made visible in the petition. The existence of the majority approach does not make a request to stop execution unnecessary; it requires a more concrete explanation of why that request should be accepted in this particular file. Where detention now rests on a new arrest order, the strong suspicion of crime, the grounds for arrest, proportionality and judicial control under CMK Article 100 et seq. must be assessed separately. Grounds for detention based on conviction and grounds for pre-trial detention should not be used interchangeably. [1; 3]
The assessment changes where there is an express order for release
The Grand Chamber judgment in Kavala v. Türkiye (No. 2), delivered on August 25, 2026, is a recent and distinctive example. The ECtHR concluded that deprivation of liberty following conviction was based on a serious miscarriage of justice; it held that release must be secured at the earliest possible date and that the consequences of the conviction must be removed. [7, §§307–309; operative part 11]
The consequence of such a judgment cannot be postponed by general statements of discretion as if it were a mere procedural deficiency. The express obligation to release must be shown directly in the request for retrial, as well as in the requests for execution and release. However, the result of this judgment cannot be carried over to every ECtHR file: what matters is which violation the ECtHR found in the applicant's own case and which individual measure it considered necessary.
How is the violation actually remedied in the retrial?
Assigning a new case number or holding a hearing is not in itself a remedy. The court must remove the effect of the act which caused the earlier violation; it must ensure that the defence has access to the evidence, can submit its objections and that its decisive arguments are examined. The reasoning of the earlier conviction should not be carried over into the new decision without examining the violation.
In Azime Işık, a retrial hearing was held and the applicant was heard in the presence of counsel. Nevertheless, statements that had been taken at a time when access to counsel was restricted, and which were not later confirmed, continued to be used decisively in the conviction. On June 11, 2024, the AYM found a violation of the right to a fair trial linked to the right to benefit from defence counsel. In the same decision, the complaint about personal liberty was declared inadmissible, which shows that the headings of rights must be assessed separately. [8, §§21–26]
In Mehmet Zeki Doğan v. Türkiye (No. 2), the statement of the applicant taken without counsel was excluded, but statements of other accused persons, taken in the absence of counsel and later withdrawn, were used decisively. The ECtHR found a fresh violation because the required procedural safeguards had not been applied. The lesson is not that all statements taken from third parties without counsel are absolutely prohibited. The decision requires that the reliability of such statements, the reasons for their withdrawal, the opportunity to examine the persons concerned and the effective examination of the defence objections be assessed. [9, §§90–100]
For this reason, counsel should not focus only on the first evidence affected by the violation; he or she should also examine whether the other evidence used in its place suffers from the same problem. Each objection should be reflected in the hearing record and the reasoned judgment. If the result is again a conviction, the reasoning of the judgment should make clear how the violation was remedied through the proceedings.
Can the sentence be increased on an application in favour of the convicted person?
Under CMK Article 323(2), where a request for retrial is made in favour of the convicted person, the new judgment may not impose a heavier penalty than that determined by the earlier judgment. This guarantee operates alongside the remedy of the violation; it does not, by itself, give rise to acquittal or a reduced sentence. [1]
Where the retrial results in acquittal or in a decision that there is no need to impose a penalty, the material and non-material damage arising from the enforcement of the earlier conviction, in whole or in part, is considered in light of the reference made by CMK Article 323(3) to Articles 141–144. Compensation is not an automatic pecuniary consequence of retrial. The finality of the decision, the applicable remedy, time limits and loss records are considered separately. Compensation already paid by the ECtHR for the same head of loss must not be claimed twice; the scope of the claims and any set-off must be stated. [1; 3, §48]
What can be done if the request is rejected or the decision is delayed?
Objection and subsequent application to the AYM
Decisions given under CMK Articles 319 and 321 may be objected to. The application is submitted to the authority that gave the decision; the examining authority is determined under CMK Article 268(3). In the objection, it is not enough to repeat the original petition: the reason why the grounds for rejection are incompatible with the findings of the ECtHR judgment must be explained. The grounds for refusing the retrial and those for the continuation of execution must be dealt with separately. Where there is a separate interim decision on execution, its appeal regime must be examined separately. [1]
An objection does not automatically stop the execution of the decision. Under CMK Article 269, a request for deferral may be considered separately. If the retrial has been refused, the relevant objection route applies; if a new judgment has been given, the ordinary remedies against that judgment should be exhausted and, where the conditions are met, an application made to the AYM. A separate and current complaint about deprivation of liberty must be routed according to the stage of the file. Holding all complaints until the final judgment may cause loss of rights. [1; 3; 14]
In an application to the AYM, rather than re-arguing the evidence of the earlier case, it must be shown which step or omission has not carried out what the violation judgment requires. The thirty-day period must be tracked with the final decision and the record of knowledge. Complaints concerning the earlier judgment that are out of time cannot be revived by lodging a request for retrial. [14, Arts. 45–48]
Delay and the "no legal interest" reasoning
In Zülküf Murat Kahraman, the AYM examined a rejection approach based on a finding that, in an earlier adaptation proceeding, no penalty was to be imposed. The ECtHR had already found that the prejudice continued despite that development. The failure of the national courts to take account of that finding, and the completion of the retrial request in approximately two years and three months, led to a violation of the right of assembly and demonstration. The AYM's decision of July 1, 2026 is a concrete example against the assumption that the violation has been remedied merely by looking at the latest status of the execution. [10, §§19–27]
Where there is delay, the date of the application, the place to which the file was sent, the interim decisions and any urgent requests left unanswered must be documented. A complaint about excessive length of proceedings and a complaint about non-implementation of a violation judgment are not the same thing; the route of application must be chosen according to the nature of the right alleged. An explanation of "the file is waiting" is less useful than a dated record of actions showing where and why the review stopped.
Is it possible to apply to the ECtHR again?
A new fair trial or liberty complaint arising after a violation judgment may become the subject of a new ECtHR application if the admissibility conditions are met. The cases of Abo and Mehmet Zeki Doğan (No. 2) are examples of this. However, merely stating that the earlier judgment has not been implemented is different from showing a new violation arising in the retrial process. The supervision of execution under Article 46 of the ECHR is in essence the task of the Committee of Ministers. [2; 5; 9]
In Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (No. 2), a Grand Chamber judgment, the rejection of a retrial request was examined, but because the reasons for the rejection were not arbitrary, no fresh violation of the right to a fair trial was found. That conclusion must be read within the limits of Portuguese law and the content of the earlier judgment; it is not a general power to reject that narrows the safeguards provided by the CMK in Türkiye. The judgment shows that not every rejection of a retrial request will constitute a new ECtHR violation. [11, §§85–103]
The applicant or representative may make submissions to the Committee of Ministers on individual measures and the payment of compensation under Rule 9.1 of the Committee of Ministers' Rules for the supervision of execution. This route does not substitute for an objection in Türkiye or for an individual application made within time. If a new ECtHR application is contemplated, the effective domestic remedies for the new complaint and the four-month period must be separately followed. [2; 15]
Does another person's ECtHR judgment also open my case?
A judgment about another person may be important in explaining a similar human rights problem. However, it does not stand in the same legal position as the existence of a judgment on the applicant's own conviction for the purposes of CMK Article 311(1)(f). The principled effect of a precedent must be distinguished from the legal ground necessary to reopen a specific conviction.
In the Halil Tunç application, the person sought a retrial relying on the ECtHR's judgment in Yüksel Yalçınkaya. In its decision of May 28, 2025, the AYM declared the fair trial complaint about the rejection of the retrial request inadmissible for lack of competence ratione materiae. The Court stated that the exceptional approaches it had accepted in some earlier decisions could not be transferred to every file. This result does not mean that similar ECtHR decisions cannot be used in a defence; it marks the limit of the idea that the same precedent automatically reopens every final judgment. [12, §§7–11]
A new incident or new evidence ground under CMK Article 311(1)(e) may also be assessed separately. However, describing another decision as "new evidence" is not sufficient. The new fact or evidence and how it differs from the earlier assessment must be explained, as must its effect on a judgment requiring acquittal or a lighter sentence. The academic debate on whether a change in judicial interpretation may be treated as a new fact has been discussed; Arif Emre Sümer sets out the prevailing view and the opposing view, and distinguishes a change in legal interpretation from a novelty in the material facts. That academic debate does not replace a statutory ground for application. [1; 13, pp. 1071–1073]
Which documents should be in the application file?
When preparing the application, the file may be organised according to the following checklist:
- Judgment and finality: the full ECtHR judgment, the HUDOC citation and the finality record; if there was a strike-out after a declaration or a friendly settlement, the relevant content of that settlement or declaration.
- Domestic judgment: the first-instance and appellate decisions and the finality record; where there are several offences or judgments, a list of the parts affected.
- Document of the violation: statements and interview records, hearing records, witness summonses and requests for examination, applications to exclude evidence, relevant expert reports; their link with the ECtHR paragraph.
- Execution and liberty status: current execution information, other criminal or detention grounds, sentence calculation, any earlier deferral or release order.
- Procedure and time limits: the power to apply and representation documents, a chronology of dates, earlier requests, rejection decisions, service and knowledge records.
- Separate claims: retrial, the necessary evidential steps, deferral or stay of execution, release where the conditions are met; for each, a factual and legal justification.
When a foreign-language judgment is used, the paragraph numbers must be preserved in a reliable Turkish translation; a summary must not be submitted in place of the full judgment. Unnecessary personal data should not be multiplied, and the file should be shared through secure channels. The public review of a judgment and the publication of a client's private file details are different matters.
Costs should be planned separately for translation, document acquisition and defence services. The costs of the proceedings in the judgment are dealt with under CMK Article 324 et seq.; if an application is to be made to the AYM, the fee and legal aid conditions of that application are examined under its own rules. A fixed "post-ECtHR processing fee" should not be assumed for every file. [1; 14]
For further details, see our article on reopening of proceedings: new evidence.
Conclusion
The aim of a criminal defence after an ECtHR decision is not merely to add the violation judgment to the file; it is to turn the change required by the judgment into a concrete judicial act. For this purpose, the one-year period running from finality must be preserved, the link between the violation and the conviction must be shown, and the questions of liberty must be argued separately.
Judgments requiring the correction of a procedural deficiency and judgments imposing an express obligation to release cannot be treated in the same way. Even where a retrial is accepted, the violation may still be pursued on new evidence or new reasons; where it is rejected, the objection and individual application routes must each be followed under their own conditions. An effective file makes clear which violation is to be remedied, on which document it rests, and by which step the court is to remedy it.
Frequently Asked Questions
When the ECtHR finds a violation, does the conviction automatically fall away?
As a rule, no. The procedure under CMK Article 311 et seq. is applied, and the status of the earlier judgment is assessed by the competent court. Where the ECtHR has made express individual measures or an express release order, these may impose separate obligations to be performed without delay.
What is the period for a request for retrial?
CMK Article 311(1)(f) provides for one year from the date the ECtHR judgment became final. The initial date of the judgment and its date of finality must be kept separate; in historical files, CMK Article 311(2) and Provisional Article 2 must also be checked.
Does making the application stop the execution?
No. A separate decision is required under CMK Article 312. The petition should explain why deferral or stay of execution is necessary, with reference to the content of the violation judgment and the current execution position.
If the retrial is accepted, will I necessarily be released?
No. The earlier judgment's status, the nature of the violation, the court's decisions and any other grounds of detention are important. Judgments imposing an express obligation to release are assessed separately; no general guarantee of release can be given.
Can a friendly settlement or unilateral declaration also be used?
CMK Article 311(1)(f) also provides for reopening where an application against a criminal judgment is struck out for these reasons. The relevant content of the judgment, the violation accepted and the finality information must be placed on file in connection with the relevant judgment.
If my sentence has been served, can I request a retrial?
Completion of the sentence is not an obstacle in itself. However, the ground for retrial, the time limit and the other conditions must still be present. Completion of the sentence does not start a new period for application.
Is an appeal on points of law made directly against a rejection decision?
A right of objection is provided against rejection decisions under CMK Articles 319 or 321. The regime for appeals against a new judgment given after the retrial hearing must be assessed separately. The type of application must be determined according to the nature of the decision.
Can I have my own case reopened using another person's ECtHR judgment?
The decision may be relied on as a precedent; however, it does not automatically produce the same result as a violation judgment on one's own conviction. The applicable ground for retrial and the factual connection specific to one's own file must be shown separately.
Can the sentence be increased in a retrial?
Where the request is made in favour of the convicted person, under CMK Article 323(2) a heavier penalty than the earlier one may not be imposed. This guarantee does not mean that acquittal or a reduction will necessarily follow.
If the judgment is not implemented, can I apply again to the AYM or the ECtHR?
A violation arising from a new act or omission may be raised subject to the relevant routes and time limits. Admissibility is not automatic. Informing the Committee of Ministers about the execution process does not replace domestic remedies or the time limits for individual application.
Sources and legal bases
[1] Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure (CMK), in particular Arts. 23, 100–109, 260–271 and 311–325; Provisional Arts. 2 and 6. Current consolidated text.
[2] Council of Europe, European Convention on Human Rights, in particular Arts. 28, 35, 37, 39, 43, 44 and 46. Turkish text.
[3] Constitutional Court, Plenary, Yaşar Alat, Application No. 2021/65564, November 21, 2024, §§48, 58–66 and dissenting opinions. Decision.
[4] Constitutional Court, First Section, Abdi Cengiz, Application No. 2023/68802, May 6, 2026, §§17–22. Decision.
[5] ECtHR, Second Section, Abo v. Türkiye, Application No. 3772/17, November 13, 2025; final March 23, 2026, §§68–72, 83–106. HUDOC.
[6] Constitutional Court, First Section, Ulaş Dil, Application No. 2022/84095, May 14, 2025, §§25–32 and dissenting opinion. Decision.
[7] ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Kavala v. Türkiye (No. 2), Application No. 2170/24, August 25, 2026, §§305–309; operative part 11. HUDOC.
[8] Constitutional Court, First Section, Azime Işık, Application No. 2020/3050, June 11, 2024, §§21–26. Decision.
[9] ECtHR, Second Section, Mehmet Zeki Doğan v. Türkiye (No. 2), Application No. 3324/19, February 13, 2024; final June 24, 2024, §§87, 90–100. HUDOC.
[10] Constitutional Court, First Section, Zülküf Murat Kahraman, Application No. 2022/80972, July 1, 2026, §§19–29. Decision.
[11] ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (No. 2), Application No. 19867/12, July 11, 2017, §§85–103. HUDOC.
[12] Constitutional Court, Second Section, Halil Tunç, Application No. 2024/6, May 28, 2025, §§7–11. Decision.
[13] Sümer, Arif Emre, "New Events or the Emergence of New Evidence as Grounds for Reopening Proceedings in Criminal Procedure Law" (Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Yargılamanın Yenilenmesi Sebeplerinden Yeni Olaylar veya Yeni Delillerin Ortaya Çıkması), Dokuz Eylül University Law Faculty Journal (Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), vol. 24, no. 2, 2022, pp. 1059–1092; in particular pp. 1071–1073. DOI: 10.33717/deuhfd.1182540. Full text.
[14] Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court, in particular Arts. 45–50. Current consolidated text.
[15] Council of Europe, Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECtHR, Submissions from States, applicants, NGOs and NHRIs, in particular communications from applicants and representatives under Rule 9.1. Official statement and rules.