The right to meet an attorney in prison makes it possible to receive legal assistance in practice and in confidence. Setting aside a meeting room is not sufficient on its own. Meetings being overheard, defense notes being read, requests for meetings being left unanswered, or restrictions being continued without reasons may affect the exercise of this right. To frame an application correctly, it must be established whether the person is a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner, which case the assistance concerns, and which authority’s decision the restriction rests on. In this connection, the article on transfer from prison to another institution may also be read.
The basic provisions are Article 59 of Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Criminal Sentences and Security Measures for the meetings of convicted prisoners, and Article 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (CMK) for the relations of suspects and defendants with their defense counsel. These provisions apply together with the person’s status in another file and with constitutional safeguards. For this reason, a record showing only that a conviction exists is not a sufficient explanation for subjecting every meeting to the same regime. [1] [2]
Conditions for Meetings of Pretrial Detainees and Convicted Prisoners
A Pretrial Detainee’s Meeting with Defense Counsel
Article 154/1 of the CMK provides that a suspect or defendant may meet with defense counsel at any time, without the need for a power of attorney, in a setting where what is said cannot be overheard by others. Correspondence with defense counsel is also protected under this provision. The limit of three meetings without a power of attorney provided for convicted prisoners cannot be applied as a general limit to a detained defendant’s meeting with defense counsel. Verifying the professional identity and the status in the relevant file upon entry to the institution, and making legal assistance conditional on a power of attorney, are different procedures. [2]
The twenty-four-hour restriction in Article 154/2 of the CMK is a special provision concerning a suspect in custody (gözaltı) with respect to the offenses listed in the article. It requires a request by the public prosecutor and a judge’s decision; no statement may be taken during this time. This provision cannot be interpreted as authority to postpone, by administrative decision for twenty-four hours, the attorney meetings of all pretrial detainees in a prison. The legal basis of a specific restriction and the authority that decided it must also be shown. [2]
A Convicted Prisoner’s Meeting and the Power of Attorney
Under Article 59/1 of Law No. 5275, a convicted prisoner may meet with an attorney, within the scope of the practice of the legal profession, up to three times without a power of attorney. The meeting takes place upon presentation of professional identity, except on non-working days, within working hours and in the designated place. Where a power of attorney needs to be drawn up, the notarial procedure, the institution’s records and the work the attorney will undertake should be planned in time. The existence of the right to meet does not mean that a representation document, which may be required in a specific judicial application, is unnecessary in every case. [1]
An attorney may not meet more than one convicted prisoner at the same time, even if holding a power of attorney. However, this provision cannot be read as meaning that each convicted prisoner may receive attorney assistance only three times in a lifetime. The three-meeting rule concerns meetings without a power of attorney. If a meeting is refused, the institution should be asked in writing which meetings it has counted, their dates and the reason for the refusal. In this way, a counting error can be separated from a dispute arising from a missing representation document. [1]
| Matter to examine | Suspect or defendant in pretrial detention | Convicted prisoner |
|---|---|---|
| Basic provision | CMK Article 154 | Law No. 5275, Article 59 |
| Meeting without a power of attorney | No power of attorney is required for a meeting with defense counsel | The law provides for up to three meetings |
| Timing | As a rule, at any time | As a rule, working days and hours |
| Confidentiality | An environment where the conversation cannot be overheard | An environment where the meeting can be seen but not heard; ban on recording |
| Special decision | Status, stage of proceedings and statutory exception are examined | Statutory conditions and the competent judicial decision are examined |
What the Confidentiality of a Meeting Covers
Security Observation and Listening to the Conversation
That a meeting can be seen for security purposes does not permit the conversation to be heard. Under Article 59/4 of Law No. 5275, listening to and recording a meeting is, as a rule, prohibited. The files and documents that the convicted prisoner and the attorney give each other, and the records they keep concerning the meeting, are also covered by protection. Accordingly, details such as the officer’s position in the room, sound carrying outside the room, or a video system recording the conversation may change the legal assessment. [1]
In an allegation of a violation, rather than merely saying that “there was no confidentiality,” the date and place of the meeting, the officer’s distance, behavior showing that he or she could hear, and the objections made should be explained. The attorney’s dated incident note, the institution’s reply and any reports prepared by the officers are evaluated together. Without needlessly disclosing the content of the defense to third parties, it should be shown through which practice the confidentiality was impaired.
Defense Documents and Physical Security Checks
Article 72 of the Enforcement Regulation (İnfaz Yönetmeliği) governs the written declaration that the documents and files an attorney brings along relate to the defense, and the protection of those documents and files. The article also contains a provision on physical searches for certain groups of offenses. A physical check for prohibited items and reading and evaluating the content of legal correspondence are not the same operation. The statement “a security check was carried out” does not by itself justify examining the defense strategy. [3] For a separate assessment of this subject, the article on searches in prison and the protection of human dignity may be consulted.
If a document is not handed over or is taken, its title, number of pages, the related file and the action requested should be recorded. If the application explains which time-limited defense step the document was needed for, the effect of the interference becomes clear. Instead of a general list of documents, it may be shown, for example, that an objection to an expert report to be submitted at an upcoming hearing could not be prepared. For detailed information, the article titled complaints and objections against disciplinary penalties in prison may be consulted.
Limitations That May Be Placed on the Right to Meet
A Concrete Basis and a Competent Decision Are Required for a Restriction
Article 59/5 of Law No. 5275 permits special measures for persons convicted of the listed offenses where there is information, findings or documents concerning specific security and organizational communication risks. Upon a request by the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı) and a decision of the enforcement judge (infaz hâkimi), recording, keeping an officer present, seizing the specified documents, or limiting days and hours may be applied for a period of three months. The scope of the provision with respect to the person and the offense should be examined together with the concrete risk. [1]
Extending the period requires a separate assessment. Article 59/6 of the Law allows extensions not exceeding three months each time, and also regulates shortening and termination. Compliance with the rules, the continuation of the danger and the rehabilitation process should be reviewed. Repeating the reasoning of the initial decision without change raises the question of whether a current assessment has been made. The application should show concretely that the same aim can be achieved with a lighter measure. [1]
A six-month ban on meetings may come into question on the basis of a report stating that a meeting was used for the purposes specified in the law. In that case, the judicial decision under Article 59/8 and the safeguards of notification to the bar association for the appointment of a new attorney are observed. The existence of a report is not an independent ground justifying depriving a person entirely of defense assistance. For pretrial detainees, the decision-making authority under Article 59 belongs to the criminal judge of peace (sulh ceza hâkimi) at the investigation stage and to the court at the prosecution stage. [1] For a detailed explanation, it would be useful to consult the article on access to the investigation file and restriction orders.
Annulment Decisions with Respect to Defense in a File Concerning Another Offense
Being convicted of a particular offense does not require the measures of recording, monitoring and seizure of documents to be automatically carried over to the legal assistance the person receives as a suspect or defendant in another offense. The footnotes in the official consolidated text of the Law show that, by the decision of the Constitutional Court (AYM) dated July 24, 2019 and numbered E.2018/73, K.2019/65, the relevant phrase in Article 59/10 was annulled with respect to the specified measures. [1]
The official footnote to Article 72/8 of the Regulation refers, for a provision of the same scope, to the annulment decision of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 10. Dairesi) dated October 22, 2024 and numbered E.2020/5168, K.2024/4229, and to the decision of the Plenary Assembly of Administrative Litigation Chambers of the Council of State (Danıştay İdari Dava Daireleri Kurulu) dated February 4, 2026 and numbered E.2025/507, K.2026/161, affirming it. This entry does not mean that all exceptions concerning attorney meetings have been removed. The scope of the annulment, which is limited to a particular group of persons and measures, must be preserved. [3]
Electronic Attorney Meetings and Their Relationship to Face-to-Face Meetings
The official e-Avukat implementation principles published in 2026 explain the creation of a request through the Attorney Portal (Avukat Portalı), the verification in the system of the relationship between the attorney and the client, and the initiation of the video meeting by the institution. The document specifies a weekday window of 09:00–17:00 and a total of thirty minutes and two meeting rights per week. These are the rules of the electronic application under review; they cannot be used as a general time limit for face-to-face meetings. [7]
Because the implementation document contains scope distinctions by offense group and age, the person’s eligibility should be verified through the relevant institution and the current application. The document also states that the image may be monitored for security purposes, that the sound will not be heard and that the meeting will not be recorded. The system’s transaction log and the recording of the content of the conversation should be kept separate. In the event of a technical failure, or if the representation relationship does not appear in the system, the on-screen warning, the request number and the institution’s reply should be preserved. [7]
What the Actual Constitutional Court (AYM) Decisions Show
The Çetin Arkaş and Nasrullah Kuran Decision
In its decision in Çetin Arkaş and Nasrullah Kuran, Application No. 2016/371, dated January 13, 2021, the Constitutional Court assessed the statutory basis for the technical recording of an attorney meeting during the period of the events and the indefinite continuation of other restrictions. It decided that the right to respect for private life had been violated. By contrast, a separate complaint about the meeting not being allowed to take place was found inadmissible because the application remedies had not been exhausted. [5]
The decision concerns the legislation in force at the time of the events; it should not be presented as a ruling that eliminates all of today’s exceptions to recording. The point it shows for practice is that complaints about preventing a meeting and complaints about monitoring a meeting are built on separate events, acts and application procedures. A finding of a violation on one claim in the same file does not cure a procedural deficiency in the other claim. [5]
The Fadime Kolutek and Others Decision
In Fadime Kolutek and others, Application No. 2017/25008, in a Plenary Assembly decision dated January 31, 2024, the Constitutional Court examined a general, non-individualized institutional decision on monitoring attorney meetings during the period of the state of emergency (OHAL). Assessing the problems of the competent authority and of individualized reasoning, the Court found a violation of the right to respect for private life. The decisive use, in disciplinary proceedings, of the reports and officer statements obtained as a result of the monitoring also constituted a violation of the right to a fair trial. [6]
This decision makes visible two effects of the interference: the confidentiality of the meeting, and the use in later proceedings of information obtained from that meeting. When preparing an objection to a disciplinary penalty, the way the evidence was obtained, its weight in the judgment and what the defense says against it should be explained. The state of emergency context of the decision should not be confused with the current regime of the ordinary period. [6]
The Application File in Case of Refusal or Restriction
As for the institution’s acts, under Article 5 of Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), a complaint may be lodged with the enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği) within fifteen days of learning of the act, and in any case within thirty days of the act being carried out. The current time limit against the enforcement judge’s decision is two weeks from notification. If the restriction was imposed from the outset by a decision of a judge or court, the legal remedy appropriate to the person’s status and the basis of the decision must be followed. Submitting a new petition to the institution does not replace a judicial objection. [4] For the details of the subject, the article on petitions and access to court in prison may be consulted.
The file should contain the record showing the person’s status, the request for a meeting, the refusal or restriction decision, the notification document, the meeting reports and the attorney’s incident note. The request may be defined as securing the meeting, lifting the concrete restriction, shortening its duration, or creating conditions consistent with confidentiality. If there is urgency because of an upcoming hearing or the time limit for a legal remedy, the date and the document are added.
A complaint does not stay the act automatically. A stay or postponement may be requested by explaining together the conditions in Article 5 of Law No. 4675: a manifest violation of law and a consequence that is difficult or impossible to remedy. If an application to the Constitutional Court comes into question after the ordinary remedies, the date of learning of the final decision and the thirty-day individual application period are tracked separately. The general framework of this procedure is addressed in our guide to applications and objections to the enforcement judgeship. [4] [8] As a related subject, the article on health and the right to treatment in prison may also be considered.
Specific Questions to Examine in a Meeting Restriction File
In Which File and in What Capacity Is the Meeting Held?
A person may be a convicted prisoner in one file and a pretrial detainee or defendant in another. In the request for a meeting, the file to which the assistance relates, the hearing or legal-remedy timetable and the work the attorney has undertaken should be explained. This information reduces the risk of applying the same restriction to all of the person’s legal assistance on the basis of the existing conviction. The enforcement record and the record of the ongoing investigation or prosecution are assessed together.
The attorney’s professional identity, the representation requirement for the meeting, and the authority to perform procedural acts in the file are separate matters. An institution’s asking for identity or status verification is not in itself considered unlawful; however, the verification procedure must not be applied in such a way as to effectively obstruct a meeting with defense counsel, for which the law does not require a power of attorney. The refusal letter should make clear which document was considered missing and why. [1] [2]
The Duration of the Decision and the Scope of Its Application
The start and end of a restriction decision, any extension decision, and its notification to the convicted prisoner or the attorney are recorded separately. Keeping an officer in the meeting room, technical recording, seizure of documents, and a limitation of days or hours alone are different interferences. It cannot be assumed that a decision permitting one includes all the others. The target of the application is determined by distinguishing the decision itself from the practice that exceeds the limits of the decision.
An objection should not rest only on the statement “confidentiality was violated.” Where the officer was located, the event showing that the conversation could be heard, what is known about the nature of the recording device, and how this practice affected the defense should be described. Unknown technical characteristics should not be written as if they were certain; the production of the relevant records should be requested. The incident note drawn up by the attorney on the same day and the institution’s written reply may be evaluated together.
Applying Without Disclosing the Content of the Defense Again
It is not mandatory to set out the entire defense strategy in the complaint petition in order to describe that confidentiality was violated. The manner in which the interference occurred and its effect are shown first. Particularly for sensitive documents, an examination consistent with the protection of privacy may be requested by stating which part relates to which file. It should be ensured that the application’s own attachments do not create a new disclosure.
The second issue shown by the Fadime Kolutek and others decision is the later use, in disciplinary proceedings, of information obtained during a meeting. In such a case, the complaint concerning confidentiality and the defense against the disciplinary decision are pursued separately. The lawfulness of the evidence, its decisive weight within the decision, and whether the objection raised against it was answered are made concrete. It should not be asserted that every claim of unlawfulness automatically leads to acquittal or to the lifting of the disciplinary penalty. [6]
Documenting Application Problems in Electronic Meetings
The System Record and the Content of the Meeting Are Kept Separate
Under the official e-Avukat principles that were reviewed, the weekly time and the meeting right are shared in common among attorneys. How multiple meetings with the same attorney on the same day are counted, and the deduction of the right for a meeting with a different attorney, are regulated separately. The implementation document also provides that no deduction of the right is made for a meeting shorter than thirty seconds, whereas a deduction from the time is made. Therefore, in the case of a brief interruption of the connection, not only the total number of meetings but also the start and end records should be examined. [7]
When a meeting cannot be held because of a technical failure, the number of the request, the reported error and the institution’s reply may be preserved. While requesting that system access be repaired, the need for a face-to-face meeting in view of an upcoming hearing is stated separately. The representation relationship not appearing in the electronic system should not be interpreted as meaning that all possibilities of face-to-face legal assistance have disappeared. The specific problem should be resolved within the legal regime of the type of meeting concerned.
Conclusion
Effective protection of attorney meetings requires correctly determining the person’s legal status in each file and documenting the reason for the interference. Confidentiality, the representation document, the time of the meeting and the security measure must be examined separately. The strength of an application comes less from a general statement of a violation of rights than from showing how a specific act affected legal assistance and by which concrete regulation it can be remedied. On this topic, the article on camera recording and privacy in prison may also be examined.
Related articles: The Right to Letters in Prison.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a Notarized Power of Attorney Required to Meet a Pretrial Detainee?
No power of attorney is required for a meeting with defense counsel under Article 154 of the CMK. Professional identity and status can be verified. The representation requirement in another judicial procedure is not the same as the requirement for the meeting itself.
Can a Convicted Prisoner Meet an Attorney Only Three Times?
The limit of three meetings relates to meetings without a power of attorney under Article 59/1 of Law No. 5275. Powers of attorney and concrete restriction decisions are assessed separately.
Can an Officer Listen to an Attorney Meeting?
As a rule, no. Being visible for security purposes does not mean that the conversation can be heard or recorded. An exception requires statutory conditions and a competent decision.
Does the e-Avukat Time Limit Also Restrict Face-to-Face Meetings?
The time and scope rules of the electronic application do not, in general, change the statutory regime of face-to-face meetings. The type of meeting to which a transaction relates must be determined.
Does an Application to the Enforcement Judgeship Lift a Meeting Restriction Immediately?
No. A complaint does not by itself stay the act. If the two conditions in the law are met together, a stay or postponement may be requested separately.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Criminal Sentences and Security Measures (Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun), Article 59 and the footnotes on annulment decisions.
- Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), Article 154.
- Regulation on the Administration of Penal Institutions and the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures (Ceza İnfaz Kurumlarının Yönetimi ile Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Yönetmelik), Article 72 and footnote 30. The explanation of the Council of State decisions is limited to the official footnote of the legislation.
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), Articles 4–6.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Çetin Arkaş and Nasrullah Kuran, Application No. 2016/371, January 13, 2021, in particular paragraphs 67–93 and the operative part.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Fadime Kolutek and others, Application No. 2017/25008, January 31, 2024, in particular paragraphs 33–55.
- Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı), Implementation Principles of the e-Avukat Video Meeting Module (e-Avukat Görüntülü Görüşme Modülü Uygulama Esasları), three-page implementation document in the 2026 official publication.
- Law No. 6216, Articles 45–48. Legislation and source access check: October 13, 2026.