A disciplinary penalty imposed in a penal institution, a refused hospital referral, or an incorrectly prepared sentence calculation sheet (müddetname) may directly affect a person's liberty and fundamental rights. A final conviction does not make every step of the enforcement process lawful. The principal judicial authority that supervises the lawfulness of these steps is the enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği).
The first question in an application to the enforcement judgeship is to identify correctly which legal route should be used. A complaint against a prison administration's act, a request to resolve uncertainty in the calculation of the sentence, and an objection to a decision of the enforcement judgeship are subject to different procedures. The general complaint period is 15 days from learning of the act and, in every case, 30 days from the date of the act. The current period for objecting to a judgeship decision is two weeks from service. There is also an important exception for correcting the enforcement calculation in a sentence calculation sheet, which must be assessed separately. [1] [2] [5]
These distinctions ensure that the correct authority is chosen, that the time limit is protected, and that the request becomes an enforceable decision. An effective application must, in addition to alleging unlawfulness, show which document supports which claim and exactly which decision is sought from the judge.
Which Disputes Does the Enforcement Judgeship Examine?
Supervision of acts and activities in the penal institution
Article 4 of Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu) places within the enforcement judgeship's remit complaints on matters such as admission to the institution, placement, accommodation, nutrition, health, external relations and work. Transfer to an open prison, leave, referral, transfer and release procedures, as well as disciplinary measures and penalties, are also assessed within this scope. Decisions of the public prosecutor concerning the enforcement of penalties and security measures are also subject to judicial review. [1]
Where a restriction on visits, a limit on telephone calls or the failure to act on a health request is in issue, the examination is not conducted on the basis of abstract dissatisfaction. The authority that carried out the act, its legal basis, its reasons and its effect on the person must be identified. Invoking a legitimate aim such as institutional security does not remove the need to examine separately whether the restriction applied was necessary and proportionate.
The enforcement judgeship is not only an authority that examines complaints. It also decides enforcement matters for which the law expressly requires a judicial decision. In scholarship, the expansion of its functions following Law No. 7242 is discussed in terms of the enforcement of sentences under specialized judicial review. [12]
The merits of a conviction and an enforcement dispute must be kept apart
The enforcement judgeship is not a court that re-examines the evidence of a final conviction and issues an acquittal. The unlawfulness of a conviction and the incorrect enforcement of a sentence are different legal problems. For review of the judgment itself, appeal to the Court of Cassation in a criminal case is considered, together with extraordinary remedies where their conditions are met.
Likewise, a request to lift a detention order in a pending investigation or prosecution cannot be directed to the enforcement judgeship merely because the person is in prison. The review of a detention order is governed by the relevant procedure in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK). A complaint about the living conditions of a detainee in prison is, depending on its nature, subject to review by the enforcement judgeship.
Which Authority Is Competent Depending on the Type of Application?
The content of an application matters as much as its heading. Listing in the same petition, under the label "objection to enforcement", claims that are different in nature may conceal problems of competence and procedure.
| Nature of the dispute | Main character of the application | Point to watch in the allocation of competence |
|---|---|---|
| Prison act or prosecutor's decision on enforcement | Complaint under Law No. 4675 | The lawfulness of the act is examined by the enforcement judgeship. |
| Doubt in the calculation of the sentence to be served | Request for decision under Art. 98(1)(b) of Law No. 5275 | The calculation and the sentence to be served are assessed by the enforcement judgeship. |
| Interpretation of a conviction or a later law more favorable to the offender | Request under Art. 98(1)(a) of Law No. 5275 | The competence of the court that gave the judgment is preserved for these matters. |
| Decision given by the enforcement judgeship | Objection | The objection is examined by the competent heavy criminal court. |
As a rule, the competence for territorial jurisdiction depends on the place where the enforcement act was carried out. For prison acts, the judicial district in which the institution where the act took place is located is taken into account. For this reason, each application is not made to the enforcement judgeship in the place where the court that gave the conviction sits. If a transfer has taken place, the date of the act and the institution that carried it out must also be determined separately. [1]
Special rules of competence exist for matters such as the aggregation of penalties. For example, the regulation in Article 101(2) of Law No. 5275 must be examined separately from the general rule on place. The competent authority is not determined merely by looking at the prison in which the convicted person happens to be on that day. [2]
Who Can Apply to the Enforcement Judgeship, and How?
Persons entitled to apply
Article 5 of Law No. 4675 allows an application to be made by the convicted or detained person concerned and, in addition, by their spouse, mother, father, child capable of discernment, or sibling. Defense counsel, the legal representative, and the monitoring board of the penal institution and detention house are also among the applicants identified in the law. [1]
This provision does not mean that every relative has unlimited authority to apply. The petition must clearly state the capacity of the applicant, its relationship with the convicted or detained person concerned, and its connection with the act objected to. Although applying through a lawyer is not compulsory, correct legal characterization is decisive, particularly in disputes over calculations and release that affect liberty.
Where the petition is filed and the record of the application
A complaint may be submitted directly to the enforcement judgeship, or through the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor or the directorate of the penal institution or detention house. Applications submitted through these legal channels other than the judgeship must be forwarded to the judgeship immediately, and in any event within three days. An oral complaint is recorded in minutes, and a copy is given to the applicant. [1]
The registration number, date and receipt of a petition that has been delivered must be kept. In an application made through the institution, the institution's records may show when the petition was submitted. A late forwarding of the application to the judgeship and a late submission of the petition by the applicant are not the same situation.
Where a matter requires the administration to decide for the first time, a concrete request should first be addressed to the competent body and its outcome documented. However, where a complaint period is running against an existing act, submitting a new petition to the same authority must not be relied on as though the period had stopped or started again automatically. A complaint to the Presidency for Communications' citizen portal (CİMER) or general correspondence must also not be treated as a substitute for the statutory complaint route.
How Are Complaint and Objection Periods Calculated?
The 15-day complaint period and the 30-day outer limit
For the general complaint period, two dates are followed together: the date of the act and the date of learning of it. A period of 15 days from learning does not mean that the 30-day outer limit from the date of the act can be exceeded. These periods are not added together to create a 45-day period for application. [1]
What proves the date of learning also matters. A service record, a signed copy of the decision, a reply to a petition or an institutional record may be decisive in the concrete case. A continuing activity must be distinguished from a new refusal decision and from a single act completed in the past. Repeating the same subject in a petition does not in every case create a new period for application.
The current period for objecting to a judgeship decision is two weeks
Under Article 6 of Law No. 4675, a decision of the enforcement judgeship may be objected to within two weeks from service. By the transitional provision of Law No. 7499, this amendment applies to decisions given on or after 1 June 2024. For earlier decisions, the former rule is taken into account. In a current file, it is not correct to rely on the seven-day period found in older sources. [1] [5]
Where a period is expressed in weeks and the last day falls on a public holiday, the rule in Article 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies. The rules on the date of service and the start of the period must be examined separately. Where it is alleged that the period was missed because of an excusable obstacle, the conditions for restoration to the previous position (eski hâle getirme) must be assessed separately; notifying an excuse alone does not make the application timely. [3]
The important exception for sentence calculation sheets
In its decision of 7 November 2024, E. 2024/6621, K. 2024/7422, the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi) found unlawful the rejection, on the ground that the 15-day period had passed, of an application concerning the calculation of the penalty in a sentence calculation sheet. The Chamber proceeded on the basis that Article 98(1)(b) of Law No. 5275 sets no time limit for a dispute over calculation. [6]
This decision establishes that an error in the enforcement calculation cannot be excluded from examination on the ground that the general complaint period has passed. However, not all enforcement applications are unlimited in time. Moreover, the objection route against the enforcement judgeship's decision on the calculation has its own period. The initial calculation application and the objection to the judicial decision issued on it must not be confused.
| Application | Basic time-limit rule |
|---|---|
| General complaint under Law No. 4675 | 15 days from learning; in every case 30 days from the act |
| Objection to a current enforcement judgeship decision | Two weeks from service |
| Determination of the enforcement calculation under Art. 98(1)(b) of Law No. 5275 | According to the cited Court of Cassation decision, no statutory time limit applies to the first calculation application |
| Individual application to the Constitutional Court | As a rule, 30 days from exhaustion of ordinary remedies; the date of learning of the final decision is also followed separately |
What Matters Should Be Examined in the Main Enforcement Disputes?
Disciplinary penalty and the right of defense
In a disciplinary complaint, the act alleged, the disciplinary provision applied, the investigation documents and the opportunity to defend must be examined together. It must be discussed not only whether the act recorded in the minutes actually occurred, but also whether that act satisfies the legal conditions of the sanction applied. [2]
Camera footage, the accounts of persons present at the scene and institutional records may resolve contradictory minutes. The application should state what the requested evidence would show. Rather than merely saying "bring the camera footage", the date, approximate time and place should be given, together with the allegation the recording would clarify.
Good conduct, transfer to an open prison and conditional release
In the assessment of good conduct, the individualized reasoning of the decision is of importance. The assessment criteria in Article 89 of Law No. 5275 must be connected with concrete records relating to the person's progress through enforcement. The absence of a disciplinary penalty does not show that all other conditions were automatically satisfied; abstract negative statements may also leave the sufficiency of the reasoning open to question. [2]
In the application, the full decision of the board, progress and assessment reports, records on education or rehabilitation work, and earlier assessments should be considered together. Against an institution's assessment of security or risk of reoffending, the facts on which that assessment rests must be discussed.
Transfer to an open prison and conditional release are not matters of calendar arithmetic alone. The offense, the enforcement regime, good conduct and the relevant special conditions are assessed separately. A claim against an erroneous refusal must also be framed according to the nature of the decision; it cannot be assumed that every application will result directly in release.
Probation measures
An administrative act of the supervised release directorate and a judicial decision of the enforcement judgeship are different things. Article 18 of Law No. 5402 on Probation Services provides for the complaint route against administrative acts and actions of the directorate and of the protection boards. Against a decision of the judgeship, the relevant objection procedure applies. [4]
Where non-compliance with an obligation is alleged, how the obligation was notified, the warning records, the dates of the alleged breaches and the documents supporting the excuse put forward are important. A hospital record or a claim of technical failure must be linked to the relevant time period. The outcome in another person's enforcement file cannot be applied directly to this file, given the different offense and transitional provisions.
Health, visits and communication problems
In a health dispute, the request for examination, the referral decision, the appointment date, the existing reports and the effect of the delay must be set out. Where urgency is alleged, explaining it with medical documents strengthens both the examination on the merits and any request for interim protection.
For restrictions on visits and communication, the scope, duration and reasoning of the decision, and its connection with the person concerned, are examined. The restriction imposed on the ground of institutional security may be discussed in terms of the concrete danger on which it relied and why a milder measure was not considered sufficient. The request should be framed around a reviewable act, for example the prevention of a specific visit or the non-delivery of a specific letter.
Does an Application Stop Enforcement, or Does It Secure Release?
Postponement or suspension of an act following a complaint
A complaint does not, as a rule, automatically suspend the implementation of the act. For interim protection under Article 5 of Law No. 4675, the conditions must be met together: the act must be manifestly unlawful, and it must produce consequences that are difficult or impossible to remedy. [1]
The request for suspension must therefore answer two separate questions: which provision and document show the manifest unlawfulness? If the decision on the merits is awaited, what concrete result would occur? If there is an imminent date for the act, a health risk, or a loss of rights that cannot later be remedied, these must be explained separately.
In an application against a visit restriction, a broad request for the suspension of all consequences of the conviction often does not match the dispute. Interim protection should be framed according to the nature of the act complained of and the right that is sought to be protected.
Requests for suspension regarding the enforcement calculation and at the objection stage
A request under Article 98 of Law No. 5275 does not automatically defer the enforcement of the sentence. However, the court or the enforcement judgeship may order deferral or suspension depending on the nature of the case. Where it is alleged that a person remained in prison longer because of an incorrect calculation, showing the alternative calculation with its days and dates is important. [2]
An objection to a decision of the enforcement judgeship does not itself have a suspensive effect. Under Article 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), the deferment of the execution of the decision may be requested from the authority that gave it or from the objection authority. Interim protection in a complaint, the deferral in a calculation dispute and the deferment in an objection should not be tied to the same legal basis. [3]
Special finality and approval rules for disciplinary penalties are reserved. Article 48 of Law No. 5275 provides that a disciplinary penalty may not be enforced before it becomes final; for placement in a punishment cell, the approval of the enforcement judge is also required. The general rule that "a complaint does not suspend" cannot be interpreted in a way that would remove these special safeguards. [2]
Deferral on health grounds and enforcement at home are separate requests
For deferral of enforcement on health grounds, the conditions in Article 16 of Law No. 5275, the report procedure and the function of the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor must be considered; for deferral at the convicted person's request, the conditions in Article 17 must be considered. These requests are not, in every case, temporary suspension orders to be sought for the first time from the enforcement judgeship. Making the prosecutor's decision on enforcement the subject of a complaint is a separate stage. [2]
Enforcement at home, at night or at weekends, and other special procedures, are subject to their own conditions under Article 110. Enforcement at home and the judicial control requiring the person not to leave home applied during the investigation or prosecution are different legal institutions. The existence of the conditions for one does not directly entitle the person to the other.
How Is an Effective Application File Prepared?
An explicit link must be established between the event, the document and the request
Instead of a long account of events, the facts that are effective in resolving the dispute should be set out in chronological order. Each allegation should be tied to the relevant document; where the document is not in the applicant's possession, the application should state from where the document can be obtained.
- Act: The authority that made the decision, the date, the number and the scope of the implementation.
- Time limit: The date of the act, of learning of it or of service, together with the date of receipt of the petition.
- Unlawfulness: The relevant provision, the safeguard not applied, and its concrete effect.
- Evidence: What the decision, report, minutes, image or correspondence proves in support of which allegation.
- Request: The exact scope of the annulment, determination of the calculation, suspension or other decision sought.
In a dispute over a sentence calculation sheet, final judgments, aggregation decisions, credit for time spent in custody (mahsup) information, earlier sentence calculation sheets and a separate table showing the calculation in dispute are important. In a disciplinary file, the investigation papers, the notice of defense, the defense statement taken and the reasoning of the decision come to the fore. Using the same list of annexes in different disputes does not strengthen the file.
How should counter-reasoning and a lack of evidence be dealt with?
The determinative reasoning of the institution's decision must be directly challenged. Where it is said that "the security reason is abstract", it should be shown which event has not been explained; where it is said that "the calculation is wrong", the source of the error — which date or legal premise — should be identified.
The requested camera footage may not exist, or access to the record may be restricted. In that case, the request for the footage to be preserved and obtained must not be delayed; if it is reported that it cannot be found, alternative records should be assessed. Inability to access evidence does not mean that the allegation is proved by itself. However, the unjustified rejection of a request for investigation that could affect the outcome may be raised separately in the objection.
Examination and the Right of Defense Before the Enforcement Judgeship
Under Article 6 of Law No. 4675, a complaint is, as a rule, to be decided on the file within one week. The judge may carry out the necessary inquiries and request information or documents; the written opinion of the competent public prosecutor is also obtained. The one-week rule in the law does not mean that, once that period has passed, the application is deemed accepted. [1]
For a complaint against a disciplinary penalty there is a specific safeguard of defense. The law regulates the taking of the defense of the convicted or detained person and the collection and assessment of the evidence requested. The general rule on examination on the file must not be applied in a way that would render this safeguard ineffective.
The Constitutional Court's decision in Talet Şanlı: the importance of an oral defense
In its decision in Talet Şanlı [GK], Application No. 2017/20526, 17 January 2023, the Constitutional Court (AYM) examined a decision taken on the file, despite the applicant's requests for an oral defence and the hearing of witnesses, in a complaint against a disciplinary penalty. It found a violation of the right to a hearing and ordered that the file be sent to the relevant enforcement judgeship for retrial. [7]
The decision shows that, in a disciplinary complaint, a request for an oral defence cannot be disregarded without reasons. However, the right to an oral defence and insisting in every circumstance on physical attendance in the courtroom are not the same matter. The law also allows the defence to be taken in the penal institution where this is considered necessary.
The Constitutional Court's decision in Gökhan Gündüz: SEGBİS does not in every case constitute a violation
In Gökhan Gündüz (12), Application No. 2021/28429, 6 January 2026, the applicant took part in the examination of a disciplinary complaint through SEGBİS (the audio-visual hearing system) and wished to be physically present at the hearing. The majority of the Constitutional Court found that, in the concrete case, no technical problem preventing effective participation and no sufficient reasoning showing the necessity of physical attendance had been put forward, and declared the complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. [8]
The dissenting opinions emphasised that the responsibility for justifying the refusal of a request for physical attendance rests with the court. The decision therefore cannot be read as meaning that the use of SEGBİS is appropriate in every case. Where a file involves disputed events requiring face-to-face explanation, connection problems or difficulty communicating with a lawyer, it is important that these are recorded concretely. Taken together, the Talet Şanlı decision and this decision make visible the distinction between a defence that is not heard at all and the method of participation.
How Is an Objection to a Refusal Decision Prepared?
The application is made through the judgeship that gave the decision
The authority that examines the objection is the competent heavy criminal court within the judicial district of the enforcement judgeship. Under Article 268 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), the petition is submitted to the enforcement judgeship that gave the decision. If the judgeship finds the objection justified, it may correct its decision; otherwise, it sends the file to the authority competent to examine the objection within three days at the latest. The enforcement judge who gave the decision may not sit on the panel that examines the objection. [1] [3]
The objection petition should not be limited to a repetition of the original complaint. The error in the refusal decision — concerning time limits, competence, evidence or legal assessment — must be shown separately. For example, where a request concerning a sentence calculation sheet was refused on the ground of the general complaint period, the objection should explain why the dispute falls under Article 98(1)(b) of Law No. 5275.
What decisions may be given?
If the complaint is not found to be well-founded, it is rejected. If it is found well-founded, the relevant decision or act may be annulled, and the suspension or deferral of the activity may come into question. Enforcement matters for which the law gives the judgeship a direct power to decide are assessed separately. Upholding a complaint does not mean that, in every dispute, the administration is replaced and a new act is established. [1]
The objection authority ordinarily examines the file without a hearing. If it finds the objection well-founded, it also decides on the subject of the objection. Because of the finality rule in Article 271 of the CMK, it should not be assumed that an ordinary appeal or appeal on points of law follows in the course of this process. [3]
Can Compensation Be Claimed for Loss Arising from an Enforcement Act?
Annulment of an act and compensation for the loss are separate claims. The acceptance of a complaint before the enforcement judgeship does not mean that compensation has been awarded automatically. The competent branch of jurisdiction and the procedure for application must be determined according to the nature of the act alleged to have caused the loss.
In its decision of 24 November 2025, E. 2025/603, K. 2025/702, the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi) examined a claim for loss based on the failure to grant access to open and closed visiting facilities in the prison. The fact that the complaint and objection routes had been used beforehand did not automatically bring the compensation action within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts; in the concrete dispute, the administrative courts were competent. [9]
By contrast, in its decision of 2 December 2024, E. 2024/440, K. 2024/518, the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes accepted that, in a compensation action based on the allegation that a person was re-imprisoned because of an incorrect determination of the penalty in re-sentencing proceedings, the ordinary courts were competent. The Court also stated that the competent authority within the ordinary courts had to be determined separately. [10]
These two decisions show that not all enforcement losses can be channelled into a single route of application. The procedure explained in the section on wrongful detention and compensation for custody cannot be applied directly to every prison act. The source of the loss, the legal basis of the claim and the relevant time limits must be assessed separately.
Can an Individual Application Be Made to the Constitutional Court After an Objection?
Where a violation of a fundamental right is alleged, an individual application may be considered once the effective ordinary remedies have been duly exhausted. An application to the Constitutional Court is not an additional appeal stage at which the enforcement calculation or all evidence is re-examined. Allegations such as the non-hearing of the defence, the unreasoned disregard of decisive claims, or a disproportionate interference with correspondence must be linked to the relevant constitutional right. [11]
As a rule, the 30-day period for an individual application must be separately observed. The date of learning of the final decision, the service records and the file-access records are important. It should not be assumed that this period is suspended while awaiting the outcome of an attempt at reversal in the interest of the law under Article 309 of the CMK. For the calculation of the period and the organisation of documents, the articles Calculating the 30-day Period for an Individual Application to the Constitutional Court and Individual Application to the Constitutional Court in a Criminal Case may be read together.
For further details on issues connected with this topic, see our articles on enforcement of multiple sentences and aggregation, conversion of unpaid judicial fines into imprisonment, breach of supervised release and return to prison, revocation of conditional release, and the enforcement regime specific to recidivists and repeat offenders.
Conclusion
Effective protection in enforcement law begins with the correct description of the application. It is completed when the nature of the act, the competent authority, the time limit and the result sought are considered together. In particular, the 15- and 30-day complaint periods, the two-week objection period and the special route of application for the enforcement calculation must not be reduced to a single rule.
The strength of a file lies in the allegation of unlawfulness being supported by concrete documents and in the decision sought being clearly stated. Disciplinary defence, health, good conduct, calculation and release disputes must each be examined on their own terms; a legal basis must be established separately for requests for interim protection and for compensation.
For legal support in criminal proceedings and enforcement processes, you may consult our criminal law services.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a lawyer required to apply to the enforcement judgeship?
No. Persons who are granted the right to apply under the law may apply themselves. However, the capacity, time limit and type of request must be correctly stated; legal review is particularly important in files affecting the calculation of the sentence and release.
Can I file a complaint on behalf of a relative in prison?
You must be among the persons named in Article 5 of Law No. 4675, and the application must meet the relationship requirement in the law. A spouse, mother, father, child capable of discernment and sibling are expressly listed. Not every family relationship gives a right to apply.
Is the objection period seven days or two weeks?
For decisions of the enforcement judgeship given on or after 1 June 2024, the period is two weeks from service. The transitional provision must be examined for earlier decisions.
Can an application be made about a sentence calculation sheet after 15 days have passed?
For a request concerning the calculation of the penalty under Article 98(1)(b) of Law No. 5275, the Court of Cassation's decision E. 2024/6621, K. 2024/7422 accepted that no time limit applies. This result does not extend to all enforcement complaints; the period for objecting to the judgeship's decision must be separately protected.
Does a complaint or objection secure release automatically?
No. For a release outcome to arise, the relevant legal conditions and a decision of the competent authority are required. As a rule, the making of an application does not automatically suspend the act or the enforcement of the sentence.
If the enforcement judgeship does not decide within one week, is my request deemed accepted?
No. The lapse of the decision period in the law does not result in the complaint being deemed accepted. The effect of the delay and any need for urgent protection must be separately explained in the file.
In a disciplinary complaint, must I necessarily be brought to the courtroom?
No such result follows in every file. The defence must be taken effectively; the need for physical attendance is assessed by reference to the nature of the dispute, the method of participation and the concrete difficulties.
Can the objection decision of the heavy criminal court be appealed directly?
As regards the decision given on an objection to a decision of the enforcement judgeship, the rule is that it is final for the purposes of ordinary appeal. Reversal in the interest of the law and individual application are different routes with their own conditions; they are not used as ordinary appeals.
Sources and legal bases
1. Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (4675 sayılı İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), in particular Arts. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.
2. Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Criminal Penalties and Security Measures (5275 sayılı Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun), in particular Arts. 14, 16, 17, 47, 48, 89, 98–101, 105/A, 107 and 110.
3. Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), in particular Arts. 39–41, 268, 269, 271 and 309.
4. Law No. 5402 on Probation Services (5402 sayılı Denetimli Serbestlik Hizmetleri Kanunu), Art. 18.
5. Law No. 7499, official text of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM), Art. 37(2) and Provisional Art. 1.
6. 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi), 7 November 2024, E. 2024/6621, K. 2024/7422, UYAP official decision record, in particular the "Assessment" and "Decision" sections.
7. Constitutional Court (AYM), Talet Şanlı [GK], Application No. 2017/20526, 17 January 2023, in particular §§45–55, 64–70 and the operative part.
8. Constitutional Court (AYM), Gökhan Gündüz (12), Application No. 2021/28429, 6 January 2026, in particular §§12–17, the operative part and the dissenting opinions.
9. Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi), 24 November 2025, E. 2025/603, K. 2025/702, in particular §§27–35 and the operative part.
10. Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi), 2 December 2024, E. 2024/440, K. 2024/518, in particular §§18–21 and the operative part.
11. Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court, official page of the Constitutional Court, Arts. 45 and 47; also the Constitutional Court's time-limit criteria.
12. Bahattin Aras, "The Powers and Duties of Enforcement Judgeships in Light of the Principles Governing Enforcement Law" (İnfaz Hukukuna Hâkim Olan İlkeler Işığında İnfaz Hâkimliklerinin Görev ve Yetkileri), Erciyes University Faculty of Law Journal (Erciyes Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 2022, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 403–456. The scholarly source is used for the institutional framework; current time limits are taken from the law in force.