The Legal Nature of Reversal in the Interest of the Law
A narrow and exceptional interference with the authority of a final judgment
A final judgment is protected for the sake of legal certainty and judicial stability. Even so, if a decision that has never passed through ordinary appeal review contains a serious violation of substantive law or procedural law, the unlawfulness may persist. In this exceptional situation, Articles 309-310 CMK establish a narrowly framed review mechanism that takes uniformity of case law and individual justice into account together.
It is not a second cassation review or a re-assessment of evidence
According to the decision of the General Assembly of the Criminal Chambers of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu) dated 24.01.2024, E. 2022/384, K. 2024/41, the unlawfulness must reach a serious degree before the route of reversal in the interest of the law may be used. As a rule, the credibility of witnesses, which evidence should be given priority, or assessments within the court's discretion are not re-examined. However, the absence of the elements of the offence in law, the failure to apply a mandatory provision, or the restriction of the right of defense in a manner contrary to the law is not mere assessment of evidence.
Reversal in the interest of the law is not a general avenue of recourse in which a final judgment is re-examined in all its factual and legal aspects; it is an extraordinary review directed at serious violations of norms.
The Constitutive Conditions of the CMK 309 Route
The decision or judgment must have become final in law
Before filing, the date of the judgment, the service of the reasoned decision, the notice on remedies, any objection decision, the finality endorsement and the UYAP records must be examined together. If the ordinary time limit for appeal has not started to run because of defective service or an erroneous notice on remedies, the decision may in fact not have become final; in that case the priority is the ordinary remedy and, if necessary, restoration of the previous state (eski hale getirme).
The decision must not have passed through appeal or cassation review
This is the distinguishing condition of Article 309 CMK. A judgment examined on the merits by the Regional Court of Appeal (BAM) or a decision that has passed through Court of Cassation review cannot be the subject of reversal in the interest of the law with respect to that same judgment. For a decision of the BAM criminal chamber that is final by law, CMK 308/A is considered; for a decision of a criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation, CMK 308 is considered if its conditions are met.
The unlawfulness must be serious and must affect the judgment
In its decision dated 08.12.2025, E. 2025/2332, K. 2025/8670, the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Ceza Dairesi) emphasized that this route may be used not for every kind of error, but for fundamental mistakes in application, procedural errors that affect the judgment, and the limited consequences provided by statute. The petition must show from which norm the violation arises and how it affects the outcome of the judgment.
The unlawfulness must not be capable of being remedied in another way
In its decision dated 13.05.2024, E. 2024/3253, K. 2024/3407, the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi) set out together the conditions that the decision be valid in law, that it have become final without passing through appeal or cassation, and that no solution through another route be possible. If a correction of a clerical error, an application to the enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği) or a fresh decision from the court that issued the judgment is available, that route must be considered first.
Which Decisions Can Be the Subject of Reversal in the Interest of the Law?
Provided the other conditions are met, judgeship decisions that are final by law, decisions that became final after exhausting the objection route, judgments that became final because no appeal or cassation was filed in time, decisions of criminal judgeships of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği), decisions of the enforcement judgeship and of the objection authority, supplementary decisions and miscellaneous-docket decisions may be subject to review under Article 309 CMK. However, the fact that a type of decision appears on this list is not sufficient by itself.
Choosing the right extraordinary remedy
| Situation under review | Route to be considered first | Outcome for CMK 309 |
|---|---|---|
| Decision of the BAM criminal chamber that is final by law | CMK 308/A | The same decision cannot be the subject of CMK 309 |
| Decision of a criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation or an affirmed judgment | CMK 308 and the relevant special routes | CMK 309 does not apply to the same judgment |
| New fact or new evidence | CMK 311-323 | Different from a legal error in the existing file |
| Decision that is not final or defective service | Objection, appeal, cassation, restoration of the previous state | Without finality, the CMK 309 condition is not met |
| Obvious clerical or arithmetic error | Correction by the authority that issued the decision | To be remedied first at the local level |
| Enforcement matter on which a new decision can be issued | Court or enforcement judgeship | An extraordinary route does not replace another available remedy |
Who Can Set the Reversal in the Interest of the Law Route in Motion?
The authority of the Ministry of Justice under CMK 309
When the Ministry of Justice learns of unlawfulness in a final decision, it notifies the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation in writing of the request that the decision be reversed by the Court of Cassation, stating the statutory grounds. In practice, the process is carried out through the General Directorate of Criminal Affairs (Ceza İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü). A petition from the person concerned does not by itself start Court of Cassation review without the Ministry's notification.
The authority of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation under CMK 310
The ex officio power in Article 310 CMK is not a general one. It can be used only in the cases under Article 309/4-d CMK, where the convicted person's sentence must be removed or a lighter sentence imposed. If the Ministry of Justice has already applied regarding the same decision, there is no room for the Chief Public Prosecutor to exercise this power separately.
The request of the convicted person, defense counsel or the person concerned
The convicted person, the defendant, defense counsel, the intervening party (katılan) or the person harmed by the offence cannot directly bring an action for reversal in the interest of the law; they may submit a reasoned request that sets the discretion of the competent authorities in motion. The rejection of the request, or the absence of any action on it, does not mean that the judgment has passed through a new ordinary appeal review.
How Does the Ministry Conduct the Preliminary Review of Requests?
Finality, the notice on remedies and service are checked
Under Circular No. 16/1 of 31.12.2019 of the General Directorate of Criminal Affairs of the Ministry of Justice, the first check concerns the remedy to which the decision is subject, its time limit, its starting date, the competent authority, the method of application and the regularity of service. In particular, applications of Articles 21 and 35 of the Notification Law (Tebligat Kanunu) and notifications made to a person held in a penal institution must be examined. If the decision has in fact not become final, the file is directed not to Article 309 CMK but to the ordinary remedy.
A reasoned opinion of the chief public prosecutor's office and the integrity of the file are required
The Circular does not regard it as sufficient merely to send the petition to the Ministry. It expects the chief public prosecutor's office of the place where the decision was issued to prepare a reasoned opinion on the unlawfulness; to cure any deficiencies in the decision, service, criminal record, enforcement and all related documents; to arrange the documents in chronological order; and to draw up an index slip (dizi pusulası). The applicant must therefore show clearly the legal problem in the file and the records on which it rests.
An urgency note is not created merely by the word “urgent”
In urgent files such as enforcement, pre-trial detention, the return of an indictment, or disputes over jurisdiction or competence, the UYAP urgency field must be ticked and the file must be given priority in the official referral process. Writing only “urgent” in the petition does not automatically secure priority; the legal and factual reason for the urgency must be documented.
Requests to Be Concluded Locally Without Being Sent to the Ministry
The local-resolution logic of Circular No. 16/1
| Subject of the request | Priority action under the Circular | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Judgment that has passed through appeal review, or a BAM decision | CMK 308/A or the relevant remedy | The CMK 309 condition of not having passed through ordinary review is absent |
| Judgment examined by the Court of Cassation | CMK 308 or the relevant special route | Reversal in the interest of the law is not a second cassation review |
| Decision that is not yet final | Completion of the ordinary remedy | Finality is a constitutive condition |
| Unclear petition in which the targeted decision cannot be understood | Having the applicant clarify the statement | The target decision and the type of request must be identified |
| Clerical, date, figure or arithmetic error | Correction by the authority that issued the decision | An extraordinary route is not used for an error that can be corrected locally |
| Enforcement matter on which a new decision can always be issued | Application to the court or enforcement judgeship | Another effective remedy exists |
| Case in which only the removal or reduction of the sentence is required | CMK 309/4-d and the Article 310 route | The limited ex officio power of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation comes into play |
How Should the Petition to the Ministry of Justice Be Drafted?
The heading and the route of submission must be chosen correctly
For a general request under Article 309 CMK: To the ... Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, to be sent to the General Directorate of Criminal Affairs of the Ministry of Justice
For a request for the removal or reduction of the sentence only, under Articles 309/4-d and 310 CMK: To the ... Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, to be sent to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation
The full identity of the target decision and the chain of finality
The petition should set out in chronological order the full name of the court or judgeship, the docket and decision numbers (or miscellaneous-docket number), the date of the decision, the service of the reasoned decision, any objection decision, the date of service or knowledge of the last decision, and the date of finality. Because a file may contain a judgment, a supplementary decision, an objection authority's decision and an enforcement decision together, it must be clear which decision is sought to be reversed.
Norm - file record - effect on the judgment - requested outcome
Six elements to be made concrete in the petition
| Section of the petition | Facts to be stated | Example of an insufficient statement |
|---|---|---|
| Violated norm | The statutory provision that should have been applied and its status in force on the date of the event | “The decision is unlawful.” |
| File record | Hearing minutes, service, a paragraph of the decision, a report or the sentence calculation | “The file was not taken into account.” |
| Nature of the violation | How substantive law or a procedural rule was violated | “The court assessed it wrongly.” |
| Effect on the judgment | Why the outcome might have been different without the error | “An unjust result has arisen.” |
| Distinction of routes | Why objection, appeal, cassation, Article 308, 308/A, 311 or the enforcement route was not applied | “No other route remains.” |
| Request | The sub-paragraph of Article 309/4 CMK to be applied and the expected action | “Reversal of the decision is requested.” |
It must be explained that this is not a mere assessment of evidence
Instead of re-arguing why a witness is not credible or which evidence should be preferred, the petition should show the violation of a specific rule of law. For example, a judgment rendered without mandatory defense counsel, the failure to apply a mandatory reduction rate, or the absence of a statutory element of the offence is a violation of a norm; giving a different meaning to a witness statement alone is in most cases an assessment of evidence.
The sub-paragraph of CMK 309/4 must be stated expressly
The outcome of reversal differs depending on the sub-paragraph requested. The petition should address the distinction that requires a fresh decision, a retrial, a reversal that does not produce an outcome against the defendant, or a direct removal of the sentence or imposition of a lighter sentence by the Court of Cassation itself.
Documents to Be Attached to the Application File
- A complete and legible copy of the decision or judgment whose reversal is sought.
- The finality endorsement together with all service documents and notices on remedies.
- Any objection, appeal or cassation petitions, and the decisions given on those applications.
- The indictment, hearing minutes, the opinion on the merits and the defense statements.
- The expert report, technical record, criminal record or sentence calculation sheet showing the unlawfulness.
- If enforcement is involved, the sentence-duration statement (müddetname), the enforcement prosecutor's letters and the set-off (mahsup) records.
- A numbered list of annexes showing which allegation in the petition each annex supports.
Sample concluding request
For the reasons explained, in order to remedy the unlawfulness in the decision of the ... Court dated ..., E. ..., K. ..., which became final on ... without passing through appeal or cassation review, we respectfully request that, pursuant to Article 309/1 of Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure (CMK), the request for reversal of the decision in the interest of the law be notified, with its statutory grounds, to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation.
Time Limit, Enforcement and the Relationship with the Constitutional Court
There is no special preclusive time limit for the request of the person concerned
Articles 309-310 CMK do not provide a special preclusive period (hak düşürücü süre) for the person concerned to ask the competent authority to set this route in motion. Nevertheless, the continuation of enforcement, the increasing difficulty of access to the file records and the time limits of other routes of application mean that the application should not be delayed.
The request does not stop enforcement by itself
The filing of the petition, its being taken up for review by the Ministry or its being sent to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation does not automatically stop the enforcement of the final judgment. The enforcement judgeship, set-off, the sentence-duration statement, deferral or other protective routes specific to the case must be assessed separately.
The time limit for individual application to the Constitutional Court must be protected separately
A request for reversal in the interest of the law is not an ordinary remedy that must be exhausted. Waiting for the competent authority's reply does not, as a rule, suspend or restart the time limit for individual application to the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM). The date on which the final decision in the ordinary remedy became known must be tracked separately.
Limits of the Court of Cassation's Review
The review is limited to the grounds in the notification of opinion
Under Article 309/3 CMK, the criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation examines the grounds put forward in the notification of opinion (ihbarname) of the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation. The 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Ceza Dairesi) applied this limitation expressly in its decisions dated 13.05.2024, E. 2022/11297, K. 2024/5143 and E. 2022/3582, K. 2024/5135. The initial request petition is therefore important in making the unlawfulness fully visible.
The margin of discretion must be distinguished from the mandatory rule of law
In its decision dated 22.04.2026, E. 2026/2451, K. 2026/7506, the 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 4. Ceza Dairesi) emphasized that, as a rule, requests dependent on the discretion of the judge or court, the assessment of evidence and decisions concerning personal rights cannot be the subject of reversal in the interest of the law. By contrast, the mandatory sentence calculation, the right of defense and the statutory elements of the offence are different from the margin of discretion.
Examples of Unlawfulness Suitable for Reversal in the Interest of the Law
Removal or restriction of the right of defense
Failure to appoint mandatory defense counsel, failure to allow the defendant to make a defense in the presence of counsel despite a request, failure to give reasonable time to respond to the opinion on the merits, or failure to allow the right to an additional defense may constitute a procedural violation that affects the judgment. In its decision dated 04.11.2024, E. 2024/5407, K. 2024/12665, the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesi) found it unlawful that a judgment was rendered without the request for defense counsel being met.
Errors in mandatory reductions, alternative sanctions and sentence calculation
In its decision dated 02.10.2024, E. 2024/2953, K. 2024/4911, the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation corrected directly, pursuant to Article 309/4-d CMK, a sentence that had been set too high because the mandatory reduction in the simplified trial procedure had not been applied. In its decision dated 16.04.2025, E. 2024/23737, K. 2025/2984, the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 8. Ceza Dairesi) accepted that the ground for reversal required the removal of the sentence.
Wrongful restriction of acquired rights and of the right of application
Where a heavier sentence is imposed after an earlier judgment appealed solely in favor of the defendant, or where the request of a person entitled to apply is rejected on procedural grounds for a wrong reason, such as the lack of standing as a party, this may amount to a violation of mandatory procedural rules.
Legal Consequences of Reversal under CMK 309/4
Consequences that differ according to the ground for reversal
| CMK provision | Type of unlawfulness | Consequence after reversal |
|---|---|---|
| 309/4-a | Decision that does not resolve the merits of the case | The judge or court that issued the decision conducts the necessary examination and investigation and issues a new decision |
| 309/4-b | Aspect of a conviction other than the merits, or a procedural act that removes or restricts the right of defense | A retrial is held; the new sentence cannot be heavier than the previous sentence |
| 309/4-c | Judgment resolving the merits of the case other than a conviction | The reversal does not produce an outcome against the defendant and no retrial is held |
| 309/4-d | Case in which the sentence must be removed or a lighter sentence imposed | The criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation directly removes the sentence or imposes a lighter one |
Under Article 309/5 CMK, a decision of reversal in the interest of the law cannot be resisted. The issuance of a reversal decision does not mean that a new hearing will be held or that release will follow automatically in every file.
Can Reversal in the Interest of the Law Produce an Outcome Against the Defendant?
The extraordinary route may also be used against the defendant for the purpose of identifying an error in the application of the law. However, under Article 309/4-b CMK, no heavier sentence than the previous one may be imposed as a result of the retrial; under 309/4-c, the reversal of a judgment on the merits other than a conviction does not produce an outcome against the defendant; and 309/4-d relates solely to the removal or reduction of the sentence. These limitations prevent a final judgment from being made heavier against the defendant.
Differences Between CMK 308/A, CMK 309-310 and CMK 311
The central distinction in the series of three extraordinary remedies
| Remedy | Targeted decision or problem | Competent authority | Decisive distinction |
|---|---|---|---|
| CMK 308/A | Ruling of the BAM criminal chamber that is final by law | Chief public prosecutor's office of the BAM; the chamber and, if necessary, the board of chairs | A fundamental error in the final ruling of the appellate authority |
| CMK 309-310 | Decision or judgment that became final without passing through appeal or cassation | Ministry of Justice; in limited cases the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation; the relevant chamber of the Court of Cassation | A serious violation of norms in the existing file |
| CMK 311-323 | A new fact, new evidence or another ground for reopening listed by statute in a final judgment | As a rule, the court that issued the judgment | A new ground capable of changing the material basis of the final judgment |
Common Mistakes in Practice
- Requesting CMK 309 without examining whether the decision has really become final and how it was served.
- Treating a judgment that has passed through appeal or cassation as a subject of reversal in the interest of the law merely because it is “final”.
- Asking for witnesses and evidence to be re-assessed, without showing a concrete violation of a norm.
- Failing to distinguish the target decision, the supplementary decision or the objection authority's decision whose reversal is sought.
- Failing to discuss the sub-paragraph of CMK 309/4 to be applied and the expected legal outcome.
- Failing to use first the route available locally for a clerical error or an enforcement dispute.
- Missing the Constitutional Court and other time-limited routes while waiting for the Ministry's reply.
- Assuming that filing the petition stops enforcement.
Checklist for Defense Counsel
- Have the full particulars of the target decision and the chain of finality been established?
- Are service and the notice on remedies in due form?
- Has the decision really not passed through appeal or cassation review?
- Has the unlawfulness been shown as a violation of a specific norm?
- Has the allegation been separated from a mere assessment of evidence?
- Has it been explained that no other ordinary, special or enforcement route is available?
- Have the applicable sub-paragraph of CMK 309/4 and the requested outcome been stated?
- Has each allegation been matched with a document or record in the file?
- Have a complete list of annexes and a chronological file summary been prepared?
- Have the enforcement and individual application time limits been tracked separately?
Related article: Reversal in the Interest of the Law: Application to the Ministry of Justice under CMK 309, Review Process and Legal Consequences.
Conclusion
Reversal in the interest of the law is not a general avenue of recourse that opens every final criminal decision to re-examination. The decision must have become final without passing through appeal or cassation review, it must contain a serious violation of a norm that affects the judgment, and it must be incapable of being remedied by another statutory route.
An effective request should show, within one legal chain, the full identity of the target decision, the chronology of service and finality, the violated norm, the file record proving the violation, the effect of the error on the judgment, why the other routes were not applied, and the outcome expected under Article 309/4 CMK. It must never be overlooked at any stage that a request to the Ministry of Justice does not stop enforcement and does not protect the time limits, including that of the Constitutional Court.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a convicted person apply for reversal in the interest of the law directly to the Court of Cassation?
No. Under Article 309 CMK, the principal authority lies with the Ministry of Justice. The convicted person or defense counsel may ask the competent authorities, by a reasoned petition, to set this route in motion. The direct route in Article 310 CMK relates only to the limited cases in which the sentence must be removed or reduced.
Is there a time limit for reversal in the interest of the law?
No special preclusive period is provided for the request of the person concerned. However, because of enforcement, the preservation of evidence and the time limits of other remedies, the application should not be delayed.
Can CMK 309 be requested for a decision that has passed through appeal review?
As a rule, no. For an error in a BAM criminal chamber decision that is final by law, CMK 308/A is considered; for decisions examined by the Court of Cassation, CMK 308 and other routes are considered depending on their conditions.
Can a judgment for which the time limit for cassation was missed be the subject of CMK 309?
If the judgment became final in due form and did not pass through cassation review, it may be possible, provided the other conditions exist. However, if service or the notice on remedies was defective, the judgment may not yet have become final.
Does enforcement of the sentence stop when the application is made?
No. Submitting the request, its being taken up for review by the Ministry or its referral to the Court of Cassation does not stop enforcement by itself.
Is an allegation that the evidence was wrongly assessed sufficient?
A mere assessment of evidence is not sufficient as a rule. The assessment differs where the problem is a concrete violation of a norm, such as the absence of a statutory element of the offence, the use of unlawfully obtained evidence, the absence of mandatory defense counsel or an error in the statutory sentence calculation.
Is the Ministry of Justice obliged to accept the request?
No. The petition of the person concerned is a request that sets the Ministry's discretion in motion. The Ministry is under no obligation to notify every request to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation.
Can the local court resist after the Court of Cassation's reversal decision?
No. Under Article 309/5 CMK, a decision of reversal in the interest of the law cannot be resisted.
If new evidence has emerged, does CMK 309 apply?
If a new fact or new evidence is capable of changing the outcome of the final judgment, reopening of the proceedings should be considered under Article 311 CMK. CMK 309 is directed at a legal error in the existing file.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), in particular Articles 308, 308/A, 309, 310 and 311-323; current consolidated text, last legal check: 11 November 2026. mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
- Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of Criminal Affairs (Ceza İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü), Circular No. 16/1 of 31.12.2019, “Procedures and Principles to Be Observed in Requests for Reversal in the Interest of the Law”. cigm.adalet.gov.tr
- Court of Cassation General Assembly of the Criminal Chambers (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu), 24.01.2024, E. 2022/384, K. 2024/41.
- Court of Cassation 1st Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi), 13.05.2024, E. 2024/3253, K. 2024/3407.
- Court of Cassation 7th Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 7. Ceza Dairesi), 13.05.2024, E. 2022/11297, K. 2024/5143; E. 2022/3582, K. 2024/5135.
- Court of Cassation 11th Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesi), 04.11.2024, E. 2024/5407, K. 2024/12665.
- Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 12. Ceza Dairesi), 02.10.2024, E. 2024/2953, K. 2024/4911.
- Court of Cassation 8th Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 8. Ceza Dairesi), 16.04.2025, E. 2024/23737, K. 2025/2984.
- Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 12. Ceza Dairesi), 08.12.2025, E. 2025/2332, K. 2025/8670.
- Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 4. Ceza Dairesi), 22.04.2026, E. 2026/2451, K. 2026/7506.
- Gunes & Gunes Law Firm, “CMK 308/A Objection: Conditions and Process for Final Appeal Criminal Rulings”.
- Gunes & Gunes Law Firm, “Reopening of Criminal Proceedings: New Evidence, New Facts and Stay of Enforcement”.