Conditional release is the legal institution of enforcement law under which a convict who has served the part of the sentence prescribed by law, in good conduct, leaves the penal institution by a decision of the enforcement judge and becomes subject to a supervision period. In common usage it is known as “şartlı tahliye”. Calculating a fixed fraction of the sentence is not enough on its own: the nature and date of the offense, the convict’s age, recidivism, credit for time served, multiple judgments and the assessment of good conduct are examined together.[1]
The purpose of this review is to explain the conditions for conditional release under current statutory provisions and to show the relationship between the ratio, the date and the decision. The individual release date cannot be reliably determined without reviewing the final judgment and the current enforcement file. The ratios below show the legal framework for that file review; they do not constitute an automatic release calculation.
Does conditional release mean the end of the sentence?
The enforcement of the sentence continues during the supervision period
Conditional release does not annul the conviction. The convict enters a supervision period subject to statutory conditions. If this period is spent in compliance with the obligations and in good conduct, the sentence is considered enforced. By contrast, a new offense or a breach of the obligations specified by law may lead to revocation of the conditional release.[1]
The length of the supervision period is not always the same as the number of days actually spent in the institution. The sixth paragraph of the current Article 107 takes as its basis the period that must be spent in the institution under the relevant paragraphs; in fixed-term sentences, the date on which the convict becomes entitled to release cannot be exceeded. For old offenses and judgments, when the more favorable law is assessed, the supervision period under the previous regulation must also be considered separately.
Difference from open prison and supervised release
Transfer to an open penal institution means that the place of enforcement changes. Supervised release under Article 105/A of Law No. 5275 allows the sentence to be served outside the institution, once its conditions are met, until the conditional release date. Unlike these two, conditional release is a decision based on Article 107.[1]
Accordingly, “I was moved to an open prison”, “I was placed on supervised release” and “I was conditionally released” do not express the same legal outcome. The basis of the decision in hand must be checked before an application is drafted. In particular, return to an open institution under Article 105/A and revocation of conditional release under Article 107 cannot be used interchangeably.
Basic conditions for conditional release
Completion of the statutory period
The first step in calculating the period is to determine which offense and which paragraph the final judgment is based on. The popular name of the offense is not sufficient. Different paragraphs within the same group of offenses may carry different enforcement ratios. In addition, recidivism and special statutory provisions may change the general ratio.[1][2][3]
Where there are several sentences, each judgment must first be examined on its own terms. Once the offense dates, ratios, recidivism records and credit periods have been determined, the aggregation and upper-limit provisions are applied. Multiplying the total sentence by a single ratio can produce incorrect results for judgments subject to different regimes.
Reasoned determination of good conduct
Article 89 of Law No. 5275 provides that, in addition to compliance with institutional rules, the assessment must consider education and rehabilitation activities, relations with others, the performance of responsibilities and the risk of reoffending. The absence of a disciplinary penalty is important, but on its own it does not replace the full good-conduct assessment.[1]
Where a negative assessment has been made, an objection that merely states “I am of good conduct” does not constitute an adequate file submission. It must show which institutional record answers each negative finding of the board. Where the opportunity to take part in education or work was not provided, it should be discussed how non-participation is attributed to the person, and whether any discrepancy between the reports is explained in the decision.
The enforcement judge’s decision
The reasoned report prepared by the institution’s administration is submitted to the competent enforcement judgeship. A positive report is not itself the release. The judge examines the statutory conditions and the report; if the judge does not find the report appropriate, the reasons are stated in the decision. An objection to the decision is possible.[1][4]
A claim that the time has run out without the proceedings being completed must also be substantiated. The current sentence calculation sheet, the dates on which the report was prepared and sent, and the record of its arrival at the judgeship show at what stage the delay lies.
Which rules determine enforcement ratios?
General and special ratios for fixed-term imprisonment
Under the current general rule, half of a fixed-term sentence is served in the institution. However, the offenses listed in Article 107, the special enforcement regimes in Article 108 and the Anti-Terror Law do not lead to the same result.[1][3]
| Regime | Base ratio or period | Points to check |
|---|---|---|
| General fixed-term imprisonment | 1/2 | Special offense provisions, recidivism and transitional provisions are examined separately. |
| Offenses listed in Article 107/2 | 2/3 | The article and paragraph of the offense are decisive; not all offenses fall into this group. |
| Organization offenses under Article 107/4 | 2/3 in fixed-term imprisonment | The higher special ratio is retained; the provision on children is separate. |
| First recidivism | 2/3 as a rule | The higher special ratio and the increase limit in Article 108/2 are checked. |
| Second recidivism | 3/4 in fixed-term imprisonment | The amendment of June 4, 2025 and the recidivism finding in the judgment are examined. |
| Adult offenses under Article 108/9 | 3/4 in fixed-term imprisonment | The sexual offenses listed in the article and the special regime for TCK 188 apply. |
| General life imprisonment and aggravated life imprisonment | 24 years / 30 years | Organization, recidivism, multiple judgment and non-eligibility provisions are reserved. |
The two-thirds ratio in Article 107/2 covers, among others, the categories of fixed-term sentences for intentional killing listed in the article, aggravated injury resulting in a specific consequence, torture and ill-treatment, certain sexual offenses, offenses against private life and the privacy of private life, and offenses against state secrets and espionage. The distinction between article and paragraph is especially important for sexual offenses: for adults, TCK 102/2, 103 and 104/2–3 are assessed within the special regime of Article 108/9.[1]
Article 17 of the Anti-Terror Law, Law No. 3713, must also be read where terrorism offenses are concerned. Treating the organization offense and the terrorism offense as a single category and applying two-thirds to every file is incorrect. Special provisions for children are likewise assessed separately from the table for adults.[1][3]
Multiple sentences and upper limits
Under the general regime, for multiple fixed-term sentences the upper limit of the period to be spent in the institution for conditional release is 28 years. Different upper limits apply under the organization regime and under the provision specific to repeat offenders. The combination of life imprisonment and aggravated life imprisonment with each other, or with fixed-term imprisonment, is also subject to separate rules.[1]
These limits do not mean that the conviction is erased or that the total sentence is reduced. They relate only to the period required in the institution for conditional release. Moreover, where there is a statutory ground of non-eligibility, no entitlement can be built on the general upper-limit table. In particular, a separate prohibition applies to aggravated life sentences imposed for offenses committed within the scope of certain organization activities regulated in Article 107/16.
Children and past-dated offenses: a special calculation
The 2026 change to the day count before the age of fifteen
Following the amendment made by Law No. 7593, which entered into force on August 18, 2026, exceptions for certain offenses were added to the rule in Article 107/5 under which one day spent in the institution before the age of fifteen counts as two days. Under the current text, offenses under TCK 81, 82, 83, 102, 103, 188 and 220 are excluded from this general advantage.[1]
This day count does not answer the same question as being a child at the time of the offense. The provision concerns the age at which the days were spent in the institution. The age at the time of the offense is important for the application of other special regimes. For older offenses, the application of earlier and later provisions over time must be examined under Article 7 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK); the current text cannot automatically be applied to past files to the detriment of the convict.[2]
Transitional provisions should not be confused with the general rule
Provisional Article 6(4) of Law No. 5275 contains a separate childhood day count for offenses committed up to March 30, 2020: until the age of fifteen, one day counts as three days; for the subsequent period until the age of eighteen, one day counts as two days. This special provision must be assessed separately from the general rule in Article 107/5.[1]
Opportunities for earlier release from the institution under provisional Articles 6 and 10, such as supervised release or early transfer to an open institution, are not identical to a change in the conditional release ratio. A provision may allow a person to leave the institution earlier; yet the conditional release date and the supervision period may remain subject to different rules.
How do real decisions explain the practice?
The Emre Kendir decision and the continuation of the special enforcement regime
In the decision of the First Section of the Constitutional Court (AYM) in Emre Kendir, App. No. 2022/17941, December 18, 2024, the applicant argued that a more favorable ratio should apply after the 2020 amendment. The Court found that the three-quarters ratio for the relevant terrorism conviction had not changed, and held the claim of unlawfulness manifestly unfounded. The equality complaint was also found inadmissible.[5]
The decision does not mean that all organization offenses are subject to the same ratio. It concerns the continued application of the special terrorism regime in the concrete file. Rather than merely showing that the general ratio has changed, an application must explain why the special provision would not apply, or which new provision covers the concrete conviction.
The Court of Cassation decision and the combined assessment of old and new rules
In its decision E. 2024/6836, K. 2025/6957, October 10, 2025, the First Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi) discussed the supervision period of a convict who had been conditionally released under the regime following the 2020 amendment. The Chamber held that the new provision on the time to be spent in the institution and the shorter supervision period under the old regulation cannot be combined by choosing whichever is more favorable in each; it reversed the decision rejecting the request for revocation.[6]
The practical result is that the more favorable law cannot be determined by a single ratio. The period in the institution, the supervision period and the consequences of revocation must be assessed together. The statements in the request for reversal in the interest of the law at the beginning of the decision are not the same as the Chamber’s own reasoning; the legal result must be drawn from the reasoning and the operative part of the Chamber’s decision.
How is the application and objection file prepared?
Which documents should be submitted together?
The application should be built around concrete records showing that the conditions for conditional release are met. The file should connect the following documents:
- Final judgment, offense dates and applied statutory provisions: they show the enforcement regime.
- Current sentence calculation sheet, credit for time served and any aggregation order: they clarify the calculation of the period.
- Administration and observation board decision and the reports on which it rests: they make the good-conduct assessment reviewable.
- Application, referral and service records: they show the start of the period with the competent authority.
- A clear statement of the outcome sought: it distinguishes conditional release, correction of the calculation and annulment of an unlawful rejection.
In a hypothetical example, a single eight-year sentence subject to the general regime corresponds to four years by ratio alone. However, this figure alone does not show that the person will remain in the institution for four more years. The effect of elements such as earlier detention, other judgments, enforcement outside the institution and good conduct is determined separately. The function of the ratio is to explain the rule; it does not give a personal release date.
Complaint and objection deadlines
A complaint against an administrative act, or against a prosecutor’s decision concerning enforcement, is filed with the enforcement judgeship within 15 days of learning of it and in any event within 30 days of the date of the act. An objection to the enforcement judge’s decision is filed with the competent High Criminal Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi) within two weeks of notification.[4] These two stages do not combine into a single period that can be used freely.
Filing an application does not in itself stay enforcement. Where the statutory conditions exist, a request for temporary suspension or deferral must be separately reasoned. Waiting for a new board assessment, or re-submitting the same petition, does not revive an objection period that has already run.
Where a constitutional complaint arises after the ordinary remedies have been exhausted, individual application to the Constitutional Court in criminal cases and the calculation of the 30-day period for an individual application must also be examined separately. Individual application is not a general remedy that recalculates every enforcement calculation.
For related details, see our articles on revocation of conditional release and deferral of enforcement.
Conclusion
Conditional release requires as much accurate file review as it does an accurate ratio. The statutory equivalent of the offense, dated transitional provisions, age, recidivism, credit for time served and good conduct cannot be separated from one another. An effective application presents, in a clear connection, the calculated period, the supporting document, the decision being challenged and the legal result sought. Real decisions support this approach, but the limits of each decision, which are tied to its own facts and to the period it applies to, must be preserved.
For legal support in criminal proceedings and enforcement, you may review our criminal law services.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is conditional release the same as şartlı tahliye?
Yes. Şartlı tahliye is the everyday term for conditional release. The legal basis is essentially Article 107 of Law No. 5275.
Does the one-half ratio apply to every prison sentence?
No. The general ratio is one half, but specific offenses, recidivism and special statutory provisions may prescribe different ratios or exclude eligibility.
Is there an automatic release when the period expires?
No. The statutory period is necessary together with good conduct and the enforcement judge’s decision. A date in the institution’s report or in the sentence calculation sheet does not replace a release decision.
Is the absence of a disciplinary penalty sufficient for good conduct?
Not on its own. The other criteria in Article 89 and the institutional records are also assessed, and the decision must rest on concrete reasons.
Is supervised release the same as conditional release?
Supervised release under Article 105/A is a separate stage of enforcement. Completion of that stage and a conditional release decision have different legal consequences.
Can a second-time repeat offender be conditionally released?
Under the current Article 108/3, a fixed-term sentence allows release at the three-quarters ratio. The offense, good conduct and the other conditions are examined separately; automatic release is not available.
Does every day a child spends in the institution count as two days?
Not in every case. The age period, the date of the offense, the current exceptions in Article 107/5 and special provisions such as provisional Article 6(4) must be assessed together.
How many days are there to object to a rejection decision?
Against the enforcement judge’s decision, the period is two weeks from notification. The 15- and 30-day complaint limits for the earlier administrative act relate to a different stage.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Criminal and Security Measures (Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun), in particular Art. 89, 99–101, 105/A, 107–108, provisional Art. 6, 10 and 11. Consolidated text checked: October 13, 2026.
- Law No. 5237 on the Turkish Penal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu), Art. 7, 58 and 63. Checked: October 13, 2026.
- Law No. 3713 on the Fight against Terrorism (Terörle Mücadele Kanunu), Art. 17. Checked: October 13, 2026.
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), Art. 4–6. Checked: October 13, 2026.
- Constitutional Court, Emre Kendir, App. No. 2022/17941, December 18, 2024, in particular §§14–24 and the operative part.
- First Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi), E. 2024/6836, K. 2025/6957, October 10, 2025, II. Reasoning and III. Decision.