Appeal to the Court of Cassation in a Criminal Case: How Is an Effective Defense Prepared for Review by the Court of Cassation?

An appeal to the Court of Cassation (temyiz) in a criminal case is the ordinary legal remedy through which the Court of Cassation reviews the unlawfulness in a judgment that is open to cassation. An effective application requires determining whether the decision is open to cassation, calculating the time limit correctly and making the grounds for quashing concrete through the documents in the file. For decisions given on or after 1 June 2024, the general time limit for cassation is two weeks from service of the reasoned judgment. However, the transitional regime for older decisions, the finality of certain provisions and the special cassation remedies must be examined separately. [1, Art. 286–298] [2, Art. 19–22]

The heavy consequences of a conviction may increase the emotional weight of the defense. The real work before the Court of Cassation, however, is to turn that weight into reviewable legal reasons. Which rule has been wrongly applied? Which important defense has been left unanswered? Which document in the file shows this? For which decision does this error require a different result? A well-prepared cassation petition leaves the reader no need to search for the answers to these questions.

What does the Court of Cassation review?

How does the difference between appeal and cassation change the defense?

An appeal to the regional court of appeal (BAM) may include review of the material facts together with review of lawfulness; where necessary, a hearing may be held and a new judgment entered. The centre of cassation, by contrast, is the non-application or incorrect application of a rule of law. For this reason, repeating the first-instance defense and the appeal petition without change is not the same as explaining why the BAM's decision is unlawful. The cassation text must address the error that continues after the appeal review or that was created by the BAM. [1, Art. 280–282, 288]

For example, an objection to the mental element of the offense cannot be made merely by stating that the defendant did not act in bad faith. It must be shown from which fact the judgment concluded that there was intent, how that inference is connected with the element of the offense, and where the legal assessment is wrong. In a procedural objection, saying that the right of defense was violated is not sufficient explanation; it must be identified at which session, in relation to which request, and which step restricted the defense. [1, Art. 294, 301]

Does the Court of Cassation never examine the evidence?

Re-hearing witnesses to conduct a factual trial, as the first-instance court does, is different from reviewing the lawfulness of the reasoning on the evidence. Failure to discuss conflicting evidence, a conviction inference unsupported by reasons, or leaving a decisive matter that required investigation unresolved may be the subject of legal review. It is therefore an incomplete approach both to exclude every objection to the evidence from cassation and to ask the Court of Cassation to re-evaluate the whole event. [1, Art. 230, 288, 301] [5]

Sami Selçuk stresses that cassation review should not replace the factual court, while treating the consistency and reviewability of the reasoning as a separate question. The Criminal General Assembly's decision of 12 January 2022 also shows that the factual and evidential context cannot be entirely excluded when examining a claim of substantive unlawfulness. The task of the defense is to tie the evidential discussion to a provable legal error. [11, pp. 335–337] [5]

Which criminal judgments can be appealed to cassation?

Why is the five-year threshold not sufficient on its own?

CMK Article 286(1) takes as its basis the judgments of the BAM criminal chambers other than quashing decisions; paragraph 2 introduces significant exceptions. As a rule, decisions rejecting on the merits an appeal against a sentence of five years' imprisonment or less imposed by the court of first instance, and certain BAM decisions that do not increase that sentence, are not open to cassation. There are separate finality provisions for judicial fines, certain acquittals, confiscation and other types of decision. Each paragraph must be read on its own terms. [1, Art. 286(1)–(2)]

For this reason, the examination does not begin only with the amount of the sentence. First the type of judgment, the outcome of the first-instance decision, what the BAM did and the offense provision applied are determined. For example, a decision that leaves a two-year sentence unchanged and a conviction entered for the first time by the BAM may not be subject to the same assessment of the remedy. The notice of legal remedies at the end of the judgment is important; it does not by itself open a remedy the law does not open. If the notice is wrong, its effect on the right to apply must be separately raised. [1, Art. 34, 40, 286]

CMK Article 286(3) and convictions entered for the first time by the BAM

CMK Article 286(3) keeps the cassation route open for certain offenses even where the decision falls within the finality limits of paragraph 2. The provision lists Articles 125(3), 213–217, 217/A, 299–301, 314 and 318 of the Turkish Penal Code, the specified provisions of the Anti-Terror Law and certain offenses of the Law on Meetings and Demonstration Marches. This list may not be extended to suggest that all insult, terror or assembly files are subject to the same regime; an exact match of article and paragraph must be made. [1, Art. 286(3)]

The exception in CMK Article 286(2)(d) concerning convictions entered for the first time by the BAM is also important. In the Constitutional Court's decision in Ömer Oral, the effect on the applicant's ability to have his conviction reviewed by a higher court of the procedure followed by the BAM after a first-instance acquittal was considered. The Constitutional Court found a violation of the right of access to a court in the concrete proceedings and ordered a retrial; it did not enter a direct acquittal. The decision shows that, in reviewing a remedy, the real procedural outcome must be assessed as well as the act. [8, §§48–62]

The regime discussed in that decision, and the text of CMK Article 280 today, are not identical. Law No. 7571 changed the former exception concerning the BAM's power to quash for certain grounds of absolute unlawfulness. It therefore cannot be concluded from the Ömer Oral decision that every BAM quashing or every subsequent conviction will produce the same result. The current law must be read together with the facts of the decision and its concrete effect on the right of application. [16, Art. 25] [8]

How is the criminal cassation time limit calculated and where is the application made?

The two-week time limit and the 1 June 2024 distinction

Under the new regime the time limit for an application runs for two weeks from service of the reasoned judgment. In the transition, what is decisive is not only the date of service but the date of the decision. For decisions given before 1 June 2024, the former rules continue to apply under the transitional provision. For older decisions, the fifteen-day period, the starting point of pronouncement (tefhim) or service and the repealed rules on completing reasons are assessed within the regime to which the file is subject. [1, Art. 291; provisional Art. 6] [2, Art. 19–22]

For decisions given on or after 1 June 2024, assuming first that a reasonless petition stating a protective position can be filed and that a further seven-day period for reasons then exists, creates a serious risk. CMK Article 295 has been repealed. The grounds of cassation must be contained in the text submitted within the time limit for the application. That the petition is titled as a protective petition does not remedy the absence of the required legal content. [1, Art. 294, 298] [2, Art. 20–22]

Electronic service, public holidays and recording the application

Electronic service is deemed made at the end of the fifth day following the date on which it reaches the UETS (National Electronic Notification System) address. The failure of an SMS or e-mail notification to arrive does not by itself invalidate service. For this reason the calculation of the time limit should not be based only on the notification message or on the moment the document first appeared on screen; the UETS evidential records must be examined. [4, Art. 9–10]

Under CMK Article 39, a period set in weeks ends at the close of business on the day in the last week corresponding by name to the day of service. If the last day falls on a public holiday, the following working day is taken; in electronic procedures the day-end rule in CMK Article 38/A is observed. The judicial recess does not automatically extend the time limit for all criminal files; the scope and exceptions in CMK Article 331 must be separately checked. [1, Art. 38/A, 39, 331]

The cassation application is made by filing a petition with the court that gave the judgment, or by making a statement to be recorded in the minutes before the court clerk. In the ordinary process after the BAM, the petition is submitted to the BAM criminal chamber that gave the decision, for transmission to the relevant Court of Cassation criminal chamber. For a detained defendant, the safeguard of applying through the director of the institution or the court clerk under CMK Article 263 is preserved. A petition being prepared is not sufficient on its own; proof of delivery or of electronic transmission of the signed application must be kept. [1, Art. 263, 291]

The time limits in the table show the current general regime. For past decisions, the distinctions in provisional CMK Article 6 apply; and for restoration of rights, the transitional rule on the date the obstacle ceased applies separately. A request for restoration of rights, or a request to have a rejection decision under CMK Article 296 reviewed by the Court of Cassation, does not automatically suspend enforcement. [1, Art. 40–42, 296–297; provisional Art. 6] [2, Art. 22]

The Şahin Bilgi decision: the effect of a defective notice of legal remedies

In the individual application of Şahin Bilgi, the Constitutional Court examined a cassation application against a BAM decision of 2021. The time limit for reasons under the regime then in force was not stated in the notice of legal remedies; the application was rejected on the basis that the reasoned petition had been filed late. The Constitutional Court assessed the concrete defect in the notice together with the rejection result and found a violation of the right of access to a court. [6, §§17–26]

Although the decision is dated 2025, the dispute concerns the former time-limit system. It does not establish that today every cassation application has an additional seven-day period. Its practical contribution is that a person facing a time-limit problem should submit the notification record and the notice of legal remedies in full, and should concretize the link between excusability, incomplete information and loss of the right. The finding of violation also does not mean an acquittal on the substance of the charge. [6, §§28–30]

For related details, see our articles on Reversal in the Interest of the Law (CMK 309), Retrial in a Criminal Case (New Evidence) and Deferment of the Pronouncement of Judgment (HAGB).

How is a cassation petition prepared? The relation between legal error, document and result

First, a cassation map of the file is drawn up

The status of the person who may apply and the authority to represent are the first checks. For the defendant, defense counsel, the Chief Public Prosecutor, the intervening party and other persons to whom the law grants a right of application, CMK Articles 260–266 are assessed. The application by defense counsel and the withdrawal of an application should not be treated as having the same authority requirements. The choice of legal remedy is considered together with the client's express will and the rules on representation. [1, Art. 260–266]

Next, the first-instance reasoned judgment, the appeal petitions, the BAM decision, important hearing records and decisive evidence are placed side by side. For each objection, what the first-instance court said, which objection was raised on appeal and how the BAM answered it are identified. Where some grounds have already been remedied, the remaining legal problem is stated rather than continuing to assert the same claim unchanged. A newly created BAM error is shown under its own heading.

This work does not mean re-attaching every document to the petition. Clearly showing the date, name, page and relevant part of a document already in UYAP makes access easier. Personal data relating to a real file should not be shared in public examples, and irrelevant personal details should not be multiplied in the application. The petition should explain which legal objection a document added to the file later supports; the Court of Cassation should not be expected to conduct a new first-instance trial.

Each ground for quashing must carry a single reviewable proposition

A strong ground consists of four parts: the specific finding in the judgment, the basis in the file, the rule that should have been applied and the procedural result sought. The headings should also show this. Rather than writing an abstract violation of the right to a fair trial, stating in the heading why, for example, a decisive expert objection was not discussed makes review easier. This method provides reviewability as well as rhetorical effect.

Hypothetical example of wording: Suppose that an objection to the time stamp of the technical report relied on for the conviction was raised at a hearing on a stated date, that the judgment did not assess this objection, and that the BAM did not explain the problem. The defense, rather than merely asserting that the report is wrong, shows how the objection could change the time of the offense and how leaving it unanswered is linked to the right to a reasoned judgment. This example is not a real file or a won case; no objection may be written as if it existed in the file when it does not. [1, Art. 230, 288–289]

Abdullah Teltik's assessment of cassation strategies also draws attention to considering together the admissibility of the appeal, concrete reasons and what follows quashing. The practical content of this approach is to put the decisive legal error first, rather than arranging every objection with the same weight. A heading that looks strong is not enough, however; the decision or document on which it rests must be verified from its original text. [13, section VIII]

What does the Criminal General Assembly decision no. 2022/6 change?

In its decision E. 2021/133, K. 2022/6, the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu) accepted that an application stating that the defendant did not commit the act and should be acquitted contained a claim of substantive unlawfulness. In the file, after the first-instance court had ordered a dismissal, the BAM had imposed a judicial fine; the criminal chamber rejected the application on the ground that there were no grounds for cassation. The General Assembly set aside that rejection and sent the file to the relevant chamber for a substantive review. The decision given was not an acquittal. [5]

The decision is valuable in ensuring that an intelligible legal objection is not nullified merely on grounds of form. It does not, however, make a vague or empty petition safe. Fatih Birtek, discussing the sufficiency of general statements of unlawfulness, points out the importance of concretization, especially in applications made with professional assistance. The interpretation that protects the right to seek justice and the duty to prepare a careful petition should be considered together. [12, PDF pp. 36–37]

Article 301 of the CMK regulates the link between the grounds raised and the review of the procedural events. Article 302(3) provides that when a ground for quashing is found, other unlawfulness should also be shown in the judgment; review under CMK Article 289 is reserved. These provisions should not be used as a substitute for an admissible cassation application, as if they were an unlimited guarantee of ex officio review. The defense must write down in time all the important grounds it has identified. [1, Art. 298, 301–302] [5]

Which unlawfulness may be a ground for quashing?

Absence of reasons and not agreeing with the defense are different

A court's failure to accept the defense's outcome is not, by itself, an absence of reasons. The real question is whether the basic objection capable of affecting the judgment has been subjected to an intelligible assessment. The reasoning requirements of CMK Article 230 and Article 289(1)(g) are considered together. The recounting of many pages of facts does not show that the decisive legal question has been answered; nor is a short reasoning unlawful merely because it is short. [1, Art. 230, 289(1)(g)]

In the Constitutional Court's decision in Sencer Başat and Others, it was explained that courts need not respond to every claim in detail, but must assess the basic claims capable of changing the outcome. In the concrete application, deficiencies in the treatment of important defenses and technical objections were examined in terms of the right to a fair trial. The criterion usable for cassation is not merely to name the unanswered defense, but to show its decisive effect on the judgment. [9, §§30–39, 60–72]

Restriction of the right of defense and unlawful evidence

CMK Article 289(1)(h) provides for restriction of the right of defense, by court decision, on matters important to the judgment. The mere fact that a request was rejected is not in itself sufficient explanation. It must be shown what the request would have clarified, why it was important, what the reason for rejection was and which opportunity of defense the defendant was deprived of. The counter-view must also be taken into account: if the request concerned a matter that was ineffective for the dispute or was clarified by other evidence, the same result may not arise. [1, Art. 206, 289(1)(h)]

A judgment based on evidence obtained by unlawful methods falls within CMK Article 289(1)(i). The defense must separately set out the unlawfulness in the acquisition of the evidence, its basis, and where the judgment relies on that evidence. That a document is in the file and that a conviction rests on that document are not the same thing. The lawfulness of the evidence, the reliability of its content and its probative force in proving the charge must be assessed without being confused with one another. [1, Art. 206/2-a, 217/2, 230/1-b, 289(1)(i)]

CMK Article 289 also regulates other absolute grounds of unlawfulness, such as the composition of the court, a judge who is prohibited or must be recused, jurisdiction and competence, mandatory participation and publicity. Not every procedural deficiency falls within this group. The claim must meet the conditions of the relevant subparagraph. The fact that a violation of rules made for the defendant's benefit cannot be the ground for quashing against the defendant at the request of the public prosecutor is also separately important under CMK Article 290. [1, Art. 289–290]

Errors in legal characterization, sentence calculation and individualization

Misinterpretation of the elements of the offense, the requirement that the accepted facts be given a different legal characterization, or an error in calculating the sentence are matters for cassation. By contrast, listing the defendant's personal circumstances does not replace explaining the conditions of a reduction or other provision whose application is sought. It must be shown which norm must be applied because of which condition, and why the court's reasoning is insufficient. [1, Art. 230, 288, 303]

The claim of outcome must also be framed consistently with the objection. A defense requiring further investigation and a defense asking for a judgment to be entered directly on the existing findings rest on different foundations. Primary and secondary requests may be clearly separated; however, the contradictory accounts of the same event should not be placed side by side without reason. Acquittal, dismissal, quashing and correction of the sentence are not outcomes that can replace one another. [1, Art. 223, 302–303]

How is a defense made against the Court of Cassation's written opinion?

The written opinion is not a decision; the right of reply is important

The written opinion of the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation (tebliğname) is its view on how the file should be decided. It is not a judgment binding the criminal chamber. Views are submitted to the persons to whom it must be served under CMK Article 297(3); under the current general regime, a written reply may be submitted within two weeks of service. A request by the opinion for affirmance does not mean that the defense is now ineffective; nor does a request for quashing guarantee the outcome. [1, Art. 297]

In Gürhan Nerse, the Constitutional Court examined the failure to notify the applicant of the opinion requesting affirmance under the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings, and found a violation. The decisive point is the opportunity to learn of and reply to the opinion, which may affect the outcome. The decision resulted in a retrial; it is not an acquittal judgment on the substance of the charge. The periods in the decision should not be confused with the current two-week regime. [7, §§33–40, 59–63]

In what order should the reply petition be structured?

The reply should analyse the reasoning of the opinion rather than repeat its conclusion. First, it briefly explains which view is not accepted and why. It then compares a specific assessment in the opinion with the basis in the file and the rule that must be applied. In the final section, it states clearly which of the earlier grounds of cassation are maintained and which result is sought.

If the opinion has not discussed an important objection at all, that silence should be shown by reference to the file. If it proposed a wrong offense characterization or a wrong sentence calculation, the relevant norm and the steps of the calculation must be explained. The right of reply should not be seen as a mechanism that renews a missed time limit for cassation. The reasoned application made at the outset and the reply to the later opinion serve different functions. [1, Art. 294, 297–301]

How is an effective oral defense structured at a Court of Cassation hearing?

The conditions and limits of a cassation hearing

Under CMK Article 299, for judgments imposing ten years' imprisonment or more, the Court of Cassation may conduct a review with a hearing, either on the request in the cassation application of the defendant or the intervening party or of its own motion. The ten-year threshold and the request do not mean that a hearing will certainly be held. The limitation on a detained defendant's wish to attend the hearing is also separately regulated in that article; the opportunity of defense through counsel must not be confused with it. [1, Art. 299]

In legal doctrine, the need for a hearing is debated because cassation is a review of law. Ağkuş and Bandır take a critical approach to hearings in cassation from the perspective of that function. In practice, however, an opened hearing may help the clarification of a complex legal question through short and reciprocal explanations. That assessment does not create an expectation of new witness examination or a full re-trial of the evidence. [10, pp. 128–129]

Persuasiveness: a clear problem, the right document and a measured result

At the beginning of the oral defense it is helpful to state the legal problem that determines the review, rather than narrating the whole history of the file. Then two or three strong bases that make this problem visible are selected. The date, record and page information must be clear. The listener should not be expected to find the basic error among a long pile of documents.

Hypothetical short defense structure: At the outset, it is said that the conviction was framed without a clear statement of a decisive technical objection. The place of the objection in the record and the gap in the judgment are then shown. It is next explained that this is not merely a request for a different assessment of evidence, but concerns the reviewability of the reasoned judgment. The closing then separates the quashing sought and, where necessary, the release request. Such a structure may be used only if it is supported by documents from the real file.

Answering the court's question directly first, and then giving the necessary explanation, makes the defense easier to understand. Rather than ignoring an adverse document, it is more consistent to explain its scope and why it does not change the legal result sought. The strength of the defense comes not from volume of voice or personal accusation, but from the clarity of the link between the claim and its basis. A memorable opening proposition is useful, but no form of expression guarantees a result.

CMK Article 300 on the order of speech and the guarantee of the final word must be observed; any communication or interpreter need that affects the effective use of legal assistance must be addressed in advance. For a person who does not sufficiently understand Turkish to follow the proceedings, the safeguards of CMK Article 202 are taken into account. The rules on participation specific to a cassation hearing apply separately. [1, Art. 202, 299–300]

What decisions can the Court of Cassation make and what happens after quashing?

The decision types in the table do not all produce the same result. CMK Article 303 provides for cases requiring acquittal or dismissal without further investigation, and for certain possibilities of correction; it cannot be said that the Court of Cassation may enter a new merits judgment in every file in whatever way it wishes. Whether the quashed file is sent back to the BAM or to the first-instance court is determined according to the nature of the earlier decision and CMK Article 304. [1, Art. 298, 302–304]

Compliance with a quashing, refusal to comply and renewed cassation

After quashing, the defense should match its earlier objections with the action required by the quashing decision. It follows which new element has entered the file and whether the reason for quashing has been complied with. Under CMK Article 307, the parties are asked what they have to say about the quashing. The special provision that gives a direct route to cassation, without regard to the limits of appeal or cassation, against a new decision given by the first-instance court in compliance with a quashing should also be observed. [1, Art. 307(1)–(3)]

Refusal to comply with a Court of Cassation quashing is possible under the conditions of law; there can be no refusal to comply with decisions of the Criminal General Assembly. This regime must not be confused with the prohibition on refusing to comply with BAM decisions. Furthermore, where the quashing is in favour of the defendant and its reason applies to other defendants in the same position, the possibility of benefit under CMK Article 306 is examined. A personal reason for one defendant cannot automatically be carried over to the others. [1, Art. 284, 306, 307(4)]

Can the sentence increase on cassation, and does an application secure release?

Where the judgment has been appealed only by the defendant or by persons named as acting in the defendant's favour, a heavier sentence than the previous one cannot be imposed in the new judgment. If, however, the prosecutor or the intervening party has applied against the defendant, the scope of those applications is examined together. This guarantee must not be extended to suggest that all the legal consequences of the judgment are unchangeable in every case. [1, Art. 307(5)]

A timely cassation application prevents the judgment from becoming final, but does not by itself create a release order. When the file reaches the Court of Cassation, the application for release may be assessed by the relevant authority under CMK Article 104(3). The request concerning detention must set out concrete reasons; even where it is linked to the grounds for cassation, the assessment of the measure of liberty must be made separately. [1, Art. 104(3), 293] For details, see the article on maximum periods of pretrial detention.

Applications for cassation against criminal court decisions are exempt from court fees under Article 13(i) of the Fees Law (Harçlar Kanunu). This does not mean that there will be no expenses or attorney's fees in the process. The imposition of costs of proceedings is governed by CMK Articles 324–327; the scope and cost of a specific lawyer's service are assessed separately under the relevant professional rules and the agreement. [15, Art. 13(i)] [1, Art. 324–327]

After affirmance: objection by the Chief Public Prosecutor and individual application

Why does the July 2026 amendment to CMK Article 308 matter?

The objection of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation is an extraordinary legal remedy. A person filing a petition does not thereby open a direct cassation review in the Criminal General Assembly. The request is that the Chief Public Prosecutor be asked to exercise his statutory power. Law No. 7589 amended CMK Article 308 so that, apart from decisions on jurisdiction and lack of competence, all decisions of the criminal chambers are covered, and set the general objection period at three months from the transmission of the file to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. No time limit is required for objections in favour of the defendant. [3, Art. 17]

The amendment entered into force on 31 July 2026. The transitional provision applies the new rule to files transmitted after entry into force; for those transmitted before, the previous provisions continue to apply. The decision date or the date the person learned of the decision cannot be automatically selected as the starting point. Moreover, the objection of the BAM's chief public prosecutor under CMK Article 308/A is a different institution; the new three-month period in CMK Article 308 cannot be transferred to it as it stands. [3, provisional Art. 1(8), Art. 26] [1, Art. 308/A]

The Constitutional Court application time limit must be monitored separately

An individual application is not a general legal remedy that allows the Court of Cassation's review to be carried out once more; it requires that a claim of violation of a fundamental right be properly raised. In general, the thirty-day period is important once the ordinary remedies are exhausted and the final decision has been learned of. Submitting a request under CMK Article 308 to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office should not be treated as an act that automatically suspends that period or restarts a period that has passed. [14, pp. 16–17]

At this stage, the final decision, the record of learning or service, earlier applications and the stage at which the claim of violation was raised must be considered together. Different situations, such as where an extraordinary application is actually taken up and a new decision process arises, are examined separately. A timetable built merely on waiting for the outcome of an extraordinary remedy request may create a risk for the right to an individual application. [14, pp. 16–17]

Conclusion

An effective cassation defense requires more than explaining why the decision was wrong: an appealable judgment, the correct time limit, a concrete legal error, a reachable file basis and an appropriate requested outcome must be built together. The petition, the reply to the written opinion and, if a hearing is opened, the oral argument should follow the same legal axis. Consequences after quashing should be considered from the outset.

The first step is to review together the BAM decision, the service record and the earlier defenses. The decisive objections are then organized according to their legal consequences. Before the Court of Cassation, the persuasiveness of the defense depends, before the weight of its words, on the clarity of the error shown and the legal basis of the result sought.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many days is the cassation time limit in a criminal case?

For decisions given on or after 1 June 2024 the general time limit is two weeks from service of the reasoned judgment. Older decisions may be subject to the former regime; the period should not be changed to two weeks or fifteen days. Details are explained in the time limit section.

Does a sentence of five years or less go to the Court of Cassation?

No single answer can be given for every file. The type of judgment and the conditions relating to the BAM decision under CMK Article 286(2), together with the offense exceptions in Article 286(3), are assessed together. The distinction concerning a conviction entered for the first time by the BAM is also important. See the section on judgments open to cassation.

Should I submit the cassation petition directly to the Court of Cassation?

In the general procedure the petition is submitted to the court that gave the judgment. In the ordinary process after the BAM, application is made to the BAM criminal chamber that gave the decision, for transmission to the relevant Court of Cassation chamber. There is a special facility for a detained defendant under CMK Article 263. Application procedure.

After a protective petition, can the grounds be submitted later?

Under the new regime it cannot be assumed that there is a further seven-day period for reasons based on the repealed CMK Article 295. The grounds of cassation must be submitted within the time limit for the application. The transitional regime for older decisions is assessed separately. Current time limit and the transitional distinction.

Does the Court of Cassation not identify unlawfulness on its own?

CMK Article 289 contains a special area of review; but this does not make a reasonless or inadmissible application safe. All the important objections, with their concrete facts and legal bases, must be set out in time. Concretization in the petition.

If the written opinion seeks affirmance, does the defense still matter?

Yes. The written opinion is not a decision binding the criminal chamber. Under the current general regime a reply to its reasons may be given within two weeks of service. The reply must be built on the file documents and the rules of law. Reply to the written opinion.

Is requesting a cassation hearing sufficient for a hearing to be held?

No. The ten-year threshold and the request under CMK Article 299 are assessed, and a review with a hearing depends on the decision of the Court of Cassation. Not every cassation file requires a mandatory hearing. Cassation hearing.

If the Court of Cassation quashes, is the defendant acquitted immediately?

Quashing is not an automatic acquittal. Depending on the reasons for quashing, re-proceedings and a new trial may be required. The limited possibilities for a direct judgment under CMK Article 303 are different. Outcomes of the decisions.

If only the defendant applies for cassation, can the sentence be increased?

If the conditions of CMK Article 307(5) are met, a heavier sentence than the earlier one cannot be imposed in the new judgment. However, whether the prosecutor or the intervening party has applied against the defendant, and the scope of that application, must be checked. Increase of sentence and the effect of the application.

Does a cassation application secure release?

Not automatically. A timely application prevents finality; detention and release are assessed separately. While the file is with the Court of Cassation, a request may be made under CMK Article 104(3). Distinction on release.

Is a criminal cassation application subject to a fee?

Applications for legal remedies against criminal court decisions are exempt from fees under Article 13(i) of the Fees Law. Costs of proceedings and specific attorney's fees are separate matters. Costs and outcomes.

Does a request for objection to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office suspend the Constitutional Court time limit?

A request under CMK Article 308 does not by itself suspend or restart the general thirty-day period for an individual application. The exhaustion of ordinary remedies and learning of the final decision must be monitored separately. Routes after affirmance.

Sources and legal bases

1. Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), in particular Arts. 38/A–42, 104, 202, 206, 217, 230, 260–266, 280–308/A, 324–327, 331 and provisional Art. 6. Ministry of Justice text (Adalet Bakanlığı metni). Amendments and transitional provisions are assessed together with Laws No. 7499, 7571 and 7589 listed below.

2. Law No. 7499 amending the Code of Criminal Procedure and certain other laws, adopted 2 March 2024, in particular Arts. 19–22. Text adopted by the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM).

3. Law No. 7589 on Amendments to Certain Laws for the Effective and Efficient Functioning of Justice, adopted 16 July 2026; Official Gazette: 31 July 2026, No. 33326; Art. 17, provisional Art. 1(8) and Art. 26. Text adopted by the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM).

4. Regulation on Electronic Notification (Elektronik Tebligat Yönetmeliği), Arts. 9–10. Regulation text published by a public institution.

5. Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu), 12 January 2022, E. 2021/133, K. 2022/6. Full text of the decision.

6. Constitutional Court, Şahin Bilgi, B. No: 2022/63399, 15 October 2025, in particular §§17–30. Decisions Information Bank.

7. Constitutional Court, Gürhan Nerse, B. No: 2013/5957, 30 December 2014, in particular §§33–40, 49–63. Decisions Information Bank.

8. General Assembly of the Constitutional Court, Ömer Oral, B. No: 2023/33667, 9 January 2025, in particular §§48–62. Decisions Information Bank.

9. General Assembly of the Constitutional Court, Sencer Başat and Others, B. No: 2013/7800, 18 June 2014, in particular §§30–39, 60–72. Decisions Information Bank.

10. Kazım Furkan Ağkuş and Oğuz Bandır, "Cassation Review in Criminal Procedure and the Debates It Raises" ("Ceza Muhakemesinde Temyiz Kanun Yolu ve Getirdiği Tartışmalar"), TBB Journal, 2022, issue 162, pp. 105–154; in particular pp. 128–129, 133–135. Article.

11. Sami Selçuk, "The Limits of Cassation Review and the Unavoidable Painful Consequences, Impasses and Dangers of Not Observing Those Limits" ("Temyiz Denetiminin Sınırları ve Bu Sınırlara Uymamanın Kaçınılamaz Sancılı Sonuçları/Açmazları/Tehlikeleri"), Marmara University Faculty of Law Legal Research Journal, 2013, 19(2), pp. 319–361; in particular pp. 335–337. Publication record.

12. Fatih Birtek, "Difficulty in Stating Grounds of Cassation in Criminal Procedure" ("Ceza Muhakemesinde Temyiz Sebeplerinin Gösterilmesine İlişkin Zor(unlu)luk"), Istanbul Law Review (İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası), 2022, 80(4), pp. 1331–1372, DOI: 10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.4.0002; the pre-publication PDF used, pp. 36–37. Publication and full text.

13. Abdullah Teltik Law Office (Avukatlık Bürosu), "Cassation in Criminal Procedure: Court of Cassation Review, Grounds for Quashing and Defense Strategies under CMK Arts. 286–307", 22 June 2026, in particular section VIII. Article.

14. Tolga Şirin, Individual Application Procedure and Admissibility Criteria, Council of Europe, 2018, training module 2, pp. 16–17. Training module published by the Constitutional Court.

15. Law No. 492 on Fees (Harçlar Kanunu), Art. 13(i). Ministry of Justice UYAP legislation record.

16. Law No. 7571 amending the Turkish Penal Code and certain other laws and Decree Law No. 631, adopted 24 December 2025; Official Gazette: 25 December 2025, No. 33118, in particular Art. 25. Text adopted by the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM).