A criminal judgment becoming final means that the ordinary legal remedies for reviewing the dispute have come to an end. Nevertheless, the emergence of new evidence that could change the factual picture on which the judgment rests, certain serious judicial errors, or other grounds set out in the law may require the final judgment to be considered again. Reopening of proceedings responds to this need; however, it is not a general route that allows a case to be reopened without limit on the same defenses.
Short answer: Under Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) Article 311 et seq., an application to reopen proceedings against a final judgment is made on one of the grounds listed in the law. The new evidence or new fact must be capable, alone or together with the earlier evidence, of leading to an acquittal or to the application of a provision that imposes a lighter penalty. The application is made to the court that delivered the judgment; it does not automatically stop enforcement. A deferral or stay of enforcement must be requested separately. [1]
At what stage does reopening arise?
The condition of a final judgment
Reopening is an extraordinary legal remedy. Where an appeal or a cassation review is still pending, the first step is to assess whether the new evidence can be raised within the ordinary remedy concerned. The information that a judgment has become final should not be accepted on the basis of oral statements alone; the judgment, the decisions on the remedies and the records of finality should be examined together.
Where, because of defective service of notice, the time limit for a remedy has in fact not started to run, the issue may be a timely application and, if necessary, restoration of the prior status. Likewise, every interim decision or procedural decision is not a final judgment within the meaning of CMK Article 311. The first task is to determine the legal nature of the existing decision and which remedy is genuinely open against it.
The difference between reopening, appeal and cassation
In appeal and cassation, the ordinary review of the judgment takes place. In reopening, by contrast, a statutory ground is required that justifies considering the final judgment again. Re-arguing why the earlier court believed a witness is not, without a new element, always a ground for reopening. Disagreeing with the legal assessment is one thing; presenting a decisive fact that the court did not know about is another.
For this reason, the application cannot be prepared by merely changing the heading of an earlier cassation petition. The statutory ground relied on, when and how it came to light, and its effect on the earlier judgment must each be explained separately. The difference from appeal in criminal cases and cassation review should be established at the outset of the file strategy.
Grounds for reopening in favour of the convicted person
Grounds relating to documents, witnesses, experts and the judge
CMK 311/1 regulates grounds such as the forgery of a document that affected the judgment, a false statement to the convicted person's detriment by a witness or expert heard under oath, and a serious breach of duty by a judge who took part in the judgment in the manner specified by law. Not every irregularity falls within the same paragraph. The conditions set out in the law for the conduct alleged, and its connection with the outcome of the judgment, must be shown.
For claims based on a criminal offence, the special admissibility conditions of CMK Article 316 are important. The rule regulates the circumstances in which a final conviction for the act concerned, or the impossibility of initiating or continuing an investigation for the reasons stated in the law, is required; it distinguishes this from the new fact and evidence situation within CMK Article 311/1-e. For this reason, merely asserting that a witness lied does not show that all the conditions for reopening are met.
Removal of the legal basis of the judgment
Where the criminal judgment was based on a judgment of a civil court and that underlying judgment has been set aside by another final judgment, CMK Article 311/1-d is considered. Here, the mere fact that some civil case later ended differently is not enough. It must be explained that the criminal judgment really did rest on that decision, and how the new decision affects that earlier basis.
New fact or new evidence
In practice, the ground most often debated is CMK Article 311/1-e. Besides novelty, the law requires a condition of significance: the element presented must be capable, alone or together with the existing evidence, of leading to an acquittal or to the application of a provision that imposes a lighter penalty. The value of the application derives not from the number of attachments, but from the power of the new element to alter the reasoning of the conviction.
What does “new” evidence mean?
Arising later versus being learned of later
New evidence does not necessarily have to be created after the judgment has become final. A record that existed on the date of the event but was not presented to the court, or was not evaluated in its relevant sense, may also be new. On the other hand, a document written years later that merely repeats claims already examined is not treated as a ground for reopening merely because its date is new.
The approach of the Criminal General Assembly, as reported in the decision of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesi) dated 21 October 2024, looks at novelty primarily from the court's perspective. Whether the convicted person knew of the evidence earlier is not decisive on its own. However, re-submitting evidence that the court knew of, examined and did not find credible does not, by itself, make that evidence new. [2]
A new witness, new identifying information and a changed account
Where, in the earlier proceedings, a person was known only by a nickname and could not be identified, and later open identifying information about that person comes to light, this may create usable new evidence in the particular case. It should be explained what events the witness directly knows, which premise of the earlier judgment the testimony could affect, and why hearing the witness matters.
On the other hand, a supportive account given later by a relative of the convicted person is not an automatic ground for acceptance. The source of the witness's knowledge, the witness's connection to the events, the earlier statements and the verifiability of the new account are all examined. Where a witness who has already been heard changes their account, the reason for the change and its relationship with the existing records are particularly important.
Is a new expert report always new evidence?
A report that interprets the same data differently must be distinguished from a report that reveals a technical fact previously unknown. Determining, by a new method, that a record belongs to another person, a subsequently discovered alteration of a document, or data not seen at the first examination may be significant in the particular case. A conclusion that merely disagrees with the earlier expert's opinion may not be sufficient.
An expert opinion attached to the application must explain its method and data sources. The difference from the earlier report must be shown at the level of page and finding. In this way the court can review whether the new element is substantial. In technical files, the principles on objecting to an expert report also help in preparing the reopening request.
How is the significance of the evidence demonstrated?
Direct connection with the reasoning of the conviction
A general connection between the new element and the file is not sufficient. Which fact did the earlier judgment treat as established? For what reason could the new evidence change that premise? What does that change mean for acquittal or for the application of a more lenient provision? The main structure of the petition should answer these three questions.
For example, if the premise on which the conviction rests is that the person was at the scene, a verifiable record showing that they were elsewhere may be significant. By contrast, a document showing the person's general good conduct after the event does not, on its own, affect whether the act was committed. CMK Article 315/1 also provides, within the limits of the same article, that reopening may not be allowed merely for the purpose of changing the sentence.
The problem of demanding conclusive proof of acquittal at the admission stage
Admitting an application for reopening and issuing an acquittal at the end of the retrial are different stages. The application must show new elements of sufficient weight to require the final judgment to be considered again; however, the outcome of evidence still to be gathered should not be equated from the outset with the final judgment. On the other hand, an abstract expectation that something might be found if it were only investigated is also not a sufficient ground for reopening.
The request must indicate an achievable and concrete line of inquiry. The identity of the witness, the institution where the record is held, the nature of the document and its expected legal effect should be stated. In this way the court can assess whether the application rests on a genuine claim of judicial error or on a repetition of an earlier dispute.
Where is the application made, and through which stages does it pass?
The court that delivered the judgment and the position of the judge
Under CMK Article 318, the request is submitted to the court that delivered the judgment. In cases where the Court of Cassation itself rendered the judgment under CMK Article 303, the application is made to the court that delivered the judgment, as the article indicates. The institutional role of the court and the position of the judge who took part in the earlier proceedings are separate matters. CMK Article 23/3 provides a safeguard that, in reopening, a judge who acted in the earlier proceedings may not take part in the same matter. [1]
When preparing the file, all first-instance and remedy decisions must be examined. It should be stated which judgment has become final, any supplementary decisions issued later, and the scope of any earlier reopening requests. Where an earlier request has been rejected, it should be explained what concrete element distinguishes the new application from it.
Admissibility, gathering of evidence and hearing
At the first stage, form, the statutory ground and the supporting evidence are assessed. Under CMK Article 319, failure to show these may lead to the request being rejected as inadmissible. Otherwise, notice is served on the prosecutor and on the interested party for their opinion. Under the current rules, the period for this opinion is two weeks; the transitional provision applicable to earlier decisions is taken into account.
At the next stage, evidence is gathered under CMK Article 320. Once evidence gathering is complete, the opinion of the prosecutor and of the person against whom judgment was given is again requested within the two-week period set by the law. Under CMK Article 321, if the claims are not sufficiently verified, the request may be found unfounded; otherwise a decision is taken to reopen the case and hold a hearing. These stages should not be read as meaning that the judgment ceases to exist once the first petition has been filed.
Application against a decision of rejection
Objection is possible against decisions under CMK Articles 319 and 321. The current general period for objection is two weeks from the date of learning of the decision under CMK Article 268; the applicable transitional regime is also checked separately. The objection should target the reason for rejection: for example, an incorrect assessment of the novelty of the evidence, disregard of its substantial effect, or failure to carry out the necessary inquiry.
Where a decision on objection has become final, the conditions for reversal in the interest of the law may also arise. This possibility does not justify neglecting the ordinary objection against the rejection of the reopening request. Each stage has its own function and its own conditions for application.
Stay of enforcement and release
The application does not stop enforcement automatically
The basic rule of CMK Article 312 is clear: a request for reopening does not postpone enforcement of the judgment. The court may decide to defer or stay enforcement. For this reason, merely notifying the prison or the enforcement prosecutor's office that a reopening petition has been filed does not amount to a release order.
Whether enforcement has not yet begun or is already under way affects the form of the request. The application should show the seriousness of the new evidence, its effect on the premise of the earlier judgment and the consequences of continuing enforcement. In particular, it may be argued whether a sentence that could be completed in a short time would cause a loss of liberty that cannot later be remedied, together with the strength of the evidence relied on.
A stay decision may not in every file result in actual release
Staying enforcement of one judgment may not by itself result in release if the person is subject to arrest on another file or serves another final sentence. For this reason, the whole enforcement position must be examined. The subject of the request and the judgment to which the decision relates, and its correct implementation in the records of the prison and the prosecutor's office, are important.
Even after the application has been accepted, every measure restricting liberty must have its own legal basis. Reopening and the stay of enforcement are separate decisions; the acceptance of the application does not make it unnecessary to check the status of release.
Real decisions: the difference between acceptance and rejection
A person whose identity was determined later: decision of 21 October 2024
In its decision E.2024/3580, K.2024/11995 dated 21 October 2024, the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation assessed open identifying information about a person who had been referred to by a nickname in the earlier stages and which was presented later. The Chamber accepted that the concrete new element could constitute a ground for reopening, and reversed in the interest of the law the decision upholding the rejection of the objection to the rejection of the reopening request. [2]
The decision does not mean that the convicted person has been directly acquitted. The outcome is the opening of a procedure in which the new evidence is to be investigated. In a similar file, it is necessary not only to state the name and address of the witness, but also to explain how that witness's account could affect the earlier reasoning for conviction.
A document unsuited to change the outcome: decision of 23 March 2026
In its decision E.2026/1146, K.2026/3007 dated 23 March 2026, the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation examined a warehouse receipt relied on as the basis of a reopening request. The Chamber stated that the document did not show the nature of the goods dispatched, and rejected the request for reversal in the interest of the law. [3]
This decision shows that the date or novelty of a document is not sufficient on its own. The fact proved by the document must touch the decisive element of the accusation. When preparing an application, the areas that the new document does not explain as strongly as it might should also be assessed honestly.
Constitutional Court, ECtHR and the relationship with more favourable legislative change
A Constitutional Court violation judgment forms a separate basis for retrial
A retrial required by a violation judgment of the Constitutional Court (AYM) is a specific remedy mechanism under Article 50 of Law No. 6216. This route should not be narrowed into an ordinary CMK 311 application based on new evidence. The source of the violation and the remedy indicated by the judgment are the starting point. Details are discussed in the review on criminal proceedings after a Constitutional Court violation judgment. [4]
Special time limit for ECtHR judgments
CMK Article 311/1-f regulates decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that have become final, as well as dismissals following a friendly settlement or a unilateral declaration as described in the clause. In this case, the one-year special time limit for filing is linked to the date on which the ECtHR judgment becomes final. It should not be assumed that every ECtHR violation affects a criminal judgment in the same way; the connection required by the clause and the scope of the judgment must be examined.
This special period cannot be applied as the general period for all applications based on new evidence. The article reopening after an ECtHR violation judgment should be read separately, together with its dimension of enforcement and release.
A subsequently enacted more favourable law is not always new evidence
A change in the law is neither an event nor evidence. Where the provision enacted later must be assessed as more favourable under Article 7 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), the route of application to the court that delivered the judgment under Article 98/1-a of Law No. 5275 may arise. Where the other remedy under CMK Article 315/2 is available, the limit that applies to reopening must also be respected. [5] [6]
For example, in relation to TCK Article 158/4, introduced in 2026 and limited to making a bank account available to others as a form of participation, the adaptation of a past conviction and a request for reopening based on a genuinely new fact or evidence have separate legal bases. Where both are present in the file, the grounds for each claim should be clearly separated.
Preparing the application file
Comparative evidence table
| Premise of the earlier judgment | New element | Required inquiry | Likely legal effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| The person was at the scene | Time-stamped record not previously examined | Verification of the source and the timing | Change in the finding on involvement or participation |
| The document was prepared by the defendant | New technical finding | Examination of the original document and of the method | Re-evaluation of the forgery allegation |
| The source of the cheque could not be explained | Identified related person | Witness account and commercial records | Effect on the finding of knowledge and intent |
| No shipment was made | Delivery document | Identification of the contents and of the recipient | Review of the deception and of the account of events |
The table does not show that the same outcome will arise in every file; it is an example of how an application may be structured. The petition should contain the final judgment, the ground for reopening, the source of the new evidence, its difference from the earlier assessment, the inquiry requested, and a separate request concerning enforcement. Annexes should be numbered, and each annex should be tied to the relevant claim in the text.
Where the sentence has been served or the convicted person has died
CMK Article 313 does not treat the fact that the sentence has been served, or the death of the convicted person, as a bar to an application. Where the convicted person has died, the persons named in the law have standing to apply. This shows that reopening does not serve only to secure release from prison; it may also serve to remedy the legal consequences of a conviction.
At the end of the renewed hearing, the earlier judgment may be upheld, or it may be set aside and a new judgment delivered. Where the request was made in favour of the convicted person, a heavier penalty may not be imposed under CMK Article 323/2. Where an acquittal or a decision that there is no place for a penalty is given, the material and non-material losses suffered from the earlier enforcement are separately assessed under CMK Article 323/3 and the relevant compensation provisions.
For further details on this subject, see also our article on objection to a final appellate decision under CMK 308/A.
Conclusion
In reopening, what is decisive is not so much adding a new document to the file as demonstrating the legal ground that could change the premise on which the final judgment rests. Novelty, significance and verifiability must be examined together; the application must be directed to the correct authority, and the request to stay enforcement must be separately justified. Real decisions show concretely the difference between an abstract hope and a serious new piece of evidence that requires investigation.
For legal support in criminal proceedings and enforcement, you may review our criminal law services.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a general time limit for applying for reopening?
No general time limit is provided for the new evidence and new fact ground under CMK Article 311/1-e. For Article 311/1-f, based on an ECtHR judgment, there is a one-year special time limit. The time limits for other remedies and for objection to a rejection decision must also be observed separately.
Must the new evidence necessarily have come into existence after the judgment?
No. Evidence that already existed, but was not known to the court that delivered the judgment or was not evaluated in its relevant sense, may also be new. A repetition of the same defense that was examined and rejected earlier is different.
Does filing an application lead to release from prison?
No. Under CMK Article 312, enforcement does not stop automatically. A separate deferral or stay order must be obtained from the court, and the status of other files must be examined.
Is a new expert report necessarily a ground for reopening?
No. It is examined whether the report actually reveals a new and significant technical finding. A different opinion on the same data must be distinguished from the determination of a new fact.
If reopening is accepted, is acquittal certain?
No. Acceptance may open the necessary inquiry and retrial process. The outcome may be that the earlier judgment is upheld, or that it is set aside and a new judgment delivered. The prohibition on imposing a heavier penalty where the request was made in favour of the convicted person also applies.
Is CMK 311 also the route for a more favourable legislative change?
Not always. For the assessment of a law enacted later under TCK Article 7, the route under Article 98 of Law No. 5275 may apply. An adaptation of the law in favour of the convicted person based on a request relying on new evidence rests on separate grounds.
Sources and legal bases
1. Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure (CMK), Art. 23, 267–271, 311–323 and provisional Art. 6. Current text checked: 12 October 2026.
2. 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesi), 21.10.2024, E.2024/3580, K.2024/11995, in particular paragraphs 5 and 6 of the reasoning and the operative part. The assessment of the Criminal General Assembly (Ceza Genel Kurulu), 4.5.2023, E.2022/11-574, K.2023/272, quoted in the decision, has been examined in the same text.
3. 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesi), 23.3.2026, E.2026/1146, K.2026/3007, reasoning and operative part.
4. Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, Art. 50.
5. Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Criminal Sentences and Security Measures, Art. 98.
6. Turkish Penal Code (TCK), Law No. 5237, Art. 7 and 158/4.