Does a Criminal Conviction Bar Civil Service? Removal from Office, HAGB and Conditions for Returning to Duty

Why does a criminal conviction not always produce the same civil service consequence?

There is a direct relationship between the outcome of criminal proceedings and the status of public personnel, but that relationship cannot be reduced to a single statutory provision. Article 48/A-5 of Civil Servants Law No. 657 (DMK) regulates the conviction conditions sought for admission to civil service; Article 98/b regulates the termination of civil service when those conditions are lost later; and Article 125 regulates disciplinary sanctions. Article 53 of the Turkish Criminal Code (TCK) concerns the effect of a conviction on the exercise of certain rights; Article 13/A of Criminal Records Law No. 5352 concerns the restoration of prohibited rights; and Law No. 7315 concerns the archive search and security investigation in the process of appointment to public office. [1][2][3][4][5]

These institutions have different legal grounds and conditions of application. A disciplinary investigation into a person's act, the administration's separate action under Article 98/b, a criminal court's HAGB decision, or the transfer of a past conviction from the criminal record to the archive are not procedures that substitute for one another. In an administrative dispute, the real legal ground of the action must first be determined. Building the wrong legal argument against the wrong type of action may lead to evidence that could have been favourable not being sufficiently assessed.

Comparing legal consequences according to the type of conviction

Not being admitted to civil service, termination of civil service and removal by discipline are different

At first appointment to civil service, the general and special conditions in Law 657 Article 48 are assessed. Where a person who is already a civil servant later loses an appointment condition, Article 98/b comes into play. Removal from civil service, by contrast, is a separate sanction that can be applied under Article 125/E after the act is examined from the standpoint of disciplinary law. Temporary suspension from duty (açığa alma) is not a disciplinary penalty that ends civil service but a temporary measure under Articles 137–145 of Law 657. [1]

The final judgment, the date of the act and the personnel's status are examined together

A criminal court decision that has not yet become final is not in the same legal position as a final conviction. In addition, the questions of whether, on the date the administrative act was made, the person was a civil servant, a probationary civil servant, contract staff, or someone previously removed from public office are decisive. Where special personnel statutes or additional conditions tied to the nature of the post exist, an outcome cannot be built on Law No. 657 alone.

Offences and sentences that bar civil service under Law 657 Article 48/A-5

Law 657 Article 48/A-5 provides for two separate bars: a conviction to one year or more of imprisonment for an intentionally committed offence, and a conviction for the offences separately listed in the article. In the first group, the intentional commission of the offence and the length of the prison sentence are in the foreground; in the second, the statutory character of the offence of which the person was convicted. That the period of deprivation of rights under TCK Article 53 has passed does not by itself remove the conditions in Law 657 Article 48/A-5. [1][2]

One year or more of imprisonment for an intentional offence

Receiving a final prison sentence of one year for an intentional offence not in the catalogue is sufficient for the statutory threshold; the phrase "one year or more" in the provision does not cover only sentences exceeding one year. Here the nature and length of the final sentence fixed by the judgment must be taken as the basis. Whether the person was a civil servant when the offence was committed matters as much as the finalisation of the sentence and the person's legal status on that date. Even if the sentence has been fully served, the bar in Law 657 Article 48/A-5 may retain its importance separately.

Conviction for the offences listed in the law and the amount of the sentence

Among the offences expressly named in Law 657 Article 48/A-5 are offences against the security of the State, offences against the constitutional order and its functioning, embezzlement, extortion by public officials (irtikâp), bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, breach of trust, fraudulent bankruptcy, bid rigging and rigging the performance of an obligation, laundering of assets derived from an offence, and smuggling offences. For this group the law does not provide a general condition of "at least one year of imprisonment". A conviction for the listed offences must be examined under 48/A-5 even if the sanction is lower or a judicial fine was imposed. [1]

Relying merely on the label "disgraceful offence" instead of the name of the offence is not enough. The statutory list of offences in 48/A-5 and the disciplinary act in 125/E-g are not the same concept. Which category an act falls into is determined on the basis of the offence article in the final judgment and the legal characterisation of the event. In addition, different prohibitions may be provided for policing, private security and other special public duties; it cannot be asserted that every offence not listed in Law 657 is free of consequence for every public post.

The limits of a conviction for negligent offences

Negligent offences do not fall within the Law 657 Article 48/A-5 bar of one year of imprisonment for an intentionally committed offence merely because of the length of the prison sentence. Likewise, the automatic deprivation of rights under TCK Article 53/1 is tied to a prison sentence for an intentionally committed offence. For example, in the offence of negligent injury or causing death by negligence, the general intent requirement of 48/A-5 is not deemed met. Nevertheless, the nature of the profession, conditions under other statutes, a ban on practising a profession that may be ordered under TCK Article 53/6, and the disciplinary consequences of the act may separately matter. The generalisation that "a negligent offence never affects civil service" is therefore incorrect. [1][2]

Deprivation of public office under TCK Article 53 and the effect of enforcement

TCK Article 53/1-a regulates, as a statutory consequence of a prison sentence for an intentionally committed offence, deprivation of the right to undertake public office and to be employed within that scope. As a general rule, under Article 53/2 these rights cannot be exercised until the enforcement of the prison sentence is completed. However, the exceptions within Article 53 itself and the separate status conditions of Law No. 657 must be examined together. [2]

Conditional release, supervised release and the date of enforcement

Actually leaving prison is not always the same as the date on which enforcement is legally completed. Conditional release, enforcement under the supervised release measure, and sentence computation records (müddetname) are taken into account; the date on which enforcement is completely finished and any special deprivations of rights are determined separately. It cannot be said that all obstacles to entering public service are lifted on the day of leaving prison. Even so, the completion of enforcement is a critical threshold for distinguishing the time-limited deprivation of rights under TCK Article 53/2 from the different bar in Law 657 Article 48/A-5.

Suspended short prison sentences and the exception in TCK Article 53/4

TCK Article 53/4 provides that Article 53/1 shall not apply to persons whose short prison sentence has been suspended and to persons who had not completed eighteen years of age when they committed the offence. This exception does not mean that the appointment condition in Law No. 657 is also automatically removed. In particular, a suspended one-year prison sentence for an intentional offence must be assessed separately against the one-year threshold in Law 657 Article 48/A-5. The statement "because it is suspended there is no consequence under either Article 53 or Law 657" is legally wrong. [2]

Special bans under TCK Article 53/5–6

TCK Article 53/5 provides for an additional ban whose effect may continue even after enforcement, for offences committed by abusing a certain right or authority; Article 53/6 provides for a ban on practising the profession, or withdrawal of the driving licence, in negligent offences arising from breach of the duty of attention and care required by a certain profession or art. These special consequences cannot be excluded merely by describing the general period under 53/1.

Does converting a prison sentence into a judicial fine remove the bar to civil service?

Where a short prison sentence has been converted into an alternative sanction under TCK Article 50, the principle in Article 50/5 that in practice the actual conviction is the converted judicial fine matters. For an intentional offence outside the catalogue, converting the prison sentence into a judicial fine makes an important difference in assessing the mere condition of "one year or more of imprisonment". By contrast, for a conviction for an offence listed in Law 657 Article 48/A-5, the conversion of the prison sentence does not by itself change the catalogue character of the offence. [1][2]

A judicial fine imposed directly, a judicial fine converted from a prison sentence, imprisonment resulting from non-payment of a judicial fine in enforcement, and a suspended prison sentence must be distinguished from one another. In particular, whether an offence is in the catalogue cannot be understood merely by looking at the type of sentence on the criminal record certificate. The final judgment and the applied TCK Article 50 provisions must be read together.

Does suspension of a prison sentence protect civil service?

Suspension of a prison sentence under TCK Article 51 is an enforcement regime; it is not a HAGB decision that eliminates the conviction. Completing the supervision period in accordance with the obligations leads, under the conditions of the law, to the sentence being deemed enforced; but it does not make the past final conviction disregarded. For this reason, if for the purposes of Law 657 Article 48/A-5 there is an intentional prison sentence of one year or more or a conviction for an offence listed in the law, the mere fact that the sentence was suspended does not remove the bar to civil service. [1][2]

A suspended prison sentence of less than one year

Where a prison sentence of less than one year for an intentional offence not in the catalogue is suspended, the one-year threshold in Law 657 Article 48/A-5 has not been exceeded. However, the possibility that the administration conducts a disciplinary investigation, that a temporary measure is applied, or that a separate profession-specific statutory condition exists is not removed. For every suspended conviction, a definite rule such as "the person is suspended from duty throughout the supervision period" cannot be formulated.

The difference between suspension and HAGB

In suspension there is a final judgment of conviction, whereas in HAGB the pronouncement of the judgment is deferred and the consequences provided by the law arise. This distinction is directly decisive for submitting the criminal file to the administrative authority, for a criminal record and archive search and for action under 98/b. One must look not only at the heading of the final criminal decision but at its operative part and at whether the decision was later changed.

Is HAGB a bar to civil service? The 2026 amendment and its relationship to disciplinary law

Deferment of the pronouncement of judgment (HAGB) under Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) means that, subject to the exception for confiscation provisions, the judgment rendered, as a rule, produces no legal consequence for the defendant. A HAGB decision alone should therefore not be treated as a final conviction under general Law 657 Article 48/A-5. Nevertheless, there are professions in whose special personnel legislation HAGB is separately regulated. [1][6]

What did Law No. 7589 of 31 July 2026 change?

The Constitutional Court's annulment decision of 10.07.2025, E. 2024/98, K. 2025/149, was published in the Official Gazette of 31.12.2025, and its entry into force was postponed by nine months. Later, Law No. 7589, published in the Official Gazette dated 31.07.2026, No. 33326, reorganised paragraphs five to fourteen of CMK Article 231. The statement that the HAGB institution no longer exists at all in autumn 2026 is therefore incorrect; the current CMK Article 231 and the provisions applicable in terms of time must be examined together. [6][7]

HAGB and a disciplinary investigation are separate examinations

A HAGB decision does not absolutely remove the administration's power to investigate and assess the specific act independently in terms of disciplinary law. The administration is obliged to show, with lawfully obtained evidence in the file, that the act took place and that it constitutes the appropriate disciplinary act under Law 657 Article 125. However, imposing a disciplinary sanction by using the HAGB decision itself as if it were a final finding of guilt may raise problems as regards the presumption of innocence and reasoning. The disciplinary allegation, the evidence, the taking of a defence statement and proportionality must be discussed concretely. [1][8]

HAGB and archive search in special professions

For example, the special conditions in Article 10 of Private Security Services Law No. 5188 for private security personnel are not identical to the general Law 657 conditions; for some offences a HAGB decision may separately constitute a bar. Article 4 of Law No. 7315 provides for determining records relating to decisions given under CMK Article 231 and certain investigation or prosecution facts within the archive search. Nevertheless, that data can be seen in the course of the search does not mean that the data is automatically treated as a conviction or as a bar to appointment. The administration's assessment must be connected to the specific duty, proportionate and reviewable. [5][9]

Suspension from duty, termination of civil service and removal by discipline

Suspension from duty is not a penalty

Suspension from duty under Articles 137–145 of Law 657 is a temporary measure provided for a public official whose remaining in post is considered undesirable. It is not automatically applied in every case merely because a criminal investigation or prosecution exists; the authority, the reasons, the conditions for maintaining the measure and the rules on duration are taken into account. Law 657 Article 140 concerns the competent authorities being able to apply the suspension measure during a criminal prosecution; it does not contain a rule that "suspension is mandatory for everyone sentenced to less than one year". [1]

The three-month limit and the two-month reassessment are not the same

Under Law 657 Article 145, suspension from duty applied for the purposes of a disciplinary prosecution may last at most three months; if no decision has been given by the end of that period, the civil servant is put back to work. In suspension due to a criminal prosecution, the competent superior reviews the person's situation every two months, decides whether the person will return to duty, and notifies this in writing. The three-month maximum cannot be generalised to every kind of suspension from duty. [1]

The pay of a suspended civil servant and reimbursement

Law 657 Article 141 regulates payment of two thirds of the monthly salary to a civil servant suspended from duty and the continuation of some social rights. Where the conditions provided in Articles 142–143 are met, consequences such as lifting of the measure, putting the person back to work and reimbursement of the withheld salary may come into play. These consequences must not be confused with permanent removal from civil service for disciplinary reasons or with the termination of status as a result of 98/b. [1]

Removal from civil service through discipline

Law 657 Article 125/E-g provides that engaging in disgraceful and shameful conduct of a nature and degree incompatible with the status of civil servant is one of the grounds for removal from civil service by discipline. For a disciplinary action, however, the occurrence of the act, the legal characterisation, authority, the right of defence, compliance with procedure and the reasoning for the sanction must be assessed separately. The criminal court's final decision does not justify the administration's imposing the sanction of removal without evidence and without reasons. Law 657 Article 131 is important as regards the separateness of a criminal investigation and a disciplinary investigation. [1]

Does restoration of prohibited rights allow a fresh application for civil service?

Yes, it can when its conditions are met. Article 13/A of Criminal Records Law No. 5352 regulates the institution of restoration of prohibited rights, for the purpose of removing deprivations of rights that statutes other than the TCK attach to certain offences or sentences. As a rule, three years must have passed from the completion of enforcement of the sentence, no new offence must have been committed in that period, and the court must form the conviction of good conduct. A separate calculation of the period exists for cases where enforcement ended for a reason other than a general amnesty or effective repentance. The decision is given by the competent court named in the law. [3]

Council of State 12th Chamber: decision No. 2021/918

In its decision of 24.02.2021, E. 2016/10771, K. 2021/918, the 12th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay) examined the request for fresh open appointment by a person whose ties with civil service had been severed because of a prison sentence of four years and six months, and who had later obtained a decision restoring prohibited rights. The Chamber accepted that a decision under Article 13/A of Law 5352 can remove, with prospective effect, the deprivation of rights attached to a conviction without removing the conviction itself. The administration's rejecting the application solely on the basis of the existence of the conviction was found unlawful and the rejection decision was quashed. The Chamber nevertheless also stated expressly that this decision does not by itself create a right of appointment, and that the administration will assess the new situation in terms of posts and needs. [10]

Council of State 12th Chamber: decision No. 2021/917

In the same Chamber's decision of 24.02.2021, E. 2017/1946, K. 2021/917, the refusal to appoint a person whose prohibited rights had been restored after a past conviction, after placement through the EKPSS, solely because of the criminal record archive entry and the past conviction, was assessed. In the decision, the judicial decision on the rejection act was quashed, also taking into account the facts that the administration had earlier exercised its discretion in favour of placement and that the need for the post had become concrete. The separation of the right to apply again from the right to direct appointment retains its importance in applying this decision as well. [11]

What does restoration of prohibited rights not provide?

The decision does not erase the past conviction, all disciplinary sanctions or every condition of special personnel statutes. Nor does it mean that the earlier civil service resumes from where it left off with automatic salary and seniority. If there is another final removal act made earlier, a special professional ban, a post requirement or a current security assessment, these are examined separately. Obtaining a decision restoring prohibited rights can be an effective legal basis for demanding that an appointment request be examined with reasons and in accordance with the rules of law.

How do the deletion of the criminal record and the archive record affect civil service?

The transfer of a criminal record entry to the archive, complete deletion of archive information, the legal consequences of the conviction and restoration of prohibited rights are different matters. Under Article 12 of Law No. 5352, the periods for complete deletion of archive information differ according to the nature of the conviction: for convictions causing certain deprivations of rights, fifteen years from the point at which the conditions for transfer to the archive arise, with a decision restoring prohibited rights, and thirty years where no such decision is sought; for other convictions, as a rule, five years. The start of these periods cannot be assumed automatically to be the same as the date of the offence or the date the judgment became final. [3]

That the criminal record appears "clean" does not mean that the administrative authority cannot carry out an archive search through the relevant lawful access, or that all the consequences of an earlier conviction have disappeared. Conversely, the presence of data in the archive is not in every case a sufficient reason for rejection. Law 5352 Articles 10–11 regulate the limits of access and confidentiality; Law 7315 regulates the scope of the search and the assessment process. In particular, the currency of the records, the conditions for deletion, lawful acquisition and the relationship to the duty matter. [3][5]

Does a new decision in the criminal file affect the civil service act?

A change in the legal situation through the quashing of a conviction on appeal, an acquittal, a dismissal of the case, or another judicial decision may affect the proposition of a final conviction on which the administration relied. However, not every new criminal decision automatically removes all administrative acts that previously became final. The date of the administrative act, the stage of the action brought, res judicata and the possibilities for fresh application must be assessed together. The finality endorsement of the judgment on which the termination of civil service was based, any new criminal decision given later and the enforcement record should be present in the file together.

Council of State Plenary Assembly of Administrative Litigation Chambers decision No. 2025/2330

In the decision of 05.11.2025, E. 2025/1874, K. 2025/2330 of the Plenary Assembly of Administrative Litigation Chambers of the Council of State, the separate act taken under Law 657 Articles 48/A-5 and 98/b, because of a criminal conviction that later became final, against a person who had earlier been removed from public office by Decree-Law No. 672, was discussed. Stating that the legal grounds and consequences of the removal based on the decree-law and of the Law 657 act tied to the conviction are different, the Plenary quashed the regional administrative court's decision to insist, on the ground that the act had to be examined on the merits. The decision should not be read as a provision directly reinstating the person. The dissenting opinion argued for the effect, for 98/b purposes, of the person's not having civil servant status on the date of the act. [12]

This case law shows concretely the need not to confuse the different legal grounds of administrative acts. Where an act is taken against a person previously removed from office on the basis of a new legal ground, the type of the act, the legal interest, the subject matter of the action and its effect must be set out separately.

An action before the administrative court and stay of execution

Although the legal nature of the administrative acts of severance of ties under Law 657 Article 98/b, removal by discipline, suspension from duty or rejection of a request for reappointment to civil service differ, they are, if their conditions are met, subject to administrative judicial review. Under Article 7 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), unless a special law provides otherwise, the time limit for filing an annulment action before the administrative court is sixty days. The start is determined according to a properly made written notification. The effect on the time limit of an administrative application under İYUK Article 11 should be assessed by examining the date on which the application was made and its nature. [13]

A stay of execution is not automatic

The fact that loss of office has significant personal and financial consequences does not in itself mean that a stay of execution will be granted. The conditions in İYUK Article 27 of manifest unlawfulness and the occurrence of damage that would be difficult or impossible to remedy if the act were implemented must be made concrete with the act and the evidence in the file. In particular, treating a conviction that has not become final as if it had, treating HAGB directly as a ground under 98/b, or ignoring a decision restoring prohibited rights may be concrete headings of objection. [13]

Return to duty and financial rights after an annulment decision

An annulment decision in administrative justice must, where necessary, be implemented by the administration within the scope of İYUK Article 28. However, the court's reasons for annulment, the type of request, the personnel's status before the act and possible other obstacles may affect the outcomes for return to duty and financial rights. For this reason, an automatic appointment, salary or seniority outcome cannot be derived by looking only at the word annulment in the decision. A separate written application and follow-up of implementation or enforcement may be necessary for implementation. [13]

How should the review be carried out in practice? A decision and document checklist

Before a decision is made on the effect of a criminal conviction on civil service, the following information needs to be collected in the same file:

1. Status and act: Whether the personnel are subject to Law 657, any special professional statute, whether the person was in post on the date of the act, and the full text and service of the appointment or removal decision.
2. Criminal judgment: The offence article, the intent/negligence distinction, the final type and length of the sentence, provisions on conversion, suspension or HAGB, the finality endorsement and later appeal decisions.
3. Enforcement and deprivation of rights: The sentence computation record (müddetname), information on completion of enforcement, the assessment under TCK Article 53/4–6, conditional release and any special professional ban.
4. Disciplinary documents: The investigation order and report, the request for a defence statement, the evidence, the decision of the competent board, and the suspension and review acts.
5. Rehabilitation and records: The decision restoring prohibited rights and its finalisation, documents on the criminal record and archive record, and the Law 7315 assessment.
6. Judicial process: The notification date of the administrative act, the İYUK time limits for suit and application, any stay of execution decision, the action brought and later court decisions.

When any of this information is missing, it should not be assumed that the others automatically complete the outcome. The legal result must be determined by considering together the judgment in the criminal file + the personnel regime applied + the reasoning of the act + the legislation applicable in terms of time.

Conclusion

The effect of a criminal conviction on civil service does not consist merely of the length of the sentence or of a line on the criminal record. One year or more of imprisonment for an intentional offence, the offences listed in Law 657 Article 48/A-5, the deprivations of rights under TCK Article 53, HAGB, suspension, disciplinary measures and restoration of prohibited rights produce different legal consequences. For this reason, when determining the legal route against an act of removal from civil service or a refusal of appointment, the final criminal judgment, the statutory basis of the administrative act and its date must be examined together. In particular, the Council of State's decisions on Article 13/A of Law 5352 show that a past conviction does not entirely remove the possibility of reapplying for public office, but also that it does not secure return to duty automatically.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a civil servant who receives a one-year prison sentence removed from office?

A final one-year prison sentence for an intentionally committed offence falls within the length condition in Law 657 Article 48/A-5. However, features of the decision such as suspension, conversion, HAGB or later quashing, and the status of the personnel, must be examined separately. [1]

Can a person who receives a three-year prison sentence for a negligent offence be a civil servant?

A negligent offence does not fall within the intent requirement of 48/A-5 merely because of the length of the sentence. Even so, a special professional statute, TCK Article 53/6 and disciplinary provisions may produce a different result. [1][2]

If a prison sentence is converted into a judicial fine, is the bar lifted?

For offences outside the catalogue, TCK Article 50/5 may produce a significantly different result; however, a conviction for a catalogue offence does not leave the bar merely because of conversion. The offence article of the final judgment is decisive. [1][2]

Does suspension of the sentence remove the conviction?

No. Under TCK Article 51, suspension is an enforcement arrangement; the Law 657 Article 48/A-5 assessment of the existence of the conviction continues separately. [2]

Does a HAGB decision lead to removal from civil service?

HAGB alone should not be treated as a final conviction under general Law 657 Article 48/A-5. However, independent proof of the act in a disciplinary investigation and special personnel statutes are important. [6][8]

Was HAGB abolished in 2026?

Law No. 7589 of 31.07.2026 reorganised the provisions of CMK Article 231 on HAGB. It therefore cannot be said that the HAGB institution does not exist at all in autumn 2026. [6][7]

Does a civil servant released from prison automatically return to duty?

No. Release, the TCK Article 53 period, completion of enforcement, Law 657 Article 48/A-5 and the consequences of a previously made severance-of-ties decision are not the same thing. [1][2]

Can a person be appointed to civil service after restoration of prohibited rights?

Under Article 13/A of Law 5352, restoration of prohibited rights may, according to Council of State decisions, provide a right to apply again; but it does not mean a direct and unconditional appointment decision. [3][10][11]

If the criminal record has been deleted but there is an archive record, is it a bar to civil service?

The existence of an archive record alone does not produce an automatic refusal for every post. The legal effect of the past conviction is examined together with Law 5352 Articles 12–13/A, Law No. 7315 and the special personnel conditions. [3][5]

Is the whole of the salary of a suspended civil servant withheld?

No. Law 657 Article 141, as a rule, provides for payment of two thirds of the salary; the lifting of the measure and, in some cases, the return of the withheld part are assessed under other provisions. [1]

How long can a suspension from duty last?

For a measure based on a disciplinary prosecution there is a maximum limit of three months; for a measure based on a criminal prosecution, the situation must be reviewed every two months. [1]

How many days is the time limit for suit against termination of duty?

Unless there is a special time limit, the time limit for an annulment action before the administrative court is, as a rule, sixty days from the day following written notification. The effect of an İYUK Article 11 application must be calculated according to the specific calendar. [13]

Does filing an action before the administrative court secure return to duty?

Filing the action does not automatically stop the act. If its conditions are met, a stay of execution may be requested; implementation and financial rights after an annulment decision are assessed separately. [13]

Can ties be severed under 98/b without a disciplinary investigation?

A 98/b act rests on a ground different from a disciplinary penalty; it is examined whether a condition of admission to civil service was later lost. Even so, the legal and factual conditions necessary for the act and its reasoning must be present. [1]

Sources

1 — Civil Servants Law No. 657, in particular Arts. 48/A-5, 98/b, 125/E-g and 137–145. Current consolidated legislation text.

2 — Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237, Arts. 50, 51 and 53. Current TCK Art. 53.

3 — Criminal Records Law No. 5352, Arts. 10–13/A. Restoration of prohibited rights, Art. 13/A and deletion of criminal record and archive, Art. 12.

4 — Civil Servants Law No. 657, Art. 98/b; the different statutory grounds for leaving duty. Legislation.

5 — Law No. 7315 on Security Investigation and Archive Research, in particular Arts. 3–6. Ministry of Justice Legislation Portal.

6 — Law No. 7589 Amending Certain Laws for the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary, Art. 15; Official Gazette 31.07.2026, No. 33326. TBMM law record.

7 — Constitutional Court, 10.07.2025, E. 2024/98, K. 2025/149, norm review concerning CMK Art. 231; Official Gazette 31.12.2025, No. 33124. AYM official announcement.

8 — Celâl Işıklar, “The Effect of a Decision to Defer the Pronouncement of Judgment on Disciplinary Investigations and Sanctions of Civil Servants”, 9th International Law Symposium (ASOSCongress), 2023, p. 132 ff., KTO Karatay University Open Access. Academic work.

9 — Private Security Services Law No. 5188, Art. 10; comparison of Law No. 7315 with special personnel conditions. Law No. 5188 Art. 10 and 7315 Art. 4.

10 — Council of State 12th Chamber, 24.02.2021, E. 2016/10771, K. 2021/918; restoration of prohibited rights and application for reappointment. Full text of the decision.

11 — Council of State 12th Chamber, 24.02.2021, E. 2017/1946, K. 2021/917; restoration of prohibited rights and application for appointment based on EKPSS placement. Full text of the decision.

12 — Council of State Plenary Assembly of Administrative Litigation Chambers, 05.11.2025, E. 2025/1874, K. 2025/2330; judicial review of removal from public office and a 98/b act resting on separate legal grounds. Official Council of State decision text.

13 — Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, Arts. 7, 11, 27 and 28. İYUK Art. 7.