A criminal chamber decision of the Regional Court of Appeal that is described as “final” is not beyond every form of legal review. CMK 308/A allows the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Regional Court of Appeal to object, under certain conditions, to a criminal chamber decision that is final in nature. However, this route is not a new right of appeal that the defendant can use directly. The decision targeted by the application, the person who holds the power to object, and the effect of the alleged error on the judgment must each be set out correctly.
Short answer: The objection under CMK 308/A is made by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Regional Court of Appeal. The person concerned may ask that this power be used. Under the current rule, the prosecutor's objection period is one month from the date the decision is delivered to the prosecutor's office; no time limit applies to an objection in favor of the defendant. For an objection against the defendant, a material error that could affect the decision is required, and the defendant or their counsel is given two weeks from service to reply. [1]
Which decisions can be challenged under CMK 308/A?
Final criminal chamber decision of the Regional Court of Appeal
At the first stage, it must be determined whether the decision is actually a final criminal chamber decision within the scope of CMK 308/A. The court that issued the decision, the type of judgment, the nature of the penalty and the provisions of CMK 286 on appeal on points of law are examined together. Because some offences and decisions have their own appeal rules, it is not enough to look only at the amount of the penalty or at the short notice at the end of the decision.
A decision for which the appeal to the Court of Cassation route was open but not used is not assessed in the same way as a decision that is final by law. Missing the ordinary time limit for an appeal does not, in any case, create a new appeal to the Court of Cassation under CMK 308/A. If there is a defect in service or in the notice of legal remedies, the defective service and restoration of the previous position must be assessed with the relevant procedural tools.
Choosing the right target decision
A criminal case may contain a first-instance judgment, an appeal decision, a later supplementary decision and an enforcement procedure at the same time. The target of the CMK 308/A request must be stated clearly. For example, a violation of law at first instance may have been carried into the final Regional Court of Appeal (BAM) decision because it was not remedied on appeal. The application must make this connection.
An error in another judgment may affect the recidivism calculation in the current decision. In that case, objecting only in the current file may not be enough to remove the earlier judgment itself. The unlawfulness of each decision and the route that will remedy it must be assessed separately. This avoids the delay that petitions aimed at the wrong decision would cause, even when they contain a correct complaint.
Who files, and who makes the objection?
The interested party's request and the prosecutor's objection
CMK 308/A provides that the Chief Public Prosecutor may object either on their own initiative or upon request. A convicted person, defence counsel or a person with a legal interest in the matter may submit a reasoned request to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. However, a petition by the person concerned is not the same legal act as an objection document (itiraznâme) issued by the prosecutor's office. The act that starts the chamber's review under CMK 308/A is the exercise of the prosecutor's power.
This distinction also determines the language of the petition. The request should not ask the prosecutor's office to annul the decision directly; it should ask that the power of objection be exercised because of the unlawful findings shown. The request must be addressed to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Regional Court of Appeal, and the criminal chamber that issued the decision, together with the date, case number (esas) and decision number, must be stated clearly.
Does every request require an objection?
The law does not provide that every request of the person concerned must be met with an objection. The prosecutor's office evaluates the stated grounds within the file. For this reason, the effect of a request depends less on the length of the petition than on whether the error is clearly identified, verifiable and capable of affecting the outcome.
A decision not to adopt the request does not mean that the merits judgment has passed through a new ordinary appeal review. The application number, the status of the file and any reply should be monitored. However, this waiting period must not be treated as automatically suspending other application time limits.
How do the time limits work?
To whom does the one-month period belong?
The current provision states that the prosecutor may object within one month from the date the decision is delivered to them. This date is not necessarily the same as the date on which the decision was served on the defendant. When the start of the period is examined, the record of delivery of the decision to the prosecutor's office should be reviewed. Also, “one month” and “thirty days” do not produce the same result in every calendar. [1]
In applying the time-limit changes made by Law No. 7499, provisional Article 6 of the CMK is taken into account. For decisions made before June 1, 2024, the former regime must be assessed separately. Therefore, the older case-law expressions “thirty days” or “seven days” should not be used for all current applications.
No time limit applies to objections in favor of the defendant
The absence of a statutory time limit for an objection in favor of the defendant is an important safeguard. However, delaying an application is not without consequences. Continued enforcement, difficulty in accessing documents, the availability of witnesses and the time limits of other remedies all carry separate weight. The phrase “no time limit” must not be understood to mean that the file can be held indefinitely without any legal loss.
Whether a request is favorable or adverse is determined by the real outcome of the request, not by the heading on the petition. A request that appears favorable to one person may have an adverse effect on another. In multi-defendant cases, requests must be separated by person, and the safeguards relevant to adverse effects must be assessed for each of them.
Special safeguards for objections against the accused
A material error capable of affecting the decision
The current CMK 308/A makes an objection adverse to the accused subject to the condition of a material error. This is an important threshold that limits the re-examination of a final judgment to the detriment of the accused. Not every difference of interpretation, and not every request for a different assessment of the same evidence, automatically meets this condition. It must be explained how the error affected the outcome of the decision.
When the prosecutor objects to a decision favorable to the defendant, the defence must first address this threshold. Is the alleged ground really a material error affecting the outcome, or is it simply a disagreement with an earlier assessment? Answering this question provides a safeguard separate from the defence on the merits of the offence.
Service and the two-week reply
An objection adverse to the accused is served by the chamber on the defendant or their counsel. The law contains a specific provision on service to the last addresses recorded in the case file, so the accuracy of address and representation details in the file is important. Under the current text, the reply period is two weeks from service.
The reply petition must address every decisive ground of the objection document. Competence, the final nature of the decision, the material error condition and the defences on the merits are discussed under separate headings where needed. If the prosecutor's application is treated as just another opposing opinion, or if no reply is given, an important opportunity to protect the defendant's favorable position, which has become final, may go unused.
Which bodies examine the objection?
First, the chamber that issued the decision
The prosecutor directs the objection to the chamber that issued the decision. The chamber reviews it as soon as possible; if it finds the objection well-founded, it corrects its decision. At this stage, accepting the individual request at the outset and the chamber's acceptance of the prosecutor's objection are separate stages.
The next step depends on the scope of the objection. Correction of the decision, a further evaluation that is needed, or a different judgment after a hearing are outcomes that depend on the nature of the file. It cannot be said that every decision accepting an objection leads directly to acquittal or release.
Board of Presidents of the Criminal Chambers
If the chamber does not find the objection well-founded, it sends the file to the Board of Presidents of the Criminal Chambers (ceza daireleri başkanlar kurulu). The president of the chamber whose decision is challenged, or a member assigned by the president, prepares a report. If the Board accepts the objection, the decision is sent back to the chamber for the necessary action. The law states that the Board's decisions are final and contains special provisions on the composition of the Board. [1]
This finality does not remove the conditions of constitutional applications that may later be made on the ground of a violation. However, it should not be assumed that a Board decision is subject to an ordinary second appeal or to cassation. The nature of the remedy must be assessed according to the content of each new decision.
Which errors can be made concrete?
Clear inconsistency between the factual finding and the case file record
The decision may accept that a witness made a particular statement, while the hearing record contains a different account. A report may be described as identifying the defendant, although in fact it made no definitive match. The petition should make the error visible by showing the relevant paragraph of the decision and the record being compared.
This approach is more concrete than merely saying “the evidence was wrongly assessed.” However, not every different interpretation can be accepted as a legal error in itself. The decisive question is which factual finding is inconsistent with which piece of evidence in the file, and what effect this has on the conviction, the acquittal or the sentence.
Legal classification of the offence, sentence and defence safeguards
Matters such as the legal elements of the act, the form of participation, the application of a more favorable law, the calculation of the sentence and the restriction of the right of defence may form grounds for objection in a concrete file. For example, if the defendant was not given the opportunity to defend against a different legal classification, the effect of that error on the proceedings as a whole and on the outcome is explained.
When case law is presented, selecting only a decision that ended in acquittal is not enough. Its factual basis and the period of law applied must be compared. If a later, more favorable law requires assessment, the route of adaptation (uyarlama) is examined; if there is a new fact or new evidence, the route of retrial is examined separately. CMK 308/A is not a mechanism under which all these routes are gathered under a single heading.
What do actual decisions show?
The AYM annulment decision of January 26, 2022
In its decision E.2021/48, K.2022/7, dated January 26, 2022, the AYM examined the earlier CMK 308/A regulation in respect of objections adverse to the accused. The court assessed the limits on re-examining a final decision to the detriment of the accused, and the lack of safeguards to be informed of the objection and to reply to it. In particular, §§ 18–30 are important for the prohibition of being prosecuted again for the same act and for adversarial proceedings. [2]
The material error, service and reply safeguards of the current provision must be read in light of this constitutional debate. The decision does not mean that the CMK 308/A route has been entirely removed. Confusing the historical, annulled regulation with the text currently in force misleads both the assessment of a favorable application and the defence against an adverse objection.
Affirmance of an acquittal after objection: decision of March 30, 2026
In the decision of the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Ceza Dairesi), E.2025/7758, K.2026/3079, dated March 30, 2026, the Chief Public Prosecutor's objection under CMK 308/A was accepted after the appeal against the first-instance conviction had been dismissed on the merits. After a hearing, an acquittal was issued. Upon the appeal of the complainant (katılan), the Court of Cassation affirmed this acquittal. [3]
The decision shows that CMK 308/A can allow a concrete conviction to be reassessed. However, the file rests on specific facts concerning access to personal data in the course of official duties. It cannot be concluded that every data query is lawful, or that every CMK 308/A application will end in acquittal. The procedural example and the specific assessment of the merits of the offence must be kept separate.
A separate correction of an error in another final judgment
The decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi), E.2025/7762, K.2025/9628, dated December 26, 2025, concerns the resolution of a conflict between Regional Court of Appeal decisions. It is not a direct CMK 308/A objection decision. The decision explains that the validity and finality of the judgment serving as the basis for recidivism must be investigated, and that an unlawfulness in the earlier judgment must, where necessary, be remedied within that judgment's own ordinary or extraordinary route. [4]
This distinction is valuable for the application strategy. Objecting to the application of recidivism in the current file is not the same as removing the earlier judgment on which the recidivism rests. Choosing the wrong route may delay the remedy of an unlawfulness that has been correctly identified.
Comparison of CMK 308, 308/A, 309 and 311
| Route | Targeted situation | Authority and review |
|---|---|---|
| CMK 308 | Court of Cassation criminal chamber decisions within the scope of the Code | Objection by the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation; the chamber and, if necessary, the CGK |
| CMK 308/A | Final decision of a Regional Court of Appeal criminal chamber | Objection by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Regional Court of Appeal; the chamber and, if necessary, the Board of Presidents |
| CMK 309 | Decision or judgment that became final without passing through appeal or cassation review | Ministry of Justice, the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation and the relevant Court of Cassation chamber |
| CMK 311 | Grounds for retrial of a final judgment listed in the law | As a rule, the court that delivered the judgment |
The 2026 amendment to CMK 308
CMK 308, as amended by Law No. 7589, regulates objections to the decisions of the Court of Cassation criminal chambers other than decisions on the determination of the competent court and on lack of jurisdiction. The period is three months from the delivery of the file to the Chief Public Prosecutor; no time limit applies to an objection in favor of the defendant. A fourth paragraph on the right to request has also been added. This current regulation should not be confused with the one-month period under CMK 308/A. Earlier decisions are also examined under their own entry-into-force and transitional provisions. [1]
The boundary with reversal in the interest of the law
It is not correct to bring a final Regional Court of Appeal decision that has passed through appellate review under CMK 309 merely because it is final. However, a separate decision issued later in the same file, which independently meets the CMK 309 conditions, may exist. The review each decision has passed through must be determined one by one. For this reason, the phrase “application to the Ministry of Justice”, which users often employ, does not describe the same legal route for every final criminal judgment.
Enforcement and individual application time limits
Filing a request does not stop enforcement
Submitting a petition to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office under CMK 308/A does not by itself stop the enforcement of the sentence. If there is an urgent enforcement issue, the basis of the request and the authority that can decide on it must be examined separately. The prosecutor's office opening the file for review is not the same as a release order or a decision to stop enforcement.
The AYM time limit must be protected separately
A request that the Chief Public Prosecutor use the extraordinary power of objection is, as a rule, not an ordinary application that suspends or restarts the time limit for an individual application. For this reason, the time limit for applying to the Constitutional Court (AYM) must not be neglected while waiting for the prosecutor's reply. A new judicial process arising from the acceptance of an objection is assessed separately, with regard to its own decisions. [5]
The AYM individual application time limit and the knowledge of the decision and individual application in criminal cases must therefore be handled together with the 308/A file. Assessing several routes at once requires keeping the purpose and the time limit of each route clear.
Structuring the petition and the order of attachments
Decision, error, document and outcome
The petition must set out the target Regional Court of Appeal decision, the reason for its finality, whether the request is favorable or adverse, and the unlawful findings. For each error, the relevant acceptance in the decision, the counter-document in the file, the applicable law and the outcome requested are explained. Rather than long repetition of the same facts, attachment numbers should be used, which make it easier to reach the file records.
For example, if it is claimed that an expert report does not establish that a particular person is the author, yet the decision is written as if it did, the relevant page of the report and the operative paragraph of the judgment are shown side by side. The request is completed by explaining how this difference affects the proof of the offence. Reasoned first-instance and Regional Court of Appeal decisions, service records and earlier applications are among the core attachments.
Addressing the opposing view as well
The strength of an application does not depend on concealing adverse evidence in the file. If there are witnesses, reports or admissions that could weaken the objection, it must be explained why they are not sufficient to determine the outcome. When both the similarity and the difference from favorable decisions are shown, the request becomes a legal assessment that can be reviewed, rather than an expectation of a particular outcome.
For further details on related topics, you may also read our articles on reversal in the interest of the law (kanun yararına bozma), retrial of criminal proceedings (yargılamanın yenilenmesi) and deferment of the pronouncement of judgment (HAGB).
Conclusion
CMK 308/A is an important means of correcting final criminal decisions of the Regional Court of Appeal. Effective use requires targeting the correct decision, separating the prosecutor's power of objection from the individual's request, and making the effect of the error on the outcome concrete. In the case of an objection adverse to the accused, the material error and reply safeguards are particularly important; in the case of a favorable application, the other time limits and the enforcement situation must be observed closely.
For legal support in criminal proceedings and enforcement, you may review our criminal defense services.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the accused file a CMK 308/A application directly?
The accused or their counsel may ask the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Regional Court of Appeal to exercise the power of objection. However, the authority that makes the objection under the law is the prosecutor's office; a petition by the person concerned does not replace the objection document.
Is there a one-month time limit for a favorable application?
No time limit applies to an objection in favor of the accused. The current one-month period is tied to the prosecutor's power to object to an adverse decision, measured from the date the decision is delivered to the prosecutor's office. Other application time limits must be protected separately.
Must the accused be notified of an adverse objection?
Yes. Under the current provision, the accused or their counsel is served with the objection and has two weeks from service to reply in writing. The material error condition also applies.
Does filing a petition stop enforcement?
No. Submitting a request does not stop enforcement by itself. A request concerning enforcement must be assessed separately in terms of its legal basis and the competent authority.
Are CMK 308/A and reversal in the interest of the law the same route?
No. CMK 308/A concerns final Regional Court of Appeal criminal decisions, while CMK 309 concerns decisions or judgments that became final without passing through appellate or cassation review. The competent authorities and the review process are different.
Does waiting for the prosecutor's reply preserve the AYM time limit?
As a rule, no. Requesting the use of the extraordinary power of objection does not by itself suspend the time limit for an individual application. The learning of the final decision and any new process that arises later must be assessed separately.
Sources and legal bases
1. Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), in particular Articles 286, 308, 308/A, 309, 311 and provisional Article 6; amendments by Law No. 7589. Text checked on October 12, 2026.
2. AYM, January 26, 2022, E.2021/48, K.2022/7, in particular §§ 18–30.
3. Court of Cassation, 12th Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 12. Ceza Dairesi), March 30, 2026, E.2025/7758, K.2026/3079, procedural history and operative part.
4. Court of Cassation, 1st Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi), December 26, 2025, E.2025/7762, K.2025/9628, in particular reasoning §§ 9–12. It is a decision on the resolution of a conflict under Law No. 5235.
5. Law No. 6216, Articles 45 and 47; AYM, Rafet Ünal, Application No. 2013/1610, June 13, 2013, an assessment of the relationship between an extraordinary application request and the time limit for an individual application. The decision concerns CMK 308 and is not presented as one concerning CMK 308/A.