A decision to return a person to prison because of a supervised release violation cannot be assessed merely on the basis that an obligation was not fulfilled. The type of violation, valid excuse, intent, the content and service of the warnings, the dates of the events and the decision of the competent enforcement judge must be examined together. Under the current provision, the reference in the sixth and seventh paragraphs of Article 105/A of Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures is directed to the open penal institution (açık ceza infaz kurumu). [1][2]
This article addresses violations during the enforcement of a final prison sentence through supervised release under Article 105/A. Judicial control, the measure under TCK 191 and supervision after conditional release do not fall under the same legal regime.
First Determine Which Supervision Was Violated
The Same Signing Procedure May Have Different Legal Consequences
Signing, attending an interview or being present at a designated place may arise in the enforcement of different legal decisions. For this reason, the first document is the decision that imposes the obligation on the person, and the supervision plan based on it. Without determining the legal provision on which the decision rests, it is not possible to state that “the three-violation rule applies.” [1][2]
In particular for judicial control, Article 44 of the Supervised Release Services Regulation separately provides that no warning is given for a violation that is both without valid excuse and intentional. Carrying the persistence rules of Article 105/A over into judicial control would be a serious error. For this distinction, the article on objections to judicial control and house arrest decisions is important. [2]
Closing the File and the Order to Return to Prison
The enforcement evaluation commission (infaz işlemleri değerlendirme komisyonu) starting proceedings to close the file does not, by itself, replace the enforcement judge’s order to send the person to prison. Under Article 87 of the Regulation, following the commission’s decision, a request to send the person is made to the enforcement judge. Supervised release enforcement continues until the judge’s decision arrives. [2]
Leaving obligations during this interim period may worsen the person’s legal position. Filing a petition or sending the file to the judge does not provide automatic permission or exemption from obligations.
What Are the Grounds for Return to Prison?
Failing to Apply to the Directorate Within Five Days
Failing to apply to the supervised release directorate named in the order within five days after leaving the institution is an independent ground for referral under Article 105/A, paragraph six. In this case, it is examined whether the initial application was made, on what date it should have been made, and whether there is a documented reason for the delay. It is not correct to assess the initial application within the same count as an appointment later arranged under the program. [1][2]
Persistent Non-Compliance with Obligations
The law regulates persistent non-compliance with obligations, with the supervision and improvement program that has been prepared, or with the warnings and recommendations made by staff in this scope. Persistence cannot be accepted merely because the file contains a few negative records. The counting rules, valid excuse, intent and warning conditions of the Regulation are checked against concrete events. [1][2]
Returning to the Institution at One’s Own Request
A convict’s wish to return to the penal enforcement institution is also separately regulated. This request is a legal ground different from a violation of obligations. If there is a problem such as working hours not matching the program, the possibility of an appropriate adjustment should first be explored, and the consequences of a request to return to the institution should be assessed clearly. [1][2]
A Public Prosecution for an Alleged New Offence
If, after supervised release has begun, a public prosecution is brought for an intentional offence allegedly committed, carrying a lower sentence limit of one year or more of imprisonment, the enforcement judge may order referral to an open institution. A mere report, an investigation or any new allegation of an offence is not the same as this provision. [1]
If the prosecution ends in acquittal, a decision that no punishment is to be imposed, dismissal of the case or discontinuance, a decision is made to continue enforcement under supervised release. The date of the new allegation, the lower limit of the offence and the procedural status of the case should be shown in the application. The judge’s power under the law does not mean automatic return without examining whether the conditions exist. [1]
How Are Three Violations and the Warning Requirement Assessed?
The General Rule for Adults
Under Article 44 of the Supervised Release Services Regulation, three violations within one year, committed without valid excuse and intentionally, are treated as persistent non-compliance with obligations. Where a third violation is established after a second warning, the process of closing the file begins. The warning must be served in writing, and the consequence of a repeated violation must be clearly stated. [2]
The three violations do not necessarily have to arise from the same signing procedure. Events concerning different obligations may also be assessed together where the conditions are met. However, where a program was not notified, there is a valid excuse, or the dates of the events are wrong, the number alone is not decisive.
A Different Rule for Children
For children, and for persons who turned eighteen during the supervised release enforcement that began while they were still children, the process of closing the file is regulated after a fourth violation that follows a third warning. The three-violation assessment used for adults cannot be applied directly to these persons. [2]
Here, the childhood at the time of the offence must be distinguished from the child status when enforcement of supervised release began. The fact that a person committed the offence before the age of eighteen does not mean that, in supervised release begun years later as an adult, they will necessarily benefit from the child-specific count.
The Court of Cassation Decision of March 5, 2026
In the decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi), E.2024/5596, K.2026/1704, dated March 5, 2026, three separate violations concerning signing, individual interviews and group or seminar obligations were examined. It was determined that two warnings had been validly served and that the person was not a child when enforcement of supervised release began. The Chamber found it unlawful that the return was lifted on the basis of the child rule. [4]
The significance of this decision lies not only in the number of violations. The age at the start of enforcement, the joint assessment of different obligations and the order of the warning notifications determined the result. The decision does not say that every third record leads to automatic return; it accepts that, in the concrete case, the conditions of culpable and intentional violation and of valid warnings were met.
How Is an Excuse Raised?
The Document Must Be Linked to the Date of the Event
The statement of excuse should specify on which day and at what time the particular obligation could not be fulfilled. It then explains the nature of the obstacle, when it arose and why it prevented fulfilment of the obligation. Hospital admission records, emergency department documents, an official record showing a transport obstruction or other documents suited to the concrete event may support this link.
A medical report is not sufficient in every case, and a short report does not by itself show that the excuse is trivial. The findings in the document, its relation to the time of the event and the person’s ability to access the obligation are assessed together. The excuse should be reported to the relevant directorate as soon as possible, and a registration number should be obtained for the application and its annexes. [2]
Changing the Plan for Work and Residence Conditions
If a work shift, regular treatment, caregiving responsibilities or a change of residence creates a continuing incompatibility, it is better to request an adaptation of the supervision plan than to raise an excuse only after each event. An employer’s letter, a work timetable and a treatment program may be concrete grounds for the request. [2]
Article 45 of the Regulation provides routes for amending the decision or the obligations. Depending on the nature of the decision, the request is assessed by the relevant commission or in the judicial process. The current program should not be abandoned on the assumption that the change request will be accepted.
Does the Time Spent During the Return Process Count Towards the Sentence?
The Date of the Violation and the Date of the Decision Serve Different Functions
There is no general rule that the entire period lawfully served under supervised release is erased. However, how the period between the last violation and the arrival of the return decision at the directorate is evaluated may depend on whether the obligations were actually continued. This period requires a separate examination of the documents. [5]
The Court of Cassation Decision of March 13, 2026
In the decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E.2025/451, K.2026/1976, dated March 13, 2026, this distinction is clearly drawn. For a convict who fully met the obligations after the return process began, until the judge’s decision reached the directorate, the period up to that date was held to be time served in enforcement under supervised release. [5]
In contrast, where the obligations were not fulfilled during this interim period and the measure was not actually applied, it was explained that the date of the violation following the second warning should be the basis. Accordingly, merely the fact that the conditional release date in the old sentence calculation sheet (müddetname) has passed does not make return legally impossible in every case. [5]
The application should be supported by signature records, interview minutes, program attendance schedules and the date on which the decision reached the directorate. The desired outcome may be not only the removal of the return but, alternatively, the correct determination of the period to be counted in enforcement.
What Issues Do the Constitutional Court Decisions Highlight?
Mehmet Öztop: Lawful Ground and Procedure Are Reviewed Together
In the decision of the Second Section of the Constitutional Court (AYM) in the case of Mehmet Öztop, Application No. 2022/87258, dated November 27, 2024, it was held that the right to liberty and security of person had been violated by the revocation of supervised release and the return to an open institution. In the case, obligations that had not yet begun because of leave were considered violated, and significant problems were found regarding competence, the directorate’s application and the assessment of persistence. [6]
The Constitutional Court did not treat the decision of an enforcement judgeship in a different place as a constitutional violation on its own. The violation was determined through the serious and obvious irregularity across the whole event. It is therefore incorrect to present the decision as meaning that “every act of an incompetent judgeship automatically gives rise to compensation.” The decision shows that the statutory ground and the procedure for a return must be shown concretely. [6]
Çağlar Güder: Admissibility and Merits Must Be Kept Apart
In the decision of the First Section of the Constitutional Court (AYM) in the case of Çağlar Güder, Application No. 2023/99726, dated July 22, 2026, the complaint of an applicant living abroad about supervision obligations and a return decision was examined. For the right to liberty and security, the decisive point was that the return decision had not been enforced and that no actual deprivation of liberty had occurred. The complaint was declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. [7]
This outcome does not mean that the content and severity of the obligations were found lawful in every respect. If a change is sought because of living abroad, the concrete living conditions and the requested adjustment should be explained in the domestic remedy. The decision also shows the importance of properly linking the right claimed in a constitutional complaint to the concrete interference.
Objection Period, Authority and Request for a Stay
Separate the Directorate’s Act from the Judge’s Decision
An objection to the directorate itself, or a complaint to the enforcement judgeship, may be raised against acts such as the directorate’s supervision plan, report or warning. For a complaint, the fifteen-day period from learning of the act is taken into account, and in any case the thirty-day period from the act. An application made within the directorate should not be assumed to preserve the judicial time limits automatically. [2][3]
The current objection period against an enforcement judge’s order to return is two weeks from notification. The petition is submitted to the enforcement judgeship that issued the decision, and the heavy penal court (ağır ceza mahkemesi) examines the objection. The seven-day general description found in older sources should not be used in place of the current Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships. [3][8] For details, see the article on enforcement at home, on weekends and at night.
Filing Does Not Automatically Stop Enforcement
Filing a complaint or an objection does not automatically stop the implementation of the act. Against an administrative act, a request for a stay may be made within the complaint, explaining the conditions of manifest illegality or of harm that is difficult or impossible to remedy. In an objection to a judicial decision, the possibility of deferring enforcement under CMK 269 (Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure) is also assessed separately. [2][3][8]
A request for a stay must not repeat the principal objection. For example, where reliance is placed on an obligation that has not yet begun, on the absence of a warning notice or on a clear date error, the relevant document should be shown immediately. It should not be assumed that the act is suspended before a decision on the request has been given.
Why the Five-Day and Two-Day Rules Should Not Be Confused
Article 105/A, paragraph eight, provides that TCK 292 and 293 apply to those who do not apply within two further days after the application period to the directorate has expired, and to those who do not surrender to the nearest chief public prosecutor’s office within two days after the return decision. This provision is not a permission that freely extends the initial five-day application period. [1][9]
In criminal liability, the notification of the decision, the formal notice (ihtar), knowledge and intent are examined separately. Raising a claim of defective notification does not justify disregarding the surrender obligation in force. The enforcement of the return decision and the legal remedy against it must be managed together.
Which Documents Should Be in the Objection File?
| Subject of objection | Core document | Connection to be explained |
|---|---|---|
| Program not known | Supervision plan and notification document | Which obligation was notified, and when |
| Incorrect count of persistence | Violation records and warnings | Sequence of events, the one-year period and warning notifications |
| Excuse | Dated health or other official records | How the obstacle prevented the relevant obligation |
| Rule for children | Identity document and record of the start of enforcement | Age at the start of enforcement |
| Period treated as incomplete | Signature and program attendance schedules | Continuation of actual enforcement during the return process |
| Competence and procedure | Directorate letter, commission and judicial decisions | Requesting unit, decision-making authority and legal ground |
In the petition’s request section, depending on the circumstances, the following may be requested separately: annulment of the return decision, deferral of enforcement until the objection is decided, obtaining missing documents, and the correct calculation of the period served in enforcement. The priority and alternatives among the requests should be stated clearly.
For a constitutional application after ordinary remedies have been exhausted, the individual application to the Constitutional Court and determining the thirty-day application period should be considered together. A Constitutional Court application does not automatically cure a missed ordinary objection period.
For related details, you may also read our article on objections to decisions of the good-conduct and observation board.
How Should the Timeline Be Built in a Violation File?
A Single Date Does Not Explain All Legal Consequences
The day of the violation, the day the warning was issued, the date the warning was served, the date of the commission’s action, the date of the enforcement judge’s decision, the date the decision reached the directorate and the date it was notified to the convict are different events. The return decision becoming final is also a separate stage. If the documents are merged under a single “return date,” both the assessment of persistence and the calculation of time may be built incorrectly. In the decision numbered 2026/1976 in particular, what matters is the date on which the judge’s decision reached the directorate; it cannot be assumed that this date is automatically the day the decision was issued or served on the convict. [5]
| Date or period | Record to be checked | Legal assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Start of the obligation | Plan and notification document | Which program the person was expected to follow |
| Each violation | Incident report and excuse document | Intent, excuse and whether the violation actually occurred |
| Notification of each warning | Service receipt (mazbata) or delivery record | Whether the warning existed before the next violation |
| Sending the file to the judge | Commission decision and dispatch record | Ground and scope of the return request |
| Participation during the interim period | Signature, interview and work records | Whether the measure was actually applied |
| Arrival of the judge’s decision at the directorate | Incoming document register | Calculation of time in the return process |
| Notification to the convict | Records of notification, knowledge and formal notice (ihtar) | Assessment of the objection and surrender obligations |
This table is not a formula that calculates time limits automatically. Each date should be taken from the relevant document; an unknown date should not be written approximately. If the applicant does not hold the record of arrival at the directorate, obtaining the record may be expressly requested. A change in the enforcement calculation should also be shown separately on the sentence calculation sheet.
When the Type of Violation Changes, the Time Calculation Is Re-Examined
The assessment in a return process initiated for persistent non-compliance with obligations should not be carried over directly to the Article 105/A-7 process, which rests on a public prosecution being brought for a new intentional offence. In the first, the violation and warning records and actual compliance are decisive; in the second, the date of the alleged act, the statutory lower limit of the sentence and the bringing of the public prosecution. It would not be correct to apply the same date to all grounds for return merely because the date of arrival at the directorate was taken as the basis in the decision concerning the first group. [1] [5]
How Does a Missing Document in the File Affect the Objection?
For example, if there was a hospital visit on the day shown as the third violation, the time of the visit should be compared with the time at which the obligation had to be fulfilled. If the document shows only the outpatient clinic date, it may be necessary to request the incident record from the directorate and the relevant admission and treatment information from the hospital. This example does not mean that every hospital record automatically proves an excuse; it ensures that the claim is built in a way that can be investigated.
If the person claims that the obligation was not violated at all, a missing entry in the signature schedule or an incorrect identity match should be shown separately. If the violation occurred but there was a justified obstacle, the subject of the defense is different. These alternative explanations should be framed without making each other uncertain. In the petition, stating which event cannot be counted as a violation and why, instead of only a general request for equity, makes the examination concrete.
Conclusion
In a supervised release violation file, effective legal protection begins with putting the events in the right order. The source of the obligation, the warnings and their notification, the excuse, the age at the start of enforcement and actual compliance during the return process must be assessed together. The application should aim not only at objecting to a return to prison, but at showing with concrete documents that the statutory conditions were not met or that the enforcement period was wrongly determined.
For legal support in criminal proceedings and enforcement, you may look at our criminal law services.
Related articles: Excuse and Medical Report in a Supervised Release Violation.
Frequently Asked Questions
If I miss signing once, will I be sent to prison immediately?
Under Article 105/A, the general assessment looks at three unexcused and intentional violations together with the necessary warnings. However, failing to make the initial application after leaving the institution and new public prosecutions are governed by separate rules. [1][2]
Must all three violations be signing violations?
No. In the Court of Cassation decision K.2026/1704, different violations concerning signing, individual interviews and seminars were assessed together. Excuse and procedural conditions are assessed separately for each event. [4]
Does everyone who committed the offence as a child fall under the four-violation rule?
No. Whether the person was a child when enforcement of supervised release began is decisive. The age at the time of the offence alone is not sufficient. [2][4]
Must I keep signing after a return request has been made?
Supervised release enforcement continues until the judge’s decision is received. During this period, documenting compliance is also important for counting the period as time served in enforcement. [2][5]
If I object, does the surrender obligation stop?
An objection does not by itself have a suspensive effect. It should be checked whether there is a separate decision to stay the proceedings or to defer enforcement. [3][8]
Is every return made to a closed prison?
No. Article 105/A, paragraphs six and seven, provide for referral to an open penal institution. If there are other grounds such as pretrial detention, escape or a different enforcement basis, their consequences are assessed separately. [1]
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures (5275 sayılı Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun), Article 105/A, in particular paragraphs 6–8.
- Supervised Release Services Regulation (Denetimli Serbestlik Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği), in particular Articles 43–48 and 87–88. Link to the official legislation.
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (4675 sayılı İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), Articles 5–6.
- 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi), E.2024/5596, K.2026/1704, March 5, 2026, reasoning paragraphs 4–6 and ruling. Age at the start of enforcement, three different violations and warning notifications; extraordinary appeal in the interest of the law.
- 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E.2025/451, K.2026/1976, March 13, 2026, in particular reasoning paragraphs 8–10. Effect of actual enforcement during the return process on the calculation of time; extraordinary appeal in the interest of the law.
- Constitutional Court, Second Section, Mehmet Öztop, Application No. 2022/87258, November 27, 2024, paragraphs 40–54 and ruling. Result: violation of the right to liberty and security of person.
- Constitutional Court, First Section, Çağlar Güder, Application No. 2023/99726, July 22, 2026, paragraphs 14–18 and ruling. Manifestly ill-founded, as there was no actual deprivation of liberty; inadmissibility.
- Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (5271 sayılı Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), Articles 267–271, in particular Article 269.
- Law No. 5237, Turkish Penal Code (5237 sayılı Türk Ceza Kanunu), Articles 292–293.