Failure to perform a supervised release obligation is not, in every case, a violation without excuse and committed intentionally. Illness, emergency treatment, compulsory attendance at a hospital or detention may constitute a valid excuse depending on the circumstances of the case. However, submitting a medical report alone may not be sufficient: the connection of the document to the date of the violation and to the obligation that could not be performed must be explained.
This article concerns the enforcement of a sentence by supervised release under Article 105/A of Law No. 5275. The rules on judicial control, on supervision connected with the offence of drug use, and on obligations after conditional release are not the same. Generalizations such as “three violations are allowed” should not be made before it is determined which provision the file is based on.
Which conduct counts as a violation in supervised release?
The obligation and the notification must be specific
The first point to examine is what the convict was asked to do, on which day, at what time and at which place. Applying to sign in, being present at the residence, taking part in a program and working in a public-benefit job are different kinds of conduct. An excuse concerning one obligation does not, of its own accord, remove all the other obligations.
The supervision plan, any changes to the plan, the service documents and the violation report must be assessed together. If a change of day or address was not notified, the dispute is no longer only a matter of excuse; whether the obligation was properly determined and notified is also in question. Our article on supervised release violations and return to prison complements this one on the general process.
Does a third violation automatically mean return to prison?
Article 44 of the Supervised Release Services Regulation regulates, for adults, three violations without excuse and committed intentionally within one year within the scope of persistence in failing to comply with the obligation. Once the third violation is established after the second warning, the process of closing the file is started. The written notification of the warnings and the explanation of their consequences are important. The authority that decides on the return is the enforcement judge (infaz hâkimliği); the directorate’s report alone is not a judge’s decision. [1]
For children, and for persons who turned eighteen after supervision began, the same article provides for a separate warning and a fourth-violation rule. In addition, failing to meet the initial application period is a separate ground for return. The three-violation rule is therefore not an absence quota that can be used by every person under obligation.
Under what conditions does a medical report support an excuse?
The relationship between the date of the report and the time of the violation
A medical document may show that a person was ill, but it is also necessary to explain separately why the obligation could not be performed. There may be no necessary link between a short examination in the morning and a missed application in the evening. By contrast, emergency treatment, admission, restricted mobility or rest prescribed by a physician at the same hours strengthens the specific explanation.
The application must answer the following questions: When did the ailment begin? When was the health institution approached? What procedure was carried out? Why was performing the obligation medically or practically impossible? Was it possible to notify the directorate, and if not, what was the obstacle? These questions allow the personal situation to be assessed without assuming that every illness produces the same result.
Incapacity-for-work report and incomplete examination
In the decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi), E.2025/3863, K.2026/3038, dated April 17, 2026, photocopies of private health center reports covering the days of the violation had been submitted. The Chamber considered it necessary to obtain the originals or certified copies of the treatment documents and reports and to assess the excuse only after that. The result of the decision is not that every incapacity-for-work report removes the supervision obligation; a health claim that needs to be investigated cannot be rejected by an incomplete examination. [5]
For this reason, a legible report, a verifiable record and a document showing the nature of the treatment should be submitted together. If the document cannot be obtained directly, it may be expressly requested that it be obtained from the health institution. Health data should not be shared in publicly available petition templates; only records relevant to the dispute should be submitted to the file.
Is an emergency room record sufficient on its own?
In the decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E.2025/4910, K.2026/2530, dated April 3, 2026, a bicycle accident, an overnight hospital visit and the obligation to be at the residence were discussed. It was accepted that, on the basis of the e-Nabız admission record, the reason for the visit and the procedures carried out had to be investigated. The Chamber did not treat the excuse as directly established; it reversed, in the interest of the law (kanun yararına bozma), a rejection decision issued without an investigation. [4]
In events that extend past midnight, the calendar days are particularly important. The evening on which the violation began and the following day on which the hospital record was created may carry different dates. The application should explain this chronology hour by hour, without concealing it.
How are hospital attendance and detention assessed?
The difference between attendance and a visit
A relative’s presence at a hospital does not, of itself, constitute an excuse for all obligations. It must be explained whether attendance was necessary, who actually attended, the date range, and how it overlapped with the obligation concerned. The attendant’s document, admission and discharge records and, where necessary, a physician’s statement are important in this respect. A record showing only that a hospital visit took place may not carry the same evidentiary weight.
Documenting detention
In the decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E.2025/4886, K.2025/9625, dated December 26, 2025, a detention record and a specialist physician’s document showing attendance at the hospital with the mother and father were assessed. Stating that the excuse was valid and acceptable in view of the documents in the file, the Chamber found the rejection of the objection unlawful. [3]
When an excuse based on detention is raised, the times of apprehension, placement in detention (gözaltı) and release should be shown. Detention may explain the failure to perform the obligation on the relevant day; the mere fact that an investigation is being conducted against the person does not produce the same result. Moreover, the effect of a new allegation of an offence on enforcement is a separate matter from the assessment of the excuse. It is possible for one event to be examined both as an excuse and with regard to another enforcement measure.
How should an excuse application be prepared?
Linking the event, the document and the request
An effective application is not limited to the statement “I was ill.” A separate date-and-document match is made for each violation. If the lawfulness of earlier warnings is to be disputed, the reasons for this are also shown separately.
| Subject | Information to show in the file | Review requested |
|---|---|---|
| Health obstacle | Report, treatment and time records | Whether it prevented the obligation |
| Attendance | Attendant’s document and admission dates | Necessity and overlap in time |
| Detention | Official record and durations | Actual impossibility |
| Warning | Text of the warning and service document | Notification and sequence of violations |
| Return decision | Reasoned decision and date of service | Whether the conditions for return were met |
The request may be made specific as acceptance of the excuse, that the relevant event not be counted as a violation without excuse, that the missing document be obtained, or that a return decision already issued be lifted. In the case of a continuing illness, changing the future supervision plan should also be assessed separately. An excuse for a past absence and a request to change the obligations of later months are different procedures.
What should be done if notification is delayed?
The excuse and the documents should be submitted to the directorate at the earliest possible moment, and the record or receipt should be kept. If timely notification could not be made because of loss of consciousness, admission to hospital or detention, the reason for the delay is also explained with documents. A delay in notification does not mean that the health event never took place; on the other hand, an unexplained delay may make it harder to assess the claim.
What are the periods for complaint and objection?
Separate the directorate’s act from the judge’s decision
Under Article 48 of the Regulation and Article 5 of Law No. 4675, a route of complaint to the enforcement judge is provided within 15 days of learning of the act or activity concerned, and in any event within 30 days of its being carried out. An objection against a decision of the enforcement judge is available under Article 6 of Law No. 4675 within two weeks of service. These are not alternative periods for the same application. [1, 2]
It should not be assumed that submitting an excuse petition to the directorate, or asking the commission for a reassessment, automatically stops the period for judicial application. Which act was learned of on which date, and which decision was served when, should be recorded separately in the file. For the application procedure, our article on application and objection to the enforcement judge may be consulted.
Do the obligations stop once an application is made?
A complaint does not, of its own accord, stop the implementation of the act. If a clear unlawfulness and a result that is difficult or impossible to remedy are both present, a request for a stay or postponement must be supported with reasons. Nor does the sending of the file to the judgeship for return give the convict the authority to leave supervision on his or her own; Article 87/1 of the Regulation provides for enforcement to continue until the decision arrives. [1]
If the excuse is not accepted, the application should not be limited to an explanation of the last event. The report, the notification, the order of the warnings, the conditions of intent and persistence, and the reasoning of the decision are examined together. The existence of reversals in the interest of the law does not make it unnecessary to use the ordinary complaint and objection routes within time.
Conclusion
The center of the assessment of an excuse in supervised release is the relationship between the real obstacle and the obligation concerned. A medical report, an attendance document or a detention record should be submitted in a way that shows this relationship. In some files the document secures acceptance of the excuse; in others, an investigation must be carried out first. An application prepared while preserving this distinction makes both the number of violations and the legal basis of the return to prison open to review.
Related articles: Changing Supervised Release Obligations: Work, Health, Residence and Routes of Application; Failure to Report to Prison After Supervised Release: The Offence of Escape, Service of Documents and Formal Notices; A New Offence Allegation in Supervised Release: Public Prosecution, Return to Prison and Calculation of the Enforcement Period.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the obligation to go and sign end once I obtain a medical report?
It does not end of its own accord. What the report prevented, in respect of the relevant day and obligation, is assessed. The directorate should be informed, the necessary document should be submitted, and a change of plan, if any, should be requested separately.
Can a private hospital report not be used?
It is not correct to disregard a document merely because it was issued by a private health institution. The validity of the excuse is assessed by investigating the accuracy of the document, its original or certified copy and the treatment records.
Does being taken into detention automatically end supervised release?
Being unable to attend the obligation because of detention and the conditions for return based on a new allegation of an offence are separate matters. A detention record may support the excuse; other enforcement consequences are examined under the relevant special provision.
Can a hospital record be submitted later against the report of a third violation?
It may be requested that the document be placed in the file and assessed. However, the notification and application periods must not be neglected, and the reason the document could not be submitted earlier should be explained.
If I object, does the period for surrendering to prison wait?
An application does not provide an automatic stay. The return decision, the service and any stay decision should be examined together; it should not be assumed that the surrender obligation has ended because an objection was filed.
Sources and legal bases
- Supervised Release Services Regulation, in particular Articles 44, 45, 48 and 87; Official Gazette of November 10, 2021, No. 31655. Ministry of Justice published text.
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships, Articles 5–6; for the two-week objection period, Article 37 of Law No. 7499. Text of Law No. 4675, Amendment by Law No. 7499.
- Court of Cassation 1st Criminal Chamber, December 26, 2025, E.2025/4886, K.2025/9625. Decision text.
- Court of Cassation 1st Criminal Chamber, April 3, 2026, E.2025/4910, K.2026/2530. Decision text.
- Court of Cassation 1st Criminal Chamber, April 17, 2026, E.2025/3863, K.2026/3038. Decision text.
The decisions were reviewed from the accessible full-text publications to which links are provided; these links do not replace an official copy of the decision.