An allegation that a new offense was committed while supervised release is ongoing does not automatically mean a return to prison in every case. Under Article 105/A/7 of Law No. 5275, the time of the offense, its intentional nature, the lower limit of its penalty, the opening of the public prosecution and the assessment of the enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği) are all important. On the other hand, if a return decision is issued, the calculation of the time spent under supervision may turn out differently from what the person expects.
A return because of a new offense and a return because of a violation of supervision obligations should not be subjected to the same time calculation. The fact that the obligation to sign in has been continued does not, on its own, remove all the consequences of a return based on a new public prosecution. This article addresses enforcement carried out under Article 105/A before the conditional release date; revocation of conditional release is a separate legal regime.
What are the conditions for a return based on a new offense allegation?
The alleged act must have been committed after supervision began
The law is based on an offense alleged to have been committed after the supervised release measure began to be applied. If an indictment is later prepared for an offense alleged to have been committed on an earlier date, the mere fact that the date of the case is new does not satisfy the same condition. It is therefore necessary to show the date of the offense and the date of the case separately. [1]
The file may not contain a single date. Where there are acts alleged to be continuous, allegations of an offense committed in a chain, or more than one act, it must be explained which event the indictment is based on. In files where other supervision processes exist, such as drug use, the date of the violation in that process and the date of the act counted as a new offense under Article 105/A should not be automatically treated as the same.
An intentional offense and a lower limit of at least one year
The condition the article requires is an intentional offense whose penalty has a lower limit of one year or more of imprisonment. It is not enough merely to say that “a prison sentence is being sought.” Negligent offenses do not meet the intent requirement of this special paragraph. The one-year threshold does not cover only sentences of more than one year; a lower limit of exactly one year also falls within the text. [1]
In the assessment, instead of the amount of the sentence requested by the prosecutor or the public perception that the offense is serious, the legal characterization of the accusation and the provision to be applied should be examined. If a qualified form, the rules in force on the date of the offense and later favorable amendments are disputed, their effect on the conditions for return must be separately reasoned. The enforcement of another final conviction, on the other hand, may lead to different procedures.
Opening an investigation and opening a public prosecution are different
A complaint, taking a statement, an arrest or the existence of an investigation number does not, on its own, mean that a public prosecution has been opened. Under CMK Article 175, a public prosecution is opened by the acceptance of the indictment. For this reason, the date the indictment was prepared and the date the court accepted it should not be confused. [2]
The acceptance decision and the relevant court record should be added to the file. If the indictment has been returned, its status should be investigated. Where there are separate grounds, such as a pretrial detention decision or the enforcement of a newly final sentence, their consequences independent of Article 105/A/7 are assessed separately. The statement “there is no case yet” does not automatically invalidate all other enforcement procedures.
Must the enforcement judge issue a return decision automatically?
The meaning of the phrase “may be decided”
The law provides that, at the request of the supervised release directorate, the enforcement judge may decide to send the person to an open institution. The existence of the conditions and the circumstances of the specific case must therefore be assessed. This is not an authority that can be replaced by the unilateral decision of the directorate. [1]
Discretion is also not an authority to accept or reject without reasons. It must be possible to understand from the decision which offense is alleged to have been committed on which date, how the conditions of the prosecution and the penalty threshold are met, and why the objections raised were not accepted. The defense should not be limited to saying “I have not been convicted yet”; it should also contain explanations on the concrete conditions.
The boundary between the presumption of innocence and an enforcement procedure
The opening of a new case does not mean that guilt has become final. A return procedure and proof of the new offense are separate assessments. On the other hand, Article 105/A/7 provides that, under certain conditions, an enforcement decision may be issued without waiting for a final new conviction. Neither “if there is a case, the person is guilty” nor “no enforcement procedure can be carried out unless the conviction is final” is therefore a correct general conclusion.
While an acquittal defense is conducted in the trial of the new offense, the conditions of the return and the reasoning of the decision must be separately examined in the enforcement file. The application files may refer to each other; however, one does not replace the other.
How is the time spent under supervised release calculated?
The distinction established by the 2026 decision
In the decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi) dated 10.04.2026, E. 2025/426, K. 2026/2778, supervision began on 15.02.2023, the public prosecution was opened on 16.10.2023 and the return decision became final on 07.12.2023. The Chamber accepted that the supervision period to be counted in this file must be determined up to the date the public prosecution was opened. It did not find it appropriate to count the period until the return decision became final on the basis of Regulation Article 87/1. [4]
The practical importance of this decision is that it shows the date of the return decision and the date used as the basis in the enforcement calculation may not be the same. However, the decision does not mean that every investigation automatically ends supervision, or that the convicted person may abandon obligations upon learning that a case has been filed. The return decision and the calculation that follows it are separate stages.
Why is a return because of a violation of obligations different?
In the decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 13.03.2026, E. 2025/451, K. 2026/1976, on the other hand, whether supervision actually continued after the violation of obligations was important. Where the obligations were fulfilled, the period up to the date the judgeship’s decision reached the directorate and the period in which supervision was not actually applied were not assessed in the same way. [5]
Comparing the two decisions shows that the legal reason for the return must be determined before the time calculation. A case filed over a new offense and a third violation of obligations cannot be written in place of each other. If both reasons are raised in the same file, it must be separately clarified which reason and which events the decision relies on.
Date table for checking the calculation
| Date or record | Why is it needed? |
|---|---|
| Actual start of supervision | Shows whether the new act occurred after supervision |
| Alleged offense date | Determines the time condition of Article 105/A/7 |
| Acceptance of the indictment | Shows the opening of the public prosecution and the disputed calculation boundary |
| Return decision and its finalization | Reveals the legal course of the procedure |
| Decision reaching the directorate | Allows comparison of the different calculation based on a violation of obligations |
| Entry into the institution and current müddetname | Allows checking the later enforcement and release dates |
If the müddetname (sentence calculation sheet) shows only the result date, an explanation of the periods on which the calculation is based may be requested. Whether the period not counted under supervision will be separately assessed on account of pretrial detention or another enforcement is a separate set-off (mahsup) issue. The same period cannot be counted twice; a definite release date should not be calculated without examining the individual file. For the detailed method, our article on objecting to the müddetname and correcting the enforcement calculation may be consulted.
What happens if an acquittal or dismissal decision is issued in the new case?
Decisions listed in the law
Article 105/A/7 provides that, if at the end of the trial a decision of acquittal, no need to impose a penalty, rejection of the case or dismissal is issued, the enforcement judgeship decides that enforcement will continue through supervised release. These decisions should be submitted to the file and the relevant enforcement procedure should be requested. The convicted person does not leave the institution on his or her own or restart the old plan by his or her own decision. [1]
Different types of decisions, such as deferment of the pronouncement of judgment (hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması), should not be equated with the results listed in the law without reasons. The finalization of a new conviction may also bring aggregation and enforcement assessments onto the agenda. Which result will follow is determined together with the type of decision and the status of other enforcement files.
Is the earlier time calculation corrected automatically?
A decision to continue supervised release and the correction of the earlier enforcement calculation are not the same procedure. The time spent in the institution during the return period, the periods not counted and the new müddetname must be checked together. When requesting the application of a favorable decision, any dispute over the calculation should also be stated expressly. It should not be inferred from the relevant decisions that the same retroactive calculation result arises automatically in all files.
How is an application made against the return decision and the müddetname?
The subject of the request must be clear
An application against the return decision addresses the offense date, the intent and the lower limit of the penalty, the opening of the public prosecution, the reasoning of the decision and the defenses raised. An application concerning the müddetname shows which period was counted incorrectly and why. The first request targets the legal basis of the return; the second targets the enforcement calculation. If necessary, the two issues are explained together, but they are not confused with each other.
For an objection to an enforcement judgeship decision, the two-week period from service is taken into account. For a complaint against the directorate or the relevant enforcement procedures, the 15-day period from learning of the procedure and the 30-day period from the procedure under Article 5 of Law No. 4675 are assessed according to the nature of the procedure. The correct route must be determined for the specific procedure. [3]
A request for a stay must be reasoned separately
An application does not automatically stop the return or enforcement procedure. If a stay or postponement is requested, a manifest unlawfulness and a consequence that is difficult or impossible to remedy must be shown together. Merely stating that the new case is ongoing does not mean that it replaces all the conditions of the application. [3]
The attachments to the application should include the supervision decision, the record of the start, the indictment and the acceptance decision, the return decision, the service documents and the current müddetname. A comparison relating to the enforcement calculation can be submitted in a date table. If a new offense was committed after conditional release, the rules on revocation of conditional release must also be examined.
Conclusion
The consequences of a new offense allegation during supervised release cannot be determined by an assessment limited to the existence of the allegation. The offense and case dates, the legal characterization of the offense, the statutory penalty threshold and the reasoning of the enforcement judgeship must be examined together. If a return occurs, the time calculation must be separately reviewed; the calculation method for a violation of obligations should not be applied directly to a return based on a new public prosecution.
Related articles: Excuse in a Supervised Release Violation: Medical Report, Hospital Companion, Detention and Objection; Changing Supervised Release Obligations: Work, Health, Residence and Application Routes; Failure to Report to Prison After Supervised Release: Escape Offense, Notification and Warnings.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is being the subject of a complaint during supervised release a reason to return to prison?
A complaint alone does not satisfy all the conditions in Article 105/A/7. The opening of a public prosecution, the other statutory conditions and the judgeship’s assessment are required.
Does a new case filed for an old offense have the same result?
The condition that the act is alleged to have been committed after supervision began is examined separately. The fact that the date of the case is new does not turn an old act into a new offense.
Is a lower limit of one year required, or a lower limit of more than one year?
The law is based on a lower limit of one year or more. A lower limit of exactly one year is also within scope; the other conditions are separately required.
Can I stop signing in once a case is filed?
No. The decisions of the competent authorities on the return and on the plan to be applied must be followed. A dispute over dates in the enforcement calculation does not give a person the authority to abandon supervision unilaterally.
Is the entire period until the return decision counted as served?
Not in every case. In the 2026 decision referred to, the date the case was opened was used as the basis for a return connected with a new public prosecution. The reason for the return and the personal enforcement records must be examined together.
Is a person released again on supervised release after an acquittal?
The continuation procedure provided by the law is carried out by the enforcement judgeship. The decision should be submitted and its application requested; the effect of other sentences and enforcement records should also be checked.
Sources
- Law No. 5275, Article 105/A/7; Supervised Release Services Regulation (Denetimli Serbestlik Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği), Article 87/2. Text of the law, Regulation. The provision on this subject has also been compared with the reasoning of the 2026 decision below.
- Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure (5271 sayılı Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), Article 175. PDF of the law published by the Ministry of Justice.
- Law No. 4675, Articles 5–6; Law No. 7499, Article 37. Text of Law No. 4675, Amendment by Law No. 7499.
- 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi), April 10, 2026, E.2025/426, K.2026/2778. Accessible text of the decision.
- 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, March 13, 2026, E.2025/451, K.2026/1976. Accessible text of the decision, official UYAP decision address. The accessible full-text publication was used in the review.