A disciplinary penalty imposed in a penal enforcement institution can affect daily life, contact with family and the assessment of good conduct. However, a record made inside the institution does not, on its own, show that the sanction is lawful. The concrete act, fault, legal basis, opportunity to defend and reasoned decision must be examined together. The first application is a complaint to the enforcement judgeship; an objection against the judgeship's decision is a separate step. These two stages have different time limits. [1] [2] The related procedure is covered in the article application to and objection before the enforcement judgeship.
This article, prepared on the basis of the regulations current as of October 14, 2026, explains the process from the imposition of a disciplinary penalty to its removal, using actual Constitutional Court (AYM) decisions. Because the effect on good conduct and on release cannot be determined from the name of the penalty alone, the relevant enforcement records must also be reviewed.
How is the lawfulness of a disciplinary penalty assessed?
The act described in the law must be linked to the concrete event
Article 37 of Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures is based on the culpable violation of rules aimed at ensuring an orderly life, security and discipline. The administration must explain which disciplinary act the conduct falls under and why it requires the sanction in question. The harsh tone of a petition, the place where an item was found or an incident report cannot be assessed apart from the context of the event. [1]
In disciplinary review two questions are kept apart: did the alleged conduct actually take place and, if it did, do its elements meet the legal disciplinary act and the general conditions? An objection that rests only on the sentence “the penalty is too severe” may leave unseen a defense that the allegation never occurred or was directed at the wrong person.
A disciplinary investigation and a criminal investigation are different
If the same event also constitutes a crime, a separate criminal investigation may be conducted. A disciplinary procedure and a criminal case differ in subject, method and outcome. Nevertheless, contradictions between camera footage, a medical report or a witness statement in the two files cannot be left out of account. The body reviewing the disciplinary decision must discuss the concrete evidence before it and the relevant defenses. [1]
While waiting for the outcome of a criminal investigation, letting the disciplinary application period run out is a serious risk. A statement made in one file should not be assumed to pass automatically into the other; the document to be relied on must be identified expressly in the file where it is to be used.
Which disciplinary sanctions may be applied in prison?
Sanction types for adults
The law provides for reprimand, deprivation of participation in certain activities, deprivation of paid work, deprivation of or restriction on correspondence or communication devices, deprivation of receiving visitors, and placement in a cell. The acts to which each sanction may apply, and the durations, differ. [1]
The basis on which a sanction rests matters as much as its name. For example, different groups of acts are tied to different duration ranges for placement in a cell, and the subsequent removal period is affected by this distinction. For that reason, the full reasoned decision should be obtained rather than a short notice given to the convicted person.
A separate regime applies to children
Measures and disciplinary penalties for child convicts are regulated separately in Articles 45 and 46. The adult sanctions table cannot be applied to children directly. The child's development, protection and educational needs, as well as the conditions for defense, must be considered separately. The periods and procedure for removal also differ from those for adults. [1]
When reviewing a case, the person's age and the date of the event must be determined, and it must be checked whether the sanction name used in institutional records is consistent with the statutory regime for children. For children, the special safeguards on contact with their family and attorney cannot be considered automatically removed merely because a visiting ban applies to adults. For a separate assessment on this point, see the article on the right to meet an attorney in prison.
Defense and time limits in a disciplinary investigation
The allegation must be notified in an understandable way
A defense must be taken before a disciplinary penalty is imposed. Under Article 47 of the Law, a three-day period is given for the defense; the notice must state the nature of the allegation and the consequence of not presenting a defense. The defense may be made in writing or orally. Providing the necessary assistance because of language or disability is also important for the defense to be genuinely usable. [1] On this topic, the article on disciplinary penalties for protests and hunger strikes in prison may also be read.
A defense is not merely a document to be signed. The person must be able to understand what is alleged to have happened, where and when. If the allegation rests on an image or a document, its content must be open to discussion; if the person denies that a document belongs to them, that objection must be investigated. Where access to evidence has been restricted, the reasons and the way in which the defense is protected must be assessed separately.
The investigation and decision process must be recorded
The Law provides a different procedure for sanctions that the institution director may impose directly and for sanctions assessed by the disciplinary board. For investigations assigned to an investigator, the investigation must begin immediately and no later than five days; it must be completed within fifteen days and may, if necessary, be extended by up to seven days by decision of the enforcement judge. The board decides within three days from the time the file reaches it. There is a special rule on the starting point for escape. [1]
When these periods are discussed, the date of the event, the date of learning, the start of the investigation, any extension, the defense and the decision should be shown separately. Instead of a general statement that the “investigation was late”, it should be explained which stage did not meet which time limit under which document. The effect of a time-limit breach on the outcome must also be argued by reference to the relevant rule and the features of the file.
How is a complaint made to the enforcement judgeship?
The fifteen-day and thirty-day limits
Under Article 5 of Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judges, a complaint must be made within fifteen days from learning of the decision, act or operation, and in any event within thirty days from its taking place. The date of learning and the date of notification may not be the same in every case. The copy of the decision, the notification document and the record showing that the application was submitted to the institution should be kept. [2]
The application may be made directly to the enforcement judgeship, or through the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office (Cumhuriyet başsavcılığı) or the institution's administration. An application submitted anywhere other than the judgeship must be forwarded immediately and in any event within three days. An oral complaint is recorded in minutes, and a copy is given to the applicant. If a copy of the document cannot be obtained, the time limit should still be preserved, the matter should be determined as far as possible and the case file should be requested. [2]
Can relatives of a convicted person apply?
The Law gives the right to apply, for a convicted or detained person, to a spouse, mother, father, a child capable of discernment, a sibling, a defense counsel, a legal representative and the monitoring board. The application must concern the person. This authority does not mean that every relative or any third party may complain in the same capacity. [2] For a detailed explanation, the article on prisoner leave may be useful.
The petition filed by a relative must clearly state the institution's name, the person's identity, the date and number of the decision and the applicant's relationship to the person. If the content of the person's defense is not known, a claim should not be built around an event that did not occur on their behalf. Instead, the request should be framed around the document requested and the known facts. A related topic is the article on transfer to another institution from prison.
Defense and examination of evidence before the judge
A defense given in the institution does not replace judicial hearing
In a complaint against a disciplinary penalty, the enforcement judge decides after taking the defense of the convicted or detained person and collecting and assessing the other evidence requested. The defense may be made together with or through an attorney, subject to the statutory conditions on a power of attorney and on attendance. If the judge considers it necessary, the judge may take the defense at the institution. [2]
This guarantee does not mean that every file must repeat all the forms of a classic criminal hearing. However, rejecting the person's request to be heard and resolving the dispute solely on the basis of the file may give rise to a problem of fair trial in the concrete case. The M.Ş.A. decision is important on this distinction. [3]
Requests for evidence must be specific
When requesting camera footage, the time and place of the event should be stated; when requesting a witness hearing, the fact the witness knows should be identified; when requesting a medical examination, the way in which the report would clarify the defense should be explained. If there is a risk that footage will be deleted, its preservation should be requested without delay.
The existence of a record does not mean that counter-evidence is unnecessary. Equally, it is not mandatory to accept every evidence request automatically. The relevance of the request to the dispute and its effect on the outcome should be explained; if it is rejected, the reason why the stated ground is insufficient should be shown.
Can the enforcement of the penalty be stayed?
A complaint does not automatically stay enforcement
Law No. 4675 provides that an application does not automatically suspend the operation. The enforcement judge may order a deferral or a stay where the two conditions are met together: consequences that are difficult or impossible to remedy and a clear unlawfulness. Each of the two elements must be reasoned separately. [2]
An imminent assessment date, a serious health condition or a sanction that will be applied and end within a short period may be concretely explained as sources of effect. Saying only “I will be harmed” is not sufficient; dates, records and documents should be provided. It should also be kept in mind that the enforcement of a cell placement requires judicial approval, and that this approval is not the same concept as a substantive examination of the complaint. [1]
Objection to the judgeship's decision
Under the current procedure, the period for objecting to an enforcement judgeship decision is two weeks from notification. The objection is examined by the competent Heavy Penal Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi). The fifteen/thirty-day system for the initial complaint and this two-week period should not be confused. The statement of the legal remedy in the decision and the notification record should be checked; outdated explanations referring to a seven-day period should not be relied upon. [2]
In the objection, the reasoning of the judgeship should be targeted rather than the initial petition simply being repeated. The questions are: was the defense taken, was decisive evidence gathered, were the elements of the act and fault explained, and was proportionality assessed? The request for the decision to be set aside or for reconsideration should be stated clearly.
Enforcement, removal and good conduct of a disciplinary penalty
Serving a penalty does not mean the record is removed
For adults, separate periods for removal of a disciplinary penalty after its enforcement are provided: fifteen days for reprimand; one month for deprivation of certain activities; three months for deprivation of paid work and for communication and visiting sanctions; and six months or one year for placement in a cell, depending on the group of acts concerned. These periods are assessed together with good conduct and the competent authority's decision on removal. [1]
Different periods and removal provisions apply to children. For this reason, it is not correct to transfer the adult table to children, or to say that all sanctions are automatically erased after a fixed period.
Effect on conditional release
Article 48 of the Law sets out, among the conditions relevant to conditional release, the enforcement and removal of disciplinary penalties; a delay cannot push the release date beyond the date on which it would otherwise fall. The good-conduct assessment is also made on the basis of the relevant records and the statutory criteria. The conclusion that “if a disciplinary penalty has been imposed, all release rights are lost permanently” is not correct. [1]
Where the disciplinary decision has been removed, the institution's file may be asked to be updated and subsequent acts that rested on that decision to be reconsidered. By contrast, the unlawfulness of an earlier penalty does not automatically eliminate all decisions that rest on separate grounds apart from it. The link must be established for each act.
What distinctions do actual Constitutional Court decisions show?
M.Ş.A.: rejection of a complaint without taking the defense
In the application of M.Ş.A., the Constitutional Court examined a complaint against a two-day cell placement that had been decided without taking an oral defense. The applicant had asked to be heard. The court, taking into account the safeguard in Law No. 4675 as well, held that the right to an oral hearing had been violated and ordered a retrial. [3] For detailed information, see the article on the right to petition and access to a court in prison.
This outcome does not mean that the Constitutional Court established that the conduct subject to discipline never occurred. The violation lies in the procedure of judicial review. In the same application, the rejection of a separate complaint about cell conditions for failure to exhaust the available remedies shows that the appropriate route must be separately followed for each alleged violation. [3]
Esra Arıkan: the context of the petition and its effect on institutional order
In the Esra Arıkan decision of July 22, 2026, a sanction of deprivation of participation in an activity was examined, imposed because of words used in a petition concerning heating and hot water problems. The Constitutional Court did not consider it sufficient to focus only on the rudeness of the words; it found a violation of freedom of expression because the context of the words and their effect on institutional order were not explained. A retrial and non-pecuniary compensation were ordered. [4]
The decision does not mean that every harsh expression is free from sanction. Also, the inadmissibility outcome for other ill-treatment allegations in the application should not be confused with a finding of a violation of freedom of expression. The application must show which words were used in which context and how they were linked to the disciplinary reason. [4] For more on this subject, the article on religion and worship in prison may be read.
Engin Polat: not every visiting sanction was found to be a violation
In the Engin Polat decision of November 19, 2024, the Constitutional Court held that the right to respect for family life had not been violated in respect of a one-month deprivation of visitors. In the concrete case, the fact that the defense had been heard, the assessment that the act caused panic in the institution, the lowest level of sanction and the necessary health measures were taken into account. [5]
This decision cannot be read as meaning that automatic sanctions may be applied to persons with psychological problems. The applicant's claims and the concrete circumstances affected the outcome. The assessment of health needs, the reasoning for the sanction and the documentation of its effect on contact with family are of separate importance. [5]
What should an effective complaint file contain?
Each objection should be matched with a document and a request
| Examination topic | Document or record | Concrete request to be made |
|---|---|---|
| Occurrence and attribution of the act | Incident report, camera footage, witnesses, writing sample | Preservation of the evidence and investigation of attribution |
| Fault and health condition | Current health records, assessment of the incident | Examination of the health data together with the act and the fault |
| Right of defense | Notice of allegation, defense record, request to be heard | Taking of the defense and assessment of decisive evidence |
| Time limits and enforcement | Decision, notification, learning and enforcement records | Review within the time limit; stay if conditions are met |
| Subsequent effect on enforcement | Good-conduct decision, date of assessment, record of removal of the penalty | Reassessment of the act resting on an unlawful basis |
Where a constitutional complaint continues after the ordinary remedies have been exhausted, the conditions for an individual application are examined separately. At this stage, pointing out only an error of law may not be sufficient; the constitutional right, the concrete interference and the continuing effect must be explained. The firm's reviews of individual application to the Constitutional Court in criminal cases and of the thirty-day application period complete this preparation. [6]
Which dates are used to calculate the effect of a disciplinary penalty on release?
The dates of decision, finality, enforcement and removal must be kept apart
At least four dates are distinguished in a disciplinary file: the decision imposing the sanction, the decision becoming final, the enforcement of the penalty and its removal. When the conditional release date and the earned release date are added to these, the practical effect of the sanction can be seen. Counting a period only from the date of the decision may lead to a miscalculation of the removal period, which runs from enforcement. For adults, the periods in Article 48 of Law No. 5275 and the decision of the competent authority are assessed together. [1]
| Sanction on an adult | Period applied after enforcement | Additional point to check |
|---|---|---|
| Reprimand | Fifteen days | Removal act of the institution's highest-ranking official |
| Deprivation of certain activities | One month | Good conduct and absence of a new disciplinary penalty |
| Paid work, communication or visiting sanctions | Three months | Supervisor's proposal and disciplinary board decision |
| Cell placement, within Art. 44/2 | Six months | Paragraph on which the act rests and enforcement record |
| Cell placement, within Art. 44/3 | One year | Paragraph on which the act rests and enforcement record |
The table does not apply to children. In addition, if deprivation of receiving visitors has been applied for health reasons in place of a cell placement, the three-month period for an ordinary visiting sanction is not used; in that case the law refers to the removal period for cell placement. The visible name of the sanction and the legal conversion on which it rests must be read together. [1]
Where a cell placement cannot be enforced for health reasons
A physician's examination is required before a cell placement and during its enforcement. For a convicted person who is found unable to endure the penalty, deferral of enforcement or its application at intervals set by the physician comes into question. If a health board report, as specified in the law, establishes that the person will not recover by the conditional release date, deprivation of receiving visitors for two or four months, depending on the paragraph applied, is provided in place of the cell placement. This cannot be interpreted to mean that all disciplinary consequences disappear merely on the basis of a hospital application record. [1]
In the application, the effect of the health problem on the enforcement of the penalty should be made concrete; the examination request, the report and the institution's response should be attached. Health data are private. Submitting the documents necessary for the review of the file should be distinguished from sharing this information in publicly accessible places.
Does an acquittal automatically remove a disciplinary penalty?
The reasoning of the decision must be compared with the disciplinary allegation
An acquittal decision on the same event may be an important new document; however, it cannot be said that the disciplinary penalty is automatically lifted without reading the reasoning for the acquittal. A finding that the act did not occur, a finding that the act was not committed by the defendant, the elements of the offense not being met and insufficient proof in the criminal proceedings are not the same grounds. Which act and which fault the disciplinary decision rested on is examined separately. [1]
In files concerning the delivery obligation, formal notice and service in particular, the effect of the deficiency identified in the criminal proceedings on the assessment of fault in the disciplinary decision should be explained. Instead of being content with saying “I was acquitted,” the reasoning of the judgment, the service documents and the same fact in the disciplinary file should be placed side by side. The existence of a conviction or an acquittal does not remove the need to make the disciplinary application within the time limit.
A separate request may be needed for later enforcement decisions
Where a disciplinary sanction is annulled for unlawfulness, and a return from an open institution or a negative good-conduct decision was given on the basis of it, the link to the file should be shown. Whether the annulment decision has reached the institution and whether the records have been updated is followed up. By contrast, the removal of the penalty after its proper enforcement is not the same act as the sanction being regarded as unlawful from the outset.
The rule in Article 33 of the Observation and Classification Regulation (Gözlem ve Sınıflandırma Yönetmeliği) that penalty points are not erased despite removal should also be read within this distinction. The points of the same disciplinary penalty are taken into account once throughout the entire enforcement period. Keeping a sanction that has been annulled for unlawfulness in the assessment, however, is a different problem that requires separate reasoning; the scope of the annulment decision should be set out and correction of the records requested. [7]
Conclusion
Effective legal protection against a disciplinary penalty begins with obtaining the complete institutional decision and preserving the time limits. The act, fault, defense and reasoning must be examined separately, and the enforcement, removal and effect on good conduct of the penalty must not be confused. AYM decisions show both the importance of procedural safeguards and that not every sanction automatically constitutes a constitutional violation. In connection with this subject, the article on searches in prison and protection of human dignity may also be read.
Frequently Asked Questions
Within how many days must a prison disciplinary penalty be challenged?
A complaint to the enforcement judgeship must be made within fifteen days from learning of the act and, in any event, within thirty days from the act. An objection to the judgeship's decision must be made within two weeks from notification. [2]
If I complain, does the cell or visiting sanction stop immediately?
A complaint does not automatically stop the sanction. A stay or deferral may be requested separately where the statutory conditions are met. The separate judicial approval for enforcing a cell placement is also examined separately. [1] [2]
I gave a defense in the institution; should the enforcement judge hear me again?
There is a separate judicial defense guarantee in disciplinary complaints. The concrete event and the manner in which the defense was taken must be assessed; in the M.Ş.A. decision, a violation was found because of a rejection made without a hearing. [2] [3]
Does good conduct improve automatically once a disciplinary penalty has been served?
Completion of the enforcement, the removal process and the good-conduct assessment are different matters. For adults, the relevant period, the good-conduct requirement and the competent decision should be examined. [1]
Can the brother of a convicted person file a complaint petition?
Law No. 4675 lists a brother of a convicted or detained person among those who may apply, provided the application concerns that person. The identity and the relationship must be stated in the petition. [2]
Can one go directly to the Constitutional Court for every unlawful disciplinary penalty?
No. As a rule, effective ordinary remedies must be properly exhausted, and the time limit for an individual application and the other admissibility conditions must be met. [6]
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures (5275 sayılı Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun), Articles 37–52 and 89; discipline, defense, enforcement, removal and good conduct.
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judges (4675 sayılı İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), Articles 4–6; complaint, defense, stay and objection.
- Constitutional Court, M.Ş.A., Application No. 2020/14078, October 3, 2024, in particular paras. 14–16, 22–27 and the judgment.
- Constitutional Court, Esra Arıkan, Application No. 2023/19166, July 22, 2026, in particular paras. 17–22 and the judgment.
- Constitutional Court, Engin Polat, Application No. 2020/35991, November 19, 2024, in particular paras. 18–23 and the judgment; a concrete case without a violation.
- Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court (6216 sayılı Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kuruluşu ve Yargılama Usulleri Hakkında Kanun), Articles 45–48; conditions for individual application.
- Regulation on Observation and Classification Centers and the Evaluation of Convicts (Gözlem ve Sınıflandırma Merkezleri ile Hükümlülerin Değerlendirilmesine Dair Yönetmelik), Articles 33 and 36–38; disciplinary points and subsequent actions.