A criminal complaint for medical malpractice is a report made to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office or to law enforcement so that the criminal-law aspects of an event arising from medical treatment can be examined. However, for health professionals covered by Additional Article 18 of Law No. 3359, the investigation permit of the Professional Responsibility Board (MSK) is important in investigations concerning examination, diagnosis and treatment acts and practices. An objection to the Board's permit decision and an objection to the prosecutor's decision of non-prosecution are different routes of challenge. [1–4]
The most important distinction concerning time limits is this: the time limit for applying to the Ankara Regional Administrative Court against a Board decision is 10 days from notification; the time limit for objecting to a decision not to prosecute (kovuşturmaya yer olmadığı kararı) before a criminal judgeship of peace is two weeks from notification. Applying through one route does not automatically preserve the time limits of the other. This article explains, on the basis of the legislation and official decisions reviewed as of October 11, 2026, how the process works. [2–4]
Which Medical Errors Can Give Rise to Criminal Liability?
Not every adverse treatment outcome is a crime. In assessing criminal liability, the examination covers the duty of the person concerned, the care expected in the specific case, conduct contrary to that duty, the injury or death that occurred, and the causal link between the conduct and the result. Negligent injury and negligent homicide are the main offences encountered in malpractice claims. However, the legal nature of an act is not determined solely by the name of the offence written in the petition. [5]
How Is a Complication Distinguished from Culpable Treatment?
The materialisation of a known risk does not, by itself, show that the physician was at fault. Conversely, describing the event as a "complication" does not end the examination. Whether the measures needed to prevent the risk were taken, whether findings were noticed in time, and whether follow-up and intervention were appropriate must be investigated. The patient's pre-existing conditions, the urgency, the institution's facilities and the duties of the health worker concerned are assessed together. An expert opinion can be reviewed to the extent it is linked to concrete medical records. [5, 6]
How Is Responsibility Determined Within a Team?
Criminal liability is personal. The duties of the operating surgeon, the anaesthesia team, the ward physician and the nurse are not the same. What each person did or failed to do at each stage must be shown. Where several persons acted negligently, each is responsible for their own fault. Naming the hospital's trade name does not remove the need to identify the real persons whose duties are to be investigated. [5]
For example, after a postoperative deterioration, the handover of night duty, the recording of vital signs, the time the physician was informed and the decision on re-intervention may matter as much as the surgical technique. This example is hypothetical. Without seeing the duty roster and the records, it cannot be concluded that a specific team member was at fault.
Where and How Is a Criminal Complaint for Medical Malpractice Filed?
Under Article 158 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), a report or complaint may be made to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office or to law enforcement authorities. It may be made in writing or orally, to be recorded in minutes. Applications that reach other authorities named in the law are forwarded to the relevant chief public prosecutor's office. Having applied to a patient rights unit or an administrative supervisory authority does not remove the need to track which file the criminal complaint was registered in and on what date. [4]
What Information Should the Petition Contain?
A well-prepared application contains verifiable facts rather than heavy adjectives. The date of the hospital visit, the initial complaint, the intervention, the symptom that appeared afterwards, the re-attendance and the outcome should be set out in chronological order. Known health workers and their duties should be identified; for persons who are not known, the application should request that they be identified from duty and shift records. Who holds the right to complain, and any legal representation or power of attorney, should also be made clear. [2, 4]
The application should specifically include the following:
- The applicant's identity, contact and representation details, and signature.
- The dates of the events, the health institutions and the persons known to be involved.
- The specific act or omission alleged to be faulty.
- The records through which the injury, death or other outcome can be seen.
- A list of the annexes and where records not yet obtained are located.
- Requests for the protection of evidence that may be lost, for the identification of the persons concerned, and for the permit procedure to be applied to be assessed.
Law No. 4483 on the Trial of Civil Servants and Other Public Officials (Memurlar ve Diğer Kamu Görevlilerinin Yargılanması Hakkında Kanun) requires that a report or complaint be not abstract or general, that it identify a person or an event, and that it rest on serious findings and documents. However, there is no general requirement that a definitive fault report be obtained before filing. Hospital records that the patient cannot access may be requested with specificity. The exceptions the law provides for claims based on reliable documents are also taken into account. [2]
Should All Hospital Records Be Awaited Before Filing a Criminal Complaint?
Where there is a risk to a time limit, or records that may be lost, waiting for all documents to arrive may be harmful. A concrete application can be made on the information available, with a request that the missing documents be obtained. However, stating only that "treatment failed" is not enough; the conduct and process to be investigated must be specified. Under CMK 158(6), a decision that there is no ground for investigating abstract and general reports may be issued; that decision also has its own route of challenge. [4]
Which Medical Records and Evidence Should Be Collected?
The importance of records is not limited to showing the harm. They must show on which findings an intervention was made, by whom, and when. A digital summary or a discharge summary may not contain the full content of a detailed nursing monitoring chart, imaging or an anaesthesia record. The document requested should be linked to the question to be examined. [2, 4, 6]
| Subject examined | Relevant record | Purpose to be stated in the application |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnosis and follow-up | Examination notes, tests, imaging | When the findings were seen and evaluated |
| Intervention and medication | Surgery, anaesthesia and drug administration records | The person who performed the act, dose, timing and follow-up |
| Deterioration and referral | Nursing observations, consultations, 112 and referral records | Times of notification, intervention and referral |
| Team and duties | Duty, work and assignment documents | Each person's duty at the time of the event |
| Post-event status | Subsequent examinations, forensic reports and, in case of death, the related investigations | The nature of the outcome and whether it is linked to the event |
Where data that may later be deleted exist, such as camera footage from the relevant period, their preservation should be explicitly requested. Unauthorised access to another person's health information or to institutional systems must not be attempted. Health documents should be shared with competent authorities only to the extent the purpose of the file requires; the confidentiality of investigative acts and the rights of the defence are observed together. [4]
Can Evidence Be Preserved While an Investigation Permit Is Awaited?
Yes. Article 4 of Law No. 4483 allows the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office to determine evidence that must be collected urgently and that may disappear. This exception does not mean that the entire investigation may be carried out without permission against a person subject to the permit requirement. The law also provides for a copy of the file to be sent to the competent authority without taking the statement of the person against whom the report or complaint is made. Therefore, the absolute statement that "nothing can be done until the permit is issued" is also not correct. [2]
For Which Persons and Acts Is the Professional Responsibility Board Competent?
Additional Article 18 of Law No. 3359 covers medical procedures and practices concerning examination, diagnosis and treatment carried out in the exercise of the profession by physicians, dentists and other health professionals working in public or private health institutions and foundation universities. The investigation permit in this area is granted by the Professional Responsibility Board within the Ministry of Health. Working at a private hospital does not, by itself, place a person outside the permit procedure. [1, 3]
University Hospitals and Non-Medical Acts: Drawing the Distinction
Persons subject to the investigation procedure under Article 53 of Law No. 2547 on Higher Education are excluded from the permit regime of Additional Article 18. For this reason, the hospital's signboard alone should not be relied on in deciding. Particularly where hospitals operate jointly, the person's position on the staff, their assignment, their status on the date of the event and their conduct must be determined. The Court of Cassation's 2025 decision, which called for the production of work arrangements, staff positions and assignment documents, shows the importance of this distinction. [1, 6]
A health worker's act outside medical procedures and practices does not automatically fall within the Board's competence either. Where the file contains different persons or different kinds of act, the necessary separation is evaluated. However, merely writing a deliberate offence name in the petition does not make it unnecessary to examine whether the act is linked to the exercise of the health profession. The 2026 decision of the Criminal General Assembly, which first examines the permit requirement, is important in this regard. [3, 8]
How Do the Board's Preliminary Review and Decision Period Work?
When the Board learns of an allegation within its scope, it carries out, or has carried out, a preliminary review. In the preliminary review, the explanation of the person concerned, the medical records and the event to be investigated are evaluated together and a report is prepared. The preliminary reviewer's opinion and the Board's reasoned decision are not the same document. If the Board finds the report insufficient for a decision, it may order a new review on the matters that need clarifying. [2, 3]
The decision period is 60 days from the date the Board learns of the allegation, including the preliminary review. In mandatory cases it may be extended once, by up to 30 days. It is wrong to start this period automatically from the patient's first application to any institution. Law No. 3359 doubles only the periods in Article 7 of Law No. 4483; it does not extend the objection period to 20 days. [1–3]
Neither the Law nor the Regulation provides that permission is deemed granted or refused when the period is exceeded. In case of delay, the date the file reached the Board, the preliminary review assignment and the extension procedure should be tracked. This tracking does not replace the separate protection of the other application time limits. [2, 3]
How Is the Adequacy of the Technical Opinion Assessed?
The reasoning is expected to discuss the essential medical allegations in the complaint and the responses to them. A report that merely states a result is less valuable than one that shows which records were examined, what expertise was used and how contradictory findings were evaluated. In their 2024 letter to the editor, Beşkoç, Şahin and Kestioğlu also discussed the importance of the relevant expertise in Board reviews. This academic assessment does not replace the applicable legislation or the medical review in the concrete file. [3, 12]
Who May Object to a Board Decision, Where, and Within How Many Days?
The route of challenge must be determined by reading together the title of the decision and the authority that issued it. The Board's refusal to grant permission, its decision not to process the matter, and the prosecutor's decision not to prosecute are not the same legal act. Article 11 of the Regulation expressly sets out the persons who may object to Board decisions and the competent authority. [3]
| Type of decision | Who may object | Authority and time limit |
|---|---|---|
| Board grants investigation permit | The health professional whose conduct was reviewed | Ankara Regional Administrative Court; 10 days from notification |
| Board refuses investigation permit | Chief Public Prosecutor's Office or the complainant | Ankara Regional Administrative Court; 10 days from notification |
| Board decides not to process the matter | The complainant | Ankara Regional Administrative Court; 10 days from notification |
| Prosecutor's decision not to prosecute | The victim of the crime | Criminal judgeship of peace under Article 173 of CMK; two weeks from notification |
The decision should state the route of challenge, the authority and the time limit. The notification document, electronic notification records, the full decision and its annexes should be checked together. It is not safe to base the calculation of time on a date learned by telephone, or on the date the document was actually read. Filing a new petition with the Board does not replace the judicial objection provided by law. [2, 3]
How Should an Objection Petition Be Reasoned?
The objection must clearly state the date and number of the decision, the notification information, and the person and the act for which removal of the decision is sought. The strength of an objection lies in concrete gaps in the review: tracking records that were not obtained, an intervention stage that was not examined, a wrongly identified duty, an unexplained contradiction in a report, or an insufficient expert evaluation can all be shown with documents. Merely repeating the earlier complaint may not address the flaw in the reasoning of the decision. [2, 3]
For a health worker in whose favour permission was granted, the limits of their duty, their presence at the time of the event, the notification made to them, the act they performed and the medical records in their favour must be set out with the same concreteness. An objection to the granting of permission is not a defence against a criminal judgment. The subject of review is the conditions for conducting the criminal investigation. [2, 3]
Council of State Decision: The Authority to Which a Petition Is Sent Also Matters
In its decision of May 8, 2023, E. 2023/791, K. 2023/716, the 1st Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay) found that an objection addressed to the Ankara Regional Administrative Court had been sent to the Council of State through the Avukat Portal. Noting that the examination of the objection fell within the competence of the Ankara Regional Administrative Court, the Chamber ordered that the petition and its annexes be sent there. [9]
This decision is not a ruling on the merits of whether the physician was at fault. Its practical lesson is to check the real addressee and the transaction receipt of an electronic application. It should not be concluded that sending a petition to the wrong authority will be corrected without consequences for time limits in every case. [9]
Does an Expert Report Replace the Investigation Permit?
The decision of the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated September 29, 2025, E. 2025/1481, K. 2025/6806 shows that the permit procedure and the assessment of medical fault must be separated. In the case, the patient was sent home after examination and died later. The Council of Forensic Medicine's report discussed deficiencies in follow-up; after an evaluation of the cause of death and causation, the prosecutor decided that there was no ground for prosecution. [6]
The Court of Cassation stated that the working arrangements of the health workers, their staff and assignment documents and the medical records should be collected and the file sent to the Board. It reversed, in the interest of the law (kanun yararına bozma), the rejection of an objection to a non-prosecution decision that had been issued without the investigation permit. The conclusion is that the existence of a report does not make the required permit procedure unnecessary. The decision does not finally establish that a specific physician is criminally responsible for the death. [6]
The decision of the same Chamber dated July 3, 2024, E. 2023/6125, K. 2024/3608, also examined an injury claim following lumbar disc surgery. Although the report stated that there was no complication or fault, the decision was reversed in respect of the suspected health professionals, because the required permit procedure had not been completed before the decision was given. The two decisions show that the medical content of a report and the procedural condition for prosecution are separate matters. [7]
How Does the Criminal Investigation Proceed After a Permit Decision?
Once the permit decision becomes final, the prosecutor conducts the investigation under the general provisions of criminal procedure. Granting permission does not mean automatic indictment or conviction. The prosecutor evaluates the evidence for and against and decides whether there is sufficient suspicion to bring a public action. The Board's review does not replace the judgment of the criminal court. [2–4]
Can Incidents Before 2022 Also Require Board Permission?
The age of an event does not, on its own, show that the new permit regime does not apply to a continuing file. Provisional Article 13 of Law No. 3359 regulates the continuation of proceedings, without obtaining a new Additional Article 18 permit, for persons in respect of whom a final investigation permit was granted under Law No. 4483. The existence, scope and finality of any earlier permit decision must therefore be examined. [1]
The Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation's decision dated January 7, 2026, E. 2023/289, K. 2026/5 concerned a 2015 infant death at a private hospital, where the defendant worked as a nurse. Before discussing the nature of the offence, the Assembly considered the permit requirement: it accepted that the ongoing prosecution should be stayed and that permission should be obtained from the Professional Responsibility Board. The regional appellate court's decision was reversed on this procedural defect, without examination of its other aspects. [8]
The decision does not finally resolve every question about the nature of the offence. It shows that the approach "the trial has already begun, so the permit cannot be examined" may be wrong in an old file. Whether the expected condition is likely to be satisfied, and the stage the file has reached, are further evaluated within the scope of Article 223(8) of CMK. [4, 8]
Where Is an Objection to a Non-Prosecution Decision Made?
The victim of the crime may object to a prosecutor's decision not to prosecute within two weeks from notification. The competent authority is the criminal judgeship of peace sitting where the heavy penal court of the prosecutor's judicial district is located. The petition should identify the events and evidence that could require a public action. Where an incomplete investigation is alleged, the petition should explain which act is required and why. This route is separate from the 10-day administrative judicial objection against Board decisions. [4]
Did the Constitutional Court Decision Abolish the Permit System?
The Board's competence to grant permission for a criminal investigation and the duty relating to recourse against the compensation paid by the administration to the health worker are separate regulations. The Constitutional Court's decisions on university autonomy and the power of recourse should not be read as abolishing the permit system in its entirety. [1, 10]
The Constitutional Court's decision dated February 26, 2026, E. 2024/236, K. 2026/52 examined the provisions concerning recourse against personnel for compensation paid by a state university. The Court limited its examination to the relevant clauses and rejected the request for annulment for the provisions examined on the merits. The subject of that decision is not the review of a specific permit decision issued on a patient's criminal complaint. [10]
This distinction matters especially when general references to old annulment decisions are read online. The paragraph of the provision applied, later legislative amendments and the operative part of the decision must be read together. For criminal permission, the first paragraph of Additional Article 18 currently in force and the relevant application procedure are the basis. [1, 10]
How Should Complaint, Limitation and Compensation Periods Be Distinguished?
Negligent injury is, as a rule, subject to a complaint. Under Article 89(5) of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), where the offence was committed with conscious negligence, no complaint is required, except for injury within the first paragraph. In complaint-based cases, the six-month period runs from the date the act and the offender become known, provided the limitation period for the case has not expired. Negligent homicide, however, is not subject to a complaint. This distinction shows that the same six-month period cannot be applied to every malpractice event. [5]
Under Article 67(1) of the TCK, the limitation period for the criminal case is suspended where the investigation and prosecution are subject to obtaining permission. This rule does not automatically eliminate the time limit for objecting to a Board decision or the time limit for exercising a right of complaint. Nor does waiting for the criminal file mean that the time limits for compensation claims before civil or administrative courts are necessarily protected. [5, 11, 13]
A criminal complaint is not a compensation action; a permit granted in the criminal investigation does not automatically provide the patient with any payment. Distinctions such as private health institution, public hospital and contractual relationship affect the addressee of a compensation claim, the judicial route and the time limits. The relationship between the criminal outcome and a compensation claim is also assessed under its own rules; Article 74 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) concerns the distinction between criminal and civil assessments. For a general framework, see the guide to medical malpractice lawsuits. [11, 13]
Conclusion
The first step in seeking criminal remedies for medical malpractice is to show the medical process and the alleged error through concrete documents. The permit regime must then be determined according to the status of the person concerned and the nature of the act; evidence that may disappear should be preserved, and decisions should be tracked through properly recorded notifications. The Board's decision and the prosecutor's decision are separate stages of the file. Handling them with the same petition and the same time-limit calculation can lead to loss of rights. Official decisions show that the absence of a permit remains important even when a file reaches a later stage. Conversely, granting a permit does not mean that the offence is established, and reversal on procedural grounds does not mean that the patient has won compensation. When the criminal, disciplinary and compensation routes are followed separately according to their purposes and time limits, both the patient's application and the health worker's defence can be examined within the correct legal framework.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a Doctor Working at a Private Hospital Also Need a Board Permit?
As a rule, yes, for medical procedures and practices concerning examination, diagnosis and treatment under Additional Article 18. Working at a private hospital is not, on its own, an exception. The special procedure applicable under Law No. 2547 and the nature of the event should also be examined separately.
Is the Objection Period to a Board Decision 10 Days or 20 Days?
It is 10 days from notification. The doubled period applies to the decision-making periods in Article 7 of Law No. 4483. It does not double the period for objecting to a Board decision.
If the Board Refuses Permission, Is It Enough to Object to the Prosecutor?
No. Against a Board refusal to grant permission, the competent authority is the Ankara Regional Administrative Court. If the prosecutor has also issued a separate decision, its type and route of challenge should be evaluated separately.
How Long Is the Objection Period to a Non-Prosecution Decision?
Under the current Article 173 of CMK, the period is two weeks from notification. The objection is made to the criminal judgeship of peace. This period differs from the 10-day period against Board decisions.
Is an Expert Report Mandatory Before Filing a Criminal Complaint?
There is no general requirement. The concrete event, the alleged act or omission and the existing documents can be shown, and a request can be made for records not yet obtained. The application should not be left abstract and general.
While a Permit Is Awaited, Can Camera Footage That May Be Deleted Be Requested?
Preservation of relevant records that may disappear can be requested. Article 4 of Law No. 4483 contains an exception for evidence that must be collected urgently. That possibility does not mean that the entire investigation may be carried out without permission.
Does Filing a Criminal Complaint Also Protect the Compensation Time Limit?
That general statement is not correct. The legal basis of a compensation claim, its addressee and judicial route, and its application time limits must be calculated separately. The time limits of other claims should not be overlooked while the criminal permit process is awaited.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 3359 on Basic Health Services (Sağlık Hizmetleri Temel Kanunu), supplementary Article 18 and provisional Article 13. Ministry of Justice legislation text.
- Law No. 4483 on the Trial of Civil Servants and Other Public Officials (Memurlar ve Diğer Kamu Görevlilerinin Yargılanması Hakkında Kanun), especially Articles 2, 4–9 and 11. Official legislation text.
- Regulation on the Investigation of Health Professionals for Medical Procedures and Practices and on the Recovery of Compensation Paid by the Administration (Sağlık Meslek Mensuplarının Tıbbî İşlem ve Uygulamaları Nedeniyle Soruşturulmasına ve İdarece Ödenen Tazminatın Rücu Edilmesine Dair Usul ve Esaslar Hakkında Yönetmelik), especially Articles 2 and 7–11; Official Gazette, June 15, 2022, No. 31867. Ministry of Justice legislation text.
- Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), Articles 157–160, 170, 172–173 and 223(8). Ministry of Justice legislation text.
- Law No. 5237, Turkish Penal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu), Articles 20–22, 67(1), 73, 85 and 89. Ministry of Justice legislation text.
- Court of Cassation, 12th Criminal Chamber, September 29, 2025, E. 2025/1481, K. 2025/6806. Official decision record.
- Court of Cassation, 12th Criminal Chamber, July 3, 2024, E. 2023/6125, K. 2024/3608. Official decision record.
- Court of Cassation, Criminal General Assembly, January 7, 2026, E. 2023/289, K. 2026/5. Official decision record.
- Council of State, 1st Chamber, May 8, 2023, E. 2023/791, K. 2023/716. Council of State Decisions Journal (Danıştay Kararlar Dergisi), 2024, issue 15, pp. 36–38. Official journal.
- Constitutional Court, February 26, 2026, E. 2024/236, K. 2026/52; Official Gazette, June 16, 2026, No. 33282. Decision published in the Official Gazette.
- Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), especially Articles 72, 74, 146 and 147. Ministry of Justice legislation text.
- Beşkoç, C.; Şahin, H. Ç.; Kestioğlu, B. N. (2024). "A new era in medical malpractice lawsuits: Professional Responsibility Board (Tıbbi malpraktis davalarında yeni bir dönem: Mesleki Sorumluluk Kurulu)." Forensic Medicine Journal (Adli Tıp Dergisi), 38(1), 1–4. Letter to the editor. Publication and full-text access.
- Law No. 2577, Administrative Procedure Law (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), especially Articles 7 and 13. Ministry of Justice legislation text.