Sentence Enforcement Calculation: Aggregation (İçtima) and Supervised Release at Different Ratios

Calculating enforcement for several final sentences that are subject to different ratios requires assessing together the determination of the conditional release ratio, the choice of the supervised release period according to the offence date, deductions, and the effect of a judgment that arrives later. A calculation that can be verified begins with a schedule that shows the legal characteristics of each sentence separately.

A separate record should be created for each judgment before the calculation begins

The starting document for an enforcement calculation is not a short list showing the names of the offences. The final judgment, the finality endorsement, the aggregation decision and the earlier enforcement papers must be read together. Different paragraphs of the same offence, adult and child convicts, or acts committed on different dates may not be subject to the same regime. [1] [5]

In particular, the offence date, the conviction date and the finality date should be kept in separate columns. The late finality of an old offence and a new offence committed during supervision are different legal problems. An exact release day cannot be given merely by knowing how many years of sentence the convict received.

Leaving the institution, conditional release and release at the end of the sentence are not the same date

In the enforcement schedule, the dates of eligibility for supervised release, conditional release and release at the end of the sentence should be shown separately. These dates express different legal stages. [1]

A person who leaves the institution under Article 105/A has not completed the sentence. Supervision after conditional release is subject to Article 107; this supervision period cannot exceed the date of release at the end of the sentence in a fixed-term prison sentence. If the supervision is completed in compliance with the obligations and in good conduct, the sentence is deemed to have been enforced. [1]

The measure applied during the deferral of public prosecution under TCK Article 191, and the supervision that begins after enforcement of the sentence is completed in respect of a repeat offender under Article 108/4, also differ from the Article 105/A calculation. The mere existence of a supervised release file is not sufficient information; the article on which the decision is based and the enforcement stage must be determined. [1] [9]

Determining the conditional release ratio for each sentence

The general ratio for fixed-term prison sentences is 1/2, but Articles 107 and 108 of Law No. 5275 and special laws contain exceptions. The table below is for a first check, on the assumption that no special historical regime or heavier special provision applies. [1]

The main bases of the table are Law No. 5275 Article 107/2–4, Article 108/1–3 and 9–10, provisional Article 9/4, and Law No. 3713 Article 17. For children’s terrorism and organisation offences named in the article, the special provision of 107/2 is also taken into account. The articles actually applied in the judgment, not the general heading of the offence, should be taken as the basis. [1] [2] [6]

For the general conditions, see also our review of the requirements and enforcement ratios for conditional release.

Distinguishing injury against a spouse from aggravated injury

Intentional injury against a spouse under TCK 86/3-a does not automatically fall within the 2/3 ratio merely because the victim is the spouse. The injury provision specifically listed in 107/2 is TCK 87/2-d. Unless there is recidivism or another special reason, the general ratio applies to 86/3-a. On the other hand, injury against a spouse may lead to different results as regards the three-year supervised release exceptions in provisional Article 6 and transfer to an open institution. These three reviews must be carried out separately in the same file. [1] [7]

For example, on these assumptions alone, nine months’ imprisonment, taken at 270 days and halved, comes to 135 days. Calculating 180 days on the ground that the victim is the spouse would confuse conditional release with the supervised release exceptions.

The effect of the amount of the earlier sentence in first recidivism

Under 108/2, the period added because of recidivism cannot exceed the heaviest of the sentences taken as the basis for recidivism. For this reason, in first recidivism it is not enough merely to multiply by 2/3. [1]

In an illustrative example, for a sentence of 600 days already converted into days, if the normal regime is 1/2 the base period is 300 days and the 2/3 calculation gives 400 days. On the assumption that the heaviest sentence relied on for recidivism is 60 days and that there is no other special provision, the 100-day increase resulting from recidivism is limited to 60 days; the result is 360 days. This limit does not apply in the second recidivism. Law No. 7550 provides for the 3/4 ratio for fixed-term imprisonment in the second recidivism and expressly regulates this distinction. [2]

Offence date and the latest amendments concerning children

For fixed-term prison sentences concerning offences under TCK 102–105 and 188 committed before 28 June 2014, the 2/3 ratio is also taken into account under provisional Article 9/4. The current ratio table should not be applied directly to all past offences. [7]

Article 107/5, as amended by Article 7 of Law No. 7593, introduced an exception, for TCK 81–83, 102–103, 188 and 220, to counting a day spent in the institution before the age of fifteen as two days. This amendment does not convert all children’s enforcement ratios to 3/4. In addition, the special day count in provisional Article 6/4 for offences committed up to 30 March 2020, and the assessment of the more favourable law for old offences, are examined separately. The choice of ratio and the number of days a day is counted as are different steps of the calculation. [4] [7] [8]

Related tool: Enforcement and Time-Served Calculator.

The day calculation should be checked instead of adding up years and months

Under TCK 61/6, a month is thirty days and a year is determined according to the official calendar; in a prison sentence, a fraction of less than one day is not enforced. The Ministry of Justice’s Judgment Records and Enforcement Training Module explains, in the müddetname procedure, the conversion of a sentence into days on the basis of a 365-day year and a 30-day month. This conversion does not give authority to produce an exact calendar date without examining the starting date and the effect of leap years. [5] [9]

For this reason, automatically converting a period written in the judgment as one year into twelve months, or twelve months into one year, can create a difference of days. An approximate presentation made in months should not replace the official müddetname calculation. For each judgment, the conversion, the ratio, the day fraction and the deduction should be shown on a separate line.

Under the 365/30 conversion method, a period fixed in the judgment as one year and eight months corresponds to 365 + 240 = 605 days. A period directly imposed as twenty months is 600 days. The unit of measurement in the judgment is therefore not changed of its own accord before the calculation.

Different ratios are preserved within the same total

The example below assumes that the periods have previously been properly converted into days and that there is no upper limit, no limit on the increase for recidivism and no age-related special count:

Multiplying the 1,800-day total by 1/2, 2/3 or 3/4 alone does not give the correct result in this example. The 1,150 days found is the calculation period before deductions and other conditions; it should not be read as the final period the person will actually spend in the institution. Aggregation of the sentences does not remove their legal characteristics. [1]

The nature of the aggregation decision and the effect on the enforcement stages of a judgment that becomes final later are explained separately in the review execution and aggregation (içtima) of multiple sentences.

The upper limit on the total conditional release period should be checked separately

After the period taken as the basis for conditional release has been determined separately for each judgment, the statutory upper limit that can be applied to the aggregation is also examined. This limit does not remove the total sentence imposed by the court or directly reduce the total sentence to 28 or 32 years. It is a limit on the conditional release calculation; good conduct and the other conditions of benefit are also required separately. [1]

The special provisions that Art. 107/4 and Art. 108/9 do not apply to children are reserved. The offence date and the assessment of the more favourable law must also be carried out. Aggregation decisions that include life imprisonment sentences are outside the scope of this table. [1] [2] [7]

For example, where three separate twenty-year sentences are subject only to the general regime, the thirty-year period found at the half ratio is, if the other conditions exist, compared with the twenty-eight-year limit in Art. 107/3-e. On the other hand, it is not correct to limit all the sentences automatically to twenty-eight years in a mixed file.

In its decision of 8 October 2021, E.2021/9959, K.2021/13165, the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) took the thirty-two-year period in Art. 108/1-c as the basis in a file in which the aggregated sentences included judgments subject to the regime specific to repeat offenders, and reversed the contrary decision in the interest of the law. This decision shows that the choice of upper limit in a mixed file also requires a legal reason. The same result should not be carried over to every mixed file without regard to the specific combination of sentences and the judgment relied on for recidivism. [16]

The upper limit is not a minimum period that must be filled. It does not raise a shorter period found according to the ratios; nor does it change the conditional release ratios of the other judgments.

For details of the relationship between the upper limit and imprisonment converted from a fine, see the article aggregation of prison sentences, the 28-year limit and the judicial fine.

Deductions are tracked separately after the ratio has been applied

Deduction of police custody and pretrial detention periods

Periods suitable for deduction, such as police custody and pretrial detention under TCK 63, must be established in full. For example, if the 1/2 calculation of a 600-day sentence is 300 days and the period eligible for deduction is 60 days, the calculation period remaining until conditional release is 300 − 60 = 240 days. First subtracting 60 days from the sentence and then taking half of the remainder would, under the same assumptions, wrongly produce a result of 270 days. [9]

Deduction for the measure of not leaving the residence

Periods spent under judicial control cannot be treated collectively as pretrial detention. CMK 109/6 provides that, as a rule, the period of judicial control is not deducted from the sentence, and regulates the exception for the measures in sub-paragraphs 109/3-e and j. Every two days spent under the obligation not to leave the residence are taken into account, under the current provision, as one day. For example, 60 days subject to this rule give a deduction of 30 days. The type of measure, the start and end dates on which it was actually applied, and the regulation applicable in time must be verified. This judicial control measure should not be confused with enforcement of a final sentence at home under Law No. 5275 Art. 110. [1] [20]

Earlier enforcement and supervised release days

Days previously enforced in an institution and days enforced under supervised release are also tracked by their records. It must be checked not only that a day is not deducted twice but also that a period already served is not left out of the calculation altogether. That a special condition of a minimum period in a closed institution exists does not mean that the deduction for pretrial detention is limited to one month.

Supervised release period: the general rule, transitional provisions and special cases

The general basis in Art. 105/A is that one year or less remains until conditional release of a convict who is of good conduct and meets the other conditions. A request, an assessment report and a decision of the enforcement judge are required. Provisional Article 6 and provisional Article 10/6 may alter this calculation, with different date and scope conditions. [1] [3] [7]

The transitional provisions are applied separately from one another

Provisional Article 6/1 applies a three-year period instead of the one-year period for offences committed on or before 30 March 2020 that fall outside its own list of exceptions. Provisional Article 10/6, for its part, regulates early benefit from supervised release by three years, with the required institutional conditions, for offences within its scope committed on or before 31 July 2023 after the 7571 amendment. Relying in this second provision only on the criterion of “being in prison on 31 July 2023” ignores the offence-date criterion in the current provision. [3] [7]

This table is an explanation of the calculation for the joint application of the two provisions. The offence date alone does not create a right to a four-year or six-year benefit. Exclusion from scope, the period that must be spent in an open institution, good conduct and the decision conditions must be completed. Because of provisions specific to the individual, the table does not exhaust all the possibilities.

The exception lists of the two provisions are not the same

Provisional Art. 6/1 contains exceptions for intentional killing, injury against the relatives named in the article or against a person who cannot defend himself or herself, TCK 87/2-d, torture and ill-treatment, sexual inviolability, private life, TCK 188, the state offences named, and TMK offences. [7]

The list in provisional Art. 10/6 covers TCK 82/1-d, e and f; killings resulting from the demolition, collapse or damage of buildings or other structures because of an earthquake; TCK 102, 103 and 104/2–3; the state offences named, TMK offences and offences committed within the activity of an organisation. TCK 105, or TCK 188 not committed within an organisation, cannot be treated as outside provisional Art. 10/6 merely because of the name of the offence. On the other hand, early release cannot be applied to an act that coincides with an exception provision on the ground that it is old. [3]

For example, in the conviction of an adult for a TCK 188 offence dated 2019 and not committed within an organisation’s activity, the three-year period of provisional Art. 6/1 does not apply. If all the conditions of provisional Art. 10/6 are present, early benefit by three years on the basis of the general one year, and therefore a four-year period, is considered. Writing six years in the same file merely because the offence predates 2020 would be wrong. This example assumes that no personal special regime exists.

Personal special circumstances are investigated separately

Art. 105/A/3 provides two years for women who have a child aged zero to six, and, subject to a report, three years for those who cannot live alone because of serious illness, disability or old age. Provisional Art. 6/2 contains different possibilities with its own dates and exceptions: four years for certain women convicts and for those who have completed seventy years of age; for those aged sixty-five and over in the situation named in the article, benefit without any maximum period limit being required. By which authority a health report is issued and approved should also be checked according to the paragraph concerned. [1] [7]

The details of the application and the personal conditions are covered in the article conditions and application for supervised release.

Converted fines and special enforcement procedures should be examined separately

Imprisonment converted from a judicial fine

Where an unpaid judicial fine is converted into imprisonment, the conditional release provisions are not applied under 106/9. This period therefore cannot be made subject directly to the 1/2, 2/3 or 3/4 ratio like ordinary fixed-term imprisonment. In a mixed file, the type of the converted sentence and its own enforcement calculation should be shown separately. [1]

Weekend, night and home enforcement

On the other hand, special enforcement procedures such as weekend, night or home enforcement are not an absolute ground of ineligibility for conditional release and supervised release. Article 110/5, as amended by Law No. 7550, provides that these possibilities are applied according to the enforcement regime to which the person is subject. However, where the special enforcement procedure is ended under 110/7, the non-application of 105/A and the limits of scope in 110/9 are also taken into account. The choice of a special enforcement procedure does not of itself change the ratio to which the person is subject or exclusion from scope. [1] [2]

Transfer to an open institution and supervised release are separate thresholds

Normal transfer to an open institution is subject to the period and the other conditions in Article 6 of the Regulation. For those whose total sentence is less than ten years, one month is required; for those with ten years or more, the condition of one-tenth of the total sentence is examined together with good conduct and the requirement that seven years or less remain until conditional release. For some offences there are additional thresholds on the time remaining until conditional release. [10]

Additional conditions for situations such as organisations and high-security institutions are reserved. The aggregation rule here relates to transfer to an open institution; it cannot be inferred from the same wording that all conditional release ratios will be made heavier or that all supervision periods will automatically fall to one year. [10]

For early departure from a closed institution under provisional Art. 10/6, there is a condition of one month in the closed institution if the total sentence is less than ten years and three months if it is ten years or more, together with the condition that three years or less remain until transfer to a normal open institution. For three years’ early supervised release there is, in addition, a requirement of at least three months in an open institution. The formula “everyone stays one month in a closed institution and three months in an open institution” is therefore not correct. The position of those who are already in an open institution is also assessed under the paragraph’s own provision. [1] [3]

Furthermore, Art. 105/A/2 contains an exception for certain convicts who cannot be transferred to an open institution for reasons beyond their control, and provisional Art. 6/3 for good-conduct closed-institution convicts within its scope. If the convict can already be released to supervised release under another applicable provision, there is no need to carry the additional waiting period of this provision into every file merely because provisional Art. 10 exists. [1] [7]

Two different one-tenth rules should not be confused

The second rule, under provisional Art. 11, does not apply to offences committed before 4 June 2025. It therefore cannot be said that this rule will be applied to every judgment that becomes final in 2026. In addition, the law here takes as its basis not necessarily a closed institution but the period that must be spent in a penal enforcement institution. [2] [10]

The arrival of the calculated date does not by itself secure release

The good-conduct decision and the supporting reports should be examined separately

For conditional release, the completion of the period condition alone is not enough. Under Law No. 5275 Art. 107/1 and 11, good conduct, the institution’s reasoned report and the decision of the enforcement judge are required. In supervised release, too, the assessment and decision conditions of Art. 105/A apply separately. For this reason, the date in the müddetname and the date of actual departure from the institution may not be the same in every case. [1]

Under Law No. 5275 Art. 89, the Administration and Observation Board assesses the convict’s compliance with the rules, his or her obligations, rehabilitation activities and integration into society. That an assessment is made at least every six months does not mean that every convict will necessarily be kept in the institution for another six months. For sentences totalling ten years or more and for the offences named in the article, the special composition of the board should also be checked. [1]

In a negative good-conduct decision, it is examined which concrete conduct and report were relied on, whether positive developments were assessed, and whether the route of appeal was indicated. The board’s duty to give reasons is not satisfied merely by writing the conclusion that it is not considered appropriate. That an application concerning a calculation error in the müddetname is not subject to a time limit does not remove the time limit for a complaint against a negative board decision. The procedure for this application should be determined according to the distinction between complaint and objection below. [14] [17]

Enforcement of a disciplinary penalty and its removal are different procedures

Under the general rule in Law No. 5275 Art. 48/3-b, conditional release cannot be carried out until all disciplinary penalties have been enforced and removed; however, this obstacle cannot exceed the date of release at the end of the sentence. It should therefore not be regarded as sufficient that a disciplinary penalty has merely been applied; the dates of finality, enforcement and removal should be checked separately. Nor should the removal of a disciplinary penalty and the assessment of good conduct be accepted as the same procedure. Applicable transitional and special provisions are also taken into account. [1]

Pretrial detention or a sentence in another file affects the actual release

That the conditions for supervised release arise in respect of one judgment does not of itself remove a detention order continuing in another file or another sentence that has to be enforced. Article 47/4 of the Regulation on Supervised Release Services separately regulates an order of detention for another offence, and Article 87/3 regulates being taken into an institution because of another conviction. For this reason, in assessing release it is not enough to rely on the müddetname of the judgment under review; other detention orders and judgments that have been taken into enforcement should also be investigated. [18]

Calculating the supervised release period already used when a new sentence becomes final

Other sentences that become final and come to enforcement before conditional release may require aggregation and a new müddetname. In assessing the effect of the new judgment, earlier supervised release days that count in law as enforcement cannot be ignored; nor does a full new supervision period automatically begin within the same enforcement period. [11]

In its decision of 13 March 2026, E.2024/5595, K.2026/1974, the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation explained that the supervision period of 238 days that had been used earlier must be taken into account in determining the remaining period of benefit. The Chamber also stated that, for other sentences that come to enforcement after conditional release, renewed benefit is not entirely prohibited if the conditions are met. The specific request for reversal in the interest of the law was rejected. [11]

The temporal limit of the decision matters: although the Chamber mentioned the 7571 amendment, it reviewed the old final decision under the law in force at that decision’s date. The earlier assessment in the decision of “being in the institution on 31 July 2023” therefore cannot be used in place of the changed condition of the current provisional Art. 10/6.

The remaining-balance calculation shows the days used separately

The example below assumes that the new total calculation has been verified, that the supervised release period under 105/A is taken as 365 days for the example, that there is no more favourable transitional or personal regime, and that the 180 days shown count in law as enforcement:

This example shows how granting a new full year would distort the calculation. Tracking the earlier 180 days both as a period enforced and as a supervision period used answers two separate questions. One is how much of the sentence has been enforced; the other is how much supervised release period remains for the same period.

A short new sentence does not automatically remove all transitional rights

In its decision of 10 April 2026, E.2024/6059, K.2026/2779, the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation examined a later-final five-month sentence of a convict who had benefited from provisional Art. 10/2, which was specific to the Covid period. The Chamber did not regard the conditions for renewed benefit as having arisen as regards that sentence and the date of the request. This decision does not establish a general rule that every new judgment eliminates all the four-year or six-year possibilities under provisional Art. 10/6 after 7571. [12]

In judgments of mixed dates or subject to different exceptions, there is on the one hand the independence of the sentences and on the other the establishment of a single conditional release timetable after aggregation. In the review, the scope of each judgment and the transitional paragraph to be applied should be shown clearly; and the reason for any restrictive result should be discussed as to which provision or which decision gives rise to it. The special aggregation provision on transfer to an open institution, or the old Covid decision, should not be carried over to another transitional provision without reasons.

Application against an erroneous müddetname

Related articles: Objection to the Müddetname and Correction of the Enforcement Calculation.

The müddetname is the period document that allows the result of the calculation to be checked. There is no need to wait until the conditional release date to challenge an error. Correction may be requested from the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office (Cumhuriyet başsavcılığı) that issued the document; for a doubt about the calculation of the sentence to be served, a decision is requested from the enforcement judgeship under Law No. 5275 Art. 98/1-b. In the matter of 98/1-a, concerning the interpretation of the judgment or the application to the judgment, under TCK Art. 7, of a later law, the decision is requested from the court that gave the judgment. [1]

The period for an application on the calculation and for an objection to the decision differ

In its decision of 7 November 2024, E.2024/6621, K.2024/7422, the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation found unlawful, and reversed, the rejection of an application for correction of the sentence calculation in the müddetname on the ground that the fifteen-day period had passed. The Chamber accepted that a decision may be requested at any time under Art. 98/1-b. This result does not mean that the legal remedy against an enforcement judgeship decision is also without a time limit. [13]

For complaints about institutional acts or the prosecutor’s enforcement decisions under Law No. 4675 Art. 5, a period of fifteen days from learning of the act and thirty days from the act in any event is provided. An objection against a decision of the enforcement judge is made within two weeks of notification to the High Criminal Court within the judicial district; the petition is submitted to the enforcement judgeship that gave the decision. The two-week period applies, under the transitional provision of Law No. 7499, to decisions given on or after 1 June 2024. The subject of the application, as much as its title, must be correctly identified. [14] [15]

For a broader explanation of procedure and legal remedies, see also our review application to the enforcement judgeship and objection.

An allegation of error should be shown with documents and a counter-calculation

The request should show the erroneous line, the basis for the correct assumption, and its effect on conditional release or supervised release. The application does not of itself stop enforcement. Where necessary, a request for postponement or suspension should be made separately, explaining the specific error and its effect on liberty. [1]

A breach of supervision and the possibility of a new offence may affect the result of the calculation

A convict who leaves under 105/A must report to the supervised release directorate indicated within five days. The two days after this period are not an additional permission for reporting; they matter under Art. 105/A/8 for the application of TCK 292 and 293 on escape. Where the cases listed in 105/A/6 — failure to report, persistence in not complying with the obligations, or wishing to return to the institution — are found to have occurred, the enforcement judge, on the directorate’s request, gives a decision to send the person to an open institution. [1]

The filing of a public prosecution for an intentional offence alleged to have been committed after supervision began, which carries a lower limit of one year or more of imprisonment, is separately regulated in Art. 105/A/7. It is not correct to equate the mere preparation of an indictment, the convict’s actually receiving a one-year sentence, or an automatic revocation with this provision. A request from the directorate and an assessment by the enforcement judge are required. For decisions of acquittal, no penalty to be imposed, rejection or dismissal as stated in the law, continuation of supervised enforcement is separately regulated. [1]

This process should also not be confused with the breach and revocation provisions in the supervision period after conditional release. The stage reached changes the article to be applied and the result for the remaining enforcement.

The whole of the period after a breach is not automatically erased

In examining persistence in not complying with the obligations, the excuse, intent, the proper notification of warnings and the conditions in the applicable regulation must be investigated. The date of the breach, the date on which the process of closing the file began, and the date on which the enforcement judge’s decision reached the directorate may differ. Whether supervision actually continued in this interval changes the calculation of the remaining sentence. [18] [19]

In its decision of 13 March 2026, E.2025/451, K.2026/1976, the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation assessed Articles 44 and 87 of the 2021 Regulation on Supervised Release Services together. The Chamber drew the following distinction:

• If the convict, while the closing and open-institution referral process is under way, fully performs the obligations and the measure is actually applied, the period up to the date on which the enforcement judge’s decision reached the directorate is, as a rule, counted as having been spent under supervised release.

• By contrast, if the obligations are not performed and the measure is not actually applied, the period between the breach constituting the persistence and the decision reaching the directorate cannot be counted in the same way as enforcement. [19]

In the specific case, the reasoning of the objection authority that, because the conditional release date had passed, there was no possibility of returning the person to the institution was not found correct; the decision was reversed in the interest of the law. The Chamber required investigation of whether the obligations after the breach were performed. It also explained that a decision from the period of the old regulation cannot be applied directly to an event under a different regulation. Accordingly, neither are all the days spent outside automatically deducted nor are all the days after the breach automatically removed from the calculation. [19]

The application should be accompanied by the warning and notification documents, signature and attendance records, any excuse documents, the date of the decision and the record of the decision’s reaching the directorate. The balance in the müddetname should be checked by determining the legal nature of these periods.

Conclusion

A reliable enforcement calculation rests on selecting the correct regime for each judgment and showing all the periods in a traceable form. The ratio, offence date, first or second recidivism, upper limit, deduction, earlier supervision and open-institution conditions should be visible in a single schedule. The applicability of the calculation should be checked together with good conduct, discipline and the decisions in other files. When a new judgment arrives, it is not enough merely to add the sentence on top of the old calculation; the review of scope and balance is carried out afresh.

An effective application against an erroneous müddetname is prepared more concretely than a general request for early release: which line is wrong, which provision is to be applied, what result the correct calculation produces and the necessary documents are set out together.

Frequently Asked Questions

When all the sentences are aggregated, is the heaviest enforcement ratio applied?

The legal nature of each sentence and the ratio to which it is subject are determined separately. Aggregation does not turn all the sentences into the same offence or recidivism status. For transfer to an open institution, the special rule in Regulation Art. 6/3 is applied separately. [1] [10]

Is the conditional release ratio for injury against a spouse necessarily two-thirds?

No. For TCK 86/3-a, the victim’s being the spouse alone does not give rise to this ratio. TCK 87/2-d, recidivism and other special reasons are checked separately. The exception in supervised release and the conditional release ratio are not the same matter. [1] [7]

Can a person who is a repeat offender for the second time be conditionally released?

After Law No. 7550, the 3/4 ratio is provided for fixed-term imprisonment in the second recidivism. It is not correct to carry the earlier information on absolute ineligibility directly into a current file. Good conduct and the other statutory conditions continue to apply. [2]

Does four years’ supervision apply to every offence before 2023?

No. The offence, date and institution conditions of provisional Art. 10/6 are required together. A different result may arise in a suitable file whose base period is three years because of provisional Art. 6; the additional three years does not apply to an offence outside the scope. [3] [7]

Is only one month of the pretrial detention period deducted?

No. Deduction is determined under the conditions of TCK 63. The minimum period prescribed for a closed institution and the pretrial detention period to be deducted from the calculation of the sentence are different matters. The condition of three months actually spent in an open institution is also assessed separately. [3] [9]

If an old sentence becomes final during supervision, does a new full year begin?

When the calculation is renewed in the same enforcement period because of a later-arriving judgment, the supervision period used earlier is taken into account. The possibility of renewed benefit in respect of a separate enforcement that arrives after conditional release is assessed separately, under its conditions. [11] [12]

If I miss the fifteen days for objecting to the müddetname, can the calculation no longer be corrected?

There is no such general result for an application on the sentence calculation under Law No. 5275 Art. 98/1-b. However, the ordinary period for objecting to the enforcement judgeship decision given on this application must be taken into account separately. [13] [14]

Is knowing the length of the sentence enough to calculate the exact release date?

The offence date, paragraph, age, recidivism, deduction, earlier enforcement and supervision records, the institution’s status and the decisions are also needed. A result in years and months given without this information cannot be used as the exact release date.

Is the total prison sentence limited to twenty-eight years in every case?

No. The general limit in 107/3-e does not remove the total sentence imposed; it relates to the conditional release calculation. The thirty-two-year limit is examined separately in organisation and repeat-offender regimes, in the special groups of offences to which the law refers, and in mixed files. [1] [2] [16]

Can a person be released when the date in the müddetname arrives, without a good-conduct decision?

The expiry of the period alone is not sufficient. The relevant good-conduct assessment and the enforcement judge’s decision are required. An application against a negative board decision and a request to correct the calculation of the period are subject to separate procedural and time rules. [1] [14] [17]

Are all the days spent outside after a breach of supervision deducted from the calculation?

Being outside alone is not enough. The applicable legislation, the performance of the obligations after the breach and the actual continuation of the measure are examined. The Court of Cassation’s decision No. 2026/1976 distinguishes supervision properly maintained up to the date the decision reached the directorate from the period in which it was not actually applied. [19]

Sources and legal bases

1. Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Criminal and Security Measures (5275 sayılı Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun); in particular Arts. 5, 20, 48, 89, 98–101, 105/A–108, 110 and the provisional articles. Current official legislation record.
2. Law No. 7550, Arts. 13–15 and 17; Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) of 4 June 2025, repeated issue No. 32920. TBMM adopted text.
3. Law No. 7571, Art. 27; Official Gazette of 25 December 2025, No. 33118. TBMM adopted text.
4. Law No. 7593, Art. 7; Official Gazette of 18 August 2026, No. 33344. TBMM adopted text.
5. Ministry of Justice, Rize Personnel Training Centre, Judgment Records and Enforcement Training Module, 2021, in particular printed pp. 24–26. Used for the method of calculation; later amendments to the legislation have been taken as the basis separately. Official PDF.
6. Law No. 3713 on the Fight against Terrorism, Art. 17. Official legislation text.
7. Law No. 7242, in particular Arts. 46, 48–49, 52–53; Official Gazette of 15 April 2020, No. 31100. TBMM adopted text.
8. Law No. 5377, Art. 2, and TCK Art. 7/3 as amended by it. TBMM adopted text.
9. Law No. 5237 on the Turkish Penal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu), in particular Arts. 7, 58, 61/6, 63 and 191. Current official legislation record.
10. Regulation on Transfer to Open Penal Enforcement Institutions (Açık Ceza İnfaz Kurumlarına Ayrılma Yönetmeliği), in particular Arts. 6 and 8. Official legislation record.
11. 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 13.03.2026, E.2024/5595, K.2026/1974
12. 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 10.04.2026, E.2024/6059, K.2026/2779
13. 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 07.11.2024, E.2024/6621, K.2024/7422. Official case-law record.
14. Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), Arts. 5–6. Current official legislation record.
15. Law No. 7499, Art. 37 and provisional Art. 1; Official Gazette of 12 March 2024, No. 32487. TBMM adopted text.
16. 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 08.10.2021, E.2021/9959, K.2021/13165
17. Regulation on Observation and Classification Centres and the Assessment of Convicts (Gözlem ve Sınıflandırma Merkezleri ile Hükümlülerin Değerlendirilmesine Dair Yönetmelik); in particular Art. 16 and Art. 17/1. Official Gazette of 29 December 2020, No. 31349. Originally published official text. The provisions on reasons and reports have been taken as the basis here; the old re-assessment period in the original text has not been used.
18. Regulation on Supervised Release Services (Denetimli Serbestlik Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği), in particular Arts. 44, 47 and 87–88; Official Gazette of 10 November 2021, No. 31655. Text published on an official institution’s site.
19. 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 13.03.2026, E.2025/451, K.2026/1976. Official case-law record.
20. Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), in particular Art. 109/3-e and j and Art. 109/6. Current official legislation record.