The deferment of the pronouncement of judgment (HAGB) is an institution in criminal proceedings that comes up after the offence and the sanction have been assessed, and whose consequences depend on a supervision process. A HAGB decision is not the same as an acquittal; yet it cannot be treated as an ordinary final conviction either. To understand the effect of the decision on the person, the conditions of application, the probation period, the confiscation exception and the legal remedy must be examined together.
Short answer: Under the current Article 231 of the CMK, HAGB may be applied where the sentence imposed is two years or less of imprisonment or a judicial fine and the other legal conditions are met. Under the new regime, an appeal against a HAGB decision is available, subject to the exceptions in CMK 272/3. The 2026 amendment does not mean that HAGB was abolished entirely. Decisions made before 1 June 2024 must be examined separately because of the transitional provisions. [1]
What Is HAGB and What Result Does It Produce?
A judgment is entered, but its pronouncement is deferred
The court must properly examine, before considering HAGB, whether the charged offence was committed and whether the defendant committed it. If the evidence is not sufficient for a conviction, applying HAGB does not resolve the problem of proof. The grounds for acquittal under CMK 223 must be considered. HAGB is not a tool to legitimise an incomplete investigation or a conviction admitted without reasons.
CMK 231/5 proceeds on the basis that, apart from the provisions on confiscation, a judgment entered under this rule has no legal effect on the defendant. However, the person is subjected to a probation period and to any obligations. At the end of the probation period, depending on the circumstances, the judgment may be set aside and the case dismissed, or the pronouncement of the judgment may follow. The decision therefore has a legal process that must be monitored.
How it differs from acquittal, suspension and alternative sanctions
In an acquittal, a judgment is given that there are no grounds requiring the defendant to be punished. In HAGB, the pronouncement of the conviction is deferred. Suspension of the prison sentence is a different institution in terms of the effects and enforcement of the judgment. Converting a short prison term into an alternative sanction is also based on different conditions.
CMK 231/7 prevents a sentence of imprisonment imposed in a judgment under which HAGB is applied from being suspended at the same time, or from being converted into an alternative sanction because it is short. A new judgment that may be entered under CMK 231/11 because the person could not fulfil the obligations is assessed under its own specific conditions. This distinction prevents the expectation that all favourable institutions apply automatically at the same time.
Was HAGB abolished in 2026?
The Constitutional Court's annulment decision and the subsequent amendment
The Constitutional Court (AYM), in its decision of 10 July 2025, E.2024/98, K.2025/149, annulled the HAGB provisions of CMK 231. A nine-month period was set for the annulment provisions to take effect from publication in the Official Gazette. For the publication dated 31 December 2025, this period extended to 30 September 2026. [3]
However, before that date, the legislature re-enacted the relevant paragraphs of CMK 231 through Article 15 of Law No. 7589. The new provisions entered into force on 31 July 2026. Therefore, concluding from the effective date of the annulment decision for the old provisions alone that "there is no HAGB after 30 September 2026" overlooks the current text. [1]
Why does the reasoning behind the annulment still matter?
In its 2025 decision, the AYM took into account that the 2024 amendment introduced appeal review and that confiscation was regulated differently. It also assessed that, for torture, ill-treatment and mistreatment offences within the scope of Article 17 of the Constitution, committed by a public official in connection with their duties, there was no sufficient legal safeguard to prevent HAGB from being applied. The reasoning of the annulment is, in this respect, related to the effective protection of the victim and to a sanction proportionate to the act. [3, §§ 52–60]
The current CMK 231/14 excludes from HAGB torture and ill-treatment offences, and offences committed by a public official in connection with their duties that may be regarded as ill-treatment under Article 17 of the Constitution. For this reason, viewing the institution merely as an opportunity granted to the defendant would be incomplete. The rights of the victim and the nature of the offence also set the limits of its application.
Conditions for applying HAGB
The limit on the sentence imposed
The criterion in CMK 231/5 is not the abstract upper limit set in law for the offence, but the sentence actually imposed at the end of the trial, which must be two years or less of imprisonment or a judicial fine. The basic penalty, and the results of increases and reductions, must be calculated correctly. Where judgment has been entered for more than one offence, the conditions of each judgment and their effect on one another are assessed separately.
The sentence amount being suitable does not by itself create an obligation to apply HAGB. Previous convictions, the court's view that the person will not reoffend, harm, and the provisions on statutory bars are examined together. The provisions on victim-offender mediation (uzlaştırma) are also reserved. Limitations set out in special laws and the nature of the offence must also be checked against the current legislation applicable to the file.
No prior conviction for an intentional offence
CMK 231/6-a requires that the defendant has not previously been convicted of an intentional offence. Not every entry in the criminal record should be assumed to have the same legal effect. The decision on which the entry is based, whether the decision has become final, the nature of the offence and its legal status are examined. A conviction for a negligent offence is not the same as the intentional offence condition set out in the provision. For details on this subject, see our article on deletion of criminal record and archive entries.
A previous HAGB decision should also not be treated as an ordinary final conviction. However, CMK 231/8 separately restricts granting HAGB again during the probation period for a new intentional offence. For this reason, a statement that "I have no criminal record" does not make it unnecessary to examine the earlier HAGB file.
Conviction that the person will not reoffend
The court must reach the conclusion, by assessing the defendant's personal characteristics and attitude at the hearing, that the person will not reoffend. This assessment is not an area of discretion free from reasons. It must be grounded in the concrete facts in the file and must not be reduced to a repetition of the assumption that the offence was committed.
The defendant's use of the right to remain silent, denial of the charge, or request for acquittal must not be used in place of a negative assessment of personality on its own. The possibility of HAGB must not become pressure on the person to waive the right to a defence. The Constitutional Court's assessments on procedural safeguards in the Atilla Yazar and Others decision are important on this point. [4]
Full redress of the harm
The condition that the harm suffered by the victim or the public as a result of the offence has been fully made good, by restitution in kind, restoration to the previous state or compensation, is examined. The existence of the harm, its link with the offence and its amount must be determined. It cannot be assumed that every offence involves the same type of financial harm. How a disputed amount was calculated must be shown in the reasoning.
Where the harm cannot be made good immediately, CMK 231/9 allows HAGB to be granted during the probation period on the condition that it is fully made good by monthly instalments. This option is also decided on the basis of the payment plan and the defendant's situation. If payment is claimed, documents such as receipts, bank records or a restitution record must be submitted to the file.
Is the defendant's consent required?
Separating the current rule from older decisions
The current CMK 231 does not contain the earlier condition that the defendant's consent is required for HAGB to apply. However, for HAGB decisions made before 1 June 2024, the provisions of CMK Transitional Article 6/2 apply. The former consent condition and the appeal system must be examined on the basis of the date of the decision. [1] For details, see our article on summary criminal procedure: conditions, sentence reduction, objection and recidivism.
For this reason, general statements on the internet such as "HAGB must always be accepted" or "HAGB cannot be applied to a defendant who does not accept it", without specifying the period they refer to, cannot be relied upon. Likewise, it is not correct to transfer older decisions automatically into today's appeal regime. A timeline of the file must be prepared.
Can a person seeking acquittal have the HAGB decision reviewed?
Under the current regime, the appeal review that the law keeps open covers unlawfulness in procedure and substance. The defendant may rely on grounds such as insufficiency of the evidence, absence of the elements of the offence, or restriction of the defence. The fact that HAGB has been applied does not mean that the basis of the conviction is beyond review.
In an appeal, objections to the conditions of HAGB and objections to the commission of the offence must be kept separate. For example, acquittal may be requested first, and if that is not accepted, correction of the sentence calculation and application of the appropriate favourable provisions may be requested. When the relationship between the requests is clearly stated, it is easier for the court to respond to each decisive claim.
Probation period and obligations
Five years for adults, a special rule for children
CMK 231/8 provides a five-year probation period for adults. For children, under Article 23 of Law No. 5395, the Child Protection Law, the probation period is three years. The start and end of the period must be assessed together with the date on which the HAGB decision became final. Taking the date of the decision alone as the starting point may lead to an incorrect calculation. [1][2]
The probation period and the period of a specific supervised-release obligation are not the same. CMK 231/8 provides that obligations relating to education, work or specific places may be set by the court for no more than one year. The decision must be read to see which obligation was imposed for which period; it should not be assumed that the same obligation applies throughout the entire five-year probation period.
New offence and breach of obligations
If an intentional new offence is committed during the probation period, or the obligations set are breached, this may bring the pronouncement of the judgment into question. The date of the new offence, its intentional nature and how it has become legally established are important. The filing of a complaint, or the opening of an investigation, cannot by itself stand in for a definite finding that a new offence was committed.
Obligations that were never notified, were unclear, or whose performance was prevented by concrete obstacles must also be assessed. CMK 231/11 provides special options, concerning a part of the sentence not being enforced, deferral or alternative sanctions, for a defendant who cannot fulfil the obligations. This provision cannot be read as an automatic reduction for every breach, or as a mandatory deferral in every new intentional offence.
Successful completion of the probation period
If no intentional new offence is committed during the probation period and the obligations are complied with, the judgment whose pronouncement was deferred is set aside and the case is dismissed. The expiry of the period on the calendar is not the same as completing the necessary decision and record procedures in the file. It must be checked whether the decision to dismiss has been issued.
The rules on the suspension of the limitation period during the probation period must also be taken into account. The date on which a new offence in another file was committed must not be confused with the date on which the judgment was given in that file. The date of the event on which a notice that arrives later is based must be taken from the file itself.
Which legal remedy applies to a HAGB decision?
HAGB decisions made on or after 1 June 2024
The current CMK 231/12, without prejudice to CMK 272/3, provides for an appeal against a HAGB decision. The openness of the legal remedy is not determined by the heading "HAGB" alone; the relevant finality and exception provisions are also examined. On appeal, the decision and the judgment are reviewed both as to procedure and substance.
Under the current CMK 273, the period for appeal is two weeks from notification of the reasoned judgment. The date of notification, the representation and the transitional regime to which the decision is subject must be determined from the file. Effective defence on appeal complements the matter of how objections to evidence and reasoning can be made specific.
Transitional provisions for older HAGB decisions
For HAGB decisions made before 1 June 2024, the earlier objection regime continues to apply under CMK Transitional Article 6/2-a. The period and review procedure for these decisions must also be assessed together with the former provisions. It is not correct to apply the seven-day objection period in the older decisions to all new HAGB decisions.
The same transitional article separately regulates the legal remedies in cases where HAGB decisions made before that date are later announced or re-established. For this reason, for a pronouncement decision made in 2026, the date of the latest decision alone may not be sufficient; the date of the first HAGB decision is also important.
| Situation examined | Basic distinction of legal remedy | Point to check in the file |
|---|---|---|
| HAGB before 1 June 2024 | Earlier objection regime preserved by the transitional provision | Date of the first HAGB and the former time-limit rules |
| HAGB under the current regime | Appeal, without prejudice to CMK 272/3 | Notification, type of decision and finality exceptions |
| Decision announced or newly established under current CMK 231/11 | Objection limited to the conditions of this paragraph | Date of the first HAGB and CMK Transitional Article 6/2 |
| Regional court of appeal (BAM) decision on remedy | Appeal on points of law under CMK 286 | Whether the decision and the offence are subject to appeal on points of law |
Application against the pronouncement of the judgment
Under the current CMK 231/11, an objection against a judgment that is announced or newly established, and the limitation of review to the conditions set out in this paragraph, are provided for. At this stage, the probation period, a new intentional offence or breach of obligations, and the conditions of the pronouncement are significant. The same broad scope of procedural and substantive review as for an initial HAGB decision should not be assumed.
On the other hand, for older HAGB files the different legal remedy regime preserved by the transitional provisions must be taken into account. When preparing a petition, the dates of the first decision, its finality, the probation period, the notice and the pronouncement decision should be shown together. This table helps to avoid applying to the wrong authority or using the wrong time limit.
What standards do real Constitutional Court decisions set for the defence?
The Atilla Yazar and Others decision
The Constitutional Court (AYM) General Assembly decision of 5 July 2022, Application No. 2016/1635, Atilla Yazar and Others, broadly assessed the problems of reasoning and defence in the application of HAGB. Issues considered include courts failing to examine decisive defence claims, rejecting evidence requests on abstract grounds, and rendering the assistance of defence counsel ineffective. [4, §§ 128–141]
The consequences of violation in the operative part of the decision relate to freedom of expression and to the right to hold and participate in meetings and demonstrations. For this reason, it is not correct to present all the assessments of the decision on a fair trial as if they were the separate violation findings in the operative part. The decision also concerns HAGB practice before the 2026 amendment.
How should it be used in a current case file?
The current contribution of the decision is that the possibility of HAGB cannot serve as a justification for conducting the trial superficially. The elements of the offence, decisive evidence and defence requests must be assessed. For example, access to the entire video recording, hearing a witness, or a request for a document that would change the legal character of the event cannot be considered unimportant merely because HAGB would be granted.
However, the criticisms in the 2022 decision of the earlier objection remedy and of the defendant's consent must not be carried over today without explaining the subsequent legislative changes. The correct use of precedent requires showing the historical and normative limits of the decision while upholding its principle. Witness examination and cross-examination and objection to an expert report are also important in files where HAGB is a possibility.
Norm review and individual application are different
Decision E.2024/98, K.2025/149 on norm review examines whether a legal provision complies with the Constitution; the Atilla Yazar and Others decision examines fundamental rights problems in concrete applications. One does not replace the other. Nor should the annulment of a provision be interpreted as automatically producing the same procedural result in all older files.
In an individual application, the exhaustion of ordinary remedies and the time limit are assessed separately. The statement that HAGB produces no legal effect does not mean that it cannot constitute an interference with a fundamental right. Conditions for an individual application to the Constitutional Court must be considered together with the nature of the specific complaint. For this topic, the article on restoration of prohibited rights may also be consulted.
For related details, see our articles on objection under CMK 308/A and appeal on points of law in criminal cases.
Criminal record, confiscation and professional consequences
How is a HAGB record kept?
CMK 231/13 provides that HAGB decisions are kept in a dedicated system and used for specific judicial purposes. This record is not identical to an ordinary final conviction record. However, absolute statements such as "it never appears anywhere" or "it has no importance in any legal proceeding" can also be misleading.
For matters such as entry into public service, licences, discipline or professional qualification, the relevant special legislation and the grounds of the decision on which the act is based must be examined separately. An administrative authority assessing an event within its own legal framework is different from using HAGB as proof of definite guilt. Without examining the concrete act, the same result cannot be stated for every profession.
The confiscation exception
Under the current CMK 231/5, the provisions on confiscation are excluded from the rule that a judgment has no legal effect. For this reason, it must not be assumed that when HAGB is given, the section on the confiscation of property or proceeds will have no effect. The material conditions of confiscation, the ownership relationship and the route of challenge are assessed separately.
Matters such as property belonging to a third party, good faith and the link with the offence must be examined on their own evidence. An application focusing only on the HAGB part of the decision may cause an important part of the financial aspects to be overlooked. The operative part of the decision must be read in full.
Conclusion
In assessing HAGB, proof of the offence, the conditions of application, the obligations of the probation period and the legal remedy are linked to one another. The current 2026 amendment and the transitional regime for older decisions must be kept apart; Constitutional Court decisions should be used with their own reasoning and consequences. Effective defence specifies the conditions of alternative favourable provisions while preserving the acquittal claim, and follows the obligations that the decision will impose during the probation period.
For legal support in criminal proceedings and enforcement, you may review our criminal law services.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does HAGB mean acquittal?
No. In HAGB, the pronouncement of the judgment is deferred. Acquittal, by contrast, is a different judgment given on one of the grounds in CMK 223.
Did HAGB completely lapse on 30 September 2026?
No. Law No. 7589 re-enacted the relevant paragraphs of CMK 231 with provisions that entered into force on 31 July 2026. The annulment decision must be read together with the current amendment.
Is the defendant's consent needed for HAGB?
Under the current regime there is no earlier consent condition. The transitional provisions applicable to HAGB decisions made before 1 June 2024 are assessed separately.
Is an objection or an appeal filed against a HAGB decision?
The date and type of the first decision are decisive. For current HAGB decisions, an appeal is available, without prejudice to CMK 272/3; for older decisions, the objection regime preserved by the transitional provision applies.
Is the probation period five years for everyone?
For adults the CMK provides five years; for children the Child Protection Law provides three years. The period is calculated using the finality of the decision and the file records.
Does a new complaint void HAGB?
A complaint alone does not show that a new intentional offence was committed. The date of the event, the nature of the offence and the judicial outcome are examined; the pronouncement of the judgment takes place by decision of the competent court.
Is a separate decision needed when the probation period ends?
When its conditions are met, a decision is given setting aside the judgment whose pronouncement was deferred and dismissing the case. It should be checked in the file that this procedure has been completed.
If HAGB is applied, does confiscation also lose its effect?
The current law excludes the provisions on confiscation. The conditions of confiscation and the relevant legal remedy must be examined separately.
Sources and legal bases
1. Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (5271 sayılı Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), Art. 223, 230–231, 268, 272–273, 286 and transitional Art. 6; amendments by Law No. 7499 and Law No. 7589 Art. 15. Current text checked on 12 October 2026.
2. Law No. 5395, Child Protection Law (5395 sayılı Çocuk Koruma Kanunu), Art. 23; probation period for HAGB for children.
3. Constitutional Court (AYM), 10.07.2025, E.2024/98, K.2025/149, in particular §§ 52–60, 173 and the operative part; Official Gazette: 31.12.2025, issue 33124. The annulment and the subsequent amendment of the law are assessed separately.
4. Constitutional Court General Assembly, Atilla Yazar and Others, Application No. 2016/1635, 05.07.2022, in particular §§ 116–141 and the operative part. The decision concerns the former HAGB regime.