For an application made from prison to have legal effect, it matters not only that the petition is prepared but also that it is received, recorded and sent to the correct authority. Where the claim is that a petition was not accepted, was not sent or was sent late, it must first be established which application is at issue. A request to the institution administration, a complaint to the enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği), a legal remedy in criminal proceedings and an individual application to the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi) are subject to different procedures.
This distinction is decisive for avoiding the loss of time limits. Waiting for a reply from an institution does not, in every case, suspend the time limit for another judicial application. The date on which a petition was written, the date on which it was handed to the official and the date on which it reached the relevant court may not be the same. The application file should establish a clear link between the records showing these stages and the legal result sought.
Legal Basis of the Right to Petition
An Administrative Request and a Judicial Application Are Different
Article 74 of the Constitution regulates the right to petition, Article 36 the freedom to claim rights and Article 148 individual application. The legal protection a petition carries is not determined only by the word “petition” written on it. Its content, its addressee and the action requested are what matter. For example, a request to correct conditions in a cell and an application concerning an appeal against a conviction judgment are not subject to the same recording and decision process. [1]
The general petition regime under Law No. 3071 does not take the place of special judicial procedures. Article 6 of the Law sets a separate limit for petitions concerning matters that fall within the duties of judicial authorities. It is therefore risky to pursue a legal remedy in criminal proceedings only through an administrative complaint text. The request should clearly state the date and number of the decision, the remedy invoked and the authority to which the file is to be sent. [2]
Correspondence with Official Authorities and Attorneys
Article 68(4) of Law No. 5275 provides that letters, faxes and telegrams sent to official authorities, or to an attorney for the purposes of defense, are not subject to supervision. Correspondence connected with legal assistance and an official application must therefore be distinguished from ordinary private correspondence. Special provisions on the attorney relationship are also assessed within their own scope. [3] On this subject, the article on complaints and objections against disciplinary penalties in prison may also be reviewed.
This protection does not mean that any content acquires the same legal character merely because the address of an official authority is written on it. The actual purpose of the document and its link to the legal request should be explained. In particular, the fact that a publication or document enclosed with an application was previously found objectionable may not be sufficient to justify blocking the application form and all legal enclosures without assessment. The Candaş Kat decision is important in this respect. [6]
How Delivery of a Petition Is Documented
Delivery and Dispatch Record
A copy of the petition, the list of enclosures and a record showing that it was received should be kept together. Where a document number, delivery date, dispatch letter and date of entry in the court file exist, they show successive stages of the process. A date written under a petition alone may not prove with certainty that it was handed to the administration on that day. Documenting delivery is therefore as important as the content of the application.
If the administration does not give a document or a number, the date on which this was requested and the reply received should be recorded. An attorney may, within their authority and access, check whether the document has been entered in the court file. The petition said to have been sent is sought, with its date, number of pages and enclosures, at the relevant authority. In this way, the possibilities that it was never sent, that it was sent to the wrong authority and that it was delayed are kept apart.
The Possibility of an Oral Application
Article 5 of Law No. 4675 provides that an oral complaint to the enforcement judgeship is recorded in minutes and that a copy of the minutes is given to the applicant. Complaints made through the institution directorate or the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı) must be sent to the enforcement judgeship immediately and at the latest within three days. This three-day period is not a new waiting right added to the person’s complaint period; it is an obligation of the authority forwarding the application. [4]
If there is difficulty in preparing a written application because of literacy, language, health or disability, the need should be explained concretely. It is important that the oral application is correctly reflected in the minutes and that a copy is accessible. Instead of the minutes recording merely “complainant”, it should be ensured that the subject of the complaint and what is requested are understood. The oral application route recognized by law should not be left entirely without function because a petition cannot be written.
A Special Safeguard in Legal Remedies in Criminal Cases
Article 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) regulates how a suspect or defendant held in pretrial detention may apply for a legal remedy: by making a statement to, or submitting a petition to, the court clerk or the director of the penal enforcement institution and detention house where the person is held. The application is recorded, minutes are drawn up and a copy is given to the person. When the application is made to the institution director, the minutes and the petition are sent without delay to the relevant court. [5] As a closely related subject, the article on transfer from prison to another institution may also be considered.
Paragraph 4 of the Article provides that, once the prescribed recording procedure has been carried out, the time limit for the legal remedy is deemed to have been interrupted. The fact that the court recorded the papers later therefore does not by itself show that the application was late. The date on which the petition was given to the institution and the date on which the statutory recording was carried out should be ascertained. By contrast, a draft that was never delivered, or a copy with an uncertain date, does not carry the same evidentiary weight. [5]
Article 264 of the CMK provides that, in an admissible application, a mistake in identifying the legal remedy or the authority does not extinguish the person’s right, and that the papers are to be sent to the competent authority. This safeguard does not mean that every text with no tie to a time limit and with an unclear subject protects all legal remedies. It remains important that it is clear which decision is being challenged and what is requested, and that the other admissibility conditions of the application are met. [5] In connection with this subject, the article on the right to health and treatment in prison may also be read.
When a Petition Receives No Reply or Is Not Sent
The General Reply Period Is Not a Judicial Time Limit
Article 7 of Law No. 3071 provides that applications made to competent administrative authorities are to receive a reasoned reply on the result, or on the course of processing, within thirty days at the latest. If only the processing stage has been notified, the result reached is notified separately. This rule does not mean that all court decisions will be issued within thirty days, nor that the objection period does not run until a reply is received. The time limit and procedure in the special statute must be determined first. [2] For a detailed explanation, it would be useful to consult the article on leave for convicted persons.
For a complaint to the enforcement judgeship, the basic periods are fifteen days from learning of the act and, in every case, thirty days from the act. In the case of a continuing omission, an express refusal or an act of non-dispatch on a specific date, the start of the period may be debated on the facts of the concrete file. It should not be assumed that submitting the same text again restarts the period for an earlier act each time. If there is an independent legal remedy that needs to be protected while waiting for a reply, it should be used within its own time limit. [4]
The Subject of the Complaint Must Be Made Concrete
Instead of a general statement such as “None of my petitions receives a reply”, the addressee, date, subject, enclosures and outcome of each petition should be shown separately. The applicant may ask for the dispatch record to be obtained, for the delayed petition to be forwarded to the relevant authority, or for the obstructing act to be lifted. If the request is limited to the punishment of officials, it may not secure the processing of the main judicial application.
| Application | Key point to follow | What must not be confused |
|---|---|---|
| Administrative request | Receipt record and reasoned reply | The general reply period is not a judicial objection period |
| Complaint to the enforcement judgeship | Delivery date and forwarding to the judgeship | The three-day forwarding obligation at the latest is not an additional time limit |
| Criminal legal remedy | CMK Article 263 record and the relevant file | The date of arrival at the court alone may not be sufficient |
| Constitutional Court application | Learning of the final decision and delivery of the application | An ordinary letter does not take the place of a properly completed form |
Can an Enforcement Judgeship Complaint and a Criminal Report Replace Each Other?
An act relating to the institution’s failure to accept or send an application may be complained of to the enforcement judgeship, within its remit. The current period for objecting to a decision of the enforcement judge is two weeks from notification. Even if the decision is procedural or is framed as “no ground for a decision”, whether the open objection route should be used must be assessed separately. [4] The related process is covered separately in the article on good conduct assessment and objection to a decision of the Administration and Observation Board (İdare ve Gözlem Kurulu).
Facts giving rise to suspicion of an offense, such as a document having been deliberately destroyed or not having been accepted in an unlawful manner, may be reported to the public prosecutor’s office. However, this investigation does not take the place of an objection against a decision of the enforcement judgeship. In the Constitutional Court’s N.C. decision, this distinction directly affected the admissibility outcome. On the general procedure, our article on application to and objection before the enforcement judgeship may be read together with this one. [7] For details on the subject, the article on objection to the sentence calculation sheet (müddetname) and correction of the sentence-enforcement calculation may be consulted.
A criminal report that produces no result cannot, in every case, be raised as a violation of the right to a fair trial. Merely seeking the punishment of a third party does not fall within the same sphere of protection as the person’s own civil right or a criminal charge directed at them. By contrast, effective-investigation obligations arising from rights such as the right to life or the prohibition of ill-treatment are assessed separately. The conclusion of lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae with regard to the narrow subject in the N.C. decision should not be generalized to these different rights. [7]
Obstruction of an Application to the Constitutional Court
Preparing the Application Form and Documents
In a Constitutional Court application, the facts, the right alleged to have been violated, earlier applications, the final decision and the time information must be shown on the proper form. The general rule is that the ordinary legal remedies must be exhausted and the thirty-day period protected. Learning of the final decision is important; notification or electronic learning records should be checked. A general complaint letter sent to another authority should not be accepted as automatically completing the Constitutional Court application form and its enclosures. [9]
For attorneys, an electronic individual application facility through the UYAP Attorney Portal has been available since October 1, 2025. This facility does not reduce the importance of the person in prison getting the necessary documents to their attorney. When an electronic application is used, the completion record and the enclosures sent should be checked. A physical delivery to the institution and an electronic application made by the attorney are tracked through separate records. [10]
Obstruction of the Right of Individual Application Itself
In the Candaş Kat decision, the Constitutional Court explained that a complaint of violation of the right of individual application will, by its nature, be examined by the Court itself for the first time. A claim that making an individual application was itself obstructed must therefore be separated from the main allegation of violation concerning education, a search or a disciplinary measure. A special assessment of the former does not remove all the ordinary remedies that must be exhausted in the main dispute. [6] For further information, the article on the right to education and to sit exams in prison may be consulted.
In the concrete application, it should be explained which document was prevented from reaching the Constitutional Court or the attorney preparing the application, the relationship of the document to the application and the effect of this on the exercise of the right. The request made to the administration and its reply should be enclosed; if the document could not be obtained, the reason should be stated. Instead of “I do not have the document”, the authority where the document is held and why it could not be obtained should be shown.
Practical Outcomes from Actual Constitutional Court Decisions
The Candaş Kat Decision
In the decision of November 19, 2019 in Candaş Kat (Application No. 2015/18467), the applicant complained that the petition and enclosures sent to the applicant’s attorney for an individual application had been obstructed. The Constitutional Court assessed that insufficient distinction had been made between the magazine content previously found objectionable and the documents relating to the individual application, and decided that the right of individual application under Article 148 of the Constitution had been violated. [6]
The contribution of this decision to file preparation is that the link between each enclosure and the application must be shown. If the ground for the prohibition relates to a certain part of the document, the failure to send the whole of the legal application papers must be explained separately. The facilitating duty of public authorities is also considered together with the fact that the person is in the actual control of the administration. [6]
The N.C. Decision
In the decision of March 13, 2025 in N.C. (Application No. 2021/43145), an application was made to the enforcement judgeship on the claim that petitions had not been processed, and a criminal report was filed with the public prosecutor’s office without an objection being lodged against the judgeship’s decision before the High Criminal Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi). The Constitutional Court declared the application inadmissible with regard to the enforcement judgeship process because the ordinary remedy had not been exhausted. The fair-trial complaint concerning only the punishment of third parties in connection with the investigation resulted in a finding of lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae. [7]
The decision shows that increasing the number of recourse routes is not the same as completing the correct one. The objection provided against the act of the relevant institution should be used, and the date on which each decision became final should be tracked separately.
Delivery Date in the Bahaa Joughel Decision
In the decision of January 21, 2016 in Bahaa Joughel (Application No. 2013/7643), the Constitutional Court accepted the date of delivery to the institution administration as the date of the individual application, in the case of a person in prison who could not deliver the application form and enclosures in person. The point referred to here is the decision’s assessment of application procedure; the violation of the right to a reasoned decision found on the merits of the decision is a separate matter. [8]
In practice, the delivery record should therefore be protected. The decision does not say that every claim of delivery without a document will be accepted as true, or that deficiencies in the application form are unimportant. The delivery date and the scope of the form and enclosures should be shown together. [8] For a separate assessment of a related subject, the article on searches in prison and the protection of human dignity may be consulted.
Building the Application File
An effective file makes every act traceable, in place of a chronology lost among petitions. A tracking table may include the date, addressee, subject, enclosures, delivery record, reply and final application day. The table does not take the place of the original documents; it shows which document supports which claim.
- A legible copy of the petition said not to have been sent, and its list of enclosures.
- The delivery, registration or oral application minutes; if these do not exist, the attempts to obtain them.
- The institution’s refusal, dispatch or reply letter.
- A record of whether the document is present in the relevant court file.
- The decision, notification and proof of learning that show the time limit.
- An explanation of which defense or application opportunity the delay affected.
The request should also be framed to suit the dispute. Sending the petition, obtaining the records, lifting the refusal or accepting a delivery date for a specified period are different requests. The result section should state clearly which of these is being requested. For links with other stages of enforcement, our explanations on the enforcement law and criminal record practice area may be reviewed.
Investigating a Claim That an Application Was Lost or Delayed
Three Separate Dates of the Same Petition
The date a petition was prepared, the date it was delivered to the institution administration and the date it entered the court file should be recorded separately. Depending on the nature of the dispute, one of these dates may be decisive for the legal time limit. A delivered petition reaching the court late and a petition first being given to the institution after the time limit has expired are not the same event. The date on which the application was completed is explained together with the special procedure to be applied.
If several petitions were submitted, the subject and list of enclosures are kept separately for each petition. The difference between two documents bearing the same title can be established, for example, by an explanation showing that one is the main application and the other a supplementary report. Where there is no document number, the correspondence at hand, the institution’s reply, the attorney’s file check and the attempts to obtain the records are brought together. Uncertainty must be stated openly; a delivery date not verified by a document should not be presented as an established fact.
Records to Request from the Institution and the Court
The request may be directed, limited to a specific day or period, at looking into the incoming document register, the dispatch letter and the information on transfer to the relevant file. It should be stated which document will clarify which fact. For example, the absence of the petition in the court file does not by itself prove that the institution never received it; which stage in the chain of dispatch and delivery is missing is examined.
If the institution reports that it was sent to another authority, that authority, the dispatch date and the scope of the document are verified. Sending to the wrong authority and not sending anywhere at all may lead to different consequences in terms of responsibility and redress. The safeguards that procedural law provides for a wrong authority or legal remedy can also be assessed only within the admissibility conditions of the concrete application. [5]
Learning of the Reply and the Next Application
Receiving a reply to a petition does not necessarily mean that the request has been met. It must be determined which request the reply addressed and which it left unanswered. If a refusal decision has been issued, the records of learning and notification are protected as well as the reasons for the decision. A fresh administrative application should not rest on the assumption that the period for judicial review of the earlier decision is thereby extended.
In the N.C. decision, the decisive procedural deficiency was that the available objection against the decision of the enforcement judgeship was not used. Having filed a criminal report against the institution’s officials did not cure this deficiency. The practical conclusion that can be drawn is that, before the number of applications, the route provided for each dispute should be followed to its end. Even if the same event gives rise to more than one legal claim, their decisions and time limits are kept separate. [7]
How to Protect the Application When an Enclosure of the Petition Is Not Sent
The significance of the Candaş Kat decision is that it requires legal application papers to be separated from other content regarded as objectionable. The presence of many enclosures in a file does not justify subjecting all of them to the same treatment. The contribution of the application form, the court decision, the notification document and the page of the disputed publication to the application can be explained separately. When the relationship of the document to the alleged violation is made visible, the justification for not sending all of it can be reviewed more effectively. [6]
If a document cannot be obtained, one should not wait for the application period to expire. Within the framework allowed by procedure, the reason for the deficiency, the authority where the document is held and the attempts made to obtain it are explained. The power of the court to request documents does not remove the applicant’s obligation to explain their own claim and to submit the documents they can reach. In an individual application in particular, instead of asserting in general terms that a right has been violated, a link should be established between the event, the interference, the earlier application and the outcome. [6] [9]
| Tracking area | Information to be entered in the file |
|---|---|
| Addressee and purpose | Which authority was asked for which action |
| Delivery | Date, record or minutes and number of enclosures |
| Dispatch | Authority to which it was forwarded, date and dispatch information |
| Decision | Result, reasons, notification and record of learning |
| Next route | Special procedure to be applied, authority and basis for the time limit |
This table is not an automatic time limit calculation. It should be completed by examining the concrete decision, the person’s legal status and the relevant procedural provision. The explanation on the merits of the application and the original documents are kept in order behind the table.
Conclusion
Protecting the right to petition in prison requires that the application reach the correct authority and that it can be shown to have been made in time. The administrative request, the enforcement complaint, the criminal legal remedy and the Constitutional Court application should each be tracked separately. When the delivery record, the dispatch information and the date of learning of the final decision are kept together, the legal effect of a delay or obstruction can be presented more clearly. For details on the subject, the article on the right to meet an attorney in prison may be consulted.
Related articles: The Right to Letters in Prison; Telephone and e-Visit (e-Görüş) in Prison.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a petition to the enforcement judgeship be submitted through the prison administration?
Yes. Article 5 of Law No. 4675 regulates this route. The petition must be sent to the judgeship immediately and at the latest within three days. The applicant should separately protect their own complaint period.
Can a person who cannot prepare a written petition make an oral complaint?
If a complaint to the enforcement judgeship is made orally, it is recorded in minutes and a copy is given. The specific conditions of the relevant legal remedy are examined separately.
Does waiting for the institution’s reply suspend the objection period?
As a general rule, such a result cannot be assumed. The special provision on which the objection is based, the starting date and the delivery record should be taken as the basis.
Does a criminal report replace an objection to an enforcement judgeship decision?
No. In the N.C. decision, this distinction between routes was decisive for admissibility. The open objection route must also be followed separately.
Can an attorney make a Constitutional Court application electronically?
Yes. Since October 1, 2025, there has been a facility to apply through the UYAP Attorney Portal. The form, the enclosures, the time limit and the completed dispatch record remain equally important.
Sources and legal bases
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Articles 36, 74 and 148.
- Law No. 3071 on the Exercise of the Right of Petition (3071 sayılı Dilekçe Hakkının Kullanılmasına Dair Kanun), Articles 3–7.
- Law No. 5275, Articles 59, 68 and 116.
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (4675 sayılı İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), Articles 4–6.
- Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (5271 sayılı Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), Articles 263–264.
- Constitutional Court, Candaş Kat, Application No. 2015/18467, November 19, 2019, especially §§ 33, 38–44 and the operative part.
- Constitutional Court, N.C., Application No. 2021/43145, March 13, 2025, §§ 14–22.
- Constitutional Court, Bahaa Joughel, Application No. 2013/7643, January 21, 2016, especially §§ 35–44.
- Law No. 6216, Articles 45–48.
- Constitutional Court, Individual Applications Begin to Be Accepted Through the UYAP Attorney Portal (Bireysel Başvurular UYAP Avukat Portalı Üzerinden Alınmaya Başlandı), official announcement dated October 1, 2025. Source access and legislation check: October 13, 2026.