House Arrest and Judicial Control in 2026: Current Law, Objection, Practice and Compensation

1. What is house arrest? Why does the name in the law matter?

The measure called "house arrest" in everyday language is, in the Code of Criminal Procedure, a judicial control obligation framed as "not leaving one's residence" under Article 109(3)(j) of the CMK. It is not a penalty. It is a temporary protective measure applied during an investigation or prosecution to secure the purpose of the proceedings. The presumption of innocence continues to apply.

Using the name in the law matters for three reasons:

1. The correct legal basis for an application is Articles 109–112 and 267–271 of the CMK.
2. "House arrest" is not to be confused with the serving of a final prison sentence at home.
3. It is clear that the electronic ankle monitor is not a separate measure, but a method that may be used to supervise the performance of this obligation.

1.1. Institutions that should not be confused with one another

This distinction also changes the route of application. For the measure of not leaving one's residence imposed on a suspect or defendant under CMK 109/3-j, lifting and replacement are governed by CMK Articles 110–111, and objection by CMK Articles 267–271. For the serving of a sentence at home after a final conviction, or for the obligations of probation at the enforcement stage, the regime of decisions and complaints under Law No. 5275 and the Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judges applies. The same image of "staying at home" gives rise to different legal routes; the type of petition must not be chosen without seeing the title of the decision, the stage at which it was made and its legal basis. For a separate assessment of the topic, see the article home, weekend and night enforcement.

2. The legal nature of house arrest: the label "light measure" is not enough

Judicial control is regarded as relatively lighter than detention, because it is an alternative to detention. However, not leaving one's residence is far more intensive than other types of judicial control. It directly affects the person's access to work, school, health institutions, social life and family obligations.

In its decision in Esra Özkan Özakça, the AYM assessed the interference as falling within the right to liberty and security of person under Article 19 of the Constitution, on the ground that the measure:

• confines the person's physical freedom of movement to the home,
• can be applied through electronic monitoring,
• can continue without interruption throughout the day until it is lifted,
• may lead to detention in the event of a breach.

The case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Guzzardi, Mancini, Nikolova (No. 2) and Buzadji likewise looks not at the name of the measure but at its actual intensity.

This classification does not mean that every house arrest is unlawful. The decision in M.S. shows that where there is a concrete strong indication, a risk of flight or of harming the victim, and proportionality, the measure may be constitutional. The right question is not "Is house arrest severe?" but "Is this scope and duration of the measure necessary for this person and this file?"

3. The substantive conditions for the decision to be made

Under CMK Article 109(1), judicial control is tied to the existence of the grounds for detention in CMK Article 100. For this reason, the following chain must be established in the concrete file for a decision not to leave one's residence.

3.1. Strong suspicion of an offence or a strong indication based on concrete evidence

The fact that a person's name appears in the investigation file, a family relationship with a suspect, contact with particular persons, a job title or abstract assessments are not sufficient on their own. There must be between the alleged act and the person:

• a link of place, time and movement,
• an allegation of intent or participation,
• a document, communication, witness statement, image, financial movement or other verifiable fact,
• an explanation of which element of the offence this fact demonstrates.

The AYM's decisions in Esra Özkan Özakça and Şahin Alpay (3) emphasize that house arrest cannot be applied without establishing a link between the general events relied on for the charge and the applicant's own conduct.

3.2. A legitimate procedural purpose

The existence of a strong suspicion of an offence is not sufficient on its own. In addition, at least one of the following dangers must be made concrete:

• flight or going into hiding,
• destroying, concealing or altering evidence,
• attempts to exert pressure on witnesses, victims or others.

The current importance of the decision in Tuğba Geyik lies here. Although the AYM accepted that a legal basis and a strong indication existed, it found a violation because the risks of flight and of interference with evidence had not been discussed. Expressions such as "the nature and character of the offence", "the current state of the evidence" or "the scope of the file" are not adequate reasons where no person-specific fact is shown.

3.3. Suitability, necessity and proportionality

The measure must:

• be suitable for reducing the risk targeted,
• be chosen where there is no lighter means of achieving the same result,
• be proportionate, in terms of the burden it places on the person and on society, to the procedural benefit it provides.

The judgeship or court should in particular consider the following alternatives:

• a travel ban,
• signing on specified days,
• a ban on contact with particular persons or places,
• not leaving a specified area,
• a guarantee (security),
• presence at home for specified hours, with electronic monitoring,
• an express exemption for work, school, treatment or caring responsibilities.

Rather than writing in the abstract that "other measures will be insufficient", it must be explained why the risk identified can be prevented only by full-day house arrest.

3.4. Assessment of personal circumstances

In the proportionality review, not only the charge but the following must be assessed together:

• a fixed place of residence,
• regular employment or public office,
• past compliance with summonses,
• state of health,
• responsibility for caring for children, elderly or disabled persons,
• whether the person has actual access to evidence,
• whether the evidence for the investigation has already been collected,
• conduct free of breaches during the measure.

Long-standing regular public service does not by itself provide immunity; however, the risk of flight, a stable living arrangement and the effect of the measure on work are a strong proportionality factor.

3.5. In which offences can house arrest be applied?

The CMK does not provide a closed list of offences for the measure of not leaving one's residence. The measure depends not on specific offence names but, through CMK 109(1), on the conditions of CMK Article 100 and a concrete proportionality assessment. CMK 109(2) allows judicial control to be applied even in cases where the law prohibits detention. For this reason, a file that involves only a fine or in which detention is prohibited does not exclude judicial control entirely.

However, the statement "it may be imposed for any offence" is misleading on its own. In each file, the following must also be examined separately:

• a strong suspicion based on concrete evidence,
• a current procedural risk, in the form of flight or interference with evidence or persons,
• the suitability of house arrest for reducing that risk,
• why lighter measures would be insufficient,
• the proportionality of the burden on the person to the purpose pursued.

The fact that the charge relates to one of the catalogue offences does not in itself justify house arrest.

4. Who makes the decision?

4.1. Investigation stage

Under CMK Article 110(1), a suspect may be placed under judicial control on the request of the public prosecutor and by decision of the criminal judgeship of peace. The prosecutor cannot make a decision not to leave one's residence directly. In practice, it is frequently seen that where a suspect is brought before the court with a request for detention, a judicial control decision is made instead of detention.

There is a debate in doctrine between the condition in the statutory text that a prosecutor's request is required and the practice under which a judge who rejects a detention request makes a judicial control decision on his or her own motion. For this reason, in a concrete case the outcome of the prosecutor's referral letter, whether it contained a request for alternative judicial control, and the record of the interrogation should be examined separately. General practice alone does not make an objection on grounds of competence and procedure unnecessary.

4.2. Prosecution stage

After the indictment has been accepted, the competent court may impose, vary or lift judicial control at any stage of the prosecution. If the file is at the appeal or cassation stage, the power to decide is determined separately according to the competent judicial authority in which the file is located.

CMK 109(4) further provides that, for a person who has been convicted and who has appealed against the judgment, the court of first instance that delivered the judgment may make a judicial control decision after reviewing its records on UYAP. This special power must be applied within the framework of the concrete decision-making possibility conferred by the law, not as an unlimited parallel power that eliminates the general authority of the appellate body. When making an application, it must be checked where the file is located, physically and electronically, and what the person's current status of detention or judicial control is.

4.3. The decision must be reasoned

Under Article 141 of the Constitution and CMK Article 34, decisions of judges and courts must be reasoned. A house arrest decision that permits effective review and is capable of being enforced must clearly show the following:

1. the concrete act alleged,
2. the concrete evidence showing the strong suspicion,
3. the facts showing the risk of flight or of interference with evidence or persons,
4. why lighter judicial controls would be insufficient,
5. the address of the residence,
6. if any, the start and end period and the daily time band,
7. the regime of permissions and necessary needs,
8. the decision on whether electronic monitoring is to be applied or information about its execution,
9. the route of appeal, the time limit and the authority.

5. If no hours are specified in the decision, is enforcement 24/7?

As a rule, yes. Where a judicial decision says only "not to leave one's residence under Article 109(3)(j) of the CMK", it means that no release at specified hours is granted. The AYM, in its decision in Esra Özkan Özakça, also defined the classic measure of not leaving one's residence as an obligation that continues without interruption throughout the day until it is lifted.

Article 56(1)(ç) of the Regulation on Probation Services explains the obligation as "not leaving the residence designated by the judicial authority without an excuse or permission". Article 57 of the Regulation requires the directorate to notify the type of decision, how and when it is to be carried out; and Article 103(3)(a) provides that electronic monitoring is carried out by monitoring whether the person is present at home within the time period specified in the decision.

The following results follow from this:

• Where there is a time period in the decision, supervision may be set up according to that time period.
• Where there is no time period in the decision, the Probation Directorate cannot itself produce hours.
• The absence of a daily time band does not remove the total maximum periods under CMK Article 110(A) or the obligation of review every four months.
• The absence of a final date in the decision does not automatically make the measure void; however, an indefinite and long-lasting application makes the proportionality review more demanding.

6. Is timed house arrest, or house arrest applied only at night, possible?

It is possible in law and technically; it is not an automatic right. CMK Article 110(2) allows the obligations to be partly lifted, changed and temporarily exempted. CMK Article 111 provides that a suspect or defendant may make a request to this effect. Article 103(3)(a) of the Regulation provides for monitoring of presence at home "within the time period specified in the decision".

Taking these provisions together, the judgeship or court may, for example, decide:

• not to leave the residence every day between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m.,
• to go to and from work during official working hours on weekdays and within a reasonable travel time,
• to leave only for a specified workplace, route and times,
• an exemption during school or examination hours,
• going to a health institution on regular treatment days,
• limited permission for caring responsibilities for a child, disabled or elderly person.

However, for the decision to be enforceable, the hours and geographical limits must not be left vague. Rather than the sentence "may go to work", the following elements should be stated:

• the exact address of the residence,
• the exact address of the workplace or institution,
• working days and hours,
• a reasonable allowance of travel time for leaving and returning home,
• the usual route to be taken,
• how changes in hours arising from official duties are to be notified,
• the procedure for emergency health care and planned treatment,
• adjustment of the electronic monitoring system to those hours,
• the obligation to notify the probation unit.

Caution regarding binding precedent: In publicly available decisions of higher courts, there is no specific "20:00–06:00 standard" to be applied to everyone. The example of the Ankara 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace, No. 2021/313, on exemption for school hours, reported in a peer-reviewed study, is a non-binding practice. Whether a request succeeds depends on the risk in the file, the nature of the work, the state of the evidence and the concreteness of the proposed supervision.

7. The role of the Probation Directorate and the limits of its authority

The Probation Directorate applies the judicial decision; it does not redefine its scope. Its main functions are:

• recording the decision and opening the file,
• informing the person about his or her rights, obligations and the consequences of a breach,
• where necessary, setting up the electronic monitoring unit,
• monitoring compliance and breaches,
• forwarding a request for permission or transfer to the judicial authority through the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office,
• removing the electronic devices by minuted procedure when the decision ends.

Article 43(7) of the Regulation expressly provides that a request for permission or transfer by a suspect or defendant under judicial control is forwarded to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office for transmission to the competent judicial authority. For this reason, the oral assessment of probation staff does not replace the judicial decision. Before leaving, it should be verified that the written decision has reached UYAP and the enforcement unit.

8. Is the electronic ankle monitor compulsory?

No. Article 15/A of Law No. 5402 on Probation Services (Denetimli Serbestlik Hizmetleri Kanunu) provides that the monitoring, supervision and control of suspects, defendants and convicted persons in the community may also be carried out by electronic device. Article 57(5) of the Regulation also provides that certain types of judicial control may be monitored by electronic device. The word "applicable" does not mean that a tag is compulsory in every house arrest.

The electronic ankle monitor:

• is not an independent conviction or penalty,
• cannot by itself extend the scope of house arrest,
• must be configured according to the address and hours in the judicial decision,
• destroying the device, disabling it or disrupting its operation may be treated as a breach.

The AYM accepted, in its decision in M.S., that there was a legal basis for electronic monitoring. Nevertheless, in the concrete case the necessity of the application, its effect on private life and personal data, and the scope of the decision must also be proportionate.

8.1. The start of the decision and a safe approach to using the device

The binding effect of a judicial control decision is not a consequence of the physical installation of the electronic monitoring unit. Article 57(1) of the Regulation on Probation Services requires that the person be told that the requirements of the measure must be complied with immediately. For this reason, a person who has been notified of the decision should not leave home on the basis of a belief that the device has not yet been fitted or that no summons has been received from the Probation Directorate. The date of pronouncement or service of the decision, the directorate's registration date and the actual start of supervision must each be documented separately.

The Regulation does not specify a single device brand, radio frequency standard, battery or charging method, or IP water-resistance rating. Electronic monitoring capacity and the devices used may change over time. For the person subject to the obligation, the safe course is:

• to obtain the written document setting out the use of the device and the prohibitions given at installation,
• to use, protect and keep the device in working order in accordance with the rules,
• to report promptly to the monitoring centre and the directorate any failure of electricity, internet, signal or the device,
• to keep the time of notification, the registration number, any screen warning, photographs and the service record,
• to act, in relation to showering, contact with water, charging, travel or compatibility with medical devices, only in accordance with the instruction given for the specific device.

Articles 42(2) and 101(3) of the Regulation govern the obligation to use, protect and keep the device in working order; Articles 98(5) and 99 provide that malfunctions and breaches are to be recorded. Deliberate destruction of the device may also have legal or criminal consequences; however, it cannot be stated as a general conclusion that Article 152 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) or Law No. 6183 automatically applies to every damage to a device. The concrete act, fault, damage and the elements of the relevant law must be assessed separately.

9. Health, emergency, work, education and care needs

9.1. Planned needs

For a planned examination, operation, treatment, work, official duty, examination or care need, the following should be prepared in advance:

1. a written request based on Articles 111 and 110(2) of the CMK,
2. the date, time, address and travel time clearly shown,
3. a hospital appointment, duty letter, work certificate, course or examination timetable, or care report attached,
4. where necessary, the request to be forwarded to the chief prosecutor's office through the Probation Directorate,
5. no departure from the residence until a written decision has been received.

9.2. Life-threatening emergency

In a genuine health emergency that could not be authorized in advance, the priority is the protection of life and bodily integrity. However, because the emergency will later be assessed as an excuse:

• the emergency call number 112 should be dialled,
• the Probation Directorate and the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office should be informed at the first opportunity,
• the ambulance record, hospital admission document, discharge summary and time records should be kept,
• where possible, written notice should be given the same day through defence counsel.

This advice is not an automatic guarantee of lawfulness. Because the Regulation is based on unexcused and deliberate breach, the reality and documentation of the emergency is decisive.

9.3. Work and public office

House arrest is not, by itself, a decision to dismiss from public office or to suspend from duty. However, 24/7 application may in practice prevent continued attendance at work and may give rise to separate administrative consequences. For this reason, for a public official, the following should be added to the request:

• the service and duty certificate,
• official working hours,
• the exact address of the place of duty,
• a written statement from the authority requiring attendance,
• whether remote working or leave options exist,
• the commuting route between home and workplace and the journey time,
• the absence of any connection between the duties and the alleged act,
• the absence of any access to evidence or to the persons under investigation during the performance of duties.

The purpose is not merely to say "I have work", but to show that continued work does not increase the procedural risk and that a timed measure is sufficient.

9.4. Conflict between a removal order under Law No. 6284 and house arrest

It is possible that, subsequently, a decision may be made under Law No. 6284 on the Protection of the Family and Prevention of Violence against Women to remove the person from the shared home and allocate the home to the protected person, in respect of the home in which the person is serving house arrest. In such a case, the person may not choose, on his or her own assessment, to disregard one of the two decisions. Remaining in the home despite a removal order, and leaving the house-arrest address without permission, can both create new legal risks.

The safe order of action is as follows:

1. a copy of the decision under Law No. 6284 should be sent immediately to the defence counsel and to the Probation Directorate,
2. the exact address of the alternative home, and a document showing that the person may stay at that address, should be prepared,
3. under CMK Articles 110(2) and 111, a change of the house-arrest address or replacement of the measure by a lighter judicial control should be requested,
4. it should be ensured that the request is sent without delay through the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office to the competent judicial authority,
5. written coordination should be established between the police, the family court decision, the criminal judgeship's decision and probation enforcement.

Law No. 6284, Article 5(1)(b), provides for removal from the shared home; Article 43(7) of the Regulation on Probation Services governs the forwarding to the judicial authority of a request for permission or transfer made by a person under judicial control. In this conflict there is no standard "automatic address change"; the new address must be made clear by a judicial decision.

9.5. The address cannot be used because of eviction, disaster or compulsory relocation

The termination of a lease, eviction by enforcement proceedings, damage to the building, or the inability to use the home for reasons of disaster, health or safety does not in itself give the person authority to serve house arrest at another address. Where the situation is known in advance, it should be addressed before the date of eviction or relocation; where it is sudden, at the first opportunity possible:

• the eviction order, a document showing the termination of the lease, a damage or health report,
• a title deed, lease or consent document for the new address,
• the day, route and time plan of the move,
• a request for coordination of the removal of the electronic device and its installation at the new place.

Under Article 43(1)–(4) of the Regulation, a change of address is notified in advance in writing with reasons; in judicial control the power to decide lies with the relevant judicial authority. Until a new decision is made, it should be assumed that the existing obligation continues and act accordingly.

9.6. Hearing, prosecutor's summons and transfer from prison to home

A court, prosecutor or police summons does not in itself constitute permission to leave the house arrest. The summons should be forwarded by defence counsel to the competent judicial authority and to the Probation Directorate, so as to create a clear exemption or referral arrangement covering the date, the time of departure and return, the travel time and the route. Where possible, SEGBİS or another remote participation option should also be considered.

Where a detained person has been released on the obligation not to leave his or her residence, the way the transfer from the penal institution to home is to take place should be made clear in the release decision and in the instructions of the relevant units. Unless there is a written release, the person should go directly to the stated address, avoid unnecessary stops, and report arrival to the probation unit in a verifiable manner. This is not a separately named "transit enforcement" institution in the law; it is a safe method of applying the decision immediately and avoiding an erroneous breach record.

In medical circumstances such as a cardiac pacemaker, an insulin pump, a neurostimulator or an MRI examination, no general assumption can be made about the suitability of the device. Written coordination in advance should be secured by considering together a specialist physician's report, the technical requirements of the procedure, and the manufacturer's or institution's instructions for the electronic monitoring unit used. In a life-threatening emergency, the notification and documentation steps in section 9.2 should be applied.

10. How long does house arrest last?

CMK Article 110(A) sets upper limits for all judicial control measures:

These periods do not mean that house arrest may continue for that length of time in every concrete file. The maximum period is not a period of proportionality. Where the basis of the measure has ceased after a week, continuing it up to the upper limit would not be lawful. On this subject, the article maximum detention periods may also be consulted.

Under CMK Article 110(4), the need for continuation must be reviewed at intervals of at most four months:

• in the investigation, by the criminal judgeship of peace on the request of the public prosecutor,
• in the prosecution, by the court on its own motion.

The four-month review does not prevent the suspect or defendant from earlier making a request for lifting or replacement.

11. Objection to a house arrest decision: time limit, authority and procedure in 2026

11.1. The objection period is two weeks, not seven days

Through Law No. 7499, the words "seven days" in CMK Article 268(1) were changed to "two weeks". The new period applies to decisions given on or after 1 June 2024. Accordingly, for an objection to a house arrest/judicial control decision dated 2026, the period is two weeks from the day on which the decision was learned of.

In calculating the period:

• the day of learning or of pronouncement is not counted,
• since the period is fixed in weeks, in the final week it ends at the close of business on the day corresponding to the starting day,
• if the last day falls on an official public holiday, the period ends on the first working day following the holiday,
• in an electronic application, it must be ensured that the UYAP record is received on time and in the correct file.

CMK Article 35(2) excludes decisions on protective measures from the rule for decisions that must be served on the person concerned who is not present. For this reason the period does not always begin with formal service. The pronouncement and interrogation record, notification by the police, delivery of a copy of the decision, the date the decision was viewed on UYAP, the probation notification and the electronic monitoring installation record are important in determining the date of learning. Where more than one possible date exists, one should act cautiously by taking the earliest date, and the way the decision was learned of should be documented.

If the decision does not state the route of appeal, the time limit, the authority or the method of application, or states them incorrectly, this is contrary to CMK Article 34. Where the period has been missed without fault, restoration to the previous position may arise under CMK Articles 40 and 41. One should not rely on this; the objection must be made at the earliest possible date.

11.2. Where is the objection lodged?

The objection petition is submitted to the judgeship or court that made the decision. It is also lawful to make a statement to the court clerk and have a record drawn up. If the body that made the decision considers the objection well founded, it may correct its decision; if it does not, it sends the file to the reviewing authority within three days at most.

Important change from 1 January 2026: Objections to decisions of the criminal judgeship of peace on detention and judicial control are no longer, as a rule, examined by another criminal judgeship of peace in the same place. They are examined by a criminal court of first instance judge in the judicial district of the criminal judgeship of peace. Where the matters of the criminal judgeship of peace are handled by a criminal court judge, the objection is made to the president of the high criminal court.

For decisions taken by a court during the prosecution stage, the authority is determined according to the type of court that made the decision and the order set out in CMK Article 268(3). For this reason, when preparing the heading, it must always be checked whether the decision was made in the investigation or the prosecution stage and by which judicial authority.

Where a petition is lodged with the wrong legal remedy authority, CMK Article 264 provides that an error as to the authority or the legal remedy in an admissible application does not deprive the applicant of his or her rights, and that the petition is to be forwarded without delay to the competent authority. This protection does not automatically cure a lapse of time, an unclear application or an error in the file or decision number. Since each day of house arrest has consequences, the correct authority and the correct file should be the basis of the submission from the outset.

11.3. Who may object?

The person against whom the measure is directed, the suspect or defendant, may object personally. Defence counsel may make a legal application in his or her name, provided it does not conflict with an express intention to waive. The power of a legal representative and of a spouse to apply to a legal remedy is assessed separately under CMK Article 262. In practice, making the objection through defence counsel, with the decision and file details clearly stated, reduces the risk of losing rights.

11.4. Does an objection automatically suspend enforcement?

No. Under CMK Article 269, an objection does not in itself suspend enforcement of the decision. However:

• the body that made the decision,
• the body that will examine the objection

may decide to suspend enforcement. For this reason, where there are consequences that are difficult to remedy, especially for health, work, care or public service, the request for suspension of enforcement until the end of the review under CMK Article 269(2) must be justified as a separate request in the petition. Leaving the residence before such a decision is made carries a risk of breach.

11.5. How is the review conducted and when does the decision become final?

The objection is, as a rule, examined on the file; a hearing is not compulsory. Where considered necessary, the views of the public prosecutor and other parties may be obtained under CMK Article 270. Under CMK Article 270(2), where the public prosecutor's view is obtained, that view is notified to the suspect, the defendant or defence counsel, who are given three days to submit a view. Whether a decision that is made without a new view adverse to the person, and which contains new facts or a new assessment, complies with the equality of arms and adversarial proceedings should be separately discussed.

CMK Article 271(3) requires that an objection be determined as soon as possible; however, it does not fix a single total number of days applicable to everyone for the review of an objection. The fact that the body that made the decision must forward the file to the reviewing authority within three days, if it does not consider the objection well founded, should not be confused with the time limit for decision by the reviewing authority.

If the reviewing authority considers the objection well founded, it does not merely quash the decision; it also decides on the subject of the objection. Under CMK Article 271, decisions made on an objection are final unless the law provides otherwise. This finality does not prevent:

• a new request for lifting or replacement under CMK Article 111 where circumstances change,
• a new objection against decisions of continuation,
• an individual application to the Constitutional Court, where its conditions are met.

11.6. A short sequence of steps for an objection

11.7. Fees, expenses and lawyers' fees

No application fee or security is provided for an objection to a judicial control decision in criminal proceedings. Submitting the petition is therefore not subject to court fees. However:

• the fee of a private defence counsel is governed by the agreement between lawyer and client and by the minimum fee tariff in force,
• notarial, translation, medical report, record copy and similar documentary expenses may arise,
• there is no general rule for the automatic recovery of lawyers' fees from the other side when an objection is accepted.

Eligibility for defence assistance by reason of economic circumstances and the conditions for mandatory defence representation must be examined separately under CMK Article 150 and the bar appointment system. Information about fees and appointment must be verified from the official tariff and bar practice at the date of the application.

12. An objection and a request for lifting or replacement are not the same thing

Although the purposes of the two routes appear close, their legal functions are different:

A request under CMK Article 111 is decided in the investigation stage by the criminal judgeship of peace after obtaining the view of the public prosecutor; in the prosecution stage it is decided by the court hearing the case. CMK Article 110(2) gives the judge or court the following options:

• lifting the obligation entirely,
• lifting it in part,
• replacing it,
• temporarily exempting the person from complying with some obligations.

This structure lends itself to a graduated request:

1. first, complete lifting of the judicial control,
2. if that is not accepted, replacement by a lighter obligation, such as a ban on travel abroad, signing, or a ban on contact with particular persons,
3. if that too is not accepted, application of only an obligation to remain at home during specified night hours,
4. at least a temporary exemption for work, health, education or caring needs within a specified day, time and route.

A graduated request loses its effect unless separate reasoning is built for each step. For example, if it is said that "a ban on travel abroad is sufficient", the fixed residence, passport and travel history, family and work ties, and the reasons why there is no risk of flight must be made concrete. If it is said that "night-time application is sufficient", the daytime working hours, the route, the absence of access to evidence at the workplace, and how the night hours control the specific risk and how must be explained.

13. How should an effective petition be structured?

A successful application does not merely describe the person's grievance; it tests the connection between allegation, evidence, risk and measure.

13.1. The four-column legal test

A person's profession, title or family relationship with other suspects is not in itself a suspicion of an offence. Where there is no link with the act, the petition must clearly ask: "what authority, what act, what instruction, what interest, what contact?" Where it is argued that a person who should have been merely a source of information was treated as a suspect, that claim must be built not on rhetoric but by showing that no concrete act was attributed to him or her in the interrogation and statement records, that there is no signature, authority or contribution in the procedural documents, and that witness statements do not accuse the person.

13.2. Documents that are useful to collect

• the judicial control decision and the interrogation record,
• the referral letter or the prosecutor's request for detention,
• police and prosecutor's statement records,
• if available, the scope of any restriction decision and the file documents that can be accessed,
• population and fixed residence records,
• service or duty certificate, working hours and a letter from the workplace,
• legislation, distribution of duties and signing-authority documents showing that the person had no authority in the alleged transaction,
• from title deed, bank, communication and camera records, those that favour the person,
• seizure, search and examination records showing that evidence has been collected or secured,
• current documents showing health, care or education needs,
• for the proposed work permit, a timetable of address, hours and route,
• information on family, work, property and compliance with past summonses, showing that there is no risk of flight.

Rather than a crowd of documents, it should be explained what legal proposition each annex proves. A list of annexes showing the date, the issuing institution and the relevant paragraph of the petition makes review easier.

13.3. Confidentiality of the investigation and restriction decisions

Under CMK Article 153, defence counsel may, as a rule, examine the investigation file and take copies. In the offences listed in the law, where it would endanger the purpose of the investigation, this power may be restricted by a judge's decision. However, the suspect's statement record, expert reports and records of acts at which defence counsel is entitled to be present are excluded from the restriction.

For an effective application in a restricted file:

1. concrete contradictions should be shown on the basis of the decision, referral letter, statement and interrogation documents that are accessible,
2. it should be stated that evidence withheld from the defence has been made the basis of the measure,
3. the right to submit a supplementary petition when the restriction is lifted or new documents are learned of should be reserved,
4. at a minimum, the request should be made that the core of the allegation and risk necessary for the continuation of the measure be disclosed to the defence.

A restriction decision does not legitimise house arrest without reasons. The judicial authority must, while protecting the confidentiality of the file, provide enough information to allow the person to contest the measure effectively.

13.4. Frequently encountered counter-arguments and how to respond

14. The decisions the court may make and the next step

A time difference may exist between the upload of the decision to UYAP and its reflection in the actual monitoring system. Even where a lifting or change decision has been learned of, confirmation with the Probation Directorate should be made, particularly in the case of an electronic ankle monitor, to prevent an erroneous breach record.

15. Breach of the obligation and the risk of detention

Under CMK Article 112, the competent judicial authority may order the detention of a suspect or defendant who deliberately fails to comply with the provisions of judicial control, whatever the length of the prison sentence that may be imposed. Detention is not automatic; however, it is a serious possibility.

Under the Regulation on Probation Services, a deliberate and unexcused failure to comply or breach is reported, without prior warning, to the competent judicial authority through the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. Until a new decision is made, the enforcement of the measure continues.

Examples of risky conduct:

• leaving the home without written permission,
• going out at a time, by a route or for a purpose other than the one permitted,
• removing, switching off, disabling or resisting installation of the electronic device,
• failing to notify a change of address in the proper manner,
• ignoring a technical malfunction warning.

Power cuts or internet interruptions and device failures are not always the person's fault. Nevertheless, at the moment of the event the call centre and the probation unit should be called, a registration number obtained, and photographs or video and a service record kept. Silence on the assumption that the excuse will later be accepted should be avoided.

16. End of the measure and removal of the electronic device

House arrest may end in the following circumstances:

• lifting by the judgeship or court,
• replacement by another judicial control,
• the basis of the measure disappearing, because of a decision of non-prosecution or a final acquittal,
• expiry of the maximum period,
• the emergence of a new legal situation because of the move to the judgment and enforcement regime.

As soon as a decision to end the measure is taken:

1. the final copy of the decision or the UYAP printout should be obtained,
2. it should be confirmed that the decision has reached the enforcement prosecutor's office or the Probation Directorate,
3. the electronic device should be removed by staff with a minuted record,
4. records showing the start and end dates and times should be kept.

The person should not remove the device himself or herself. Until technical removal has been completed, the instructions of the unit must be followed.

17. Credit against sentence for time spent under house arrest

Under CMK Article 109(6), every two days spent under the obligation not to leave one's residence is counted as one day in the credit against the sentence. In Burhan Yaz (3), the AYM did not find this 2:1 ratio disproportionate from the point of view of the Constitution.

In practice:

• the date and time at which the measure began and ended,
• any temporary permissions and changes of hours,
• electronic monitoring and probation records,
• the date on which the removal decision was actually implemented

should be kept. Where a partial measure is applied only at night, the way the day count is to be made should be clarified by the decision and the records; the method by which the credit rule designed for a full-day measure is applied to timed enforcement should not be left to assumption.

Credit does not mean that the measure was lawful from the outset, and it does not automatically remove the right to compensation for an unjustified measure. The credit calculation must be requested separately from the court in the concrete judgment.

18. The route to compensation for unjustified house arrest

Sub-paragraph (l), added to CMK Article 141(1) by Law No. 7499, gives a person against whom the judicial control of not leaving his or her residence, or the hospital admission judicial control set out in the law, was applied, and who is subsequently given a decision of non-prosecution or an acquittal, the possibility of claiming material and non-material damage from the State.

Under CMK Article 141(2), the authorities that give the decisions under sub-paragraphs (e), (f) and (l) of the first paragraph must notify the person concerned that he or she has a right to compensation and must record this in the decision. Failure to give notice does not remove the right; however, the omission should be documented for the purpose of calculating time and for effective application. Even if notice has been given, that does not mean that compensation will be paid automatically.

For decisions that became final on or after 1 June 2024, applications are in principle examined by the Compensation Commission. Under Article 5/B of Law No. 6384, the application must be made:

• within three months from service of the decision that has become final,
• and in any event within one year from the date the decision became final.

There is a protective provision for an application made within time to the wrong judicial authority, under which it is forwarded to the Commission; nevertheless, the correct authority and procedure should be followed from the outset.

The following losses may be documented in the claim:

• wages, premiums, self-employment income and loss of work,
• health and care expenses,
• expenses arising from the disruption of travel and treatment arrangements,
• effects on professional and social life,
• non-pecuniary damage depending on the length and intensity of the restriction of liberty.

A decision of non-prosecution or an acquittal does not guarantee automatic compensation in every item or in the amount sought. Damage, causation, time and documents are examined separately. Depending on the concrete decision, the route to be followed in cases such as a conviction, deferment of the pronouncement of judgment, discontinuation or a decision that there is no need for prosecution is to be assessed separately according to the nature of the decision.

Historical note: The gap in an effective compensation route identified by the AYM in its decision in E.Y. relates to the legal position before Law No. 7499. For a current application, the result of that earlier decision cannot be transferred directly without taking account of the new CMK 141(1)(l) and the Compensation Commission provisions.

19. Application to the Constitutional Court and the ECtHR

19.1. Individual application to the Constitutional Court

Where house arrest violates the right to liberty and security of person, an individual application to the Constitutional Court may be considered after the effective ordinary remedies have been exhausted. The general rule is 30 days from learning of the final decision.

The application file should include:

• the measure decisions and the outcomes of objections,
• the dates of service and of learning,
• the constitutional complaints raised at each stage,
• documents showing the absence of a concrete allegation and of a procedural risk,
• records showing the effect of the measure on family, health, work and private life.

An individual application does not in itself suspend house arrest. A measure decision may be made the subject of a request for interim measures only in exceptional circumstances, such as a serious and imminent risk to life or to material or non-material integrity.

The current criteria of the AYM are:

1. a legal basis,
2. a strong indication that an offence was committed,
3. a legitimate aim such as preventing flight or interference with evidence,
4. that house arrest is necessary and proportionate compared with lighter means,
5. a current and personalised reasoning in continuation decisions.

In the decision in Tuğba Geyik, the AYM accepted that there was a legal basis and a strong indication, relating to social media posts, but nevertheless found a violation because the risk of flight or of interference with evidence had not been made concrete and the measure was continued on general grounds. This decision shows that the approach "if there is suspicion, house arrest may be applied" is incomplete.

19.2. The European Court of Human Rights

After the domestic remedies have been exhausted, an application to the ECtHR may as a rule be made within four months of the final domestic decision. Full-time and intensive house arrest may, in the case law of the ECtHR, be regarded as deprivation of liberty within the scope of Article 5 of the Convention. By contrast, the classification of a restriction limited to particular night hours depends on concrete factors such as duration, intensity, social contact and freedom of movement.

The judgments in Guzzardi, Vittorio and Luigi Mancini, Nikolova (No. 2) and Buzadji emphasize the following principles:

• the actual intensity, rather than the name of the measure, is decisive,
• house arrest is also subject to the safeguards of personal liberty,
• relevant and sufficient reasons are required for a continuing restriction,
• the reasons why lighter measures would be insufficient must be examined,
• as time passes, the burden of justification becomes heavier.

The ECtHR is not an ordinary appellate body that replaces the national judge and re-argues the evidence. The essence of the complaint and the relevant violation of rights must be raised in time in domestic law.

20. Special cases

Children

Judicial control periods are applied at half the rate for children. Article 20 of the Child Protection Law No. 5395 provides, in addition to the measures in CMK 109 for a child, for the following options:

• not leaving the specified boundaries of the environment,
• not being able to go to specified places, or being able to go only to specified places,
• not establishing contact with specified persons or institutions.

Under Article 20(2) of the Child Protection Law, detention may be ordered only where these measures have produced no result, where it is understood that no result can be obtained, or where the measures are not complied with. Under Article 21 of the same law, detention may not be ordered for a child who has not reached fifteen years of age in respect of an act that requires a prison sentence with an upper limit exceeding five years.

This special regime does not automatically make house arrest applicable. Education, development within the family, the best interests of the child, and whether lighter child-focused measures are sufficient must be considered first.

Serious illness, disability and pregnancy

CMK Article 109(4) contains a special provision under which a judicial control decision may be made instead of detention for a suspect who has been determined, because of serious illness or disability under Article 16(3) of Law No. 5275, to be unable to sustain life in the conditions of a penal institution, and for a suspect woman who is pregnant or who has not passed six months since giving birth. This provision does not mean that house arrest is applied automatically; the obligation chosen must genuinely match the needs for health, care and security.

Continuity of treatment, accessibility, need for accompaniment and urgent risk must be shown by medical reports. It must not be assumed that being at home is safe for health. Where the treatment plan changes, the permission or measure must be updated.

Persons providing care

The responsibility of a person who alone provides care for a child, elderly or disabled relative must be shown by a care report, a document of parental custody or guardianship, a record that no alternative care is available, and a concrete timetable.

Persons without a fixed home

House arrest requires a specific residential address. Lack of secure housing may make the measure practically impossible to apply or may produce unequal results. Where the suitable address changes, the person should not move on his or her own initiative; a decision of the judicial authority must be obtained for the change of address.

Public officials and regular employees

The absence of any link between the duties and the alleged act, length of service, disciplinary or investigation history, a fixed place of duty and disruption of public service are important in the proportionality assessment. However, the profession alone does not create a privilege; it must also be shown why the person's position does not facilitate access to evidence or to other persons in the investigation.

Foreigners and international mobility

Foreign citizenship or a connection abroad should not by itself lead to a conclusion that there is a risk of flight. Regular residence in Türkiye, family, work permit, employment, education, past entry and exit conduct and compliance with summonses are assessed together. By contrast, the absence of lasting ties in Türkiye, multiple citizenship, actual preparations to leave or failure to comply with earlier summonses may carry weight in the concrete risk assessment.

For a foreign person, the decision and obligations must be explained in a language he or she understands and, where necessary, interpreter and consular notification rights must be observed. Surrender of a passport, a travel ban or administrative records relating to the residence address may be separate procedures from house arrest; the lifting of one does not mean that the other ends automatically. Where international travel is necessary, a request for a temporary permission must be justified in more detail than an ordinary work permission, by reference to border crossing and the plan for return.

21. Common misconceptions

22. Implementation timeline

23. Frequently asked questions

Is house arrest a penalty?

It is not a conviction or a penalty. It is a criminal procedure protective measure. However, it severely restricts personal liberty and is subject to the safeguards of the AYM and the ECtHR.

If the decision has no end date, is it invalid?

Not for that reason alone. The measure may continue until it is lifted, replaced or the maximum legal period expires; its continuation must be reviewed at least every four months.

If no hours are written, can I go to work?

No. Where there are no express hours or permission, the obligation not to leave one's residence applies without interruption. For work, a written change or exemption from the judgeship or court is required.

Can a court impose house arrest only at night?

Yes. The legislation makes it technically and legally possible for a decision to be applied within a specified time period. However, there is no standard 20:00–06:00 band applicable to everyone; the hours must be stated in the concrete decision.

Within how many days can house arrest be objected to?

For a decision dated 2026, within two weeks from learning of it. Online statements of a seven-day period are out of date.

Which authority examines the objection?

For a decision of the criminal judgeship of peace in the investigation stage, as a rule a criminal court of first instance judge in the judicial district of the criminal judgeship of peace, from 1 January 2026. Special arrangements for each place and the decisions of the prosecution stage must also be checked under CMK 268.

Does the measure stop until the objection is decided?

No. Suspension of enforcement may be requested separately, and a decision on it is required.

If an objection is rejected, can I apply again?

Where circumstances change or new documents come to light, lifting or replacement may be requested under CMK 111. Repeating the same reasons without documents is not effective.

Does the four-month review automatically lift the measure?

No. It is the mandatory periodic review of continuation. The judgeship may decide that the measure continues, is changed or is lifted.

Can the Probation Directorate grant a work permit?

It cannot itself change the scope of the measure. It forwards the request for permission through the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office to the competent judicial authority and implements the decision given.

What should be done in a hospital emergency?

Life and bodily integrity take priority; 112 should be called, the relevant units informed at the first opportunity, and all health and time records kept. Whether an emergency is accepted as an excuse afterwards is not automatic.

Is an electronic ankle monitor fitted in every file?

No. The Law and the Regulation allow electronic monitoring; whether it is required depends on the concrete application.

Is a device malfunction treated as a breach?

A genuine malfunction not caused by the person's fault is not automatically a deliberate breach. However, immediate notification and documentation are required, and the device must not be tampered with.

Can the address be changed?

The residence determined in the judicial decision cannot be changed on one's own initiative. For a new address, a decision and coordination with the implementing unit in advance are required.

Does time under house arrest reduce the sentence?

Yes. Under CMK 109(6), every two days are credited as one day.

Does everyone who is acquitted receive compensation?

CMK 141(1)(l) gives a right to claim compensation, but timely application, damage and causation are examined. The amount is not automatic.

Can an objection be made without a lawyer?

The suspect or defendant may apply personally. However, identifying the correct authority, the time limit, access to the file and the construction of graduated requests is technical, so the assistance of defence counsel may be important.

Does house arrest end public office automatically?

No. A judicial control decision is not in itself a decision to dismiss from public office. However, it may prevent attendance at work, and separate administrative assessments may arise under the rules of the institution.

If the electronic ankle monitor has not been fitted, may I leave the house?

No. The binding effect of the judicial control decision does not depend on the fitting of the device. The decision and notification records should be checked; the residence must not be left without a written change or permission.

Does a hearing or prosecutor's summons automatically give permission to leave?

No. With the summons, a written exemption or referral arrangement covering the date, hours, travel time and route should be requested, and the probation unit informed in advance.

What happens if a removal order under Law No. 6284 is made in respect of the house-arrest address?

Neither decision is treated as automatically void. An application should be made to the competent judicial authority to change the house-arrest address by showing an alternative address, or for a lighter measure, and written coordination should be established between the family court, the police, the prosecutor and probation.

For which offences can house arrest be imposed?

The law contains no closed list of offences for the measure of not leaving one's residence. Judicial control may be applied even where detention is prohibited. However, the name of the offence or its catalogue status is not sufficient; strong suspicion, concrete procedural risk, the insufficiency of lighter measures and proportionality must be shown in each file.

May telephone and internet be used during house arrest?

A house-arrest decision does not by itself prohibit the use of telephone or internet. However, if a separate measure exists on communication, contact with particular persons or electronic communication, it must be complied with. Communications that amount to destroying evidence or pressuring a witness may, even without an express prohibition, lead to new protective measures and to criminal liability.

Is house arrest entered in the judicial record?

House arrest is not a conviction. Since Article 4 of Law No. 5352 on Judicial Records mainly records final conviction judgments and the consequences listed in that article, house arrest is not entered in the judicial record as a "criminal record". However, information on investigation, prosecution and measures may be visible in UYAP and in the courts' own records; a judicial record certificate and a UYAP record are not the same thing.

Can house arrest be converted into a judicial fine?

No. Since house arrest is a protective measure and not a penalty, the institution of "conversion into money" does not apply. Where the conditions are met, the measure is requested to be lifted completely or replaced by a lighter judicial control, such as a travel ban, signing, a contact ban or timed application.

Are the balcony, garden, garage and shared areas of an apartment building part of the residence?

There is no single answer. The address in the judicial decision, the probation notification and any safe area defined in the electronic monitoring system, where there is one, are decisive. One should not assume that a detached garden, balcony, building entrance, car park or shared areas are free without a written explanation; the technical boundary and the title-deed boundary may not be the same.

Does the objection period not start if the decision has not been served?

Not always. For decisions on protective measures, under CMK 35(2), learning may occur through pronouncement before formal service, delivery of a copy of the decision, a UYAP viewing record or probation notification. For this reason one should act on the earliest probable date of learning, and that date should be shown by a document.

What happens if the objection is lodged with the wrong court?

CMK 264 provides that an error as to the authority or the legal remedy in an admissible application does not deprive the applicant of his or her rights, and that the petition is forwarded to the competent authority. This provision does not automatically correct a lapse of time or an unclear application; lodging with the correct file and authority from the outset is the safest course.

Is the obligation to stay at home at the enforcement stage the same "house arrest"?

No. Under CMK 109(3)(j), it is judicial control applied during investigation or prosecution. Serving a final sentence at home and the probation obligations at the enforcement stage are governed by Law No. 5275 and the regime of the enforcement judgeship. The time limit, the authority and the legal remedy differ accordingly. For details, see the article on maximum judicial control periods.

For related details, see also our article objection to detention and request for release.

24. Conclusion: a safe legal approach for 2026

House arrest is not a measure that can automatically be regarded as proportionate because it is "lighter than detention". When applied without interruption, it is a serious interference with personal liberty. Lawfulness can be established where the concrete act and evidence, the personalised risk of flight or interference with evidence, the insufficiency of lighter measures and a current reasoning are shown together.

In 2026, the defence must use three separate tools in the right order: the two-week objection, a request for lifting or replacement under CMK 111 while the conditions continue, and a review of continuation at least every four months. Timed or night-time application, a temporary exemption for work or health, and conversion into a travel ban should be presented not as abstract wishes but with a workable supervision plan.

This work is for general legal information. No definitive step should be taken on the time limit or the route of application regarding a concrete file without seeing the offence, the stage, the date of service, the restriction decision and the state of the evidence.

---

25. Legislative timeline and update information

This table is not a list of all amendments to the CMK; it shows only the turning points that directly affect the conclusion of this article. On the date of publication, the consolidated text of the CMK and the provisions on entry into force and transition should be checked again.

The example of the Ankara 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace, file No. 2021/313, on exemption for school hours, cited in the academic work, is not a published binding precedent. It may be used only as a limited example showing that timed application is workable; it should not be presented as a precedent.

26. Author and institutional publication information

Author and legal review: Att. Umut Güneş – Founding Lawyer
Publisher: Güneş & Güneş Law Firm
Institutional background: Güneş & Güneş Law Firm was founded on 18 March 1999 in Antalya by Att. Umut Güneş. Since 1999 the firm has provided legal services in Turkish, English, German and Russian.
Institutional website: www.gunesgunes.com
Notice of legal update or correction: info@gunesgunes.com

This text has been prepared by considering together the legislation on criminal procedure, the decisions of the higher courts and practical problems. The article makes no promise of any result or success.

27. Editorial update and correction policy

• The material legal outcomes of the article have been checked first against the current texts of the legislation, the provisions on entry into force and transition, the sources of the Ministry of Justice, and the official decision databases of the AYM and the ECtHR.
• Internet publications have been examined not as legal sources, but to identify user questions and the risks of outdated information.
• The information on time limits, authorities, credit and compensation in the text was checked as at 2 September 2026. The material content will be re-examined after subsequent legislative amendments.
• If a point requiring correction is reported, a re-check is made against the official source; substantive changes are shown with the version and update date.
• This publication is of a general legal information nature. No definitive application route or time calculation should be made for a concrete file without seeing the offence, stage, date of decision, form of pronouncement or service, restriction decision and state of the evidence.

Version: 2.1 – Expanded final web publication version
Last legal review: 2 September 2026
Ordinary review date: 2 March 2027 or the first legislative or case-law change