Return of the indictment (iddianamenin iadesi) means that an indictment submitted to the court by the public prosecutor is sent back to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı) without being admitted, because of deficiencies specified by law. The court reviews the indictment and the investigation file within fifteen days of their submission. This period is not an objection period granted to the suspect. The suspect or defense counsel may notify the court of specific deficiencies before admission; however, there is no independent remedy against the admission of an indictment. 1
For the defense, the decisive question is broader than whether the file contains a deficiency: which return ground in CMK Article 174 does the deficiency fall under, and how does it prevent the charge from being understood or a directly relevant piece of evidence from being assessed? A general petition prepared without establishing this link may confuse the pre-admission review with the defense on the merits.
This guide examines, under the ordinary criminal procedure of Türkiye, the preparation of an indictment, the grounds for return, the deadlines, the position of defense counsel and the attorney for the injured party, the possibilities after return, and the defense to be conducted after admission. The provisions in force on 12 October 2026 have been taken as the basis; the amendment of 18 August 2026 concerning social investigation for children has also been addressed. The special provisions applicable to persons subject to special investigation procedures and to particular offenses should also be considered. 1 2
What Does Return of the Indictment Mean and Who Decides?
The investigation runs from the point at which suspicion of an offense is learned until the indictment is admitted. The public criminal action is not yet opened when the prosecutor prepares the indictment or sends it to the court. The public criminal action is opened when the indictment is admitted; the trial stage begins at that point. An indictment that is not returned within the statutory period is deemed admitted by law. For this reason, a distinction must be drawn between the file appearing on UYAP as sent to the court and the decision of admission. 1
The review for return is carried out by the court before which the indictment was submitted. In the ordinary course, this is the criminal court of first instance, the High Criminal Court or the competent juvenile court, depending on the offense and the position of the person. The criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) is not the authority that generally admits or returns indictments. The criminal judgeship of peace's review of an objection to a decision of non-prosecution (KYOK) is a different function. A statement submitted to the file should be directed to the correct court, indicating the investigation number and, where one exists, the indictment evaluation number. 1
A return is neither a final finding of innocence nor a decision of non-prosecution that ends the investigation. After a return, evidence may be completed, a new indictment may be prepared, or, where its conditions are met, a decision of non-prosecution (KYOK) may be issued. Admission of an indictment does not mean that the offense has been proven; the charge is examined during the trial.
| Act or decision | Stage and authority | Basic result |
|---|---|---|
| Return of the indictment | Before admission, by the competent court | The file returns to the prosecutor; the investigation continues. |
| Decision of non-prosecution (KYOK) | At the end of the investigation, by the public prosecutor | If its legal conditions are met, no public criminal action is opened; review under CMK Article 173 may arise. |
| Admission of the indictment | By the competent court, or upon expiry of the period | The public criminal action is opened and the trial begins. |
| Acquittal | At trial, by the court | Judgment is given on one of the grounds for acquittal in CMK Article 223. |
The distinctions matter both for the suspect's defense objective and for the remedy available to the person harmed by the offense. Treating a return decision as if it were a decision of non-prosecution and objecting before the wrong authority may delay action at the correct stage of the file. 1
Sufficient Suspicion and the Mandatory Content of an Indictment
Sufficient suspicion is not the same as the proof required for conviction
CMK Article 170(2) provides that an indictment is prepared where the evidence collected at the end of the investigation creates sufficient suspicion that the offense was committed. The postponement of the opening of the public criminal action and other special procedures provided by law are reserved. Sufficient suspicion cannot be asserted on the basis of a conviction not grounded in the file; it requires an examinable connection between the event, the person and the evidence. At this stage, however, no judgment of conviction is rendered. 1
For this reason, the defense should not be limited to stating that "there is no conclusive proof of the offense." It should show which act the existing records concern, how the link with the suspect was established, and through which inquiry an exculpatory explanation can be tested. The relationship between the prosecutor's assessment of sufficient suspicion and the limits of the court's return review is debated. The reference in CMK Article 174(1)(a) to Article 170 is important; on the other hand, the court's undertaking a full examination of proof before any hearing has been held may exceed the limits of the institution of return. 1
The charge must be specific as to the act and the person
The indictment must set out, to the extent the law requires, information about the suspect, defense counsel, the injured party or the person harmed by the offense and their representatives; the complaint, the place and time of the offense, the provisions to be applied, the evidence, and information about detention. The events are described in connection with the existing evidence; information unrelated to the charge is not included. The concluding part also states the matters in the suspect's favor. 1
Where a file contains several suspects, repeating the same general narrative for everyone may leave unclear which act each person is charged with. Listing bank accounts, company records or communication data in bulk does not, by itself, amount to a description of the event. The defense should show the missing link at the level of the individual and the transaction. For example, the question to ask is which evidence establishes the connection between being a partner in a company and the preparation of a particular forged document.
On the other hand, a typographical error, or a piece of information that can be understood from the file as a whole but is not repeated in the heading, does not require a return in every case. The effect of the deficiency on the charge, or on the statutory review, must be explained. The prosecutor's duty to collect evidence in the suspect's favor is separately regulated in CMK Article 160(2); the defense's submission of documents does not remove that duty. 1
Grounds for Return Under CMK Article 174
Preparation of the indictment contrary to CMK Article 170
The first ground concerns a failure to meet the mandatory content of an indictment. Failing to describe the act at all, being unable to tell which suspect is charged with which event, or the absence of any link between the events and the evidence fall within this category. Rather than a general list of statutory provisions, the petition should compare the relevant page of the indictment with the record in the file. Criticism of an indictment should not turn into an account that completes a charge not yet raised by the defense. 1
Failure to collect an existing piece of evidence that directly affects proof of the offense
CMK Article 174(1)(b) provides for return where an existing piece of evidence that directly affects proof of the offense has not been collected. "Proof" (sübut) refers to establishing that the offense was committed. Charging a person while a decisive record exists and is available but has not been examined is not the same as the defense offering a different reading of evidence that has already been collected. 1
The place and time frame of a camera recording, the date and number of a bank transaction, the original of a document to be used for signature examination, or the event directly known to a person whose hearing is requested should be identified. The reason the evidence is decisive should also be explained: will it clarify the identity of the perpetrator, the occurrence of the act, the intent, or a ground of justification? Not every new expert request or every witness not heard is an automatic ground for return.
The fact that the suspect's statement was not taken is also not, in itself, an automatic ground for return in every file. The inability to reach the person, the exercise of the right to remain silent, and the complete absence of an opportunity to make a statement must be kept apart. The procedural safeguards in CMK Articles 147 and 149 should be preserved; the petition should specify which statement or exculpatory inquiry was disregarded. The fact that a statement was not taken is not treated as an automatic ground for return, but this does not mean that the prosecutor may neglect the duty to protect the suspect's right of defense or to investigate evidence in both directions. 1 4
Decisions given before the 2019 amendment may use a different statutory wording. The "direct effect" criterion of the current provision should be applied, and earlier decisions should be assessed together with the provision in force at that time and the facts of the particular case. 1
Failure to apply summary payment, mediation or the simplified trial procedure
Where a file clearly falls within one of these procedures, an indictment prepared without applying the required procedure is grounds for return. However, the failure to carry out these steps for an offense outside their scope is not a deficiency. A procedure never having been initiated must be distinguished from a proper offer being rejected or the process ending without result for a statutory reason. 1
For summary payment, the offer and notification records should be examined; for mediation, the offer forms, notifications and the result report; for the simplified trial procedure, the statutory scope, the availability of defense counsel and the fate of the offer. The special request submitted to the court for the simplified trial procedure is not the same document as an ordinary indictment. The explanation of return in this guide does not replace all of the review provisions applicable to the special request. The process and documents may also be reviewed in the article Simplified Trial Procedure: Conditions, Sentence Reduction, Objection and Recidivism. 1
Where it is argued that the classification of the offense changes, the need for mediation may arise. Nevertheless, the mere fact that the court classifies the act differently from the prosecutor does not remove the prohibition in CMK Article 174(2). A procedure that was expressly omitted under the current charge and a defense based on an alternative classification of the offense must be set up separately. Where, after admission, an offense is found to fall within the scope of mediation, CMK Article 254 is considered separately. 1
Absence of a required authorization or request
Where the investigation or prosecution depends on an authorization or a request, an indictment prepared without satisfying that condition is returned under CMK Article 174(1)(d). First, it must be determined whether there is in fact an offense and a person for which an authorization or request is required. The fact that a person is a public official does not by itself show that every offense is subject to the same authorization procedure. 1
The presence of an authorization document in the file does not end the review. It must be checked whether the document covers the correct person, the act and the period; whether it was issued by the competent authority; and whether the procedure required by the relevant special law has been completed. In special prosecution conditions, such as the prosecutor's opinion in tax offenses, the assessment must be made by reference to the special provision to be applied, not by the name of the document. The tax offense decisions below also show the importance of examining the content of the opinion and reports in the file. 5 6
Lack of social investigation concerning children and the 2026 amendment
Subparagraph (e), added to CMK Article 174(1) by Article 4 of Law No. 7593, provides for the return of an indictment prepared without a social investigation concerning a child who has not reached the age of fifteen. The provision entered into force on 18 August 2026. A review list based only on the former four subparagraphs therefore does not reflect the current scope. 1 2
Article 35(3) of the Child Protection Law No. 5395, as amended by the same Law, makes a social investigation mandatory for a child who has not reached the age of fifteen. Where no social investigation has been carried out for a child who has reached the age of fifteen, the reason must be stated in the indictment or the decision. The same explanation cannot be applied to both age groups. A social investigation relates to the individual characteristics of the child and their social environment; it cannot be assumed that another report prepared in the file for a different purpose fulfils its function. 3
No separate transitional provision was laid down for the new subparagraph. The procedural stage on the date of entry into force, whether the indictment had been admitted, and the review period must be determined together. It cannot be said that an indictment already admitted automatically returns to the return stage because of the new provision; the assessment of the obligation to carry out a social investigation during the prosecution is a separate question. 1 2 3
Limits of the Power of Return and Incomplete Investigation in Court of Cassation Decisions
A file in which the result of a digital examination should be awaited
In its decision of 13 June 2018, E. 2018/513, K. 2018/2465, the 16th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 16. Ceza Dairesi) found correct a return decision made in order to await the results of the examination of digital records seized in a file concerning membership of an armed organization. An application for reversal in the interest of the law was rejected. In the case concerned, the nature of the activities and the effect of the digital examination on proof of the offense were decisive. 4
The decision does not show that every digital examination necessarily requires a return. Its usefulness for the defense lies in the need to show the direct connection between a specific record not yet examined and the charge. The decision was given before the 2019 amendment; the wording of the earlier provision should not be transferred in place of the current provision.
Existing connecting evidence in a tax offense file may make a return unnecessary
In its decision of 23 June 2025, E. 2025/459, K. 2025/7634, the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesi) reached a different result. In a charge of issuing fictitious invoices, the file contained tax technique and tax offense reports, the prosecutor's opinion, contrary findings showing that transactions had taken place with the suspects, and records concerning the agency relationship. The Chamber found that there was sufficient suspicion to open the public criminal action, and reversed in the interest of the law the rejection of the objection to the return decision. 5
The practical result of the decision is that an abstract objection that "the expert report is incomplete" is not sufficient. The defense must show which examinations are already in the file and what the additional step requested would clarify that they do not. In a file where existing reports connect the defendant to the act, repeating the same examinations does not show that the connection has never been investigated.
A return may be upheld where the actual link with a company has not been investigated
In its decision of 10 February 2026, E. 2025/4389, K. 2026/1188, the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Ceza Dairesi) gave considerable weight to the suspect's defense that he had granted an authority to another person to establish the company and had later become a complainant against that person. The charge was made without examining the suspect's actual participation in the company's activities and his connection with the relevant transactions; the deficiencies were assessed, and the application for reversal in the interest of the law against the return decision was rejected. The full text of the decision can be found in the open-access decision publication cited in the bibliography. 6
Read together, the two decisions of 2025 and 2026 show that no conclusion can be drawn from the type of offense alone. Both files contained tax reports, but the scope of the investigation into the suspect's connection with the act differed. This is not a claim that the case law has changed in the sense that all decisions have been altered; it is a comparison showing that the concrete state of the evidence may explain a different outcome.
An indictment prepared after an objection to a KYOK decision was upheld
In its decision of 19 December 2025, E. 2024/7806, K. 2025/9287, the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi) examined the repeated return of an indictment prepared after an objection to a decision of non-prosecution (KYOK) was upheld. The Chamber considered together the explanation in the indictment of the act, the roles of the suspects and the supporting evidence, and the sufficient suspicion assessment by the criminal judgeship of peace; it reversed the rejection of the objection to the return decision. 7
This decision should not be read as meaning that every indictment prepared after a KYOK objection is exempt from all review. The Court assessed the concrete content of the indictment. Where the previous KYOK, the upholding of the objection, the first return and the subsequent indictments are not examined together, and the defense is built only on the last document, the defense remains incomplete. The connection between the decision of non-prosecution in the series and the subject of the objection also emerges at this point.
How Are the Deadlines for Return of an Indictment Calculated?
The court's fifteen-day period
The period under CMK Article 174(1) relates to the submission of the indictment and the investigation file to the court. The date on which the suspect learns of the indictment or is served with it does not restart this period. The court may give a decision of admission before the fifteen days have expired. For this reason, defense counsel should not assume in every case that fifteen days remain to make a submission. 1
The transmission to the court via UYAP, arrival at the court, referral to a judge, preparation of the decision and the electronic signature records should be examined together. Looking only at the date on a document may not be sufficient. The calculation of periods expressed in days and weeks is governed by CMK Article 39; the end-of-day rule for electronic procedures is considered together with CMK Article 38/A. In a specific file, the actual date on which the investigation file was submitted to the court must be established separately. 1
In its decision of 3 December 2024, E. 2023/6660, K. 2024/10689, the 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Ceza Dairesi) examined the difference between the date on which the file was returned through UYAP and the date on which the reasoned return decision was written. The Chamber did not consider pressing the return button alone sufficient; it reversed the rejection of an objection concerning a return procedure whose reasoning was prepared after the period had expired. The full text of the decision, available in open access, is given in the bibliography. 8
The prosecutor's two-week period for objection
The public prosecutor may object to a return decision. Under the current wording of CMK Article 268(1), the general period for objection is two weeks from the date the decision is learned of. The manner and date of notification to the prosecutor's office should be examined under CMK Article 38. The objection is submitted to the authority that gave the decision; if that authority does not correct its decision, it sends the file to the competent objection authority. The competent authority is determined under CMK Article 268(3) according to the type of court that gave the decision and its judicial district. 1
Because of the transitional provision, the date of the decision matters. For decisions given on or after 1 June 2024, the two-week period applies; for earlier decisions, the former seven-day rule is taken into account. The change did not convert the court's fifteen-day period for reviewing the indictment into two weeks. 1
| Step | Period or decisive stage | Record to check |
|---|---|---|
| Court's review for return | Fifteen days from submission of the indictment and file | UYAP submission, referral and decision records |
| Defense submission before admission | No separate remedy period; must be submitted before admission | Current stage of the file and the record of the petition's submission |
| Prosecutor's objection to the return decision | Two weeks from learning of the decision under the current rule | Date of the return decision and notice to the prosecutor's office |
| Interval between summons and hearing | At least one week under CMK Article 176(4) | Service of the summons and the hearing date |
| Request for defense evidence before the hearing | At least five days before the hearing under CMK Article 177 | Petition, the act to be proven and information on the evidence |
The last entry does not mean that every item of evidence reported later will automatically be rejected. CMK Article 207 does not treat the late reporting of evidence or of a fact as a ground for rejection in itself. Early submission is nevertheless important, so that witnesses and documents are available by the hearing. 1
What Can Defense Counsel and the Attorney for the Injured Party Do at This Stage?
The legal nature of a pre-admission petition
Under CMK Articles 149 and 153, defense counsel may follow the file and submit statements and documents for consideration in the return review. This petition is not an independent "objection to the indictment" remedy provided by law. Filing it does not stop the review period, does not ensure on its own that the court holds off on admission, and does not create a separate right to a hearing. 1
Scholarship argues that the defense should participate more effectively in pre-admission review. Yıldırım's study explains the distinction between the possibility for those concerned to contribute to the review by submitting petitions and evidence under the current system, and a remedy expressly granted by law. These views and proposals should not be presented as though a new objection right exists under the law in force. 9
The attorney for a person harmed by the offense may also notify the deficiencies in the investigation, the connection between the damage and the act, and the necessary steps. However, CMK Article 174(5) gives the objection to the return decision to the prosecutor. Where the attorney for the injured party considers that the return was wrong, the attorney may submit the reasons to the prosecutor's office and ask that an objection be filed; it should not be assumed that the prosecutor exercised this special right of objection in the attorney's place.
The petition must connect the event, the deficiency and the requested step
Rather than a text that retells the whole file, an arrangement should be preferred that shows the effect of each deficiency. If the relevant document is in the file, its location should be stated; if it is to be brought from outside, its holder, the date range and the step requested should be specified. The reasons why records supporting the defense were not reflected in the indictment should be explained, and records against the defense should also be assessed.
| Problem seen in the file | Connection to be explained | Step that can be specified |
|---|---|---|
| The description of events is the same for all suspects | Is the specific act attributed to the individual understandable? | Comparison of the relevant part of the indictment with the individual and transaction records |
| A known camera recording has not been obtained | Does the recording directly affect the identity of the perpetrator or the occurrence of the event? | Preservation and retrieval of the recording, stating the place, date and time range |
| Signature and the authority for the transaction have not been examined | Is the suspect linked to the document or transaction? | Original document, comparison signatures and identification of the relevant transaction witnesses |
| A statutory preliminary procedure has been skipped | Does the offense fall within the scope of that procedure? | Review of the offer, notification, authorization or result report |
| No required social investigation concerning a child | What is the age group, and what current provision applies? | Assessment of the social investigation file and the reasoning |
Hypothetical example: Suppose the indictment alleges that the suspect was at a particular workplace at a particular time; that the defense counsel expressly notified the existence of a camera recording covering the same time range during the investigation; and that the recording was not obtained. An effective submission shows where the recording is, the date of the earlier request, and how it would clarify whether the person was at the scene. If the existence of the recording is uncertain, or its connection with the event cannot be explained, the strength of the same request is reduced. This example is not a real firm file.
Confidentiality, access to the file and foreign suspects
Before admission, the confidentiality of the investigation and any statutory restriction decision must be taken into account. The content of a document to which defense counsel has no access should not be guessed and written into the petition. The access problem should be recorded formally; the documents that cannot be restricted under CMK Article 153 and the powers of file inspection after admission should be borne in mind. 1
For a foreign suspect, identity, interpreter assistance, understanding of the charge and service are of separate importance. Foreign citizenship alone is not a ground for return. The absence of an identity document is also not the same as a person's identity being determinable from other records. Problems concerning interpreter and defense counsel assistance should be explained through their effect on the file's processing and on the defense. For the duties of the lawyer in criminal proceedings, the explanation The Role and Importance of the Lawyer in Criminal Cases may also be consulted. 1
How Does the Investigation Continue After a Return Decision?
If the prosecutor finds the grounds for return justified, the prosecutor completes the deficiencies and corrects the errors. Where the new investigation does not require a decision of non-prosecution (KYOK), a new indictment is prepared. If the prosecutor does not agree with the return decision, the prosecutor may object within the statutory period. A return decision does not impose on the prosecutor a duty to find evidence that will necessarily secure a conviction; the duty to investigate evidence both for and against the suspect continues. 1
A new return cannot be sought on grounds not stated in the first return decision. By contrast, re-submitting the same indictment without remedying a deficiency clearly identified in the first decision is assessed differently. The defense should compare each earlier ground for return with the subsequent investigative steps, one by one. It is wrong both to maintain that a completed deficiency still persists and to assume that a step never carried out has been completed. 1 9
CMK Article 174 does not set a single general period within which the prosecutor must prepare a new indictment in all files. The waiting time is assessed in light of the step to be taken and the circumstances of the file. The return decision itself is not a final judgment that imposes a new application fee, a security, an automatic award of compensation in favor of a party, or attorney's fees. The outcome of litigation costs is addressed within the relevant decision and the general provisions. 1
Does a return decision result in release or the lifting of judicial control?
A return does not by itself lift a detention order or a judicial control order. However, where the reasoning for the return affects the grounds for strong suspicion or the proportionality of the measure, it may be used in a separate request for release or for the lifting of judicial control. The current state of the evidence, the grounds for detention, the duration and the possibility of a lighter measure should be specified. The periods for reviewing detention and judicial control cannot be neglected because the indictment has been returned. 1
The decision of the objection authority is, as a rule, final. Reversal in the interest of the law is an extraordinary remedy operating under the conditions of CMK Article 309; it is not an ordinary second objection through which the person concerned can directly initiate review by the Court of Cassation. The fact that the decisions examined in this article were given through that route does not mean that the same result will be reached in every dispute over a return. 1
How Is the Defense Conducted After the Indictment Is Admitted?
After admission, the ordinary return stage is complete. The defense must raise the deficiencies by the procedural and evidentiary means of the prosecution. The boundary of the act and the person in the indictment is checked; objections to evidence obtained unlawfully are raised under CMK Articles 206 and 217; and the collection of decisive witnesses and records is requested. An admission decision does not complete a missing piece of evidence or make an unlawfully obtained piece of evidence usable. 1
The court is not bound by the parties' or the defense's legal classification of the act; however, the judgment is given on the act and the perpetrator whose elements are set out in the indictment. Where the classification of the offense changes, the notification and additional defense safeguards in CMK Article 226 apply. For this reason, the complete failure to describe the act, its different classification, and the addition of a new act to the trial must each be examined separately. 1
The fact that a condition for prosecution or investigation has not yet been met, and the fact that it will no longer be met, lead to different consequences for suspension or dismissal under CMK Article 223(8). The fact that it is not established that the act was committed by the accused is an assessment for acquittal. Rather than gathering every problem under a renewed request for return, the defense should seek the legal outcome suited to the stage the file has reached. 1
Conclusion
Effective defense against an indictment that has been returned rests on establishing a reviewable link between the concrete deficiency and a statutory ground for return. The stage of the file, the fifteen-day review period of the court and the prosecutor's objection period should be monitored separately; a pre-admission statement should not be presented as an independent remedy at law.
The actual decisions show that different states of evidence can produce different results, even within the same type of offense. For this reason, the petition should explain which record is missing and why that deficiency directly affects the charge. If the indictment has been admitted, the same legal problems are not abandoned; the defense is restructured around the discussion of the evidence, procedural safeguards and the judgment sought.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the return of an indictment mean the case has been dropped?
No. A return takes place before admission, and the file goes back to the prosecutor's office. At the end of the investigation, a new indictment may follow or, where its conditions are met, a decision of non-prosecution (KYOK) may be considered. See the section What Does Return of the Indictment Mean and Who Decides?.
Do I have fifteen days to object to an indictment?
Fifteen days is the court's review period. It is not an independent objection period granted to the suspect. Because the court may give a decision of admission before that period expires, a pre-admission statement should not be delayed. The matter is explained in the section on Deadlines.
Can the admission of an indictment be challenged?
No independent objection procedure is provided against a decision of admission. Deficiencies in the indictment may be raised during the trial through appropriate defense submissions and evidentiary requests. See the section Defense After Admission of the Indictment.
Is the return of an indictment reviewed by the criminal judgeship of peace?
In the ordinary course, the review is carried out by the criminal court before which the indictment was submitted. This review should not be confused with the criminal judgeship of peace's function in reviewing an objection to a decision of non-prosecution (KYOK). See the section on the competent authority.
If my statement was not taken, will the indictment necessarily be returned?
No automatic return result follows in every case. The reason the statement was not taken, the state of the opportunity to defend, and which decisive inquiry was not carried out are examined. A petition based only on this sentence should be replaced by a specific deficiency. See the section on grounds for return.
If the prosecutor named the offense incorrectly, is a return required?
A return cannot be made merely because of a difference in legal classification. Leaving the act unclear is a separate matter. If the court changes the classification, the additional defense safeguards are assessed. See the section Defense After Admission of the Indictment.
Is a social investigation mandatory in files concerning children?
The current provision makes a social investigation mandatory for a child who has not reached the age of fifteen. Where no investigation has been carried out for a child who has reached the age of fifteen, the reason must be stated in the indictment or the decision. See the section on the 2026 amendment.
Within how many days may the prosecutor object to a return decision?
For decisions given on or after 1 June 2024, the current general period is two weeks from the date the decision is learned of. For earlier decisions, the transitional provision and the former seven-day period are examined. See the section on the prosecutor's period for objection.
Does detention end automatically in a file that has been returned?
No. Release or the lifting of judicial control is assessed separately. The effect of the reasons for return on suspicion and proportionality may be specified in the relevant request. See the section on protective measures.
Can an indictment be returned a second time?
A return cannot be made on grounds not stated in the first decision. Whether a deficiency shown in the first decision has been remedied is assessed separately. The earlier decision and the completed steps should be examined together. See the section on the process after return.
Sources and legal bases
- Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), in particular Arts. 2, 38, 38/A, 39, 100–111, 147, 149, 153, 157, 160, 170–177, 202, 206–207, 217, 223, 225–226, 250, 253–254, 267–271, 309, 324–327 and Provisional Art. 6. Current official text.
- Law No. 7593 Amending the Child Protection Law and Certain Other Laws (7593 sayılı Çocuk Koruma Kanunu ile Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun): adopted 8 August 2026; Official Gazette 18 August 2026, No. 33344; in particular Arts. 4, 13 and 16. Official Gazette.
- Child Protection Law No. 5395 (Çocuk Koruma Kanunu): in particular Art. 35. Current official text.
- 16th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 16. Ceza Dairesi): 13 June 2018, E. 2018/513, K. 2018/2465; legal assessment and result. Ministry of Justice decision text.
- 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesi): 23 June 2025, E. 2025/459, K. 2025/7634; reasoning § 4 and decision. Ministry of Justice decision text.
- 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Ceza Dairesi): 10 February 2026, E. 2025/4389, K. 2026/1188; assessment § 4 and decision. Full text, open-access decision publication; second full-text publication.
- 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi): 19 December 2025, E. 2024/7806, K. 2025/9287; reasoning §§ 6–7 and decision. Ministry of Justice decision text.
- 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Ceza Dairesi): 3 December 2024, E. 2023/6660, K. 2024/10689; reasoning and decision. Full text, open-access decision publication.
- Erkan Yıldırım, "The Institution of Return of the Indictment in Light of Recent Regulations" (Son Düzenlemeler Özelinde İddianamenin İadesi Kurumu), Journal of the Turkish Justice Academy (Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi), No. 42, pp. 173–202; in particular pp. 177–178 and 196–197. Printed PDF dated April 2020; DergiPark publication record dated 1 April 2021. Article and bibliographic record; full text.