Where a person has more than one final sentence, a decision on aggregation (also called içtima) can be requested from the execution judgeship (infaz hâkimliği) so that the provisions on conditional release can be applied. Each sentence keeps its own legal existence; a single enforcement rate is not applied to all the sentences. The effect of a judgment that becomes final later is assessed separately according to whether the person is still in an institution, under probation, or already conditionally released. A new judgment does not produce the same result in every case. [1] [3]
In enforcement practice, the statement “the sentences have been aggregated” is often understood to mean that all the convictions have turned into a single sentence. Yet an aggregation decision does not remove the offense dates, the types of sentence or the different enforcement regimes. The preservation of these features is decisive for the release calculation, for credit for time already served and for the assessment of judgments that arrive later.
What Is the Aggregation (İçtima) of Sentences?
An Institution Different from the Concurrence of Offenses
The provisions of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) on compound offenses, continuous offenses and ideal concurrence (fikrî içtima) concern the determination of the offense and the sentence during the trial. The aggregation of sentences in enforcement, by contrast, arises at the stage of carrying out final judgments. Using the same term (içtima) for both does not make the competent authority and the legal consequences of these two fields identical. [1] [2]
If it is claimed that two separate convictions were wrongly entered against a person, or that the act should be regarded as a single offense, that claim cannot be resolved merely by correcting the aggregation calculation. An unlawfulness concerning the substantive content of final judgments must be raised through the appropriate legal remedy under its own conditions. The execution judgeship cannot eliminate convictions of its own accord by way of an aggregation procedure.
Each Sentence Retaining Its Independence
The basic principle of Article 99 of Law No. 5275 is that each sentence is independent of the others. Where there are separate final judgments, a request for an aggregation decision is made so that Article 107 can be applied. While a single result date is reached in the calculation, this provision requires that the legal characteristics of each judgment be preserved. [1]
For example, the fact that one sentence is subject to recidivism (tekerrür) does not of itself mean that all other sentences are likewise treated as subject to recidivism. Similarly, the fact that one offense falls outside a temporary provision cannot be a reason for the status of the other judgments not to be examined at all. However, it is possible for a temporary provision itself to impose a condition by reference to the total sentence or the status of the convict. For this reason, the principle that “each sentence is independent” cannot be used as a means of disregarding the conditions of special statutes either.
What Conditions Are Required for an Aggregation Decision?
Finality and Enforceability
It must be examined whether the judgment to be aggregated is final and legally enforceable. A sentence that is still under appeal review (istinaf) or cassation review (temyiz) cannot be counted as a final sentence merely because it was issued by the court of first instance. If there is a serious claim that the finality note contains a clerical error, the underlying notifications and the records of the legal remedy must be investigated. [1]
The fact that a later adaptation, reversal, retrial or stay of enforcement decision has been issued in respect of a final judgment may also affect the calculation. Here, the scope of the decision matters as much as its existence. If only a certain part of a judgment has changed, it should not be assumed that the entire conviction has disappeared. The new aggregation calculation must be based on the judgments that are in force and enforceable.
The articles on appeal review (istinaf) in a criminal case and cassation review (temyiz) are complementary regarding the process of a judgment becoming final.
An Aggregation Decision Does Not Replace the Finality Document
A short letter sent to the enforcement file should be checked against the underlying judgment and the finality information. Problems such as a duplicate record of the same judgment, the sentence amount being transferred incorrectly or the convict being confused with another person can be overlooked when the total amount is large. For this reason, it is important to assign a separate identifier to each judgment and to use the file numbers consistently when preparing the application.
Which Execution Judgeship Issues the Aggregation Decision?
The Special Jurisdiction Under Article 101 of Law No. 5275
In an aggregation decision concerning more than one judgment, the execution judgeship at the seat of the court that imposed the heaviest sentence has jurisdiction. If the heaviest sentence of the same amount was imposed by more than one court, the execution judgeship at the seat of the court that issued the last judgment among them is used. The Law also provides special provisions for decisions rendered by the Court of Cassation and the regional courts of appeal in certain capacities. [1]
For this reason, jurisdiction should not be determined in every file solely by reference to the prison where the convict is held. The sentences in the judgments, the dates of judgment and the judicial authority by which, and in which capacity, they were issued must be compared. The section of the petition naming the authority should not be filled in with a place name copied from a previous file.
Review and Objection
Article 101 of Law No. 5275 provides that decisions to be issued in this context are rendered without a hearing; views and documents considered necessary may be added to the file. An objection to the decision is possible. Under Article 6 of the current Law No. 4675, a two-week period from notification must be observed against the decision of the execution judge. [1] [6]
In an objection, rather than merely saying “the total sentence is excessive,” the wrongly added judgment, the wrong regime or the missing credit for time served (mahsup) should be stated clearly. If the legal issue arises not from the aggregation decision itself but from the arithmetic of the sentence calculation record (müddetname) drawn up afterwards, the subject of the request should be framed accordingly.
How Is the Enforcement Calculation Made in Aggregation?
First the Regime of Each Judgment, Then the Joint Result
In the calculation, the type, length, offense date and applicable enforcement regime of each sentence are determined first. Sentences with different conditional release rates cannot be subjected to a single rate by eliminating their characteristics. Then the total-period limits and the credit provisions in the legislation are assessed. The calendar calculation is the outcome of these legal determinations. [1]
| Stage of review | Question to ask | Record needed |
|---|---|---|
| Judgment check | Is the sentence final and enforceable? | Judgment, finality and later decisions |
| Regime check | Which rate and special provision apply to this sentence? | Offense date, type of offense, recidivism and age information |
| Credit check | Which period can be used, and which has been used up? | Pretrial detention and earlier enforcement statements |
| Aggregation check | Which sentences can be addressed in the same calculation? | Earlier aggregation and release decisions |
| Result check | What is the effect of the new calculation on the date and the current status? | Detailed sentence calculation record and implementing decision |
What Does the Twenty-Eight-Year Limit Mean?
Article 107/3-e of Law No. 5275 sets, within its own scope of application, the period that must be spent in an institution for conditional release in the case of more than one term of imprisonment at no more than 28 years. This provision is not a general upper limit on sentences that reduces the total sentence of all convictions to 28 years. The limit relating to the conditional release calculation must be distinguished from the total sentence imposed. [1]
In addition, the other paragraphs of Article 107, Article 108 and special offense regimes are examined separately. The method indicated only for term sentences of imprisonment cannot be applied directly to a file containing life imprisonment or aggravated life imprisonment. The statement “release in 28 years however much the sentence is” is therefore legally incomplete.
A Limited Calculation Example
Solely to show the difference between the rates, suppose that a four-year sentence is subject to the one-half rate and another three-year sentence is subject to the two-thirds rate. For the first item, two years result; for the second, again two years result. In this example, applying the one-half rate to the entire seven years and arriving at three and a half years would disregard the different regimes.
This calculation is not an actual release calculation. Credit for time served, remaining days, recidivism limits, good conduct, temporary provisions and probation must be assessed separately. The purpose of the example is to keep the different regimes visible; it does not replace a person-specific sentence calculation record.
At Which Stage Has the Later Final Sentence Arrived?
A Judgment Arriving While the Convict Is in a Penal Institution
When the new judgment becomes final and is sent for enforcement, the existing aggregation and sentence calculation record are reassessed. If necessary, the earlier aggregation is dissolved and a decision covering the new judgments is issued. This procedure does not mean that periods actually and legally enforced in the past are erased. The earlier enforcement and credit records must be correctly carried over into the new calculation. [1]
The effect of the new judgment may not consist merely of the addition of sentence time. In assessing transfer to an open institution or the conditions of probation, the total sentence and other conditions may matter. On the other hand, the existence of the new judgment does not by itself mean that all statuses are automatically withdrawn; the competent authority must examine the relevant statutory conditions.
A Judgment Arriving While the Convict Is on Probation
Under Article 105/A of Law No. 5275, probation is a form of enforcing the sentence outside the institution. It is not the same stage as conditional release. The expression “was released from prison” therefore does not show that the earlier sentence has moved to exactly the same status for aggregation purposes. [1]
A sentence that becomes final later may require the probation calculation to be redone. The records of periods previously spent in compliance with the obligations should be preserved; it should be examined whether the new total meets the relevant conditions. A person should not, of his or her own accord, interrupt the existing obligations on the assumption that an application has been made. A clear decision should be sought on changing or stopping the enforcement status.
A Judgment That Becomes Final After Conditional Release
The existence of a conditional release decision requires a different legal assessment. In the practice of the Court of Cassation, it is not accepted that convictions that become final after the conditional release date and before the date of release by operation of law (bihakkın tahliye) can in every case be re-aggregated with sentences for which a conditional release decision has been issued. The finality and release dates should therefore be shown separately in the file. [3]
Enforcement of the new judgment and revocation of the earlier conditional release are also different matters. A conviction rendered later may relate to an offense committed earlier. Revocation because of a new offense committed during the supervision period or a breach of obligations, by contrast, is subject to the conditions of Article 107 itself. The mere fact that a decision has a recent date does not show that the offense was committed during the supervision period. [1]
Court of Cassation Decision: Conditional Release and Later Finality
The decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated November 2, 2020, E. 2020/1033, K. 2020/2643, concerns a complex file involving more than one enforcement regime and older statutes. The Chamber compared the finality of some sentences with the conditional release dates in respect of other sentences, and did not adopt the approach that all of them could be aggregated in a single manner. It considered it necessary to clarify on which dates which sentence was being enforced. [3]
The final ground for reversal in the decision also includes the fact that a decision was rendered without resolving the uncertainties in the enforcement process. The reduction amounts relating to older statutes should not be carried over into current files. The lesson that can be drawn for present-day review is that the conviction, finality, conditional release and earlier enforcement periods should be shown in a single chronology. The historical provisions recounted by the Chamber cannot be presented as the current rule to be applied in every new file.
Is Imprisonment Converted from a Judicial Fine Included in the Aggregation Decision?
The Condition of Reaching the Stage of Enforcement in an Institution
Article 99 of Law No. 5275 provides that prison sentences converted from a judicial fine and reaching the stage of enforcement in a prison are also included in the aggregation decision. For this reason, the mere existence of non-payment of the fine or of a decision converting it to imprisonment may not show that all the stages have been completed. The community service process must be assessed separately. [1] [5] For details of this subject, the article on the limitation period for criminal sentences and the end of enforcement may be consulted.
Article 106/3 provides that the number of days corresponding to the unpaid portion is converted to imprisonment and is first carried out through community service. If the program and warnings are not complied with, enforcement of the remaining part in an open institution comes onto the agenda, taking the days worked into account. These stages cannot be equated with a prison sentence imposed directly. [1]
The Court of Cassation Decision of May 22, 2026
In the decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2024/1070, K. 2026/4225, the assessment of directly imposed prison sentences and periods converted from a judicial fine in the same sentence calculation record was examined. The Chamber explained that the portion converted from the fine was at the community service stage and that the condition of reaching the stage of enforcement in an institution had to be observed. [5]
It was further stated that imprisonment converted from a fine cannot be served within the 28-year conditional release limit calculated for directly imposed prison sentences. In the specific file, it was requested that, in respect of more than one fine, the five-year upper limit in Article 106/7 be taken into account separately and that the enforcement stages be explained in the sentence calculation record. The decision does not mean that five years are automatically added to every file; the type, amount and stage of the sentence are examined separately.
Why Is Credit for Time Served Examined Judgment by Judgment in Aggregation?
Credit for time served is not an independent number written in the margin of the total sentence. It must be determined which periods can be applied to which judgment. In the decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated April 27, 2023, E. 2023/3270, K. 2023/2439, refusing to credit pretrial detention in another file, relying on the date of a single offense in the aggregation, was found contrary to law. This is because the aggregation also contains other judgments that satisfy the date condition required for credit. [4]
For this reason, a judgment table should show not only the sentence amount but also the offense date and the credit applied. The same period should not be counted twice; it should be possible to trace which part of the earlier enforcement has been used. It is equally necessary to prevent earlier enforcement from disappearing from the records when a new aggregation is made.
Application File Against an Aggregation or Sentence Calculation Record Error
How Should the Documents and Requests Be Prepared?
- All judgments should be listed with their offense dates and finality notes.
- The scope of the judgments in the earlier and new aggregation decisions should be compared.
- The conditional release, probation and revocation decisions should be attached separately.
- The periods of entry into and exit from the institution and of enforcement outside the institution should be shown chronologically.
- If there is a fine, the payment, community service and referral-to-institution stages should be separated.
- It should be explained which date or enforcement status the requested correction would affect.
The application should state the date and number of the decision, and should clearly identify the judgment whose exclusion from or addition to the aggregation is requested. A link should be established between the legal basis and the result of the calculation. For example, in an objection concerning a judgment that became final after conditional release, instead of merely writing the date of the new decision, it should also be shown whether the earlier release decision is still in force.
Opposing View and Interim Protection
The public prosecutor’s office or another authority may argue that the existing calculation must change because of the new judgment, that the old sentence calculation record was erroneous in the convict’s favor, or that the fine has reached the stage of enforcement in an institution. These arguments should be answered with decisions and records. The existence of a favorable result in the old calculation does not by itself show that this calculation will be preserved forever.
An application to correct the calculation does not of itself stop enforcement. Under Article 98/2 of Law No. 5275, a stay or postponement decision may be requested depending on the conditions. In the application, the effect on liberty should be made concrete; it should not be overlooked that the existing obligations continue. [1]
For details connected with this subject, you may also see our articles on postponement of enforcement.
Three Separate Reviews in Mixed Sentence Files
Eligibility for Aggregation, Enforcement Rate and Upper Limit
Whether a sentence can enter an aggregation decision, which enforcement rate applies to that sentence and which upper limit is used in the joint calculation are different questions. First, the finality of the judgment and the stage of enforcement are examined. Then the regime of each judgment is determined. Finally, the applicable total-period limits are assessed. This order matters particularly in files in which directly imposed imprisonment and imprisonment converted from a judicial fine are present together. [1] [5]
The 28-year limit in 107/3-e does not replace all the special regimes. For example, in the case of more than one term of imprisonment for organization-related offenses under 107/4, a different upper limit provided by the Law is examined separately. Life imprisonment, recidivism and transitional provisions are also assessed under their own conditions. Giving only a “total time to be served” figure without explaining which norm was applied and why makes review difficult. [1]
Can Imprisonment Converted from a Judicial Fine Never Be Aggregated?
Such a result is not correct. Article 99 expressly provides that imprisonment converted from a judicial fine that has reached the stage of enforcement in an institution is included in the aggregation decision. The explanation in the 2026 decision concerning a sentence at the community service stage does not remove this statutory possibility. On the other hand, inclusion in the aggregation decision does not mean that imprisonment converted from a judicial fine disappears within the 28-year limit either. Two separate conditions must be preserved at the same time. [1] [5]
Community service, payment of the remaining balance, and the relationship between the three- and five-year limits and the 28 years are addressed with examples in a separate review entitled joint enforcement of imprisonment and a judicial fine. The focus of this article, by contrast, is the stage at which the new judgment arrives and the preservation of the independent characteristics of all the judgments in the aggregation calculation.
Conclusion
Aggregation allows a joint enforcement calculation to be made while preserving the legal characteristics of independent sentences. What determines the effect of a new judgment is not only the amount of the sentence; the date of finality, the type of the earlier release, credit for time served and the special enforcement regime matter together. In particular, probation must be distinguished from conditional release, and imprisonment imposed directly must be distinguished from imprisonment converted from a judicial fine. The basis of a verifiable application is a consistent chronology explaining all the judgments and enforcement stages.
For legal support in criminal proceedings and enforcement processes, you may look at our criminal law services.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does an Aggregation Decision Turn the Sentences into a Single Offense or a Single Sentence?
No. Under Article 99 of Law No. 5275, each sentence retains its independence. Aggregation serves in particular the application of the provisions on conditional release. [1]
Is the Heaviest Enforcement Rate Applied to All Sentences?
It is not applied automatically. The offense type, date and regime of each judgment are determined; then the relevant total period and the conditions of special provisions are assessed. [1]
Is Every Sentence That Becomes Final Later Added to the Old Sentence?
The same procedure is not followed in every case. What matters is at which enforcement stage the new finality occurred and whether a conditional release decision exists in respect of the old sentence. [3]
Are Probation and Conditional Release the Same?
No. Enforcement under probation is a form of enforcement subject to the conditions of Article 105/A. Conditional release, on the other hand, is a separate stage regulated in Article 107. [1]
In the Case of Multiple Sentences, Will I Be Released in Every Case Once 28 Years Are Completed?
No. The scope of application of the limit in 107/3-e, special regimes, the type of sentence, good conduct and other statutory conditions are assessed separately. This period is not a general upper limit that eliminates all sentences. [1] [5]
Is Imprisonment Converted from a Judicial Fine Included Directly in the Aggregation?
The Law requires the condition of reaching the stage of enforcement in a prison. The community service stage and the stage of enforcement in an institution should be separated. [1] [5]
What Is the Current Period for Objecting to an Aggregation Decision?
A two-week period from notification should be observed against the decision of the execution judge. The subject of the application and the notice of legal remedy in the decision are checked separately in the specific file. [6]
Sources and legal bases
1. Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures, in particular Arts. 98–101, 105/A, 106–108 and the related temporary provisions; the relevant provisions and amendment records.
2. Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, Arts. 7, 42–44 and 63.
3. Court of Cassation, 1st Criminal Chamber, November 2, 2020, E. 2020/1033, K. 2020/2643, reasoning and conclusion; the specific case relating to old legislation and the current principles of review have been separated. The full text has been verified; the link may require a session.
4. Court of Cassation, 1st Criminal Chamber, April 27, 2023, E. 2023/3270, K. 2023/2439, II. Reasoning, paras. 3–5; the full text has been verified. The link may require a session.
5. Court of Cassation, 1st Criminal Chamber, May 22, 2026, E. 2024/1070, K. 2026/4225, in particular II. Reasoning, paras. 5–10 and III. Decision; the open full-text publication; the citation and the full text have also been separately verified through De Jure.
6. Execution Judgeship Law No. 4675, Arts. 4–6.