Good Conduct Assessment and Objection to a Decision of the Administration and Observation Board

In prison, good conduct cannot be reduced to the absence of disciplinary penalties. Information about the convicted person's behavior inside the institution, participation in improvement programs, relationships and readiness for life in society is assessed together. A decision of the Administration and Observation Board (İdare ve gözlem kurulu) must rest on concrete data, its reasoning must be open to review, and it must be taken by the board composition that the relevant procedure requires. An adverse decision may be challenged before the enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği). [1][2][3]

A good conduct decision may directly affect transfer to an open prison, supervised release and conditional release. For this reason, an objection cannot succeed merely by describing the convicted person's good intentions. A link must be shown between the report, the score, the board's decision and the legal result sought. This guide reviews the legislation and decisions as of October 14, 2026.

Good conduct in enforcement differs from discretionary reduction in sentencing

The limit of the assessment under TCK Article 62

The discretionary reduction made during the trial under TCK Article 62 concerns the determination of the sentence. Good conduct during enforcement, by contrast, is assessed during the enforcement of the final sentence, under Article 89 of Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Penal and Security Measures (5275 sayılı Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun) and the related regulation (Gözlem ve Sınıflandırma Merkezleri ile Hükümlülerin Değerlendirilmesine Dair Yönetmelik). A court's use of a discretionary reduction when sentencing does not make a positive good conduct decision mandatory at every stage of enforcement. [1][7]

Likewise, the absence of a discretionary reduction in the judgment does not prevent later conduct inside the institution from being assessed positively. In the objection petition, the defense on the merits of the judgment and the concrete records from the enforcement period should be kept separate.

Legal effects of good conduct

Article 89 of Law No. 5275 is the basic assessment framework wherever the law requires good conduct. Procedures such as transfer to an open prison placement, supervised release and conditional release carry their own additional conditions. Good conduct is not a general release decision that replaces those conditions. [1]

This distinction matters for deciding at which stage a positive decision can be relied on. The periodic assessment and the final assessment on which transfer to an open prison or conditional release depends may not be the same procedure.

Which criteria does the board consider?

Consistency of conduct inside the institution

The law sets as criteria: compliance with the institution's order and security rules, good-faith use of rights, fulfilment of obligations, preparation for life in society, and the risk of reoffending or of harm to others. Education, work, social and cultural activities, certificates, reading habits, relationships and disciplinary records are also within the examination. [1] For more detail, see the article on prison work, wages and insurance rights.

These criteria are not meant to be repeated identically in every file. It should be shown which conduct supports which assessment. For example, where non-participation in a program is assessed, the file should show whether the program was actually opened, whether the convicted person requested to take part, and whether there were obstacles such as health problems. [2]

How should remorse and awareness of the offense be discussed?

Remorse for the offense committed is one of the criteria listed in the second paragraph of Article 89. However, the assessment should not be reduced to a single statement made in one interview. The approach to the offense, the improvement process and the other records should be considered together, and the grounds for a negative view should be explained. [1][2][5]

In an objection, instead of arguing that remorse is not a criterion in the law, it is more effective to discuss how it was applied in the concrete case. The objection can show which answer, given to which question in the report, the board drew its conclusion from; whether that answer is consistent with other information; and whether the board evaluated all the data. A concrete objection should also be raised where the exercise of legal remedies and attitudes inside the institution are assessed together under one heading, without reasons.

How is the good conduct score examined?

Service score, period score and development score

Article 32 of the Regulation governs how the scores in service reports are reflected in the period score and in the development score for each period. The development score is used as a good conduct criterion in transfer to an open prison, supervised release and direct conditional release. Period records from earlier institutions are also taken into account. [2]

In a score objection, it is not enough to say that the total is low. It should be examined which service gave or deducted points for which conduct, whether a period was left out of the calculation, and whether the same disciplinary penalty was counted more than once. The Regulation provides that the penalty points given for one disciplinary penalty are taken into calculation only once throughout the entire enforcement period. [2]

Threshold score and personal conditions

The threshold score set by the General Directorate must be verified against the regulation in force on the date of the decision and the record in the file. Figures given in articles published on different dates should not be treated as a fixed statutory rule. The threshold applied to the file and the scoring schedule must be examined together.

Article 33 of the Regulation provides for an inquiry where the threshold could not be reached because of reasonable grounds or force majeure, such as illness, old age or staff shortages. If a reasonable ground is established, the other good conduct criteria are assessed without requiring the threshold to be reached. There is also a special rule for development scoring in the case of persons whose total institutional time is less than six months, and for those who are only in the current period. [2]

Does removal of a disciplinary penalty erase every record?

The enforcement of a disciplinary penalty, its removal and its effect on the scoring are different matters. The Regulation provides that penalty points are not erased even when the disciplinary penalty has been removed, and that the same penalty is counted only once. Removal nevertheless remains important for the conditions required at the relevant enforcement stage. [1][2]

Accordingly, instead of writing that the penalty has been removed and all negative data must therefore be disregarded, the petition should state the date and legal effect of the removal. Any duplicate counting, wrong period or irrelevant assessment should be set out separately under its own heading.

Is the board composition the same in every assessment?

Ordinary periodic review

Under the first paragraph of Article 89 of Law No. 5275, good conduct is assessed at least once every six months. The ordinary board composition is regulated in Article 13 of the Regulation, and the structure of the institution and its current staff are taken into account. Not every periodic review has to be carried out by the expanded board chaired by a prosecutor. [1][2][4]

Cases that require an expanded board

For persons sentenced to ten years' imprisonment or more, and for offenses listed in the third paragraph of Article 89 (terrorism, organization-related offenses, intentional homicide, offenses against sexual integrity, and the manufacture and trafficking of narcotics), the assessments concerning transfer to an open prison, supervised release and conditional release require a special board structure. The Chief Public Prosecutor, or a prosecutor they designate, presides, and the additional members named in the law take part. [1]

The type of offense alone is not sufficient for review. It must also be determined whether the decision concerned is an interim assessment or one of the transfer procedures listed in the law. An objection on board composition should be linked to the nature and purpose of the decision.

The Court of Cassation's decision of April 27, 2023

In its decision E.2023/3264, K.2023/2437 of April 27, 2023, the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi) examined a periodic assessment concerning a person convicted of membership of an organization. The Chamber held that the procedure was not a final assessment for transfer to an open prison, supervised release or conditional release, so neither the prosecutor's presidency nor the additional members were required. [4]

This decision does not mean that every objection to board composition is invalid. It distinguishes which procedure must be carried out by which board. When preparing a petition, not only the heading of the decision but also its operative part and its function in the enforcement stage should be read.

How is the reasoning of a negative decision reviewed?

A verifiable explanation instead of an abstract opinion

Board decisions must be reasoned, and must indicate the route of application, the authority, the time limit and the form. A negative decision must also state the date of the next review. The supporting reports, the scoring summary table, the risk assessment and the enforcement file are examined as a whole. [2]

Where the board concludes that the convicted person is not ready for reintegration into society, it should be clear which conduct or report led to that conclusion. Where there are positive education and work records but no explanation of why they were not considered sufficient, the objection can be made concrete through that gap. What matters is not only the brevity of the decision but the failure to assess decisive data and claims.

Contradiction between the report and the decision

This table is not an automatic proof mechanism. For example, an earlier positive assessment does not prevent a concrete negative conduct arising in a later period from being examined. The essential point is that the change is shown in the file and that the convicted person can effectively object to the reasoning for it.

Can the enforcement judge decide in place of the board?

The Court of Cassation's approach to review of lawfulness

In its decision E.2023/5842, K.2023/7990 of December 14, 2023, the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation addressed judicial review of a board decision that found transfer to an open prison appropriate. The Chamber emphasized whether the conditions were met, whether the required reports had been assessed, and whether the reasoning was consistent with the file. [5]

Where a missing document, a clear contradiction or a faulty assessment is identified, a re-assessment should be secured after these have been explained. Substituting one's own view for the administration's and drawing a different conclusion from the same information is incompatible with the limits of review of lawfulness. The decision also does not protect unreasoned administrative discretion; it shows how judicial review should be carried out. [5]

Why no violation was found in the AYM Çağlar Yılmaz decision

In the decision of the Plenary Assembly of AYM in Çağlar Yılmaz (Application No. 2022/81860) of January 8, 2026, the annulment of a positive good conduct decision and the rejection of a supervised release request were examined. The majority considered that examining the inconsistency between the board's result and the information in the psychosocial report was within the limits of authority in the concrete case. It was emphasized that the enforcement judgeship did not itself set up a negative good conduct ruling in place of the board, and that it indicated the need for re-assessment. [6]

The result was inadmissibility for manifest lack of foundation, with regard to the right to liberty and security. There are three dissenting opinions. For this reason, the decision should not be summarized either as “a positive board decision is always sufficient” or as “the judge may always substitute his or her own view for the board's”. [6]

How long is the re-assessment period?

Periodic review and review after a negative decision

The periodic assessment carried out at least every six months differs from the re-examination after a negative decision on transfer to an open prison, supervised release or direct conditional release. For the second category, the law provides that the period may not exceed one year. Article 17 of the current Regulation sets the period so that it is neither less than three months nor more than one year. [1][2]

Where a negative decision is taken, the next review date must be clearly stated, and the improvement plan prepared by the psychosocial support and education services must be renewed and notified to the convicted person. The period set can be discussed together with the development need and the reasoning in the file. Waiting for the re-examination date does not preserve the time limit for challenging the existing decision.

The 2026 regulation on transfer to a children's education home

Paragraph three of Article 15 of Law No. 5275, as amended in 2026, separately regulates transfer from a closed juvenile institution to a children's education home (çocuk eğitimevi). The board, which includes at least one expert officer, assesses the case at least once every three months. For children whose attitudes and behavior are assessed negatively, the re-examination period may not exceed six months. [1]

Because of this special provision, the general adult periods should not be carried over automatically into a children's education home file. The regulated transfer, the child's age and the board's composition should be examined together. For related matters, see the article on prison education and the right to take exams.

How is a complaint or objection made?

Application to the enforcement judgeship

A complaint against a board action or decision is made to the competent enforcement judgeship within fifteen days of learning of it, and in any case within thirty days of the action. The application may be made directly or through the intermediaries named in the law. Notification and knowledge documents should be kept; the last day should not be calculated solely on the basis of oral information. [3]

The petition should state the date and number of the decision, the status of the enforcement, the reasoning disputed, the supporting documents and the result requested. The board minutes, score tables or service reports that the convicted person cannot access may be requested to be obtained for the file. The absence of the officials' names from the served copy is not, on its own, proof of irregularity, because of the special rule in Article 17 of the Regulation. [2]

Objection to the enforcement judge's decision

An objection to the enforcement judge's decision may be made within two weeks of notification. The application is submitted to the judgeship that issued the decision and is examined by the competent High Criminal Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi). The time limit for a complaint against a board decision and the time limit for objecting to a judge's decision are not the same. [3][8]

Rather than repeating the first petition word for word, the objection should explain which decisive claim the judge's decision did not assess, or which document it misread. Any conflicts between the reports and problems with board composition that could change the outcome should be set out under concrete headings.

Suspension and constitutional application

A complaint does not automatically stay the action. Where it is argued that there is a clear breach of law and consequences that are difficult or impossible to remedy, these may be explained with documents, and a stay may be requested separately. Enforcement obligations cannot be changed on the assumption that the request will be granted. [3]

If an individual application to the Constitutional Court is considered after the ordinary remedies, the arbitrariness or the decisive lack of reasoning in the file should be explained. The individual application to the Constitutional Court and the time limit for learning of the decision and applying should be considered together. Not every negative good conduct decision on its own constitutes a constitutional violation. [6]

A practical method for preparing an application

First, the stage of enforcement and the type of decision are identified. Then the composition of the board, the currency of the reports, the score calculation, the reasoning and the date of re-assessment are examined separately. Each objection is matched with the relevant document. In the final section, requests such as annulment of the decision, obtaining missing records, and re-assessment after the identified errors have been corrected are stated expressly.

For example, in a hypothetical file a negative view may have been formed on the ground that the convicted person did not take part in an education program, while the convicted person's registration request was held up because of insufficient capacity. The effective point of the application is not a general statement that “I am of good conduct”, but showing the date of the education request, the institution's reply, and that this obstacle was not assessed. This example is not a real file and does not promise any particular outcome.

For related details, you may also read our article on the enforcement regime for recidivists and repeat offenders.

2026 Court of Cassation decisions: the boundary between review of reasoning and a release decision

Why did an earlier positive decision change shortly afterwards?

In its decision of April 10, 2026, E.2025/39, K.2026/2774, the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation examined the negative assessment, on November 29, 2023, of a convicted person who had been accepted as of good conduct on November 6, 2023. Although the psychosocial report contained findings pointing to remorse, the later board decision did not put forward concrete data showing that the connection to the organization continued. The Chamber found well founded the judicial review that held the abstract and hypothetical reasoning to be insufficient. [9]

However, the decision does not end there. The objection authority's regarding the supervised release request as in conformity with procedure and the law was found unlawful, because transfer to an open institution or the right to such transfer, the determination of withdrawal from the organization and the other conditions had not been investigated. Reversal in the interest of the law (kanun yararına bozma) was granted because of this second deficiency. The decision therefore cannot be summarized merely as “the refusal of good conduct was annulled and a right to release arose.” An unreasoned refusal and reaching a release outcome through an incomplete examination are separate legal problems. [9]

For an application, the counterpart of this is that requests are framed according to the stage the file is at. While the unlawfulness in the board decision is shown, it should also be explained which documents must be examined in the re-assessment. If the decision on transfer to an open institution is not in the file, a result should not be requested as though it existed; obtaining the decision, or a separate assessment of this condition, should be requested.

Is the statement “no opinion was formed” sufficient on its own?

The Chamber's decision of April 10, 2026, E.2025/105, K.2026/2780, concerns a three-month re-assessment decision on the sincerity of withdrawal from the organization. Because there was no reviewable reasoning that would justify finding the convicted person's statements insincere or the contact with the organization continuing, the decision of the objection authority annulling the board decision was upheld, and the request for reversal in the interest of the law was rejected. [10]

This result does not mean that all re-assessment decisions are invalid. The legal problem is that the reasoning used in extending the observation could not be linked to the file. Stating the date of the next assessment does not remove the need to explain the justification for keeping the person waiting until that date. Similarly, a decision's reference to a statutory article does not take the place of showing concrete facts.

A comparative file method in preparing an objection

Why does putting reports in date order matter?

For an effective review, the earlier-period decision, the new-period decision, the service reports, the activity records and the development score can be placed on the same timeline. In this way, a record carried over from the previous report is separated from conduct that emerged later. Where the same negative point is repeated in different reports, it should be understood whether it is a new incident or the carrying over of an old record. This method does not, on its own, produce a finding of unlawfulness; it makes the objection capable of being reviewed.

Suppose that, in a hypothetical example, it is stated that the convicted person did not attend a vocational course, but it is documented that the course application was rejected because of quota limits. In that case, the objection is not made only to the lack of a certificate. The participation application, the reason for the refusal, whether an alternative program was offered, and the effect on scoring are shown together. Requesting review under Article 33 of the Regulation on reasonable grounds makes for a more concrete application than a general account of good intentions. [2]

The implementation of the decision after annulment must also be followed

It should not be assumed that the matter is complete once the board decision has been annulled. The questions to be followed are: has a new board decision been taken, has the earlier unlawfulness been remedied, have the necessary reports been prepared, and has a decision been made on the approaching enforcement stage. If the new action repeats the earlier reasoning without change, the assessment is made on the basis of the new decision's own date, notification and grounds. It should not be accepted that the earlier complaint automatically covers the new action.

Conclusion

An objection to a good conduct decision requires that the convicted person's conduct be made visible through the records in the file. The composition of the board, the grounds for the score, the consistency between the reports and the adequacy of the reasoning should be reviewed together. A petition that observes the time limits and identifies the concrete error and the correction sought forms the basis of legal review.

For legal support in criminal proceedings and enforcement processes, you can review our criminal law services.

Frequently Asked Questions

Must a convicted person with no disciplinary penalty be considered to be of good conduct?

No. A disciplinary record is important, but it is not the only criterion under the law. Education, conduct, relationships and social adjustment are also assessed. [1]

Must a prosecutor attend every board meeting?

No. Periodic reviews should be separated from the assessments of transfer to an open prison, supervised release and conditional release for the persons named in the law. [1][4]

Is a low score always a definitive ground for refusal?

The basis and calculation of the score are examined. The Regulation provides for an inquiry where the threshold could not be reached for reasonable grounds or force majeure, and for assessment under the other criteria where the conditions are met. [2]

If the board will review again after six months, can one wait before objecting?

Waiting does not preserve the time limit for the existing decision. The fifteen-day and thirty-day time limits for a complaint, and the two-week period for objecting to a judge's decision, apply separately. [3]

Is the annulment of a positive decision necessarily a constitutional violation?

No. In the Çağlar Yılmaz decision, the majority did not find the examination of concrete report inconsistencies arbitrary. Each file requires a separate examination of the reasoning and the documents. [6]

If the names of the board members are missing from the served copy, is the decision invalid?

Article 17 of the Regulation specially provides for the omission of names and registration information from the served copy. Whether the board was lawfully constituted is examined, where necessary, on the original records and minutes. [2]

Sources and legal bases

1. Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Penal and Security Measures (5275 sayılı Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun), especially Articles 14–15, 48, 89, 105/A and 107. Consolidated text including amendments by Law No. 7593; link to the source; reviewed October 14, 2026.
2. Regulation on Observation and Classification Centers and the Assessment of Convicted Persons (Gözlem ve Sınıflandırma Merkezleri ile Hükümlülerin Değerlendirilmesine Dair Yönetmelik), especially Articles 13–18 and 32–37. Official consolidated text; link to the source; reviewed October 14, 2026.
3. Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (4675 sayılı İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), Articles 4–6. Link to the source; reviewed October 14, 2026.
4. 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi), E.2023/3264, K.2023/2437, April 27, 2023, reasoning 6–8 and the operative part. Distinction between an interim assessment and a special board composition; reversal in the interest of the law.
5. 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi), E.2023/5842, K.2023/7990, December 14, 2023, reasoning 9–10 and the operative part. Limits of review of lawfulness; reversal in the interest of the law.
6. Plenary Assembly of the Constitutional Court (AYM Genel Kurulu), Çağlar Yılmaz, Application No. 2022/81860, January 8, 2026, especially paragraphs 37–40 and the operative part. Result: inadmissibility for manifest lack of foundation; the dissenting opinions should be reviewed separately.
7. Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (5237 sayılı Türk Ceza Kanunu), Article 62. Link to the source; reviewed October 14, 2026.
8. Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (5271 sayılı Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), Articles 267–271. Link to the source; reviewed October 14, 2026.
9. 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi), E.2025/39, K.2026/2774, April 10, 2026. Sections II/4–5 and III; distinction between a lack of reasoning and the other conditions for release. Full text reviewed; access may require signing in.
10. 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi), E.2025/105, K.2026/2780, April 10, 2026. Sections II/2 and III; rejection of the request for reversal in the interest of the law. Full text reviewed; access may require signing in.
11. Law No. 7593, text adopted by the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM), Article 6; transfer to a children's education home.