The route for correcting a legal error in a final criminal judgment depends on which reviews the judgment has passed through. Reversal in the interest of the law (kanun yararına bozma) arises for decisions and rulings issued by a judge or court that became final without passing through appeal (istinaf) or cassation (temyiz) review. Filing a petition with the Ministry of Justice does not mean that the decision is set aside or that the case is reopened for trial. The Ministry's request, the application made by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı) and the review by the relevant criminal chamber must be kept apart.
Short answer: Under CMK 309, reversal in the interest of the law is an extraordinary legal remedy. The person concerned may ask the Ministry of Justice to initiate it, and the relevant criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation decides on reversal. Not every final decision is open to this remedy. Whether a reversal leads to a retrial, to the removal of the penalty or only to a finding that the law was violated depends on the distinctions in CMK 309/4. Filing the application does not stop enforcement of the sentence. [1]
The purpose and limits of reversal in the interest of the law
What does an extraordinary review mean?
In criminal procedure, objection, appeal and cassation are the ordinary review routes, depending on the type of decision. Using these routes correctly and on time takes priority. Reversal in the interest of the law, by contrast, provides an exceptional review of the lawfulness of certain final decisions. Its purpose is not only to meet the expectations of the applicant, but also to contribute to a correct and uniform application of the law.
This does not mean that the applicant cannot concretely benefit from the unlawfulness in the file. For some grounds of reversal, the law provides direct consequences such as the removal or reduction of the penalty. However, it cannot be said that every reversal will automatically lead to the acquittal of the convicted person. The legal result sought must be assessed together with the error identified and the relevant subparagraph.
Requests to re-argue the evidence on the basis of a legal error
The application must set out concrete grounds, such as the application of an incorrect rule of law, a restriction on the right of defense or the breach of a specific procedural safeguard. The fact that the court did not believe a witness, or did not adopt the applicant's account of events, does not in itself create the conditions for this route. The petition must explain which rule of law the assessment in the file violates.
A claim that new facts or new evidence exist is first examined under CMK 311 for reopening of proceedings. A decision rejecting a request for reopening may itself be subject to reversal in the interest of the law. In that case, however, the target of the review is not the same as the earlier conviction. This distinction is decisive in the real decision examples below.
For which decisions can an application be made?
Finality and the condition of not having passed through ordinary review
CMK 309/1 is based on decisions or rulings given by a judge or court that became final without passing through appeal or cassation review. An endorsement of finality on the decision is not, by itself, a sufficient check. The notice of the available remedies, service records, filing records and whether the decision has in fact become final under the law must all be examined. A finality record created by defective service may change which route of appeal is correct. [1][2]
For example, if a conviction that is subject to appeal by law was made final although it was not properly notified, the first question is whether the ordinary appeal route is still available. Sending the file to the Ministry merely as a "final conviction", without this check, may cause an effective and time-limited remedy to be missed. The scope of appellate review is therefore one of the first points to check.
Decisions that became final after an objection
A decision reviewed by an objection authority is not the same as a decision that has passed through appeal or cassation review. Decisions that became final after an objection may also be assessed under CMK 309, taking account of their nature and special provisions. However, the title of the decision or its "miscellaneous matter" (değişik iş) file number does not by itself determine whether the decision qualifies.
In situations such as the rejection of an objection to a decision not to prosecute, the special rules on reopening the investigation and on new evidence are also important. The prosecutor's decision and the judicial decision rejecting the objection to it must be kept separate. Reversal in the interest of the law should not be assumed to replace the ordinary route before the objection to the non-prosecution decision (KYOK) process has been completed.
Decisions that have passed through appeal or cassation
For decisions that have passed through regional appeal review and for decisions of the regional courts of appeal, the conditions of CMK 308/A are examined. For decisions of the criminal chambers of the Court of Cassation, the conditions of CMK 308 are examined separately. CMK 309 is not a general higher remedy that re-examines, within the same scope, judgments that have already passed through the review of these authorities. The Circular No. 16/1 of the General Directorate of Criminal Affairs also draws this distinction clearly. [2]
The fact that the first judgment in a file passed through appeal does not mean that every decision subsequently issued in that file falls outside reversal in the interest of the law. For example, the rejection of a request for reopening of proceedings and the rejection of an objection to it are each examined in terms of their own legal nature. The petition must clearly specify which decision it targets.
How is the application to the Ministry of Justice prepared?
The petition of the person concerned and the Ministry's authority
The convicted person or their counsel (müdafi) may submit a petition setting out the unlawful elements and ask for the reversal route to be used. However, such a petition does not by itself create a file of appeal before the Court of Cassation. CMK 309 provides that the Ministry of Justice, once it learns of the unlawfulness, notifies the grounds for reversal in writing to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation. The request of the person concerned and the Ministry's exercise of its statutory authority are different acts.
The request to the Ministry should state the court, date and number of the decision, the form in which it became final, its review history and the specific grounds for reversal. Where there is more than one decision, each one should be explained separately. A vague request such as "my file should be re-examined" makes it harder to understand which decision breaches which rule.
Completion of the file at local level
The Circular of the General Directorate of Criminal Affairs places importance on the complete preparation of the file and on the reasoned opinion of the relevant chief public prosecutor's office regarding the unlawfulness. If the petition submitted by the convicted person during enforcement concerns the conviction, the actions of the chief public prosecutor's office of the place where the relevant court is located are relevant. For decisions on enforcement, the assessment of the chief public prosecutor's office of the place of enforcement comes into play. [2]
The provisions of the Circular on UYAP and on sending files relate mainly to the functioning of judicial units. They do not guarantee that a person will obtain a result automatically by filling in any internet form. The office where the application is registered, the file number and any request for missing documents must be followed. The current application channel must be checked together with the conditions of acceptance for the service being used.
Which documents should be attached to the petition?
The complete reasoned decision, service and finality records, any objection decision, earlier applications and documents showing the error form the basis of the application. Where a calculation error is alleged, the basis of the calculation should be shown. Where a restriction on the defense is alleged, the relevant hearing record should be shown. Where it is claimed that new evidence was not assessed, the request for reopening and its annexes should be visible.
The number of documents alone does not make an application persuasive. Arranging the annexes chronologically, numbering their pages and linking each claim in the petition to the relevant annex makes the review more accurate. The reasoning of the decision against the applicant should also be set out, and the applicant should explain why they consider that reasoning legally inadequate.
Application deadline and other remedies
Is there a general deadline for a petition under CMK 309?
CMK 309 does not set a general application deadline for a request for reversal in the interest of the law, as ordinary appeal or cassation does. However, this does not mean that leaving the file pending has no consequences. Progress of enforcement, access to documents and the time limits of other remedies remain important.
Nor is there any general guarantee that the Ministry or the Court of Cassation will conclude the review within a fixed number of days. The nature of the file, any deficiencies and the actions of the relevant units affect the process. When following a file, the filing of the application, the preparation of the Ministry's request and the stages of the Court of Cassation's review should be treated as separate.
The individual application deadline to the Constitutional Court must be calculated separately
Seeking the use of an extraordinary route does not, as a rule, constitute the ordinary remedy that must be exhausted before an individual application to the Constitutional Court. It should not be assumed that the individual application deadline is suspended while waiting for the Ministry's reply. The final decision from which the alleged violation arises and the date on which it was learned of must be determined separately. [5]
In its decision in Rafet Ünal, B. No: 2013/1610, 13 June 2013, the Constitutional Court stated that asking for the Chief Public Prosecutor to use the power of objection under CMK 308 did not affect the individual application deadline. That decision does not concern CMK 309 directly. It is important because it separates an ordinary route that can be pursued by the person's own application from a request to trigger the discretion of the competent authority. [5]
If a reversal occurs and a new judicial process arises, the remedies available against the decisions of that process are examined separately. Filing the first petition and the issuing of a new judicial decision are not the same legal event. The individual application deadline to the Constitutional Court and UYAP records are important in this assessment.
In what order does the Court of Cassation review proceed?
The Ministry's notice and the application by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office
The Ministry of Justice notifies the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation of the grounds for reversal it considers appropriate. Under CMK 309/2, the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office sets out those grounds verbatim and applies to the relevant criminal chamber. The prosecutor's written submission at this stage (tebliğname) is not a reversal decision. The relevant chamber assesses whether the grounds raised are well founded.
This distinction also matters when reading real decisions. Statements at the beginning of a published decision text such as "should be reversed" may reflect the request of the Ministry or of the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. It should not be said that the decision favours the applicant without reading the chamber's assessment and operative part. The same text may contain a strong request for reversal together with the rejection of that request.
Direct power under CMK 310
CMK 310 regulates the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation's power to apply ex officio in the cases of CMK 309/4-d, which require the removal of the penalty or the imposition of a lighter penalty. Where the Ministry has already applied, this power may not be used separately. This provision should not be broadened to mean that the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office may replace the Ministry in any kind of legal error. [1]
For this reason, even in requests addressed directly to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, it must be explained whether the ground really falls within CMK 309/4-d. A claim that requires a fresh evaluation of evidence or a hearing does not produce the same result as a direct correction of the penalty calculation.
The four different outcomes of a reversal decision
Decisions other than conviction and decisions that do not resolve the merits
CMK 309/4-a provides, for unlawfulness in decisions described in CMK 223 that do not resolve the merits of the case, that the judge or court that issued the decision must carry out the necessary review and investigation and decide again. In this case, reversal often does not mean that a conclusion on the merits has been reached in advance.
Where an application based on the rejection of a request for reopening is accepted, the result may not be a direct acquittal. The competent court must deal with the reopening ground through the correct procedure. The operative part of a reversal decision should be read carefully to determine at which stage the proceedings will continue.
Aspects of a conviction other than the merits, and restriction of the defense
CMK 309/4-b governs, in reversals concerning aspects of a conviction that do not resolve the merits, or concerning procedural steps that remove or restrict the right of defense, a retrial. In the new judgment, the penalty may not be heavier than the penalty fixed by the earlier judgment. This safeguard is important for the retrial under this subparagraph.
For example, where it is alleged that a procedural opportunity that should have been available to the defense was removed, a merely formal deficiency should not be stated. The safeguard breached should be shown together with the matter on which the defense was prevented from giving an explanation or submitting evidence, and with its effect on the judgment. The right to respond to the prosecutor's opinion (mütalaa) may also be discussed in this scope, depending on the specific facts. Defence against the prosecutor's opinion is one of the related topics.
Decisions on the merits other than conviction
Under CMK 309/4-c, reversal of decisions other than a conviction that resolve the merits of the case does not produce a result adverse to the accused and does not require a retrial. This provision prevents the idea that the reversal of a final acquittal, for example, automatically exposes the accused to a risk of renewed conviction.
Accordingly, reversal in the interest of the law may sometimes have a result limited to the finding of a legal error. The identity of the applicant and the outcome they expect matter, but so does the protection the law gives in express terms. The fact that an allegation of unlawfulness in favour of the victim is raised does not mean that every outcome may be adverse to the accused.
Removal or reduction of the penalty
CMK 309/4-d provides that, where the ground for reversal requires the removal of the convicted person's penalty, the penalty is removed; where it requires a lighter penalty, the criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation imposes that lighter penalty directly. This subparagraph is a specific consequence depending on the nature of the unlawfulness concerned.
A petition asking only for a lower penalty does not automatically bring this subparagraph into play. Whether the request requires a new trial or a fresh evaluation of evidence must be examined. Under CMK 309/5, no decision of persistence (direnme kararı) may be issued against a decision of reversal in the interest of the law.
What do real Court of Cassation decisions show?
Reversal that led to examination of new witness information
In its decision of 21 October 2024, E.2024/3580, K.2024/11995, the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesi) examined an objection to the rejection of a request for reopening of proceedings. Identity information submitted later about persons previously known by nicknames was assessed for its importance to the file, and the application for reversal in the interest of the law was accepted. [3]
The practical value of the decision is that new evidence is not confined to events occurring after the judgment. However, the Chamber did not decide on the direct acquittal of the convicted person. The reversal concerns the proper handling of the request for reopening. When citing this decision as a precedent in an application, this procedural outcome should be preserved.
A request rejected despite the submission of a new document
In its decision of 23 March 2026, E.2026/1146, K.2026/3007, the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation assessed a cargo document that did not show the content of the shipment and did not sufficiently establish the ground for reopening alleged. The application for reversal in the interest of the law was rejected, despite the request for reversal made by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. [4]
These two decisions show why different results arise on the same route. The fact that a document is new is not sufficient in itself. The power of the document to change the court's earlier acceptance of the decisive facts must be explained. Reading both the favourable decision and the rejection decision helps to reveal weak points in a petition.
Suspension of enforcement and following up the application
The application does not by itself secure release
Submitting a request for reversal in the interest of the law, or its being taken up for review by the Ministry, does not in itself suspend enforcement. An urgent request concerning enforcement must be separately founded on a concrete legal basis, with the body that will decide it identified. It is not correct to apply the provision on reopening in CMK 312 automatically to every CMK 309 petition.
Where the reversal results in the removal or reduction of the penalty, the effect of the decision on the enforcement calculation should be followed. It is important that the decision reaches the relevant court and the enforcement unit, that the convicted person has no other files, and that the new calculation is checked. A favourable result in one file does not on its own show that detention based on other legal grounds will also end.
Risks of the wrong authority and of an unclear request
In preparing an application, it must first be established that the decision has become final, then which review route it passed through, and then the type of unlawfulness. Special correction and adaptation routes are separately examined for matters such as clerical errors, disputes over the enforcement calculation or a later-enacted law more favourable to the accused. Not every error should be brought directly to the Ministry. [2]
After a rejection, instead of resubmitting the same text, the reason for the rejection and any new legal situation should be assessed. Where a genuinely new ground or document exists, the difference from the earlier application should be stated clearly. The file should be followed with a separate record of the other remedies and of the individual application deadlines.
Conclusion
The effective use of reversal in the interest of the law depends on selecting the correct final decision and linking the unlawfulness to the outcomes set out in CMK 309. An application to the Ministry of Justice should be supported by concrete documents and reasoning, and the request for reversal should not be confused with the Court of Cassation's final assessment. Monitoring the deadlines for enforcement and for individual applications separately is a complementary part of the strategy for seeking a remedy.
For legal support in criminal proceedings and enforcement, you may review our criminal defense services.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the Ministry of Justice itself set aside a court decision?
Under the CMK 309 process, the Ministry notifies the grounds for reversal to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation. The decision on reversal in the interest of the law is given by the relevant criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation.
Can CMK 309 be used for a final judgment that has passed through appeal?
A judgment that has passed through appeal review cannot be carried over to CMK 309 within the same scope. The conditions of CMK 308/A or other appropriate remedies must be examined. Separate decisions issued later are assessed on their own conditions.
Is a lawyer mandatory for an application?
The person concerned may submit their own request. However, choosing the correct decision and the correct ground of unlawfulness requires that the extraordinary routes be kept apart. The special provisions on representation and defense counsel also apply.
Does an application for reversal in the interest of the law get a person out of prison?
Filing a petition does not result in release or in a suspension of enforcement. For such a result, a decision of the competent authority based on a concrete legal ground is required.
When the Ministry requests reversal, must the Court of Cassation accept it?
No. The relevant criminal chamber assesses the grounds raised and may reject them. The request section and the operative part of the decision must be read together.
If an acquittal is reversed in the interest of the law, can a new penalty be imposed?
A reversal under CMK 309/4-c does not produce a result adverse to the accused and does not require a retrial. The scope of the reversal and the subparagraph applied are decisive.
Does waiting for the Ministry's reply suspend the Constitutional Court deadline?
As a rule, it does not. The individual application deadline must be calculated separately, according to the date on which the relevant final decision was learned of and the nature of the application.
Sources and legal bases
1. Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271, arts. 223, 308, 308/A, 309–310, 311–323. Check of the current text: 12 October 2026.
2. Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of Criminal Affairs, Circular No. 16/1 dated 31 December 2019, Procedures and Principles to Be Followed in Requests for Reversal in the Interest of the Law, in particular A/1–9 and B/1–6. The Circular has been assessed together with the current statutory provisions.
3. Court of Cassation, 11th Criminal Chamber, 21.10.2024, E.2024/3580, K.2024/11995, assessment and operative parts; reversal under CMK 309/4-a.
4. Court of Cassation, 11th Criminal Chamber, 23.03.2026, E.2026/1146, K.2026/3007, assessment and operative parts; rejection of the request for reversal in the interest of the law.
5. Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court, arts. 45 and 47; Constitutional Court, Rafet Ünal, B. No: 2013/1610, 13.06.2013, paras. 16–18. The decision concerns a request under CMK 308 and was not treated as concerning CMK 309.