A prison transfer request seeks to change the institution in which a convicted person or a pretrial detainee is held. Proximity to family, health, security, institutional capacity and educational needs may each give rise to different legal assessments. As much as the reason for a refusal, the authority that carried out the act matters: the administrative judicial route against an inter-provincial transfer carried out by the Ministry or the Directorate General of Prisons and Detention Houses (Ceza ve Tevkifevleri Genel Müdürlüğü, CTE) must not be confused with a complaint to the enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği) about the accommodation conditions in an institution. [1] [2] [5]
Within the framework of legislation and Constitutional Court (AYM) decisions, this article addresses transfers between institutions within Türkiye. The transfer of a convicted person abroad and the international transfer of the sentence are a separate legal regime. The aim is not to reduce a transfer request to a single petition template, but to show which document and which route will be used to examine the matter.
Are a transfer, a referral and a move to an open institution the same procedure?
The difference between changing institution and being taken out temporarily
Being taken to a hospital or to a court hearing is not the same as a permanent change of the institution in which a person is held. In a transfer request, the target institution and the reason for the change come to the fore; in a health referral, the medical need and the appropriate health facility come to the fore. Two requests may appear in one petition, but their legal grounds and expected outcomes must be stated separately. [1]
Moving to an open penal institution is also not merely going to another prison. It has its own conditions for a change of enforcement status. Presenting a transfer between open institutions and a move from a closed institution to an open one as the same application may lead to the file being assessed incompletely.
The grounds for transfer are regulated separately in the law
Articles 53 to 58 of Law No. 5275 regulate transfer at the prisoner's own request, disciplinary transfer, compulsory grounds, illness, and the measures to be taken during transfer. Compulsory transfers made for reasons such as an institution being unsuitable, capacity being exceeded, public order, security, natural disaster or major repairs cannot be reduced to the full set of conditions for a voluntary transfer. [1]
The legal basis of a prisoner's request must be identified from the outset. The sentence “I want to go to another prison” does not, on its own, reveal that remaining in the present institution is harmful to health, or that contact with the family has in practice broken down.
Conditions for transfer at the convicted person's own request
At least three suitable institutions and other conditions
Under Article 54 of the Law, a convicted person must submit a petition naming at least three institutions suitable for their situation. Whether the period to be spent in the institution exceeds three months; good conduct and disciplinary status; the suitability of the target institution in terms of location, capacity and class; and conformity with the length of the sentence are also examined. There is also a statutory restriction on returning to an institution that the person had to leave because of discipline. [1]
Merely writing the names of three institutions is not adequate file preparation. For each institution, its suitability for the person's legal status and its connection with family, health or travel grounds must be explained. If information on capacity is not within the applicant's reach, a current and concrete assessment may be requested from the administration; unknown quotas must not be presented as if they were known.
Transfer costs and ability to pay
Advance payment of the costs of a transfer at one's own request is one of the general conditions. However, this condition does not apply to child convicts and convicts who document their insufficient financial means. This exception must be stated clearly, and appropriate documents showing income, social assistance, the family budget or the ability to pay must be submitted. [1]
A claim of financial inadequacy can serve two functions: an exemption from transfer costs, and an explanation that the present distance makes family visits difficult. The same document may support both assessments, but these two requests must be presented as separate.
Period of stay in the new institution
Prisoners transferred at their own request must remain in the new institution for one year, except in transfers for education or illness; for children the period is six months. This rule does not apply uniformly to every transfer ground, and disciplinary transfers have different periods and exceptions. The statement “one year has not passed” must not be given a definitive meaning before the legal basis of the first transfer has been established. [1]
For example, where a serious need for treatment arises shortly after a transfer at the prisoner's request, the refusal should not rest on the waiting period alone; the matter should be examined under the relevant health provisions. The date on which the new fact arose, and why it requires an assessment different from the earlier application, must be documented.
Applications by pretrial detainees and by relatives of convicted persons
Pretrial detention status must be determined separately
A convicted person serving a final prison sentence and a pretrial detainee are not in the same legal position. Article 116 of the Law provides that the provisions it lists apply to the extent they are compatible with pretrial detention. For this reason, it should not be assumed that all conditions for the convicted person under Article 54, in particular criteria such as the remaining length of the sentence, apply to a pretrial detainee as they stand. The place where the investigation or prosecution is being conducted, and any necessary judicial opinions, may also be significant. [1] [7]
If the person is in pretrial detention in another case, has an executed final judgment, or their legal status has changed, this must be recorded in the application. A file that contains only the name of the institution is not enough to draw this distinction.
Why the person's signed request matters
In the CTE's published explanation of its practice, it is stated that for a transfer to be considered on request, the petition of the convicted person, of a convicted person whose judgment is not yet final (hükümözlü), or of the pretrial detainee must be sent to the Directorate General together with the relevant documents, through the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı). A transfer request submitted by a relative, an attorney or any other third person alone is not accepted in place of this personal petition. [7]
This explanation does not mean that an attorney cannot prepare the file, submit documents or pursue the legal challenge to a refusal. In practice, the person's signed request should be obtained, and the legal and documentary preparation should be submitted together with it. A concern for the physical safety of a relative is also an application that must be assessed separately from the optional transfer procedure.
Is a transfer to a prison close to family an absolute right?
Distance alone does not decide the outcome
Protecting family life is important for ensuring that enforcement is carried out in a way that supports humane treatment and reintegration into society. However, there is no absolute right to be held in an institution of one's choosing, or in the province where one's family lives. The type of institution, security, capacity and the person's status all take part in the assessment. [1] [4] [6] For a separate assessment of the subject, the article on the right to meet with an attorney in prison may be consulted.
This balance should not be left between an abstract answer that “the capacity is full” and an abstract statement that “my family is far away”. On one side are the administrative and security requirements; on the other, the actual extent to which the visit is made difficult must be made concrete. The identity of the family members, their ages, their health and their transport options must be stated.
A file that shows the family's concrete situation
Hypothetically, the same distance may not have the same effect on a family with a regular income and a car as on an elderly parent with limited mobility who travels alone. Children's school routine, care responsibilities, the need for transfers between services and the need for accommodation also differ. This example is not a guarantee of acceptance; it shows which facts need to be explained.
Visit records are particularly important. If it is claimed that no visit has taken place at all, compliance with the records should be checked; where visits are infrequent, the reasons and the dates on which visits could not take place must be explained. Telephone or video calls may form part of the assessment of family contact; however, it cannot be assumed that in every case they fully remove the need for face-to-face contact.
Transfer on health and security grounds
Which documents explain the need for treatment?
Article 57 of the Law regulates referral to a hospital and a change of institution on health grounds under separate conditions. The assessment that remaining in the present institution is not appropriate is linked to the institution physician's recommendation and to a health board report obtained through the relevant procedure. Where the treatment can be provided, and why the present conditions are insufficient, must be explained. [1]
Referral to a hospital, transfer to another prison, deferral of enforcement on health grounds and enforcement at home are different outcomes. Meeting the conditions for one does not automatically require the others. The application should not let an urgent need for treatment be lost within a transfer request whose outcome may come far in the future.
The transfer journey must also respect human dignity
A health examination before transfer, and an assessment of any condition that prevents travel, are required. The Law prohibits transfers carried out with inadequate ventilation and lighting, or in a manner that is cruel or degrading. Security measures should be limited to their purpose; during transfers under the escort of officials, food and bodily needs are also taken into account. [1]
The dispute is therefore not only about “which institution one will be sent to”. Travel despite a health obstacle, or the conditions of the journey, can be raised with separate claims and documents. The date of the event, the route, the duration, the application and the health records should all be preserved.
Where to apply if a transfer request is refused?
The central transfer procedure and administrative judicial review
As the AYM explained in the Mesut Güney decision, the administrative judiciary has been assessed as an effective route of application in respect of a request to annul the CTE's act on inter-provincial transfers. For this reason, a single sentence directing every transfer refusal to the enforcement judgeship is not sufficient. The authority that made the decision, the nature of the act and the jurisdiction must be examined. [5]
The general period for bringing an action before an administrative court is sixty days from the day after written notification, where no special period applies. For an application under Article 10 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), failure to reply within thirty days is significant for implied refusal. The effect of an application to a higher authority made within the period under Article 11 of that Law is assessed separately. A new petition does not, by itself, restart a past action period. [3]
Bringing an action for annulment does not automatically stop the act from being carried out. Under Article 27 of that Law, a stay of execution requires that a manifest unlawfulness and damage that is difficult or impossible to remedy be shown together. The court must be told which act is to be reviewed, and this must be specified not only by the name of the institution sought but also by the identity of the refusal decision. [3]
A complaint to the enforcement judgeship about institutional conditions
Complaints about sleeping places, accommodation, health or living conditions within the institution may be assessed within the remit of the enforcement judgeship. The fact that the person also seeks a transfer because of these conditions does not justify the main condition complaint not being examined at all. Where the same petition contains different legal claims, separating them under clear subheadings is useful. [2] [5] A related article, on applying to and objecting before the enforcement judgeship, may also be read.
Under Law No. 4675, the complaint period is fifteen days from learning of the act, and in any event thirty days from the act. The period for objecting to a judge's decision is two weeks from notification. Continuing conditions and a single refusal dated to a particular day must not be treated in the same way; the starting point must be determined from the concrete event. An application does not provide an automatic suspension. [2] For detailed information, the article on complaints and objections to disciplinary penalties in prison may be consulted.
Violation and inadmissibility in real AYM decisions
Yaşar Karaca: a reasoned answer to determinative claims
In its application in the Yaşar Karaca case, the AYM held that, when transfer requests were refused, the failure to adequately assess essential claims concerning family, travel, surrounding institutions and personal circumstances amounted to a violation of the right to a reasoned decision. It accepted that the administration has discretion regarding institutional capacity and security, and required that this discretion be exercised with concrete and reviewable reasons. [4]
The decision is not an order that the applicant be transferred directly to the prison of their choice. In addition, the existence in this file of a historical process before the enforcement judgeship does not mean that the same authority is competent for all later central transfer decisions. In assessing competence, the nature of the act and current case law must be examined together. [4] [5]
Mesut Güney: two different outcomes in the same application
In the decision of July 17, 2025 in Mesut Güney, it was concluded that the right to an effective remedy, linked to the prohibition of ill-treatment, had been violated because an arguable complaint about crowded accommodation conditions was not examined. This finding does not mean that all accommodation claims were proven on the merits; it concerns the failure to carry out an effective examination. [5] On this topic, the article on crowded prison wards and accommodation conditions may also be read.
By contrast, as regards a transfer to an institution in another province close to the family, the application was declared inadmissible because the administrative judicial route had not been exhausted. Summarising the decision only as “a violation was found in the transfer” loses this distinction. In practice, this means pursuing the institutional conditions complaint and the central transfer act each on its own route. [5]
Emin Heybeli: difficulties that were not substantiated
In its decision of September 18, 2025 in Emin Heybeli, the AYM Plenary Assembly considered a transfer request based on proximity to family. The majority took into account that it had not been sufficiently explained which family members' visits were made difficult, the concrete effect of health and age conditions, the economic circumstances and transport, and the fact that fifty-six visits had taken place in the period examined. The application was clearly unfounded. [6] For a detailed explanation, it is useful to read the article on the good conduct assessment and objecting to the decision of the Administration and Observation Board.
The dissenting opinions of the five members cannot be used in place of the majority judgment. The practical outcome that can be drawn from the decision is that stating the distance in kilometres alone is not sufficient. However, fifty-six visits is not a numerical threshold applied to every application either; the result depends on the whole file. [6] In this connection, the article on prisoner leave may also be read.
How documents and claims are matched in a transfer application
Preparing the file
| Legal or material issue | Supporting record | Function in the application |
|---|---|---|
| Person's status | Judgment, pretrial detention and enforcement records | Which transfer regime will be examined |
| Family ties and care | Civil registry, school, health and care documents | Which family member is affected, and why |
| Transport difficulty | Route, timetable, travel and accommodation costs | The actual effect of the distance |
| Ability to pay | Income and social assistance records | Exemption from costs and difficulty of visits |
| Visit frequency | Institutional visit records and explanations of visits that could not take place | A concrete picture of family contact |
| Decision and time limit | Signed request, refusal, notification and registry number | Competent authority and timely application |
Documents should not be piled up only in an annex section. Each document must be referred to in the petition, with an explanation of which claim it confirms. Alternative institutions should be shown with reasons; if capacity is not suitable, the assessment of nearby alternative institutions may be requested. If there is a new health or family fact, the change since the earlier refusal must be explained separately.
If a constitutional complaint follows the ordinary judicial remedies, the conditions for individual application are assessed. It is important that the claims are raised in good time before the competent administrative and judicial authorities, rather than being put before the AYM for the first time. The firm's articles on individual application to the Constitutional Court and calculating the time limit for an individual application complete this stage. [8]
Setting out two separate requests for two different disputes
Keeping the accommodation problem from being lost inside the transfer request
A convicted person may state both that no bed has been provided in the ward and that they are held in an institution far from their family. The first claim requires that accommodation conditions consistent with human dignity be ensured in the present institution; the second requires that the transfer to another institution be assessed. The practical importance of the Mesut Güney decision is that the legal review of these claims is separated, even where they appear in the same petition. That a transfer request falls within the authority of another body does not justify leaving the accommodation complaint unanswered. [5]
In the application, the present condition and the problem that is to be remedied immediately can be described first. Then it is explained why a transfer is also considered necessary. For example, showing the request for the allocation of a bed and the request for transfer to an institution close to the family in separate concluding sections reduces the risk of an incorrect assessment of subject-matter jurisdiction. In the case of an urgent health need, too, the request for treatment and referral should not be made dependent on the outcome of the transfer decision.
An individualized response to the reasons for refusal
Where the administration relies on capacity, it is examined which alternative institutions were considered and whether the health or family grounds in the application were answered. That there is no place in the one institution the person requested does not, by itself, necessarily show that the same is true of all suitable institutions in the nearby area. However, the applicant must not assert unknown capacity as if it existed; they should ask for alternatives to be investigated. The right to a reasoned decision requires not that the request be accepted in every case, but that claims capable of affecting the outcome be assessed in an intelligible manner. [4]
In light of the majority approach in the Emin Heybeli decision, individualizing the family information is particularly important. Instead of the statement “My family cannot come”, it should be explained which person, on which dates, faced which health or economic obstacle. The months in which visits could not take place can be shown separately from the visits that did take place. This method is aimed not at presenting the application as different from what it is by concealing visits that took place, but at showing the real difficulties of the existing contact. [6]
| General statement | Information that can be made concrete |
|---|---|
| The journey is very long | Number of changes, total travel and waiting time |
| My family's income is insufficient | Household income, the effect of travel and accommodation costs on the budget |
| My mother is ill | Current health finding that affects the journey, and need for assistance |
| My child cannot come | Age, school calendar, accompaniment and care conditions |
| We cannot see each other | Institutional visit records and the reasons for visits that could not take place |
A new fact must be distinguished from the repetition of the earlier act
After a refusal decision, a new diagnosis, a change in the family's need for care, or a significant difference in the child's living conditions may arise. In the new application, the date of the change and how it differs from the earlier file must be shown clearly. Submitting the same petition as before should not be taken to revive an expired action period automatically. The relationship between the new act and the earlier act is examined under the time-limit rules of the competent judicial route. [3]
When a transfer is accepted, the implementation record should also be followed. The suitability of the accepted institution to the person's status, the health assessment before referral, and information on ongoing treatment are significant. Legal preparation is not limited to writing a petition against a refusal decision; a different problem arising during the implementation of the decision may be the subject of its own record and application. [1]
Conclusion
A prison transfer file is broader than a choice of institution. The person's legal status, the reason for the transfer, its concrete effect on family or health, the alternatives and the deciding authority must all be considered together. Choosing the correct judicial route and building the reasoning on documents are fundamental for the request to be examined effectively. For details on the subject, the article on prison work, wages and social insurance rights may be consulted.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a transfer to a prison close to family mandatory?
There is no absolute right to choose an institution. The effects on family life, capacity, security and status are assessed together, and determinative claims must be answered with reasons. [4] [6]
How many institutions should be listed in a transfer petition?
For a transfer of a convicted person at their own request, at least three institutions suitable for their situation are named. This condition should not be carried over automatically to other types of transfer. [1]
Can a person who cannot pay the transfer costs apply?
Child convicts and convicts who document their insufficient financial means are not subject to the condition of advance payment of costs. [1]
Can a relative or an attorney request a transfer alone?
According to the CTE's explanation of transfer on request, the person's own petition is required. A relative or attorney may support the preparation of the file; a third-party petition alone should not be relied upon in place of the personal request. [7]
Must every transfer refusal be challenged before the enforcement judgeship?
No. For central inter-provincial transfer decisions, the administrative judicial route is what matters. Complaints about institutional conditions are assessed separately. [2] [5]
Can a new transfer be requested before one year in the new institution has passed?
Under the general waiting period for transfers at one's own request, there are exceptions for education and illness; for children the period is six months. Other transfer types are examined under their own provisions. [1]
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Criminal Sentences and Security Measures (Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun), Articles 53–58 and 116.
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), Articles 2 and 4–6.
- Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure (2577 sayılı İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), Articles 2, 7–11 and 27; the applicable time limit is assessed separately according to the competent judicial route.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Yaşar Karaca, Application No. 2018/37854, April 12, 2023, in particular §§ 64–73 and the operative part.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Mesut Güney, Application No. 2021/26480, July 17, 2025, in particular §§ 11–16 and 20–23; different outcomes regarding institutional conditions and transfer.
- Constitutional Court (AYM) Plenary Assembly, Emin Heybeli, Application No. 2022/52566, September 18, 2025, in particular §§ 56–63, the operative part and the dissenting opinions; the majority result is taken as the basis.
- Directorate General of Prisons and Detention Houses (Ceza ve Tevkifevleri Genel Müdürlüğü), Frequently Asked Questions, in particular the explanations on transfer numbered 10 and 12; for legal rules, the current consolidated text takes priority.
- Law No. 6216 (6216 sayılı Kanun), Articles 45–48; the subsidiary nature of individual application and its admissibility.