Restoration of prohibited rights (yasaklanmış hakların geri verilmesi) is the judicial route that removes deprivations of rights arising from laws other than the TCK, where those deprivations depend on a criminal conviction. As a general rule, three years must have passed since the enforcement of the sentence was completed, no new offence may have been committed during that period, and the court must assess good conduct. The application differs from a request to delete the criminal record: it does not remove the conviction and does not automatically result in acceptance to any profession or office. [1]
In practice this institution is known as the return of prohibited rights (memnu hakların iadesi). Its purpose is to reassess, under defined conditions, the legal position of a person whose sentence has been served. A person who, after enforcement has ended, meets an obstacle to entering public service, practising a profession or exercising another authority should first identify which law that obstacle arises from.
Which deprivations of rights warrant an application?
The difference between TCK Article 53 and obstacles under special laws
The deprivations of rights in Article 53 of the TCK apply with their own periods and exceptions. The second paragraph of that article states that, as a rule, the rights concerned cannot be exercised until enforcement of the prison sentence has been completed. The special prohibition provisions in the fifth and sixth paragraphs must also be taken into account. For this reason, it is not correct to speak of the same three-year waiting period for every situation under TCK Article 53. [2]
Article 13/A of Law No. 5352 on Criminal Records (5352 sayılı Adli Sicil Kanunu) covers deprivations of rights that laws other than the TCK tie to a specific offence or criminal conviction. Even where the conviction arises from an offence in the TCK, the source of the unexercised right may be a special law. The distinction depends on which provision the continuing obstacle arises from, rather than on the law in which the offence is written. [1]
When preparing the application, the authority's rejection letter is useful. If the reasoning of the rejection states only "the existence of a criminal record", the conviction and the specific provision relied on should be clarified. Nevertheless, where a statutory obstacle exists, a prior administrative rejection should not be treated as a mandatory precondition in every case.
Must the judgment expressly state a deprivation of rights?
The absence of a separate prohibition sentence in the conviction does not remove the consequence that another law attaches to the conviction. The 2026 decision of the Court of Cassation examined below shows that a request cannot be rejected on this ground alone. The file should establish, together with the type of penalty, the continuing obstacle that arises as a natural or statutory consequence of the conviction. [3]
It cannot be said, however, that the criminal fine always falls outside this institution. The effect of the specific offence under special laws is examined. On the other hand, a single record does not mean that every person is subject to the same professional bans.
How is the three-year period calculated?
The starting point is the date enforcement was completed
Under the general rule, the three-year period begins when enforcement of the sentence is completed. The date of the judgment, the day it became final and the day of release from prison do not always coincide with this starting point. Conditional release and supervised release must be assessed together with the relevant enforcement framework. [1] [4] For a separate assessment of this subject, the article on the criminal limitation period and the end of enforcement may be consulted.
For example, if a person left the institution in 2021 but enforcement was completed in 2023, once the statutory conditions had been met, the three-year period cannot be started from 2021 merely by reference to the actual release. This example is hypothetical; the real calculation is made from the sentence calculation sheet (müddetname), the enforcement records and the relevant decisions.
Under Article 51 of the TCK, the outcome of the supervision period matters for a deferred prison sentence. Adding three years simply to the date on which the conviction became final, without first determining the condition and date on which the sentence is deemed enforced, may be wrong. For a criminal fine as well, the official record showing that payment was entered in the file and that enforcement was completed must be examined. [2] For detailed information, see the article enforcement arrangements, offence date and transitional provisions.
Where there are several convictions
A person may have convictions from different case files. The application must establish, for each provision it is directed at, the date of enforcement, the deprivation of rights and the period required. Completion of one sentence does not remove an obstacle that continues because of another.
In this situation it is useful to prepare a table of documents: court, case and decision numbers, offence, penalty, finality, completion of enforcement, and the effect on the right sought. The article Enforcement of Multiple Sentences and Aggregation makes it easier to read enforcement records together.
Where enforcement has ended for another legal reason
Article 13/A-2 of Law No. 5352 provides a different period where enforcement has ended for a reason other than a general amnesty or effective remorse (etkin pişmanlık). In that case, five years must have passed from the finality of the judgment. However, this period may not be shorter than the period found by adding three years to the prison sentence imposed. Both criteria apply together. [1] On this heading, the article on deferment of the announcement of the judgment may also be read.
For example, if a six-year prison sentence is involved in a situation falling under this special paragraph, the passage of five years alone is not sufficient; the lower limit of nine years, found by adding three years to six, also applies. The example assumes that the other conditions are met. Before concluding that any particular ending falls within Article 13/A-2, the legal basis of the decision that ended enforcement must be identified.
It is important that general amnesty and effective remorse are treated separately in the text of the provision. Applying the same waiting period to every form of ending, without examining whether the sentence or the conviction has been removed with all its consequences, would be incorrect.
No new offences and the assessment of good conduct
How is good conduct explained?
Article 13/A-1 requires both that no new offence be committed during the three-year period and that the court form the view that the person has lived a life of good conduct. The mere passage of time is not enough. The application may present verifiable information about stability in work, education, family and social life; there is no need to pile unrelated personal details into the file. [1]
Good conduct is not a concept limited to a single document issued by the institution. Life after enforcement is what gets assessed. A work record, an education certificate or documents showing an orderly life may be useful, depending on the case. It should not be claimed, however, that all of these are mandatory documents in every file: the method of proof is determined by the features of the file.
How is a new investigation or conviction assessed?
The condition of not committing a new offence should not be considered established merely because an investigation number appears in the system. The date of the offence, the stage of the proceedings and the outcome must be examined together. Conversely, it is not appropriate to present an ongoing file as if it did not exist. The application should explain the relevant records while respecting the presumption of innocence and the need for a concrete assessment.
A rejection decision must show which facts led to the conclusion that good conduct has not been established. If decisive documents submitted with the petition are not assessed, this may raise a separate ground of complaint on appeal.
Competent court and application procedure
Where is the application made?
The convicted person or their counsel may apply for the restoration of prohibited rights to the court that delivered the judgment, or to a court of the same level in the place of the convicted person's residence. The law recognises two options of jurisdiction. Applying to any court at the place of residence, or directly to the enforcement judge, cannot be assumed to satisfy this arrangement. [1]
The court may examine the file without a hearing, or it may hear the public prosecutor and the convicted person. A decision made without a hearing is therefore not, by itself, a procedural irregularity. What matters is that the conditions are investigated and the request is decided with reasons.
Which documents should the application file contain?
| Document | What it clarifies |
|---|---|
| Conviction judgment and record of finality | The judgment on which the request is based |
| Document showing completion of enforcement | The starting point of the waiting period |
| Current criminal record and archive certificate | The status of the records and of any other convictions |
| Residence document | Jurisdiction, if a court at the place of residence is chosen |
| Document on the rights obstacle or explanation of the special law | The legal interest and scope of the application |
| Current documents showing the person's present life | The assessment of good conduct |
| Power of attorney | Authority for an application conducted through counsel |
The petition should define clearly the convicting judgment on which it rests, rather than asking for all rights to be restored in the abstract. The enforcement date and the calculation of the period should be stated separately, and a link should be established between the good-conduct documents and the outcome sought. Under Article 13/A-7, the costs incurred by resorting to this route are borne by the convicted person. Case file costs and the legal service fee, where the matter is followed through counsel, are not the same item. [1] On this topic, the article on the enforcement regime for recidivists and repeat offenders may also be read.
Which legal remedy is available against a rejection?
Article 13/A-5 of Law No. 5352 refers, for the decision, to the legal remedy that the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) provides in relation to the judgment. It is therefore not correct to file an "objection to the heavy penal court" petition against every rejection decision. The nature of the decision, its date and the transitional provisions must be examined. [1]
The 6th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 6. Ceza Dairesi), in decision E.2024/4286, K.2024/10994 of October 22, 2024, held that the supplementary decision of 2024 rejecting the request for restoration of prohibited rights was subject to appeal, and it sent the file to the appropriate remedy without examining the merits. The decision shows that an error in choosing the remedy is a concrete problem in practice. [5]
Under the current Article 273 of the CMK, an appeal is made within two weeks of service of the judgment together with its reasons; the transitional arrangements for older decisions are also checked. Article 264 of the CMK protects against an error in identifying the remedy or the authority. However, that provision should not be used as a guarantee that removes the duty to apply within time and in the proper form. [6]
In an appeal petition, the incomplete enforcement inquiry, the wrong starting date, the special-law obstacle that was not examined and the good-conduct documents that were not assessed should be set out concretely. Merely repeating the first request word for word may not show why the reasoning for rejection was wrong.
Real decisions and the limits of application
The 2026 decision of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation
In decision E.2025/3798, K.2026/1330 of February 9, 2026, the request of a person who had been sentenced to a criminal fine for fraud was examined. The first court had rejected the request on the ground that the judgment contained no express deprivation of rights. The 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesi) held that the conditions in Articles 12 and 13/A of Law No. 5352 had to be assessed, taking into account the legal consequences of the conviction and its link with the archive record, and it quashed the decision in the interest of the law. [3]
The contribution of this decision to preparing a file is that it shows the source of the obstacle cannot be sought in the operative part of the judgment alone. However, the quashing does not mean that every similar request will be accepted without investigation; the period and the good-conduct conditions are examined separately.
The 2025 AYM decision on the medical profession
In decision E.2024/179, K.2025/84 of March 27, 2025, the AYM (Constitutional Court) examined the effect on the medical profession of a conviction for abuse of office (irtikâp) under Law No. 1219. The majority, having also assessed the procedure and conditions for the restoration of prohibited rights, rejected the request to annul the relevant phrase. Six members dissented; the dissents raised objections concerning the proportionality of the professional restriction and of the waiting period after enforcement. [7]
The subject of the decision is a specific profession and a specific offence. It cannot be concluded that every profession is automatically accessible, or that every obstacle to rights disappears. In practice, the special law, the decision on restoration and any new administrative act must be examined together.
Does a restoration decision delete the record or secure a return to office?
Effect on the archive record
When a restoration decision becomes final, it is recorded in the criminal records archive. For the relevant group of convictions, the existence of this decision matters on the route to deletion from the fifteen-year archive. However, the finality of the decision does not mean that the archive record is entirely deleted on the same day. The period and the starting point under Article 12 of Law No. 5352 are assessed separately. [1] For details, see the article on deletion of criminal record and archive entries. The page on enforcement law, criminal records and archive may be consulted for record-keeping procedures.
Whether the decision has been entered in the official record should be followed up. If the record still reflects the earlier position, a correction should be requested with the decision and the certificate of finality.
Public office, licence and professional applications
Removing the obstacle and appointment to a particular post or the granting of a licence are different stages. Examination requirements, professional competence and other conditions under the special law may continue to apply. Whether the earlier administrative act was lawful, and whether it was challenged within time, are also assessed separately. It cannot be assumed that a later restoration decision automatically invalidates all earlier acts.
For this reason, after a favourable decision the final judgment should be submitted to the institution to which the application is made, and the obstacle that has been removed should be explained. If the institution rejects the application again, the appropriate route is identified from the reasoning and legal basis of the new act.
Conclusion
In restoring prohibited rights, the central question is to identify correctly the particular obstacle to rights that continues after a criminal conviction. The application is made to the competent court once completion of enforcement, the waiting period, the absence of new offences and good conduct have been documented. The effect of the decision on the record, the profession and public office is followed within its own legal framework.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the three-year period run from the finality of the judgment?
As a general rule, it runs from completion of enforcement. The special provision that uses the date of finality concerns the different grounds for ending enforcement in Article 13/A-2, and it includes an additional lower limit.
Can I apply as soon as I am released from prison?
For the general three-year route, the date on which enforcement was completed and the waiting period must be established. The actual day of release is not always the day on which enforcement was completed.
If the judgment does not state a deprivation of rights, is the request rejected?
Not for that reason alone. The consequence that the special law attaches to the conviction and the conditions of Article 13/A must be examined.
Should the application be made to the enforcement judge?
The law designates the court that delivered the judgment, or a court of the same level at the place of residence, as competent. A separate dispute about enforcement records does not change the competent authority for this application.
Is a criminal record certificate alone sufficient as evidence of good conduct?
The current criminal record is important, but the examination cannot be reduced to that document alone. The court assesses the statutory period and the living conditions on the concrete file.
Must every rejection decision be appealed?
No. The reference in Article 13/A-5 requires that the date of the decision and the regime of legal remedies be examined. There are recent supplementary decisions in which the Court of Cassation points to appeal.
Once a decision is obtained, are the archive record and all professional obstacles deleted?
The decision is entered in the archive; complete deletion is assessed separately under the conditions of Article 12. The conditions of a particular profession or office are also assessed separately.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 5352 on Criminal Records (5352 sayılı Adli Sicil Kanunu), Art. 12 and 13/A. Current text checked: October 13, 2026.
- Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (5237 sayılı Türk Ceza Kanunu), Art. 51 and 53.
- 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesi), E.2025/3798, K.2026/1330, February 9, 2026, reasoning and decision.
- Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures (5275 sayılı Kanun), Art. 105/A and 107.
- 6th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 6. Ceza Dairesi), E.2024/4286, K.2024/10994, October 22, 2024, review on legal remedies.
- Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (5271 sayılı Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), Art. 264, 272 and 273; transitional provisions are assessed together with the specific decision date.
- AYM, E.2024/179, K.2025/84, March 27, 2025, especially §§ 22–30, the judgment and the dissenting opinions. Last accessed for sources: October 13, 2026.