Eligibility for a sentence enforcement reform cannot be determined by looking only at how many years the sentence is. The offence date, the legal nature of the offence, the finality of the judgment, the enforcement regime to be applied and the conditions of the relevant transitional article must be examined together. In particular, 31 July 2023 does not have the same meaning in every paragraph of transitional Article 10 of Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Criminal and Security Measures. The current sixth paragraph takes the offence date as its basis, whereas the second paragraph depends on the leave and enforcement situation on that date.
How do an enforcement reform, an amnesty and a sentence reduction differ?
A change in enforcement procedure does not remove the conviction
Enforcement law governs how and under which conditions a final sentence is carried out. Moving earlier to an open institution or earlier to supervised release (denetimli serbestlik) does not mean that the sentence imposed by the court is erased. Conditional release, supervised release and the full-term release date (bihakkın tahliye) mark different legal stages. The enforcement of the sentence continues during supervised release, and a breach of its obligations may lead to a return to an institution. K1 For the details of this subject, the article enforcement regime in terrorism and organised crime cases can be read.
A general amnesty and a special amnesty, however, are attached to different consequences in Article 65 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). For this reason, the phrase “an amnesty has been passed” used in public debate should be replaced by an identification of which provision of the law has changed. An easing of enforcement does not lead to automatic acquittal, to the complete erasure of the criminal record, or to the lifting of all loss of rights. The decision requested in an application must also match the real legal effect of the change. K2 This heading can also be read alongside the article on enforcement at home, at weekends and at night.
A provision of a law may have a different entry-into-force date
The date on which a law is adopted, the date of its publication in the Official Gazette and its date of entry into force may not coincide. Moreover, some provisions apply immediately and others on a later date. For example, Law No. 7593 was published in the Official Gazette on 18 August 2026. Its changes concerning enforcement entered into force on the date of publication, while another article of the same law is set to apply from 1 December 2026. Assigning a single date to all provisions of a law creates the risk of applying the right provision to the wrong period. K7
Why the offence date, finality and date of entry into an institution each matter separately
The offence date can determine which arrangement applies
The offence date is determined from the conviction judgment and, where necessary, from the facts accepted in the reasoned decision. Where there is a continuing offence, offences committed in a series (zincirleme suç) or several convictions, the date on a single file cover cannot be relied on alone. The enforcement authority cannot give an already final judgment a new legal characterisation; resolving an uncertainty in the judgment may require a separate judicial assessment. Where the date is disputed, the application should show which assumption affects which transitional provision. K1, K2
Finality is a precondition for enforcement
Under Article 4 of Law No. 5275, a conviction cannot be enforced unless it has become final. Yet not every transitional provision requires finality before a given date. Where a provision is based on the offence date, later finality is not in itself a ground for exclusion; the other conditions are still required. On the other hand, being in pretrial detention and being a convicted prisoner under a final judgment are not the same status. K1
Entry into an institution and the periods for moving to an open institution are calculated separately
The date of entry into an institution may matter for the minimum periods that must be served there. Credit for detention or pretrial custody (mahsup), the total sentence, aggregation decisions (içtima), good-conduct assessments and other judgments may change the calculation. For this reason, not only the operative part of the judgment but also the current sentence calculation sheet (müddetname) and the entry and exit records should be examined. For the calculation of a particular file, the article objection to the sentence calculation sheet and correction of the enforcement calculation can be read alongside this one.
| Data to be examined | Legal function | Main document |
|---|---|---|
| Offence date and nature of the offence | Scope of the transitional provision and its exceptions | Reasoned decision and operative part of the judgment |
| Date of finality | Start of enforcement and related special conditions | Judgment bearing a finality endorsement |
| Periods served in the institution | Minimum periods and credit | Entry and exit records, credit decision |
| Leave and open-institution status | Transitional provisions linked to status | Leave decisions and transfer to an open institution |
| Current enforcement calculation | Conditional release and supervised release dates | Sentence calculation sheet, aggregation and recidivism decisions |
How is the 31 July 2023 arrangement applied today?
Transitional Article 10(6) now takes the offence date as its basis
Following the amendment made by Law No. 7571, transitional Article 10(6) applies to offences committed on or before 31 July 2023. The former text's criterion of being in a closed institution on that date cannot be carried over unchanged into the current sixth paragraph. This change also requires that persons whose judgment became final later be assessed under the conditions of their own file; it does not provide automatic release for everyone. K1
The excluded offences in the paragraph should be checked first. The exceptions include killings under Article 82(1)(d), (e) and (f) TCK; killings resulting from buildings collapsing, subsiding or being damaged in an earthquake; Articles 102, 103 and 104(2)–(3) TCK; offences in the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh chapters of the fourth part of the second book of the TCK; offences under the Law on Combating Terrorism (Terörle Mücadele Kanunu); and offences committed within the activity of an organisation. The comparison must be made by the article applied in the judgment and the qualified form of the offence, not by the everyday name of the crime. K1
Moving from a closed institution to an open one and from an open institution to supervised release are separate conditions
Among the persons within the scope, those whose total prison sentence is less than ten years must have spent one month, and those whose sentence is ten years or more must have spent three months, in a closed institution. In addition, under the applicable legislation, no more than three years may remain before transfer to an open institution. Persons who meet these conditions are assessed for transfer to an open institution. K1
Persons within the same group, and open-institution prisoners with the same offence date, may be released on supervised release up to three years early under the applicable legislation, provided that they request it and have spent at least three months in an open institution. The phrase “three years early” does not mean leaving three years before the conditional release date in every file; it is applied according to the supervised release regime to which the person is subject. General good conduct, calculation and decision conditions also cannot be disregarded. K1
The five-year criterion in transitional Article 10(2) is different
The second paragraph requires, as of 31 July 2023, both being on pandemic leave (salgın izni) and having no more than five years left before supervised release under the legislation applicable on that date. It provides that the enforcement judge may decide without any request being made. The five years cannot be read as meaning that everyone has five years left before conditional release. Nor can it be accepted that, as time passes and the remaining period shrinks, a condition that was absent on the starting date is met automatically. K1, K5 On this related point, the article criminal limitation periods and termination of enforcement may also be read.
The amendment of the sixth paragraph in 2025 did not remove the date and leave criteria of the second paragraph. Advantageous elements taken from different paragraphs of the same article cannot be combined into a release regime that the law does not contain.
Other transitional provisions and the assessment of the more favourable law
For offences up to 30 March 2020, transitional Article 6 must be examined separately
Transitional Article 6(1) extends the general period of supervised release from one year to three years for offences committed up to 30 March 2020, excluding listed exceptions. The list of exceptions is not the same as in transitional Article 10(6). For example, an exclusion in one provision cannot automatically be transferred to another for offences committed within the activity of an organisation: terrorism offences, organisation offences and the underlying offence committed within the organisation are each examined separately. The provision of transitional Article 6(3) on well-behaved prisoners in closed institutions is also of particular importance. K1
The one-tenth condition for offences before 4 June 2025
Under the condition added to Article 105/A by Law No. 7550, a person must have spent at least one-tenth of the period to be served in the institution until the conditional release date there, and that part must be not less than five days. However, transitional Article 11 expressly provides that this condition does not apply to offences committed before the amendment entered into force. This exception does not remove other open-institution conditions or the conditions of the transitional articles. K1
The 2026 change on child enforcement may require old calculations to be reviewed
Article 107(5), as amended by Law No. 7593, counts one day spent in an institution before the age of fifteen as two days, apart from the listed exceptions. Intentional killing, the sexual offences listed in the article, drug trafficking and the exceptions in TCK Article 220 are checked separately. The child calculation for earlier offences under transitional Article 6(4) is also preserved. These rules cannot be applied with a single formula to all child convicts without examining the offence date and the principles of time. K1, K7
The rule of immediate application has exceptions
Article 7(3) TCK provides that provisions on enforcement regimes apply immediately as a rule; it separates from this rule the provisions on deferral of a prison sentence, conditional release and recidivism. In assessing the more favourable law, no single ratio is selected; the legal consequences of the provisions that could apply to the same file are compared. In the decision of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM) in Burhan Yaz (3), the relationship between conditional release and the scope of the sentence and the principle of the more favourable law are explained in detail. However, the decision did not accept the applicant's request based on a two-thirds ratio. K2, K6 As a related subject, the article conditions for conditional release may also be considered.
Which application errors do real decisions show?
Constitutional Court: a decision on the old status condition is not the current offence-date rule
In its decision E.2023/148, K.2024/70 dated 7 March 2024, the Constitutional Court mostly rejected the objection to the condition in transitional Article 10(6) that the person was “a convicted prisoner in a closed institution on 31 July 2023”. The majority based its reasoning on the transitional provision and on the legislator's margin of discretion. Judges Engin Yıldırım, Selahaddin Menteş and Basri Bağcı dissented, arguing that the time of finality may depend on factors beyond the person's control. K4
The decision reviewed the norm that existed before the text changed at the end of 2025. Today it is not correct to rely solely on that decision to require the former closed-institution condition for the sixth paragraph. The dissenting opinion also cannot be presented as the majority decision or as a later finding of violation.
Court of Cassation: the date in transitional Article 10(2) cannot be moved forward
In its decision E.2025/5447, K.2026/483 dated 23 January 2026, the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 1st Criminal Chamber quashed, in the interest of the law (kanun yararına bozma), a favourable decision that had later been given on the basis of this paragraph for a convicted person who, on 31 July 2023, had more than five years of supervised release remaining. The review concerns whether the conditions in the second paragraph existed together as of the date fixed. The decision does not remove the offence-date criterion of the current sixth paragraph. K5 For a detailed explanation, the article conditions and periods for supervised release is useful.
How is the application file prepared, and which authority is approached?
The request must be linked to the changed provision and the document
An effective application goes beyond the sentence “I want to benefit from the new enforcement law”. It should show which judgment relates to which offence date, why an exception does not apply, which line of the current sentence calculation sheet would change and which decision is requested. Where there are several judgments with different offence dates, each is assessed separately; it is not assumed that an aggregation decision converts all the sentences into a single offence date. K1
The file should include the final judgment, the current sentence calculation sheet, credit and aggregation decisions, institution entry and exit information, the relevant leave records, the decision on transfer to an open institution and the good-conduct assessment. Where an alternative calculation is submitted, the ratio and the transitional provision used in it must be stated. An estimated release date based on assumptions must not be presented as an official enforcement calculation.
Adaptation, calculation disputes and complaints about administrative acts must be distinguished
Under Article 98(1)(a) of Law No. 5275, where there is doubt about the interpretation of a judgment, or about the application of a later law under Article 7 TCK, the court that delivered the judgment may be competent. For the calculation of the prison term to be served and for whether the sentence can be carried out, Article 98(1)(b) points to the enforcement judgeship. For complaints against institutional acts and against the prosecutor's enforcement decisions, Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships applies. Calling the request an “adaptation” (uyarlama) does not remove the need to examine competence according to its real nature. K1, K3
A complaint must be distinguished from an objection to the enforcement judge's decision by its period: a complaint must be made within fifteen days from learning of the act and in any case within thirty days of the act, while an objection to the enforcement judge's decision has a two-week period from notification. These periods are not one shared period for all enforcement requests. An application does not stop enforcement on its own; a request for suspension must be justified by the conditions of the applicable provision and by concrete harm. The procedural details are discussed in the article application to and objection before the enforcement judgeship. K1, K3 For more information, the article deletion of the criminal record and archive entry may be consulted.
Conclusion
In enforcement reforms the correct result comes not from knowing the name of a law or the year mentioned in public debate, but from matching the scope of each provision with the dates and statuses in the file. The distinction between the current transitional Article 10(6) and transitional Article 10(2), the independent conditions of transitional Articles 6 and 11, and the assessment of the more favourable law must be carried out together. A reasoned application should make clear which document and which calculation support the legal result requested. For a separate assessment of a related subject, the article non-payment of a judicial fine and its conversion into imprisonment may be consulted.
Frequently asked questions
If the offence predates 31 July 2023 and the judgment became final later, can the person benefit?
For the current transitional Article 10(6), the offence date is the basis. Later finality alone is not an obstacle, but exceptions, the time to be served in the institution and the other conditions are still examined.
Is being in pretrial detention on 31 July 2023 sufficient?
It depends on which paragraph applies. The current sixth paragraph is based on the offence date. The second paragraph requires that pandemic leave and a remaining supervised-release period of five years or less be present together on that date; pretrial detention does not replace these conditions.
Does a new law automatically release all convicts?
No. The scope, the exceptions, good conduct, the time to be served in the institution and the decision of the competent authority are all examined. A change in enforcement procedure does not remove the conviction.
Can an old Constitutional Court decision still be used?
It can be used for principles and for historical assessment. However, if the text examined in the decision has since changed, the old condition cannot replace the current provision of law.
Does filing an application stop enforcement?
Not automatically. Stopping enforcement or postponing the proceeding requires a separate request and decision under the conditions of the applicable law.
Is the result of an online enforcement calculation sufficient?
No. The result depends on the data entered and the rules used. Final judgments, credit, aggregation, recidivism and transitional provisions must be checked against the official file.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Criminal and Security Measures (5275 sayılı Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun), Articles 4, 98–101, 105/A, 107 and transitional Articles 6, 10, 11; current consolidated text.
- Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (5237 sayılı Türk Ceza Kanunu), Articles 7, 65.
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (4675 sayılı İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), Articles 2, 4–6.
- Constitutional Court, E.2023/148, K.2024/70, 7 March 2024, merits review and dissenting opinion; concerning the former text of transitional Article 10(6).
- Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 1st Criminal Chamber, E.2025/5447, K.2026/483, 23 January 2026, reasons 4–6 and the judgment.
- Constitutional Court, Burhan Yaz (3), Application No. 2021/7919, 29 May 2024, especially paragraphs 58–69; it should not be confused with the outcomes of the other claims in the application.
- Law No. 7593, Official Gazette, 18 August 2026, No. 33344, Articles 7 and 16.