Appeal in a Criminal Case: How Is an Effective Defense Against a Conviction Prepared?

In a criminal case, appeal (istinaf) is the legal remedy that allows the judgment of the court of first instance to be reviewed by the regional court of appeal (Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi, BAM), both as to the evaluation of the facts and as to the application of the law. An effective application is not limited to saying that the defendant does not agree with the conviction; it explains the error in the decision, the file document that shows this error and the legal result sought. For judgments given on or after 1 June 2024, the time limit for appeal is, as a rule, two weeks from service of the reasoned judgment. However, whether the decision is open to appeal, the standing of the applicant, the validity of service and the applicable transitional provisions must also be examined separately. [1, Art. 272–280] [2, Art. 18 and 22]

Which questions are reconsidered on appeal?

The regional court of appeal (BAM), which acts as the appellate court, does not merely check whether the statutory provision has been correctly written. It also examines by which evidence the conclusion that the offense was committed by the defendant was reached, whether contradictions were resolved, whether the defense was heard effectively and how the sentence was determined. For this reason, an erroneous evaluation of witness testimony and an error in the legal characterization of the offense may be raised in the same application, on different grounds. [1, Art. 280–282]

On cassation (temyiz), by contrast, the Court of Cassation's review is based on the ground of unlawfulness. The structure of appeal, which combines review of the material facts and of the law, is also explained in the work of Ülkem Cansu Aygün Karakoyunlu. The more limited assessments of appeal by Muharrem Özen show that second-instance review is not, in every file, identical to repeating the first trial from beginning to end. The consequence for the defense is this: rather than retelling the whole file, it is necessary to show why the load-bearing reasons of the conviction are unfounded or unlawful. [11, pp. 255–256] [13, pp. 2336–2337]

Appealing does not guarantee an acquittal. The application may be dismissed on the merits; the judgment may be upheld after correcting certain errors; the judgment may be quashed under the conditions set by law; or the BAM may hold a hearing and issue a new judgment. The defense must frame which decision is sought on which legal ground, taking these options into account.

Which decisions can be appealed and who may apply?

Appeal threshold and ex officio review

As a rule, judgments of the criminal courts of first instance may be appealed. However, CMK Article 272(3) provides exceptions. Under the current rules, convictions for judicial fines, including fines of 15,000 TL fixed as the final result, other than those converted from imprisonment, are excluded from appeal. Converting a prison sentence into a judicial fine is not the same as imposing a judicial fine directly. In addition, there are specific limitations on acquittal judgments for offenses requiring a judicial fine not exceeding five hundred days, and on judgments that the law declares final. Older decisions must be assessed under the transitional rules that apply to their date. [1, Art. 272]

Judgments imposing imprisonment of fifteen years or more are reviewed by the BAM ex officio. Even so, a reasoned application remains important: which evidential and procedural problems will be emphasized is a task the defense must carry out itself. Certain interlocutory decisions given before the judgment may also be reviewed together with the judgment, where they form the basis of the judgment or are not subject to another remedy. [1, Art. 272(1)–(2)]

Defendant, defense counsel and other applicants

The public prosecutor, the defendant and the intervening party (katılan) or persons who may become intervening parties and who have suffered harm from the offense have the right to apply. Merely following the case, or being a relative of the defendant, does not give everyone an independent right to apply. Special provision is made in CMK Article 262 for legal representatives and spouses. Defense counsel may apply to a legal remedy, provided this is not contrary to the express wishes of the person represented. A detained defendant may apply by making a statement to the director of the institution or to the relevant court clerk, or by submitting a petition; the record of the proceedings and the acknowledgment of receipt must be kept. [1, Art. 260–263]

The application is made to the court that gave the judgment for transmission to the BAM. Under CMK Article 264, an error in the name of the legal remedy or of the authority does not, on its own, cause a loss of rights in an admissible application. However, this rule does not make a request that is out of time, or made by someone without standing to apply, valid by itself.

HAGB decisions require separate review

A decision deferring the pronouncement of judgment (HAGB) and a conviction that is pronounced should not be subjected to the same calculation of legal remedies. For HAGB decisions given on or after 1 June 2024, appeal is the rule, without prejudice to CMK Article 272(3); for earlier HAGB decisions, the transitional provision preserves the route of objection. CMK Article 231(12), as re-regulated in 2026 by Law No. 7589, maintains this appeal system. By contrast, for a judgment pronounced or newly established on the ground of breach of supervision, Article 231(11) provides for an objection with limited review. The route cannot be determined by reference only to "sentences under two years" without seeing the type of decision and the date of the first HAGB. [2, provisional Art. 6(2)] [4, Art. 15] A similar situation is also addressed separately in our article Objection to a Summary Procedure Decision.

How is the appeal time limit calculated?

Reasoned judgment, service and transitional provisions

For judgments given on or after 1 June 2024, the two-week time limit is tied to service of the judgment together with its reasons. Announcing the decision at the hearing and serving the reasoned judgment are different steps. For earlier judgments, the former rules and the relevant constitutional guarantees must be assessed separately; the current two-week period does not apply automatically to all past decisions. [1, Art. 273] [2, provisional Art. 6(1)(c) and (e)]

The Constitutional Court's decision of 26 July 2023, E.2022/144, K.2023/137 addressed the difficulty of preparing an effective legal remedy application before the reasons are known. The Court annulled the wording of former CMK Article 273(1) that tied the time limit to the pronouncement of the judgment. In the dissenting opinions, the possibility of submitting reasons after a timely application was regarded as sufficient guarantee. The direct basis for today's two-week period, however, is not that decision itself but the amendment made by Law No. 7499. [6, §§ 35–50 and dissenting opinions]

The reasoned judgment, the short judgment, the service receipt (mazbata) or the electronic service record should be reviewed together. It is risky to enter a single date on the timetable without checking the addressee of the notices given to the defendant and to the defense counsel, their legal nature and their validity. The notice of legal remedies in the judgment should also be read; if the notice was wrong, its effect on the right to apply must be justified.

Electronic service and calculation of the last day

Electronic service is deemed to have been made at the end of the fifth day following the day it reaches the electronic address. Failure to receive the information SMS does not by itself invalidate the service. For this reason, the "delivered," "read" and "deemed served" fields in the records should not be confused. The two-week period for appeal is calculated from the date of valid service. [5, Art. 9–10]

A period set in weeks ends on the day corresponding to the day of service in the last week; if the last day falls on a public holiday, the next working day is taken. In electronic procedures, the time limit ends at the end of the day. For example, on the assumption that valid service was made on a Tuesday and no special extension applies, the last day is the Tuesday two weeks later. It is not enough for the application merely to be prepared on a computer; a record confirming that transmission was completed must be kept. [1, Art. 38/A and 39]

Nor is an automatic extension of time limits assumed for all files during the judicial recess. The working recess under CMK Article 331, the rules for detained persons and urgent matters, and the time-limit provisions must be considered together. In a file where the time limit is disputed, the safe course is to complete the application as early as possible and to submit the legal explanation of the time limit separately.

The table summarizes the current regime. The reply to an appeal rests on CMK Articles 273(5) and 277; the request against a rejection decision rests on CMK Article 276; and restoration of rights rests on CMK Articles 40–42. The new period for restoration applies to obstacles that ceased on or after 1 June 2024. [1] [2, provisional Art. 6(1)(a)]

Which documents matter if the time limit has been missed?

A person who misses the time limit through no fault of their own may request restoration of rights. The obstacle, the date it ceased and the reason an application could not be made in time must be documented; even submitting a medical certificate may not, in every case, be sufficient on its own. It must be explained how the illness prevented the person from acting or from obtaining help. The omitted appeal step is also carried out together with the request. A request for restoration of rights does not automatically stop enforcement; whether a need to stop it exists is assessed separately. [1, Art. 40–42]

How should a reasoned judgment be read from the defense's perspective?

Review of a judgment is not completed simply by underlining the sentence imposed. First, the facts accepted by the court should be summarized in a single paragraph; then each decisive piece of evidence on which that acceptance rests must be found in the file. It should also be checked why the alternative explanation put forward by the defense was rejected. In this way, the failure to examine evidence at all, its examination but misinterpretation, and the failure to give adequate reasons are distinguished from one another.

Each row need not be carried over word for word into the petition. The purpose of the chart is to separate a strong objection from minor detail. If the file has no page numbers, the document date, its heading and the relevant paragraph may be used. Where the same file involves several defendants or offenses, a separate assessment must be made for each judgment; an objection that is strong for one offense does not automatically affect another.

Which grounds of appeal can be developed against a conviction?

Insufficiency of evidence and unlawfulness are different

Evidence obtained lawfully may be insufficient to prove the charge. On the other hand, the method by which a record that appears strong for the prosecution was obtained may be unlawful. In the first case, the probative force of the evidence is debated; in the second, whether it may be relied on for the judgment. These objections must be raised separately within the framework of CMK Articles 217 and 230; in an objection to unlawful evidence, the procedural decision, its scope and the record of its application must be shown. [1]

In the defense of insufficient evidence, however, not every adverse fact in the file is ignored. For example, the difference between a record establishing a connection and a record establishing the charged act is explained. It is shown at which point the inference on which the conviction rests turns into an assumption that has not been proven. It is not possible to build a defense on the basis that the defendant bears the burden of proving that he or she did not commit the offense; for the purposes of CMK Article 223(2)(e), the question is whether it is established that the offense charged was committed by the defendant. [1]

How is a lack of reasons made concrete?

After the statement "the judgment lacks reasons," it must be explained which decisive defense was left unanswered. The court is not obliged to respond separately to every sentence. However, an expert opinion, a significant contradiction or an argument discussing the link with the act, if capable of changing the outcome, cannot be dismissed without reasons.

In the Constitutional Court's decision in Sencer Başat and Others, this distinction in relation to the right to a reasoned judgment was explained; in the concrete proceedings the question was addressed under fair trial guarantees, namely whether the defense's important evidence and claims were adequately assessed. An appeal petition relying on this decision must show the unanswered claim in its own file and why it could change the judgment. The decision does not mean that every short reasoning is automatically a ground for quashing or acquittal. [7, §§ 30–39, 60–72]

Right of defense, legal characterization and determination of sentence

The failure to allow comment on evidence, the inability to cross-examine an important witness, or the failure to give the necessary additional defense when the legal character of the offense changes may be examined under separate headings. The time of the request, how the court decided and the point at which the defense was harmed must be shown in the record. Not every rejected request for evidence is in itself a violation of rights; it is necessary to explain the importance of the examination sought to the charge. [1, Art. 201, 206, 215–216, 226 and 289]

In the calculation of sentence, the review extends not only to the amount of the result but also to the choice of the basic sentence and the reasoning for increases and reductions. Objections concerning the legal characterization, the form of participation or an attempt are linked to the acceptance of the concrete facts. Requesting first an acquittal, and in the alternative a lighter legal characterization or a reduction of sentence, is not the same as admitting the offense where this is expressly framed conditionally. However, mutually exclusive accounts of facts should not be placed side by side without explanation.

How is an appeal petition made persuasive?

Order of error, document, effect and request

At the start of the petition, the judgment being challenged, the case and decision numbers, the date of service and the requests must be clearly stated. Thereafter each important objection should resolve a single problem: what has the court wrongly accepted, how does the file show this, why does the error affect the outcome, and what action is sought from the BAM?

Hypothetical example of wording: "On page five of the reasoned judgment, the court accepted that the witness identified the defendant. However, in the record of the second session the witness stated that he did not see the person's face. The judgment established identity without explaining this distinction. We request that the other evidence said to confirm identity be examined together with this contradiction; that, if considered necessary, the witness be heard again at the hearing; and that the conviction be set aside." This example does not describe a real file or decision; it shows the structure of an objection based on a document.

The strong explanation opposing the objection should also be considered. If the prosecution may claim that the witness recognized the defendant from his voice or some other feature, the sentence "he did not see the face" alone may not be sufficient. The defense should discuss whether this alternative identification is actually in the file and how reliable it is. Persuasive force comes not from concealing the adverse possibility but from resolving it with a reasoning that can be checked.

Distinguishing an absence of reasons from an effective defense

Under CMK Article 273(4), the failure of the defendant and the other named applicants to state reasons does not prevent review. It is therefore wrong to say that every defendant's application without reasons will be rejected. However, this procedural safeguard does not make it unnecessary to prepare a detailed defense. For the public prosecutor, by contrast, there is a duty to explain the grounds of appeal with reasons. [1, Art. 273(4)–(5)]

Rather than leaving the application to the vague phrase "other grounds," the focus of review should be set out from the start. The idea of filing a supplementary petition should not delay the main application; nor should it be assumed that a supplementary explanation will necessarily reach the file before a decision is given. In the conclusion, requests for a hearing, the hearing of a particular witness, the commissioning of a report, quashing of the judgment, acquittal or other appropriate decisions should be linked to their own reasons.

Which decisions can the BAM make?

Quashing and issuing a new judgment are not the same procedure

The options open to the BAM are set out in CMK Article 280. Although in everyday language "quashing the judgment" is used to mean every favorable outcome, its meaning in the law is narrower. The fact that a piece of evidence needs to be reassessed does not, in every case, require the file to be sent back to the first court.

The 2025 amendment: absence of reasons and restriction of the right of defense

Law No. 7571, which came into force on 25 December 2025, removed an important exception in CMK Article 280(1)(e). In the earlier text, points (g) and (h) of CMK Article 289(1), concerning the absence of reasons and the restriction of the right of defense on important matters, were excluded from the scope of quashing by that route. In the current text this exclusion no longer exists. Accordingly, statements in older articles and decisions that the BAM cannot send a file back on these two grounds should not be used as if they were today's law. [3, Art. 25 and 39]

This change does not turn every criticism of reasoning into a plain violation of law. The petition must distinguish between disagreement with the reasoning, which is not the absence of the reasoning that CMK Article 230 requires, and the restriction of an important opportunity of defense for the judgment by rejecting a request for evidence. The decision sought must rest on the legal counterpart of the irregularity identified.

The importance of the Ömer Oral decision and of the Criminal General Assembly decisions

In the Constitutional Court's decision in Ömer Oral, the effect on the defendant's guarantees of a hearing and of cassation review was examined where the BAM's approach went beyond the lawful limits of quashing. The proceedings that developed after an acquittal ended with access to cassation review being blocked. The Constitutional Court found a violation of the right of access to a court and ordered a retrial. This is not a direct acquittal decision. [8, §§ 48–62]

In the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation's decision of 30 April 2025, E.2024/490, K.2025/197, the consequences of a BAM quashing that went beyond the statutory limits, based on a different assessment of the legal characterization of the offense, were also examined. The General Assembly addressed the question of the legal validity of the relevant quashing and the procedural steps that followed, and reached the conclusion that the file should be reviewed by the BAM. On the question of voluntary abandonment that was discussed, it did not carry out a substantive review at this stage. [9]

Both decisions should be read in light of the fact that they were given before the change at the end of 2025. What remains important today is that the BAM uses the review procedure the law provides, and that a wrong procedure does not remove the guarantees of legal remedies. The study by Ramazan Arıtürk on the effects of quashing, and the assessment by Ersan Şen and Dündar Can Yorgun, present the scholarly side of this debate. Scholarly commentary does not replace the law; the text at the date of the decision and the current text must be read together. [12, pp. 81–83, 98] [14]

How should an oral defense at the appeal hearing be structured?

A hearing request must rest on a concrete need for review

A hearing is not mandatory for every appeal. The request must explain why review on the file alone would not be sufficient. The need to resolve a decisive contradiction in a witness's account, to have an expert report explained, or to assess the material facts directly may be made concrete. Instead of the phrase "we request a hearing," it should be stated from whom an explanation is sought and on what subject. [1, Art. 280–282]

The BAM may decide to hear the necessary witnesses and experts. If new evidence is submitted, its source, the issue to which it relates and its contribution to the assessment must be explained. An unlawfully obtained record does not become usable merely because it has been newly found. The consequences of the hearing summons must also be read: the absence of the defendant or the defense counsel does not in every case lead to a postponement. Where a heavier sentence may be imposed, the special guarantee and statutory exception concerning hearing the defendant are also considered separately. [1, Art. 281–282]

The function of the opening, questions and closing

An effective opening identifies the core problem that the judgment must resolve, rather than repeating the whole history of the file. Hypothetical opening: "The centre of our application is the identification. The contradiction between the witness's account on which the conviction rests and the hearing record has not been explained. We will first present these two sections, and then explain why the other evidence did not remove this gap." Such an opening is a roadmap that makes it easier for the panel to follow the argument; it is not a rhetorical formula that guarantees success.

The answer to a question from the panel should first respond directly, and only then give the necessary basis. Rather than stating as certain a fact that does not appear in the document, the limit shown by the document should be kept open. Accepting that an adverse fact exists is not the same as accepting the conclusion of guilt drawn from it. The defense may concentrate the discussion on this distinction.

In closing, the whole petition is not read again. The decisive error and the procedure sought are combined briefly. For example, the quashing of the conviction and acquittal may be requested first; the hearing considered necessary for this may be requested separately; and, if the defendant is in detention, a request for release may be presented separately. Mutually incompatible outcomes should not be requested at the same level without explanation.

Firm objection, measured language and the record

The effect of the defense is not measured by volume. Where the speaker is cut off or an important request is left unanswered, defense counsel may briefly repeat the request, explain the issue to which it is relevant, and ask that the request, the objection and the decision given be recorded in the minutes. This approach creates a concrete record for later review without personalizing the discussion.

Drawing conclusions from the facial expressions of the panel, assuming that a decision will change because of psychological pressure, or influencing a witness is not a reliable defense method. Clarity showing knowledge of the file, measured emphasis and the ability to respond to the opposing view provide a sounder basis for communication. For a defendant who does not understand Turkish or who needs communication support, the safeguards of CMK Article 202 must also be applied separately; the fluent speech of defense counsel alone does not replace the defendant's understanding of the proceedings. [1, Art. 202]

Can a sentence increase on appeal, and does detention end?

Application only in the defendant's favor and the prohibition of reformatio in peius

Where an appeal has been lodged only in the defendant's favor, a heavier sentence than the one set by the earlier judgment may not be imposed on the new judgment. By contrast, if the prosecutor or an intervening party has lodged an application against the defendant, the assessment may change. For this reason, not only the defense's own petition but also the applications of the other parties and their scope must be read. [1, Art. 283]

In the Court of Cassation, 1st Criminal Chamber's decision of 22 April 2024, E.2022/10831, K.2024/2717, the absence of an application against the defendant was considered, even though there was an issue of an excessive reduction for attempt in the defendant's favor; the other objections of the defendant were not accepted and the judgment was upheld. The decision shows that the prohibition of reformatio in peius is a guarantee against an increase in sentence and does not by itself secure an acquittal or a reduction. [10]

Finality, release and costs

A timely appeal application prevents the judgment from becoming final. However, preventing finality and ending detention are separate matters. A request for release must be justified separately on the basis of the grounds for detention, the state of the evidence, proportionality and the options of judicial supervision. When the file reaches the BAM, the relevant chamber may decide on the application for release. [1, Art. 104(3) and 275] For details, see the article maximum periods of pretrial detention.

Where the first court rejects the request for appeal on grounds of time limit, the right to apply, or whether the judgment is open to appeal, the route under CMK Article 276 is followed. For rejection decisions made by the BAM at the preliminary examination stage, the objection regime in CMK Article 279 is separately assessed. It should not be assumed that the two decisions will be reviewed by the same method.

Costs of proceedings and any awarded attorney's fee (vekâlet ücreti) are also part of the review of the decision. The cost provisions of CMK Articles 324–327 and the fee agreement with the lawyer are separate subjects. Standard wording from online petitions on civil lawsuits concerning court fees or advances on costs should not be transferred automatically to a criminal appeal. An objection to costs must explain which item was wrongly imposed and why. [1]

Which routes are considered after an appeal decision?

Whether a decision of the BAM is open to cassation cannot be determined merely by looking at the amount of the sentence. The types of decision under CMK Article 286, the first judgment, the change made by the BAM and the offense exceptions in paragraph 3 must be considered together. A generalization such as "every sentence under five years is final" is not reliable. There is also a special provision for convictions imposed for the first time by the BAM. [1, Art. 286]

For a judgment open to cassation, the current time limit for appeal is two weeks from service of the reasoned judgment. However, the rule on the absence of reasons for the defendant in appeal cannot be carried over to cassation: the grounds of cassation are important under CMK Articles 294 and 298. The additional period for reasons under the former rules should not be relied on; the transitional provisions must be checked against the date of the decision. [1, Art. 291, 294 and 298] [2, Art. 19–22]

For final BAM decisions, the chief public prosecutor of the regional court of appeal has the power to object under CMK Article 308/A, objection to final appellate decisions. The defendant's request that this power be exercised does not directly open a new ordinary remedy. An individual application, by contrast, is subject to separate conditions: a violation of a fundamental right, exhaustion of ordinary remedies and time limits. It should not be seen as a repetition of the appeal. The thirty-day time limit for an individual application is, as a rule, assessed from the date on which the final decision is learned of after the ordinary remedies have been exhausted. It should not be assumed that resorting to an extraordinary remedy automatically suspends this period; whether accepting the request begins a new judicial process must be assessed separately. [1, Art. 308/A] [15, pp. 16–17]

Conclusion

A strong defense in a criminal appeal is one that can test the reasoning of the conviction against the file. First, the time limit and the conditions of admissibility must be secured; then the decisive errors, the relevant documents and the requests corresponding to them must be brought together. The current power to quash, the need for a hearing, applications against the defendant and detention must each be considered separately. The persuasive force of a defense comes not from strong language or from the number of decisions cited, but from the ability to show clearly which error requires which legal result.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many days is the appeal time limit in a criminal case?

Under the current regime the time limit is two weeks, calculated from service of the reasoned judgment. For judgments given before 1 June 2024, the transitional provisions must be reviewed separately. For distinctions concerning service and public holidays, see the section on calculating the time limit.

To which court is the appeal petition submitted?

It is submitted to the court of first instance that gave the judgment, for transmission to the regional court of appeal. There are also options for a statement to the court clerk and, for a detained defendant, an application through the institution. A record showing that the application was received must be kept.

Can an application be made without stating reasons?

For the persons referred to in CMK Article 273(4), failure to state reasons does not prevent review. The obligation of a prosecutor to submit a reasoned application is different. Nevertheless, reasons specific to the file make the substance of the defendant's application clear and reviewable.

Is a hearing always held on appeal?

No. The law also provides for decisions that can be made on the file. A hearing request should explain which witness, report or question of material facts directly requires examination.

Can new evidence be submitted on appeal?

Because appeal includes review of the material facts, evaluation of new evidence may be requested. The source of the evidence, its lawfulness and the issue it resolves must be stated. It cannot be said that every document submitted will necessarily be obtained or will change the outcome.

If only the defendant applied, can the sentence increase?

Where the application was made only in the defendant's favor, the prohibition on increasing the sentence under CMK Article 283 applies. It must always be checked whether the prosecutor or an intervening party has applied against the defendant. This safeguard does not make an acquittal necessary.

Does an appeal application secure release?

Not automatically. A timely application prevents the judgment from becoming final; release is assessed separately on the basis of the conditions of detention. The distinction between finality and release is therefore important.

Can a file be sent back because the judgment lacks reasons?

The absence of reasons under CMK Article 289(1)(g) is among the grounds for quashing under CMK Article 280(1)(e) following Law No. 7571. However, disagreeing with the conclusion of a reasoned decision is not the same as the absence of the reasoning the law requires.

Can an appeal filed out of time be saved?

Where there is an excusable obstacle, the conditions for restoration of rights may be assessed. A reasoned request and the omitted step must both be carried out within the period that runs from the removal of the obstacle. Mere forgetfulness or unexplained delay cannot be accepted as sufficient.

Is an appeal always brought against a HAGB decision?

No. The date of the first HAGB decision, the nature of the decision and the exceptions to finality are important. There are different provisions for earlier HAGB decisions and for judgments pronounced on breach of supervision. The distinction in the HAGB section must be applied.

How long does an appeal take?

No single period of completion can be given for every file. The scope of the file, missing steps, the need for a hearing and the workload of the relevant chamber may all have an effect. A commitment to a number of months or years that is not based on concrete data is not reliable.

Does every file go to the Court of Cassation after appeal?

No. The conditions for cassation under CMK Article 286 must be examined separately. The type of decision, the sentence, the offense exceptions and the distinction where a conviction is entered for the first time by the BAM are decisive. The grounds rules for a cassation application are also different from those for appeal.

Sources and legal bases

1. Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), in particular Arts. 38/A–42, 104, 201–217, 223, 226, 230, 260–298, 308/A and 324–331. Ministry of Justice text (Adalet Bakanlığı metni). Amended provisions have been assessed together with the laws listed below.

2. Law No. 7499 amending the Code of Criminal Procedure and certain other laws, adopted 2 March 2024, in particular Arts. 18–22; provisional CMK Art. 6. Text as adopted by the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM).

3. Law No. 7571, adopted 24 December 2025, Official Gazette: 25 December 2025, No. 33118, in particular Arts. 25 and 39. Text as adopted by the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM).

4. Law No. 7589, adopted 16 July 2026, CMK Arts. 231(11)–(12) as re-regulated by Article 15. Text as adopted by the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM).

5. Regulation on Electronic Notification (Elektronik Tebligat Yönetmeliği), Official Gazette: 6 December 2018, No. 30617, in particular Arts. 9–10. Regulation text published by a public body.

6. Constitutional Court, 26 July 2023, E.2022/144, K.2023/137, in particular §§ 35–50 and the dissenting opinions; Official Gazette: 24 October 2023, No. 32349. Decision.

7. Constitutional Court, Sencer Başat and Others [GK], B. No: 2013/7800, 18 June 2014, in particular §§ 30–39, 60–72. Decision.

8. Constitutional Court, Ömer Oral [GK], B. No: 2023/33667, 9 January 2025, in particular §§ 48–62; Official Gazette: 12 June 2025, No. 32924. Decision.

9. Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu), 30 April 2025, E.2024/490, K.2025/197. Full text of decision.

10. Court of Cassation, 1st Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi), 22 April 2024, E.2022/10831, K.2024/2717. DeJure decision record, access by calculation.

11. Ülkem Cansu Aygün Karakoyunlu, "Appeal in Criminal Procedure Law" ("Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda İstinaf"), Yeditepe University Faculty of Law Journal, 20(2), 2023, pp. 247–288; in particular pp. 255–256. Article.

12. Ramazan Arıtürk, "An Assessment of the Effects of Quashing Decisions by the Regional Courts of Appeal in the Appeal Remedy of Criminal Procedure Law" ("Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda İstinaf Kanun Yoluna İlişkin Olarak Bölge Adliye Mahkemelerinin Bozma Kararının Etkileri Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme"), Kırklareli University Faculty of Law Journal, 3(1), 2025, pp. 79–100; in particular pp. 81–83, 98. DOI: 10.62124/kluhfd.1653942. Article.

13. Muharrem Özen, "Appeal in Turkish Criminal Procedure" ("Türk Ceza Muhakemesinde İstinaf"), Ankara University Faculty of Law Journal, 65(4), 2016, pp. 2331–2388; in particular pp. 2336–2337. Article.

14. Ersan Şen and Dündar Can Yorgun, "Review Procedure on Appeal and the Bar on the Right to Cassation" ("İstinafta İnceleme Usulü ve Temyiz Hakkı Engeli"), 13 July 2026. Article.

15. Constitutional Court Joint Project for Supporting the Individual Application System, Training modules on the individual application procedure, Module 2, pp. 16–17. Training text.