Enforcement of terrorism offences and of other organised crimes is not subject to the same rules. As a general rule, a ratio of two-thirds applies to fixed-term sentences for organised crime under Article 107(4) of Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures (Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun), and a ratio of three-quarters applies to fixed-term prison sentences under Law No. 3713 on the Fight against Terrorism (Terörle Mücadele Kanunu, TMK). However, the special regime of the offence, recidivism, the date of the offence, childhood and bars on conditional release may change the result. For transfer to an open institution and for supervised release, separate legal conditions apply in addition to the ratio calculation.
Why is the legal characterisation of the judgment the first issue to examine?
Not every organisation offence is a terrorism offence
The offences of establishing, leading or being a member of an organisation for the purpose of committing crimes under Article 220 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) cannot be equated with the offences under the TMK. Articles 3 and 4 of the TMK regulate terrorism offences and offences committed for the purpose of terrorism on their own terms. The presence of a statement that refers to an organisation does not by itself subject the entire judgment to TMK Article 17. The offence applied, its qualified form and the enforcement provisions must be identified from the reasoned judgment. K1, K2
Where there are several convictions, the sentence for organisation membership and the sentence for the underlying offence committed within the organisation’s activity are examined separately. The underlying offence may carry a heavier enforcement ratio or a bar on conditional release. The enforcement authority cannot give a judgment a new legal characterisation for an offence that is not contained in the conviction. Where the judgment is unclear, the judicial routes the law provides for clarification and for checking the calculation must be used.
Membership, propaganda and acting on behalf of an organisation are not the same fact
The legal basis for assessing whether a person has left an organisation, for the purpose of transfer to an open institution, depends on the offence for which the person was convicted. The mere grouping of offences linked to different organisations under the same heading does not justify treating every convicted person as a member of an organisation. The acceptance in the judgment, the institution’s reasoning and the regulation provision whose application is requested must be read together. This distinction prevents automatic assessments made in the abstract as an “organisation file”. K2, K3
How is the conditional release ratio determined?
Article 107(4) of Law No. 5275: the general framework for organised crime
For establishing or leading an organisation for the purpose of committing crime, for offences committed within the activity of an organisation, and for convictions under this paragraph, conditional release requires that two-thirds of the fixed-term prison sentence be served with good conduct. However, for offences whose conditional release ratio is higher than two-thirds, their own ratios apply. The paragraph sets thirty-six years for aggravated life imprisonment and thirty years for life imprisonment. The upper limits in the same paragraph and the special rules that apply where there are several sentences are examined separately. This paragraph does not apply to children. K1
TMK Article 17: three-quarters for fixed-term terrorism sentences
Article 17 of the TMK provides that, for convictions under that Law, Articles 107(4) and 108 of Law No. 5275 apply, and it fixes the ratio for fixed-term prison sentences at three-quarters. The reduction of the general organised-crime ratio to two-thirds did not remove this special provision. For this reason, it is incorrect to calculate a terrorism conviction at two-thirds by taking a single sentence from Article 107 alone. K1, K2
| Feature of the file | Rule to examine first | Separate check required |
|---|---|---|
| General organised crime, fixed-term imprisonment | Law No. 5275, Article 107(4): two-thirds | A heavier ratio for the offence, recidivism and dates |
| Fixed-term imprisonment under the TMK | TMK Article 17: three-quarters | The bar on conditional release and childhood |
| Second recidivism | Current Article 108(3) | The 2025 amendment, and the conviction and offence dates |
| Offence committed by a child | Child-specific Article 107 and transitional provisions | Adult ratios are not applied automatically |
| Aggravated life imprisonment | The relevant offence, Article 107(16) and TMK Article 17 | Conditional release is not applied at all in some convictions |
The table is not a release calculator. Several rows may matter in the same file, and it must be determined which rule applies to which sentence.
How do recidivism and childhood affect the outcome?
Following Law No. 7550, a possibility of conditional release based on three-quarters of a fixed-term prison sentence was introduced for second recidivism. Earlier statements that “conditional release can never be applied” to all second repeat offenders therefore do not agree with the current text. However, independent bans arising from the specific offence, and their application in time, continue to be examined. For details, see the article on the enforcement regime for recidivism and repeat offenders. A related topic is the enforcement of several sentences and aggregation. K1
The fact that Article 107(4) does not apply to children does not mean an automatic half-rate for every offence. The provisions on children in Article 107(2), the type of offence and its connection with special laws are assessed together. In addition, the amendment made to Article 107(5) by Law No. 7593 and transitional Article 6(4), which concerns earlier offences, contain different calculation rules. Consequences relating to childhood cannot be determined only by the person’s present age. K1, K8
In which cases may conditional release not apply?
TMK Article 17 sets out special obstacles for persons convicted of offences within its scope, such as conviction for escape or rebellion and the three cell punishments listed in that article. Although cell punishments have been abolished, the specific consequence of the judgment is still assessed separately. The Law also contains a provision on committing a further offence under the same Law after a TMK conviction has become final. In every case, the type and number of disciplinary decisions, whether they have become final and the legal conditions must be documented. K2
The bar in TMK Article 17 on aggravated life imprisonment, and the separate bar on aggravated life imprisonment for certain organised offences against State security, the constitutional order and national defence under Article 107(16) of Law No. 5275, are separate grounds. The same result cannot be drawn for all life sentences. On the other hand, where conditional release is legally closed, a supervised-release date cannot be produced from the ratio calculation alone. K1, K2
Which conditions govern transfer to an open institution?
Direct admission to an open institution and later transfer are different
Article 5 of the Regulation on Transfer to Open Penal Institutions (Açık Ceza İnfaz Kurumlarına Ayrılma Yönetmeliği) excludes terrorism offences and the specified organisation offences from the general possibility of direct admission to an open institution. This does not mean that every convicted person must remain in a closed institution for the whole enforcement period. Transfer from a closed to an open institution is examined under Article 6 of the Regulation and, for obstacles, under Article 8. K3
Article 6(1) of the Regulation sets general time conditions that depend on the length of the sentence and the type of institution. Enforcement in a high-security institution may in particular create separate conditions. The presence of an additional condition for organised crime does not mean that these general time limits are never examined.
Routes through effective repentance and leaving the organisation
Under Article 6(2)(c) of the Regulation, for persons who benefit from the community reintegration provisions or from the effective repentance provisions, less than two years must remain until the conditional release date. Under Article 6(2)(ç), for persons convicted of terrorism and organised offences who are determined by the administrative and observation board (idare ve gözlem kurulu) to have left the organisation to which they belonged, a condition of less than one year is set. The requirements of these two routes must not be confused. K3 For details, see the article on benefiting from enforcement arrangements, the offence date and transitional provisions.
“Less than one year” and “one year or less” in Article 105/A are not the same. Even where the right to transfer to an open institution and a request for supervised release are examined together, the threshold words of each provision must be preserved. Good conduct, the finding that a person has left the organisation and the decision to transfer to an open institution are not interchangeable documents.
The board’s reasoning and the enforcement judge’s approval
Under Article 14(5) of Law No. 5275, board decisions on the transfer to an open institution of persons convicted of terrorism and of the specified organisation offences are implemented after the enforcement judge approves them. A board’s rejection decision is open to judicial review. The reasoning must show how the convicted person’s current situation relates to the reports in the file. Repeating the name of the offence alone does not discharge the separate duty of assessment. K1, K3, K7
How are supervised release and transitional arrangements distinguished?
The general conditions of Article 105/A
Under the general regime, the circumstances in which a person remains in an open institution, or is allowed to transfer to one as the law permits, are examined. These include good conduct, the request, the time left until conditional release and the enforcement judge’s decision. Having less than one year left is not sufficient on its own. The requirement introduced in 2025 of having spent at least one-tenth of the sentence and at least five days in the institution, and the exception for earlier offences in transitional Article 11, must also be evaluated according to the date of the file. K1
Transitional Articles 6 and 10 do not contain the same list of exceptions
Transitional Article 6(1) provides for three years of supervised release, subject to certain exceptions, for offences committed up to 30 March 2020. Offences under the TMK are excluded. However, not every organised offence is automatically outside this paragraph merely because of its organisational link; it must be examined whether the underlying offence falls within one of the other exceptions. Transitional Article 6(3) separately regulates persons in a closed institution who have good conduct. K1
Transitional Article 10(6) excludes both offences under the TMK and offences committed within the activity of an organisation from the early-transfer opportunity introduced for offences committed on or before 31 July 2023. The possibility of benefiting under one transitional provision does not remove the exception in another. The calculation cannot be made by combining selected advantages from different articles. The general process of supervised release is explained in the relevant application guide. K1
Reasoning and application strategy in light of actual decisions
Emre Kendir: why was the two-thirds request not accepted?
In the decision Emre Kendir, Application No. 2022/17941, 18 December 2024, the Constitutional Court (AYM) examined a request to apply the two-thirds ratio to a terrorism conviction after Law No. 7242. The Court found that, with the relevant amendments, the three-quarters ratio in TMK Article 17 was preserved, and it held the claims of legality and of related equality clearly unfounded. The practical result is that a change in the general provision cannot be separated from the special provision. K5
S.C.: not every refusal concerning leaving the organisation is a violation
In the decision S.C., Application No. 2022/27707, 19 November 2025, the Constitutional Court examined, under freedom of expression, the non-certification of sincerity about leaving the organisation and found no violation in the specific case. The Court stressed that the board must give relevant and sufficient reasons based on concrete facts and free from arbitrariness, and it assessed the link between the applicant’s statements and the reports. The complaint concerning the right to liberty and security was declared inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae. K6
The decision does not mean that every question or every ground of refusal is lawful in advance. In an objection, it must be shown which question is unrelated to the offence and to rehabilitation, which favourable report was not evaluated, or which concrete fact was misreported. Because the applicant’s identity is concealed in the official decision, only initials are used here. A related reading is the article on conditions for transfer to an open institution: refusal and objection.
Court of Cassation 2026: an unreasoned refusal may be set aside, but the release conditions are examined separately
In its decision E.2025/39, K.2026/2774 of 10 April 2026, the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi) draws a two-way distinction. It does not regard it as sufficient for good conduct to be refused on abstract assumptions after favourable assessment and repentance reports. However, finding a refusal unreasoned does not in itself lead to direct entitlement to supervised release without examining whether the conditions for transfer to an open institution and for leaving the organisation are met. Because those other conditions had not been examined, the decision of the objection authority was quashed. K7
For this reason, a petition should not be limited to a request to set aside the negative decision. It is useful to identify the records to be examined in the reassessment and any other conditions that have already been met. Reporting the decision merely as “the Court of Cassation ordered release” changes the real outcome of the judgment. For more detail, see the article on conditions for conditional release.
Academic assessment: a score does not replace reasoning
Hüseyin Şık’s 2026 study on good-conduct assessment and scoring examines the evaluation criteria of the system and its practical experience. The study adds to the debate that, in a file, one should look not only at the total score but also at the records and observations on which the score is based. An academic assessment is not binding judicial authority; it does not replace the current legislation or the concrete decision. K9
Which documents and time limits matter in an application?
The application file should contain the judgment and the finality endorsement, the sentence calculation sheet (müddetname), the deduction of time served (mahsup) and the recidivism decisions, all relevant board assessments, psychosocial service reports, education and work records, disciplinary decisions and information on whether they have been removed. A decision on leaving the organisation must be clearly separated from a decision on good conduct alone. If successive reports conflict, their dates should be compared and it should be checked whether there has been any concrete change.
For complaints against institutional actions, the period under Article 5 of Law No. 4675 is fifteen days from learning of the act and, in every case, thirty days from the act. An objection to an enforcement judge’s decision may be made within two weeks of notification. Waiting for the next assessment does not mean that the time limit against the earlier decision is preserved. A stay of execution does not arise automatically; the conditions in the law must be shown separately. K4 For a detailed explanation, the article on applying to the enforcement judgeship and objecting may be useful.
If an individual application to the Constitutional Court is considered after the ordinary remedies, the right alleged to have been violated, the interference, the lack of reasons and the exhaustion of remedies must be explained together. The Constitutional Court is not a general appellate authority that recalculates every enforcement computation. Individual application to the Constitutional Court in criminal cases completes the framework of rights and admissibility. For a separate evaluation of the subject, the article on criminal limitation and the end of enforcement may be consulted.
Conclusion
Enforcement in terrorism and organised crime cases is not simply a matter of choosing a two-thirds or a three-quarters ratio. The legal nature of the offence, special bars, the application in time, transfer to an open institution and the board’s individualised reasoning must be examined together. An effective application shows separately which concrete deficiency the refusal decision relies on, and how the other legal conditions for the desired outcome are met. This topic can also be read with the article on enforcement at home, at weekends and at night.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the three-quarters ratio apply to all organised crimes?
No. The general organised-crime regime and the TMK regime are different. The heavier ratio for the underlying offence, recidivism and the provisions on children are also taken into account separately.
Is transfer to an open institution completely prohibited for terrorism offences?
Direct admission to an open institution and transfer from a closed to an open institution are different. The special conditions in the Regulation and the provisions on persons who cannot be transferred to an open institution must be examined.
Does a good-conduct decision replace a finding that a person has left the organisation?
Not on its own. It must be determined which decision assessed which condition, and the conditions for transfer to an open institution and for supervised release must be examined together.
Are the 30 March 2020 and 31 July 2023 provisions the same?
No. The offence exceptions and the conditions relating to being in an institution are different. A condition or exclusion in one cannot be automatically transferred to the other.
Does finding a board decision unreasoned lead directly to release?
Not always. Annulment or a fresh assessment may be required. The other conditions of the requested enforcement procedure must also be met.
Should one wait for the next assessment after a negative board decision?
The time limits against the current decision run separately. Waiting for the next assessment does not preserve the time limit for a complaint against the earlier decision.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures (Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun), Arts. 14, 89, 98, 105/A, 107, 108 and transitional Arts. 6, 10, 11.
- Law No. 3713 on the Fight against Terrorism (Terörle Mücadele Kanunu), Arts. 3, 4, 17.
- Regulation on Transfer to Open Penal Institutions (Açık Ceza İnfaz Kurumlarına Ayrılma Yönetmeliği), Arts. 5, 6, 8, 10; current consolidated text.
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), Arts. 4–6.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Emre Kendir, Application No. 2022/17941, 18 December 2024, paras. 14–24.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), S.C., Application No. 2022/27707, 19 November 2025, in particular paras. 45–57 and the operative part.
- Court of Cassation, 1st Criminal Chamber, E.2025/39, K.2026/2774, 10 April 2026, reasoning paras. 3–5 and the operative part.
- Law No. 7593, Official Gazette, 18 August 2026, issue 33344, Arts. 7 and 16.
- Hüseyin Şık, “Hükümlülere İlişkin İyi Hâl Değerlendirmesi ve Yeni Bir Yöntem Olarak ‘Puanlama’: Türkiye’nin 5 Yıllık Uygulama Deneyimi” (Good-Conduct Assessment of Convicted Persons and Scoring as a New Method: Five Years of Practice in Türkiye), Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Law Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, 2026; DOI: 10.51120/NEUHFD.2026.201. Relevant sections on good conduct and transfer to open institutions.