Non-payment of a judicial fine (adli para cezası) does not erase the penalty. Under the general regime, the number of days corresponding to the unpaid portion is converted into imprisonment by the public prosecutor's decision, and a decision is made to have the person work in public-benefit work. Failure to comply with the programme may mean that the remaining period is served in an open penal institution. Special situations, such as judgments concerning children and bounced-cheque convictions, are subject to different rules. The payment order, the instalment decision, the amount paid and the service of notice must all be reviewed on the file.
Which obligations and sanctions are separate from a judicial fine?
A judicial fine is a criminal sanction
A judicial fine is imposed by the court and paid to the Treasury. It is not the same as compensation owed to a victim, litigation costs, attorney's fees or an administrative fine. For example, non-payment of a traffic administrative fine does not, for that reason alone, permit conversion into imprisonment under Article 106 of Law No. 5275 [1] [2]. Where a file contains several payment items at the same time, the legal nature of each one must be separated.
The payment of a sum to the victim also does not by itself end the Treasury's claim for the judicial fine. In some offences, compensation of the damage or withdrawal of a complaint may have specific consequences; for these, the relevant provision of that offence and the stage of the decision must be examined. A convicted person saying “I have paid the debt” and establishing which claim a payment receipt relates to are different questions.
Where a final judgment is examined, it must be determined whether the fine was imposed on its own, together with imprisonment, or as an alternative sanction in place of short-term imprisonment. This distinction can be decisive for the rules that apply in time, especially in files relating to older offences. A current internet explanation cannot be applied in the same way to every historical period.
Converting imprisonment into a fine and converting a fine into imprisonment are not the same procedure
Article 50 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) provides for converting a short-term prison sentence into an alternative sanction when the judgment is delivered. Enforcement of an unpaid judicial fine, on the other hand, takes place after the judgment becomes final, under Article 106 of Law No. 5275. Where the judicial fine was converted from imprisonment and is not paid, the Article 106 regime is generally considered. Article 50/6 of the TCK, which concerns failure to comply with alternative measures, cannot be equated with the payment procedure for a judicial fine. [1] [2]
How are the sentence amount and the number of days to be converted into imprisonment determined?
The number of days in the judgment and the daily amount are separate
Under the system in Article 52 of the TCK, the court first determines the full number of days and then, taking into account the person's economic and other personal circumstances, sets the amount for each day. Unless the law provides otherwise, the number of days cannot be fewer than five or more than 730. In the current text, the amount for one day is between 100 and 500 Turkish lira (TL). The increase made by Law No. 7499, which took effect on June 1, 2024, and the principle of the more favourable law under Article 7 of the TCK, are also taken into account for earlier offences. [2]
A daily amount stated in an old final judgment is not redetermined by the enforcement prosecutor merely because the current limits have been raised. For the enforcement calculation, the number of days stated in the judgment, the daily amount, the payment records and any adaptation decision are used. The answer to the question “How much is one day today?” does not authorise the same figure to be applied in every final file.
The 500 TL offset amount in Article 63 of the TCK is a different matter: it relates to the offset of an earlier restriction of liberty against a judicial fine. It cannot be said that every unpaid fine is automatically divided by 500 TL and converted into imprisonment. [2]
Hypothetical calculation: a partial payment affects the number of remaining days
For illustration only, suppose a judgment imposes a judicial fine of 36,000 TL, calculated as 180 days at 200 TL per day. A payment of 12,000 TL recorded in the file corresponds, in this example, to 60 days' worth. The 24,000 TL that remains unpaid equals 120 days. Under the general regime of Article 106/3, two hours of public-benefit work count as one day, so this portion corresponds to 240 hours of work. How the daily programme is set is determined by the supervised release directorate; the example does not give an automatic release date. [1]
In the same example, if a four-hour daily programme is assumed to have been properly set, then 240 hours of work equals 60 actual working days. The “one day's worth” and the “calendar day on which one goes to work” may therefore not be the same number. Records of the hours worked and of compliance with the programme should be kept carefully.
Penalties set directly as amounts under other laws, or older judgments in former currencies, are examined separately. For laws other than the TCK, special conversion rules such as the first provisional article of Law No. 5275 may apply. Dividing all judicial fines by a single fixed daily figure may undermine the day-based system already set in the judgment.
Which deadlines and documents should be checked when a payment order arrives?
The prosecutor's thirty-day procedure and the convicted person's payment period must not be confused
The judgment is sent to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office (Cumhuriyet başsavcılığı). Article 106/2 of Law No. 5275 provides that the prosecutor must serve a payment order within thirty days. This period does not mean that the convicted person always has thirty days from the date of the judgment to pay. The starting point of payment and of instalments must be determined from the time limit or instalment decision in the judgment and from the payment order properly served. In particular, the instalment option in Article 106/6 is built on a one-month period. The expressions “one month” and “thirty days” should not be used interchangeably. [1]
The file number on the payment order, the court decision, the total and remaining amounts, the description of the instalments, the date of service and the place of payment should be checked. Payment must be made through the official collection channel matched to the relevant enforcement file; the receipt should be submitted to the file and its entry in the enforcement record followed. If the bank receipt or collection document belongs to another file, this does not automatically stop enforcement for this penalty.
An irregular service must be made specific
If the defence is simply “I never received it”, without establishing to which address, to whom, when and by what method the notice was served, it may not be sufficient. The service certificate, address records and the relevant delivery or electronic service records should be requested. Where an irregularity is alleged, the date on which the person learned of the notice should also be documented, and the reason why the act is unlawful should be explained. The fact that a relative received the notice does not by itself show that the service is invalid. [6]
At which stage is payment in instalments possible?
The payment period and instalment decision made by the court under Article 52/4 of the TCK
Taking into account the economic and personal circumstances, the court may grant a payment period not exceeding one year from the date the judgment becomes final, or may decide that the penalty be paid in instalments. The total instalment period cannot exceed two years, and the number of instalments cannot be fewer than four. The decision must state that if one instalment is not paid on time, the entire remaining amount will be collected and the unpaid penalty converted into imprisonment. [2]
This decision belongs to the judgment stage. Once a schedule has been fixed in the final judgment, it does not become a new instalment plan merely because the person pays small sums unilaterally. Payment difficulties and erroneous collection transactions are different legal problems; requests should be addressed to the appropriate authority.
If the judgment contains no instalments, the one-third option at the enforcement stage
Under Article 106/6 of Law No. 5275, where the judgment contains no instalment arrangement, a convicted person who, within one month, pays one third of the penalty and requests it may pay the remaining part in two equal instalments at one-month intervals. A petition alone does not replace the one-third payment that the law requires. If the first instalment of the remaining part is not paid on time, the permission for the second instalment becomes void. [1]
| Option | Basic condition | Document to check in the file |
|---|---|---|
| Payment period in the judgment | Court decision under Article 52/4 of the TCK | Operative part of the judgment, date it became final |
| Instalments in the judgment | At least four instalments; total period of no more than two years | Judgment, schedule, payment receipts |
| Instalments at the enforcement stage | No instalments in the judgment; payment of one third within one month, and a request | Payment order, one-third payment, record of the request |
| Later payment of the balance | Payment of the amount other than days already served or days reduced by work | Current balance calculation and collection receipt |
Comparison of the two instalment routes
| Subject | TCK Article 52/4 | Law No. 5275, Article 106/6 |
|---|---|---|
| Stage | When the judgment is delivered | At the enforcement stage |
| Basic condition | Economic and personal circumstances assessed by the court | No instalments in the judgment; one-third payment within one month and a request |
| Structure | No more than two years; at least four instalments | Two equal instalments at one-month intervals for the remaining part |
| If payments lapse | The entire remaining amount is collected and the sentence enforced | If the first instalment is not paid, permission for the second instalment becomes void |
Where it is considered that a payment plan has been accepted, the written decision or record of the procedure must be in the file. The fact that an application was made does not mean that the requested instalment arrangement has been accepted.
How does the general enforcement process work if no payment is made?
The stage of work for the public benefit
Under Article 106/3 of Law No. 5275, the prosecutor converts the number of days corresponding to the unpaid portion into imprisonment and orders the person to work for the public benefit. Daily working time is at least two and at most eight hours, and is set by the supervised release directorate. Two hours of work count as one day. This system means that the rule that every unpaid judicial fine leads directly to prison cannot be stated; special statutory exceptions are reserved. [1]
The convicted person must follow the work schedule, summonses and warnings. A claim of illness or practical impossibility should not be pursued by abandoning the programme without contacting the officials. Reports and documents showing the excuse should be submitted to the file in good time so that a legal assessment of the programme and the decision can be requested.
The consequence of failing to comply with the programme
If the programme and the warnings and recommendations given by the officials within this scope are not followed, the days worked are offset and the remaining part is enforced in an open institution. What matters in the file is which summons was actually served, which obligation was not met, and how the hours worked were deducted. Breach findings and the balance calculation must be reviewed separately. [1]
Summonses, service records and warning records are important in supervising the transfer to enforcement in an institution. The procedure in Article 41/7 of the Probation Services Regulation, as cited in the Court of Cassation's decision of May 22, 2026, deals with the summons and application process within this scope and with the position of a person who is in an institution serving another sentence. In the specific application, the validity period of the summons and the consequences stated in it should be examined carefully. [7]
Even if the judgment does not state that the judicial fine will be converted into imprisonment, the general enforcement provision may apply under Article 106/5. However, that provision does not make an irregular service or an incorrect day calculation lawful.
Upper limits of imprisonment, conditional release and later payment
The three- and five-year limits do not erase the entire penal debt
Imprisonment served in place of a judicial fine may not exceed three years under a single judgment or five years across several judgments. These limits do not mean that the monetary debt is always fully and simultaneously extinguished. If the enforced imprisonment or work does not correspond to the whole penalty, the remaining amount is sent to the relevant fiscal authority for collection under Law No. 6183 on the Collection of Public Receivables (6183 sayılı Kanun) in accordance with Article 106/11. [1]
These periods are not limitation periods for the penalty. The approach that “I will serve at most three years and the whole debt will end” may lead to incorrect planning, both in terms of liberty and of assets. [1]
General supervised release and conditional release do not apply
Article 105/A/4 excludes the supervised release procedure in that article for a sentence converted into imprisonment because a judicial fine was not paid. Article 106/9 also provides that the conditional release provisions do not apply. Here, the work programme run by the supervised release directorate under Article 106/3 is different from release from prison under Article 105/A. The fact that the same institution carries out the procedures does not show that the same legal regime applies. [1]
The deferral ban in Article 106/9 has been drafted in the current text with the provisions of Article 16 reserved. Therefore, the conditions for deferring enforcement on health grounds, for example in cases of serious illness, must be examined separately. The generalisation “deferral is never possible under any circumstances” does not reflect the current law. As regards special enforcement procedures, the conditions and exceptions of Article 110 must be assessed in their own right.
Older offence dates also matter. In a 2026 decision, the Court of Cassation addressed the historical application distinction for judicial fines converted from short-term imprisonment for offences committed between June 1, 2005 and March 1, 2008. The current general rule should therefore not be presented as an absolute statement covering all earlier periods. [7]
If the balance is paid, enforcement may end
If a convicted person pays the amount for the days other than those already served through imprisonment or work, they are released from prison or the public-benefit work ends. The current balance calculation should therefore be obtained. If there is another judgment, pretrial detention or another bar to enforcement, paying the debt in this case alone does not show that the person will be released in respect of all files. [1]
Special enforcement options on health and maternity grounds
It cannot be said that all special enforcement routes are closed for imprisonment converted from a judicial fine. Article 110/3 of the current text provides for enforcement in a residence where, due to serious illness or disability, the person cannot sustain their life alone under institutional conditions and does not pose a serious and concrete danger to public safety; imprisonment converted from judicial fines is expressly included. The health determination required is subject to the procedure in Article 16/3. [1]
Article 110/4 provides a separate option of enforcement in a residence for women convicted, after giving birth, for specified periods and subject to other conditions. The general exclusion in Article 110/9 is subject to the third and fourth paragraphs. For these special routes, financial difficulty alone is not sufficient; the health, time and personal conditions of each must be documented. A special enforcement decision does not automatically convert the regime based on the judicial fine into the regime for a prison sentence. [1]
Special rules in files concerning children and bounced cheques
A judicial fine imposed on a child cannot be converted into imprisonment
Under Article 106/4, where a judicial fine imposed on children is not paid, conversion into imprisonment is not possible; the collection regime applies. The assessment must not be reduced merely to the person's age as recorded in the population register on the day of the payment order. The nature of the conviction, as relating to an offence committed as a child, must be examined. This provision does not remove an independent prison sentence imposed on a child. [1]
The exception for public-benefit work in bounced-cheque convictions
Under Article 5/11 of Law No. 5941 on Cheques (Çek Kanunu), if the judicial fine imposed for the relevant offence is not paid, the law provides for direct conversion into imprisonment without a decision to have the person work for the public benefit. This special provision must be set out separately from the general description of the process. Article 6 of the same law also contains specific consequences where the cheque amount is paid in full with the statutory interest, or where the complaint is withdrawn. Where the judgment is removed by the court with all its consequences after finality, this is a different route from the Treasury's collection of the judicial fine. [4] The related article on restoration of forfeited rights may also be consulted on this subject.
What do the actual court decisions show?
Constitutional Court: majority and dissent on the conditional release ban
In its decision of May 13, 2010, E.2009/15, K.2010/64, the Constitutional Court (AYM) rejected the objection to the first sentence of Article 106/9 as it then read. The majority found that persons sentenced directly to imprisonment and persons whose prison sentence was converted from a judicial fine are not in the same legal position, and considered the possibility of later payment. Four members dissented, drawing attention to equality and criminal justice concerns in relation to deprivation of liberty. [5]
This decision predates the 2014 amendment to the public-benefit work system and the express addition of the exception in Article 16 in 2020. Current procedures cannot be carried out under the statutory text that the earlier decision relied on; the constitutional debate in the decision and the current enforcement stages must be kept separate.
Court of Cassation: the validity of a notice served on a relative must be examined separately
In its decision of May 3, 2024, E.2024/1075, K.2024/3133, the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi) held that a notice concerning the enforcement of a judicial fine need not be handed personally to the convicted person in order to be valid. In the case at hand, the effect of a notice served on an older brother living in the same residence on the interruption of the limitation period was assessed, and the decision based solely on the fact that it was not received personally was quashed. This outcome does not mean that every delivery to a relative is valid; the statutory conditions for service still apply. [6] For more on this subject, see the article on limitation of criminal liability and termination of enforcement.
1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, May 22, 2026: enforcement together with other prison sentences
In the decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated May 22, 2026, no. 2024/1070 E., 2026/4225 K., the question was discussed whether days converted from a judicial fine should be treated in the same calculation as directly imposed prison sentences. The Chamber stated that the part converted from the fine cannot be subject to an aggregation decision before it reaches the stage of enforcement in an institution. The position of a person who is in the public-benefit work stage must remain visible in the sentence calculation sheet (müddetname). [7]
The decision also accepted that the imprisonment converted from a judicial fine cannot be absorbed within the 28-year conditional release limit set for other fixed-term prison sentences. When the enforcement stage in an institution is reached, the specific rules of Article 106 apply. The importance of this decision is that it shows in concrete terms that not all enforcement items described with the word “prison” are subject to the same regime. [7]
How should an application against an erroneous procedure be prepared?
Complaints against the enforcement decisions of the public prosecutor are examined by the enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği). The petition should set out in concrete terms the incorrect number of days, a payment that was not taken into account, an irregular service, the person's childhood status, or a special provision that was not applied. The final judgment, the payment order, the service record, the collection receipts, the work schedule and the decision to convert into imprisonment should be submitted together. A remedy against the merits of the conviction, namely an appeal (istinaf) or an appeal to the Court of Cassation (temyiz), does not replace an application concerning the enforcement of a final sentence. [3]
Under Article 5 of Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships, the period for a complaint is fifteen days from learning of it, and in every case thirty days from the act. An objection to the enforcement judge's decision may be made within two weeks of its service. An application does not automatically stop enforcement; if there is a clear unlawfulness and consequences that are difficult to remedy, a request for a stay may be made separately, with those points demonstrated. The articles on applying to and objecting before the enforcement judgeship and on objecting to the sentence calculation sheet and correcting the enforcement account complete this stage. Where several sentences are to be enforced together, the article on enforcement and aggregation of multiple sentences may also be consulted. [3]
List of documents for an effective application
- The final judgment and the operative part stating the daily amount.
- The payment order, the service record and records relating to knowledge of it.
- Receipts for all payments made and records of how they were entered in the file.
- The instalment or payment-period decision and the payment schedule.
- The decision to have the person work for the public benefit, the summons, the programme, the warnings and the hours records.
- Health or other excuse documents and records showing that they were submitted.
- The decisions converting into imprisonment, sending to an institution and, where applicable, aggregating.
For example, if it is alleged that a payment was not recorded, the date, amount and file number of the receipt, and the balance item it changed, should be clearly stated. Against an allegation of non-compliance with the work obligation, instead of merely saying “I did work”, the attendance schedule, assignment records and warning records should be submitted. A strong application links every claim directly to the relevant act.
Are the subject of the application and a request concerning the calculation governed by the same procedure?
Complaint against an enforcement step concerning the fine
Where it is alleged that a specific act of the prosecutor's office concerning conversion into imprisonment or public-benefit work is unlawful, the complaint regime under Law No. 4675 is examined, showing the date of the act and the date on which the person learned of it. By contrast, a request to resolve a doubt in the calculation of the sentence to be served may be of a different nature under Article 98/1-b of Law No. 5275. The 15- and 30-day periods explained above should not be applied automatically to every dispute over the calculation. The two-week period for objecting to an enforcement judgeship decision that has already been given must, however, be protected separately. [1] [3]
The work file of a person held in prison
The fact that a decision for public-benefit work has been issued in respect of a person who is held in an institution because of another prison sentence does not show that this work can actually be performed in the institution. Under Article 41/7 of the Probation Services Regulation and the 2026 decision, the file concerned may be held pending enforcement after release. In that case, it cannot be assumed that the stage of enforcement in an institution has been reached solely on the basis of a “converted into imprisonment” entry. [7]
That a work file is held pending does not mean that the judicial fine is erased. The ability to pay, the number of remaining days and how the work obligation will be carried out in future are assessed separately. In particular, for fines that coexist with long-term prison sentences, the detailed examination of aggregation and the 28-year limit is complementary.
The records must corroborate one another
The payment order, the collection receipt and the balance record at the enforcement office should all show the same file. The hours scheduled in public-benefit work and the hours actually worked should be distinguished. If the stage of enforcement in an institution has been reached, earlier payments and work must be deducted from the remaining period. The purpose of the review is not for the person merely to submit a document, but to explain how that document changes the enforcement result alleged to be wrong.
Conclusion
In judicial fine matters, effective legal work separates the question of ability to pay from the lawfulness of the enforcement step. A timely instalment request, recording of a payment against the correct file, deduction of work hours and the identification of special statutory provisions can each have direct consequences. Where an unpaid amount is to be assessed for conversion into imprisonment, it is not sufficient to calculate based only on the total sum of money; the final judgment and all enforcement records must be examined together.
For legal support in criminal proceedings and enforcement, you may review our criminal law services.
Related articles: Converting a Prison Sentence into a Fine.
Frequently Asked Questions
If a judicial fine is not paid, does one go directly to prison?
Under the general regime of Article 106/3, there is a stage of work for the public benefit. Special statutory exceptions, such as bounced-cheque convictions, are assessed separately.
If the court did not grant instalments, are instalments no longer possible?
Article 106/6 allows the remaining amount to be paid in two equal instalments on condition that one third is paid within one month and a request is made. A petition alone is not sufficient.
What changes if part of the money is paid?
When the payment is recorded in the file, the calculation of the days for the unpaid portion changes. A partial payment does not mean that a new instalment plan has been approved.
Can payment be made after entering prison?
If the amount for the days other than those already served is paid, the imprisonment for that penalty ends. Restrictions on liberty arising from other files are assessed separately.
When three years of imprisonment have been served, is the entire monetary debt erased?
Not always. If the imprisonment or work does not correspond to the whole penalty, the collection of the remaining amount as a public receivable may arise.
Is there supervised release for imprisonment converted from a judicial fine?
The procedure for leaving prison under Article 105/A does not apply. The public-benefit work under Article 106/3 is a different enforcement mechanism.
Does every 500 TL of debt equal one day of imprisonment?
No. The 500 TL under Article 63 of the TCK relates to the offset of an earlier restriction of liberty against a judicial fine. The day equivalent of the unpaid portion is determined according to the final judgment and the applicable enforcement rules. [1] [2]
What does two hours of public-benefit work correspond to?
Under the system of Article 106/3, it corresponds to one day. The daily programme is set at a minimum of two and a maximum of eight hours; the number of days corresponding to the penalty may differ from the number of calendar days on which work is actually performed. [1]
Are the three- and five-year periods limitation periods?
No. These are the upper limits of imprisonment served in place of a judicial fine. The collection of the remaining monetary portion and any limitation period are assessed separately under their own provisions. [1]
Is enforcement in a residence never possible for imprisonment converted from a judicial fine?
Such an absolute generalisation is not correct. The current Articles 110/3 and 110/4 contain special conditions relating to health or childbirth. The statutory conditions and the necessary documents are assessed separately. [1]
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Penalties and Security Measures (Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun), Articles 4, 16, 105/A/4, 106, 110 and provisional Article 1. Official text
- Law No. 5237 on the Turkish Penal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu), Articles 7, 50, 52 and 63; notes on amendments and entry into force relating to Law No. 7499. Official text
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), Articles 4–6. Official text
- Law No. 5941 on Cheques (Çek Kanunu), Articles 5/11 and 6. Official text
- Constitutional Court (AYM), E.2009/15, K.2010/64, May 13, 2010, merits review, outcome and dissenting opinions; concerning the text of the law at the date of the decision. Decision text
- Court of Cassation, 1st Criminal Chamber, E.2024/1075, K.2024/3133, May 3, 2024, reasoning paragraphs 2–3 and the judgment. Decision text
- Court of Cassation, 1st Criminal Chamber, May 22, 2026, 2024/1070 E., 2026/4225 K., in particular Part II (Reasoning), paragraphs 3–10, and Part III (Judgment). Decision text