Compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage may be claimed for unlawful pretrial detention and custody; however, not every claim is made before the same authority. Specific claims based on an acquittal or a decision of non-prosecution fall within the remit of the Compensation Commission (Tazminat Komisyonu), while other allegations of unlawfulness fall within the remit of the heavy penal court (ağır ceza mahkemesi). The basis of the application, the transitional provision that applies, and the dates of finality and service must be determined together. [1, Arts. 141–144; 2, Art. 5/B]
An acquittal alone does not show the amount to be paid. Loss of income, necessary expenses and the personal effects of deprivation of liberty must be explained separately. On the other hand, a conviction does not eliminate every possibility of compensation: unlawful pretrial detention, or custody exceeding the period of the sentence, may be examined separately.
This guide deals with measures applied during criminal investigations and prosecutions in Türkiye. The review of legislation and case law is current as of October 12, 2026. In a concrete file, the date of the measure, the outcome of the proceedings and the damage claimed may change the result.
In what circumstances can compensation be claimed?
Unlawfulness from the outset and compensation after an acquittal
Article 141/1-a of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 (CMK) governs apprehension, pretrial detention or the continuation of detention without the statutory conditions being met. Strong suspicion of an offense, grounds for pretrial detention, proportionality and the reasoning of the decision are parts of this review. In the application, rather than merely stating that an acquittal was delivered, identify the date of the measure challenged and the concrete deficiency at that date. [1]
Article 141/1-e of the CMK, on the other hand, treats a decision of non-prosecution or an acquittal after a lawful apprehension or pretrial detention as an independent ground for compensation. In this paragraph, it is not required to prove that the official who applied the measure was also at fault. Nevertheless, the time limit, the scope and the conditions relating to damage are examined; an acquittal in the criminal case does not automatically turn into a payment order.
Failure to bring a person before a judge within the custody period, detention without the benefit of statutory rights, failure to state the reasons, failure to notify relatives and denial of statutory means of application are also assessed under the relevant paragraphs. The facts and documents of each allegation must be kept separate. For example, comparing the time of apprehension with the time the person was brought before a judge is a different review from merely counting the days spent in prison. [1, Art. 141/1-b, c, g, h, k]
Special situations concerning conviction and judicial control
Article 141/1-f of the CMK covers custody and pretrial detention that exceed the length of the sentence imposed, and the imposition of a fine because the law provides only for a fine for the offense. The conversion of a prison sentence into a judicial fine as an alternative sanction at a later stage is not the same as a law providing only for a fine.
Calculating the term of the sentence and calculating conditional release are not identical either. Metiner's study discusses differing Court of Cassation approaches on this point, and opposes directly converting the passing of the conditional release date into a calculation under Article 141/1-f. This is an academic assessment. In the concrete file, the sentence imposed, crediting (mahsup), the enforcement calculation and whether the detention was in itself disproportionate must be examined separately. Rather than relying on the reference to Article 141/1-b in the article's explanation of a reasonable period, the relevant provisions of the law in force should be used. [11, pp. 213–214; 1]
Article 141/1-l of the CMK does not cover all judicial control obligations. Not leaving the residence and the treatment and examination obligation specified in the paragraph, including admission to hospital for overcoming dependence, are regulated as grounds for a decision of non-prosecution or acquittal, after those obligations have been applied. An obligation to sign a register and a travel ban cannot be listed under this paragraph solely because of an acquittal. If there is another allegation of unlawfulness, its basis is assessed separately. [1] For details, see the article on maximum periods of judicial control.
Should one apply to the Compensation Commission or to the heavy penal court?
Under the current system, jurisdiction is determined by the legal ground on which the claim rests. It is not enough to call the application merely "compensation for unlawful pretrial detention". Where more than one ground is asserted, the claim and its basis must be stated clearly for each.
| Basis of the claim | Competent authority | Key distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Claims under Article 141/1-e, f and l of the CMK | Compensation Commission | Acquittal or decision of non-prosecution, the special situations in paragraph f and certain judicial control measures |
| Claims under the other paragraphs of Article 141 of the CMK | Competent heavy penal court | Other violations raised in respect of the conditions of the measure, its implementation or the right of application |
| Joint claims falling within both groups | Separation by competence and examination | Their inclusion in the same petition does not require a single authority to examine them all |
Under the heavy penal court route, the rule is that the competent court is the heavy penal court where the injured person resides. If that court is connected with the act giving rise to compensation and there is no other heavy penal chamber in the same place, the nearest heavy penal court is competent. Compensation is claimed from the State; it is not an action directed personally at a judge or prosecutor. Whether the State may have recourse against the official, where the conditions are met, is a separate question. [1, Arts. 141/3–4, 142/2]
Two separate date checks for 1 June 2024
Transitional provisions are often presented as if they contained a single date rule. However, Article 6 of the CMK's transitional provisions contains two separate regulations:
• The amendments to Article 141 apply to decisions or judgments that became final after 1 June 2024. This concerns in particular the temporal scope of the newly added rights.
• The amendments to Article 142 apply to compensation claims made on or after 1 June 2024. Earlier claims are concluded under the earlier provisions until they become final. This makes the date of application important for the distinction of jurisdiction and procedure. [1, Transitional Art. 6/3–4]
Accordingly, for a file to be filed in 2026, jurisdiction should not be determined merely by looking at the date on which the acquittal became final. First determine the present legal basis of the claim, and then which amendment the transitional provision applies to. The appeal regime for earlier applications may also differ for this reason.
If the wrong authority is approached
Where claims within the Commission's remit have been submitted to the heavy penal court, or claims within the court's remit have been submitted to the Commission, the law provides a referral mechanism. In such referrals the date of the original application is preserved. However, this provision does not make an application made for the first time after its time limit has expired timely. The referral decision, the receipt of the original application and the new file number should be kept. [1, Art. 142/2; 2, Art. 5/B]
Another important distinction is this: the dispute described in the law as falling within the Commission's remit is resolved by the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal (Ankara Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi). An objection to a compensation decision of the Commission is examined by the Ankara Regional Administrative Court (Ankara Bölge İdare Mahkemesi). The names of the two authorities should not be used interchangeably.
How is the application period calculated?
Article 142/1 of the CMK and Article 5/B of Law No. 6384 on the Duties and Working Procedures of the Compensation Commission provide for a period of three months from service of the finality of the decision or judgment on the person concerned, and an upper limit of one year following the date of finality. Finality and service of finality are different events. Documents evidencing both should be in the file. [1–2]
It is risky to look only at the date of service, as if the full three months could be used; the one-year upper limit may expire earlier. The fact that finality has not been served does not leave the file open indefinitely. In the calculation, months and days should not be treated as equivalent, and the last-day and holiday rules should be examined separately.
| Step | Period and starting point | Point to watch |
|---|---|---|
| Compensation claim | Three months from service of finality; in every case one year following finality | The two dates are monitored together |
| Objection to a Commission decision | 15 days from service | Through the Commission, to the Ankara Regional Administrative Court |
| Appeal against a heavy penal court decision under the current regime | Two weeks from service of the reasoned decision | The appeal petition is submitted to the court that delivered the decision |
| Individual application to the Constitutional Court | 30 days from exhaustion of remedies; where there is no remedy, from learning of the violation | Learning of the final decision and electronic access records are important |
Fifteen days and two weeks are not the same period. For an objection to a Commission decision, the special provision of Law No. 6384 applies; for an appeal against a heavy penal court decision, the provisions of the CMK apply. [2, Art. 7; 1, Art. 273; 14, Art. 47/5]
Must finality of the acquittal be awaited for every compensation claim?
No. A claim based on an acquittal or a decision of non-prosecution must be distinguished from a violation that can be assessed independently of the outcome of the investigation. For allegations such as the exceeding of the custody period or the denial of the right of application, the decision that must become final depends on the concrete claim. A single rule that "you must be acquitted first" cannot be applied to all paragraphs. [1; 6]
In the decision in Oğuzhan Tekin, the Constitutional Court found that the complaint that the custody period had been exceeded was clearly without basis in the records of the event and the regulation then in force; it reached a finding of violation as regards the failure to decide the objection to detention. Different complaints by the same person had different outcomes. For this reason, each allegation in the petition must be built on its own dates and documents. The rules on custody for the past period applied in that decision cannot be transferred to every present file. [6, §§ 25–38]
How is the application file prepared?
An effective petition makes the relationship event → legal ground → damage → document → claim visible. First, the dates of apprehension, custody, pretrial detention, release and the final decision are set out chronologically. Then it is explained under which paragraph, for which period and what amount of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages is claimed. Where there are several criminal files or intermittent detention, the dates are shown separately; the same day is not counted twice. For this topic, the article on maximum periods of pretrial detention may also be consulted.
An application to the Commission must include identity and address details, the nature and amount of the damage, and supporting documents. Applications may also be made through the chief public prosecutors' offices; an application made in that way is protected by the law as to its date. The form on the Commission's official website concerning protective measures helps with the organization of the headings. The use of the form does not replace the description of the event and the damage. [2, Arts. 5, 5/B; 13]
Representation by a lawyer is not compulsory. Where there is representation, a power of attorney and service details are added. In the heavy penal court, the applicant is the party claiming compensation against the State; an application to the Commission is a special route of application within the same field of rights. A wrong opposing party or a wrong authority should not be left with a lack of legal basis.
| Matter to be proved | Priority documents | Effect on the claim |
|---|---|---|
| Measure and period of deprivation of liberty | Apprehension/custody record, decisions on pretrial detention and release, prison records | Determines the period and the measure applied |
| Right of application and its time limit | Decision bearing the note of finality, service document, receipt of application | Enables review of the basis, authority and time limit |
| Loss of income and employment | Payslips, SGK records, bank movements, tax records, contracts | The actual net loss and causation are assessed |
| Expenses and personal effects | Invoices/receipts, fee agreement, relevant health and education records | Explains the necessity, reasonableness and non-pecuniary effects of the expense |
Where a deficiency in the petition or documents can be remedied in court proceedings, a period of one month may be granted under Article 142/4 of the CMK. In the Commission route, through the reference to Article 5/B, there is also a one-month mechanism for completing missing information and documents. It is not correct to leave out the basic claim, amount and time information in reliance on this. Failure to complete a deficiency may lead to a dismissal. [1–2]
Documents should be attached to a numbered list of annexes; unnecessary identity, health and financial information relating to others should be removed. The applicant's own data should be presented to the extent necessary to prove the relevant allegation. Compensation already paid in the file and other claims relating to the same period should also be stated.
How is pecuniary compensation calculated?
Pecuniary damage is the difference between the economic position that would have existed if the measure had not been applied and the actual position. Not every outgoing payment is recoverable expense. The causal link with the measure, the actual loss and, where necessary, the reasonableness of the expense must be demonstrated. In M.K. and others, the Constitutional Court stressed that a speculative or hypothetical link to loss is not sufficient, and that it will intervene in the assessment of pecuniary damages only within the limits of constitutional review. [5, §§ 19–20]
An employee, a self-employed person and a person whose income cannot be documented
For an employee, the net wage before detention, the period for which it was not paid and any payments made later are examined. If the wage was not stopped, a loss of wages for the same period cannot be calculated as if it had been lost. Even so, there may be another provable pecuniary loss or non-pecuniary damage.
For a self-employed person or a business owner, turnover is not personal net earnings. Tax records, past periods, expenses, cancelled work and whether the business continued to operate without the person are important. The loss of the company and the partner's own loss must be kept separate. The statement "my work decreased" remains weak without records showing which contract ended and why.
The absence of an income document does not in every case make the rejection of pecuniary damages mandatory. In Tevhid Arıoğlu, the calculation of the loss of income on the basis of the net minimum wage for the relevant years was not found to be disproportionate in the concrete case. On the other hand, the non-pecuniary damages set for 147 days of custody and detention were found insufficient, and a finding of violation was made. The pecuniary and non-pecuniary items were assessed separately. This decision does not mean that every person will automatically receive payment at the minimum wage today. [8, §§ 5, 16–18]
The position of a student, a retired person or a person who was not working is also examined in its own conditions. A continuing retirement pension is not counted as loss of wages; additional earnings actually lost, education expenses or other damage may be separately documented. A loss relating to past years cannot be multiplied by the wage of the year of application without explanation.
Hypothetical example of loss of income
Assume that the net monthly income was 30,000 TL, that work was not possible for a 45-day period, and that the example calculation treats the month as 30 days. This amount is not the current minimum wage or a judicial tariff.
• Hypothetical daily net income: 30,000 / 30 = 1,000 TL.
• Hypothetical income for 45 days: 1,000 × 45 = 45,000 TL.
• If 10,000 TL of wages were paid later for the same period, the remaining loss: 35,000 TL.
35,000 TL is only the loss of income based on these assumptions. Non-pecuniary damages, interest or other expenses are not included in this figure. The actual calculation varies with payslips, changes in wages, the working period available, the amounts paid and the particular features of the event. The same loss should not be sought again in two separate applications.
Is the whole of the fee paid to a lawyer pecuniary damage?
A categorical answer on this point is misleading. The fee agreed with a lawyer, the fixed attorney's fee award (maktu vekâlet ücreti) imposed in the criminal case, and the cost of representation in the compensation process are different items. The agreement, the payment, and the legal assistance for which the fee was paid must be shown.
In Gülseren Çıtak, the Constitutional Court examined an approach that treated the imposition of a fixed attorney's fee award as sufficient in itself, and requested assessment of the relationship between the fees stated in the agreement and the part exceeding the fixed amount. The causal link between the measure and the fee, and whether the fee was necessary and reasonable, must be explained. This decision does not order the unconditional payment of the whole contractual fee. In Siyami Hıdıroğlu, too, rejection based on the date of a document, without examining whether the payment was actually made, was not found sufficient. [3, § 43; 4, §§ 37–40]
On the other hand, in Selçuk Aksoy, a complaint concerning an attorney's fee exceeding the fixed amount was examined within the framework of the right to property; on the assessment that there was no existing asset or legitimate expectation with a sufficient basis, a decision of lack of jurisdiction was given on that subject. In the same decision there was a violation as regards the failure to examine the complaint of seizure. It cannot be concluded from different constitutional review frameworks that "all fees are paid" or "none is paid". [9, §§ 16–27]
Non-pecuniary damages and the question of a daily amount
Non-pecuniary damage is not limited to loss of income. The restriction of liberty, its effect on family and social life, the nature of the accusation, the manner in which the measure was applied, and the person's age and professional situation are assessed together. Duration is an important element; however, multiplying a fixed amount by the number of days spent in detention is not a valid method for every case. [4, § 35]
In the comparison table in M.K. and others, a minimum non-pecuniary damages benchmark of 5,000 TL for one day of custody is given for 2026. This data is not a general payment tariff added to the CMK, nor an amount guaranteed in every application. It is the criterion the Constitutional Court used in its assessment of constitutional adequacy in similar events, and it should be read together with the date of the decision and the concrete circumstances. It does not follow that pretrial detention compensation will be calculated at the same daily figure. [5, §§ 17–22 and annex table]
In R.A. and others, the decision explained that, when assessing the adequacy of compensation, effects on other rights, such as freedom of expression and assembly, must also be taken into account. As a rule, the date to be taken as the basis for the adequacy comparison is the date of the decision that fixes the compensation; where the amount has been changed on appeal, the relevant appellate decision becomes important. Interest may also be included in the assessment. [7, §§ 18–21, 28]
For this reason, a claim should set out the personal effects concretely: did the measure interrupt the education period, affect a family member needing care, or cause a specific event affecting professional reputation? Where there is a health document, it should be linked to the relevant allegation. However, it cannot be asserted that every claim for non-pecuniary damage must necessarily be supported by a psychiatric report.
On what grounds can a claim be rejected?
Expiry of the time limit, the claim not falling within the scope of the relevant paragraph, failure to prove the damage, or the lack of a link between the damage and the measure may be grounds for rejection. Defenses that the other side has paid, that there was no loss of income, or that the claim repeats the same damage must be answered on the basis of the documents.
Article 144 of the CMK makes certain special exceptions for persons lawfully apprehended or detained. Results arising from grounds such as amnesty, withdrawal of a complaint or settlement; the absence of a penalty because of lack of capacity to be culpable; and the assumption of an offense through a false statement are examined under the relevant provision. Termination of proceedings or deferment of the pronouncement of judgment is not the same decision as an acquittal. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that every decision of termination removes all the different allegations of unlawfulness without examining the conditions of Article 144. [1]
In Muhammed-ül Emin Bastın, the Constitutional Court examined the claim concerning detention in the period 2003–2005 and the termination of the criminal case by the statute of limitations. Because the measure predated 1 June 2005, the application of Law No. 466 was decisive, and the complaint against the rejection was found clearly without basis. Although the decision is dated 2026, the former legal regime on which it relied cannot be generalized to all present applications. [10, §§ 37–41]
Furthermore, compensation already paid may in some circumstances be recovered. Article 143 of the CMK regulates situations such as the filing of a case and conviction after a decision of non-prosecution, or the reversal of an acquittal into a conviction following a reopening against the accused. For this reason, the compensation decision and subsequent developments in the criminal file should be followed together. [1]
How is a rejection or a low compensation decision challenged?
An objection to a Commission decision is made through the Commission to the Ankara Regional Administrative Court within 15 days from service. The court decides first and at the latest within three months; the decision is final. In an objection, it is not enough to say the amount is low; the documents not properly examined, the wrong period or the personal effect that was disregarded should be specified. [2, Art. 7]
Against the merits decision of the heavy penal court, there is a route of appeal (istinaf). Under the current regime, the decision of the regional court of appeal on this matter is final. However, for compensation claims made before 1 June 2024, the earlier procedure must be checked separately because of the transitional provision. It is not correct to assume that every file will necessarily go to the Court of Cassation at the end. For a rejection made because of a deficiency in the petition, a special objection provision exists in Article 142/4 of the CMK. [1]
The amount of the claim and the later increase of it should be assessed from the outset. Ceylan's study sets out a debate on the basis and method of applying HMK institutions in compensation actions concerning protective measures. For this reason, it should not be assumed that the amendment of the claim or the rules on uncertain claims in an ordinary civil action will apply automatically in all their features. It is important to frame the pecuniary and non-pecuniary claims separately in the initial petition, in a calculable and documented way. [12, pp. 984–988]
The place of the Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights routes
The Constitutional Court (AYM) is not an authority that recalculates loss like an ordinary appeal. After the relevant effective remedies have been exhausted, complaints may be raised that the compensation is so inadequate as to weaken the essence of a constitutional right, or that a decisive allegation was not examined. According to Gülseren Çıtak, exhausting the route under Article 141/1-e after an acquittal or decision of non-prosecution may be sufficient for a complaint of inadequate compensation in that context; a requirement to bring an action under Article 141/1-a is not necessarily applicable. The relevant application and objection routes under the current division of competence must still be followed. [3, §§ 36–40]
The thirty-day period for an individual application to the Constitutional Court must be carefully monitored. In M.K. and others, one of the joined applications was found inadmissible for lateness because of a record of learning through UYAP, and the complaint of the applicant M.K. was found inadmissible as a repeated application because it had already been examined. A finding of violation in respect of other applicants does not mean that the applications of everyone in the same decision were accepted. [5, §§ 5–11]
For the European Court of Human Rights, as a rule, effective domestic remedies, including an application to the Constitutional Court, must be exhausted, and the four-month period running from the final decision must be observed. Article 5/5 of the Convention guarantees an enforceable right to compensation for deprivation of liberty contrary to Article 5. It should not be assumed that a later ineffective or wrong application restarts the period before the European Court. [15, Arts. 5, 35]
The prolongation of the compensation action itself is a separate matter. An application for trial within a reasonable time under Article 5/A of Law No. 6384 should not be confused with compensation for a protective measure under Article 5/B. The grounds and periods are different; the use of one route does not automatically satisfy the conditions of the other claim. [2; 5, §§ 23–25]
Costs, interest and payment of compensation
Applications to the Commission are exempt from court fees, and the application documents are exempt from stamp duty. This exemption does not mean that there is no fee arising from a contract with a lawyer. In the heavy penal court route, the special limits in Article 142/9 of the CMK on the attorney's fee award are taken into account; the cost consequences of the two procedures should not be treated as identical. [1–2]
If interest is claimed, the claim, the start date and the legal basis must be stated clearly. Loss of income, non-pecuniary damages and interest are separate items. It is not correct to apply a single rate to changing periods without reasons, or to assume that interest not claimed will necessarily be awarded of its own motion.
Payment of a compensation decision of the Commission that has become final is made by the Ministry of Justice within three months from the date it becomes final. In the case of a heavy penal court decision, under Article 142/10 of the CMK, a written application with bank account details is made to the defendant administration after the decision becomes final; a period of thirty days is provided for payment. Enforcement proceedings based on a judgment cannot be commenced before this administrative application process has been completed. The three months for the Commission and the thirty days beginning with the written application in the heavy penal court route should not be confused. [2, Art. 7/5; 1, Art. 142/10]
The compensation right within the scope of this guide is not limited to citizens. However, administrative detention of foreign nationals or deprivation of liberty for the purpose of extradition of offenders does not automatically become the same CMK application merely because it deprived the person of liberty; the separate legal regime of that measure is examined.
An application for compensation does not end ongoing pretrial detention or automatically suspend the enforcement of the sentence. Release, objection to detention and applications relating to enforcement serve different purposes. Requests for immediate recovery of liberty and for remedy of past damage should be planned together, and should not be used in place of one another.
For details, see our article on the right to liberty and security.
Conclusion
A strong file in a claim for compensation for unlawful pretrial detention and custody is not based merely on an acquittal decision or a high claimed amount. The correct legal ground, the correct authority, a protected time limit and documented damage are required together. In particular, the distinction between the Commission and the heavy penal court, the transitional provisions of 1 June 2024, and the joint monitoring of the three-month period and the one-year upper limit form the foundation of the application.
For pecuniary damages, the real economic loss must be explained; for non-pecuniary damages, the concrete effects experienced by the person must be explained. Decisions give an indication of the direction of this assessment but do not guarantee the result. A single chronology prepared before the application, together with an annex list linking each claim to its document, makes clear on what ground and in what amount the right is claimed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does everyone who is acquitted receive compensation automatically?
No. The relevant protective measure, the legal scope, the time limit for application and the damage are examined. Payment is not made automatically because an acquittal has been delivered; a claim is made within the conditions for application.
Can staying in custody for one day be enough for an application?
Yes. A single day in custody may also be the subject of a compensation claim under the relevant statutory conditions. However, the amount is not fixed for everyone; the assessment of non-pecuniary damages is made according to the concrete facts.
Is the period for applying to the Compensation Commission one month?
For an application under Article 5/B concerning a protective measure, the basic period is three months from service of finality, and an upper limit of one year following finality. The separate application for trial within a reasonable time should not be carried over here. See the period table.
Can a convicted person claim compensation?
Yes, if the conditions are met. Independent grounds, such as a measure applied unlawfully or custody exceeding the period of the sentence, may be assessed. A conviction does not eliminate every possibility of compensation.
Are house arrest and the obligation to sign in the same category?
No. Article 141/1-l of the CMK specifically regulates not leaving the residence and the specified treatment obligation. Not every judicial control obligation after an acquittal gives rise to compensation under the same paragraph.
Can an application be made without a lawyer?
Yes. Representation by a lawyer is not compulsory. The applicant must nevertheless identify the correct authority, the time limit, the heads of damage and the documents. The file preparation section explains the necessary connections.
If my wages continued to be paid, can I receive no compensation at all?
A claim cannot be made as if there had been a loss for the same wage that was paid. However, there may be other documented pecuniary damage or non-pecuniary damage. These are assessed separately.
Is the period to object to a Commission decision two weeks?
No. The period to object to a Commission decision is 15 days from service. It should not be confused with the two-week period for appeal against a current heavy penal court decision.
Does a compensation application bring about release?
No. Compensation is aimed at remedying past damage. For ongoing pretrial detention, the release and objection routes must be used separately.
When is compensation that has been awarded paid?
For a Commission decision, there is a payment schedule of three months from finality; for a heavy penal court decision, there is a payment schedule of thirty days from the written application with bank details after finality. The procedural distinction in the section on collection should be observed.
Sources and legal bases
[1] Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), in particular Articles 141–144, 273 and Transitional Article 6. Current consolidated text.
[2] Law No. 6384 on the Duties and Working Procedures of the Compensation Commission (Tazminat Komisyonunun Görevleri ile Çalışma Usul ve Esasları Hakkında Kanun), in particular Articles 5, 5/A, 5/B and 7. Current consolidated text.
[3] Constitutional Court, General Assembly, Gülseren Çıtak, Application No. 2020/1554, April 27, 2023, §§ 36–43. Full text of the decision.
[4] Constitutional Court, General Assembly, Siyami Hıdıroğlu, Application No. 2018/11489, January 11, 2024, §§ 29–40. Full text of the decision.
[5] Constitutional Court, First Section, M.K. and others, Application No. 2021/11093, February 17, 2026, §§ 5–25 and compensation table. Full text of the decision.
[6] Constitutional Court, First Section, Oğuzhan Tekin, Application No. 2022/93576, January 6, 2026, §§ 25–38. Full text of the decision.
[7] Constitutional Court, Second Section, R.A. and others, Application No. 2020/20839, May 13, 2025, §§ 18–21, 28. Full text of the decision.
[8] Constitutional Court, Second Section, Tevhid Arıoğlu, Application No. 2021/16430, January 25, 2024, §§ 5, 16–18. Full text of the decision.
[9] Constitutional Court, First Section, Selçuk Aksoy, Application No. 2022/70113, December 24, 2025, §§ 16–27. Full text of the decision.
[10] Constitutional Court, First Section, Muhammed-ül Emin Bastın, Application No. 2022/94701, July 22, 2026, §§ 37–41. Full text of the decision.
[11] Erçağ Metiner, "Koşullu Salıverme Süresinden Fazla Tutuklu Kalma Halinde CMK m. 141 Uyarınca Tazminat Ödenmesi Özelinde Tazminat Nedenleri Konusunda Beliren Sorunlar" ("Problems Emerging Regarding the Grounds for Compensation in the Context of Compensation Under Article 141 of the CMK in Cases of Detention Exceeding the Conditional Release Period"), Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Law Journal (Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 14(1), 2024, pp. 165–217, in particular pp. 213–214. Full text.
[12] Can Ceylan, "Yargıtayın Koruma Tedbirleri Nedeniyle Tazminat Davalarında Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu'nu Uygulamasının Bir Eleştirisi" ("A Critique of the Court of Cassation's Application of the Code of Civil Procedure in Compensation Actions Arising from Protective Measures"), Sakarya University Faculty of Law Journal (Sakarya Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 13(2), 2025, pp. 978–992, in particular pp. 984–988. Article page.
[13] Ministry of Justice, Compensation Commission Presidency, Application Form for Protective Measures (CMK). Official forms.
[14] Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kuruluşu ve Yargılama Usulleri Hakkında Kanun), Articles 45–47. Current consolidated text.
[15] European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 5 and 35; Turkish translation published by the European Court of Human Rights. Convention.