Objection to a Decision of Non-Prosecution (KYOK): Filing Deadline, Effective Petition and Re-investigation on New Evidence

An objection to a decision of non-prosecution allows the victim of the offence to have the Public Prosecutor's decision not to bring a public action reviewed by the criminal judgeship of peace. For decisions issued on or after June 1, 2024, the deadline is two weeks from notification of the decision. For decisions issued earlier, the former fifteen-day rule applies. An effective application must explain, with concrete documents, the error in the reasoning of the decision, the investigation that was not carried out and the effect of that investigation on the suspicion of an offence. K1

Filing the same complaint again after an objection has been rejected and requesting a re-investigation on the basis of new evidence are different routes. The assessment of new evidence, the supervision of the criminal judgeship of peace and any constitutional application deadlines must be addressed separately. This guide explains these distinctions and the basic points of petition preparation in criminal investigations in Türkiye.

What does a decision of non-prosecution mean?

A decision not to prosecute, in short KYOK, is a decision given by the Public Prosecutor at the end of an investigation. Article 172(1) of the CMK provides for two basic grounds: that no evidence has been obtained that would create enough suspicion to justify bringing a public action, or that there is no possibility of prosecution. It does not mean that the complaint is necessarily untrue or that the suspect has been acquitted by a court. K1

In the first case, the prosecutor assesses whether the evidence obtained is sufficient to bring a case. In the second case, the requirement of a complaint, the statute of limitations or another legal obstacle may be decisive. For this reason, a petition cannot be prepared by looking only at the operative part of the decision. An objection to a decision based on insufficiency of evidence is not the same as an objection to a decision based on a legal obstacle that prevents the bringing of a case.

Sufficient suspicion is not the same standard as the definitive proof required for a conviction. However, not every allegation requires the drafting of an indictment. Under Article 160 of the CMK, the prosecutor investigates evidence both in favour of and against the suspect. The task of the objecting party is not merely to list the incriminating documents, but to explain why the existing file is suitable for bringing a case, or which deficiency must be completed before such a conclusion can be reached. K1

KYOK, the decision not to open an investigation and acquittal are different

A decision not to open an investigation, SYOK, is given under Article 158(6) of the CMK. An abstract or general report, or the clear understanding without any need for inquiry that the reported act is not an offence, may form the basis of this decision. At this stage the person complained of is not given the status of suspect. An SYOK may also be objected to under the procedure of Article 173; if the objection is accepted, investigative acts are started. K1

In a supplementary decision of non-prosecution, a public action may not be brought against some persons or acts in the file while the process continues in respect of others. The objection petition must clearly show which person, act and part of the decision it is directed against. The fact that a case has been brought against another person does not mean that the part of the decision objected to will automatically be re-examined.

Who may object to which decision, and where?

Under Article 173(1) of the CMK, the right to object is granted to the victim of the offence. Merely having made a report is not in every case sufficient for objecting to a KYOK. The applicant must show the connection between the legal interest protected by the alleged offence and his or her own harm. In applications made on behalf of a company, the harm to the legal person and the power of representation must be examined; in applications made on behalf of a child, the legal representation and any conflict of representation must be examined. For an SYOK, the special provision of Article 158(6) on informants and complainants is also taken into account. K1

The competent authority is the criminal judgeship of peace at the place where the Heavy Penal Court is located, within whose judicial district the prosecutor who issued the decision works. In every file, the judgeship in the applicant's place of residence is not competent. The notice of legal remedy in the decision, the judicial district of the prosecutor's office and the file numbers must be checked together.

The petition may be addressed to the competent criminal judgeship of peace and submitted to the relevant judicial unit; sending it through the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office that issued the decision is also an established method. For transactions carried out through UYAP with a secure electronic signature, the correct file and document type must be selected, the transmission must be completed and the record receipt must be kept. A draft prepared on a computer or uploaded to the system but not sent is not a filed application. The legal basis for electronic transactions is Article 38/A of the CMK. K1

Special decisions based on the prosecutor's discretion are examined separately

Article 171(1) of the CMK grants the prosecutor the power not to bring a public action in cases of personal effective remorse or personal impunity, which remove the penalty. Article 173(5) of the CMK provides that the general objection procedure does not apply where the prosecutor has exercised such discretionary power. This exception cannot be interpreted to mean that all decisions of non-prosecution based on insufficiency of evidence are outside review. K1

A decision to postpone the bringing of a public action is a separate decision. Article 171(2) of the CMK expressly provides that the victim of the offence and the suspect may object to this postponement decision. The legal nature of the decision and the provision on which it is based are as important as its heading. In files with special grounds such as permission, conciliation or advance payment, the conditions specific to those grounds must be assessed separately.

How is the objection deadline calculated?

To select the time regime, the date on which the KYOK was issued is examined first; to determine the start of the period, the legally valid date of notification is examined. Under Article 6(1)(b) of the transitional provisions of the CMK, for decisions issued on or after June 1, 2024 the period is two weeks; for earlier decisions the former fifteen-day period applies. The later notification of an old decision does not by itself bring it under the new time regime. K1

Under Article 39 of the CMK, a period fixed in weeks ends at the close of office hours on the day corresponding by name, two weeks after the day of notification. If the last day is a public holiday, the next working day is taken into account. For electronic transactions, under Article 38/A(9), the period ends at the end of the day. A technical malfunction does not justify the assumption that an application left to the last hour has been completed. K1

Hypothetical example: If a decision subject to the current regime was duly notified on Monday, October 5, 2026, and there is no holiday or other special circumstance, the last day is Monday, October 19, 2026. Calculating the period as "the fifteenth day" and moving the deadline to October 20 is incorrect.

Electronic notification, notification to counsel and irregularity

Article 7(a) of Law No. 7201 on Notifications provides that electronic notification is deemed made at the end of the fifth day following the arrival of the notification at the address. The date of arrival at the UETS, the date on which the document was read and the date on which it is legally deemed notified may not be the same. The calculation of the period must not rest only on an SMS or e-mail alert; the official record of the notification must be examined. K2

In matters followed through a counsel, the rule on notification to counsel in Article 11 and special provisions are considered together. If there are several notifications to counsel, the first valid notification is important. The fact that the applicant later learned of the matter personally does not renew by itself the period that began with a valid notification to counsel.

In case of irregular notification, the knowledge rule in Article 32 may apply. A petition should not merely state that "the notification was irregular"; it should explain what the irregularity was, when the decision was learned of and what documents support this. An allegation of irregularity and a request for restoration of the prior status based on the failure to meet the deadline without fault rest on different legal grounds. K2

Judicial recess and missing the deadline

The judicial recess differs from the ordinary calculation of official holidays. Article 331(4) of the CMK regulates periods falling within the judicial recess and the three-day extension at the end of the recess. In the file in which the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesi), decision of November 29, 2024, E. 2024/7155, K. 2024/7930, reversed the rejection on time grounds of an objection made during the recess where the last day of the objection period fell in the recess, the court concerned the former fifteen-day regime. In the current file, the judicial recess effect must be calculated separately on the basis of the two-week period. It must not be assumed that all periods always begin at the end of the recess. K1 K12

If the period has been missed without fault, restoration may be requested under Articles 40–42 of the CMK. The current period is two weeks from the removal of the obstacle; for obstacles removed before June 1, 2024, the former regime applies under the transitional provision. The obstacle must be explained and documented, and the objection that could not be made must be filed at the same time. Alleging illness or access problems is not sufficient unless it is shown that they actually prevented the application. Failure to indicate the available remedy is also assessed under Article 40(2). K1

If the period appears to have expired, first the notification, the judicial recess and any excusable obstacle must be investigated. A new-evidence route is not an automatic remedy for a late objection. A complaint to the Presidency's Communications Center (CİMER) or a renewed complaint to the prosecutor's office must not be used on the assumption that it replaces a properly made objection.

How is an effective objection petition prepared?

Under Article 173(2) of the CMK, the petition must show the facts and evidence that may require a public action to be brought. The effectiveness of the petition arises not from harsh language or the number of pages, but from making the grounds of the decision reviewable on the basis of the file. K1

In preparation, the decision, the criminal complaint, statements, expert reports, letters requesting information and their replies must be read together. The fact that a record was requested does not show that the record was received or that the correct time period was examined. File copies and requests for inspection may be made under Article 234 of the CMK and the related access provisions. If the expected document is not yet available, its source and the investigation requested must be explained in the petition submitted within the period; the time must not be allowed to run out while waiting for the document.

A functional petition contains the following elements:

• The status of the applicant, information on representation, and the investigation and decision numbers of the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office.
• The dates of the decision and of notification; the reason for any special situation relating to the deadline.
• A short, chronological account of the events, linked to documents.
• A concrete objection to each of the grounds of the KYOK.
• Evidence alleged not to have been collected or not to have been assessed, and its importance.
• A clear claim for relief and organised, numbered annexes.

The grounds of the decision must be linked to the request for inquiry

This table does not mean that the same requests will be used in every file. For example, if a witness knows only what was told to him or her after the event, the witness should not be presented as an eyewitness. If a bank movement only shows a debt relationship, it must be explained separately which element of the offence it supports. Requests for technical records must also be limited by subject, person, date range and legal conditions.

The requested outcome must match the decision the judgeship can give

The application must explain why the KYOK should be set aside. If the file is not ready for a decision, it must state for which acts the investigation should be extended. If it is alleged that there is sufficient suspicion, it must show which evidence, taken together, leads to that conclusion. Requesting a direct conviction or compensation from the criminal judgeship of peace does not fit the function of this application.

A hypothetical example of reasoning that may be used is: "The decision states that there was no witness; however, in my earlier petition I identified the person who was at the workplace at the time of the event, together with the address. This person's account is important to whether the disputed delivery took place. I request that this deficiency be remedied by examining the earlier petition and the file records attached." The value of this statement depends on those records actually being in the file.

When does the allegation of incomplete investigation gain strength?

An incomplete investigation is not merely the prosecutor giving the evidence a different meaning from the applicant's. It must be made concrete by showing that a reachable piece of evidence which could affect the outcome was not collected, that a contradiction was not examined, or that an important report was not addressed in the reasoning. On the other hand, the failure to hear every witness or the rejection of every request for a technical examination does not in itself constitute a breach of law. It must be shown what contribution the requested step would make to the investigation.

Original document and allegation of forgery

In the decision of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2025/749, K. 2025/13350, dated October 20, 2025, forged documents alleged to have been used in subscription transactions were examined. The Chamber quashed, in the interest of the law, the rejection of the objection to the KYOK, although it was necessary to obtain the originals of the documents, make enquiries with the relevant municipality, determine whose signatures they were and take the statements of the suspects. K6

The decision does not say that every allegation of forgery requires a case to be brought. What it shows in practice is that a conclusion cannot be reached on a merely superficial assessment without examining the nature of the document. The petition should show where the original of the document can be obtained and which question the examination will answer.

The existence of a civil action does not by itself make a criminal inquiry unnecessary

In the decision of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2025/6048, K. 2026/3392, dated March 30, 2026, the allegation was examined that an e-mail account had been accessed without authorisation and a record of a debt relationship had been created. The Chamber did not consider sufficient the issuing of a KYOK on the basis of a pending civil action; it quashed the rejection of the objection, stating that concrete investigations, including the relevant file, witnesses and technical examination, had to be carried out. K7

It cannot be concluded from this that "every unpaid debt is fraud". The applicant must make concrete an allegation of deception, forgery or unauthorised access that goes beyond a dispute over a claim. The suspect's strong defence may be that the transaction took place within an ordinary contractual relationship; the petition must contest this possibility with evidence.

Preservation of evidence, confidentiality and proportionality

Camera recordings, digital correspondence and technical logs may be deleted over time. The place where the record is kept, the time range and its contribution to the event should be stated, and its preservation and procurement should be requested without delay. Gaining access without authorisation to another person's account, or recording another's communications unlawfully, is not an ordinary method of obtaining evidence.

Particularly in relation to children and sensitive data, unnecessary repetition of accounts and disclosure of open identities must be avoided. Annexes should be submitted to the competent authority with the rights of the persons concerned protected, and the file of the investigation must not be circulated on social media. The safeguards of confidentiality under Article 157 of the CMK and of the victim's hearing under Article 236 of the CMK must be taken into account. K1

What decisions may be given on an objection?

If the criminal judgeship of peace considers that the investigation must be extended in order to make a decision, it may request an inquiry from the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, clearly stating the deficiency. After the necessary acts have been completed, the objection is assessed. Extending the investigation is not the same as accepting the objection on its merits. K1

In the decision of the 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2025/1667, K. 2025/4724, dated March 18, 2025, this distinction is explained. The Chamber stated that, in an investigation of unpaid use of a service, after the missing acts had been completed the file had to return to the judgeship examining the objection, and an acceptance or rejection assessment had to be made. In the file examined, the rejection of the objection was quashed. K8

If the objection is well-founded, the prosecutor brings an indictment to the court under Article 173(4) of the CMK. The start of the prosecution depends on the acceptance of the indictment; acceptance of the objection does not by itself convict the suspect or require detention.

If there are not sufficient grounds, the objection is rejected with reasons. Under Article 173(3) of the CMK, in that case the objecting party is ordered to pay costs. An unsuccessful objection therefore does not necessarily have no financial effect. The fee for working with a lawyer is assessed separately from the litigation costs of the application. No general time limit or guarantee of outcome can be given for the examination to conclude within a set number of days in every file.

How is an application made on new evidence after an objection has been rejected?

Under Articles 172(2) and 173(6) of the CMK, after a KYOK, a new piece of evidence capable of creating sufficient suspicion to bring a public action for the same act is required, together with a decision of the criminal judgeship of peace on the matter. The fact that no objection was made to the KYOK does not mean that the prosecutor may bring a case for the same act without any conditions being met. K1

The application on new evidence must attach the earlier KYOK and, if any, the decision rejecting the objection; it must explain when and how the evidence was obtained, how it differs from the earlier file and how it contributes to the assessment of sufficient suspicion. Resubmitting the same document already assessed, or changing the name of the offence, does not by itself create new evidence.

An original record obtained later, information from a new witness about the event, or a report containing new technical findings may be assessed within this scope. However, the content of every new report is not new merely because of its date. If a report only reinterprets old information, it must also be explained why the earlier decision can be set aside. Whether a document that was in the file but never assessed can be regarded as "new" is also debatable and must not be presented as a category accepted automatically. K11

The prosecutor first assesses the new evidence

In accordance with the decision of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2025/2406, K. 2025/15784, dated December 8, 2025, a claim of new evidence must first be assessed by the Public Prosecutor. The prosecutor does not need the judgeship's permission to investigate the new evidence at the outset; if the prosecutor reaches sufficient suspicion to bring a case, the prosecutor requests a decision from the criminal judgeship of peace. An application submitted directly to the judgeship must also be forwarded to the prosecutor's office for initial assessment. K5

In the concrete case, the judgeship's acceptance decision, which extended the investigation directly, was quashed. The Chamber also stated that there was no statutory provision requiring that the examination be carried out by the same judgeship that rejected the earlier objection. The decision is important for distinguishing an application on new evidence from the first objection within the time limit. If the prosecutor issues a new KYOK on the ground that no new evidence was found or that the evidence is insufficient, the review of that decision by way of objection will be available. K5

Some academic writers take a different view. Berrin Akbulut and Murat Aydın argue that, in the interest of the suspect's legal certainty, judicial supervision should come into play before a new investigation is started. The Court of Cassation decision cited above, however, separates the stages of starting an inquiry and bringing a public action. In the application, the statutory conditions and this difference of opinion must not be confused; the submission of the new evidence to the prosecutor and the necessary judicial review must be expressly requested. K11

The discovery of new evidence does not by itself remove the statute of limitations, the requirement of a complaint or another obstacle to prosecution. If the earlier decision rests on such an obstacle, in addition to the evidence it must also be explained why the obstacle does not exist or how it has been removed.

The limits of reversal in the interest of the law, the Constitutional Court and the ECtHR

A rejection decision given on an objection to a KYOK is final for the purposes of ordinary objection review under Article 271(4) of the CMK. Filing a direct appeal or cassation petition against this decision is not an ordinary remedy that continues the KYOK objection. Reversal in the interest of the law under Article 309 of the CMK is an extraordinary remedy that may arise under the relevant conditions; the request of an interested party does not oblige the competent authority to use it. K1

An application to the Constitutional Court cannot consist only of seeking the punishment of another

In the decision of the Constitutional Court in Onurhan Solmaz (Application No. 2012/1049, March 26, 2013), a complaint of unfair trial reduced to a request that third persons be punished was assessed outside the common area of protection, and the application was found inadmissible for lack of competence ratione materiae. The decision shows the limit of the view that a violation of the right to a fair trial may be alleged in every file in which a KYOK has been issued. K9

On the other hand, arguable claims falling within the right to life or the prohibition of ill-treatment may give rise to the State's duty of effective investigation. In T.K. (Application No. 2020/28269, September 17, 2024) the Constitutional Court found a violation of the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment, because the medical reports supporting the statement of the child victim had not been discussed and other important allegations had not been sufficiently investigated. It ordered that the decision be sent to the prosecutor's office for a re-investigation. K10

The T.K. decision does not mean that an investigation must necessarily end in a case or a conviction. The criterion is that an arguable claim must be effectively investigated and that the result reached must be explained with the relevant evidence. The applicant must establish the link between his or her own right and the deficiency in the investigation; saying merely "the decision is wrong" is not enough.

Repeated complaint does not renew the application period

Under Articles 45 and 47(5) of Law No. 6216, the ordinary remedies must be exhausted, and an individual application must, as a rule, be made within thirty days of learning of the final outcome. For the purposes of the Constitutional Court, the knowledge assessment should not be treated as identical to the period of notification in the KYOK objection. Records such as learning of the final decision from UYAP may also be important. K3

In Şeyhmus Özcan (Application No. 2020/5617, October 3, 2024) the Constitutional Court accepted that a repeated complaint which contained no new evidence about an investigation already concluded did not restart the application period. It was not considered sufficient that an application had been made after the subsequent rejection decision; the application was found inadmissible for being out of time. K13

Waiting for the outcome of a request for reversal in the interest of the law is also not a general method of protecting the period for an individual application. In Halil Aslan (Application No. 2014/3038, December 10, 2014, paras. 37–39) the Constitutional Court explained that exhaustion of this route was not mandatory and that the request did not affect the individual application period. This decision does not concern a KYOK; it is used here in relation to the effect of the extraordinary route on the time limit. The search for an extraordinary route and the Constitutional Court period must be tracked separately. K14

Re-investigation after an ECtHR judgment is a special route

Article 172(3) of the CMK provides a special application possibility where a final ECtHR judgment has established that a KYOK was issued without an effective investigation, or where a decision to strike out has been given as a result of a friendly settlement or unilateral declaration in the relevant application. The three-month period set by the Law runs from the finality of the relevant ECtHR judgment. This is not the period for the first application to the ECtHR. K1

The re-investigation remedy before the Constitutional Court and this special provision rest on different grounds. For the Constitutional Court, the operative part of the violation judgment and Article 50 of Law No. 6216 apply; for the ECtHR, the scope and finality of the relevant judgment and Article 172(3) of the CMK are examined together. The period of one route must not be carried over to another.

Records, compensation and other rights after non-prosecution

A KYOK is not a conviction and cannot be equated with a conviction recorded under Law No. 5352 on Judicial Records. However, it cannot be concluded that "every record relating to the file is deleted from all systems". Investigation records and the judicial record certificate issued to a person are different. K4

A non-prosecution decision does not in every case remove private law claims. The outcome in the criminal investigation and the conditions of a claim for debt or compensation are separate. The provision of Article 74 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) on the relationship with criminal law also shows the aspects of the civil judge's assessment that are independent. The statute of limitations, the competent court, mediation where applicable and the conditions of proof must be examined separately; the fact that a criminal file has been referred to does not preserve all private law time limits. K15

A person against whom a KYOK has been issued may also claim compensation for arrest or detention; this is a separate process. The conditions, competence and time-limit rules in Article 141 et seq. of the CMK are assessed on their own terms. A non-prosecution decision alone does not automatically secure compensation in a fixed amount. Examination of all the application options together with the full file is an important part of the role of the lawyer in criminal investigations. For details of the subject, see the article on the right of complaint and the offence of slander.

For further details related to the subject, you may also see our article on the offence of slander.

Conclusion

An effective challenge to a non-prosecution decision begins with determining the real reason for the decision and the period that applies. The petition must connect the deficiency, the relevant document and the step requested. An objection within its time limit, an application on new evidence and an allegation of violation of a constitutional right are subject to different conditions. Examining the decision and the notification together, organising the evidence and using the appropriate route within its time limit form the basis of application preparation.

Frequently asked questions

Is the period for objecting to a non-prosecution decision fifteen days or two weeks?

For KYOK decisions issued on or after June 1, 2024, it is two weeks. For earlier decisions, the former fifteen-day period applies. The time regime is determined by the date of the decision, and the start of the period by the valid notification. For details, see the section on calculating the period.

Does seeing the decision on e-Devlet replace notification?

Seeing a document in the system is not the same transaction as a valid notification. However, in the case of irregular notification, knowledge and learning of the final decision for an application to the Constitutional Court may also be effective. Rather than determining the period based only on a screenshot, the notification and access records in the file must be examined.

Can a KYOK be objected to without a lawyer?

As a rule, the victim of the offence may make his or her own application. However, situations requiring representation and the special safeguards on the appointment of a lawyer under Article 234 of the CMK also apply. The signature, capacity, period, authority and annexes of the petition must be checked by the applicant.

Does the period extend while waiting for missing evidence to arrive?

Waiting for a document does not by itself extend the period. An application must be made within the period on the grounds available, and it must be explained where the missing document is held and why its collection is necessary. The later submission of a document does not by itself cure the late making of the first application.

If the objection is accepted, is a case opened immediately?

If the objection is accepted on its merits, the prosecutor submits an indictment to the court; prosecution begins with the acceptance of the indictment. A decision to extend the investigation aims at completing the inquiry and does not by itself produce the same result. This distinction is explained in the section on the types of decision.

If the objection is rejected, can the same petition be filed again?

Repeating the same allegations does not create a new ordinary right of objection. If there is new evidence, the application may be assessed within the conditions of Articles 172(2) and 173(6) of the CMK. It must not be assumed that a repeated complaint renews the period for the Constitutional Court.

Does a new expert report always count as new evidence?

No. It matters whether the report contains findings that are new in substance, how it differs from the earlier examination and what effect it has on sufficient suspicion. Merely giving a different legal opinion on old data is not the same as making a new technical finding.

Does a decision of non-prosecution prove that the complainant slandered?

No. The failure to reach sufficient suspicion, or the existence of an obstacle to prosecution, does not by itself show that the complaint was knowingly made untrue. Such an allegation must be assessed separately on its own elements and evidence.

Can one go directly to the Constitutional Court after a KYOK?

As a rule, not without exhausting the effective and available ordinary remedies. In addition, there must be an allegation of violation connected with the applicant's own protected right. Merely asking for another person to be punished is not sufficient. The examples of inadmissibility in the section on constitutional applications show these limits.

Does a non-prosecution decision also end a compensation action?

Not in every case. The criminal investigation and the conditions of private law liability are different. The nature of the claim, the evidence, the statute of limitations and the conditions for bringing the action must be assessed separately.

Sources and legal bases

• K1 — Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), in particular Articles 38/A–42, 157–158, 160, 170–173, 175, 234, 236, 271, 309, 331 and Transitional Article 6. Current consolidated text.
• K2 — Law No. 7201 on Notifications, Articles 7(a), 11 and 32. Official text.
• K3 — Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Procedures of the Constitutional Court, Articles 45, 47(5) and 50. Official text.
• K4 — Law No. 5352 on Judicial Records, Article 4. Official text.
• K5 — 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, December 8, 2025, E. 2025/2406, K. 2025/15784, reasoning paras. 4–6 and judgment. Decision text.
• K6 — 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, October 20, 2025, E. 2025/749, K. 2025/13350, reasoning para. 6 and judgment. Decision text.
• K7 — 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, March 30, 2026, E. 2025/6048, K. 2026/3392, assessment para. 6 and judgment. Decision text.
• K8 — 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, March 18, 2025, E. 2025/1667, K. 2025/4724, reasoning and judgment. Decision text.
• K9 — Constitutional Court, Onurhan Solmaz, Application No. 2012/1049, March 26, 2013, paras. 23–27, 33–36. Decision text.
• K10 — Constitutional Court, T.K., Application No. 2020/28269, September 17, 2024, paras. 24–35 and judgment. Decision text.
• K11 — Akbulut, Berrin / Aydın, Murat, "Kovuşturmaya Yer Olmadığına Dair Karar" (Decision Not to Prosecute), Adalet Dergisi (Journal of Justice), 2025, issue 75, pp. 53–91; in particular pp. 56–57, 63–64. DOI: 10.57083/adaletdergisi.1794038. Article and full text access.
• K12 — 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, November 29, 2024, E. 2024/7155, K. 2024/7930, reasoning para. 2 and judgment. Decision text.
• K13 — Constitutional Court, Şeyhmus Özcan, Application No. 2020/5617, October 3, 2024, paras. 9–12. Decision text.
• K14 — Constitutional Court, Halil Aslan, Application No. 2014/3038, December 10, 2014, paras. 33–39. Decision text.
• K15 — Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), Article 74. Official text.