Time spent in police detention (gözaltı) and in pretrial detention that the law requires to be taken into account is deducted from the imposed sentence. Those periods do not necessarily have to belong to the file in which the conviction was issued. When credit is sought for time spent in another file, the review focuses in particular on the dates of the offences, whether the judgment in that file has become final, and whether the same period has already been used. For the measure of not leaving the home, two days count as one day; for judicial fines, the current daily credit amount under Article 63 TCK is 500 TL. [1] [2] [4]
Credit is not a discretionary reduction of a sentence. It is the reflection in the enforcement calculation of a period of deprivation of liberty that the person has already undergone and that the law takes into account. In practice, difficulties usually arise not from the rule itself but from dates and records of different files being mixed up. This article examines how time within the same file and time in other files should each be reviewed.
What Is Sentence Credit (mahsup)?
The mandatory deduction under Article 63 TCK
Article 63 TCK provides that periods of deprivation of liberty suffered before the judgment becomes final, for the reasons set out in the law, are deducted from the prison sentence. Because the provision is worded as mandatory, credit whose conditions are met does not depend on the goodwill of the judge or the remorse of the convicted person. However, which measure is counted, and to what extent, is determined together with the special regulations. [1]
It therefore cannot be concluded that “every kind of restriction is deducted from the sentence.” Police detention, pretrial detention, the weekly signing obligation and the travel ban are not subject to the same legal regime. That a measure was burdensome for the person and that it is legally creditable are separate questions.
The difference between credit and the conditional release ratio
The conditional release ratio concerns which part of the sentence the convicted person must serve under the relevant regime. Credit, by contrast, shows the past period that must legally be taken into account. Deducting detention days from the sentence amount and then applying a fresh ratio to the remaining amount may not produce the correct result. Credit should be placed within the logic of the relevant enforcement calculation and must not shorten the period a second time. [3]
For example, consider a purely hypothetical case that only illustrates the calculation logic: under the relevant regime, the period to be served before conditional release is 900 days, and the usable pretrial detention is 120 days. The remaining period for these two items is 780 days. The 900 days here have already been obtained by applying the ratio; the same ratio is not applied again to the 780 days. Good conduct, other judgments (ilam), special regimes and calendar calculations fall outside this limited example. For details of the subject, see the article on maximum pretrial detention periods.
Which Restrictions on Liberty Are Credited?
Police detention, pretrial detention and other deprivations of liberty
For police detention and pretrial detention, the start and end records are considered together. The apprehension report, detention order, pretrial detention order, institutional admission record and release document may show gaps or overlaps between them. Taking the date of admission to prison as the start and disregarding an earlier period of police detention is incorrect. Conversely, the same uninterrupted period of deprivation of liberty must not be counted twice under both the police detention and the pretrial detention headings. [1]
For other situations alleged to be creditable, such as placement under observation (gözlem altına alma), the legal basis of the measure and its character as a restriction on liberty must be shown. Not every visit to a health institution or every time spent at court to give a statement is of the same nature. The claim must rest on proceedings and institutional records, not only on dates the person remembers.
Judicial control and the prohibition on leaving the home
The general rule under Article 109/6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), Law No. 5271, is that time spent under judicial control is not credited against the sentence. The same paragraph excludes the situations in Article 109/3-e and Article 109/3-j from this rule. In particular, under the obligation not to leave the home, two days count as one day. The scope of the treatment or examination measure is also assessed on the basis of the relevant decision and implementation records. [2]
Electronic monitoring does not by itself create a separate credit ratio. What matters is whether the electronic ankle bracelet was used to supervise the measure of not leaving the home or within another obligation. Periods in which the measure was lifted, temporary leave was granted or enforcement was suspended must also be recorded separately. The calculation is based on the period during which the measure was actually and legally applied, not on the name of the measure.
Time spent abroad
Article 16 TCK provides that time spent in police detention, under observation, in pretrial detention or in custody abroad for an offence, wherever it was committed, is credited against a sentence for the same offence imposed in Türkiye. The connection to the same offence is important here. Being held in a prison abroad for any reason does not create a general reduction that can be transferred to any sentence in Türkiye. [1]
A reliable obtaining of the foreign decision and of the deprivation-of-liberty records, clarity of the dates and, where needed, a properly certified translation are required. A stay at a removal centre, pretrial detention in a foreign criminal case and the enforcement of another conviction must not be confused; their legal assessments are not the same.
Can Pretrial Detention in Another File Be Deducted from a Sentence?
Different files alone are not an obstacle
Pretrial detention does not have to have been spent in the file of the sentence being credited. In Court of Cassation practice, one of the decisive factors is whether the offence on which the sentence to be credited is based was committed before the judgment in the file in which the detention was spent became final. In this way, deprivation of liberty suffered in the past does not become an unlimited “sentence credit” for offences committed later. [4]
In this test, three dates are often confused: the start of the pretrial detention, the date of the offence for which credit is sought, and the date on which the judgment in the file that caused the detention became final. Comparing only the decision dates of the two files is not enough. The finality endorsement must also be read together with which part of the judgment became final and through which stage of the remedies process.
Example chronology
The table below does not relate to a real file. It has been prepared to explain which dates should be compared in a credit review.
| Event | Hypothetical date | Function in the review |
|---|---|---|
| Pretrial detention in file A | January 10, 2022 – April 10, 2022 | Source of the period for which credit is sought |
| Finality of the acquittal in file A | September 20, 2023 | Threshold to be compared with the offence date in another file |
| Offence in file B | June 15, 2023 | Before the threshold, so it is suitable for review on the time requirement |
| Offence in file C | December 15, 2023 | After the threshold; earlier time spent cannot be treated as a right reserved for a future offence |
For B, the existence of the time requirement does not mean that the claim is accepted in every respect. The exact amount of usable time, whether it was previously deducted from another judgment and the other legal conditions are also examined. For C, showing only the earlier pretrial detention is not sufficient; no claim can be made without explaining the chronological bar.
Where there are several sentences, each offence date is assessed separately
Rejecting the entire credit claim on the basis of the date of a single offence in an aggregation order is a major source of error. Because sentences subject to aggregation (içtima) keep their independence, each judgment that is eligible for credit must be examined separately. The most recent offence does not become the date of all the other judgments. [3] [4]
For this reason, adding only the total-sentence section of the aggregation order to the petition may not be enough. The offence date, the finality and the credit information applied for each judgment should be shown. The credit claim should be expressly linked to the sentence or sentences to which it relates.
Court of Cassation Decision: A Rejection Based on a Single Offence Date Within Aggregation Is Not Permissible
In the decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi) dated April 27, 2023, file no. 2023/3270 E., decision no. 2023/2439 K., a request was made to credit the detention in an acquittal file against the enforcement of other sentences. In the rejection, the date of one offence within the aggregation was taken as the basis. The Chamber determined that the aggregation order also contained sentences for other offences committed before the acquittal became final. Accepting that the credit conditions had to be assessed for those sentences, it quashed the decision rejecting the objection in favour of the law. [4]
The instructive aspect of the decision is not limited to the abstract statement that “credit from another file is possible.” The concrete calculation must be separated for the date of each judgment within the aggregation. The chronology presented in the application may therefore directly affect the outcome. The decision cannot be read as meaning that any period of detention may be repeatedly deducted from all sentences.
Constitutional Court Decision: Half Credit for House Arrest
The outcome of the Burhan Yaz (3) decision
In its decision in Burhan Yaz (3) dated May 29, 2024, the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court (AYM) examined the crediting of 90 days spent under the measure of not leaving the home as 45 days. Accepting the effect of the measure on liberty, the Court assessed its application as different from pretrial detention; finding that counting two days as one day was proportionate, it held that the right to liberty and security had not been violated. [5]
The decision does not say that house arrest can never be taken into account. On the contrary, the review proceeded on the basis that a half-rate credit had been applied following the legal amendment. Reporting only the “no violation” result without preserving this distinction would be misleading. The decision also shows the importance of clearly determining the legal type of judicial control and its credit ratio.
The unlawfulness of a measure is a separate claim
Crediting a period does not mean that the measure was lawful from the outset. Complaints concerning the necessity, continuation, proportionality or manner of application of the measure are assessed separately. Time limits for those complaints may not be preserved automatically by waiting for the outcome of the credit dispute.
In the Burhan Yaz (3) decision, a separate complaint concerning private life was found inadmissible because it was out of time, which makes this distinction concrete. For the routes to lifting the measure, the review of objection to the measure of not leaving the home and to judicial control may also be considered. [5] For a separate evaluation of the subject, see the article on maximum judicial control periods.
Can the Same Period Be Credited Twice?
The same period of deprivation of liberty cannot be deducted twice from different sentences. For this, it must be examined not only whether the days overlap but also how they were used in earlier enforcement records. If a person appears to be in pretrial detention in several files at the same time, each detention order does not produce separate days. A single calendar day recorded in more than one record does not mean that more than one day has been served.
The document structure that prevents duplication
In the application, the periods should be placed in a single chronology, with start and end dates. Periods for which credit has already been decided should be marked separately. The reason why the part said to be usable was not consumed in the earlier calculation must be explained. Against the prosecution's position that “these days were already deducted from another judgment,” submitting only a new detention order is not enough; earlier sentence calculation sheets and credit decisions must also be compared.
Separating the part eligible for credit from the disputed part strengthens the application. If a few days of a period are uncertain because of the records, rather than presenting the whole timeline as definite and exact, state which record is requested to be completed. Missing documents should be addressed by a request that the appropriate authority produce the records.
How Is Credit Applied to Judicial Fines?
The current text of Article 63 TCK provides a deduction of 500 TL for each day to be credited where a judicial fine is imposed. This amount must not be confused with the daily amount that the court sets under Article 52 TCK when determining the penalty. The first step is the setting of the fine; the second is the reflection of earlier deprivation of liberty on the penalty. [1]
For example, in a hypothetical file where only the current amount applies, a credit calculation for 20 usable days gives 10,000 TL. This example does not create a monetary claim or a right to repayment from the State that could be transferred to other files. The penalty amount, earlier payment and credit records and the law applicable in time are considered together.
Because of the amendment made by Law No. 7499, the 100 TL amount in older decisions and articles cannot be said to be the general rule today. On the other hand, for past events, merely looking at the existence of the current figure is also not sufficient; the favourable application must be assessed under Article 7 TCK and the relevant transitional arrangements. A daily amount used to set a penalty in a final judgment cannot be redetermined by the enforcement office merely because different limits exist today. [1]
To Which Authority and How Is a Credit Claim Submitted?
During the trial and at the enforcement stage
If the proceedings are still ongoing, the periods of restriction on liberty may be reported to the court so that they can be assessed for the judgment and its enforcement. In a dispute over the calculation of the sentence to be served after the judgment becomes final, an application to the enforcement judgeship arises under Article 98(1)(b) of Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Penalties and Security Measures. Matters requiring interpretation of the judgment, or its adaptation under Article 7 TCK, must be separated under sub-paragraph 1(a) of the same article. [3]
The absence of an express sentence on credit in the operative part of the judgment does not mean that a period which meets the legal conditions is disregarded entirely. However, the enforcement authority cannot make an assessment that would change the content of the final judgment. It should be made clear whether the request is to complete the credit record, a dispute over the calculation, or a request to alter the judgment.
What to add to the application file
- Arrest, police detention, pretrial detention and release documents for the period for which credit is sought.
- The decision in the file in which the period was spent, and information on its finality.
- The offence date and finality endorsement of each judgment to which the credit is to be applied.
- The current sentence calculation sheet (müddetname), earlier credit decisions and the aggregation order, if any.
- The decisions ordering and lifting the measure of not leaving the home, and its implementation records.
- A calculation table separating the used and unused portions of each period.
In the petition, the chronology should come first, followed by the legal conditions. The request section should state which period is to be credited against which sentence, and should ask for missing records to be obtained and a new sentence calculation sheet to be prepared accordingly. If it is claimed that the conditions for release have been met, this result must be separately justified.
Time limit for challenging a rejection
The current time limit against the decision of the enforcement judge is two weeks from notification. The objection is examined by the relevant High Criminal Court (ağır ceza mahkemesi). The debate over the nature of the calculation application must not be confused with the time limit for legal remedies against a rejection. Filing an application does not automatically stay enforcement. [3] [6]
How Are Credit and Compensation for Unlawful Detention Considered Together?
Credit is an enforcement act, whereas compensation is a separate route that aims to remedy the harm caused by a deprivation of liberty that was unlawful or provided for by law, where its conditions are met. The general statement that “if credit has been applied, no compensation can be claimed” is not reliable under current law. The former provision in Article 144/1-a CMK was repealed in 2013. On the other hand, the fact that credit has been applied does not mean that compensation is automatic for every head of loss. [2]
The basis for compensation, the legal nature of the measure, the result of the acquittal or other decision, the loss incurred and the competent authority must be examined under their own rules. Waiting for the outcome of the credit request before the valid application period for compensation has run may cause loss of rights. On this point, the separate application procedure described in the article on compensation for unlawful detention and pretrial detention must be taken into account.
For related details, you may also read our article on objecting to pretrial detention and requesting release.
Making Time Periods Verifiable in the Credit File
One Chronology, Separate Legal Bases
Police detention, pretrial detention, the measure of not leaving the home and the enforcement of another sentence may be shown on the same timeline; however, the legal basis of these periods must not be merged into one. For each interval, the chronology should state the starting document, the ending document, the type of measure and the judgment in which it was previously used. A day recorded in two files is different from liberty being restricted on two separate days. The credibility of a credit request depends on its being able to show this distinction as much as on the total number.
If there is a difference between the release order in the file and the record of actual departure from the institution, the reason must be investigated. The person may have remained in the institution because of pretrial detention in another file or the enforcement of a final sentence. It is incorrect to characterize the entire period after the release order in one file as pretrial detention in that same file. In the request, the discrepancy seen between the records may be stated expressly, and the production of explanatory documents may be requested from the relevant institution and the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office (Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı).
Credit Against a Judicial Fine and the Conversion-to-Imprisonment Calculation
Reflecting a day of pretrial detention in a judicial fine under Article 63 TCK and the number of days used when an unpaid fine is converted into imprisonment are different operations. The first rests on the statutory credit amount; the second rests on the final judgment and the enforcement arrangement. Combining these two operations in the same working table under the label “day equivalent” may show the remaining sentence incorrectly. First the credit decision and the amount to be applied must be determined, and then the payment and enforcement status of the remaining sentence. [1] [3]
Has the Outcome of the Request Been Entered in the New Sentence Calculation Sheet?
The matter does not end with acceptance of the credit request. The period and the number of days accepted in the decision must be compared with the current sentence calculation sheet. It should also be monitored whether these days have been taken into account, in accordance with the law, in conditional release, release upon entitlement (hak ederek tahliye) and the other relevant calculations. That the decision has merely been added to the file may not show that the implementation record has also been corrected. The review after acceptance of the application is not a new request for a reduction but a check on whether the decision already made is correctly applied.
Conclusion
The basis of the credit review is the correct chronology of the deprivation of liberty. When time spent in another file is evaluated, the relationship between the offence date and finality must be established separately for each judgment in the aggregation. When the type of measure, the current credit ratio and the periods already used are clearly shown, the claim moves from an abstract request for reduction to a reviewable legal application. Following the enforcement calculation and compensation routes separately is also an important safeguard against loss of rights.
For legal support in criminal proceedings and enforcement processes, you may review our criminal law services.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I deduct the days I spent in pretrial detention in a file where I was acquitted from another sentence I received?
Yes, if the conditions are met. In particular, it is examined whether the offence on which the other conviction is based was committed before the judgment in the file in which the pretrial detention was spent became final, and whether the period has already been used. [4]
Can past pretrial detention be saved for an offence committed later?
Past pretrial detention is not an unlimited right to a deduction for offences committed in the future. The relationship between the dates of the offence and of finality is one of the basic conditions of a credit claim. [4]
Does each day of house arrest count as a day in prison?
For the measure of not leaving the home under Article 109/6 CMK, two days count as one day. In Burhan Yaz (3), the Constitutional Court (AYM) found this ratio proportionate in the circumstances of the case. [2] [5]
Are the signing obligation and the travel ban credited?
The general rule of judicial control is that it is not credited. The exceptions provided by law are examined separately; a signing obligation or a travel ban alone is not treated as pretrial detention credit. [2]
What is the daily credit amount for a judicial fine?
Under the current text of Article 63 TCK, it is 500 TL. This figure does not serve the same function as the daily amount set under Article 52 TCK when the judgment is rendered. Its application to past events is also assessed separately. [1]
In aggregation, is only the date of the last offence taken into account?
No. The offence date and legal status of each sentence are examined separately. Rejecting the entire credit claim on the basis of the date of a single offence may be contrary to law. [4]
Does crediting completely remove the right to compensation?
No general conclusion can be drawn in this respect. The legal conditions of compensation, the loss and the relevant procedure are assessed separately; it must not be overlooked that the former Article 144/1-a CMK was repealed. [2]
Sources and legal bases
1. Law No. 5237 Turkish Penal Code (5237 sayılı Türk Ceza Kanunu), particularly Articles 7, 16, 52 and 63; relevant provisions and amendment footnotes.
2. Law No. 5271 Code of Criminal Procedure (5271 sayılı Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), particularly Articles 109/3-e, 109/3-j, 109/6 and 141–144.
3. Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Penalties and Security Measures (5275 sayılı Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun), particularly Articles 98–101 and 107.
4. Court of Cassation, 1st Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 1. Ceza Dairesi), April 27, 2023, 2023/3270 E., 2023/2439 K., Part II, reasoning, paragraphs 3–5, and Part III, decision; full text verified. The link may require a login session.
5. General Assembly of the Constitutional Court (AYM), Burhan Yaz (3), Application No. 2021/7919, May 29, 2024, particularly paragraphs 38–49, 51–54 and the operative part.
6. Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (4675 sayılı İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), Articles 4–6.