Two weeks, and they start later than you think.

Under CMK 273, an application for istinaf — appeal to the regional court of appeal — is made within two weeks of the date on which the judgment together with its reasoning was served, by lodging a petition with the court that gave the judgment or by making a declaration to the clerk, which is recorded and confirmed by the judge.

Under CMK 291, an application for temyiz — appeal on points of law to the Court of Cassation — runs on the same basis: two weeks from service of the judgment with its reasoning.

For a detained defendant, CMK 263 is reserved in both articles, which provides its own route for making the declaration from the institution.

CMK 272 sets the outer boundaries. Judgments of the first instance courts may be appealed. But istinaf is not available against:

• Convictions to a judicial fine where the final figure is fifteen thousand Turkish Lira or less — excluding judicial fines converted from imprisonment.
• Acquittals in respect of offences carrying a judicial fine whose upper limit does not exceed five hundred days.
• Judgments stated in legislation to be final.

Judgments falling into these categories do not form a basis for recidivism.

Long sentences are reviewed whether you appeal or not

CMK 272/1: judgments imposing fifteen years' imprisonment or more are examined by the regional court of appeal of its own motion. That is a safeguard, not a substitute for an appeal — the scope of an examination initiated by the court is not the same as the scope of the grounds you would advance yourself.

CMK 272/2: decisions given before the judgment that form the basis of it, or for which no other route of appeal is provided, may also be challenged together with the judgment. Interlocutory rulings that felt unappealable at the time therefore come back into play here.

Under CMK 276, the court that gave the judgment rejects the petition by a decision where the application was made after the statutory period, against a judgment that cannot be appealed, or by a person who has no right to appeal.

That is not the end. The prosecutor or the parties may apply to the regional court of appeal within two weeks of service of the rejection decision. A rejection on timing grounds is itself contestable, and where the timing turns on when service actually occurred, it is frequently worth contesting.

This is the provision that matters most to people who left Türkiye and learned about a judgment afterwards.

CMK 274: a defendant may apply for restoration of rights against judgments given against them in their absence. The appeal period continues to run during the period for restoration — and where the defendant applies for restoration, they must also lodge an appeal. Matters connected with the appeal are then postponed until the restoration application has been decided.

Under CMK 231/5, where the sentence imposed is two years' imprisonment or less, or a judicial fine, a court may defer the announcement of the judgment. CMK 231/6 adds three conditions: the defendant has no previous conviction for an intentional offence, the court is satisfied he will not offend again, and the damage caused to the victim or to the public has been made good in full. Where deferral is granted, the defendant is subject to a supervision period of five years. During that period, a further deferral cannot be granted in respect of an intentional offence. A sentence in respect of which announcement has been deferred cannot be suspended, and where it is a short-term sentence it cannot be converted into alternative sanctions.

For a foreign national this needs thinking about rather than accepting gratefully. A five-year supervision period is a five-year relationship with the Turkish justice system, and what it means for residence, for leaving the country and for the immigration assessment that follows a criminal file is a separate question from whether it looks better than a conviction on the day.

The provision was amended in July 2026 and the position stated here reflects the amended text.

• The reasoned judgment itself. It is the document the appeal answers, which is why the clock sensibly runs from its service and why reading it properly is the first task rather than a formality.
• Interlocutory rulings that shaped the trial — refused evidence, refused witnesses, refused expert reports — now appealable with the judgment under CMK 272/2.
• Characterisation. Whether the conduct proved supports the article convicted under, or a different and lesser one.
• The sentence calculation, including whether each increase and reduction was applied on the correct base and in the correct order.
• Procedural defects: the lawfulness of searches and seizures, the taking of statements, the availability of counsel and of an interpreter.