Uzlaştırma in Türkiye, and the cases it can actually close.

Uzlaştırma is a statutory mediation between the suspect and the victim or the injured party, run under CMK 253. For the offences it covers, it is not optional for the authorities: the Code says an attempt at settlement shall be made. Where the offence is within scope and there is sufficient suspicion to bring a public prosecution, the file is sent to the mediation bureau — the uzlaştırma bürosu — attached to the public prosecutor's office (CMK 253/4).

It is not a plea bargain

Nothing here reduces a sentence, because no sentence is reached. If a settlement is performed at once during the investigation, the prosecutor issues a decision not to prosecute. If the case has already gone to court, the court dismisses it (CMK 254/2). The file ends; it does not continue in a milder form.

It is not an admission

This is the point most often misunderstood. CMK 253/20 states that statements made during the mediation negotiations may not be used as evidence in any investigation, prosecution or case. Agreeing to talk does not concede the allegation, and if the mediation fails, what was said inside it does not follow you into the courtroom.

Who runs it

The mediator — uzlaştırmacı — is appointed by the bureau from lists of law faculty graduates maintained by the Ministry of Justice (CMK 253/24). The mediator is not a judge and not your lawyer. The prosecutor may give the mediator instructions on the method to be followed (CMK 253/14). The negotiations are confidential, and the suspect, the victim, the injured party, legal representatives, defence counsel and the victim's counsel may all attend (CMK 253/13).

What it costs

The mediator's fee is set by a Ministry of Justice tariff and counts as a litigation cost. Where a settlement is reached, those costs are borne by the Treasury (CMK 253/22).

Scope is decided by the article recorded against you, not by how serious the incident felt. CMK 253/1 opens two gates.

Gate one: offences that depend on a complaint

Any offence whose investigation and prosecution depend on a complaint is within scope (CMK 253/1-a), subject to the exclusions below.

Gate two: a closed list from the Penal Code

These are in scope whether or not a complaint is required (CMK 253/1-b):

• Intentional injury — TCK 86, excluding its third paragraph, and TCK 88
• Negligent injury — TCK 89
• Threat — TCK 106, first paragraph only
• Violation of the immunity of the dwelling — TCK 116
• Violation of freedom of work and labour — TCK 117/1 and TCK 119/1-c
• Theft — TCK 141
• Abuse of trust — TCK 155, excluding its third paragraph
• Fraud — TCK 157
• Purchasing or accepting criminal property — TCK 165
• Abduction and detention of a child — TCK 234
• Disclosure of commercial, banking or client secrets — TCK 239, excluding its fourth paragraph

A third gate exists for children in the judicial process: where the victim or injured party is a natural person or a private legal person, offences carrying an upper limit of no more than three years' imprisonment or a judicial fine are also in scope (CMK 253/1-c).

Only the basic forms are listed

Read the article numbers literally, because the aggravated forms are separate articles and they are not on the list. Theft is TCK 141, not its qualified forms. Fraud is TCK 157, not its qualified forms. Intentional injury drops out of scope the moment TCK 86's third paragraph applies — which covers, among others, injury against a spouse, a former spouse, an ascendant, a descendant or a sibling, against a person unable to defend themselves, with a weapon, or because of a public duty the victim performs.

Express exclusions

Under CMK 253/3, mediation cannot be used — even where the offence depends on a complaint — for offences against sexual inviolability, for persistent following (TCK 123/A), or for insult (TCK 125). If you have read older English-language material saying an insult case can be settled through uzlaştırma, that material is out of date.

The same paragraph adds a trap: where an in-scope offence was committed together with an out-of-scope offence against the same victim, the settlement provisions do not apply at all. There is one carve-out — where an offence within the önödeme regime and an offence within uzlaştırma were committed against the same victim, the settlement provisions still apply to the offence within uzlaştırma.

Offences outside the Penal Code

For offences created by other laws, mediation is available only where that law expressly says so, unless the offence depends on a complaint (CMK 253/2).

More than one victim

Where an offence caused loss to several people, mediation can only go ahead if all of them accept it (CMK 253/7).

Two provisions do more damage to foreign nationals than any other part of this procedure, and neither is obvious from the paperwork.

The narrow way back

One provision softens this. Even where the offer was refused, the suspect and the victim may go to the prosecutor themselves, with a document showing that they have settled, up to the date the indictment is drawn (CMK 253/16). That is a real window, but it is short, it depends on the other side's cooperation, and it closes without warning.

Refusing to attend

Accepting the offer is not enough on its own. Where a party, their legal representative or their counsel declines to take part in the negotiations, that party is deemed not to have accepted the settlement (CMK 253/13).

Nothing pauses while this runs

Making or accepting a mediation offer does not prevent evidence being collected or protective measures being applied (CMK 253/8). A travel ban, a reporting duty or a remand decision continues on its own track. What does stop is time: from the first offer until the mediator files the report, the limitation period and the period for bringing the case do not run (CMK 253/21).

There is no tariff and no fixed sum. Under Article 33 of the Regulation on Mediation in Criminal Procedure, the parties may agree on one or more of the following, or on any other lawful and moral performance they choose:

• Full or partial compensation of the material or non-material loss caused by the act, or restoration to the former state
• Full or partial compensation to third parties who have succeeded to the victim's rights
• A donation to a public institution, to a private body serving the public benefit, or to persons in need
• Performing specified services for a limited period — for the victim, for a third party they name, or for a public institution
• Participation in a programme directed at becoming a useful member of society
• An apology to the victim

The parties may also settle with no performance at all (Article 33/2). The prosecutor's check is that the settlement rests on free will and that the performance is lawful — not that it is generous.

Timing decides which decision you get

Under CMK 253/19, where the suspect performs the agreed obligation at once, a decision of no grounds for prosecution is issued. Where performance is deferred to a later date, put into instalments or continuing in nature, the prosecutor instead defers the opening of the prosecution — and the conditions in CMK 171 are expressly not required. Limitation does not run during the deferral. If the terms are then not met, the prosecution is opened.

Two consequences worth knowing before you sign

First, where a settlement is reached, no compensation claim may be brought over the offence, and any claim already brought is deemed withdrawn — except for losses that could not be identified at the time of settlement or that emerge afterwards (CMK 253/19). Second, if you fail to perform, the settlement report itself counts as a document with the character of a judgment under Article 38 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. The other side can enforce it against you directly.

At the trial stage

If the offence is only recognised as in scope after the prosecution has been brought, the court sends the file to the mediation bureau and the same rules apply (CMK 254/1). Where a settlement is reached and the defendant performs at once, the court dismisses the case. Where performance is deferred, put into instalments or continuing, the court issues a stay, limitation does not run during it, and if the settlement is not honoured the trial resumes from where it stopped (CMK 254/2).

• Establishing which article is recorded. Scope turns entirely on this. Whether an incident was written up as TCK 86/1 or TCK 86/3, as TCK 141 or a qualified form of theft, decides whether mediation exists at all — and a characterisation can be challenged.
• Checking whether the file was referred. Where an offence is in scope, referral to the mediation bureau is not discretionary. A file that should have gone and did not is a defect worth raising while it can still be cured.
• Handling the offer. Confirming it was properly served, that it was understood, and that the seven days are answered in writing rather than allowed to run out.
• Setting the performance. A figure and a form the prosecutor will accept as lawful, and that you can actually perform on the date promised — including from outside Türkiye.
• Choosing between at-once and deferred performance with the consequences in mind, because one produces a closed file and the other produces a conditional one.
• Asking, separately, for the measures to be lifted. A closed file does not lift a travel ban by itself.

What this page cannot tell you

Whether the other side will agree. Nothing in CMK 253 obliges a victim to accept an offer, to attend, or to accept any particular sum, and refusal carries no penalty for them. Anyone who tells you a settlement can be secured is telling you something the law does not permit them to know. What can be assessed in advance is narrower and more useful: whether your file is in scope, what a realistic performance looks like, and what happens if the answer is no.

Language

The offer, the negotiations, the report and the settlement document are in Turkish. You are agreeing to a written obligation that can later be enforced against you as if it were a judgment. Ask for interpretation, and ask for the request to be recorded — a note that a term was not understood is worth far more later than a signature given on trust.

The address in the file is the whole procedure

You do not have to be in the room

The offer may be made by explanatory notification or through letters rogatory (CMK 253/4), and counsel may attend the negotiations on your behalf (CMK 253/13). Being outside Türkiye is not a bar in itself. Being unreachable is.

The travel ban does not lift itself

A ban on leaving the country is a judicial-control obligation under CMK 109/3-a, and mediation does not suspend protective measures (CMK 253/8). It ends when the decision that closes the file removes it, or when an objection succeeds. Ask for it expressly and in writing, alongside the settlement — see remand and judicial control.

Criminal record

Only final convictions handed down by Turkish courts are entered in the judicial record, whether the person is a Turkish citizen or a foreign national (Law no. 5352, art. 4). A decision not to prosecute under CMK 253/19 and a dismissal under CMK 254/2 are not convictions, and neither creates a conviction entry. What may still exist is an investigation file recorded elsewhere — see judicial record and archive record.

Deportation is decided somewhere else

This is the limit of what a settlement buys. Removal decisions under Article 54 of Law no. 6458 are administrative. One of the grounds — Article 54/1-d, constituting a threat to public order, public security or public health — does not require a conviction at all. A closed criminal file removes the strongest evidence for that assessment; it does not bind the authority making it. If a removal or an entry ban is already in play, treat it as a second file, not a consequence of the first — see deportation and entry bans.