The Reasoned Judgment in a Turkish Criminal Case: the document that starts the two-week clock

At the end of the hearing the court reads out the operative part — the hüküm fıkrası entered in the record under CMK 232 — and explains the reasoning in outline (CMK 231/1). A defendant who is present is then told which remedies are available, before which authority, and within what period (CMK 231/2). That is the short decision, and it is usually a single page.

The document carrying the reasoning is written afterwards. CMK 232/3 provides that where the reasoning of the judgment, and any dissenting reasoning, has not been entered into the record in full, it is placed in the case file within fifteen days at the latest from pronouncement. CMK 34/1 requires every decision of a judge or court, dissent included, to be written with reasons drafted with Article 230 in view; CMK 34/2 requires the decision to state the remedy available, its period, the authority and the form of application. CMK 232/6 repeats the point for the operative part: the decision given under Article 223, the provisions applied, the amount of sentence, and whether appeal and compensation are open — with the period and the authority — must appear without room for doubt.

Fifteen days is the rule. In a heavy file it often runs longer, and nobody telephones to say the document has been signed. Between the hearing and service there is a gap, and that gap is the part of the process foreign defendants most often spend abroad, assuming the matter is closed.

Under CMK 35/1 a decision given in the presence of the party is announced to them, and a copy handed over if they ask for one. CMK 35/2 provides that, apart from decisions on protective measures, judge and court decisions open to a remedy are served on a party who could not be present. CMK 35/3 adds that where that person is not at liberty or is remanded, the served decision is read out and explained to them. Service abroad follows CMK 37/2: where international agreements permit written documents to be sent directly by post, it is effected by registered post with return receipt, or by other means of communication.

Counting is governed by CMK 39/2, and it is not a count of days. A period fixed in weeks ends at the close of business hours on the day of the final week bearing the same name as the day service was made. Served on a Thursday, the period expires at the close of business on the second Thursday following. Where the last day falls on a holiday, CMK 39/4 moves the end to the day after.

The application goes to the court that gave the judgment, by petition or by a declaration to the clerk which is entered in a record and confirmed by the judge (CMK 273/1; CMK 291/1). A defendant in custody uses CMK 263 instead. One relief is written into CMK 273/4: for a defendant, the absence of stated grounds in the petition does not prevent the examination. The two weeks protect the right of appeal; the reasoning can follow.

CMK 230/1 sets out what the reasoning of a conviction must show:

• the arguments advanced in the accusation and in the defence;
• the discussion and assessment of the evidence, identifying what was relied on and what was rejected — and, within that, showing separately and expressly any evidence in the file obtained by unlawful methods;
• the conclusion reached, the act found established and how it is characterised, and the determination of sentence according to the order and principles in Articles 61 and 62 of the Penal Code, together with any security measure under Article 53 and following;
• the grounds for suspending the sentence, converting a prison term into a judicial fine or another measure, or for accepting or refusing a request to that effect.

For an acquittal, CMK 230/2 requires the reasoning to identify which of the situations in CMK 223/2 it rests on. Reading the document against this list is the first task of the two weeks, not a formality. Reasoning that never discusses a refused defence witness, or that applies an increase without showing the base it was applied to, has failed a requirement of the article — and under CMK 272/2 rulings given before the judgment that formed its basis are challenged together with the judgment.

Timing carries beyond the sentence. CMK 275/1 provides that an istinaf application made within the period prevents the judgment becoming final, and what follows a Turkish criminal file — including what appears on a Turkish criminal record — proceeds from a judgment that has become final.

CMK 202/1 appoints an interpreter where the defendant or the victim does not know Turkish well enough to explain themselves, and defines what is interpreted narrowly: the essential points of the accusation and the defence at the hearing. CMK 202/3 extends the same rule to a suspect, victim or witness heard during the investigation, where the interpreter is appointed by the judge or the prosecutor. CMK 202/4 adds a separate facility — after the indictment is explained and after the closing opinion on the merits, a defendant may give an oral defence in another language they state they can express themselves better in, through an interpreter chosen from the annual list, whose costs are not met by the Treasury.

None of this reaches the written reasoned judgment. What the article guarantees is interpretation in the courtroom, not a translated copy of the document that starts the appeal period. The judgment arrives in Turkish, and the two weeks include whatever time it takes to have it read to you. Where the case turned on what an interpreter conveyed in the first place, that is itself material for the appeal, and how interpretation is recorded — and where it fails — is set out in interpreter rights in a Turkish criminal case.

Missing the period is not automatically the end of it. CMK 40/1 allows a person who has let a period expire without fault to seek restoration — eski hâle getirme. CMK 40/2 adds the rule that matters most here: a person is also deemed to be without fault where the right of appeal was not notified to them. Read against CMK 34/2 and CMK 232/6, which oblige the decision itself to state the remedy, the period and the authority, that is a question worth putting to the document you actually received. Under CMK 41/1 the petition goes, within two weeks of the obstacle being removed, to the court that would have carried out the procedural step, setting out the facts showing absence of fault with any supporting documents; the step that could not be taken is performed at the same time.

Two traps follow. Where the judgment was given in your absence, CMK 274 provides that the istinaf period keeps running during the restoration period and that the appeal must be lodged as well — restoration on its own does not preserve it. And where the court that gave the judgment rejects the petition as out of time under CMK 276/1, CMK 276/2 gives two weeks from service of that rejection to ask the regional court of appeal to rule on the point, though execution is not deferred meanwhile.

A deferred verdict reaches the same place through a different door: CMK 231/12 currently provides for an istinaf application against a decision deferring announcement of the judgment, subject to CMK 272/3 — a route worth weighing before accepting the deferral, which is the subject of suspended sentences and deferral of announcement. What comes after the petition — which judgments may be appealed at all, what the regional court can do with the file, and where temyiz begins — is set out in appeals in Turkish criminal cases.