Reopening a Final Criminal Judgment in Türkiye: Retrial under CMK 311-323

Yes, but only through the retrial route and only on the grounds the Code lists. Under CMK 311/1, a case that ended with a final judgment is heard again by way of retrial in favour of the convicted person in the situations set out in that paragraph, and under CMK 314/1 it can also be heard again against the defendant or the convicted person in the narrower situations listed there. Under CMK 318/1, the request is submitted to the court that gave the judgment, and that court decides whether the request is admissible.

A retrial is not a third appeal. Istinaf and temyiz, explained in the notes on appealing to the regional court and appealing to the Court of Cassation, are used before the judgment becomes final; the retrial starts from a final judgment. Under CMK 317/1, the general provisions on applying for remedies also apply to a retrial request, and under CMK 317/2, the request contains its legal grounds and the evidence on which it relies.

The two directions, as the Code words them:

The provisions summarised here set no date for the decision, and this note does not predict one.

A convicted person can ask for a retrial on the six grounds in CMK 311/1, and on no other ground under that article. Each ground must be shown and supported by evidence.

Under CMK 311/1, the case is heard again in favour of the convicted person:

• (a) if it is established that a document used at the hearing and affecting the judgment was forged;
• (b) if it is established that a witness or a bilirkişi (a person appointed by the court to give a technical opinion) heard under oath gave untrue testimony or an untrue opinion against the convicted person, intentionally or by negligence, in a way that affected the judgment;
• (c) if one of the judges who took part in the judgment, other than through a fault caused by the convicted person, failed in their duties in a way that calls for a criminal prosecution against them or their conviction of an offence;
• (d) if the criminal judgment was based on a judgment of a civil court and that civil judgment was set aside by another final judgment;
• (e) if new facts or new evidence are put forward which, alone or together with the evidence submitted earlier, are of a nature to require the defendant's acquittal or their conviction under a provision of law carrying a lighter penalty;
• (f) if a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has established that the criminal judgment was given in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights or its protocols and that the judgment rests on that violation, or if the European Court has struck out an application against the criminal judgment following a friendly settlement or a unilateral declaration.

The European Court ground. The words on a friendly settlement and a unilateral declaration were added to sub-paragraph (f) by Law No. 7145 of 25 July 2018. The retrial on this ground can be requested within one year from the date the European Court's judgment became final. Under CMK 311/2, sub-paragraph (f) applies to final judgments of the European Court as at 4 February 2003 and to judgments given on applications made to the European Court after 4 February 2003.

Grounds that rest on an offence. Under CMK 316/1, a retrial request based on an allegation that an offence was committed can be accepted only if a final conviction has been given for that act, or if a criminal investigation could not be started or continued for a reason other than the absence of strong evidence sufficient for a conviction. The same paragraph says that it does not apply to the situation in CMK 311/1(e).

The Constitutional Court route. CMK 311/1 does not list a judgment of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi) among its grounds. That route is set out in Law No. 6216 on the Constitutional Court. Under article 50/2 of Law No. 6216, if the violation found arises from a court decision, the file is sent to the court concerned to hold a retrial in order to remove the violation and its consequences. Where there is no legal interest in holding a retrial, compensation may be awarded to the applicant or the way to bring a case before the general courts may be shown. The court obliged to hold the retrial decides, if possible on the file, in a way that removes the violation and its consequences as explained in the Constitutional Court's violation judgment. How that application is made is outside this note.

Retrial against the defendant. A final judgment can also be reopened to the defendant's disadvantage. Under CMK 314/1, the case is heard again against the defendant or the convicted person:

• (a) if it is established that a document put forward at the hearing in favour of the defendant or convicted person, and affecting the judgment, was forged;
• (b) if one of the judges who took part in the judgment failed in their duties in favour of the defendant or convicted person, in a way that calls for a criminal prosecution against them or their conviction of an offence;
• (c) if, after being acquitted, the defendant made a credible confession about the offence before a judge.

Requests the Code does not accept. Under CMK 315/1, a retrial cannot be accepted for the purpose of changing the penalty within the limits set by the same article of the law. Under CMK 315/2, if there is another way to correct the error, the retrial route cannot be used. Whether another way is open in a given file is a question for the court.

Situations that do not prevent a retrial. Under CMK 313/1, the fact that the judgment has been executed, or that the convicted person has died, does not prevent a retrial request. Under CMK 313/2, the spouse, ascendants, descendants and siblings of the deceased may make the request, and under CMK 313/3, if none of them exists, the Minister of Justice may also make it.

Who may file. CMK 317/1 applies the general provisions on remedies to a retrial request. Among them, under CMK 260/1, remedies against the decisions of judges and courts are open to the prosecutor, the suspect, the defendant, those who have acquired the status of intervening party (katılan) under the Code, and those whose request to join has not been decided or was rejected, or who were harmed by the offence in a way that could give them that status. Under CMK 260/3, the prosecutor may also use remedies in favour of the defendant. Under CMK 261/1, a lawyer may use remedies for the persons they act for as defence counsel or representative, on condition that this is not contrary to the express wish of the person. Under CMK 262/1, the legal representative and the spouse of the suspect or defendant may, of their own accord and within the period, use the remedies open to the suspect or defendant. For a person abroad, see power of attorney for a Turkish criminal case from abroad.

What the request must contain. Under CMK 317/2, the request contains its legal grounds and the evidence on which it relies. This is the point on which a request is first tested: under CMK 319/1, a request that was not made in the form set by law, or that shows no legal ground requiring a retrial, or that does not disclose the evidence supporting it, is rejected as not admissible.

Where it goes. Under CMK 318/1, the request is submitted to the court that gave the judgment. Under CMK 318/2, the request is also filed with the court that had given the judgment where the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) decided the case itself under CMK 303. Under CMK 23/3, in a retrial, a judge who took part in the earlier proceedings cannot sit in the same case (see challenging the judge).

In two stages without a hearing: first admissibility (CMK 318/3), then whether the request is well founded (CMK 321/1); only after that does the court open a new hearing or, in the situations the Code names, acquit directly.

The steps, in the order the Code gives them:

1. Admissibility. The court rejects the request as inadmissible in the situations in CMK 319/1: not made in the form set by law, no legal ground shown, or no supporting evidence disclosed. Under CMK 319/3, an objection (itiraz) can be made against decisions under that article.
2. Service. Otherwise, under CMK 319/2, the request is served on the public prosecutor and the party concerned, so that they can state within two weeks anything they have to say.
3. Gathering evidence. Under CMK 320/1, if the court finds the request justified, it may appoint a delegated judge (naip hâkim) or a court acting on letters rogatory (istinabe) to gather the evidence, or it may do this itself. Under CMK 320/2, the provisions on the investigation apply while the evidence is gathered.
4. Comments. Under CMK 320/3, once the evidence has been gathered, the public prosecutor and the person against whom the judgment was given are asked to state their views within two weeks.
5. Merits of the request. Under CMK 321/1, if the claims are not sufficiently confirmed, or if in the situations in CMK 311/1(a) and (b) and CMK 314/1(a) it appears, depending on the circumstances, that they had no effect at all on the earlier judgment, the request is rejected as unfounded without a hearing. Under CMK 321/2, otherwise the court decides on a retrial and on opening the hearing. Under CMK 321/3, an objection can be made against decisions under that article.

The two-week periods. The periods in CMK 319/2 and 320/3 were changed from seven days to two weeks by Law No. 7499 of 2 March 2024. Under provisional article 6/1(c) of the CMK, added by the same Law, the changes made in articles 319 and 320 apply to decisions given on or after 1 June 2024; for decisions given before that date, the earlier provisions continue to apply.

Acquittal without a new hearing. Under CMK 322/1, if the convicted person has died, the court, without a new hearing and after gathering the necessary evidence, either acquits the convicted person or rejects the retrial request. Under CMK 322/2, in other cases too, if there is sufficient evidence on this point, the court acquits the convicted person immediately without a hearing, after obtaining the favourable opinion of the public prosecutor. Under CMK 322/3, together with the acquittal the court also orders that the earlier judgment be set aside. Under CMK 322/4, at the request of the person who asked for the retrial, the decision setting aside the earlier judgment is announced in the Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) at the State Treasury's expense, and may also be announced in other newspapers at the court's discretion.

No, filing does not by itself stop the sentence. Under CMK 312/1, a retrial request does not postpone execution of the judgment; however, the court may decide to defer (geri bırakma) or stop (durdurma) execution.

The judgment after the new hearing. Under CMK 323/1, at the end of the new hearing the court either upholds the earlier judgment or sets it aside and gives a new judgment in the case. Under CMK 323/2, if the retrial request was made in favour of the convicted person, the new judgment cannot contain a heavier penalty than the one set by the earlier judgment. The paragraph speaks of the penalty (ceza), and this note does not extend it to other consequences of a judgment.

Compensation. Under CMK 323/3, where the retrial ends with an acquittal or a decision that there is no room for a penalty, the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage the person suffered because the earlier conviction was executed in whole or in part is compensated under articles 141 to 144 of the CMK. The conditions of that claim are set out in those articles; see the note on compensation for wrongful detention.

Two related provisions. Under CMK 247/3, as amended by Law No. 7589 of 16 July 2026, a fugitive defendant (kaçak) can be prosecuted, but a conviction or a decision that there is no room for a penalty cannot be given if the defendant has not been questioned before; where a security measure is ordered, the fugitive defendant or defence counsel may ask for a retrial, stating that they wish to exercise the right of defence. See also convicted in your absence. The Code also contains other extraordinary remedies, such as quashing in the interest of the law (kanun yararına bozma, CMK 309), with their own rules; they are outside this note.

If a final Turkish judgment affects you, a lawyer can obtain the file, check whether one of the grounds in CMK 311/1 can be supported with evidence, and draft the request. The decision remains with the court. The wider picture of the stage after the verdict is on the appeals in Türkiye page.