The Verdict in a Turkish Criminal Trial: Six Possible Decisions, and What Each One Means for You

The earlier stages are described in the notes on the first hearing in a Turkish criminal court and on evidence, closing speeches and the last word. CMK 223/1 opens the final stage: the judgment (hüküm) is given after the court has announced that the hearing is over. The same paragraph then lists what counts as a judgment. There are six decisions:

1. acquittal (beraat);
2. no penalty to be imposed (ceza verilmesine yer olmadığı);
3. conviction (mahkûmiyet);
4. a security measure (güvenlik tedbirine hükmedilmesi);
5. dismissal of the case (davanın reddi);
6. discontinuance of the case (davanın düşmesi).

The list matters because each of these is a judgment in the procedural sense, the decision that ends the trial at first instance and against which the remedies described on the appeals page are directed. CMK 223/10 adds one decision that is not on the list but is treated like it: where the criminal court decides that it lacks jurisdiction because the matter belongs to a judicial body outside the ordinary courts, that decision counts as a judgment for the purpose of legal remedies.

Each of the six decisions has a ground set out in the paragraphs that follow in Article 223, and the ground the court chooses is not a detail. Two acquittals may rest on different paragraphs; a case that ends without a penalty may do so because the defendant was not at fault or because the law waives the penalty for an act that is still an offence. The operative part and the reasoned judgment show which. The following sections take the decisions in the order the Code gives them.

Under CMK 223/2 an acquittal is given in five situations. In plain terms:

1. (a) The act is not an offence. The conduct described in the indictment is not defined as a crime by law. Whatever happened, there is nothing to punish.
2. (b) It is established that the defendant did not commit it. The evidence shows positively that someone else acted, or that the defendant was not involved.
3. (c) There was no intent or negligence. The act may have happened, but the mental element the offence requires, intent (kast) or negligence (taksir), is absent on the defendant's part.
4. (d) A ground of justification applies. The defendant did commit the act, but a ground that makes it lawful (hukuka uygunluk nedeni) was present in the circumstances.
5. (e) It is not established that the defendant committed it. The evidence is not enough to prove the charge.

The difference between (b) and (e) is a distinction worth understanding in detail. In both cases the result is an acquittal. Under (b) the court finds that the defendant did not commit the offence; under (e) the court finds that it has not been proved that he did. The operative part and the reasoning will show which ground was applied, and that is worth knowing when the judgment is read or translated, and before anyone decides whether to appeal.

CMK 223/9 protects the defendant from being given something less than an acquittal when an acquittal is available: where an acquittal can be given immediately, the court may not instead order a stay, a discontinuance or a no-penalty decision. A case may therefore not simply be closed on a technical ground if the file already shows that the defendant is entitled to be acquitted. For a defendant whose case might otherwise end because a complaint was withdrawn or a condition was not met, this is the paragraph to raise at the closing stage.

An acquitted defendant has one more thing to hear when the verdict is read. Under CMK 231/3, if there is a situation in which he may claim compensation, he is told so.

The second decision on the list, ceza verilmesine yer olmadığı, is often translated as 'no penalty' or 'no punishment to be imposed'. It is not an acquittal, and Article 223 gives it two different foundations.

CMK 223/3 covers cases where the defendant is not at fault (kusur). The court gives a no-penalty decision, because of the absence of fault, where:

• in connection with the offence, young age (yaş küçüklüğü), mental illness, or other conditions or temporary causes that the paragraph lists were present (223/3-a);
• the offence was committed in carrying out an unlawful but binding order, in a state of necessity, or under the effect of force or threat (223/3-b);
• the limits of legitimate self-defence were exceeded out of excitement, fear or panic (223/3-c);
• the defendant fell into an error that removes culpability (223/3-d).

In these cases the act was unlawful, but the person cannot be blamed for it. That is why the decision is not an acquittal: the court does not say that the act was lawful or that it was not proved.

CMK 223/4 covers a different situation. Here the act continues to be an offence, but the law provides that no penalty is imposed on the perpetrator because of:

• effective remorse (etkin pişmanlık);
• a personal ground of impunity (şahsî cezasızlık sebebi);
• mutual insult (karşılıklı hakaret);
• the slightness of the wrongful content of the act.

For the defendant the practical difference is significant. A 223/3 decision rests on the absence of fault; a 223/4 decision accepts that the offence was committed and only waives the penalty. A defendant who believes he is entitled to an acquittal under 223/2 can rely on CMK 223/9: if an acquittal can be given at once, a no-penalty decision may not be given in its place.

Conviction. Under CMK 223/5, where it is established that the defendant committed the offence charged, a conviction (mahkûmiyet) is given.

Security measure. Under CMK 223/6, where it is established that the defendant committed the offence charged, a security measure (güvenlik tedbiri) is imposed instead of, or alongside, a conviction to a specific penalty.

Dismissal. Under CMK 223/7, where a judgment has already been given, or a case has already been brought, against the same defendant for the same act, the court dismisses the case (davanın reddi). This is the procedural answer to a second prosecution: a foreign defendant who finds that the same incident is being tried twice, for example in two cities, should make sure the court knows about the other file.

Discontinuance and stay. Under CMK 223/8, the court discontinues the case (davanın düşmesi) where a ground for discontinuance provided in the Turkish Criminal Code (TCK) exists, or where it becomes clear that a condition for investigation or prosecution will not be met. The TCK grounds include the death of the defendant (TCK 64/1, although the case may continue for the confiscation of items and gains that are by their nature subject to confiscation), a general amnesty (TCK 65/1), the expiry of the limitation period for prosecution (TCK 66/1) and, in offences that may be prosecuted only on complaint, the victim's withdrawal of the complaint (TCK 73/4). A missing condition is, for example, a complaint-based offence where the person entitled did not complain within the statutory period (TCK 73/1). Where prosecution depends on a condition that has not yet been fulfilled, the court does not discontinue but orders a stay (durma) until it is; the stay can be challenged by objection (itiraz).

A withdrawal of complaint deserves a note. Under TCK 73/6, unless the law provides otherwise, a withdrawal does not affect a defendant who does not accept it. Together with CMK 223/9, this gives a defendant who wants a clear acquittal a way to say so.

The table sets the six decisions side by side.

CMK 231/1 governs the moment itself. At the end of the hearing, the operative part of the judgment (hüküm fıkrası), as entered in the hearing minutes, is read out, and the reasons are outlined in their main lines. Everyone listens to the operative part standing (231/4). The full written reasoning, the gerekçeli karar, is a separate document; how it is served and why it matters for any appeal is explained in the note on the reasoned judgment and the appeal deadline.

Two further things must be said to the defendant. Under CMK 231/2, a defendant who is present is also told which legal remedies he can use, the authority to apply to, and the time limit. Under CMK 231/3, an acquitted defendant is told if there is a situation in which he may claim compensation. The obligation in 231/2 is owed to the defendant who is present; a defendant who was absent learns of the judgment through service, which is covered in the note on being convicted in absence.

A defendant who does not know enough Turkish to express himself follows the hearing through a court-appointed interpreter, who translates the essential points of the prosecution and the defence (CMK 202/1). The reading of the operative part is the point at which those essential points matter most. In practice:

1. Ask the interpreter to translate the operative part as it is read, including the ground of any acquittal or no-penalty decision and every figure in a conviction.
2. If the translation was incomplete, say so at once and ask your lawyer to have it noted; the note on bringing your own interpreter covers the practical side.
3. Obtain, through your lawyer, the text of the operative part as entered in the minutes, and have it translated into your own language before you decide anything.
4. Write down what you are told under CMK 231/2 about remedies, the authority and the time limit, and check it with your lawyer against the reasoned judgment page linked above.
5. Keep the court and your lawyer informed of an address and contact details where documents can reach you, especially if you are leaving Türkiye, so that the reasoned judgment and any other document can reach you.

Deferral of the announcement of the verdict, hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması or HAGB, is not one of the six decisions in CMK 223. It is a decision the court may make once it has established the judgment and the penalty, and the rules were rewritten by Law no. 7589 of 16 July 2026. The account below follows that text.

When it is possible. Under CMK 231/5, where the penalty imposed at the end of the trial is imprisonment of two years or less, or a judicial fine, the court may decide to defer the announcement of the verdict. The provisions on reconciliation (uzlaşma) are reserved; see the note on criminal mediation. Deferral means that the judgment produces no legal consequence for the defendant, except for the provisions on confiscation (müsadere).

The conditions. Under CMK 231/6, three conditions must be met:

1. (a) the defendant has not previously been convicted of an intentional offence;
2. (b) the court is satisfied, taking into account his personal characteristics and his attitude and conduct at the hearing, that he will not offend again;
3. (c) the damage suffered by the victim or the public as a result of the offence has been fully remedied, by return of the property, restoration of the previous state or compensation.

If condition (c) cannot be met immediately, CMK 231/9 allows deferral on condition that the defendant fully remedies the damage by monthly instalments during the supervision period. The current text of Article 231 does not list the defendant's agreement among these conditions. Whether to accept a deferral or to press for an acquittal on appeal is discussed in the note on accepting HAGB or appealing.

What comes with it. Under CMK 231/7, a prison sentence in a judgment whose announcement is deferred cannot be suspended and, if short, cannot be converted into alternative sanctions. Under CMK 231/8, the defendant is placed under a supervision period of five years; during that period he cannot again benefit from deferral for an intentional offence. For a period set by the court, of not more than one year within the supervision period, the court may impose supervised-release measures: attending a training programme, working under supervision, or being barred from or required to attend certain places or to fulfil another obligation. The limitation period for prosecution stops running during supervision.

How it ends. If no new intentional offence is committed during supervision and the obligations are complied with, the deferred judgment is removed and a decision of discontinuance (davanın düşmesi) is given (CMK 231/10). If a new intentional offence is committed or the obligations are breached, the court announces the judgment; it may, after assessing the situation of a defendant who could not meet the obligations, order that up to half of the penalty is not executed, or, where the conditions are met, suspend the prison sentence or convert it into alternative sanctions, and establish a new conviction, which can be challenged by objection (CMK 231/11).

Challenging it and the record. Under CMK 231/12, an appeal to the regional court of appeal (istinaf) lies against a deferral decision. Deferral decisions are entered in a dedicated register, which can be used only for the purpose of Article 231 when requested by a prosecutor, judge or court in connection with an investigation or prosecution (CMK 231/13). Under CMK 231/14, deferral does not apply to torture and torment offences or to offences by public officials that may amount to ill-treatment under Article 17 of the Constitution. What deferral means for a foreigner's record and for leaving Türkiye is covered in the note on a deferred verdict for a foreign national.