Dülger Law Office/Publications/Commentary
Some Important Changes Introduced by the 11th Judicial Package
(11. Yargı Paketi ile Getirilen Bazı Önemli Değişiklikler)
Introduction
This work was written in Turkish. The summary on this page is a translation; the citation gives the original title in parentheses.
The 11th Judicial Package was published in the Official Gazette today and entered into force. The package amends many basic statutes, above all the Turkish Criminal Code (TCK) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK). The provision that has attracted the most attention and reaction, however, is the amendment to the Law on the Execution of Sentences. Under the name of “equality in execution”, this amendment amounts to a “covert amnesty”. Constantly making short-term amendments to basic statutes that respond only to day-to-day needs undermines legal certainty.
Legal certainty and foreseeability can be secured not by frequent changes to statutes but by stable, consistent and equal application. In a system dominated by constantly changing rules, criminal justice is not strengthened and social trust cannot be built. Some of the important amendments that the Law makes to the TCK, the CMK and other related statutes, together with our assessment and views on them, are set out below.
Full text
This text is a translation of the Turkish original, prepared for this website. Numbers in square brackets are the page numbers of the original; sources in the footnotes are given as in the original. For citation, the original publication (PDF) is authoritative.
The “Bill on the Amendment of the Turkish Criminal Code and Certain Other Laws” No. 103 of 27.11.2025, known as the 11th Judicial Package, was submitted to Parliament and entered into force upon its publication in the Official Gazette No. 33118 of 25 December 2025. Some of the important amendments contained in the Bill to the Turkish Criminal Code (TCK), the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) and other related laws are examined below.
| Law No. 5235 on the Establishment, | |
|---|---|
| Duties and Powers of the Courts of First Instance in Ordinary Jurisdiction and the Regional Courts of Appeal | |
| Amendment | Comment |
| The court having jurisdiction over the offence of aggravated fraud has been changed to the criminal court of first instance. (Law No. 5235, Art. 12) | It is thought that the amendment is intended to remedy the problems arising in practice from the fact that different criminal courts had jurisdiction over the basic form and the aggravated form of the same offence. However, it is not an appropriate arrangement for the offence of fraud, which mostly involves voluminous files, to be tried by single-judge criminal courts of first instance; what ought to be done is to confer jurisdiction on the assize courts for both the basic form and the aggravated form of the offence of fraud. |
| It has been provided that the change of jurisdiction concerning the offence of aggravated fraud will not apply to files in which proceedings have already been brought before the court. (Law No. 5235, Provisional Article 7) | This is an appropriate provision in that it avoids any doubt in practice. By stating that the change of jurisdiction will apply to cases to be brought in future, the aim was to prevent ongoing trials from being prolonged by unnecessary decisions declining jurisdiction |
| Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 | |
| Amendment | Comment |
| It has been provided that, in the case of persons with partial mental illness, a security measure shall be ordered in addition to the conviction. (TCK Art. 32) | Under TCK Art. 32(2), it was possible for the sentence imposed on persons with partial mental illness to be converted, in whole or in part, into a security measure. The amendment provides that sentences may no longer be converted into a security measure and that, when convicting, the judge must additionally order a security measure. The aim is thus to prevent persons with partial mental illness from serving their sentences in a treatment institution. Accordingly, the intention is to ensure that perpetrators whose will was affected to a certain degree by partial mental illness at the time of the offence (but who also partly retained their will) both serve a certain part of the penalty corresponding to their offence as “punishment” and are placed in an institution for the treatment of their illness. In our view, this is an appropriate provision that is consistent with both criminal policy and sanctions policy. |
| A minimum period of treatment has been laid down for the mentally ill. (TCK Art. 57) | Laying down a minimum period of treatment is an appropriate provision. (One year for offences punishable by aggravated life imprisonment or life imprisonment; six months for offences punishable by imprisonment with an upper limit of more than ten years.) However, the solution to this problem lies not so much in introducing minimum periods into the TCK as in ensuring that the treatment process is carried out well. For what matters is that these individuals, who pose a danger to society but whose capacity of will is also restricted to a certain degree, are treated within the “necessary and sufficient” time and rendered no longer dangerous. And that can be achieved not by a period of time but by the treatment producing results. |
|---|---|
| The first paragraph of the offence of insult has been brought within the scope of prepayment. (TCK Art. 75) | Under the provision in force, TCK Art. 125(2), sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of Art. 125(3) and Art. 125(4) were within the scope of prepayment, whereas TCK Art. 125(1) was excluded. This, however, had been found by the Constitutional Court (AYM) to be contrary to the principle of equality and had been annulled. Accordingly, the amendment brings the first paragraph of the offence of insult within the scope of prepayment as well. The offence of insult has thus been removed entirely from the scope of victim–offender mediation and brought within the scope of prepayment. |
| The penalty for the offence of negligent injury has been increased. (TCK Art. 89) | Considering that negligent offences have increased considerably in recent years and that a great many of the existing files have been opened for negligent offences, it is appropriate to legislate on this matter. Indeed, in the modern and post-modern world that began with the industrial revolution and continues with the information revolution, there has been a serious increase in the number and intensity of negligent offences. Negligent offences, once regarded as exceptional, have today become, as it were, a basic mode of commission of crime. However, the prevention of negligent offences can be achieved not by means of criminal policy, through increasing the penalties prescribed for them, but by correctly determining the rules relating to the sphere of life in which the negligent conduct occurs (traffic, occupational health and safety, medical interventions, etc.), that is, the norms relating to the objective duty of care, by strictly ensuring compliance with them and, most importantly, by educating the whole of society on this matter. Amending the criminal code for this purpose is merely a palliative. |
| Commission of the offence of breach of trust in respect of a motor vehicle has been made an aggravated form, and the penalty to be imposed has been increased. (TCK Art. 155) | Considering that in recent years the offence of breach of trust has been widely committed by failing to return rental vehicles or by replacing their parts, “the subject matter of the offence of breach of trust being a motor land, sea or air vehicle” has been made a new aggravated form. This, too, is a good example showing us that the legal interests protected by an offence change from time to time and from society to society. |
| Blank-firing guns have been brought within the scope of the offence of endangering public safety, and the | Given the widespread use of the weapons known as blank-firing guns, which are very difficult to distinguish from real firearms by their appearance, the provision is well judged in terms of |
| penalties have been increased. (TCK Art. 170(1)) | deterrence. This, too, is an amendment made in line with the requirements of criminal policy in the context of the legal interest protected by the offence. |
|---|---|
| Commission of the offence of endangering public safety in places where people are gathered together has been made an aggravated form. (TCK Art. 170(2)) | Having regard to the purpose of the article and the legal interest it protects, the amendment in question is an appropriate provision. |
| The terms of imprisonment for the organisation offence have been increased; the use of children in offences committed within the framework of an organisation has been made an aggravated form. (TCK Art. 220) | It is thought that the fact that, in recent times, a significant proportion of the files concerning illegal betting, fraud, laundering of the proceeds of crime or matters of a political nature have been dealt with as organisation cases was an influential factor in the adoption of this provision. On the other hand, the increase in penalty provided for where children are used in offences committed within the framework of an organisation is an appropriate provision aimed at protecting children. |
| The offence of hijacking or detaining means of transport has been redrafted, and force and threat have ceased to be elements of the offence. (TCK Art. 223) | Hijacking or detaining means of transport by using force or threat or by other unlawful conduct used to be defined as an offence. Under the provision in question, force and threat have ceased to be elements of the offence and interference with means of transport has been made an offence in itself; it has further been provided that, where another offence is committed for the purpose of or in the course of committing this offence, the provisions on real concurrence shall apply. In addition, it has been laid down that the offence defined in the first and second paragraphs of the article shall not be constituted where these acts are committed during meetings and demonstration marches held in accordance with the law. In other words, it has been provided that preventing land, sea and rail means of transport (air transport excepted) from moving during meetings and demonstration marches does not constitute the offence under this law. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 | |
| Amendment | Comment |
| A new article has been introduced governing the suspension and seizure of accounts holding the benefit obtained through the commission of cybercrime. (CMK Art. 128/A) | Where there is reasonable suspicion relating to the offences listed in the article (aggravated theft, aggravated fraud and misuse of bank or credit cards), the provision empowers the bank, payment service provider or crypto-asset service provider to suspend the account concerned for up to 48 hours. It further provides that the pecuniary benefit held in the account may be seized by decision of a judge or order of a public prosecutor and that, if it is established that it belongs to the victim, this benefit may be returned at the investigation or prosecution stage. However, it is considered that this provision, introduced for the effective fight against cybercrime, constitutes a disproportionate interference with individuals’ right to |
| property. (A similar provision is also found in Art. 19/A of Law No. 5549) | |
|---|---|
| It has been accepted that the offence of endangering public safety committed in places where people are gathered together falls outside the scope of the fast-track trial procedure. (CMK Art. 250) | In parallel with the amendment made to TCK Art. 170, this aggravated form has been excluded from the scope of the fast-track trial procedure. |
| The case where the subject matter of the offence of breach of trust is a motor vehicle has been excluded from the scope of victim–offender mediation (CMK Art. 253(1)) | In parallel with the amendment made to TCK Art. 155, this aggravated form has been excluded from the scope of victim–offender mediation. |
| It has been provided that victim–offender mediation is not available in respect of the offence of insult. (CMK Art. 253(3)) | TCK Art. 125(1), which was brought within the scope of prepayment by the amendment made to TCK Art. 75, has been removed from the scope of victim–offender mediation. It is thought that this amendment was felt to be necessary because the fact that the offence of insult was subject to victim–offender mediation had virtually turned into a method of generating income. |
| It has been provided that, where a prepayment offence and a mediation offence have been committed against the same victim, the mediation provisions shall apply in respect of the mediation offence. (CMK Art. 253(3)) | This provision makes it possible to apply both institutions where an offence falling within the scope of prepayment and an offence falling within the scope of victim–offender mediation are committed together against the same victim. |
| The scope of the regional courts of appeal’s power to quash judgments has been widened. (CMK Art. 280) | This provision enables the regional courts of appeal to quash a judgment where it contains no reasoning and where the rights of the defence have been restricted. In fact, this was the original form of the provision, but the article was restricted in this way by Art. 98 of Decree-Law (KHK) No. 696 of 20/11/2017. The reason given for this was that the regional courts of appeal (BAM) were making very wide use of their power to quash. The reason for now returning to the same provision cannot be understood. In our view, removing these from the grounds for quashing was pointless in the first place. Nor is there now any meaningful reason for returning to the same provision. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum of the bill contains no explanation whatsoever. In other words, the reason for this amendment is not being explained to society. Consequently, instead of strategic changes in criminal law policy being made in the light of scientific data, the CMK is being turned into a patchwork by amendments which have no strategic meaning and are made on account of day-to-day needs or policies. This, in turn, adversely affects both our country’s law of criminal |
| procedure and the practice of criminal law in the medium and long term. | |
|---|---|
| Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures | |
| Amendment | Comment |
| For offences committed on or before 31/7/2023, the possibility has been granted of being transferred to an open prison and/or released on probation 3 years earlier, but certain offences have been excluded from the scope of this provision. (Law No. 5275, Provisional Art. 10) | It has been stated that this provision was made with the aim of ensuring equality between offences committed before and after 31.07.2023. In addition, offences of intentional killing (sub-paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of the first paragraph of Article 82), offences of killing resulting from the destruction, collapse or damage of buildings or other structures on account of an earthquake, and offences against sexual inviolability (Articles 102 and 103 and the second and third paragraphs of Article 104) have been excluded from this provision. However, the criterion to be taken as the basis for ensuring equality in the execution of sentences is not the date on which the offence was committed but the date on which the sentence is executed. Provisions of this kind, which take the date of commission of the offence as their basis, are in the nature not of equality in execution but of an “amnesty”. And bringing about the release of thousands of people through such an amendment to the Law on the Execution of Sentences amounts to a “disguised amnesty”. If the intention is to enact an amnesty law, the qualified majority required for this by Art. 87 of the Constitution (a majority of 3/5 of the total number of members, that is, 360 votes) must be secured and political responsibility must be assumed. Enacting a disguised amnesty by constantly tinkering with the execution law in this way amounts to circumventing the Constitution and the law. And this is not a method that can be accepted in a state governed by the rule of law. |
| Electronic Communications Law No. 5809 | |
| Amendment | Comment |
| The establishment of subscriptions for communication lines and the use of such lines have been made subject to strict conditions. (Law No. 5809, Art. 50) | Considering that the lines known as fake and “open” lines are used as instruments in a great many offences and that it is difficult to trace the holders of these lines, the provision in question is well judged. |
| It has been provided that the connection of a communication line used in an offence may be cut off. (Law No. 5809, Art. 60) | In order to prevent more people from becoming victims through lines used in offences, provision has been made for the connection of a line found to have been used in the offences of aggravated theft, fraud and misuse of bank or credit cards under the TCK to be cut off by decision of a judge or, in cases where delay would be prejudicial, upon the written order of the public prosecutor. |