— Criminal Law
Paragraphs five to fourteen of article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which governs deferral of the announcement of the judgment, were rewritten by law no. 7589, in force since 31 July 2026. The two-year limit and the five-year supervision period are preserved, while the route of appeal, the court's power to construct a fresh judgment on breach, and the offences to which the article does not apply are now set out expressly.
The change was made by article 15 of law no. 7589, known publicly as the 12th Judicial Package. The law was published in the Official Gazette of 31 July 2026, issue 33326, and entered into force the same day.
The amendment covers not the whole article but paragraphs five to fourteen. The basic structure of deferral is preserved, yet almost every rule on how the institution operates has been redrafted. The office's work in criminal law is set out on our Antalya criminal lawyer page.
What follows sets out first what deferral is and when it may be ordered, then the headings introduced by the new text: the route of appeal, the consequences of breach during the supervision period, and the offences excluded from the article.
The provision can be consulted in the text as published in the Official Gazette.
Deferral of the announcement of the judgment means that the court constructs a judgment in respect of the defendant but does not announce it. Under the text now in force, and save for the provisions on confiscation, deferral means that the judgment constructed produces no legal consequence for the defendant.
It is available where the sentence imposed is imprisonment of two years or less, or a judicial fine. That limit is unchanged. The provisions on conciliation are reserved.
The order is not an acquittal; there exists a conviction that has been constructed but not announced. If the supervision period passes without incident, the judgment is set aside and the case is dismissed.
The sixth paragraph sets out three conditions, all of which must be satisfied together.
First, the defendant must not previously have been convicted of an intentional offence. A conviction for a negligent offence is no bar.
Second, the court must be satisfied, having regard to the defendant's personal characteristics and their conduct and demeanour at the hearing, that they will not reoffend. This is the discretionary element that must be reasoned in the decision.
Third, the loss suffered by the victim or by the public through the commission of the offence must be made good in full, by restitution, by restoration to the position before the offence, or by compensation.
The ninth paragraph introduces flexibility as to the third condition: where the defendant cannot make the loss good immediately, deferral may still be ordered on condition that the loss is made good in full by monthly instalments over the supervision period.
Where deferral is ordered, the defendant is subject to a supervision period of five years. During that period no further deferral may be ordered in respect of an intentional offence.
The court may impose probation obligations for a period it determines, not exceeding one year within the supervision period. The obligations listed are: attending a training programme to acquire a trade or profession where the defendant has none; where they do, being employed for remuneration in a public body or under the supervision of another practising the same trade; being prohibited from going to specified places, being required to attend specified places, or performing another obligation the court sees fit.
An important procedural rule appears in the same paragraph: the limitation period for the prosecution is suspended during the supervision period.
Under the seventh paragraph, the term of imprisonment in a deferred judgment may not be suspended and, if short-term, may not be converted into alternative sanctions.
The tenth paragraph governs the favourable outcome: if no intentional offence is committed during the supervision period and the probation obligations are complied with, the deferred judgment is set aside and the case is dismissed.
The eleventh paragraph governs breach, and contains one of the clearest innovations in the new text. Where an intentional offence is committed during the supervision period, or the probation obligations are breached, the court announces the judgment.
The court is not, however, confined to announcing the earlier judgment mechanically. Assessing the position of a defendant who has been unable to perform the obligations, it may decide that up to one half of the sentence shall not be executed, or, where the conditions are met, suspend the term of imprisonment or convert it into alternative sanctions, and so construct a fresh conviction.
An objection lies against the judgment announced or newly constructed. The article also fixes the scope of review: the court hearing the objection may assess the matter only within the conditions set out in that paragraph.
The twelfth paragraph governs the route of appeal. That paragraph was amended once in 2024 and rewritten by law no. 7589, so it is the current text that must be relied upon.
Under the rule now in force, and save for the third paragraph of article 272 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an appeal lies against an order deferring the announcement of the judgment. Article 286 applies to decisions given by the regional court of justice.
Where the deferral order is given by a regional court of justice or by the Court of Cassation sitting as a court of first instance, an appeal on points of law lies; the third paragraph of article 272 is again reserved.
The scope of review is stated expressly: on appeal, whether ordinary or on points of law, the decision and the judgment are examined for unlawfulness as to both procedure and substance. That wording shows the review is not confined to whether the conditions for deferral were met.
Under the thirteenth paragraph, deferral orders are entered in a dedicated system. Those records may be used only where requested by a public prosecutor, judge or court in connection with an investigation or prosecution, and for the purpose stated in the article.
The fourteenth paragraph lists the offences to which the article does not apply. The provisions on deferral do not apply to the offences of torture and of ill-treatment, or to offences committed by a public official by reason of their office that may be regarded as ill-treatment within article 17 of the Constitution.
That exclusion is the most concrete provision narrowing the institution, and calls for the question of deferral to be assessed from the outset in the files concerned.
Law no. 7589 lays down detailed transitional provisions for many of its changes. It provides no separate transitional rule for the amendment to article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The question therefore falls to be resolved under the general principles of criminal procedure. Rules of procedure operate on a different logic from the principle of the more favourable law in substantive criminal law; where a provision directly affects the consequences of the judgment and the sentence, the assessment turns on the circumstances of the file.
The practical position is that which text applies in a pending file depends on the date the decision was given and the stage the file has reached. That assessment is file-specific and has no general answer.
The new text puts deferral in issue at three separate stages, each with its own approach.
At the decision stage the focus is the three conditions in the sixth paragraph. Where immediate payment is not possible, the instalment option in the ninth paragraph should be requested expressly.
At the breach stage the focus shifts to the discretion in the eleventh paragraph. As the court may leave up to half the sentence unexecuted, or suspend it or convert it into alternative sanctions, a concrete explanation and supporting documents as to why the obligation could not be performed may be decisive.
At the appellate stage the review covers unlawfulness as to both procedure and substance. In files heard in Antalya, appellate review is carried out by the criminal chambers of the Antalya Regional Court of Justice.
On rights during the investigation and prosecution stages, see our Antalya criminal lawyer page.
The questions below concern this provision; more general questions are answered on the frequently asked questions page.
The sentence imposed at the end of the trial must be imprisonment of two years or less, or a judicial fine. Law no. 7589 did not change that limit.
Under the text now in force, and save for the third paragraph of article 272 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an appeal lies against the order. Where the order is given by a regional court of justice or the Court of Cassation sitting at first instance, an appeal on points of law lies.
Five years. During that period no further deferral may be ordered in respect of an intentional offence. The court may also impose probation obligations for up to one year. The limitation period for the prosecution is suspended during supervision.
The court announces the judgment. It may, however, assessing the position of a defendant unable to perform the obligations, decide that up to half the sentence shall not be executed, or suspend the sentence or convert it into alternative sanctions, constructing a fresh conviction. An objection lies against that judgment.
Inability to make the loss good immediately is not in itself a bar. Deferral may be ordered on condition that the loss is made good in full by monthly instalments over the supervision period.
Under the fourteenth paragraph, the provisions do not apply to the offences of torture and ill-treatment, or to offences committed by a public official by reason of their office that may be regarded as ill-treatment within article 17 of the Constitution.
Deferral orders are entered in a dedicated system. Those records may be used only where requested by a public prosecutor, judge or court in connection with an investigation or prosecution, and for the purpose stated in the article.
The new text turns deferral from an institution confined to a single moment of decision into one designed together with its appellate and breach stages. The choice made at the decision stage should therefore be weighed against the consequences it will produce throughout the supervision period.
The office's fields of work are set out on our practice areas page. For an assessment of a particular file, the office can be reached through the contact page.