1. INTRODUCTION
The law commonly referred to as the 11th Judicial Reform Package, namely the “Law Nr. 7571 on Amendments to the Turkish Penal Code and Some Certain Laws and Decree Law Nr. 631”, was promulgated in the Official Journal on 25.12.2025 and entered into force [1]. In recent years, the judicial reform packages consecutively enacted in the Turkish legal system have been prepared with the aim of addressing issues that arise in practice. Accordingly, the 11th Judicial Reform Package includes provisions such as increasing penalties for certain types of offenses, extending the scope of the “Covid-19 regulation” that allows early release for prisoners except for certain exceptional crimes based on the date of the offense, regulating attorney disciplinary provisions in line with the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision, and accelerating the process of annulling auctions under the Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law [2]. This article will systematically examine the amendments introduced under the 11th Judicial Reform Package and assess their legal implications.
2. AMENDMENTS TO TURKISH PENAL CODE
The 11th Judicial Reform Package introduced amendments to various provisions of the Turkish Penal Code Nr. 5237. The provisions amended and the content of these amendments are as follows:
2.1. Imposition of an Additional Security Measure in Case of Mental Illness (Art. 32 of TPC)
With the amendment to the second paragraph of Article 32 of the Turkish Penal Code, a new execution and security measure regime has been introduced for individuals with partial mental illness whose criminal liability is recognized. Prior to the amendment, it was deemed sufficient to apply a reduction in the sentence for such individuals, and there was no explicit or mandatory regulation concerning the imposition of security measures.
With this amendment, it has been explicitly set out that, in addition to the execution of the prison sentence imposed on an individual who has criminal liability despite partial mental illness, a security measure specific to persons with mental illness shall also be ordered. In this way, the legislator aims both to punish such individuals for the acts they have committed and to apply protective measures to safeguard society against the state of dangerousness arising from mental illness.
2.2. Duration of Security Measures Specific to Persons with Mental Illness (Art. 57 of TPC)
With the sentence added to the second paragraph of Article 57 of the Turkish Penal Code, the minimum periods that persons with mental illness are required to spend in a healthcare institution for treatment and protection purposes have been determined. Accordingly, for persons with mental illness against whom a security measure has been ordered, the following minimum periods to be spent in a healthcare institution have been made mandatory:
-At
least one year for offenses punishable by aggravated life imprisonment or life
imprisonment,
-At least six months for offenses punishable by imprisonment with an upper limit exceeding ten years.
The regulation aims to ensure the treatment and rehabilitation of persons with mental illness who have committed criminal offenses.
2.3. Inclusion of the Offense of Insult within the Scope of Prepayment (Art. 75 of TPC)
The amendment to Article 75 of the Turkish Penal Code constitutes a regulation expanding the prepayment regime for the offense of insult. Prior to the amendment, the prepayment provisions could only be applied if the insult was committed through a verbal, written or visual communication—in other words, in a digital form. With the recent change, this scope has been broadened: insults committed face-to-face or in the absence of the victim are now also included within the prepayment framework. Thus, for the offense of insult, as set out under Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code, the prepayment provisions can now be applied to all forms of commission, except for the case specified in paragraph (a) of the third clause concerning insults directed at a public official due to their duty. Insults committed against a public official on account of their official duties remain outside the scope of prepayment, and investigations and prosecutions for such offenses continue to be conducted under the general provisions.
With this regulation, the aim is to reduce the burden of criminal proceedings for offenses of insult and to ensure that related disputes are resolved more swiftly.
2.4. Increasing the Penalty Limits for Crime of Negligent Injury (Art. 89 of TPC)
The penalties for the crime of negligent injury, as set out under Article 89 of the Turkish Penal Code, have been increased. Under the amendment, the minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment prescribed in the first paragraph for a person who causes pain to another’s body or impairs their health or perceptual abilities through negligence have been raised. Previously set at three months to one year, the sentence is now regulated as four months to two years. Similarly, the penalty for causing injury to multiple persons has also been increased; the imprisonment term previously set at six months to three years in the fourth paragraph has been changed to nine months to five years.
The amendment aims to increase deterrence by imposing harsher consequences for violations of the duty of care and diligence.
2.5. New Aggravating Circumstance in the Crime of Abuse of Trust (Art. 155 of TPC)
Article 155 of TPC has been amended by adding a third paragraph, which establishes that the abuse of trust involving a motorized land, sea, or air vehicle constitutes an aggravated form of the crime. In such cases, the penalty for the crime of abuse of trust is increased by one degree.
The amendment introduces a more effective sanction specifically against the misuse of vehicles, a conduct frequently encountered in the vehicle rental sector.
2.6. Increase of Penalties for the Crime of Deliberately Endangering Public Safety (Art. 170 of TPC)
The amendment to Article 170 of the TPC increased the primary penalty for the crime; the previous sentence of six months to three years’ imprisonment was revised to one to five years’ imprisonment. Firearms capable of discharging blank cartridges pistol or gas, commonly referred to as “kurusıkı” in public discourse, have been explicitly included within the scope of the offense. In addition, it is stipulated that if the crime is committed in places where people gather collectively, the penalty shall be increased by half.
This amendment aims, in particular, to prevent the use of firearms or blank cartridges pistols during celebrations such as weddings, engagements, or military send-offs, and more generally in residential areas.
2.7. Increase of Penalties for the Crime of Forming an Organization for the Purpose of Committing a Crime (Art. 220 of TPC)
The amendment to Article 220 of the TPC introduced significant changes aimed at increasing penalties in organized crime. Accordingly, the minimum and maximum imprisonment sentence for those who establish or manage an organization for the purpose of committing a crime have been raised; under the previous regulation, the sentence ranged from four to eight years, whereas it has now been set at five to ten years of imprisonment. For those who are members of the organization, the maximum penalty has also been increased; under the previous regulation, imprisonment could be up to four years, whereas it has now been revised to up to five years. In addition, if the organization is armed, the sentence enhancement rate—previously left to the judge’s discretion, ranging from one-quarter to one-half—has been clarified to a fixed one-half increase.
With the newly added provision, the use of children as instruments in criminal activities within the scope of an organization has been explicitly established as an aggravating factor. Accordingly, when children are exploited in crimes committed as part of organizational activities, the sentence for the organization’s leaders shall be increased by one-half to a full additional increment.
This provision introduces harsher penalties in the fight against criminal organizations and aims to prevent the exploitation of children as instruments in the commission of crimes.
2.8. Redefinition of the Offense of Obstructing the Movement of Transportation Vehicles, Hijacking or Detaining Vehicles (Art. 223 of TPC)
Article 223 of the TPC has been amended in its entirety, including its title. The new title has been broadened, and unlike the previous version, the expression “obstructing the movement of transportation vehicles” explicitly details acts that impede the operation of transportation vehicles.
Prior to the amendment, the offence of obstructing the movement of transportation vehicles, or hijacking or unlawfully detaining them, required the act to involve force or threat. Under the new regulation introduced within the scope of the 11th Judicial Reform Package, the phrase “force or threat” has been removed and replaced with the expression “an unlawful act.” In other words, the element of force or threat has been excluded from the statutory definition of the offence, and any unlawful conduct has been deemed sufficient for the commission of the crime. Consequently, the scope of the offence has been expanded.
The amendment also increases the statutory penalty ranges for unlawful interference with transportation vehicles. Accordingly, with respect to road transportation vehicles, imprisonment from one to three years is prescribed for acts involving the obstruction of a vehicle’s movement or stopping a vehicle while in motion through an unlawful act; where the vehicle is taken to a destination other than the one to which it was heading, a sentence of two to five years’ imprisonment is prescribed. For sea and railway transportation vehicles, the penalties have been increased, providing for three to seven years’ imprisonment. With regard to air transportation vehicles, a more severe sanction has been adopted: five to ten years’ imprisonment where the movement of the vehicle is obstructed, and seven to twelve years’ imprisonment where the vehicle is taken to another location.
The amendment aims to enhance the sanctioning framework against unlawful acts targeting transportation vehicles by expanding the scope of the offence and increasing the applicable penalties.
3. COMPETENT COURT IN FRAUD OFFENCES
Following the amendment introduced to Law Nr. 5235 on Establishment, Duties and Powers of the Courts of First Instance and the Regional Courts of Appeal, it has been stipulated that criminal courts of first instance shall have jurisdiction over the offence of aggravated fraud. Prior to the amendment, the basic form of the offence of fraud was adjudicated by criminal courts of first instance, whereas cases concerning aggravated fraud fell within the jurisdiction of high criminal courts. As these offence types could potentially transform into one another during the course of criminal proceedings, jurisdictional conflicts frequently arose in practice. Through the amendment, it is aimed to resolve jurisdictional conflicts resulting from proceedings being conducted before different courts, and to vest jurisdiction over both offence types in the criminal courts of first instance.
4. AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Following the 11th Judicial Reform Package, various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Nr. 5271 have been amended. The amended provisions and the content of these changes are as follows:
4.1. Suspension and Seizure of Accounts Containing Proceeds of Cybercrimes (Article 128/A of the Code of Criminal Procedure)
With the 11th Judicial Reform Package, a new protective measure regarding cybercrime has been incorporated into the Code. Article 128/A of the Code of Criminal Procedure sets out the procedure for the swift suspension and seizure of accounts containing proceeds of cybercrime. According to the amendment, where there is reasonable suspicion that offences such as aggravated theft, aggravated fraud, and the misuse of bank or credit cards, as defined under the Turkish Penal Code, have been committed, accounts held with the relevant bank, payment service provider, or crypto-asset service provider may be suspended by the financial institution for up to 48 hours. The suspension and any account transactions must be immediately reported to the public prosecutor’s office. Upon request by the account holder, the public prosecutor is required to issue a decision regarding the suspension within 24 hours.
According to the amendment, the proceeds in a suspended account may be seized either by a court decision or, in cases requiring urgent action, by a written order of the public prosecutor; judicial approval must be obtained within twenty-four hours, otherwise the seizure automatically lapses. In the newly established seizure measure for cybercrime, the requirement to obtain a report from the relevant institution, as is prescribed for the seizure of immovable property, rights, and receivables, has not been included.
4.2. Expansion of the Reversal Powers of Regional Courts of Appeal (Article 280 of the Code of Criminal Procedure)
With the amendment to Article 280 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the scope of the reversal powers of Regional Courts of Appeal has been expanded. Under the amendment, a Regional Court of Appeal may issue a reversal decision where any of the instances of absolute unlawfulness set out under Article 289 of the Code of Criminal Procedure exist. Prior to the amendment, paragraphs (g) and (h) of Article 289—(g: the judgment lacking reasoning as required under Article 230; h: the limitation of the defense right by the court in matters essential to the judgment)—were excluded from the scope of reversal. Under the new regulation, all instances of absolute unlawfulness set out under the said article may now constitute grounds for reversal.
5. AMENDMENT TO THE ENFORCEMENT CODE: “COVID-19 REGULATION”
By and through the 11th Judicial Reform Package, Provisional Article 10 of the Law Nr. 5275 on Penalties and Security Measures has been amended. This provisional article, widely known in the public as the “COVID-19 Regulation” or “prison amnesty”, allowed inmates to be temporarily released during the COVID-19 pandemic, provided they met the relevant conditions, with the exception of certain specified offences. Under the amendment introduced on 15.07.2023, inmates who were on COVID-19 leave and had less than five years remaining until the completion of their supervised release are not required to return to prison, and their sentences continue under supervised release.
With the amendment to Provisional Article 10 under the 11th Judicial Reform Package, the scope of the COVID-19 Regulation has been expanded. Accordingly, in addition to inmates who were released on leave during the COVID-19 period, those entering penal institutions for offences committed on or before 31.07.2023 are now also eligible to benefit from early supervised release under this regulation.
The amendment has also expanded the scope of exceptional offences. Accordingly, the offences excluded from the regulation are as follows:
a. Intentional
homicide committed against a descendant, ascendant, spouse, sibling, divorced
spouse, woman, child, or a person unable to defend themselves due to physical
or mental incapacity (Articles 82/1(d), (e), and (f) of Turkish Penal Code)
b. Homicides
resulting from the collapse, destruction or damage of buildings or other
structures due to an earthquake
c. Sexual
assault (Art. 102 of Turkish Penal Code), Sexual abuse of children (Art. 103 of
Turkish Penal Code), Aggravated forms of sexual intercourse with a minor (Arts.
104/2 and 104/3 of Turkish Penal Code)
d. Offences
against the security of the state (Arts. 302–308 of Turkish Penal Code), Offences
against the constitutional order (Arts. 309–316 of Turkish Penal Code), Offences
against national defense (Arts. 317–325 of Turkish Penal Code), Offences
against state secrets and espionage (Arts. 326–339 of Turkish Penal Code)
e. Offences within the scope of Anti-Terror Law and offences committed in the context of terrorist organizational activity
Accordingly, excluding the aforementioned exceptional offences, inmates who are serving sentences for offences committed prior to 31.07.2023 will be eligible to benefit from early supervised release for an additional three years, in addition to the existing enforcement regime.
The amendment is stated to aim at resolving issues of inequality in practice arising from the application of different enforcement regimes for offences committed during the same period. However, the regulation has been criticized in the public sphere for allegedly undermining the deterrent effect of the enforcement regime and leading to impunity.
6. AMENDMENTS TO DEBT ENFORCEMENT AND BANKRUPTCY LAW
With the 11th Judicial Reform Package, various provisions of Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law Nr. 2004 have been amended. The amended provisions and the content of these changes are as follows:
6.1. Restriction of Persons Entitled to Request the Annulment of an Auction (Article 134 of the Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law)
With the amendment to Article 134 of the Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, the scope of persons entitled to request the annulment of an auction has been restricted, aiming to resolve practical issues and expedite auction procedures. Accordingly, requests for the annulment of an auction made by persons not explicitly listed as interested parties in the law are to be summarily and definitively rejected by the court. This amendment seeks to prevent individuals who are neither parties to the auction nor have a legal interest from abusing the annulment process to delay proceedings.
Another significant amendment to the same article concerns the deposit and fee requirements. Where the deposit or fee required for filing a request for auction annulment is either not paid or insufficiently paid, a written notice with a strict two-week deadline is to be served to remedy the deficiency. If the deficiency is not remedied within this period, the court is to summarily and definitively reject the request for auction annulment.
6.2. Amendment Concerning Donations and Gratuitous Transfers in Actions for the Annulment of Dispositions (Article 278 of Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law)
Article 278 of the Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law sets out the annulment of donations and other gratuitous transfers made by the debtor with the intent to defraud creditors. Under the previous version of the article, transfers between adoptive parents and adopted children were considered donations and were therefore subject to annulment.
The Constitutional Court, in its decision dated 09.05.2024 and bearing the Basis number 2023/200 and the Decision number 2024/103, reviewed the provision in terms of the right to property and the principle of legal certainty. The Court held that treating transfers between close relatives as donations without examining whether they involved genuine consideration constitutes a disproportionate interference. While recognizing that the legislator’s objective of protecting creditors is legitimate, the Court emphasized that achieving this objective through absolute presumptions that are practically impossible to rebut is inconsistent with Articles 13, 35, and 36 of the Constitution.
Pursuant to the annulment decision, Article 278 of Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law has been revised, abandoning the approach of automatically treating transfers between close relatives as donations. Under the new regulation, transfers between descendants and ascendants, spouses, in-laws, and similar persons can be considered donations only if it cannot be proven that they were made for adequate consideration corresponding to their actual value. This allows parties who claim that the transfer was made for genuine consideration to present evidence, thereby removing the presumption of donation as absolute.
Similarly, the presumption of donation is maintained with respect to contracts in which the debtor explicitly accepts a consideration that is clearly below the value of what is given, as well as in contracts for lifetime care, usufruct or lifetime income. However, it is explicitly clarified that these presumptions are rebuttable. In this respect, the new wording of the article aims to balance the protection of the creditor with the property rights of the debtor and third parties in actions for the annulment of dispositions.
In conclusion, following the Constitutional Court’s decision, bearing the Basis number 2023/200 and the Decision number 2024/103, the amendments made to Article 278 of Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law have established a normative and proportionate framework regarding the rules on donations, allowing assessment based on the specific circumstances of each case. With this amendment, while the presumption of donation in transfers between close relatives is maintained, it is explicitly provided that this presumption can be rebutted.
6.3. Determination of the Relevant Date for Monetary Limits in Legal Remedies (Supplementary Article 1 of Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law)
With the amendment to Supplementary Article 1 of Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, it has been clarified which date should be taken as the basis for the monetary limits set forth in Articles 363 and 364. Accordingly, for the purpose of accessing legal remedies, the monetary limits are to be determined based on the amounts in effect on the date the complaint is filed or the lawsuit is initiated. This amendment resolves practical uncertainties, particularly those arising from changes in monetary limits during the course of proceedings and prevents potential loss of rights. In this way, the amendment strengthens the principles of predictability and legal certainty regarding access to legal remedies.
7. DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS FOR LAWYERS
With the 11th Judicial Reform Package, the provisions of Legal Practitioners Act Nr. 1136 concerning disciplinary actions against lawyers have been comprehensively revised following a Constitutional Court’s annulment decision. These amendments were made pursuant to the Constitutional Court’s decision dated 06.03.2025 and bearing the Basis number 2025/50, and the Decision number 2025/47. The decision was based on the annulment of Articles 134 and 135 of Legal Practitioners Act Nr. 1136, which pertain to disciplinary sanctions, on the grounds that they were incompatible with the principle of the rule of law under the Constitution.
In its annulment decision, the Constitutional Court emphasized that the disciplinary offenses and sanctions under Legal Practitioners Act were not set out in accordance with the principles of clarity and predictability, and that it was insufficiently clear which specific acts would trigger which disciplinary sanctions. According to the decision, the previous regulation granted broad and indeterminate discretion to the bar’s disciplinary bodies, which carried the potential for arbitrary application. The Court therefore stressed that disciplinary law must be governed by clear, precise and proportionate rules as a necessary consequence of the principle of the rule of law.
Following this annulment decision, the legislator revised Legal Practitioners Act to set out disciplinary sanctions and the acts warranting such sanctions in a detailed and graduated manner. Under the amendments, disciplinary sanctions applicable to lawyers were clearly classified as reprimand, warning, fine, suspension from practice, and disbarment, with each type of sanction specifically linked to the corresponding conduct. In this way, the amendments aim to eliminate uncertainties in disciplinary law and ensure consistency in practice.
Under the new regulation, a clear link has been established between the definitions of disciplinary sanctions and the acts that trigger them, with conduct contrary to professional honor, the sanctity of the right to defense, and the duties of diligence and integrity explicitly specified. This approach is aimed at eliminating the uncertainty highlighted by the Constitutional Court in its decision.
In addition, the regime for recidivism, application of more favorable sanctions, and aggravation of penalties has been detailed in the disciplinary framework. It is stipulated that if a lawyer who has previously received a disciplinary sanction commits a new disciplinary offense within five years of the sanction becoming final, a sanction one degree more severe shall be applied. Conversely, except in cases warranting disbarment, the regulation allows for the application of a lighter sanction for a lawyer committing a disciplinary offense for the first time.
The provisions on statutes of limitation for disciplinary actions have also been reconsidered in line with the reasoning of the Constitutional Court’s decision. It is stipulated that if the Bar’s Disciplinary Board waits for the outcome of a criminal proceeding, and no disciplinary sanction is imposed within one year as of the date the final court decision is communicated to the bar, the authority to impose the sanction shall expire due to the statute of limitations.
Finally, regarding disciplinary sanctions other than disbarment, the possibility of expungement from the professional record has been preserved. It is stipulated that if five years have passed since the imposition of a reprimand, warning, fine or suspension, the sanction may be expunged from the lawyer’s record upon any such request.
In conclusion, the amendments fulfilled the requirements of the Constitutional Court’s decision, and the circumstances warranting disciplinary sanctions against lawyers have been revised in accordance with the principle of legal certainty. Consequently, the discretion of bar’s disciplinary bodies has been limited, and the normative framework of disciplinary sanctions has been strengthened.
8. OTHER AMENDMENTS
- With the amendment made to Article 53 of the Public Procurement Law, a system has been introduced whereby the objection application fee is refunded in proportion to the degree of justification of the complaint, and accordingly, the procedures for refunding the application fee, the applicable time limits, and the application of interest have been set out in detail.
-With the amendment made to the Law on Professional Organizations of Tradesmen and Craftsmen, the procedures for the preparation, approval, and objection to price tariffs have been restructured; furthermore, the composition of the reconciliation commission and the evaluation criteria have been determined at the statutory level.
-With the provisional article incorporated into the Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law, the collection of unpaid general health insurance (GHI) premium debts accrued prior to 01.01.2016, together with their ancillary charges, has been abandoned.
-With the amendments introduced to the Electronic Communications Law, mandatory biometric verification and identity authentication requirements have been imposed for the establishment of subscriptions; furthermore, limitations on the number of lines, subscription procedures specific to foreign nationals, and administrative sanctions have been set out in detail.
- With the provisional article incorporated into the Tax Procedure Law, a rule has been introduced stipulating that inflation adjustment shall not be applied for certain accounting periods; furthermore, the President has been granted the authority to extend this period.
-With the amendments made to the Turkish Civil Code, it has been stipulated that the right of pre-emption may not be exercised in forced auctions and in sales conducted within the scope of the Public Procurement Law; furthermore, the rules concerning the deposit of the pre-emption price and the time limits for bringing an action have been restructured.
9. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION
The provisions introduced by the 11th Judicial Reform Package present the appearance of a comprehensive reform aimed at enhancing deterrence within the criminal justice system and addressing problems encountered in practice. Indeed, through the increase of the minimum and maximum penalty limits for numerous offence types under the Turkish Penal Code, the introduction of new aggravated forms, and the expansion of the scope of certain offences, a stricter penal policy has been adopted, particularly with respect to acts threatening public order and social security. In this regard, the provisions give the impression that an effort is being made to combat the perception of impunity.
However, within the same package, the expansion of the scope of the COVID-19–related regulations concerning the law of execution is capable of producing results that conflict with this penal policy. By extending the execution regime on the basis of the date of the offence, the way has been paved for a large number of convicted persons to benefit from early probation; consequently, the actual period of imprisonment has been significantly reduced. This situation demonstrates that, while the legislator increases the severity of penalties on the one hand, it adopts an approach that, on the other hand, refrains from enforcing those penalties through actual incarceration.
One of the fundamental functions of criminal law—deterrence—derives its significance not only from the penalties prescribed in the wording but also from their actual enforcement. In a system where penalties are increased, the broad neutralization of the execution regime through extensive exceptions carries the risk of reinforcing the public perception of “impunity.” In this context, the structural contradiction between the toughening of criminal norms and the relaxation of their enforcement may undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system. Moreover, the exclusion of certain offences from the aforementioned execution regulation raises a constitutional issue with respect to the principle of equality.
On the other hand, regarding the amendments made to the Legal Practitioners Act and the Law on Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy under the 11th Judicial Reform Package, a more normative and measured approach appears to have been adopted in line with the decisions of the Constitutional Court. In particular, the enhancement of certainty in disciplinary law and the abandonment of absolute presumptions in annulment actions concerning discretionary acts represent positive developments in terms of strengthening the rule of law.
In
conclusion, the 11th Judicial Reform Package includes provisions
that enhance legal predictability and address practical problems in
implementation, while also containing deterrent penalties for acts that
threaten public safety. However, the contradiction arising from the weakening
of the practical effect of these penalties through the execution regime, even
as penalty amounts are increased, contributes to the public perception of
“impunity.”
Please note that this article, originally written in Turkish, has been translated with the support of AI-based tools and then reviewed and edited by human editors.
Osman
Serhat Demirci, Legal Intern
References:
1. Law Nr. 7571 on Amendments to the Turkish Penal Code and Some Certain Laws and Decree Law Nr. 631
2. www.tbmm.gov.tr/Haber/Detay?Id=4b8a076e-80a8-477c-84fb-019aed0111ef
