Why is whether an offense is a 'terror offense' or not so important?

Considering an offense as a terror offense directly affects the execution regime; for instance, applying the conditional release rate as 3/4 instead of 2/3 can extend the time the convict spends in prison.

How could this decision of the Constitutional Court affect other execution processes?

This decision may serve as a precedent for other convicts whose execution rates were similarly miscalculated and may lead the relevant courts to review execution periods.

Why was the applicant's claim for compensation rejected?

The Constitutional Court rejected the claim for compensation because it ruled that eliminating the consequences of the established violation through a retrial would provide sufficient redress.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULINGS6 July 2026

Illegal Execution Rate Decision from the Constitutional Court

Official titleDecision of the Constitutional Court Dated 27/1/2026 and Application No. 2023/5933

The Constitutional Court decided that the principle of legality of crimes and punishments was violated due to the incorrect determination of the execution rate regarding the applicant's conviction. The Court ruled that since the offenses of 'favoring a criminal' and 'violation of confidentiality' do not fall within the scope of the Anti-Terror Law, the execution rate should be two-thirds instead of three-quarters.

Right ViolatedPrinciple of legality in crimes and penalties

Application TypeIndividual application

Details of the Regulation

Musa Şeker was sentenced to prison terms for the offenses of membership in an armed terrorist organization, mediation in bribery, violation of confidentiality, and favoring a criminal. In the execution tally sheet (müddetname) issued regarding the applicant, the execution rate for the offenses of favoring a criminal and violation of confidentiality was erroneously set at three-quarters under the Anti-Terror Law (Law No. 3713). The applicant objected, arguing that this rate was unlawful, that these offenses should not be evaluated within the scope of terror offenses, and that the execution rate should be two-thirds. However, the execution judgeship and the heavy penal court rejected these objections without providing concrete reasoning. In its examination, the Constitutional Court determined that the offenses of 'favoring a criminal' and 'violation of confidentiality' are not among the terror offenses listed in Articles 3 and 4 of Law No. 3713. Consequently, it ruled that applying the three-quarters rate stipulated in Article 17 of Law No. 3713 for these offenses was unlawful. It was decided that this situation violated the principle of legality of crimes and punishments safeguarded in Article 38 of the Constitution, and the case was sent to the Kırıkkale Execution Judgeship for a retrial in order to eliminate the consequences of the violation. The applicant's claim for compensation was rejected on the grounds that the retrial would redress the violation.

REGAS Commentary

This decision once again emphasizes the importance of the principle of legality of crimes and punishments, which is one of the fundamental principles of execution law. It has been demonstrated that courts must meticulously adhere to statutory limits when determining whether an offense falls within the scope of a terror offense and determine the execution rate accordingly. For citizens, it conveys the message that judicial authorities must be more diligent to ensure that the execution periods of prison sentences are calculated correctly and that they reach the conditional release periods they deserve. Furthermore, accepting the redress of the violation through a retrial instead of compensation demonstrates that the primary purpose of the Constitutional Court in individual applications is to eliminate the rights violation.

Questions You Might Have

Why is whether an offense is a 'terror offense' or not so important?: Considering an offense as a terror offense directly affects the execution regime; for instance, applying the conditional release rate as 3/4 instead of 2/3 can extend the time the convict spends in prison.
How could this decision of the Constitutional Court affect other execution processes?: This decision may serve as a precedent for other convicts whose execution rates were similarly miscalculated and may lead the relevant courts to review execution periods.
Why was the applicant's claim for compensation rejected?: The Constitutional Court rejected the claim for compensation because it ruled that eliminating the consequences of the established violation through a retrial would provide sufficient redress.

Key Terms

Suçta ve Cezada Kanunilik İlkesi: It is the principle safeguarded in Article 38 of the Constitution that no one shall be punished for an act which did not constitute a criminal offense under the law in force at the time it was committed, and no one shall be given a heavier penalty than the penalty prescribed by law for that offense at the time it was committed.
İnfaz Oranı: The legally prescribed rate for conditional release specifying how much of a prison sentence must be served in a penal execution institution. For example, 2/3 or 3/4.
Müddetname: The official document specifying the date the convict was admitted to the penal execution institution and the date of release, as well as the sentence period and the judgment to which the sentence pertains.
Koşullu Salıverilme: The execution regime allowing a convict who has spent a specific portion of their prison sentence in good conduct in an execution institution to complete the remainder of their sentence outside the penal execution institution.

Follow Turkish legal developments

REGAS analyzed all 19 items in the Official Gazette of 6 July 2026; we published only 3 of them here.

REGAS summarizes every change in the Turkish Official Gazette in plain language and notifies you.

The REGAS app is currently Turkish-only. If you would like English in the app, the best way to make it happen is to support the developer: get the app and just say so.