Right Violation from AYM: Time Served in Vain to Be Deducted
Official titleDecision of the Constitutional Court dated 10/2/2026 and numbered Application No: 2024/64089
The Constitutional Court evaluated the non-deduction of former conviction terms whose legal basis was removed by a statutory amendment from the current sentence as a violation of the right to personal liberty and security.
Details of the Regulation
The applicant was conditionally released during the execution of his sentence for offenses committed in 1980; however, upon his committing a new crime during the probation period, his conditional release was revoked. This situation created an obligation for the applicant to re-serve his remaining sentence of 23 years and 354 days. However, with the provisional article 5 added to Law No. 5275 in 2013, decisions to revoke conditional release for pre-1982 offenses were rendered null and void.
The applicant requested that the 23-year term, whose legal basis had ceased to exist with this statutory regulation, be deducted from his other prison sentences currently being executed. The local courts rejected the applicant's request by limiting the deduction process solely to the period following the enforcement date of the law. This situation resulted in the applicant remaining in prison for a longer duration in practice.
In its examination, the Constitutional Court stated that the deduction procedure is an obligation not left to the discretion of judicial authorities. The decision emphasized that failure to deduct a period of detention or execution lacking legal basis from another sentence deprives the individual of liberty for a duration longer than that determined by the legal system, and it unanimously decided that Article 19 of the Constitution was violated and a retrial be held.
Questions You Might Have
- Was the applicant released following this decision?
- The decision does not entail immediate release, but rather an instruction for the local court to hold a retrial and perform the deduction process.
- Did AYM decide on paying compensation to the applicant?
- No, AYM ruled that holding a retrial was sufficient to eliminate the consequences of the violation and rejected the claim for compensation of 500 thousand TL.
- Why was the decision taken unanimously?
- Because failing to deduct a detention that lacks legal basis was viewed as a legally indefensible error, all members expressed an opinion finding a violation.
Key Terms
- Mahsup
- The process of deducting periods of custody, detention, or periods devoid of legal basis from the finalized sentence.
- Şartla Tahliye
- The completion of the remaining sentence outside by the convict on the condition of serving a portion of their sentence with good behavior; conditional release.
- Müddetname
- The official document showing the duration the convict will remain in prison, along with their entry and release dates.
Where we posted this
Follow Turkish legal developments
REGAS analyzed all 43 items in the Official Gazette of 16 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.
REGAS Commentary
This decision establishes that the institution of 'deduction' in execution law is not merely a procedural action, but a constitutional guarantee directly affecting personal liberty. Courts are prevented from causing deprivation of rights for convicts by narrowly interpreting legal regulations, and a precedent has been set requiring that execution periods 'served in vain' must strictly be deducted from other sentences.