Significant Amendments To The Criminal Procedure Code Introduced By Law No. 7589

Law No. 7589 on Amendments to Certain Laws for the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary (the "Law"), adopted on 16 July 2026, introduced significant amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 (the "CPC") that directly affect criminal procedure practice.

The amendments include the restructuring of the system governing the recording, retention and destruction of biological examination results, a comprehensive revision of the regime for the deferment of the announcement of the verdict, the determination of the limits of decisions that may be rendered in respect of a fugitive accused, and the expansion of the objection authority of the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation.

The principal amendments introduced by the Law to the Criminal Procedure Code are summarised below, together with their potential practical implications.

The System Governing the Recording, Use and Destruction of Biological Examination Results Has Been Restructured

Pursuant to the amendment to Article 80 of the CPC, the results of examinations conducted on biological samples belonging to suspects, accused persons or other individuals will be recorded in a dedicated system after being stripped of identifying information. A copy of the examination result will also be retained as evidence in the investigation or prosecution file.

The information retained in the system and the case file will be destroyed immediately upon the expiry of the period for objecting to a decision not to prosecute, the dismissal of such objection, or the finalisation of an acquittal or a decision that there is no ground for imposing a sentence. In all other cases, the information will be destroyed in the presence of the public prosecutor 20 years after the court judgment becomes final, and the destruction process will be documented in an official record.

A person whose information has been recorded in the system may request the judge or court to delete the data before the expiry of the retention period where the purpose requiring retention has ceased to exist or where there is a justified reason.

The recorded information may be used, by decision of a court, judge or public prosecutor, for the purpose of establishing the material truth in an ongoing investigation or prosecution. Decisions of courts and judges may be challenged by objection, while decisions of public prosecutors may be challenged before the criminal judgeship of peace. The operational details of the system will be set out in a regulation to be issued jointly by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Interior.

While the amendment allows biological examination results to be reused in criminal proceedings, it also strengthens safeguards for the protection of personal data by requiring anonymisation, allowing requests for deletion and establishing specific destruction periods.

The Regime for the Deferment of the Announcement of the Verdict Has Been Comprehensively Revised

The said regulation was made to eliminate the legal gap that emerged after the Constitutional Court, in the Official Gazette dated 31.12.2025 and numbered E.2024/98, K.2025/149, annulled the provisions of Article 231 of the CMK regarding the DAV institution. In this context, the DAV institution has been restructured in light of the Constitutional Court's evaluations, especially regarding the protection of fundamental rights, the effective remedy for the victim, and the prevention of impunity. In this regard, paragraphs 5 to 14 of Article 231 of the CPC concerning the deferment of the announcement of the verdict ("HAGB") have been revised. Accordingly, where the sentence imposed on the accused is imprisonment for 2 years or less or a judicial fine, the court may issue an HAGB decision. Without prejudice to the provisions on confiscation, the deferred verdict will not produce legal consequences for the accused.

An HAGB decision may be issued only if the accused has not previously been convicted of an intentional offense, the court concludes that the accused is unlikely to reoffend, and the loss suffered by the victim or the public as a result of the offense is fully remedied through restitution, restoration to the pre-offense position, or compensation. Where the loss cannot be remedied immediately, an HAGB decision may also be issued on the condition that the loss is fully remedied in monthly instalments during the supervision period.

The custodial sentence contained in the deferred verdict may not be suspended or converted into alternative sanctions, even if it is of short duration. The accused will be subject to supervision for 5 years, during which no further HAGB decision may be issued in respect of that person for an intentional offence. For a period not exceeding 1 year, the court may impose probation measures such as participation in an educational programme, employment under supervision, prohibition from visiting certain places or other obligations it deems appropriate. The limitation period for the criminal proceedings will be suspended during the supervision period.

If no new intentional offence is committed and the obligations are complied with during the supervision period, the deferred verdict will be set aside and the case will be dismissed. If a new intentional offence is committed or the obligations are breached, the court will announce the verdict. Nevertheless, after assessing the circumstances of an accused who was unable to fulfil the relevant obligation, the court may render a new conviction judgment by deciding that up to one half of the sentence will not be executed, suspending the custodial sentence or converting it into alternative sanctions.

Subject to the exceptions set out in the third paragraph of Article 272 of the CPC, HAGB decisions may be appealed before the regional court of appeal. The cassation provisions will apply to decisions rendered by regional courts of appeal; cassation will also be available where an HAGB decision is issued by a regional court of appeal or the Court of Cassation acting as a court of first instance. The appellate review will cover both the HAGB decision and the underlying verdict as to procedure and merits.

HAGB decisions will be recorded in a system dedicated to such decisions, and the records may be used only where requested by a public prosecutor, judge or court in connection with an investigation or prosecution.

The HAGB provisions will not apply to the offenses of torture and torment or to offenses committed by public officials by reason of their duties that may constitute ill-treatment within the scope of Article 17 of the Constitution. This exception expressly removes the availability of HAGB for offences committed by public officials that amount to ill-treatment.

The new framework removes HAGB decisions from the scope of a narrowly confined objection review and subjects both the decision and the underlying verdict to appellate review as to procedure and merits. It also regulates the conditions for application, the supervision regime and the consequences of breach within a single detailed framework.

The Limits of Decisions That May Be Rendered in Respect of a Fugitive Accused Have Been Redefined

Pursuant to the amendment to Article 247 of the CPC, the prosecution of a fugitive accused may continue. However, where the fugitive accused has not previously been questioned, the court may not render a conviction or a decision that there is no ground for imposing a sentence.

Where a security measure is ordered against a fugitive accused, the accused or defense counsel may request a retrial by stating that the accused wishes to exercise the right of defense.

The amendment prevents proceedings from becoming entirely inconclusive due to the accused's fugitive status, while protecting the right of defense by prohibiting a conviction against a person who has not been questioned. The availability of a retrial in relation to security measures also safeguards the accused's ability to present an effective defense if the accused subsequently participates in the proceedings.

The Objection Authority of the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation Has Been Expanded

Pursuant to the amendment to Article 308 of the CPC, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation may object before the General Assembly of Criminal Chambers against all decisions of the criminal chambers of the Court of Cassation, except decisions concerning the determination of the competent court and lack of jurisdiction.

The objection may be raised ex officio or upon request within 3 months from the date on which the file is delivered to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation. No time limit will apply to objections made in favour of the accused.

Persons entitled to request an objection include the accused or persons entitled to pursue legal remedies on behalf of the accused, the intervening party, persons whose requests to intervene have not yet been determined, and persons harmed by the offense who would be eligible to acquire intervening-party status.

The amendment makes the Chief Public Prosecutor's objection available in respect of a broader category of decisions rendered by the criminal chambers and allows not only the accused, but also the intervening party and persons harmed by the offense, to request the use of this extraordinary legal remedy.

A Transitional Provision Has Been Introduced for the Objection Authority of the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation

Pursuant to Provisional Article 1 of the Law, the amendment to Article 308 of the CPC will apply only to files delivered to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation after the Law entered into force.

The previous provision will continue to apply to files delivered before the effective date. Accordingly, the date on which the file was delivered to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor will determine whether the new objection regime applies.

Assessment and Conclusion

The amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code strengthen the effectiveness of criminal proceedings and appellate review while restructuring safeguards relating to the protection of personal data and the right of defense.

The detailed regulation of the conditions for HAGB, the supervision process, the consequences of breach and the applicable appellate regime places a number of issues that have long been debated in practice within a clear statutory framework. Subjecting both the HAGB decision and the underlying verdict to appellate review as to procedure and merits, and, in certain circumstances, to cassation review, will provide more comprehensive judicial scrutiny of this mechanism.

The retention of biological examination results in a dedicated system and their potential use in other investigations or prosecutions are important for establishing the material truth. However, the procedures relating to data security, access authorisations and deletion requests will need to be regulated in detail by the secondary legislation to be issued.

The amendments concerning proceedings against fugitive accused persons and the objection authority of the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation establish a new balance between concluding proceedings and safeguarding the rights of defense and access to legal remedies. In particular, the relevant transitional provisions should be considered when assessing the applicability of the new rules to pending files.

Should you have any questions regarding the matters discussed above, please feel free to contact us.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.