Under Turkish criminal procedure, a judgment becomes final only once it has been properly served (tebligat) on the accused and the appeal period has run without objection. In practice, service defects are common for defendants who change address frequently or who are abroad at the relevant time — and such defects can result in a judgment being treated as final, and sent for enforcement, without the person ever having had a real opportunity to appeal. This article explains how a stay of execution and restitution to the former state (reinstatement of the appeal period) work under Turkish law when service was defective, with particular attention to foreign nationals.
Table of Contents
1. Why Proper Service Matters in Turkish Criminal Proceedings
2. Article 35 of the Notification Law: Requirements and Limits
3. Foreign Defendants Abroad at the Time of Service: Why Notification May Be Invalid
4. Stay of Execution for Judgments Finalized Through Defective Service
5. Restitution to the Former State (CMK Articles 40-42): When It Applies
6. The Procedure and the Competent Authority
7. Frequently Asked Questions
Why Proper Service Matters in Turkish Criminal Proceedings
The time limit to appeal a criminal judgment in Turkey starts running from the date of formal notification (tebligat) of that judgment. If service was not carried out in accordance with the law, the accused is effectively denied the real opportunity to learn about the judgment and exercise the right to appeal.
For this reason, Notification Law No. 7201 (Tebligat Kanunu) sets strict formal requirements for who must be served, at what address, and by which method. Under Article 10, notification must be made at the addressee's last known address; if that address is unsuitable or notification cannot be completed there, the residential address on the Address Registration System (ADRES/İVDS) is used instead.
Disputes over defective service typically arise in the following situations:
- The address the defendant provided is no longer current
- The address recorded in the Address Registration System turns out to be vacant
- Notification is carried out directly under Article 35 (posted on the door)
- The addressee was outside Turkey at the time of the notification
Article 35 of the Notification Law: Requirements and Limits
Article 35 of the Notification Law provides that once a person has already been properly served once, and later changes address without reporting the new one, subsequent notices may be validly served by posting them on the door of the old address.
Key Requirement
For an Article 35 notification to be valid, there must have been an earlier, properly executed notification at that same address. If no valid first notification ever took place — or the first one was itself defective — any later Article 35 notification is defective as well.
The Court of Cassation has consistently applied this requirement. Article 35 rests on the assumption that the person knowingly concealed or failed to report an address change; a person who was never validly notified in the first place cannot be said to have breached any duty to report a new address. Where this precondition is missing, courts may — on their own motion or upon request — find the notification defective.
Foreign Defendants Abroad at the Time of Service: Why Notification May Be Invalid
Service issues carry particular weight for foreign nationals facing proceedings in Turkey. A foreign defendant's address record in the Address Registration System frequently becomes outdated — a residence permit expires, an address change is never reported, or the person leaves the country.
⚠️ Important Point
If it can be shown that the addressee was actually outside Turkey on the date of notification, service at a Turkish address — including service by posting on a door — will normally have had no realistic chance of reaching that person. This can support an argument that the notification was defective, meaning the appeal period should run instead from the date the person actually learned of the judgment.
Where a foreign defendant is known — or can readily be established — to be abroad, notification should generally be carried out under the Notification Law's provisions on service abroad (including Article 25/a), through the Turkish Embassy or Consulate in the relevant country. Where a Turkish authority instead posts notice under Article 35 at an outdated domestic address despite reason to believe the person is abroad, this materially strengthens a claim of defective service.
A recurring fact pattern looks like this: a foreign defendant leaves the address given at the hearing, a different address is later identified through the Address Registration System, notice sent there is also returned undelivered, and the file is then finalized by posting notice under Article 35 at the earlier address — even though the defendant was not actually present at any of these addresses, and had in fact left the country. Where this sequence can be documented, both the finality of the judgment and the resulting execution may be successfully challenged.
Stay of Execution for Judgments Finalized Through Defective Service
A criminal judgment may already have moved into the enforcement stage before a service defect is identified — an arrest warrant may even have been issued, or the person may already be in custody. Even at that stage, a properly documented service defect can still form the basis for a request to stay execution.
Such a request is typically supported by showing:
- The address used for notification was not the addressee's last known address
- Article 35 was applied without a prior, properly executed notification at that address
- The addressee was outside Turkey on the notification date
- As a result, the statutory appeal period never properly started to run
Where the court finds the notification defective, it may order the execution of the judgment stayed and the enforcement file returned to the relevant Public Prosecutor's Office. This does not annul the judgment; it suspends enforcement until the case has gone through a proper appellate review.
Restitution to the Former State (CMK Articles 40-42): When It Applies
Articles 40 through 42 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) govern restitution to the former state — a mechanism allowing a missed procedural deadline, such as an appeal period, to be reopened where the person was not at fault.
⚠️ A Deadline That Matters
The restitution petition must be filed within the statutory period from the date the obstacle ends — in defective-service cases, this generally means the date the person actually learned of the judgment. Establishing and documenting that date accurately is essential to the success of the request.
In practice: where the missed act was an appeal, the restitution petition is decided by the regional court of appeal's relevant criminal chamber — the body that would have reviewed the appeal on the merits — while the first-instance court's role is limited to ordering the stay of execution and forwarding the file to that chamber.
The Procedure and the Competent Authority
Frequently Asked Questions
Can enforcement of a final Turkish criminal judgment really be stopped?
Yes. Where it can be shown that notification was defective and, as a result, the appeal period never properly ran, the court that issued the judgment can be asked to stay its execution.
How can I prove I was outside Turkey on the date of notification?
Passport entry/exit records, Directorate General of Migration Management records, travel documents such as flight or bus tickets, and proof of residence abroad can all be used to establish this.
Who decides a restitution request?
The court that would have had jurisdiction over the missed act had it been carried out on time. Where the missed act was an appeal, this is generally the relevant criminal chamber of the regional court of appeal.
Do I need a lawyer to request a stay of execution?
Establishing a service defect requires a technical review of the UYAP case file, correctly framed legal argument, and filing with the right authority — legal assistance from a Turkish criminal defense lawyer is strongly advisable at this stage.
✅ What Should You Do Next?
If you believe a Turkish criminal judgment was finalized through a service defect — particularly if you were outside Turkey when notification was attempted — the case file should be reviewed through UYAP without delay. Maya Avukatlık Bürosu can be contacted for a legal assessment of stay-of-execution and restitution proceedings.
Sample Court Decision
REPUBLIC OF TURKEY — ISTANBUL HEAVY PENAL COURT
Case-Decision No: 2026/13 Merits - 2026/61 Decision
SUPPLEMENTARY DECISION
DEFENDANT: ████████████████, Thai national.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: ████████████
OFFENSE: Currency Counterfeiting
DATE OF ORIGINAL JUDGMENT: 03 February 2026
DATE OF SUPPLEMENTARY DECISION: 03 September 2026
It was understood from the petitions submitted to this court by the defendant, whose identifying details have been redacted above, and by defense counsel, requesting a stay of execution and restitution to the former state; the file was accordingly examined.
REASONING:
Following trial, this court's judgment dated 3 February 2026, Case No. 2026/13, Decision No. 2026/61, sentenced the defendant to 2 years 6 months' imprisonment and a judicial fine of 83,300 Turkish Lira for currency counterfeiting; this judgment was understood to have become final on 7 April 2026 and to currently be at the enforcement stage.
It was understood from petitions sent by the defendant through the prison administration, and by defense counsel through the UYAP system, that they claimed, in essence, defective notification and an unlawful finalization process, and requested that execution be stayed and that the requests for restitution and appellate review be granted.
Under Article 10 of Notification Law No. 7201: "Notification shall be made to the person concerned at their last known address. Where it is established that the last known address is unsuitable for notification, or notification cannot be effected there, the residential address recorded in the address registration system shall be deemed the last known address and notification shall be made there."
Likewise, under Article 35 of the Notification Law: "A person who has been notified in accordance with the procedures prescribed by law, at their own address, is obliged to immediately report any change of address to the authority that carried out the notification. Subsequent notifications shall thereafter be made to the newly reported address. Where a person who has changed address fails to report the new one, and the residential address cannot be determined through the address registration system, a copy of the document to be notified shall be posted on the door of the building at the former address, and the date of posting shall be deemed the date of notification."
Upon examination, it was understood that the defendant, in a statement taken with the assistance of an interpreter at a hearing, declared residence at an address the defendant provided; notification sent to that address was returned undelivered; upon further examination of the file, a further address for the defendant was identified; notification sent to that address was likewise returned undelivered; and, no further address for the defendant having been identified, the judgment was notified to the last-identified address under Article 35 of the Notification Law and became final on 7 April 2026 without appeal.
Having evaluated all of the foregoing together, although it was understood that this court's judgment was notified to the defendant under Article 35 of the Notification Law, it was understood that the file contained no properly executed prior notification to the defendant's last known address, and that the notification carried out was accordingly not in accordance with the required procedure; that the petitions submitted to this court by the defendant and defense counsel concerned the stay of execution and restitution to the former state together with appellate review; and that under Article 42(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petition for restitution to the former state must be decided by whichever court would have had jurisdiction over the merits had the procedural act been carried out within the statutory period; it was accordingly necessary to order the execution of this court's judgment stayed, and to forward the file to the relevant Criminal Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal for evaluation of the defendant's and defense counsel's requests for restitution, as set out below.
DECISION / For the reasons set out above:
1- The EXECUTION of this court's judgment dated 3 February 2026, Case No. 2026/13, Decision No. 2026/61, concerning the defendant, is STAYED, and a directive is issued to the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office for the return of the enforcement documents;
2- The supplementary decision record concerning the defendant shall be forwarded to the General Directorate of Criminal Records and Statistics;
3- As the authority to decide the request for restitution to the former state under Article 42(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure lies with the relevant Criminal Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, the file shall be forwarded to that Chamber for a decision on the defendant's and defense counsel's requests for restitution;
4- A copy of this decision shall be notified to defense counsel.
Decided unanimously, upon review of the file, with the right of objection open to the relevant on-duty Heavy Penal Court within two weeks from the date of notification of this decision. 3 September 2026.
You have reached the end of the article. We hope you liked our article.
Please do not hesitate to contact us regarding this article or any other legal questions. We are waiting for your message.
Maya Law Firm
© 2017- 2024
Maya Law Firm
All rights reserved.