The Constitutional Court annulled the provision that allowed courts to defer the announcement of verdicts in cases where the sentence imposed is two years’ imprisonment or less, or a judicial fine.
The Constitutional Court, in its annulment case decision dated 10 July 2025 (Case No. 2024/98, Decision No. 2025/149) ruled that the provision regulating the deferment of the announcement of the verdict in the first sentence of paragraph (5) of Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 is unconstitutional and annulled it.
The Constitutional Court stated that the institution of deferment of the announcement of the verdict (“DAV”) has structural characteristics that may lead to impunity. It found that DAV is particularly incompatible with the procedural obligations imposed on the state under Article 17 of the Constitution, which requires the state to impose penalties proportionate to the acts of perpetrators and to provide appropriate redress for injured parties in cases involving torture, ill-treatment and maltreatment that threaten the inviolability of the person and their material and spiritual existence.
The Constitutional Court, in its previous annulment decision (Case No. 2022/120, Decision No. 2023/107), had already emphasized several fundamental problems with the institution of DAV. These include that it causes problems related to the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, constitutes an interference with many fundamental rights and freedoms (primarily freedom of expression and the right to organize meetings and demonstrations), does not contain sufficient safeguards against arbitrary practices by public authorities, may create de facto impunity for perpetrators, and does not provide an effective criminal sanction.
However, the decision stated that the amendments made by Law No. 7499 following the annulment decision No. 2023/107 did not adequately address these fundamental problems. Although the amendment introduced the possibility of judicial review by allowing appeals against DAV decisions, there is still no legal provision excluding the application of DAV to offences committed by public officials in the course of their duties that are considered torture, ill-treatment or maltreatment within the context of Article 17 of the Constitution.
The decision further stated that DAV decisions are not criminal sentences by nature but rather leave the person under the threat of punishment. The application of DAV results in the accused not receiving an enforceable sentence and does not require the consent of the injured parties or provide them any moral satisfaction. Therefore, these decisions do not provide sufficient and effective redress for the injured parties.
The decision was published in the Official Gazette No. 33124 on 31 December 2025, and the relevant annulment provisions will enter into force on 30 September 2026.
Please find the text of the Constitutional Court’s decision dated 10/7/2025 and numbered E.2024/98 at the link.
