The 10th Judicial Reform Package Has Entered Into Force

The Law numbered 7550 on the Enforcement of Sentences and Security Measures and Amending Certain Laws (“Amendment Law”), commonly referred to as the “10th Judicial Reform Package” in the public sphere, was published in the Official Gazette dated 4 June 2025 and numbered 32920, thereby entering into force. This comprehensive legislation introduces significant and structural changes across various legal domains, most notably in criminal law, criminal enforcement law, and administrative procedural law.

The overarching objective is to establish a more effective system for the enforcement of criminal sanctions, while also enhancing legal certainty and predictability.

Amendments to the Law on the Enforcement of Sentences and Security Measures: Stricter Criteria Introduced for Probation and Conditional Release

The recent amendments to the Law numbered 5275 on the Enforcement of Sentences and Security Measures (“Enforcement Law”) have introduced more stringent criteria for both probation and conditional release, thereby significantly tightening the enforcement regime for certain categories of convicts. These changes aim to establish a more controlled and exceptional enforcement structure that enhances deterrence while incorporating flexible measures that take into account humanitarian and social conditions.

- New Requirement for Probation – Article 105/A of the Enforcement Law

The new regulation has made it mandatory for convicts who wish to benefit from probation to serve at least one tenth of the period between their admission to the penal institution and their conditional release date, provided that this period is not less than five days, within the penal institution.

- Increased Threshold for Conditional Release – Article 108 of the Enforcement Law

The Amendment Law has restructured the conditional release regime applicable to repeat offenders. With the newly introduced provisions, in cases of second-time recidivism, the previously applicable favorable calculation method shall no longer be implemented, and a more stringent enforcement regime shall apply to such convicts. Accordingly, the additional period to be appended to the conditional release term shall no longer be limited to the most severe of the prior sentences forming the basis for recidivism. Instead, the execution ratios prescribed under the first paragraph of Article 108 shall be directly applicable. Moreover, in the case of fixed-term imprisonment, the conditional release threshold for second-time recidivists shall be applied at three-quarters of the imposed sentence.

- Flexibility Introduced in Weekend and Home Enforcement Regimes - Article 110 of the Enforcement Law

The provisions regarding special enforcement procedures have been revised, granting significant flexibility in the enforcement regime for certain categories of convicts. Under the new regulation concerning weekend enforcement, which is applied upon court decision, such enforcement shall no longer be limited to weekends; it may also be executed on weekdays, provided that the total enforcement period remains unchanged, and that the convict’s employment conditions, familial obligations, and the institutional order of the correctional facility so permit. This allows for the adjustment of the enforcement schedule without altering the duration of the sentence.

In addition, the scope of the enforcement of prison sentences through home confinement has also been expanded. Under the previous regulation, individuals who had reached the age of 75 were eligible to serve prison sentences of up to five years through home confinement. However, with the new amendment, the scope of this practice has been broadened; it is now possible for individuals who have reached the age of 80 to serve prison sentences of up to six years through home confinement. In this manner, compared to the previous practice, the new regulation provides for a broader group of convicted individuals, both in terms of age and sentence length, to benefit from the possibility of serving their sentences under home confinement.

Moreover, convicts who, due to severe illness or disability, are deemed unable to sustain their life unassisted within the correctional institution and who do not pose a concrete and serious risk to public safety may also be subject to enforcement at home, upon the decision of the enforcement judge. Such decisions shall be reviewed annually in light of medical reports issued by the Forensic Medicine Institute or by the medical boards of fully equipped hospitals designated by the Ministry of Justice and approved by the Forensic Medicine Institute. If it is determined that the convict has recovered, the decision to enforce the sentence at home shall be revoked.

In cases where enforcement at home is granted for convicts sentenced to more than ten years of imprisonment, monitoring through electronic devices (e.g., electronic ankle bracelets) shall be mandatory. If the individual fails to comply with the obligations set forth under this regime, the decision on home enforcement shall be annulled.

Amendments to the Turkish Penal Code: A New Era in Sentencing for Crimes of Violence, Threats, and Traffic Offences

Amendments introduced to the Turkish Penal Code numbered 5237 (“TPC”) have led to the imposition of more severe criminal sanctions, particularly in relation to attempted crimes, intentional injury, threats, and endangering traffic safety. The new regime envisions stricter penalties, especially for acts of violence against women, aggravated assault, and offences resulting in death, in order to enhance deterrence and ensure greater protection for victims.

Increase in Penalties for the Offence of Intentional Injury – Articles 86 and 87 of the TPC

Under the Amendment Law, the penalties stipulated under Articles 86 and 87 of the TPC regarding the offence of intentional injury have been increased. The amendments include changes both to the base penalty range and to the minimum penalties applicable in aggravated forms of the offence due to its consequences.

Principal Form – Article 86(1) of the TPC:

The minimum penalty for the basic form of the offence of intentional injury has been increased from 1 year to 1 year and 6 months. The maximum penalty remains unchanged at 3 years.

Injury That Can Be Treated with Simple Medical Intervention – Article 86(2) of the TPC:

Under this paragraph, the minimum penalty has been increased from 4 months to 6 months, and the maximum penalty from 1 year to 1 year and 6 months. Furthermore, where the offence is committed against a woman, the minimum penalty has been raised from 4 months to 9 months.

Aggravated Injury Due to Its Consequences – Article 87 of the TPC:

Acts Resulting in Permanent Impairment of Bodily Functions or Posing a Life-Threatening Danger - Article 87(1): The minimum penalty has been increased from 3 years to 4 years, and in certain cases, from 5 years to 6 years.

Acts Resulting in Permanent Loss of Function, Irreversible Health Problems, or Death - Articles 87(2) and 87(4): The minimum penalty has been raised from 5 years to 6 years, and in some instances, from 8 years to 9 years.

For cases resulting in death, the previous penalty ranges of 8–12 years and 12–18 years have been revised to 10–14 years and 14–18 years, respectively.

Amendments to the Notary Law: Overhaul of Disciplinary Provisions

Article 126 of the Notary Law numbered 1512 (“Notary Law”) has been extensively amended under the Amendment Law. The disciplinary sanctions applicable to notaries are now clearly categorized under five main headings: (i) Warning, (ii) Reprimand, (iii) Monetary Fine, (iv) Temporary Suspension from Duty, and (v) Dismissal from Profession. The conditions for the imposition of each disciplinary sanction have been explicitly defined, and illustrative examples of acts that may lead to such sanctions have been set out in the law. Moreover, except for dismissal from the profession, other disciplinary sanctions may also be imposed for acts of similar nature. This framework aims to minimize arbitrariness in disciplinary proceedings and introduces an objective system grounded in the principles of proportionality and legal foreseeability.

Amendments to Article 127 of the Notary Law establish a recidivism principle in disciplinary matters. Accordingly;

- If the same notary commits another disciplinary offence within five years, a more severe sanction may be imposed

- Conversely, where a notary receives a disciplinary sanction for the first time and has a positive record, more lenient measures may be applied, except in cases requiring dismissal from the profession.

Lastly, limitation periods for disciplinary actions have been clarified. Under the new regulation, these periods have been set at three and five years, and detailed provisions now regulate how such periods are to be calculated in cases where criminal investigation or prosecution is pending against the notary.

Amendment to the Administrative Procedure Law: Monetary Thresholds to Be Determined Based on the Filing Date of the Action

With the Amendment Law, a significant change has been introduced to the second paragraph of Article Additional 1 of the Administrative Procedure Law numbered 2577. According to the new regulation, for cases in which holding a hearing is mandatory, as well as for judgments that may be subject to appeal or cassation, the monetary threshold will now be calculated based on the date on which the case was filed, rather than the date on which the decision is rendered.

This amendment has been made in line with the judgment of the Constitutional Court dated February 11, 2025, and numbered 2025/39 M., 2025/35 D. In the judgment, the Constitutional Court held that determining the monetary threshold applicable for the purpose of appeal or cassation proceedings based on the date of the court’s decision, without updating the value of the disputed asset or claim, and relying solely on the annual revaluation of the monetary limits, may produce adverse consequences for the parties, particularly in proceedings of prolonged duration, and results in a disproportionate restriction of the right to seek judicial review. In this context, the Constitutional Court emphasized that updating only the monetary threshold in the face of inflation imposes a disproportionate burden on litigants, and concluded that the resulting restriction on the right to request judicial review was contrary to Articles 13 and 36 of the Constitution.

Accordingly through this amendment:

- The unpredictable consequences that could arise to the detriment of the parties due to fluctuations in monetary values throughout the course of proceedings, particularly caused by high inflation, have been prevented.

- Access to legal remedies has been reinforced through enhanced legal certainty and foreseeability, thereby safeguarding the parties’ freedom to seek justice.

- The legal framework has been restructured in accordance with the principles of proportionality and necessity, as underlined by the Constitutional Court.

Amendment to the International Private and Procedural Law

Through the Amendment Law, Article 27 of the International Private and Procedural Law No. 5718 has been revised. Under the new regulation, the law applicable to employment contracts of an international nature may be freely determined by the parties. In this respect, the law of a foreign country explicitly designated in the employment contract shall be valid and binding. However, the minimum level of protection afforded to the employee under the mandatory provisions of the law of the habitual place of employment has been expressly preserved.

In addition, with the amendment introduced to the fourth paragraph of the article, it is now stipulated that, where the employment contract is more closely connected with the law of the place where the work is performed, such law may apply instead of the law chosen by the parties.

Accordingly, provided that the mandatory provisions of the place of performance, which must be applied at the time of execution of the work, are not prejudiced, a more closely connected law may be determined and applied based on an overall assessment of the circumstances.

The amendment in question has been introduced in line with the judgment of the Constitutional Court dated November 5, 2024, and numbered 2023/158 M., 2024/187 D. In its decision, the Constitutional Court found that in cases where the parties have made a choice of law in an employment contract, the employee may be deprived of the protections afforded by a legal system that is more closely connected to the contract. It further noted that this situation may enable the employer to evade more burdensome obligations and could lead to consequences to the detriment of the employee. In this regard, the Court underlined that the employee, as the weaker party to the contract, generally lacks actual bargaining power in relation to the choice of law and cannot reasonably be expected to foresee the content of the foreign legal system. It concluded that such a situation fails to ensure a reasonable balance and is incompatible with the State’s positive obligation to protect employees. Consequently, the relevant provision was annulled on the grounds of its unconstitutionality.

Accordingly, with this amendment, it has been ensured that an employer cannot circumvent the employee’s minimum entitlements through the application of less protective rules by means of a choice of law clause. Therefore, a more equitable and balanced protection mechanism has been established with respect to international employment contracts.

Amendment to the Law on the Council of Judges and Prosecutors

With the amendment to Article 28 of Law numbered 6087 on the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, members elected to the Council from among the members of the high courts shall, upon the expiration of their term, automatically return to their previous positions at the respective high courts to complete their remaining term, without the need for any further administrative action or the requirement of a vacant position. Likewise, members elected from the administrative or civil judiciary, who have completed their term, shall be appointed to the Court of Appeal or the Court of Cassation by decision of the General Assembly, again without the requirement of a vacant position. In the absence of an available seat, the first vacancy shall be allocated to such members.

Amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure

Through the Amendment Law, a significant clarification has been introduced under the Additional Article 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure numbered 6100 (“CCP”) regarding the relevant date to be taken into account when applying various monetary thresholds. Pursuant to the new provision, in determining the monetary thresholds applicable to the rule of proof by written evidence under Articles 200 and 201 of the CCP, the date on which the legal transaction was executed shall be taken as the basis.

In contrast, within the same amendment, it is stipulated that for the application of the monetary thresholds governing legal remedies such as appeal, cassation, and rectification of judgments — regulated under Articles 341, 362, and 369 of the CCP respectively — the relevant date shall be the date on which the action was filed.

By its judgment dated December 4, 2024, and numbered 2023/182 M., 2024/203 D., the Constitutional Court annulled the relevant provision on the grounds that, while the monetary thresholds determining the availability of legal remedies increased annually in accordance with the revaluation rate, the amount in dispute remained fixed. As a result, in lengthy proceedings, parties could be deprived of access to appellate review solely due to the passage of time, which the Court found to constitute a disproportionate restriction on the right to access to justice. Accordingly, the recent legislative amendment was enacted in line with this annulment decision, with the aim of safeguarding access to judicial review mechanisms and ensuring the preservation of a fair balance throughout the adjudication process.

Provisions Excluded from the 10th Judicial Reform Package

During the legislative process of the Amendment Law, certain provisions that sparked significant public debate were excluded from the final version of the law adopted by the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye during the plenary session deliberations. Accordingly, the following provisions were not enacted into law:

- The provisions set out under Articles 12, 13, 15, 16, and 17 of the draft law, which introduced various restrictions concerning the execution of sentences for juvenile convicts, as well as increased penalties for the offense of discharging firearms in residential areas, were not incorporated into the final version of the Law.

- Similarly, Articles 23, 24, and 25 of the draft law, which sought to expand the powers of intervention in online broadcasts, were also removed from the text during the legislative process.

These articles proposed granting the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA) the power to order the removal of content or to block access to it without the need for a judicial decision. Due to the serious concerns these provisions raised in terms of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, they were ultimately excluded from the Amendment Law prior to enactment.