Two separate subjects in one law
Law no. 7589 amended two independent articles of the Criminal Procedure Code. Article 16 of the law rewrote article 247 on the fugitive defendant, and article 17 rewrote article 308 on the objection of the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation.
What they share is that both concern procedures engaged in the defendant's absence, or once the ordinary routes of appeal are exhausted. The amendments were published in the Official Gazette of 31 July 2026, issue 33326.
The fugitive defendant is dealt with first, then the Chief Prosecutor's objection. The transitional rules for the two differ.
May a fugitive defendant be prosecuted?
The third paragraph of article 247 sets the limits of a prosecution conducted against a fugitive defendant. Under the text now in force, a fugitive defendant may be prosecuted.
One limit is imposed: where the defendant has not previously been questioned, no conviction, and no decision that no penalty be imposed, may be given.
The rule protects the core of the right of defence. It prevents a conviction being entered in the absence of a defendant who has never been questioned.
The prosecution is not, however, halted altogether: the file proceeds and evidence is gathered, but the stage of conviction cannot be reached.
Security measures and retrial
The remainder of the paragraph deals with the imposition of a security measure. Where a security measure is ordered, the fugitive defendant or their defence counsel may, stating that they wish to exercise the right of defence, request a retrial.
No further ground need be shown; it is enough to state that the right of defence is to be exercised. That marks this out from the ordinary grounds for retrial.
The right is given not only to the defendant but also to defence counsel, meaning counsel may act independently in files where the defendant cannot be reached.
In practice the provision will arise in files where a security measure such as confiscation has been ordered against a fugitive defendant.
What is the Chief Prosecutor's objection?
Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides an extraordinary route of challenge. Against decisions of the criminal chambers of the Court of Cassation, the Chief Public Prosecutor may take the file to the Criminal General Assembly.
Under the text now in force, the objection may be made against all decisions of the criminal chambers, save decisions determining the forum and decisions of lack of jurisdiction.
The Chief Prosecutor may object of their own motion or on request, so may act either independently or on the application of those concerned.
Three months, and no period for an objection in the defendant's favour
The clearest rule concerns time. The objection is made within three months of the date the file is delivered to the Chief Prosecutor.
Time runs not from the date of the decision but from the date of delivery of the file. That distinction governs the calculation.
The exception is express: no period applies to an objection in the defendant's favour. The three-month limit does not run for such an objection.
The distinction prevents the extraordinary route being used without limit against the defendant, while leaving an application in their favour unrestricted by time.
Who may make the request?
The new fourth paragraph lists those who may ask the Chief Prosecutor to object. The request may be made by the defendant or those entitled to pursue a route of challenge on the defendant's behalf, by the intervening party, by a person whose application to intervene has not yet been determined, and by a person injured by the offence in a way that would allow them to acquire the status of intervening party.
The list is broad: not only those already granted that status, but those whose application is pending and those in a position to acquire it.
It is a provision that expressly regulates the injured party's access to the extraordinary route.
Making a request does not mean an objection will follow; the decision rests with the Chief Prosecutor. The request should therefore set out concretely in what respect the decision is said to be unlawful.
Which files do the changes apply to?
The law takes a different approach to each article.
For article 308 there is an express transitional rule. Under article 25(8) of law no. 7589, the change applies to files delivered after the date of entry into force. The former provisions continue to apply to files delivered before that date.
Here too the criterion is not the date of the decision but the date the file was delivered to the Chief Prosecutor.
For article 247 the law provides no separate transitional rule. As the provision concerns procedure, its application is assessed by reference to the stage the file has reached, and that assessment is file-specific.
How these applications work in Antalya
Applications concerning a fugitive defendant are addressed to the court hearing the file. Files arising in Antalya and Kepez are dealt with by the relevant criminal courts at the Antalya Courthouse.
A request that the Chief Public Prosecutor object is made directly to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office at the Court of Cassation. The file must have reached the Court of Cassation; the route is not available while a file is still before the regional court of justice.
The request should state clearly in what respect the decision is said to be unlawful, the authorities relied upon and the file number. For general information on investigation and prosecution, see our criminal law page.
Resources
- Criminal Procedure Code no. 5271, arts. 247 and 308 (as amended by articles 16 and 17 of law no. 7589) — mevzuat.gov.tr
- Law no. 7589, art. 25(8) (transitional rule for article 308) — Official Gazette of 31 July 2026, issue 33326
You can access the current versions of legal texts via mevzuat.gov.tr.