The MLSA Legal Unit has issued a detailed legal assessment of the amendments introduced by the 11th Judicial Reform Package, examining their potential impact on democratic society, freedom of expression, personal rights, criminal justice, the execution of sentences, and access to justice.
The assessment reviews the relevant legal provisions one by one, outlining the scope of the amendments, how they will be implemented, and their possible effects. It highlights potential risks, structural problems, and areas of uncertainty, especially in terms of fundamental rights and freedoms. By discussing whether the amendments align with Constitutional Court case law and international standards, the assessment presents a concrete analysis of the extent to which the new legislative package advances rights and freedoms, and where it reproduces or deepens existing problems.
11TH JUDICIAL PACKAGE AND THE AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED
This briefing note summarizes the provisions introduced by the 11th Judicial Package—together with their article numbers—that directly or indirectly affect democratic life, freedom of expression, access to justice, criminal justice, and the execution of sentences.
Regulations Concerning the Removal of Online Content (Articles 30, 31 and …)
In line with the Constitutional Court’s annulment ruling, the definition clause (Art. 2) of Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed Through These Publications has been amended. The concept of “removal of content” is redefined so that instead of permanently deleting the content from the server, the main measure becomes disabling access to the content online in a reversible manner. This introduces a more proportionate intervention model; in other words, when this measure is applied, the content will be removed from the internet environment in a way that can be restored if necessary.
The amendment also rewrites Article 9—previously annulled by the Constitutional Court for violating legal certainty and security in terms of freedom of expression—this time setting out its rationale and boundaries more clearly. Individuals claiming that their personal rights have been violated may apply to the criminal judgeships of peace to request content removal and/or access blocking. If the judge considers the violation “prima facie” evident, they may order—within 24 hours—content removal or access blocking in a graded manner. If the violation is not immediately apparent, the judge must reject the application. Appeals may be filed against the judge’s decision under the Criminal Procedure Code, and stakeholders may be heard if deemed necessary. Additionally, due to the prevalence of intentional, revenue-generating harmful content, difficulties in identifying users, and the frequency of personal rights violations, special obligations are imposed on foreign social network providers with more than 10 million daily users in Türkiye to ensure effective enforcement.
Although Article 9 of Law No. 5651 has been rewritten, it is difficult to say that the Constitutional Court’s criticism of structural deficiencies has been fully addressed. Concepts such as “prima facie violation” and “graded measures” are mentioned but not defined with concrete, binding criteria at the statutory level, meaning the judge’s discretionary power has not been narrowed. In fact, new ambiguous grounds for assessment have been created. The concept of personal rights violation remains broad and open-ended; and the law does not impose a hierarchy or mandatory priority between content removal, URL-based blocking, or broader platform measures. While the amendment allows for the possibility of hearing the parties, this is not a binding procedural safeguard—only a discretionary option. Given the well-known caseload, rapid-decision practices, and structural issues of the criminal judgeships of peace, it is doubtful that this safeguard will operate effectively in practice. In this respect, the new provision largely revises the language but preserves the same intervention mechanism, maintaining the risks of arbitrariness and failing to remedy the lack of legal certainty, foreseeability, and proportionality emphasized by the Constitutional Court.
Expansion of the Advance Payment Mechanism in Insult Offenses (Article 16)
Article 16 of the Judicial Package expands the applicability of the advance payment mechanism for insult offenses. Previously, advance payment was available only in limited circumstances; the amendment makes it applicable to a broader range of cases. Accordingly, regardless of whether the insult was committed orally, in writing, via images, directly in a person’s presence, or in their absence, advance payment provisions may now apply. If the offender makes the payment under the specified conditions, the investigation and prosecution may be terminated. With this change, the handling of insult offenses within the criminal justice process has been reorganized and a monetary-sanction-based pathway is introduced instead of full criminal proceedings.
At first glance, including all forms of insult within the scope of advance payment may appear to soften the criminal justice system and expand protection for freedom of expression. However, excluding insults directed at public officials from this mechanism significantly weakens this potential improvement. As the Constitutional Court highlighted in its annulment decision, the real constitutional problem is not technical—i.e., whether advance payment is used—but substantive: insult offenses are broadly defined in a way that grants disproportionate protection to public officials, producing unequal and constitutionally problematic outcomes. The amendment does not narrow the material or mental elements of the insult offense, does not raise the threshold for criminal liability, and does not structurally reduce the threat of criminal punishment. By completely excluding insults against public officials from the advance payment option, the amendment leaves political and public scrutiny—where strong, disturbing, and critical speech is natural—under continued threat of criminal sanction. Considering that insult has been almost entirely removed from criminal law in the US, and that the European Court of Human Rights accepts criminal sanctions only in exceptional and strictly necessary cases, the amendment does not expand the space for freedom of expression; instead, it maintains the restrictive status quo and reinforces an asymmetrical protection that benefits state authorities.
Amendments to the Execution of Sentences (Article 27)
Under Article 27, individuals convicted of offenses committed on or before 31 July 2023 may benefit from earlier transfer to open prisons and earlier eligibility for supervised release, regardless of whether they were physically in a penal institution on that date. The aim is to eliminate inequalities caused by delays in judicial proceedings that affect when a sentence begins to be served. However, because the amendment applies broadly without distinguishing between types of crimes, it may effectively shorten the execution period for offenses that carry high social sensitivity, such as violence against women. This in turn risks weakening deterrence and creating a public perception of a concealed sentence reduction.
Provisions Concerning Children Dragged into Crime (Article 20)
The amendment to Article 220 of the Turkish Penal Code increases the minimum and maximum prison sentences for establishing, managing, or joining a criminal organization, aiming to strengthen deterrence and combat organized crime more effectively. The rationale is that organized crime threatens public safety and peace, undermining the right to live in a secure environment. A particular goal is to prevent children from being used as instruments in crime by criminal organizations. Accordingly, if children are used in the commission of offenses carried out within the scope of an organization’s activities, the penalty imposed on the organization’s leaders will be increased by between one-half and one-fold. Whether the child is formally a member of the organization is irrelevant for this enhancement. The overall objective is to increase deterrence against organized crime, protect children from criminal involvement, and strengthen social peace.
Amendments to the Attorneyship Law and the Disciplinary Regime (Articles 5–10)
Articles 5 to 10 of the Judicial Package comprehensively revise the disciplinary penalties and disciplinary procedures under the Attorneyship Law. The previous system was more rigid and offered fewer gradations of disciplinary sanctions. The new system introduces hierarchical disciplinary penalties. When determining the penalty, the severity of the act, the degree of fault, and the consequences of the conduct must be taken into account. The acts that may lead to disbarment have been redefined, and lower-level sanctions must be applied for less serious violations. The relationship between criminal proceedings and disciplinary investigations has been clarified, as has the impact of criminal case outcomes on disciplinary processes. The appeal mechanisms for disciplinary sanctions and the timeframes for deleting these sanctions from the professional registry have also been re-regulated.
Amendments Concerning Public Order, Safety, and Traffic Offenses (Articles 18–21)
Articles 17, 19, and 21 introduce increased penalties for certain offenses related to traffic safety, public order, and general security under the Turkish Penal Code. The amendments impose tougher and clearer rules for actions that directly threaten public safety and that frequently arise in practice.
-
With Article 17, the penalties for the offense of causing injury by negligence (TCK Art. 89) are increased.
-
Article 19 revises TCK Art. 170: firing shots into the air in crowded areas, residential zones, or places where people may be present is categorized as an act creating severe danger to public safety, and the penalty for intentionally endangering public safety is increased by half when the offense occurs in places where people gather.
-
Article 21 revises TCK Art. 223: the use of force or threat is no longer required for the offense of obstructing, stopping, hijacking, or seizing a transportation vehicle; any unlawful conduct will now suffice. Penalty ranges are increased, and harsher penalties apply to offenses involving maritime and railway vehicles. If another offense is committed during the act, the offender will be punished separately for each. The overall aim is to strengthen traffic and transportation safety.
