Simple Procedure and Judicial Recess Time Limits

1. Simple Procedure in Criminal Procedure Law

The simple procedure is a trial procedure that allows criminal courts of first instance to render a decision without holding a hearing in respect of certain offences.

Where this procedure coincides with the judicial recess, it must be separately determined whether the two-week period granted to the defendant for submitting a defence runs during the judicial recess and whether any legal remedy is available against the interlocutory decision concerning the application of the procedure.

Both issues are examined below within the framework of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 [“CCP”] and settled case law.

2. Conditions for the Application of the Simple Procedure

As stipulated under Article 251(1) of the CCP, the simple procedure may be applied before criminal courts of first instance provided that:

• The criminal court of first instance has accepted the indictment issued by the Public Prosecutor’s Office,
• The offence subject to the proceedings is punishable by a judicial fine and/or imprisonment for a maximum term of two years or less, and
• The criminal court of first instance decides to apply the simple procedure.

Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the same provision set out the circumstances in which the simple procedure may not be applied. These are: [i] where the defendant is a minor, mentally ill, deaf or mute, [ii] where the investigation or prosecution of the offence is subject to permission or a request, and [iii] where an offence falling within the scope of the simple procedure has been committed together with another offence that does not fall within its scope.

3. Conduct of the Simple Procedure and Reversion to the General Provisions

In cases where the simple procedure is applied, the court shall render its decision without holding a hearing and without obtaining the opinion of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The court shall render its judgment after the expiry of the two-week period granted for the submission of statements and defence.¹ Where a conviction is rendered, pursuant to Article 251(3) of the CCP, the resulting sentence shall be reduced by one quarter.

Pursuant to Article 251(6) of the CCP, where the Court deems it necessary, it may, at any stage until judgment is rendered, proceed with the trial under the general provisions by opening a hearing ex officio, without any request being made.

4. Legal Remedy Against the Interlocutory Decision on the Application of the Simple Procedure

The decision to apply the simple procedure is an interlocutory decision, is within the discretion of the judge, and is not, in itself, among the decisions subject to objection within the meaning of Article 267 of the CCP.² A legal remedy is available only against the judgment rendered at the conclusion of the procedure. Indeed, pursuant to Article 252(1) of the CCP, judgments rendered under Article 251 may be objected to, and any judgment not objected to within the prescribed period becomes final.

Accordingly, no separate objection may be filed against the procedural decision set out in the preliminary order; the only means of reverting the proceedings to the general provisions are the Court’s opening of a hearing ex officio pursuant to Article 251(6) before judgment is rendered, and an objection under Article 252 after judgment is rendered.

5. Objection to the Judgement Rendered Following the Simple Procedure

An objection against a decision rendered under the simple procedure shall, pursuant to the general provisions of Article 268 of the CCP, be filed within two weeks with the criminal court of first instance that rendered the decision. Upon objection, in accordance with the amendment introduced by Law No. 7499 following the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision,³ where there is more than one criminal court of first instance in that jurisdiction, the case file shall be referred to another criminal court of first instance determined in accordance with the case allocation criteria, and that court shall open a hearing and continue the proceedings in accordance with the general provisions.

6. Running of Time Limits Triggered by Service During the Judicial Recess under the Simple Procedure

For the purposes of determining whether the two-week period prescribed for the submission of statements and defence under the simple procedure runs during the judicial recess, Article 331 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 provides as follows:

(1) Authorities and courts dealing with criminal matters shall suspend their work each year from 20 July to 31 August, resuming on 1 September.

(2) The manner in which investigations, prosecutions concerning detained persons, and other matters deemed urgent shall be carried out during the recess shall be determined by the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors.

(3) During the recess, regional courts of appeal and the Court of Cassation shall examine only matters concerning detained persons or matters heard pursuant to the Law on the Procedure for Flagrant Offences.

(4) Time limits falling within the judicial recess shall not run. Such time limits shall be deemed extended by three days from the date on which the judicial recess ends.

Pursuant to this provision, where service has been effected before the judicial recess and the relevant time limit has begun to run before the recess, the time limit shall be deemed to have been extended by three days from the date on which the judicial recess ends. In such case, the time limit shall be extended until the end of business on 3 September. Where 1 September falls on a Sunday, the three-day period shall begin to run on 2 September and shall expire at the end of 4 September. Time limits falling within the judicial recess – or, more precisely, time limits commencing during the judicial recess – shall not run.⁴

However, pursuant to the Decision on the Unification of Case Law No. 47-1 dated 14 February 1934 of the General Assembly of Criminal Chambers of the Court of Cassation, where service is effected during the judicial recess, such service remains valid; however, the time limit triggered by such service begins to run from the commencement of the new judicial year, namely, from 1 September.⁵ This practice, established pursuant to the said decision on the unification of case law, continues to be applied today and serves as a basis for various judicial decisions.⁶

In Summary

The simple procedure is a special trial procedure that allows the criminal court of first instance to render a judgment on the basis of the case file, without holding a hearing, in respect of certain offences. Under this procedure, the defendant is granted a two-week period to submit statements and defence.

The provisions governing the judicial recess under Article 331 of the CCP also apply to this two-week period for submitting a defence. Accordingly, time limits falling within the judicial recess do not run during the recess; where service is effected during the judicial recess, the two-week period begins to run from 1 September. Therefore, in the present case, the date of service must be determined in order to establish the final day of the period for submitting a defence.

Footnotes

1. By Law No. 7499 dated 12 March 2024, the phrase “within fifteen days from the pronouncement of the judgment” in Article 291(1) of the CCP was amended to read “within two weeks from the date on which the judgment, together with its reasoning, is served.”
2. Indeed, Article 267 of the CCP, under the heading concerning decisions subject to objection, provides that objections may be filed against decisions of judges and, in cases expressly provided for by law, against decisions of courts. However, Articles 251 et seq., which govern the simple procedure, do not provide that decisions concerning the application of the simple procedure are subject to objection; rather, they expressly provide that judgments rendered pursuant to the simple procedure may be challenged by way of objection. Accordingly, the decision concerning the application of the simple procedure, in and of itself, is not subject to objection.
3. Under the repealed provision, the objection was examined by the court that had rendered the judgment. The Constitutional Court annulled the first sentence of Article 252(2) of the CCP, finding that the same judge who had already expressed a view on the merits reconsidering the same dispute upon objection was of such a nature as to constitute prejudgment in terms of judicial impartiality and the right to a fair trial (Constitutional Court, 22 June 2023, E.2020/79, Official Gazette, 11 October 2023). Following the annulment decision, Article 17 of Law No. 7499 dated 2 March 2024 amended the provision so as to provide that, upon objection, the case file shall be examined by a criminal court of first instance other than the court that rendered the judgment.
4. Code of Criminal Procedure [“CCP”], Article 331(4): “Time limits falling within the judicial recess shall not run. Such time limits shall be deemed extended by three days from the date on which the judicial recess ends.”
5. Centel & Zafer, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku [Criminal Procedure Law], Beta Publishing, 2020, pp. 752-753.
6. In this regard, the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation held as follows in its decision E. 2019/11473, K. 2022/1954: “Service effected during the judicial recess is valid. Pursuant to Article 331 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 and the Court of Cassation’s Decision on the Unification of Case Law No. 47/1 dated 14 February 1934, where a decision is served during the judicial recess, the relevant time limits do not run and the period for appeal begins to run from the date on which the judicial recess ends. Accordingly, the appeal lodged by counsel for the participating party was deemed to have been filed within the prescribed period, and upon examination…” See, to the same effect: Court of Cassation, 4th Criminal Chamber, E. 2024/11867, K. 2025/2923; Court of Cassation, 17th Criminal Chamber, E. 2017/2327, K. 2017/9374, dated 12 July 2017.