KÜHEYLAN HUKUK
Reversal for the Benefit of Law (CMK Art. 309): Last Legal Possibility Against the Final Decision Request for Reversal of the Ministry of Justice within the Scope of Art. 309 and Art. 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Application Procedure and Results of Reversal. This guide has been updated as of 2026, based on the Code of Criminal Procedure and the established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Appeals Criminal General Assembly.
Summary Reversal for the sake of law is an extraordinary legal remedy that enables the elimination of illegalities in decisions and judgments made by the judge or court and finalized without appeal or appeal review. The authority to take action belongs to the Ministry of Justice; The Ministry takes action on its own or upon the request of the person concerned and forwards its request to the relevant criminal chamber through the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals. The Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals may resort to this method without the request of the Ministry, in accordance with Article 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application is not limited to any time period, does not result in any adverse effects against the defendant, and the decision to overturn the decision cannot be resisted.
1. Is There Anything That Can Be Done About a Decision That Has Not Been Appealed?
One of the frequently encountered situations in criminal proceedings is the later discovery of a clear illegality in a decision that is closed to legal action because it is final or has become final because no appeal or appeal has been filed in time. In this context, determining the penalty from the wrong article, overlooking the statute of limitations, incorrectly establishing a sentence recorded in the judicial record, or miscalculations that occur during the execution phase come to the fore.
In such a case, although ordinary legal remedies seem to have been exhausted, the legal possibility does not disappear completely. Reversal for the sake of law, regulated in Article 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is designed to fill this gap. The guide covers the conditions of this remedy, who can take action, how to prepare the application, the consequences depending on the type of reversal, and its differences from other extraordinary legal remedies.
2. What is Overruling for the Benefit of the Law?
Reversal for the sake of law is the equivalent of the institution in force, which is also known as extraordinary appeal in the doctrine and is regulated under the name of written order in the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412. It is regulated in the sixth book of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the section devoted to extraordinary legal remedies, in articles 309 and 310.
The main purpose of the institution is not to give superiority to one of the parties in the concrete case. The legislator envisaged this method in order to eliminate illegalities in final decisions and to ensure equal application of the law throughout the country. For this reason, the institution functions as a control mechanism that protects the integrity of the legal order, rather than as a way of seeking individual rights. However, in practice, the individual consequences of reversal are also extremely evident due to the concrete improvement in the legal situation of the convict.
Opening a final decision to discussion again is in tension with the legal stability provided by the institution of final judgment. It is emphasized in the doctrine that this method can only be accepted in terms of contradictions that would be of great benefit to be eliminated and on the condition that it does not result in negative consequences for the defendant. In practice, it is finalized for reasons that are simple and do not affect the essence.
Reversal of decisions is not accepted; The violation must be of a nature that will change the merits, the amount of the penalty, the right of defense or the legal status of the convict.
In order to seek reversal in the interest of law, the following conditions must be present.
There must be a judge or court decision: The decision or judgment must be made by a judicial authority. Transactions that do not have a judicial nature, such as the decisions of the public prosecutor's office stating that there is no need for prosecution, are not within this scope.
The decision must not have been subject to appeal or appeal review: This is the most distinguishing requirement of the institution. Decisions that have been finalized after being reviewed by a higher court are not subject to reversal in the interest of law; In this respect, other extraordinary legal remedies come to the fore.
The decision must be final: The decision may be final at the time it is made, or it may be final because legal action was not taken, although it was possible to apply for it. Both possibilities are within the scope of the institution.
There must be a violation of substantive law or procedural law: The contradiction may be substantive, such as incorrect determination of the applicable legal provision, or it may be procedural, such as restricting the right to defense.
According to the established acceptance of the General Criminal Assembly, the remedy of overturning in the interest of law cannot be resorted to against decisions and provisions that are not legally valid. In this direction in the doctrine; It is stated that the decisions that have not become final because they were given in their absence and not notified to the relevant parties, the decisions that do not indicate the type, duration and authority of the legal remedy, the decisions that use misleading expressions in the explanation of the legal remedy, and the decisions that are considered as null and void cannot be subject to this remedy since the condition of finalization is not met. In such a case, the way to follow is to demonstrate the legal invalidity of the decision and ensure that it is eliminated.
4. Who Can Apply? Ministry of Justice and Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor's Office
The authority to request reversal in the interest of law is granted to two authorities.
When the Ministry of Justice learns of the illegality, it notifies the Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor's Office in writing of the request for reversal, stating the legal reasons. The Ministry may use this authority on its own, or it may take action upon the request of the convict, the defendant, the defense attorney or the person injured by the crime. Since individuals do not have the authority to directly appeal to the Supreme Court, what those concerned need to do is to submit a request to take the Ministry into action.
The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals may, in accordance with Article 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, resort to reversal in the interest of law without the request of the Ministry of Justice. This authority is a natural consequence of the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office's duty to oversee the uniform application of the law.
Revocation for the sake of law is not time-bound. Regardless of how much time has passed since the decision became final, an application can be made when unlawfulness is detected. This feature is the most distinctive feature that distinguishes the institution from other legal remedies subject to time. However, indefinite period does not mean that the application will always yield results; The completion of the execution of the sentence or the deletion of the record is also evaluated in terms of the legal benefit of the application.
5. How Does the Application Process Work?
If the process starts with the request of the person concerned, it consists of successive stages.
Submission of the request: The person alleging unlawfulness submits his/her reasoned petition to the court that made the decision or directly to the General Directorate of Criminal Affairs of the Ministry of Justice.
Opinion of the court: The file is sent to the court that made the decision to prepare a reasoned opinion as to whether the alleged contradiction exists. This opinion is added to the file and forwarded to the Ministry.
Ministry review: The judge assigned to the General Directorate of Criminal Affairs examines the file. If he/she is of the opinion that a reversal is necessary in the interest of the law, he submits the letter containing the reversal request to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals. If he thinks otherwise, he notifies the relevant unit of his decision not to follow this path.
Chief Public Prosecutor's Office stage: The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals writes the reasons stated by the Ministry verbatim and submits his letter requesting reversal to the relevant criminal chamber of the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court review: If the relevant criminal chamber deems the reasons put forward appropriate, it overturns the decision or judgment in the interest of law; If he does not see it in place, he rejects the request.
If the Ministry decides to reverse the case in the interest of law, this situation is also notified to the court that made the decision. Following the notification, it is possible for the person concerned to request the court to suspend the execution of the decision that is clearly unlawful. Since the application does not automatically stop the execution, if a prison sentence is being executed, this request must be made separately and clearly.
The petition should be prepared as an investigation report to detect the legal error, not as a defense text retelling the incident. An effective petition has the following elements:
Indicating the court, date, basis and decision number of the decision and showing the finalization date.
Making it clear that the decision has not been subject to appeal or appeal review.
Explanation of the alleged contradiction in the form of individual articles together with the relevant article of law and established case law.
Concrete how each violation affects the outcome of the judgment.
Showing which reversal result in the fourth paragraph of Article 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponds to the violation.
If the execution is continuing, the request for suspension of execution should be written separately.
What happens next if the Supreme Court decides to overturn in the interest of law is regulated separately in the law, depending on the nature of the reason for reversal. This distinction is particularly important as it determines the concrete outcome of the application for the convict.
The judge or court that made the decision makes a new decision as a result of the necessary examination and, if the decision is related to a decision that does not resolve the merits of the case, Article 309/4‑a investigation; The ban on retrial does not apply
Either a retrial is carried out for the aspect that does not resolve the merits of the conviction; If the sentence to be given relates to procedures that remove or restrict the right to defense in the previous procedure, the penalty cannot be more severe than the penalty in the provision Article 309/4-b.
If it concerns provisions other than conviction that resolve the merits of the case, do not result in adverse consequences and do not require retrial.
The relevant criminal chamber of the Supreme Court directly decides the revocation of the sentence or a lighter sentence; There will be no retrial if Article 309/4‑d requires
The last clause is particularly effective in practice. If the reason for reversal requires the revocation of the sentence or the imposition of a lighter sentence, the outcome is determined directly by the Supreme Court of Appeals without sending the file to the local court. Thus, the change in the legal status of the convict occurs without the need for a long retrial process.
In accordance with the fifth paragraph of Article 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the decision to overturn in the interest of law cannot be resisted. The first instance courts do not have the authority to insist on reversal decisions given as a result of ordinary appeal. This rule is a direct result of the agency's goal of ensuring equal application of the law.
The main guarantee of reversal in the interest of law is that the result will not be aggravated to the detriment of the defendant or convict. In case of reversal of a conviction, the new sentence cannot be heavier than the previous sentence; In cases other than conviction, which resolves the merits of the case, reversal does not have any adverse consequences.
On the other hand, the situation is different in reversals of decisions that do not resolve the merits of the case. In this case, since there is no provision that resolves the merits, it will not be possible to talk about a favorable or unfavorable outcome in the new decision to be made, and the rules regarding the prohibition of retrial will not be applied. Making this distinction correctly before applying allows you to evaluate in advance where the process will lead.
The Code of Criminal Procedure provides for four separate extraordinary legal remedies. In practice, mixing these together will result in the application being made to the wrong authority and wasting time.
Objection of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals for Retrial Criterion Overturning for the Benefit of the Law (Art. 309) (Art. 308) (Art. 311)
Final judgments, decisions and verdicts of the Supreme Court of Appeals criminal chambers, whose subject has become final without appeal or appeal.
Application: Serious new evidence or fact in the Chamber's decision is contrary to substantive law or procedural law.
Authorized Ministry of Justice or Supreme Court of Appeals C. Supreme Court Republic Convict, relevant parties and office Chief Public Prosecutor's Office Chief Public Prosecutor
Review Relevant chamber, then the relevant criminal chamber of the Criminal Court of Appeals General Assembly of the court authority that gave the verdict
There is no time limit for objections against the objection. No time is required.
In addition, the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals has been given the authority to appeal to the relevant chamber or the General Criminal Assembly in order to correct material errors related only to writing in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Appeals criminal chambers and the General Criminal Assembly. This method is a correction mechanism that is independent of violation of the law and whose scope is limited to typographical errors.
If the relevant criminal chamber rejects the request for reversal in the interest of law, since this decision is also a chamber decision, it may be subject to objection by the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals within the scope of Article 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The General Criminal Assembly also accepts that chamber decisions made as a result of an overturn review in the interest of law may be subject to appeal.
In practice, one of the areas where overturning in the interest of law is most frequently used is the unlawfulness of decisions to postpone the announcement of the verdict. Since these decisions were finalized without the merits review of the higher court, the only way to eliminate the contradictions that emerged was to overturn in the interest of law.
With the Law No. 7589, which came into force in 2026, Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rearranged and it was envisaged that an appeal could be filed against the decisions to postpone the announcement of the verdict. Since this regulation ensures that the decisions in question are reviewed by a higher court, it will narrow down the function of overturning for the sake of law in this area in the new period. However, in terms of decisions finalized before the amendment, the method of overruling in the interest of law remains up-to-date. Which regime will be applied in a concrete file should be determined separately according to the date of the decision and the transitional provisions of the law.
A criminal court of first instance applied an increase clause not foreseen in the law when determining the basic penalty in its sentence of conviction for the defendant. Since the decision was final in terms of the type and amount of the penalty imposed, no appeal could be filed and the decision became final. The convict realized that the sentence was calculated incorrectly during the execution phase and applied to the Ministry of Justice through his lawyer.
The decision was given by the judge, became final without going through an appeal review, and contains a violation of substantive law. Therefore, the conditions for overruling in the interest of law have been met. Upon the request of the Ministry, the relevant criminal chamber, which examines the file through the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals, finds the reason for reversal appropriate and if the violation requires a lighter sentence, it will rule directly without a retrial in accordance with subparagraph (d) of the fourth paragraph of Article 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the execution will not stop automatically during the process, the suspension of the execution must be requested separately.
Can an application for reversal be made in the interest of law directly to the Supreme Court?
No. Individuals do not have the authority to apply directly. What needs to be done is to request the Ministry of Justice to take action with a reasoned petition. If the Ministry accepts the request, the process proceeds through the Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor's Office.
What happens if the Ministry rejects the request?
There is no prescribed legal remedy against the Ministry's decision not to overturn in the interest of law. However, since the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals can resort to this method without the request of the Ministry in accordance with Article 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a request for evaluation may be made to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office depending on the nature of the violation.
Can this be resorted to because the appeal period has been missed? Yes. The decision may have become final because it was possible to apply for legal action, but it was not. This situation is within the scope of overruling for the sake of law. However, the institution is operated to remedy a clear illegality, not to compensate for the missed appeal period.
Can breaking the law for the sake of law aggravate the punishment?
In case of reversal of a conviction, the new sentence cannot be heavier than the previous sentence. Reversal of provisions other than conviction that resolves the merits of the case does not have adverse consequences.
Does the application stop the execution of the sentence? No. The stay of execution does not occur automatically; It must also be requested from the court that made the decision. Failure to make this request in a timely manner may result in irreparable consequences, even if a reversal decision is made.
Can I apply for the same decision more than once?
If the contradiction has been examined and rejected before, re-applying for the same reason will not yield any results. However, if there is an independent unlawfulness that has never been claimed before, a new evaluation request may be brought to the agenda.
Applying for decisions that have been appealed or appealed: Decisions that have been finalized after being reviewed by the higher court are not subject to this method. What needs to be evaluated in such files is the objection of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals or the retrial.
Relying on deficiencies that do not affect the outcome: Since the authority of the final judgment is taken into consideration, contradictions that do not affect the merits and the legal status of the convict are not considered grounds for reversal.
Entering into a discussion of evidence: Overturning for the sake of law is not a way of re-evaluating the evidence. Requests based on new evidence or facts are within the scope of retrial.
Not requesting a stay of execution: Since the process takes time, neglecting this request while the execution is ongoing may eliminate the practical benefit of the stay.
Failure to investigate the status of finality: Since decisions that have not been notified properly or whose legal remedy explanation is incorrect are not considered legally final, the invalidity of the decision must be claimed instead of this remedy.
Reversal for the sake of law is one of the limited possibilities to eliminate the illegality in a final decision, and the fact that it is not limited to a time period makes it particularly valuable. On the other hand, the outcome of the application depends on correctly determining the nature of the contradiction, determining whether the decision has passed the appeal or appeal control, foreseeing under which clause the reversal will result, and submitting the request for suspension of execution in a timely manner. Küheylan Law Firm provides legal support in examining finalized criminal files in terms of extraordinary legal remedies, preparing the petition based on the request for reversal in the interest of law, and carrying out the stay of execution processes.
Important Legal Notice: The legal explanations and sample scenarios in this guide have been prepared by Küheylan Law Firm for general information purposes and do not constitute legal advice. Since the unique circumstances of each case may change the outcome, it is recommended to seek legal support from a lawyer from the first stage of the process. © 2026 Küheylan Law Firm. All rights reserved.
Küheylan Law Firm — Burhaniye Mh. Neşetbey Sk. No:12/5 Floor:5 Flat:3 Üsküdar/İstanbul — info@kuheylanhukuk.com — kuheylanhukuk.com
KÜHEYLAN HUKUK