What Is the Offense of Violating Measures Relating to Infectious Diseases?
The offense of violating measures relating to infectious diseases is regulated under Article 195 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) as follows:
“A person who fails to comply with the measures imposed by the competent authorities for the quarantine of a place where a person infected with one of the infectious diseases or a person who has died from such a disease is present shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two months to one year.”
As can be understood from the statutory provision, the place where a person carrying an infectious disease, such as a virus, or a person who has died from such a disease is present must be placed under quarantine, that is, isolated. Those who act in violation of this measure are subject to the penalty prescribed under the relevant provision.
Furthermore, in the legislative rationale of the provision, the legislator states that the purpose of establishing the offense of violating measures relating to infectious diseases is to protect public health.
Penalty for the Offense of Violating Measures Relating to Infectious Diseases
As provided under Article 195 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) quoted above, the penalty for the offense of violating measures relating to infectious diseases is imprisonment for a term of two months to one year.
Competent and Jurisdictional Court for the Offense of Violating Measures Relating to Infectious Diseases
For the offense of violating measures relating to infectious diseases, the competent court by subject matter is the Criminal Court of First Instance, while the court with territorial jurisdiction is the court of the place where the offense was committed (Article 12 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK)).
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Is Attempt Possible in the Offense of Violating Measures Relating to Infectious Diseases?
Attempt is defined under Article 35 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) as follows:
“If a person begins directly to execute a crime that he or she intends to commit through suitable acts but is unable to complete it for reasons beyond his or her control, the person shall be held liable for attempt.”
However, attempting to commit the offense of violating measures relating to infectious diseases is not possible.
2. Can a Decision to Defer the Announcement of the Judgment (HAGB) Be Issued for the Offense of Violating Measures Relating to Infectious Diseases?
A decision to defer the announcement of the judgment (HAGB) is a decision intended to prevent a prison sentence of two years or less imposed on the defendant from producing its legal effects and consequences during the applicable probation period. In this regard, if the defendant subject to an HAGB decision fulfills the required conditions during the relevant probation period, the imposed sentence is eliminated and the proceedings are dismissed.
Accordingly, since the prison sentence imposed on the offender for the offense of violating measures relating to infectious diseases is two years or less, it is possible for an HAGB decision to be issued in respect of the offender.
3. Is the Offense of Violating Measures Relating to Infectious Diseases Subject to Mediation?
Mediation essentially aims to facilitate communication and reaching an agreement between the person accused of committing an offense and the victim through the assistance of a mediator. However, the offense of violating measures relating to infectious diseases is not among the offenses subject to mediation.
4. Can the Prison Sentence for the Offense of Violating Measures Relating to Infectious Diseases Be Converted into a Judicial Fine?
A judicial fine is a type of sanction that may be imposed either together with or independently of a prison sentence imposed as a result of a criminal offense. Furthermore, the court’s decision to impose a judicial fine depends on the prison sentence imposed on the offender being less than one year (short-term imprisonment) and the offense having been committed intentionally.
Since the prison sentence imposed for the offense of violating measures relating to infectious diseases is one year or less, it may be converted into a judicial fine.
5. Is the Offense of Violating Measures Relating to Infectious Diseases Subject to a Complaint?
The offense of violating measures relating to infectious diseases is not among the offenses subject to a complaint. It is investigated ex officio by the public prosecutor, and therefore, there is no specific time limit for filing a complaint.
Consequently, the offense in question may be investigated at any time, provided that the applicable statute of limitations for the criminal case has not expired.
6. What Is the Statute of Limitations for the Offense of Violating Measures Relating to Infectious Diseases?
In proceedings concerning the offense of violating measures relating to infectious diseases, the statute of limitations is 8 years, which is the ordinary statute of limitations for criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, once this period has expired, no investigation may be conducted against the offender.
Some Decisions of the Turkish Court of Cassation Concerning the Offense of Violating Measures Relating to Infectious Diseases
- “In the concrete dispute underlying the decision subject to reversal in the interests of the law; On 20 May 2020, an administrative fine of TRY 392.00 was imposed by law enforcement officers on the applicant, who was alleged to have violated the obligation to wear a mask in front of the Gülez Passage on İzzet Baysal Street in Bolu Province, pursuant to Article 8 of the Provincial General Hygiene Council Decision No. 20 dated 3 April 2020 and Article 32 of the Misdemeanors Law No. 5326. In the applicant’s petition, it was stated that he had come from Ankara to Bolu as a guest to visit his family; that he had been stopped while walking on İzzet Baysal Street; that he had been fined for not wearing a mask without being given any prior warning; and that he had likewise not seen any warning indicating that wearing a mask was mandatory when entering the street. Accordingly, he requested the cancellation of the administrative fine. Following the Bolu Criminal Judgeship of Peace’s request, by official correspondence to the Provincial Police Department, for the file concerning the administrative sanction and the relevant notification documents, and following the submission by the competent authority of the incident (misdemeanor) report, the administrative sanction decision report, and its annexes, the court ruled on the basis of the file. In summary, the court held that, pursuant to Article 13 of the Constitution, fundamental rights and freedoms may only be restricted for the reasons specified in the relevant provisions of the Constitution and by law. Accordingly, it was determined that the obligation to wear a mask was not among the prohibitions set forth in the Public Health Law No. 1593, which had been cited as the legal basis for the mask requirement. On the other hand, the protection of public health is a duty of the State pursuant to Article 56 of the Constitution. The court further held that, even assuming that the obligation to wear a mask had a legal basis, a person could scientifically wear a disposable mask for a maximum of four hours. Therefore, considering that, as required by the principle of being a social state governed by the rule of law under Article 2 of the Constitution, the State, which imposes a mask-wearing measure that places an economic burden on individuals, was obliged to provide three masks per person per day, the court decided to annul the administrative fine.” (Court of Cassation, 19th Criminal Chamber, decision dated 9 November 2020, Case No. 2020/4354, Decision No. 2020/14250)
- “In the concrete case, the decision to uphold the objections against the decisions of the Afyonkarahisar Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office stating that there was no ground for prosecution in respect of the suspects for the offense of violating measures relating to infectious diseases, without taking into consideration that the Afyonkarahisar Provincial Directorate of Health, which was not directly harmed by the offense, had no right to object to these decisions under Article 173/1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (CMK), and that the objections should therefore have been dismissed on this ground, was contrary to law. Accordingly, the request for reversal in the interests of the law was found to be well-founded, albeit on a different ground.” (Court of Cassation, 10th Criminal Chamber, decision dated 23 December 2024, Case No. 2024/8861, Decision No. 2024/26348)
- “In the concrete case, although the defendant was convicted as a result of the public prosecution brought against him after it was established by the report drawn up on 17 December 2020 that the defendant, who had been in contact with a person infected with COVID-19, had violated the isolation requirements by not being present at home, in order for the offense attributed to the defendant to be established, the infectious disease must first be scientifically and medically established; the competent authorities must have initiated quarantine measures concerning the place where a person infected with the infectious disease or a person who had died from the infectious disease was present; and the person must have failed to comply with the quarantine measure imposed in respect of that place. Since there was no quarantine decision reflected in the case file concerning this matter, the decision to convict the defendant, instead of acquitting him, as set forth in the judgment, was contrary to law. Accordingly, the request for reversal in the interests of the law was found to be well-founded.” (Court of Cassation, 10th Criminal Chamber, decision dated 30 September 2025, Case No. 2024/776, Decision No. 2025/9091)
- “In the concrete case, although the defendant was convicted as a result of the public prosecution brought against him after it was established by the report drawn up on 5 September 2020 that the defendant, who had been in contact with a person infected with COVID-19, had violated the isolation requirements by not being present at home, in order for the offense attributed to the defendant to be established, the infectious disease must first be scientifically and medically established; the competent authorities must have initiated quarantine measures concerning the place where a person infected with the infectious disease or a person who had died from the infectious disease was present; and the person must have failed to comply with the quarantine measure imposed in respect of that place. Since there was no quarantine decision reflected in the case file concerning this matter, the decision to convict the defendant, instead of acquitting him, as set forth in the judgment, was contrary to law. Accordingly, the request for reversal in the interests of the law was found to be well-founded.” (Court of Cassation, 10th Criminal Chamber, decision dated 16 December 2025, Case No. 2024/6206, Decision No. 2025/13599)
- “In the concrete case, although the defendant was convicted as a result of the public prosecution brought against him after it was established by the report drawn up on 13 October 2020 that the defendant, who was suspected of having COVID-19, had violated the isolation requirements by not being present at home, in order for the offense attributed to the defendant to be established, the infectious disease must first be scientifically and medically established; the competent authorities must have initiated quarantine measures concerning the place where a person infected with the infectious disease or a person who had died from the infectious disease was present; and the person must have failed to comply with the quarantine measure imposed in respect of that place. Since there was no quarantine decision reflected in the case file concerning this matter, the decision to convict the defendant, instead of acquitting him, as set forth in the judgment, was contrary to law. Accordingly, the request for reversal in the interests of the law was found to be well-founded.” (Court of Cassation, 10th Criminal Chamber, decision dated 23 September 2025, Case No. 2024/758, Decision No. 2025/8621)
