Legal Definition of the Crime
The Crime of Insulting the Symbols of State Sovereignty is regulated under Article 300 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) within the section titled “Crimes Against the Symbols of State Sovereignty and the Dignity of Its Organs.” The relevant article provides:
TPC Article 300:
- Any person who publicly insults the Turkish Flag by tearing it, burning it, or in any other manner shall be punished with imprisonment from one to three years. This provision applies to any symbol that carries the characteristics of the red flag with the white crescent and star as defined in the Constitution and is used as a symbol of the sovereignty of the Republic of Turkey.
- Any person who publicly insults the National Anthem shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to two years.
- If the crimes defined in this article are committed by a Turkish citizen in a foreign country, the penalty shall be increased by one-third.
These provisions indicate that acts of public disrespect directed at the symbols of state sovereignty are punishable under the law.
Elements of the Crime
When the crime of Insulting the Symbols of State Sovereignty is evaluated in terms of both its objective and subjective elements, it consists of the following fundamental components:
1-Perpetrator: The relevant legal provision does not impose any specific condition regarding the perpetrator; therefore, anyone can commit the crime. However, if the defined crime is committed by a Turkish citizen in a foreign country, the penalty shall be increased. (TPC Article 300/3)
2-Victim: In this crime, the victim is the state.
3-Act (Conduct) Element: According to TPC Article 300, the act element consists of any conduct of public insult directed at any symbol used as a mark of sovereignty of the Republic of Turkey, particularly the Turkish Flag and the National Anthem, or any symbol carrying the characteristics of the red flag with the white crescent and star as defined in the Constitution. Such insulting acts may be carried out through any action intended to demean, such as tearing or burning.
4-Legally Protected Interest: The legally protected interest in the crime of insulting the symbols of state sovereignty is the dignity and authority of the state, as this crime is regulated under the Turkish Penal Code section titled “Crimes Against the Symbols of State Sovereignty and the Dignity of Its Organs.”
5-Mental Element: The crime can only be committed intentionally, requiring that the perpetrator acts with the intent to insult the symbols of state sovereignty. Acts carried out through mere negligence or by accident do not constitute this crime.
6-Object of the Crime: The object of the crime includes the Turkish Flag, the National Anthem, and any symbol carrying the characteristics of the red flag with the white crescent and star as defined in the Constitution and used as a mark of sovereignty of the Republic of Turkey.
Aggravated Form of the Crime
The commission of the crime defined in Article 300/3 of the Turkish Penal Code by a Turkish citizen in a foreign country is subject to a more severe criminal penalty. The relevant provision states: “If the crimes defined in this article are committed by a Turkish citizen in a foreign country, the penalty shall be increased by one-third.” This indicates that acts targeting the symbols of state sovereignty, when carried out abroad, are subject to harsher criminal sanctions.
Complaint Period, Statute of Limitations, and Competent Court
The crime regulated under Article 300 of the Turkish Penal Code is not subject to a complaint and is investigated ex officio by the public prosecutor’s office. Although there is no complaint period for the investigation of the crime, the statute of limitations for the case is 8 years. The competent court is the Criminal Court of First Instance.
Judicial Fine, Suspension of the Sentence, and Deferred Pronouncement of the Judgment
Pursuant to Article 300 of the Turkish Penal Code, any person who publicly insults the Turkish Flag by tearing it, burning it, or in any other manner shall be punished with imprisonment from one to three years, and any person who publicly insults the National Anthem shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to two years. Considering the minimum and maximum limits of the penalty, it is possible to convert the prison sentence into a judicial fine, to issue a deferred pronouncement of the judgment (HAGB), or to suspend the execution of the sentence.
Supreme Court Decisions
“…It was determined that the defendant, at the time of the incident, was performing his military service as an Air Private in the 12th Company of the 3rd Battalion at the … Brigade Command, and on 21.11.2013, while pointing to the Turkish flag at the … Site, he stated: ‘I will take down this flag and replace it with another flag.’ In the incident that occurred in this manner, the elements of the crime of insulting the symbols of state sovereignty, as regulated under Article 300 of the Turkish Penal Code, were not established. Despite this, a conviction was issued instead of an acquittal, which is contrary to the law. Since the defendant’s appeal objections were found to be justified on this basis, the judgment has therefore been REVERSED… (Supreme Court of Appeals, 3rd Criminal Chamber, 2021/5464 Docket, 2021/11379 Decision, 22.12.2021).”
“…Upon reviewing the defendant …’s appeals against the conviction for the crime of publicly insulting the symbols of state sovereignty:
1- In the act where the defendant allegedly insulted the Turkish flag using blasphemous language while having a meal and consuming alcohol at the home of the victim … on 24.01.2008, the element of publicity was not established. Despite this, a conviction was issued based on an unlawful reasoning instead of an acquittal for a crime whose elements were not met.
2- According to accepted practice:
a- In the reasoned judgment, the crime was not properly identified under the heading as “publicly insulting the symbols of state sovereignty.”
b- Considering that in case the judicial fine is not executed, it can be enforced ex officio during the execution phase pursuant to Article 106/3 of Law No. 5275 as amended by Law No. 6545, the judgment should have included a warning in accordance with Article 52/4 of the Turkish Penal Code.
These constitute violations of the law. Since the defendant’s appeal objections were therefore found to be justified, the judgment is hereby REVERSED on these grounds… (Supreme Court of Appeals, 16th Criminal Chamber, 2016/1819 Docket, 2017/1151 Decision, 14.03.2017).”
“…It has been determined that the actions of the juvenile offender, who was in the 15-18 age group at the time of the crime, corresponding to propaganda for a terrorist organization, insulting a public official due to their duty, and publicly insulting the symbols of state sovereignty, fall under a cumulative statute of limitations of 7 years and 12 months as provided in Articles 66/1-e, 66/2, 67/3, and 67/4 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237. The period has elapsed from the date of the crime, 08.11.2014, to the date of review. Accordingly, the juvenile’s appeal was found justified, and the public prosecution was dismissed due to the statute of limitations… (Supreme Court of Appeals, 3rd Criminal Chamber, 2022/11606 Docket, 2023/3335 Decision, 24.05.2023).”
“…Regarding the crimes of insulting and publicly insulting the symbols of state sovereignty, since the defendant’s act on the date of the incident was a single act, and pursuant to the decision of the General Criminal Assembly (2021/4 Docket, 2022/512 Decision), the defendant’s legal situation should have been evaluated under the rules on cumulative offenses of different kinds pursuant to Article 44 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237. Furthermore, it should have been considered that under these cumulative rules, the defendant should have been punished for the more severe offense of publicly insulting the symbols of state sovereignty. Despite this, an additional conviction was issued under Article 125/3-a of the same Code.
2- Regarding the crime of resisting the execution of duty: In the concrete case, it was not discussed or explained how the defendant’s act of resistance was carried out by taking advantage of the intimidating effect of existing or presumed criminal organizations as provided in Article 265/4 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237. A conviction was issued under the said article with insufficient reasoning, which is contrary to the law…” (Supreme Court of Appeals, 4th Criminal Chamber, 2023/1577 Docket, 2024/15907 Decision, 03.12.2024).
“…The defendant’s appeal is directed at overturning the conviction on the grounds that he was excessively intoxicated at the time of the incident and lacked the intent to commit the crime.
III. Reasoning: It has been determined, following a lawfully conducted trial, that the act of publicly insulting the symbols of state sovereignty attributed to the defendant satisfies all the necessary legal elements and was indeed committed by the defendant. All evidence, allegations, and defenses presented at various stages were displayed completely and in a manner sufficient to allow appellate review, discussed without altering their essence, and the court’s conscientious judgment was based on definite, consistent, and non-contradictory data. The act was correctly qualified and corresponds to the type of offense defined by law. Since the penalty was applied within the legal framework, no legal violation was observed during the review…” (Supreme Court of Appeals, 4th Criminal Chamber, 2024/202 Docket, 2025/6192 Decision, 08.04.2025).
“…Regarding the appeal against the acquittal for the crime of publicly insulting the symbols of state sovereignty: It was determined that the plaintiff … who was allowed to participate in the case did not suffer direct harm from the crime of publicly insulting the symbols of state sovereignty, and therefore had no right to participate in the case. Accordingly, the plaintiff … does not have the authority to appeal the judgment under Article 260/1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271. Therefore, the appeal is REJECTED pursuant to Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320, in conjunction with Article 317 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412…” (Supreme Court of Appeals, 6th Criminal Chamber, 2020/9658 Docket, 2021/11678 Decision, 16.06.2021).
Lawyer. Gökhan AKGÜL & Lawyer. Yasemin ERAK
