What Is the Offense of Abandonment of Public Duty or Failure to Perform a Public Duty?
The offense of abandonment of public duty or failure to perform a public duty is regulated in Article 260 of the Turkish Penal Code as follows:
“(1) Each public official who, unlawfully and collectively, abandons their duties, fails to report to duty, partially or completely fails to perform their duties—even temporarily—or slows down the performance of their duties, shall be sentenced to imprisonment from three months to one year. If the number of public officials does not exceed three, no penalty shall be imposed.
(2) In cases where public officials temporarily and for a short period leave work or slow down their duties in a manner that does not disrupt public service, in relation to their professional and social rights, the penalty to be imposed may be reduced or no penalty may be imposed at all.”
Pursuant to the above legal provision, the offense of abandonment of public duty or failure to perform a public duty is committed when public employees fail to report to duty, slow down the performance of their duties, or partially or completely fail to perform their duties. It should also be noted that this offense arises only where the relevant act or acts are carried out unlawfully and collectively. Therefore, acts of abandoning or failing to perform a public duty, if carried out lawfully and by fewer than three persons, do not constitute the offense of abandonment of public duty or failure to perform a public duty under Article 260 of the Turkish Penal Code.
The Penalty for the Offense of Abandonment of Public Duty or Failure to Perform a Public Duty
As stated above, the penalty for the offense of abandonment of public duty or failure to perform a public duty is regulated in Article 260 of the Turkish Penal Code as “imprisonment from three months to one year.”
However, where the acts of public officials leaving work or slowing down their duties are related to their professional and social rights, it may be possible to reduce the penalty or to waive it entirely.
Statute of Limitations for the Offense of Abandonment of Public Duty or Failure to Perform a Public Duty
The statute of limitations is a legal concept that results in the dismissal of a criminal case if, despite the passage of a certain period of time from the date the offense was committed, no lawsuit has been filed, or if a lawsuit has been filed but has not been concluded within the statutory period. In this context, the offense of abandonment of public duty or failure to perform a public duty may be investigated at any time, provided that the statute of limitations period of eight years is observed.
The Competent and Authorized Court in the Offense of Abandonment of Public Duty or Failure to Perform a Public Duty
In criminal cases concerning the offense of abandonment of public duty or failure to perform a public duty, the competent court is the court of the place where the offense was committed (Article 12 of the Criminal Procedure Code), while the court with subject-matter jurisdiction is the Criminal Court of First Instance. In this regard, the parties may need the assistance of a criminal defense lawyer, specifically a criminal lawyer in Antalya, to file and pursue the relevant case.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Can a Decision to Defer the Pronouncement of the Verdict Be Rendered in the Offense of Abandonment of Public Duty or Failure to Perform a Public Duty?
A decision to defer the pronouncement of the verdict (HAGB) is a decision aimed at eliminating the legal effects and consequences of a prison sentence of two years or less imposed on the defendant. Accordingly, if the defendant for whom a decision to defer the pronouncement of the verdict has been rendered fulfills certain conditions during the relevant probation period, the imposed sentence is annulled and the case is dismissed. Consequently, since the imprisonment imposed for the offense of abandonment of public duty or failure to perform a public duty is two years or less, it is possible to render a decision to defer the pronouncement of the verdict (HAGB) for the defendant.
2. Can the Offense of Abandonment of Public Duty or Failure to Perform a Public Duty Be Converted into a Judicial Fine?
A judicial fine is a type of sanction that may be imposed either together with a prison sentence of one year or less rendered for a committed offense, or on its own. Therefore, it should be noted that the offense of abandonment of public duty or failure to perform a public duty may be converted into a judicial fine.
3. Is the Offense of Abandonment of Public Duty or Failure to Perform a Public Duty a Complaint-Based Offense?
Since the offense of abandonment of public duty or failure to perform a public duty is not among complaint-based offenses, it is investigated ex officio by the public prosecutor and is not subject to any complaint period. Consequently, the offense of abandonment of public duty or failure to perform a public duty may be investigated at any time, provided that the statute of limitations for prosecution is observed.
4. Is Reconciliation Possible in the Offense of Abandonment of Public Duty or Failure to Perform a Public Duty?
Reconciliation essentially aims to enable communication and agreement between the person accused of committing the offense and the victim through a mediator. However, the offense of abandonment of public duty or failure to perform a public duty is not among the offenses that fall within the scope of reconciliation.
5. Can a Decision to Suspend the Sentence Be Rendered in the Offense of Abandonment of Public Duty or Failure to Perform a Public Duty?
A decision to suspend the sentence is a decision by which the court conditionally refrains from the execution of the prison sentence it has imposed. Accordingly, it is possible to render a decision to suspend the sentence for the perpetrator of the offense of abandonment of public duty or failure to perform a public duty.
Some Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) Decisions Regarding the Offense of Abandonment of Public Duty or Failure to Perform a Public Duty
- “It was established that a public prosecution was initiated against the defendants for the offense of abandonment of public duty or failure to perform a public duty, that the Turkish Republic State Railways was the injured party of this offense, and that, by virtue of this status, it should have been notified of the hearing in order to exercise its right to participate in the proceedings and its other rights during the prosecution phase pursuant to Articles 233 and 234 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the trial was continued and written judgments were rendered without duly notifying the case and the hearings, and without providing the opportunity to participate in the proceedings and to benefit from the rights granted to victims and intervening parties under the Criminal Procedure Code. This was found to be contrary to law. As the appeal objections of the complainant’s counsel were deemed justified in this respect, the judgments, the other aspects of which were not examined, were REVERSED pursuant to Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, taking into consideration Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320, and it was unanimously decided on 06/03/2014.” (Court of Cassation, 5th Criminal Chamber, decision dated 06.03.2014, File No. 2012/15333, Decision No. 2014/2409)
- “In the appellate review conducted with respect to the defendants other than …, …, …, …, and …; it was determined that the offense of abandonment of public duty or failure to perform a public duty attributed to the defendants is subject, in terms of the upper limit of the penalty prescribed under Article 260/1 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, to the ordinary statute of limitations of eight years and the extended statute of limitations of twelve years as set forth in Articles 66/1-e and 67/4 of the same Code. As it was established that the extended statute of limitations had elapsed between the date of the offense, 25/11/2009, and the date of the review, it was decided to REVERSE the judgments pursuant to Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMUK), taking into consideration Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320. However, since this matter did not require a retrial, it was decided, in accordance with Article 322/1 of the same Law and Article 223/8 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271, to DISMISS, separately, the public prosecutions filed against the defendants due to the statute of limitations. With regard to the appellate review conducted for the defendants …, …, …, …, and …; it was understood from the population records obtained from the UYAP system that defendant … died on 06/08/2011 and defendant … on 29/07/2015 before the judgment, and that defendant … died on 16/06/2021, defendant … on 24/11/2019, and defendant … on 27/07/2017 after the judgment. As a result, the necessity to investigate these matters at the local level and to render a decision in accordance with Article 64 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 and Article 223/8 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 required reversal. Since the appellate objections of the intervening party’s counsel and the defendants’ defense counsel were found to be justified in this respect, it was unanimously decided on 22/03/2022 to REVERSE the judgments, the other aspects of which were not examined, pursuant to Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMUK), also taking into account Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320.” (Court of Cassation, 3rd Criminal Chamber, decision dated 22.03.2022, File No. 2018/5200, Decision No. 2022/3326)
- “It was determined that the offense of abuse of office by an act attributed to the defendants …, …, …, …, and …, and the offense of abandonment of public duty or failure to perform a public duty attributed to the defendant …, are subject—considering the upper limits of the penalties prescribed under Articles 257/1 and 260 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237—to the ordinary statute of limitations for prosecution of eight years as set forth in Article 66/1-e of the same Code. As it was established that this period had elapsed between the date of the last act interrupting the statute of limitations, namely the interrogations conducted on 28.04.2015, and the date of the review, and that no other act interrupting the statute of limitations existed, it was decided to REVERSE the judgments pursuant to Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, also taking into account Article 8/1 of the Law on the Entry into Force and Application of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5320. However, since this matter did not require a retrial, it was unanimously decided on 07.04.2025, in accordance with Article 322/1 of the same Law and Article 223/8 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271, to DISMISS, separately, the public prosecutions filed against the defendants for the offenses attributed to them due to the statute of limitations.” (Court of Cassation, 5th Criminal Chamber, decision dated 07.04.2025, File No. 2021/8570, Decision No. 2025/5063)
- “Since the interrogation of the defendant …, who is alleged to have committed the charged offense in participation, conducted on 24/03/2016 interrupted the statute of limitations for prosecution, the opinion stated in the notice, asserting that a decision of dismissal should be rendered on the ground that the eight-year ordinary statute of limitations had expired as of the interrogation dated 23/02/2012, was not agreed with. As the acquittal judgments rendered by complying with the reversal decision, fulfilling its requirements, evaluating the evidence, and stating the reasons were in accordance with procedural rules and the law, it was unanimously decided on 06/04/2021 to reject the appellate objections of the intervening party’s counsel, which were not deemed justified, and to UPHOLD the judgments.” (Court of Cassation, 5th Criminal Chamber, decision dated 06.04.2021, File No. 2020/5418, Decision No. 2021/1633)
- “In the examination of the appellate objections lodged against the acquittal judgments rendered in respect of the defendants C.. K.., M.. Y.., C.. A.., E.. G.., K.. G.., İ.. U.., Ç.. K.., B.. İ.., M.. A.., İ.. U.., and M.. Y..; although the defendants were acquitted due to the absence of the statutory elements of the acts attributed to them, Article 223/2-a of the Criminal Procedure Code was not cited in the judgment, thereby acting contrary to Article 232/6 of the same Code. However, this deficiency was not deemed to have affected the outcome and therefore was not considered a ground for reversal. As the acquittal judgments rendered after evaluating the evidence and stating the reasons were in conformity with procedural rules and the law, it was unanimously decided on 03/11/2015 to reject the appellate objections of the intervening party’s counsel, which were not found justified, and to UPHOLD the judgments.” (Court of Cassation, 5th Criminal Chamber, decision dated 02.11.2015, File No. 2013/11232, Decision No. 2015/15811)
