What Is a Judicial Control Measure?
A judicial control measure is applied when there are grounds for arrest, but instead of detaining the suspect or accused, the aim is to supervise and release them under certain conditions. Accordingly, a person subjected to a judicial control measure is restricted and placed under supervision with respect to performing or refraining from certain actions related to the measure. Additionally, it should be noted that in cases where the law prohibits arrest, the provisions concerning judicial control may still be applied.
Types of Judicial Control Measures
Judicial control is a legal obligation regulated under Article 109/3 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK), which includes various types of measures—among the most well-known are the prohibition on leaving the country, signature requirements, and security payment (also known as release on bail), though there are several other types as well.
(3) Judicial control involves subjecting the suspect to one or more of the obligations listed below:
a) Not to leave the country.
b) To regularly report to locations specified by the judge within the determined timeframes.
c) To comply with control measures concerning responding to the calls of authorities or persons specified by the judge, and—when necessary—those related to professional activities or continuing education.
d) Not to drive any vehicles, or certain types of vehicles, and, if required, to surrender the driver’s license to the designated authority in exchange for a receipt.
e) To undergo and accept treatment or medical examination—including hospitalization if necessary—for the purpose of overcoming addiction to drugs, stimulants, volatile substances, or alcohol.
f) To deposit a security amount determined by the judge—considering the suspect’s financial situation and whether the payment will be made in one lump sum or in installments—upon the public prosecutor’s request.
g) Not to possess or carry weapons, and, if required, to surrender any existing weapons to the judicial authorities in exchange for a receipt.
h) To provide real or personal security in the amount and within the timeframe determined by the judge, upon the public prosecutor’s request, in order to safeguard the rights of the victim.
i) To guarantee the fulfillment of family obligations and the regular payment of alimony as required by judicial decisions.
j) Not to leave the residence.
k) Not to leave a specified residential area.
l) Not to go to certain specified places or regions.
How to Appeal a Judicial Control Measure Decision?
An objection to a judicial control measure decision can be filed pursuant to Article 111 of the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code (CMK). As stated in the relevant legal provision, following the objection made by the suspect or the accused, and after the opinion of the public prosecutor is obtained, the judge or the court may decide to lift the judicial control measure within five days. However, instead of fully lifting the judicial control measure, the judge or court may also decide to remove or modify all or some of the obligations imposed, or temporarily exempt the person subject to the measure from complying with certain obligations.
The Procedure for Reviewing an Objection to a Judicial Control Measure Decision
The authority to review an objection against a judicial control measure lies with the criminal court of first instance located within the relevant jurisdiction. However, if the competent authorities for reviewing the objection differ, the magistrate’s court may also take necessary measures to prevent any delay in the review process.
In addition, the procedure for objecting to a judicial control measure issued by a judge of the criminal court of first instance is regulated under Article 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK) as follows:
“(1) An objection to a decision of a judge or court, unless otherwise regulated by the law, shall be made within two weeks from the date the concerned party becomes aware of the decision. This must be done by submitting a petition to the authority that rendered the decision or by making a statement to the court clerk, which is then recorded in the official minutes. The statement and signature recorded in the minutes shall be confirmed by the court president or judge. The provision of Article 263 remains reserved.
(2) If the judge or court whose decision is being objected to finds the objection justified, it may amend the decision; if not, it must refer the objection to the competent authority for review within a maximum of three days.”
The Competent Court for Judicial Control Measures
The court or judge authorized to decide on the judicial control measure varies depending on the stage of the trial that the person subject to the decision is in. Accordingly;
a. In the investigation phase, the competent authority to decide on the judicial control measure is the Magistrate Criminal Court (Sulh Ceza Hakimliği). At this stage, the magistrate is authorized to decide on judicial control measures for the suspect upon the request of the public prosecutor. However, if the suspect is referred to the magistrate court with a detention request, the magistrate may independently issue the relevant decision.
b. In the prosecution phase, the court that is handling the criminal case also has the authority to decide on the judicial control measure. It should be noted that if an objection is filed against the decision of the criminal court, the criminal court reviewing the objection may also issue the judicial control decision.
Frequently Asked Questions
1.How Long Does the Judicial Control Measure Last?
- The duration of the judicial control measure is at most 2 years in cases that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the heavy criminal court. However, this period can be extended by 1 year in compulsory situations.
- In cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the heavy criminal court, the judicial control period is at most 3 years. In this regard, the extension period cannot exceed a total of 3 years; and in crimes regulated under the Turkish Penal Code Book 2, Part 4, Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7, as well as offenses within the scope of the Anti-Terror Law, it cannot exceed 4 years.
2.What Happens If the Judicial Control Measure Is Not Complied With?
If the suspect or defendant fails to comply with the judicial control measure, they may be detained by the competent authority regardless of the duration of the possible prison sentence. Regarding this matter, the decision to detain due to non-compliance with the judicial control measure is at the discretion of the competent authority, who may also decide to change the form of the judicial control or to continue it as is, if deemed necessary.
3.Does the Judicial Control Measure Given During the Investigation Continue During the Prosecution Stage?
The judicial control measure decision made during the investigation stage does not automatically continue during the prosecution stage. Therefore, for this decision to continue during the prosecution stage, the court responsible for the case must decide to maintain the judicial control measure. Conversely, if the court does not make such a decision, the judicial control measure imposed during the investigation phase is terminated.
4.What is the Penalty for Violating the Judicial Control Signature Requirement?
Violating the judicial control measure involving signature without a valid reason may result in the remaining sentence of the defendant or suspect being enforced or a detention order being issued against them.
5.Is the Judicial Control Measure Recorded in the Criminal Record?
The judicial control measure decision is not recorded in the defendant’s or suspect’s criminal record, in other words, their criminal history. This is because there is no criminal conviction or finalized court decision involved.
6.Does the Judicial Control Measure Automatically End?
The judicial control measure automatically ends when the prescribed period expires. These periods are up to 2 years for cases not under the jurisdiction of the heavy penal court, and up to 3 years for cases that fall under its jurisdiction. It should be noted that these periods can be extended according to their own procedures and provisions.
Some Supreme Court Decisions Regarding Judicial Control Measures
- “It is understood that the defendant did not file an objection within the legal period against the judicial control decision given together with the conviction judgment dated 05.08.2013. The petition dated 23.09.2013, submitted by the defendant’s attorney to the court and examined by our Chamber after being brought from the local jurisdiction as mentioned in the request for reversal in the interest of the law, is essentially not an objection to the judicial control decision dated 05.08.2013, but rather contains a request for the annulment or modification of the judicial control decision. The court must make a positive or negative ruling regarding this request, which can be raised at any stage of the prosecution phase, and only after such a ruling will a new objection and legal remedy tied to the legal period begin. However, without considering this, it was deemed incorrect to render a written decision that does not meet the content of the petition dated 23.09.2013 and contradicts Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK). Since the request for reversal based on the request in the notification prepared is found appropriate in light of the case file, the decision numbered 2013/658 of the Istanbul 14th High Criminal Court dated 24.10.2013 is REVERSED pursuant to Article 309 of the CMK, and subsequent procedures shall be carried out locally. Considering the reason for reversal, there is no need to examine the second reason for reversal in the notification, and the file is REFERRED to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court for necessary action…” (Supreme Court 9th Criminal Chamber, Decision dated 20.02.2014, File No. 2014/1494, Decision No. 2014/2310)
- “Pursuant to Article 103/2 of Law No. 5271, it is stipulated that if a decision of non-prosecution is made during the investigation phase regarding the alleged crime committed by the suspect, the judicial control order shall automatically cease. Based on the general principle of law allowing analogy in procedural provisions, it is therefore necessary to accept that the judicial control measure will also automatically terminate if the prosecution ends with a decision such as acquittal, conviction, dismissal, etc. In the present case, the prosecution phase regarding the defendant ended definitively with the confirmation of the judgment by the Supreme Court 10th Criminal Chamber’s decision dated 17/04/2015, file number 2010/24551 and decision number 2015/31075. Accordingly, the defendant’s judicial control measure preventing travel abroad has automatically terminated, and the execution of the judgment has now commenced. Considering these facts, it is believed that there is no longer any legal benefit in continuing the defendant’s travel ban, and thus the decision to reject the objection in writing instead of accepting it by the authority is deemed incorrect…” (Supreme Court 1st Criminal Chamber, Decision dated 23.05.2016, File No. 2016/3193, Decision No. 2016/2613)
- “…It is understood that the damage incurred due to the judicial control measure applied against the plaintiff is not explicitly stated in the literal terms of Article 141/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK). However, considering the provision added as the third paragraph to Article 141 of the CMK by Article 70 of Law No. 6546 dated 18.06.2014, which states, ‘Except for the cases written in the first paragraph, compensation lawsuits due to decisions or actions taken by judges and public prosecutors during the criminal investigation or prosecution, including personal fault, tort, or other liability cases, can only be filed against the State,’ it is concluded that despite the judicial control measure having been lifted, the continuation of its application against the plaintiff justifies awarding reasonable material and moral compensation in favor of the plaintiff (in accordance with principles of rights and fairness). No error is found in awarding such compensation. Furthermore, since the start date for the legal interest to be applied on the awarded compensation amounts was not specified in the plaintiff’s petition, starting the interest from the date of the lawsuit is not regarded as erroneous. Therefore, the opinion in the notification requesting correction and approval on this matter was not concurred with.” (Supreme Court 12th Criminal Chamber, Decision dated 22.02.2021, File No. 2019/13827, Decision No. 2021/1802)
- “In the case concerning the plaintiff’s claim for payment of 75,000 TL in material damages and 100,000 TL in moral damages along with statutory interest accruing from the date of detention, the local court rejected the claim for material damages, ordered 700 TL in moral damages with statutory interest accruing from the date of detention, and 16,500 TL in moral damages with statutory interest accruing from the start date of judicial control to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Upon the appeal applications made by the plaintiff’s and defendant’s attorneys, the Regional Court of Appeal reviewed the case and corrected the awarded moral damages by reducing the amount to 2,000 TL and rejected the appeal on its merits. Since no error was found in this decision, the opinion in the notification requesting annulment on the grounds that the amount of moral damages was insufficient was not concurred with.” (Supreme Court 12th Criminal Chamber, Decision dated 28.11.2022, File No. 2021/4978, Decision No. 2022/9099)
Judicial Control Measure and Its Lawyer: Antalya Lawyer
Since judicial control measures impose significant restrictions on the suspect, obtaining professional legal support plays a critical role in this process. As a lawyer in Antalya, our main services during the judicial control measure process include;
- Providing Legal Guidance: The lawyer explains to the suspect what the judicial control measure entails and what steps need to be taken to have the measure lifted.
- Application and Objection Process: If the judicial control measure is unnecessary or excessive, the lawyer can file an objection with the court and request the removal of the measure.
- Defense in Case of Violation: In the event of a violation of the judicial control measure, the lawyer defends the suspect and seeks legal remedies to turn the situation in their favor.
- Applications for Termination of the Measure: After a certain period, the lawyer can file the necessary applications to lift the judicial control measure and request the court to terminate it.
Although judicial control is a milder measure compared to detention, it can still significantly impact a person’s daily life. Therefore, working with a judicial control lawyer is crucial for ensuring the protection of the suspect’s rights. Lawyers can properly navigate legal procedures and provide the best possible defense for the suspect.
Receiving accurate information and guidance regarding judicial control measures will help the process be completed as quickly and smoothly as possible. It is extremely important for both those who are guilty and those who claim to be innocent to work with a judicial control lawyer in order to effectively defend themselves.
Views: 0
