POSTPONEMENT OF THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT IN TURKISH LAW AND CONDITIONAL SENTENCING IN RUSSIAN LAW

Abstract

This study examines the institution of the Postponement of the Pronouncement of Judgment (PPJ) in Turkish criminal procedure law, with particular emphasis on the recent annulment decision of the Constitutional Court and the subsequent legislative amendments by the Turkish Grand National Assembly. PPJ is a procedural mechanism that allows for the deferral of a criminal sentence’s pronouncement under certain conditions, enabling its eventual annulment upon successful completion of a probationary period. The institution has sparked significant debate, especially concerning victims' rights and the broader perception of impunity within the criminal justice system.

In its decision dated 1 June 2023 (E. 2022/120, K. 2023/107), the Constitutional Court held that the application of PPJ often occurred without a thorough evaluation of evidence or adequate victim participation, thereby undermining the principle of effective adjudication and failing to ensure sufficient redress for victims. While acknowledging the legislature’s discretion in shaping criminal policy, the Court emphasized that such discretion must remain within the constitutional framework. The Court concluded that the application of PPJ, in its then-existing form, disrupted the fair balance between public interests and individual rights, particularly by adversely affecting the right to property and the state’s positive obligations under Article 17 of the Constitution. Following the annulment, the legislature re-enacted Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2024 with certain modifications.

The study further elaborates on the procedural requirements for the application of PPJ, including the necessity of full restitution of harm caused to victims, the defendant’s lack of prior intentional criminal convictions, and the court’s assessment of the defendant’s likelihood of recidivism. The article also analyses the procedural consequences of the commission of new offenses or breaches of obligations during the probationary period.

Finally, the paper presents a comparative analysis of the Turkish PPJ system and the conditional conviction (suspended sentence) model under Article 73 of the Russian Federation Criminal Code. Both systems share similarities in their rehabilitative objectives and requirements for compliance with probationary obligations. However, they diverge significantly regarding the formal nature of the conviction and the applicable sentencing thresholds.