The legal possibility and conditions for the implementation of the postponement of the announcement of the verdict (HAGB) in drug offenses.
The institution of postponement of the announcement of the verdict (HAGB) in drug offenses is a special and, in some cases, mandatory regulation within the framework of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) and the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK), especially regarding the crime of “possessing narcotics for personal use”.
1. HAGB in the Crime of Possessing Narcotics for Personal Use (TCK Art. 191)
Judicial decisions emphasize that it is possible to issue a HAGB decision in crimes of purchasing, accepting, or possessing narcotics or stimulants for personal use, and that it constitutes a legal obligation under certain conditions.
Legal Basis and Obligation: TCK Article 191/9 states that in cases where there is no contrary provision in this article, the HAGB provisions in Article 231 of the CMK shall apply. Furthermore, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Provisional Article 7 added to Law No. 5320 by Law No. 6545, for defendants who have not previously been subject to probation or treatment measures, issuing a HAGB decision without seeking the conditions in CMK Article 231/6 is a legal obligation (Court of Cassation 10th Criminal Chamber-2022/16211K, 10th Criminal Chamber-2024/4241).
HAGB in Case of Change in the Nature of the Offense: Pursuant to Article 191/8 of the TPC; in a case filed for drug manufacturing and trafficking (Art. 188) or facilitating its use (Art. 190) crimes, if it is understood at the end of the trial that the act exclusively constitutes the crime of “possession of drugs for personal use”, it is mandatory to render a HAGB decision regarding the defendant (Supreme Court 8th CD-2025/113, 10th CD-2017/5170).
Probation and Treatment: Along with the HAGB decision, a five-year supervision period is determined for the defendant. During this period, the implementation of probation measures is mandatory, and if the court deems it necessary, it may also decide to subject the defendant to treatment (Supreme Court 10th CD-2021/2104K, 8th CD-2024/12664).
2. HAGB in Drug Trafficking Offenses (TPC Art. 188)
The application of HAGB in drug trafficking offenses is much more limited compared to drug use offenses.
In Supreme Court decisions, it is observed that convictions established for drug trafficking offenses are generally upheld, and HAGB decisions are not issued for this type of offense (Supreme Court 20th CD-2019/2545, 20th CD-2016/2034).
However, there are instances where some first-instance courts issued HAGB decisions for drug trafficking offenses, but these decisions were overturned upon appeal or annulled due to procedural deficiencies (Supreme Court 20th CD-2017/5102, 10th CD-2020/22712).
3. Cases Where HAGB Cannot Be Issued and Restrictions
Recidivism and Violation Status: If a decision on the Suspension of the Announcement of the Verdict (HAGB) was previously rendered against the defendant under Article 191/8 of the TPC and a conviction judgment was established due to the violation of this decision, a new HAGB decision cannot be rendered for subsequent crimes of the same type (Supreme Court 8th Criminal Division – 2025/113).
Existence of a KDAE Decision: If there is a duly rendered and finalized decision on the Suspension of the Opening of a Public Prosecution (KDAE), a HAGB decision cannot be rendered under Article 191/8 of the TPC for the same act or process (Supreme Court 10th Criminal Division – 2021/2104, 8th Criminal Division – 2024/13751).
Committing a Crime During the Execution of a Measure: If the defendant has committed a new drug-related offense during the execution of a treatment or supervised release measure imposed for a previous crime, a HAGB decision cannot be rendered in this case; instead, a decision is made to dismiss the case or, if the conditions are met, to announce the verdict (Supreme Court 10th Criminal Division – 2019/9001).
4. Violation of HAGB Decision and Announcing the Verdict
For the verdict to be announced after a HAGB decision is rendered, the defendant must commit certain violations during the supervision period. According to Article 191/4 of the TPC; the verdict is announced if the defendant persistently fails to comply with their obligations, or if they repeatedly purchase, possess, or use narcotic substances. The commission of intentional crimes other than drug offenses (e.g., insult or violation of a spectator ban) during the supervision period may not be considered sufficient alone for the announcement of the HAGB specifically for drug offenses (Supreme Court 8th Criminal Division – 2024/14249, 10th Criminal Division – 2021/6815).
5. Legal Remedies
HAGB decisions rendered in drug offenses are not subject to the appellate review path but to the objection review path, in accordance with Article 231/12 of the CMK (Criminal Procedure Code). For this reason, the Court of Cassation returns appeal requests concerning HAGB decisions to the relevant authority without examination (Court of Cassation 10th Criminal Chamber-2018/1971, 20th Criminal Chamber-2015/14898K).
Conclusion: In drug offenses, especially in actions of “possession for personal use,” rendering a HAGB decision is both possible and a legal obligation for first-time offenders or those whose offense classification changes in this direction. However, the application of HAGB in drug trafficking offenses is exceptional and generally not accepted.
Why is Expert Criminal Lawyer Support Essential in HAGB Decisions for Drug Offenses?
In drug offenses, the application of deferral of the announcement of the verdict (HAGB) depends on highly technical criteria such as the nature of the crime, the defendant’s judicial record, and previously applied probation, KDAE (Decision of No Grounds for Prosecution), or treatment decisions. Particularly, an erroneous distinction between Article 191 of the TPC (possession for personal use) and Article 188 of the TPC (drug trafficking) can lead to the disregard of the HAGB obligation for the defendant and irreparable loss of rights.
The most common errors in practice are; failure to render a decision when HAGB is mandatory, incorrect evaluation of violation conditions, incomplete explanation of obligations during the probation period, and the incorrect application of the legal remedy (objection–appeal) distinction. These errors can lead to the direct announcement of a conviction verdict against the defendant.
In cases related to drug offenses, especially across Istanbul, Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Gebze, and the Anatolian Side; it is of vital importance to act with a criminal lawyer who is proficient in the current case law of the Supreme Court Criminal Chambers and closely follows legal practice.
In this context, 2M Hukuk Law Office, based in Istanbul Tuzla, regarding HAGB practices in drug offenses;
Correct determination of the offense’s qualification,
Effectively asserting cases where HAGB is mandatory,
Lawful management of supervised release and violation processes,
Proper establishment of objection and legal remedy strategy
aims to prevent its clients from suffering loss of rights by offering expert criminal law support on these matters.
