1. Determination of the Appeal Threshold and Procedure for Evaluating Rulings

Appeal Threshold in TCK 136/1 Offenses: Separate Finalization of Sentences for Multiple Victims and Court of Cassation PracticeAccording to the established jurisprudence of the General Criminal Assembly of the Court of Cassation and the relevant criminal chambers, when determining whether the sentences within a decision are subject to the appeal threshold, the distinction between “single offense” and “multiple offenses” is taken as a basis.

In Case of Multiple Offenses/Rulings: If there are multiple rulings related to different offenses within the same decision, the appeal threshold should be evaluated separately for each ruling, independently of the others (Yargıtay CGK-2011/41-48, 2. CD-2022/14719-2024/4402.

In Case of Multiple Sentences Within a Single Offense: Each of the sentences included in a decision given for a single offense does not constitute a separate ruling; rather, all of these sentences together form a single ruling. In this case, when determining the appeal threshold, the focus should be on the total amount of the sentence, not on the amount of each individual sentence (Yargıtay 15. CD-2011/21875-2012/40807K, 4. CD-2013/41032-2014/34484

2. Finalization Status of Sentences Issued Under TCK 136/1

The sentence of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment received for each of the crimes committed by the defendant against ten separate individuals, under Article 136/1 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), is considered as separate judgments according to the general trend in judicial decisions.

5-Year Limit and Finality: Under Article 286/2-a of Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure Code (CMK), regional court of appeal decisions rejecting appeals on the merits regarding prison sentences of five years or less handed down by first instance courts, and judicial fines regardless of their amount, are final and not subject to appeal (Yargıtay 12. CD-2023/3543-2025/6391, 11. CD-2023/6026-2024/2387).

Assessment of the Specific Case: In a dispute concerning “two separate sentences of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment” given under Article 136/1 of the TCK, the Court of Cassation ruled that, since each sentence was less than 5 years, the decision of the court of appeal to reject the appeal on the merits could not be appealed further, and the judgment became final (Yargıtay 12. CD-2023/3543-2025/6391). Similarly, in another case where separate sentences of 4 years 4 months 15 days and 3 years 9 months imprisonment were given, the request for appeal was rejected because each of the sentences was below 5 years (Yargıtay 12. CD-2024/884-2024/3303).

3. Appealable Offenses and Amounts

According to Article 286 of the CMK, the criteria for appealability are as follows:

Non-Appealable Decisions: Regional court of appeal decisions that do not increase prison sentences of 5 years or less handed down by first instance courts cannot be appealed (CMK 286/2-b).

Decisions Subject to Appeal: Appellate court decisions regarding prison sentences exceeding 5 years, imposed by the court of first instance, are subject to cassation review. Furthermore, certain sentences imposed for the first time by the regional court of justice (such as a conviction after overturning an acquittal) may also be appealed (Court of Cassation 1st Criminal Division-2022/14955-2024/2523).

4. Secondary Source Evaluations

Decisions considered as secondary sources provide additional context on how judicial review should be conducted in actions targeting multiple victims:

Principle of Separate Evaluation: In the criminal procedure examples cited by the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice 44th Civil Chamber, it was emphasized that even if the total prison sentences given in the same verdict exceed 5 years, if the sentence for each individual crime remains under 5 years and the regional court of justice has not increased these sentences, the path to cassation is closed (Istanbul Regional Court of Justice 44th Civil Chamber-2020/1182-2021/1554).

Distinction of Chained Crime (Continuation of Offence): If the court evaluates the act against ten different victims as a single chained crime (Turkish Penal Code Article 43) and imposes a single sentence, and this sentence exceeds 5 years, the path to cassation may be opened. However, if the acts are characterized as “separate crimes” and sentences below 5 years, such as 2 years and 6 months, are given for each, then each verdict is subject to its own finalization limit (Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Division-2023/18-2025/4953, 12th Criminal Division-2023/2727-2025/4955).

Form of Judgment by the Regional Court of Appeals (BAM): If the regional court of appeals revokes separate sentences imposed by the court of first instance and imposes a single sentence within the scope of a continuous crime, its appealability may become debatable, as this could be considered a new judgment; however, the general practice is to reject the appeal request if the final sentence remains at 5 years or less (Yargıtay 2. CD-2024/12548-2024/18166).

Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary in Such Cases?

In trials concerning the crime of unlawful disclosure or dissemination of personal data within the scope of TCK 136/1, the determination of the appeal limit depends on highly technical and case-law-heavy criteria such as:
– distinction between a single crime / multiple crimes,
– assessment of continuous crime (TCK 43),
– nature of the BAM decision,
– whether each sentence will be considered separately or based on the total sentence.

Even the slightest legal classification error in practice can lead to the complete closure of the appeal process, the finalization of the decision, and irreversible consequences. For this reason, especially in cases involving imprisonment sentences close to the 5-year limit, it is imperative to manage the process with a lawyer who closely follows the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) and the Regional Courts of Appeals (BAM), and who is proficient in criminal trial practice.

2M Law Office, operating from its base in Istanbul – Tuzla,
provides professional and effective legal support to its clients regarding personal data, cybercrimes, and legal remedies in criminal proceedings, especially concerning TCK 136, by:
– correctly establishing the appeal and cassation strategy,
– pre-determining the risk of the judgment becoming final,
– correctly distinguishing between continuous offenses and appealability.

In criminal proceedings, “missing the legal remedy” is often equivalent to losing the case.
For this reason, it is of vital importance to proceed with the support of an expert lawyer from the beginning of the process.