Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings — Grounds, Types and Consequences

How is an acquittal given in criminal proceedings? A comprehensive legal guide to the types of acquittal under CMK Art. 223, the right to compensation on acquittal (CMK Arts. 141-144) and the finality of an acquittal.

Acquittal means that no conviction is entered against the defendant where one of the grounds separately listed in CMK Art. 223/2 is established. There is no hierarchy of legal significance or “strength” among the grounds of acquittal. Compensation for protective measures, moreover, is not an automatic consequence of every acquittal; the conditions in CMK Arts. 141-144 as to the measure, the loss, the time limit and jurisdiction must also be satisfied.

What Is an Acquittal and When Is It Given?

An acquittal is the type of judgment governed by CMK Art. 223/2 finding that the defendant is not guilty. An acquittal means that the criminal proceedings have concluded in the defendant's favour and that no criminal sanction will be imposed. As the opposite of a conviction, an acquittal constitutes one of the two fundamental outcomes of criminal proceedings.

Under CMK Art. 223/2, an acquittal is given in the following cases:

Each of these grounds of acquittal may produce different legal consequences. In particular, the distinction between it being established that the defendant did not commit the offence and it not being established that the offence was committed creates significant differences in practice.

Types of Acquittal and the Differences Between Them

The Act Charged Is Not Defined as an Offence in the Statute (CMK Art. 223/2-a)

This type of acquittal is given where the act alleged against the defendant is not defined as an offence in the criminal statutes. Under the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege), no one may be punished for an act not expressly defined as an offence in a statute. This principle is guaranteed by Article 38 of the Constitution and TCK Art. 2.

This type of acquittal is encountered, for example, in proceedings brought on the basis of a repealed statutory provision, or where the act does not constitute an offence. It may also apply where the act has been decriminalised as a result of a legislative amendment.

It Is Established That the Offence Charged Was Not Committed by the Defendant (CMK Art. 223/2-b)

This subparagraph applies where it is established that the offence charged was not committed by the defendant. For example, a determination on the evidence that the act was carried out by another person, or that the defendant had no connection with the act, may fall within this scope. The statute does not create any hierarchy such as “the strongest acquittal” between this ground and the other grounds of acquittal.

Absence of Intent or Negligence on the Offender's Part in Respect of the Offence Charged (CMK Art. 223/2-c)

In criminal law an offence requires that the act be committed intentionally or negligently. Even where it is established that the defendant committed the act, an acquittal is given if intent or negligence is absent. For example, where the defendant did not know by reason of mistake that they were committing an offence, or where the result was not foreseeable, an acquittal may be given for lack of the mental element.

Intent, governed by TCK Art. 21, and negligence, governed by TCK Art. 22, constitute the mental elements of an offence. The absence of these elements means that the defendant bears no criminal liability even though they carried out the act.

It Is Not Established That the Offence Charged Was Committed by the Defendant (CMK Art. 223/2-e)

This is the most frequently encountered type of acquittal in practice and is a direct application of the principle that “doubt benefits the defendant” (in dubio pro reo). Where the court cannot determine with certainty on the available evidence whether the defendant committed the offence, it decides in the defendant's favour and enters an acquittal.

The principle that doubt benefits the defendant is one of the most fundamental principles of criminal procedure. Under it, the burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond doubt rests with the prosecution (the public prosecutor's office). If the prosecution cannot discharge that burden — that is, cannot prove beyond all doubt that the defendant committed the offence — an acquittal must be entered.

Under CMK Art. 223/2-b it is established that the act was not committed by the defendant; under Art. 223/2-e it is not established with the certainty required for a conviction that the act was committed by the defendant. In both cases the type of judgment is an acquittal; what differs is the statutory subparagraph relied on in the reasoning.

It Is Established That the Offence Charged Was Not Committed Unlawfully (CMK Art. 223/2-d)

This type of acquittal is given where it is established that the defendant committed the act but one of the grounds of justification is present. The grounds of justification set out in TCK Arts. 24-26 are: a provision of law and a superior's order (TCK Art. 24), self-defence (TCK Art. 25/1), necessity (TCK Art. 25/2), exercise of a right (TCK Art. 26/1) and the consent of the person concerned (TCK Art. 26/2).

The most common ground of justification is self-defence. No penalty is imposed on an offender for an act committed out of the necessity of repelling an unjust attack directed at themselves or another — an attack that is occurring, or whose occurrence or repetition is certain — at that moment, in a manner proportionate to the attack in the circumstances. In such cases an acquittal is given.

The Reasoning of an Acquittal

Under CMK Art. 230 court judgments must be reasoned. In an acquittal the reasoning must set out clearly the ground on which the acquittal rests. An unreasoned acquittal constitutes a ground for reversal. The reasoning of an acquittal must address the following matters: the prosecution's allegations, the defence's submissions, the assessment of the evidence gathered, the statutory ground on which the acquittal rests, and how the court reached that conclusion. The Court of Cassation scrutinises the reasoning of acquittals closely. Acquittals in which the evidence has not been sufficiently discussed, witness statements have not been assessed or expert reports have been disregarded may be reversed. That the reasoning rests on legal and factual grounds is of considerable importance for the soundness of an acquittal.

The Right to Compensation on Acquittal (CMK Arts. 141-144)

CMK Art. 141 sets out in separate subparagraphs situations such as non-compliance with the conditions for apprehension or detention, failure to be brought before a judge or to have a judgment given within the prescribed period, failure to be informed of one's rights, a lawful detention followed by a decision not to prosecute or an acquittal, deprivation of liberty exceeding the term of the sentence, and disproportionate search and seizure. Not every acquittal automatically gives rise to compensation; a protective measure and the conditions of the relevant statutory subparagraph are required.

Since 1 June 2024, claims within the scope of Art. 141/1-e, f and l are made to the Compensation Commission; other Art. 141 claims are made to the competent assize court designated by the statute. The time limit for application is three months from service on the person concerned of notice that the decision has become final, and in any event one year following the decision becoming final (Art. 142/1).

Finality of an Acquittal

Since 1 June 2024 the period for appealing a reasoned acquittal to the regional court of appeal has been two weeks from service. Whether the regional court of appeal's decision may be appealed on points of law depends on the rules on appealability and finality in CMK Art. 286, and the period on the current text of Art. 291. Where no appeal is brought, or once the appeal process concludes, the decision becomes final.

A final acquittal provides the guarantee against being tried again for the same act; the exceptions of retrial and extraordinary avenues of appeal provided for in the statute are reserved.

Acquittal and the Criminal Record

An acquittal is not entered in the judicial record as a conviction. The removal of records of police custody, detention, apprehension, judicial control and investigation is subject to a separate decision or procedure for each record system and measure; it cannot be said that an acquittal automatically erases all system records. The lapse of a protective measure by the judgment or by a separate decision is distinct from the judgment becoming final.

The Effect of an Acquittal on Civil Proceedings

Under TBK Art. 74 the civil judge is as a rule not bound by the criminal judge's assessment of fault or by an acquittal; nevertheless, final findings of fact and the evidence in the criminal file carry weight in civil proceedings. It should not be said that “all findings of fact in an acquittal bind the civil judge in every case”. The conditions for compensation in tort, in contract or under strict liability are examined separately.

Acquittal and the Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 38/4 of the Constitution and Article 6/2 of the ECHR, is a fundamental principle under which everyone is presumed innocent until their guilt is established by a final court judgment. An acquittal is a concrete consequence of the presumption of innocence; where the prosecution cannot prove the defendant's guilt, an acquittal must be entered.

The presumption of innocence continues to have effect not only during the proceedings but also after an acquittal. Treating an acquitted person as guilty in society or in the media constitutes a violation of the presumption of innocence. The European Court of Human Rights has held that statements by public officials as to a person's guilt after an acquittal violate the presumption of innocence.

Avenues of Appeal Against an Acquittal

The public prosecutor and an intervening party with a statutory right of appeal may appeal to the regional court of appeal within two weeks of service of the reasoned judgment. The defendant may also appeal where the reasoning of the acquittal infringes their legal interest. An appeal on points of law depends on the regional court of appeal's decision being open to such appeal under CMK Art. 286 and on the current time limit; the former seven-day appeal period does not apply.

Acquittal and the Right to Intervene in the Proceedings

A person harmed by the offence has, under CMK Art. 237, the right to intervene in the public prosecution at the prosecution stage. An intervening party may appeal against an acquittal. An appeal by an intervening party prevents the acquittal from becoming final.

An intervening party's challenge to an acquittal is important in particular for the protection of the rights of the person harmed by the offence. The intervening party may argue that the acquittal is unlawful, that the evidence was not sufficiently assessed, or that the facts were incorrectly determined. Upon the intervening party's appeal the regional court of appeal re-examines the file and may uphold or reverse the acquittal.

The Position of an Acquitted Public Official

An acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically terminate disciplinary proceedings; the elements of the conduct are assessed separately as a matter of disciplinary law. Suspension from duty is lifted in the situations set out in Art. 143 of Law No. 657, such as where the criminal proceedings conclude in an acquittal and the decision becomes final. Article 141 governs which part of the financial and social entitlements is to be paid; there is no general rule that the whole amount is automatically repaid with interest in every case.

The Difference Between an Acquittal and a Dismissal

An acquittal and a dismissal (CMK Art. 223/8) are frequently confused but are legally distinct. An acquittal is a judgment holding that the defendant is innocent or that the offence has not been established. A dismissal, by contrast, terminates the proceedings for procedural reasons such as limitation, withdrawal of complaint, advance payment, mediation or the death of the defendant.

An acquittal rests on one of the grounds in CMK Art. 223/2. A dismissal is given, without any assessment of the merits for conviction, by reason of a condition of action or a statutory bar to continuing the prosecution. The avenues of appeal, compensation and other consequences of the two decisions must be examined according to the specific reasoning.

The Difference Between an Acquittal and a Decision That No Penalty Be Imposed

A decision that no penalty be imposed (CMK Art. 223/3-4) is a different type of judgment from an acquittal. Whereas an acquittal finds that the defendant is innocent or that the offence has not been established, a decision that no penalty be imposed holds that, although it is established that the defendant committed the act, no penalty is to be imposed for legal or factual reasons.

A decision that no penalty be imposed is given in cases such as: minority (TCK Art. 31), mental illness (TCK Art. 32), being deaf and mute (TCK Art. 33), necessity, commission of an offence under duress or threat, and mistake (TCK Art. 30) — that is, grounds excluding or diminishing culpability. In this type of decision the defendant committed the offence but bears no criminal liability.

Problems Encountered in Practice After an Acquittal

Various problems may arise in practice despite an acquittal. Foremost among these is the social stigmatisation of the acquitted person. Particularly in cases that have attracted public attention, it is a serious problem that a defendant continues to be perceived as guilty in the eyes of society despite having been acquitted.

Another significant problem is the difficulty of making good the time spent in detention. An acquitted person may not fully recover the employment, income and social relationships lost during detention. Although the right to compensation under CMK Arts. 141-144 provides some measure of redress for these losses, full restitution may not always be possible. The length of compensation proceedings and the inadequacy of the sums awarded are also among the matters criticised in practice. Awarding a low sum in compensation despite a long period of detention can offend the sense of justice.

A further problem encountered in practice is the negative assessment, during security clearance and archive research, of the existence of an investigation or prosecution despite an acquittal. Although it is unlawful for some institutions to treat a person's having been tried in the past as a disadvantage even though the acquittal has become final, this is nevertheless seen in practice.

Conclusion and Assessment

The grounds of acquittal are set out in CMK Art. 223/2. The right to compensation arises only where the specific conditions in CMK Art. 141 et seq. are met. The effect of an acquittal on measures and institutional records varies according to the type of measure and whether a separate order was made in the judgment. A final judgment as a rule bars a fresh trial for the same act; the extraordinary avenues of appeal and the provisions on retrial set out in the statute are reserved.

Legal notice: This article has been prepared for general information purposes and does not take the place of legal advice. If you are facing a specific legal problem concerning an acquittal or the right to compensation you are advised to consult an attorney. Information may differ in line with legislative changes and current case law.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the time limit for a compensation claim?

Three months from service of notice of finality, and in any event one year from finality.

Where is the application made?

To the Compensation Commission for Art. 141/1-e, f and l; to the assize court, on its conditions, for the other subparagraphs.

What is the appeal period?

Two weeks from service of the reasoned judgment.

Does an acquittal automatically erase all records?

No; a separate procedure may be required for each measure and record system.