Reconciliation in Insult, and Waiver of the Complaint

In short

Reconciliation opens the file to an agreement in some offences that depend on a complaint. If there is no agreement, the trial may continue. Criminal reconciliation is not labour mediation.

The conciliator's invitation is the face of the service. Not coming does not give rise to the same result in every file.

The definition of the offence is in the article on insult.

The reconciliation bureau in Ankara is looked at against the file number.

Related articles: what is reconciliation.

Why are the three institutions mixed with one another?

In an insult file, the parties often say "let us make peace", "let me withdraw the complaint", or "let us go to reconciliation". In everyday language, these sentences seem to come out at the same door. In the procedure there are three separate institutions: reconciliation, settlement, and waiver of the complaint. The existence of one does not give rise to the other automatically. If the wrong institution is expected, the file does not close, or it continues at an unexpected stage.

The general definition of insult, and the short summary of reconciliation, are in the article the offence of insult. This text does not repeat that summary. The aim here is to go deeper into the scope not being automatic in every file, the effect of the timing, and the difference of the three institutions.

This article is for general information. It does not contain a promise of an agreement, of discontinuance, or of a conviction. The scope should be checked according to the current list.

The scope of this article

The separation of reconciliation, settlement, and waiver: yes. The calculation of the complaint period is left outside this article: no — the complaint period for insult. The regime of the office's own motion because of the duty is left outside this article: no — insult to a public officer.

The separation of reconciliation, settlement, and waiver

Reconciliation is an official route, regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code, carried out through a conciliator. The type of offence should be within the scope, the parties should be invited in accordance with the procedure, and the agreement should be tied to minutes. Many insult files enter this scope. Some characterisations directed at a public officer because of the duty may stay outside the scope. It is not said from memory that "it exists in all of them" or "it exists in none of them".

Waiver of the complaint is the victim taking back the will to complain in offences that depend on a complaint. At some stages it may give rise to a result of discontinuance. In the situations in which an investigation of the office's own motion comes onto the agenda, the same sentence does not always close the door. A waiver does not take the place of the reconciliation minutes.

A settlement is the parties making peace among themselves, or seeking an apology or an agreement in the sense of private law. What was spoken in private may not be counted as the agreement in the sense of reconciliation in the criminal file. A settlement in the civil court and reconciliation in criminal procedure also stand in separate branches of the judiciary. The sentence "we talked, it ended" does not close the file automatically if it was not reflected on the official stage.

A short comparison

• Reconciliation: scope, plus a conciliator, plus minutes. It comes onto the agenda in many insult files, not in all of them
• Waiver of the complaint: taking back the will in the regime that depends on a complaint. Its effect may stay limited in the regime of the office's own motion
• Settlement: a private making of peace, or an agreement in a civil action. It does not carry the criminal procedure on its own

These three can also be seen at the same time. For example, while an agreement is reached in the reconciliation meeting, a statement of waiver can also be taken separately. Which document gives rise to which result is determined by the language of the minutes and by the stage.

How is the scope checked?

The scope depends on the concrete characterisation as much as on the statutory name of the offence. The label "insult" is not enough on its own. An act directed at a public officer because of the duty may stand in a different position on the current list. If the characterisation changes, the scope can change too. For this reason, saying "it certainly exists in our file" before the conciliator's call comes stays early.

What should be looked at for the check:

1. What is the legal characterisation in the file?
2. Is there a capacity of the victim, and a connection with the duty?
3. Does the current reconciliation list cover this characterisation?
4. If there is more than one type of offence, which of them are within the scope?
5. In a claim of mutual insult, do both acts enter the same scope?

If it is outside the scope, the process continues with the prosecution-office investigation and, if there is one, with the prosecution. If it is within the scope, the trying of this route becomes a procedural stage in most files. Its not having been tried can also open a procedural discussion later. It changes according to the concrete stage.

The general criminal law frame does not change. Being within the scope does not mean an obligation to agree. The parties may not agree. Not agreeing does not create a presumption of guilt.

The reconciliation process step by step

The typical flow can be thought of as follows:

1. An assessment of the scope at the investigation or prosecution stage
2. An invitation to the parties through a conciliator
3. Information and the meeting
4. If an agreement is reached, the drawing up of the minutes in accordance with the procedure
5. If an agreement cannot be reached, continuation at the stage the file is at
6. The performances of the agreement being carried out, and the result being reflected on the file

Not answering the invitation may, in some files, lead to the reconciliation being counted as unsuccessful. This is not a conviction. It can change the procedural result. A hasty signature in the meeting, an uncertain promise of payment, or producing a new accusation is risky. The performances — an apology, a material satisfaction, or similar elements — should be written clearly on the minutes. Expressions such as "a suitable amount" or "we will talk later" give rise to a new dispute.

How what was spoken in the meeting will stand in the later trial depends on the procedural rules. An unprepared admission, or a new sentence that belittles the other side, can make both the reconciliation and the defence harder. The possibility of defence counsel or a representative is assessed according to the concrete stage.

Who takes part, and how are the performances written?

As a rule, the victim and the suspect, or their legal representatives, are called to the reconciliation meeting. The possibility of having a representative or defence counsel is assessed according to the stage and the concrete file. If there is more than one victim, the will of each may stand separately. One person's agreement does not have to bind the other automatically. In a claim of mutual insult, if both acts are within the scope, mutual performances can also be spoken of in a single set of minutes.

In practice, the performances are written as an apology, a material satisfaction, refraining from a certain conduct, or similar concrete obligations. The amount, the day of payment, the document of presentation, and the manner of performance should not be left uncertain. The expression "compensation found suitable" gives rise to a new dispute later. The performance not being carried out can affect the legal result of the agreement. In this situation, which stage the file will return to again depends on the procedural rules. Keeping a copy of the minutes is useful in a later discussion of the performance.

After the agreement, and private law

An agreement in accordance with the procedure may give rise to the result the law provides in the criminal file. This does not always close a civil action based on the right of personality automatically. If a waiver of the civil action was also written on the minutes, the scope of that waiver is read separately. If it was not written, the assumption "the criminal matter ended, so the civil matter ended too" can be misleading.

Not answering the invitation may be counted as failure in some files. Situations such as illness, a problem of service, or uncertainty of the representative can open a discussion of an excuse in the concrete fact. Not coming without an excuse can strengthen the other side's interpretation "he did not want to reconcile". This again does not mean a conviction.

The conciliator does not establish a judgment like an arbitrator between the parties. The task is to carry out the communication and the order of the minutes in the file that is within the scope. The conciliator cannot impose a performance that the parties did not accept. The perception "the conciliator wanted it this way, I have to sign" is not sound for this reason. The text that is signed should be consistent with the performances that were agreed.

If more than one type of offence stands in the same file, only those that enter the scope may be subject to this route. If there is a characterisation outside the scope, that heading continues with its own procedure. This separation breaks the assumption "we reconciled, the whole file ended". Which acts were the subject of the agreement should be written openly on the minutes.

Timing, the period, and the effect of a waiver

Reconciliation does not bring back the complaint period. First it is looked at whether the door that depends on a complaint was opened within the period. For the date of learning and the perpetrator being known, the article the complaint period for insult should be read. The approach "we will settle, the period does not matter" does not repair a complaint that was missed.

The timing of a waiver also changes according to the stage. A waiver at the investigation stage and a waiver after the prosecution has started may not give rise to the same effect. In the regime of the office's own motion, a waiver does not always give the result of discontinuance that it gives in a file that depends on a complaint. A waiver given under pressure, without the content being understood, can create regret later.

In a claim of mutual insult, one side's waiver does not end the other side's complaint automatically. Each complaint may stay tied to its own will. A one-sided sentence "I am withdrawing" in the reconciliation meeting does not close the counter-file.

The statement of waiver should write openly which acts and which suspect it covers. The sentence "I waived everything" can open a discussion of interpretation as regards new acts added later, or a complaint directed at another person. A written, dated statement that was submitted to the file stands more firmly than an oral claim "I am withdrawing". If there is a claim of pressure, a threat, or a wrong account, the soundness of the will in the waiver can be discussed separately.

The same national procedural frame applies in the practice in Ankara as well. The local workload may affect the tempo of the appointment of the conciliator. It does not change the scope rule on its own.

Points to be paid attention to

• Do not assume the scope without looking at the current list
• Do not take a private making of peace for official reconciliation
• Do not mix a waiver with the reconciliation minutes
• Do not forget that not agreeing is not a conviction
• Do not leave an uncertain performance on the minutes
• Do not spoil the meeting with a new share or a new insult
• Do not try to repair a complaint whose period was missed by reconciliation
• If there is a public-officer and duty connection, check the scope separately
• Which acts were the subject of the agreement should be written openly on the minutes. A heading outside the scope may continue with its own procedure

Important information: reconciliation comes onto the agenda in many insult files. It is not automatic in every file. Some characterisations relating to a public officer may stay outside the scope. The check is made with the current list and the concrete characterisation.

Where reconciliation is read from

The reconciliation minutes, the text of the complaint, and the statement of waiver are read separately. An imprisonment period and a reduction rate are not written on this record. Reconciliation is not counted as the same paper as a settlement. The office in Çankaya does not change the competent authority.

Conclusion

The intention to make peace in an insult file can pass through three separate procedural doors. Reconciliation is official and tied to the scope. Waiver of the complaint is the taking back of the will in the regime that depends on a complaint. A settlement is a private making of peace. It does not always hold the place of the criminal minutes. The timing depends both on the complaint period and on the stage. An agreement can shape the file. Not agreeing is not a judgment on its own. The performances being written clearly on the minutes reduces a later dispute. An uncertain promise gives rise to a new discussion.

This article is for general information. The assessment may change according to the features of the concrete event. The current legislation should be taken into account. The scope of reconciliation, and the effect of a waiver, should be checked separately according to the character of the file and the stage it is at. A promise of a certain closing, of discontinuance, or of a conviction does not take place in this text.

For the main frame you can look at the pages the offence of insult, for the calculation of the period the complaint period for insult, and for the summary of the field criminal law.

An Ankara lawyer does not write an imprisonment period, or a reduction rate, that is not in the file.