In short
Finality is the passage of the judgment to the sentence-execution unit when the ordinary remedy is exhausted, or when it is not used at all. The announcement of the judgment at the hearing does not open this passage of itself. The annotation of finality shows for which operative part it was entered. Together with the annotation, the file goes to the execution unit. Not every final judgment enters the same execution door. The lines on the summons paper are not the annotation itself.
Pronouncement is not the annotation of finality
The judgment may be pronounced at the hearing, or served separately. Pronouncement shows that the judgment exists and that it was announced to the parties. It does not show that it became final. As regards a defendant who was present, the period is followed together with the pronouncement. As regards a person who was not present, or who learned of the judgment later, the service record is looked for. If there is no record, the period is not assumed to have started to run. Service made on the lawyer is not erased as if it was never notified to the principal. Service made on the principal is not read on its own either, if the lawyer line stands. Which service started the period is seen from the service pieces in the file.
The writing of the reasoned judgment and finality are not the same moment. The short-form decision may have been pronounced, and the reasoning may not have been served yet. Which text the period was tied to is read from the rule in the statute and from the annotation in the file. The reasoning does not turn the operative part in the short-form decision into another result. If the operative part and the reasoning conflict, which sentence is the subject of execution is not written before the conflict is removed.
Which application is a regional appeal, and which is cassation, is in the article regional appeal and cassation. This text does not build the division of duty of those authorities again. Which court the application petition went to is read from the authority in the petition and from the place the file was sent. An application made to the wrong authority is not treated as having gone on the correct route. Whether it went on the correct route is seen from the sending record.
The application, the waiver, and the exhaustion of the route
If no application is made at all, the judgment may become final when the period ends. That the period ended is followed together with the service or pronouncement record. If the record is incomplete, the annotation of finality is not assumed to have been entered. If an application was made, the ordinary route is not treated as exhausted until the authority decides. If the authority rejects the application on the merits, or builds it again by correcting or setting it aside, the finality of the new judgment depends on that judgment's own route. A reversal decision does not bring the first judgment to a state ready for execution. The file is not treated as sent to the execution unit like a conviction until the judgment after the reversal.
A waiver of the remedy may affect finality. A waiver does not give rise to a result at the same time in every file. Whose the waiver statement belongs to, which operative part it covers, and whether it reached the authority, are read from the minutes. The defendant's waiver does not close the participating complainant's route of itself. The participating complainant's waiver does not have the prosecution office's application treated as absent either. If there is more than one application, each is followed separately. If one has ended and the other continues, the annotation may be partial.
The exhaustion of the ordinary remedy does not mean an extraordinary route does not exist at all. A retrial, or similar extraordinary applications, do not close the execution door of a final judgment of themselves. If there is a separate decision that execution stopped, that decision is read. If there is no decision, the extraordinary application petition is not treated as having suspended the surrender line. This page does not build the list of conditions of those routes.
When the annotation is entered, the file goes to the execution unit
The annotation of finality shows that the judgment is no longer on the ordinary remedy. The authority that enters the annotation may be the court that built the judgment, or the record on the remedy. For which operative part the annotation was entered is read from the text. If there is no annotation, the file is not treated as having passed to execution. Together with the annotation, the file is sent to the execution unit. The door is here. The execution unit takes up the sanction that became final according to the execution regime in the statute.
An act in the investigation stage is not a final judgment. The indictment does not open the execution door. The course of the investigation is in the article a prosecution investigation. An interim decision given while the trial continues is not a final judgment either. Whether the interim decision is a subject of execution is read from that decision's own text. Most interim decisions are subject to a separate route without waiting for the judgment to become final. That route is not a sending to the execution unit.
The summons paper is the paper after the annotation. The address, the institution, and the kind line are on the paper itself. How the lines are read is in the article an execution summons. The annotation is not pasted in the place of the summons text. If there is no summons, an institution and a date are not invented.
Which operative part is the subject of execution
An acquittal that became final does not open the same door for the execution of a conviction. The result that there is no conviction is not sent to the execution of a sentence like a conviction. A judgment whose announcement was deferred is not left with the execution unit like an announced sentence. The later door of that decision is lapse, or the announcement of the judgment. Before an announcement decision comes out, the execution unit does not take up, like the execution of imprisonment, a judgment that was built and not announced.
Announced imprisonment goes to the imprisonment regime of the execution unit. If it is written in the judgment that execution was deferred on a condition, the execution unit does not erase that condition with its own sentence. If a judicial fine became final, collection, or the conversion in the statute, is the execution of the fine line. A security measure is not taken to the same place as surrender for imprisonment. The name of the measure is read as it stands in the operative part. If there is more than one sanction in one judgment, each line goes to its own execution.
For a person tried in pretrial detention, the passage to execution is not the building again, in this text, of the condition of detention. The condition is in the article a detention decision. A conviction that became final is not announced from this page as if it had turned the name of the detention into execution status of itself. What the status is is seen when the detention file and the annotation of finality are put side by side. If judicial control continues, that obligation is not the text of the execution summons. The obligation is in the article judicial control. Before the measure is lifted, or before it turns into execution, the two papers stand separately.
Partial finality is not taken as not dividing the file
Finality may not be complete at the same time for every defendant and every offence. While the remedy continues for one defendant, the other's judgment may have become final. The annotation shows for which operative part it was entered. Without the operative parts being separated, the whole file is not treated as having gone to execution. Only the operative part whose annotation was entered is sent to the execution unit. The operative part that continues stays in the file at the court.
For the same defendant, a conviction for one offence may have become final, and the remedy may be open for another offence. Execution is limited to the sanction of the offence that became final. The sentence of the other offence is not added to this execution until the annotation is entered. If it appears to have been added, the addition is sorted out of the execution papers. The sorting is done by comparing the principal numbers of the two judgments. If there is no number, the files are not treated as joined.
If one part of a joint judgment was reversed and one part was upheld, the finality of the upheld part does not put the reversed part into execution. The reversed part waits for its own annotation when the new judgment is built. The upholding writ is not read in the place of the reversal writ. Even if the two came in the same envelope, the operative parts are separate.
Finality is not treated as completed only by the closing of the defendant's route. The prosecution office and the participating complainant may also have applied on the route the statute recognises. While these applications continue, even if the defendant waived, the whole file may not have passed to execution. Which party's route was exhausted is followed separately from each application record. If one of the records has not ended, the annotation is not assumed to have been entered as regards that application. If the annotation says "it became final" and does not count which party, the count is completed from the application list in the file. If there is no list, the scope of the operative part that went to the execution unit is not narrowed. The scope is read from the wording of the annotation in hand.
The annotation may have been written on the back of the reasoned judgment, under the short-form decision, or on a separate finality minute. The place changes from file to file. Even if the place changes, what is looked for is for which operative part the annotation was entered. If the UYAP printout and the physical file show a different date, which record was taken as the basis is read from the execution sending writing. If there is no sending writing, one of the printouts is not treated, on its own, as having opened the execution door. If there is a writing, the principal number in the writing should be the same as the judgment. If the number is different, the annotation of another file is not pasted onto the judgment in hand.
Conclusion
Finality is the passage to the execution unit when the ordinary remedy is exhausted. Pronouncement on its own is not this passage. The annotation shows which operative part passed. Not every judgment enters the same execution. The summons paper is a separate paper after the annotation. The frame is on the criminal law page. Finality and the remedy are within the Criminal Procedure Code numbered 5271. The kind of sanction is read from the text of the Turkish Criminal Code numbered 5237. The annotation of finality can be read separately through contact.