In short
Criminal conciliation is an agreement procedure in some offences that depend on a complaint. It is not labour mediation. Conciliation in insult is in the example cluster.
The service of the invitation and the minute are the face.
Obligatory labour mediation is in a separate writing.
In Ankara the conciliation bureau is looked at according to the file number.
Related writings: conciliation in insult.
In everyday language, conciliating, making peace, and withdrawing the complaint stand as if they come out at the same door. In criminal procedure, conciliation is a separate institution. There is a conciliator. There is an invitation. There is an agreement document. An apology spoken in private, if it was not reflected in this procedure, does not close the file by itself.
This text tells, in a general frame, the conciliation institution in the Criminal Procedure Code. The appearance particular to an insult file is in the writing conciliation in insult. That account is not copied. Examples of the type of offence stand in the writing the offence of insult. The flow of the investigation is in the writing how a prosecution investigation works. Within criminal law, conciliation is not a magic word that takes the place of the proceedings. It is general information. There is no promise of discontinuance, of an acquittal, or of a conviction.
What is conciliation, and what is it not?
Conciliation is the official path whose subject is the parties' agreement through a conciliator, in the offences the statute shows. The aim is to recognise the possibility of an agreement in accordance with procedure, instead of carrying the criminal proceedings to the end in every file in certain disputes. The possibility is not an order of obligatory peace. The parties are not obliged to agree. Not agreeing does not mean, on its own, that the offence is established.
The institution should not be mixed with a settlement in the civil court. In a civil case, a settlement affects the claim or compensation file in its own branch of jurisdiction. Conciliation in the criminal file speaks of the result of the criminal procedure. The two can be seen at the same time. One does not close the other automatically. A civil case based on a breach of a personality right can also stand separately after the criminal agreement.
Conciliation is not withdrawing the complaint either. Withdrawal is the taking back of the intention in the regime that depends on a complaint. Conciliation wants a conciliator, an invitation, and a minute. The sentence that money was paid in private and that we made peace may not give birth to the result that is expected, if it was not reflected in the prosecution or court stage in accordance with procedure.
The institution is not a remorse reduction, or bargaining proceedings, either. The performances are written in the minute. The performance that is written should not be read like a bargain over a conviction. When an agreement is reached, the procedural result the statute foresees is spoken of. The result is not named with the same label in every file. It changes according to the stage.
In which files does it come onto the agenda?
The scope depends on the statutory qualification, much more than on the street name of the offence. Many offences that depend on a complaint are debated in this cluster. Some offences can take a place on the list the statute shows even if they do not depend on a complaint. The list can change from period to period. In this writing there is no catalogue of offences by rote, and no heap of article numbers. The current provision and the concrete qualification are looked at together.
If the qualification changes, the scope can change too. The same event can stand in a simple appearance that depends on a complaint at one stage, and can be read differently with an aggravated form or a connection with a duty. Some acts directed at a public official because of the duty can stay outside the scope. Extreme sentences — it exists in all of them, it exists in none of them — are misleading.
The check of the scope can be made both before and after the conciliator's call. The call coming does not mean that the scope is beyond debate. The call not coming does not mean that the scope never closed either. The qualification may not have settled yet. If there is a doubt, the current list is read with the legal name of the file.
Capacities such as the victim, the suspect, the person harmed by the offence, and the statutory representative affect who will be invited. If there is more than one victim, whom the agreement binds is spoken of separately. The assumption that the file will close without all of them signing is not correct in every event. In the victimhood of a legal person or a public institution, the authority to represent is not spoken of without a document.
In the victimhood of a child, the statutory representation and the child's interest are looked at separately. The representative's signature does not mean that every performance binds the child. The type of the performance — an apology, a material satisfaction, a ban on communication — is read according to the limit of the authority to represent. If the limit is uncertain, the document should not be signed in haste. This point is the sensitive face of the general account of the institution in children's files.
If there is more than one suspect, each stands with his or her own intention. One's agreement does not bind the other automatically. Although it does not bind, a part of the file can close and a part can continue. A partial closing does not write a conviction for the remaining suspect. The proceedings run with their own evidence.
How does the process work in practice?
The stage the file is in — investigation or prosecution — changes the procedure. The backbone that is often followed is nevertheless similar:
- The check of whether the offence is within the scope of conciliation.
- The file being entrusted to the conciliator.
- The parties being invited, and the institution being explained.
- The meeting face to face, or by the method the statute permits.
- If an agreement is reached, the performances being written in the agreement document.
- If an agreement cannot be reached, the process being ended with a minute.
- The document returning to the prosecution office or the court, and the statutory result being applied.
The invitation is not a service of a conviction. The information is so that the parties form their intention freely. Pressure, a threat, or the approach "sign now, we will undo it later," weakens the value of the document. The meeting is not the taking of a statement. A hasty confession can make the later defence harder.
In the practice in Ankara too, the same statutory backbone is in force. The local pace can affect the invitation period and the meeting calendar. It does not take the place of the scope rule. Facts such as uncertainty of the address, or the invitation not arriving, can lengthen the procedure. Lengthening it does not make the agreement obligatory.
A defence counsel or a representative can be present at the meeting according to the concrete stage. Being present is not a statutory condition in every file. Not being present does not mean that it is always forbidden either. Entering unprepared gives birth to an uncertain performance. An uncertain performance makes both the conciliation and the later enforcement harder.
What do the agreement document and a failure produce?
The agreement document should write who will perform what to whom. Items such as an apology, a material satisfaction, refraining from a certain conduct, or the return of an item become concrete. The expression "it will be paid at a suitable time" may not give birth to a judgment suitable for enforcement. If the date, the sum, and the account are uncertain, a new criminal or civil debate opens later. A sum is not invented in this writing.
An agreement in accordance with procedure can give birth to the results the statute foresees. Results such as a prosecution not being opened at the investigation stage, and the case being discontinued at the prosecution stage, are spoken of. Which result will be born at which stage depends on the current provision. A single result is not written by rote. The agreement does not close the debate of the criminal record and of the deprivation of rights in the same way in every file. The concrete qualification and the stage are read.
The minute of failure opens the door of the proceedings continuing. The door opening is not writing a conviction. Evidence is gathered, a statement is taken, and an indictment or a decision of no grounds for prosecution can come onto the agenda. How what was spoken at the conciliation meeting will stand in the later proceedings depends on the procedural rules and on the practice of the minute. A hasty acceptance can be as risky as a hasty refusal.
What will happen if the performances are not carried out also stands separately in the document and in the statute. Not carrying them out does not give birth to the same sanction in every file. A new complaint, the agreement being of no effect, or the path of enforcement is debated according to the concrete item. If it is signed without this door being thought of while the document is written, the peace lasts a short time.
How are an offence that depends on a complaint, withdrawal, and a settlement separated?
An offence that depends on a complaint is, as a rule, an act that enters the proceedings with the victim's complaint. If there is no complaint, or it was not made within the period, the door can close. Conciliation does not keep this door open for ever. The calculation of the period depends on facts such as the learning and the perpetrator being known. A number of days is not fixed by rote.
Withdrawal is the taking back of the intention to complain. At some stages it can give birth to a result of discontinuance. In a regime of the court's own motion, withdrawal does not always close the door. The statement of withdrawal and the conciliation minute can be found on the same paper. Which of them gives birth to which result is read with the language of the minute.
A settlement is a private reconciliation, or a settlement of a civil case. Money paid in private may not be counted as the agreement in the conciliation judgment in the criminal file. A notarial instrument does not carry the criminal procedure on its own. For it to carry it, the stage and the document the statute looks for are required.
The three institutions can stand side by side in the same file. Standing side by side does not mean that all three were completed. Whichever is missing, the file continues according to that gap. This distinction is the language of procedure, not the language of fear.
Where the conciliation file is read
The conciliation file is read from the type of the offence, the complaint, and the minute. A conciliation day that is not written in the file is not added. The office address does not choose the competent authority. A private reconciliation is not put in place of the official minute.
The frictions often seen are these:
- Saying that there is conciliation in every file without checking the scope
- Supposing the sentence "we made peace in private" to be an official document
- Writing an uncertain promise of payment
- Producing a new accusation at the meeting
- Trying to repair a missed complaint period with conciliation
- Assuming that the agreement also closes the civil case
Preparation for the meeting is made with a short chronology of the event, the document of the item of loss if there is one, and a concrete draft of the performance that is wanted. The draft is not a text that convicts the other side. If the performance is not realistic, the signature is either not put at all, or it is undone later. A peace that is undone can leave the file further back than the first day.
From the victim's point of view, an uncertain apology does not close the material loss. From the suspect's point of view, an uncertain acceptance can narrow the later defence. For both sides, a measured text is a calmer path than a hasty signature. The measure is a sentence of caution, not a sentence of sale.
Having a lawyer present may not be obligatory by statute at every conciliation meeting. The absence of an obligation does not mean that the document is without risk. The effect of the performance, of enforcement, and of the record can last for years. The legal reading is assessed according to the concrete weight of the file.
The period for answering the invitation is bound to the procedure. When the period is missed, the provisions on absence can be spoken of. Absence does not write a conviction in every file. It changes the path the procedure will follow. Before answering, the scope, the draft of the performance, and the assessment of the defence counsel if there is one, should be thought of. A signature put without thinking can produce a short peace and a long dispute.
Questions often asked
What is conciliation in criminal law?
Conciliation is an official path, arranged in the Criminal Procedure Code, whose subject is the parties' agreement through a conciliator in certain offences. Everyday reconciliation, an apology, or money paid in private does not always take the place of this institution. The scope depends on the current list and the concrete qualification. If the agreement is documented in accordance with procedure, the investigation or the prosecution takes shape according to the result the statute foresees. Not agreeing does not mean a conviction. The file can continue at the stage it is in. This writing is general information. A promise of a certain scope, or of the proceedings being discontinued, cannot be given. The concrete papers and the current legislation are read together.
Is conciliation obligatory in every offence?
No. Conciliation comes onto the agenda with the types of offence and the conditions the statute shows. Many offences that depend on a complaint are debated in this cluster. Not every file that depends on a complaint enters the scope automatically. Some offences can take a place on the list even if they do not depend on a complaint. The list and the qualification can change. A catalogue by rote is not written in this writing. Some acts directed at a public official because of the duty can stay outside the scope. If it is outside the scope, the investigation runs on its own path. If it is inside the scope, the parties' agreement can affect the file. The current provision and the concrete qualification are checked.
Who is the conciliator, and what does he or she do?
The conciliator is the person who carries the qualities the statute foresees and who runs the file between the parties. He or she is not a judge or a prosecutor. The duty is the invitation, the information, the meeting, and, if there is one, the documenting of the agreement. He or she does not convict the parties or acquit them. How what is said at the meeting will stand in the later proceedings depends on the procedural rules. A hasty confession, or an uncertain promise of payment, is risky. The possibility of having a defence counsel or a representative present is assessed according to the stage. The conciliator's call does not mean that the offence is established. The duty document is not a prosecutor's decision. This text is a general frame. The concrete duty document stands in the file.
Is conciliation the same as withdrawing the complaint?
It is not. Conciliation is a criminal-procedure institution bound to the procedure of the conciliator and the minute. Withdrawing the complaint is the victim taking back the intention to complain in offences that depend on a complaint. Withdrawal can give birth to a result of discontinuance at some stages. In situations where an investigation of the court's own motion comes onto the agenda, it does not always give birth to the same effect. One does not take the place of the other. The sentence "we made peace in private," if it was not reflected in the official stage, does not close the file automatically. The appearance in an insult file stands separately in the writing conciliation in insult. This page tells the general institution. The concrete stage and the type of offence are read together.
What should be written in the agreement document?
The agreement document should write the parties' performances and their intention concretely. If an apology, a material satisfaction, refraining from a certain conduct, or similar elements are left uncertain, a new dispute opens later. The questions who, to whom, what, and until when, should be answered. A sum is not invented by rote. If it will be written, it is written openly. Unless the document is signed in accordance with procedure, it may not give birth to the result that is expected. The agreement does not always close the civil case automatically. That path can stand with its own condition. Pressure to sign weakens the intention. This writing does not present a template text. The language of the concrete minute is examined according to the file.
What happens if conciliation fails?
If an agreement cannot be reached, the process can continue in the direction of the investigation or the prosecution, according to the stage the file is in. Failure does not mean a conviction or an acquittal. The evidence is gathered again. A statement, an indictment, or a decision of no grounds for prosecution can come onto the agenda. The flow of the investigation stands in the writing how a prosecution investigation works. A hasty acceptance or refusal at the meeting can make the later defence harder. Being inside the scope and not agreeing does not lead to the same point as a file outside the scope. In both situations the result cannot be guaranteed without the proceedings. The procedural papers are taken as the basis.
Is not going to conciliation an acceptance of guilt?
No. Answering the invitation and joining the meeting does not mean accepting the offence. Not joining does not give birth to the same result in every file either. The procedure arranges separately the path that will be followed in case of absence. Staying silent should not be mixed with the use of the right to remain silent. The conciliation meeting is not the taking of a statement. A hasty accusation, or a counter-accusation, can nevertheless make both the conciliation and the later file harder. The decision is given with the concrete stage and the assessment of the defence counsel. This writing does not give an order to join or not to join. The general frame does not take the place of the defence plan. The current procedure is checked.
Does conciliation stop the complaint period?
The conciliation process does not bring back a complaint period that was missed. First it is looked at whether the door was opened within the period. The calculation of the period changes according to the type of offence and the fact of learning. A number of days is not fixed by rote in this writing. If it is within the scope of conciliation, this path can be tried. The scope is not counted as having frozen the period for ever. A private settlement meeting does not repair a complaint that was late. The approach "we will conciliate, the period does not matter" is therefore risky. The timing is read separately both for the complaint and for the conciliation. In the concrete file the procedural stage is taken as the basis. An early check of the period is useful. It is general information.
Where does the limit of the institution end?
Conciliation is a procedural door recognised for certain disputes in the criminal file. The door does not cover every offence. Even if it covers it, it does not force the parties to agree. If the agreement document is not concrete, the peace lasts a short time. If there is no document, the talk in private may not carry the official result.
This page is not a copy of the insult cluster. The general institution puts side by side the scope, the conciliator, the agreement document, and the effect of the stage. When the concrete qualification changes, the table changes too. A certain scope is not drawn without the current list being read.
The account of Konar Hukuk stays calm here. The language of a promise of discontinuance, of a threat of conviction, and of peace being a condition, is not used. The file is read with its own papers, its stage, and its qualification. The general frame does not take the place of the concrete defence or complaint plan.
Conclusion
This writing is for general information. The document, the period, and the procedure of the concrete event should be read separately. There is no promise of a result by rote.