Governed by Article 123/A of the Turkish Penal Code, stalking is persistently following a person physically, or persistently attempting contact through communication tools, information systems or third parties, so as to cause serious distress or fear for their safety or that of a relative.
Stalking is governed by Article 123/A of the Turkish Penal Code. Under that provision, a perpetrator who, persistently, follows a person physically or attempts to make contact using communication tools, information systems or third parties, and thereby causes serious distress to that person or causes them to fear for their own safety or that of a relative, is sentenced to imprisonment from six months to two years.
Where the offence is committed against a child, or against a spouse from whom the perpetrator is separated by court order or divorced; where it causes the victim to change school, workplace or residence, or to leave school or work; or where it is committed by a perpetrator subject to a restraining order or an order not to approach a residence, school or workplace, the sentence is imprisonment from one to three years.
Investigation and prosecution of the offence depend on a complaint.
Although the purpose behind the provision is essentially to prevent violence from arising and to forestall violent conduct, the wording makes clear that the offence may be committed regardless of whether the victim is a woman, a man or a child. Stalking may therefore be committed against anyone, without distinction as to the victim’s sex.
The element of persistence deserves particular attention. What must be understood by persistence is the existence of repeated conduct. Although neither the statute nor settled case law of the Court of Cassation states precisely how many repetitions are required, the conduct must have been carried out at least twice. Even so, conduct occurring twice may not in every case constitute the offence. The Court of Cassation has held, for example, that sending the victim one message and making one call on the same day was insufficient to satisfy the persistence requirement.
Because continuity is also required, a single act does not constitute the offence. The perpetrator must carry out the conduct repeatedly and in a continuous manner.
The acts constituting the offence may be committed one after another without interval, or a single act may be repeated after a period of time has elapsed. Persistence does not require the same act to be repeated: where one of the alternative forms of conduct in the statutory definition is followed by another, the requirement is likewise satisfied.
A further indication of persistence is the repetition of the conduct despite the victim having expressed their discomfort. A perpetrator who continues persistent and disturbing behaviour despite the victim’s warning, thereby giving it continuity, commits the offence.
Stalking falls within the category of offences committed intentionally. The perpetrator’s aim is to disturb a victim who does not wish to be contacted and to make their presence felt. The perpetrator’s underlying motive — whether to intimidate or for emotional reasons — does not affect the elements of the offence. What is examined is whether, independently of motive, the conduct was carried out more than once, persistently and continuously, whether it caused distress to the victim, and whether it continued despite the victim’s warning. Whether the perpetrator acted with the aim of disturbing the victim’s peace has no bearing on whether the elements are made out.
As the wording indicates, the offence may be committed through alternative forms of conduct. The provision does not require the different forms to occur simultaneously; the occurrence of one is sufficient. Those forms are persistently following a person physically, and persistently attempting to make contact using information systems, communication tools or third parties.
As a result of one or more of these acts, serious distress must arise for the person concerned, or that person must come to fear for their own safety or that of a relative.
Where the offence under Article 123/A is committed against the groups set out below, the sentencing range becomes one to three years:
Where these circumstances arise, the basic penalty of six months to two years is increased to one to three years.
Stalking is essentially a specific form of the offence of disturbing the peace and quiet of persons, and shares many features with it. Because it is a specific form of that offence, no separate punishment is imposed for disturbing the peace.
Where the perpetrator’s conduct also gives rise to other offences, they may be punished separately for those. Examples of offences that may arise alongside stalking, and to which the rules on concurrence may apply, include threat, insult, blackmail, intentional injury and coercion.
In the basic form of the offence, a judicial control measure may be ordered where the statutory conditions are met, but detention on remand is prohibited. In the aggravated forms, judicial control may likewise be ordered where the conditions are met, and the prohibition on detention does not apply, so the perpetrator may be remanded.
Deferral of the announcement of the verdict is available for stalking. Since the victim does not suffer direct pecuniary loss as a result of the offence, and indirect pecuniary loss is not taken into account for the purposes of deferral, the condition of making good the loss is not required here.
A judicial fine may be applied together with, or instead of, a prison sentence; a sentence imposed for stalking may in certain conditions be converted into a fine. Suspension, being the conditional decision not to enforce the sentence in prison, is likewise available.
The competent court is the Criminal Court of First Instance. Because the basic form carries a sentence of less than two years, the simplified trial procedure applies. Where the aggravated forms are in issue, proceedings follow the general procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Frequently Asked Questions
Stalking is persistently following a person physically, or persistently attempting contact through communication tools, information systems or third parties, so as to cause that person serious distress or to make them fear for their own safety or that of a relative. It is governed by Article 123/A of the Turkish Penal Code and carries six months to two years’ imprisonment.
Yes. Investigation and prosecution depend on a complaint. Where the offence is committed against a child or a divorced spouse, however, an increased sentence of one to three years applies.
Neither the statute nor settled case law fixes a number, but the conduct must have occurred at least twice and must show continuity. The Court of Cassation has held that one message and one call on the same day were insufficient.
The information on this page is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact our office for an assessment of your specific matter.
Related articles Robbery Offence Liability for Failure to Comply with Court Decisions Withdrawal of an Attorney from Representation
Consultation
The information on this page is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact our office for an assessment of your specific matter.
Book a Consultation