Editorial and Publishing Policy

This page explains how the articles on this site are produced: which sources they are written from, how the decisions they cite are found, who reviews them before publication, and when an article is updated.

Last updated: 8 September 2026

Sourcing chain

Statutory provisions, court decisions and time limits are taken from primary sources: legislation from the official text in force, and court decisions from the text of the decision itself. Quotations are not paraphrased; they are reproduced verbatim and given with a full citation (chamber, docket and decision numbers, date), so that every quotation can be verified at its source.

Nothing that cannot be traced to a source is written. A time limit, an amount or a rule whose source cannot be shown does not enter the text; gaps are not filled by guesswork.

Where the chambers of the Court of Cassation diverge on a point, the divergence is not concealed: the conflicting decisions are given with their citations. Presenting a contested question as settled would leave the reader with false confidence.

How decisions are found

The Court of Cassation decisions cited in the articles are located through the Court’s official Karar Arama decision-search system. When a topic is worked on, searches are run by the relevant chambers and concepts, the text of each resulting decision is read, and only decisions that have actually been read enter the article. Quotations are taken from the text of the decision itself, not from a secondary source or a headnote.

Which part of a decision is quoted matters as much as its outcome: a dissenting opinion, the prosecutor’s submission, or the reasoning of a lower court that was quashed is not the view of the Court of Cassation. Quotations are drawn from the binding reasoning of the decision.

The same discipline applies to legislation: statutory texts are taken from the official text in force, not written from memory or from a secondary account.

Review by a lawyer

The legal articles on this site are written by a lawyer registered with the bar and read again before publication. Two separate questions are asked at that stage: does the quotation match the text of the decision word for word, and does that decision genuinely bear on the question the article discusses. The second is a professional judgment; a decision appearing at the top of a search result is not thereby apposite.

The byline on every article carries the author’s name, title and bar registration number. No unsigned legal content is published on this site: behind the text stands a person subject to professional rules and disciplinary responsibility.

The reporting and the assessment are kept apart. What a decision says is shown by quotation; the conclusion drawn from it is given as the author’s reasoned view. No prediction, percentage or guarantee as to the outcome of a case is offered.

Update criterion

The update date shown on an article is entered only when the content has been re-examined against legislation and case law and changed. Bulk or approximate dates are not used to make a page look fresh in search results: if the content has not changed, the update date does not change either.

When legislation changes, the figures, time limits and rules in the relevant article are updated. In criminal matters, whether a later statute is more favourable to the accused is assessed separately and added to the text where required.

Corrections

If you believe you have found an error in an article, you can write to info@bahcecihukuk.com. Verified errors are corrected, and the correction is reflected in the article's update date.

The limits of this policy

Nothing stated here means that the articles on this site constitute legal advice. The sourcing and checking discipline is intended to strengthen the accuracy of an article, not its applicability to a particular matter. On that distinction, see the Legal Notice.