Under Article 25(1) of the Turkish Penal Code, Law No. 5237, no penalty is imposed for acts needed to repel an unjust attack on your own or another person's rights, if the attack is occurring or certain to occur or be repeated and the force is proportionate in the circumstances at that moment. If the limit is exceeded through excusable excitement, fear or panic, there is no penalty (Article 27(2)); if exceeded without intent, the negligent penalty applies, reduced by one sixth to one third (Article 27(1)). Self-defence leads to acquittal and no civil liability (Law No. 6098, Article 64).
A typical call reaches our office late at night: a foreign visitor was attacked outside a bar in Istanbul or Bodrum, hit back, and is now at the police station with the other man, both of them filing complaints. By the next morning the prosecutor has two injury reports, two versions of events and, if the visitor is lucky, a few seconds of security camera footage. Whether the visitor walks away as a victim or is charged with intentional injury depends almost entirely on one provision: Article 25 of the Turkish Penal Code, Law No. 5237, on meşru savunma, legitimate self-defence, still widely called meşru müdafaa or nefsi müdafaa in everyday Turkish. Article 25 and the rule on exceeding its limits in Article 27 have not been changed by the judicial reform packages of December 2025 and July 2026, although Law No. 7571 did amend the penalties for negligent injury in Article 89, which matters when the limits of self-defence are exceeded. This article explains the conditions, how prosecutors and courts test them, the evidence that decides these cases, and what a foreigner caught up in a fight should do.
Article 25(1) of Law No. 5237 provides that no penalty is imposed on a person for acts committed out of the necessity to repel an unjust attack directed against a right belonging to that person or to another, which is occurring, or whose occurrence or repetition is certain, in a manner proportionate to the attack in light of the situation and circumstances at that moment.
Turkish doctrine treats self-defence as a ground of justification, hukuka uygunluk nedeni: the act is lawful, not merely excused. This has three practical consequences. First, where self-defence is established at trial, the court issues an acquittal under Article 223(2)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Law No. 5271, which covers cases where the act was committed but a ground of justification exists. Second, at the investigation stage, a prosecutor who is satisfied that the person acted in self-defence can close the file with a decision of non-prosecution. Third, under Article 64 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, Law No. 6098, a person acting in legitimate self-defence is not liable for damage caused to the person or property of the attacker, so a civil compensation claim by the attacker should also fail.
The attack must be contrary to law. A police officer lawfully arresting someone is not carrying out an unjust attack, so resisting a lawful arrest cannot be self-defence. Equally, a person who lawfully defends himself is not an unjust attacker, which means the original aggressor cannot claim self-defence against the defensive response.
Article 25(1) protects any right, not only life and physical integrity. Sexual integrity, personal liberty, the inviolability of the home and property are all covered. What changes from one right to another is the level of force that is proportionate, as explained in section 4.
The text covers an attack that is under way, one whose occurrence is certain, and one whose repetition is certain. A person does not have to wait for the first blow when an attacker is advancing with a raised bottle. But once the attack has ended, for example when the attacker has fallen, dropped the weapon or walked away, force used afterwards is no longer defence; it is retaliation. A threat made yesterday, or a fear that someone may attack in the future, does not satisfy this condition either. Many self-defence claims fail on this point alone, because the decisive blows were struck after the danger had passed.
The act must be committed out of the necessity to repel the attack. The defence must be directed at the attacker and must be needed to stop the attack. Hitting a bystander, or damaging the attacker's car once he has already left, does not repel anything.
Article 25(1) requires proportionality with the attack in light of the situation and circumstances at that moment. Proportionality does not mean equal weapons. Courts look at the whole situation as it appeared to the defender: the number of attackers, their size and strength compared with the defender, whether they were armed, the time and place, whether the defender could escape, and the speed of events. Using a knife against an unarmed person who has slapped you will usually be disproportionate; using force against two men who are kicking you on the ground may well be proportionate even if it causes serious injury.
The words "at that moment" matter. The defender is not judged with the calm hindsight of a courtroom. On the other hand, the assessment is objective: the question is what a reasonable person in that position could have perceived, not only what the defender subjectively felt.
Article 25 does not mention a duty to retreat. In practice, however, the availability of a safe and easy way out is weighed under the necessity and proportionality conditions. A person who could simply have stepped back into a hotel lobby but instead chased the attacker down the street will find it much harder to rely on self-defence.
Article 25(1) expressly covers a right belonging to another. A foreigner who intervenes to protect a friend, a partner or a stranger being beaten is in the same legal position as if he were defending himself, provided the same conditions are met. The intervener must actually be repelling an unjust attack; joining a fight on the side of a friend who started it is not defence of another.
Property can be defended too, but proportionality is much stricter. Physically stopping a thief who grabs your phone, and holding him until the police arrive, is generally acceptable. Causing serious bodily harm to protect an object of modest value is not, because the harm inflicted bears no reasonable relation to the right protected. The home is treated with particular weight, since an intrusion into a dwelling often carries an implied danger to the occupants as well, but even then the force used must be measured against the threat actually posed. Article 64 of Law No. 6098 also recognises self-help to protect a right where police help could not be obtained in time, which supports reasonable steps to recover property on the spot.
Article 25(2) deals with a different situation, zorunluluk hâli, necessity. No penalty is imposed for acts committed to save oneself or another from a grave and certain danger, directed against a right, which the person did not knowingly cause and from which there was no other means of protection, provided that there is proportionality between the gravity of the danger and the subject and the means used. Breaking into a stranger's car to escape an armed group, or forcing a door to rescue someone from a fire, are classic examples.
| Element | Self-defence (Article 25(1)) compared with necessity (Article 25(2)) |
|---|---|
| Source of the danger | Self-defence: an unjust attack by a person. Necessity: any grave and certain danger, including natural events or situations created by third parties. |
| Against whom the act is directed | Self-defence: the attacker. Necessity: often an innocent third party or their property. |
| Timing | Self-defence: an attack occurring, or certain to occur or be repeated. Necessity: a danger that is grave and certain. |
| Other means of escape | Self-defence: weighed under necessity and proportionality. Necessity: an express condition that no other means of protection existed. |
| Fault of the person acting | Necessity requires that the person did not knowingly cause the danger. |
| Decision at trial | Self-defence: acquittal under Article 223(2)(d) of Law No. 5271. Necessity: decision of no penalty under Article 223(3)(b). |
The last row shows that the two are not identical in procedural terms: Law No. 5271 places necessity among the grounds that remove culpability, while self-defence removes unlawfulness altogether.
Most contested cases are not about whether there was an attack, but about whether the response went too far. Article 27 offers two different outcomes.
Under Article 27(1), where the limit of a ground excluding criminal responsibility is exceeded without intent, and the act is also punishable when committed negligently, the court imposes the penalty prescribed for the negligent offence, reduced by one sixth to one third. In an injury case, the defender is then sentenced not for intentional injury under Article 86 but under the negligent injury provision, Article 89, with a further reduction. Where the excess was intentional, for example continuing to strike after realising the attacker was no longer a threat, Article 27(1) does not apply, and the ordinary penalty for the intentional offence follows.
Under Article 27(2), where exceeding the limit in self-defence results from excusable excitement, fear or panic, no penalty is imposed. Article 223(3)(c) of Law No. 5271 lists this as a ground for a decision of no penalty for lack of culpability. A woman attacked at night by a stranger who strikes more times than strictly needed, in terror, is a typical example. The word "excusable" is the key: the court asks whether the fear or panic was understandable in the circumstances, not merely whether the defender says he panicked.
Where self-defence fails altogether, for example because the attack had ended before the defender struck, the unjust provocation rule in Article 29 often becomes relevant. A person who commits an offence under the influence of anger or severe distress caused by an unjust act receives a reduced penalty: in most cases a reduction of one quarter to three quarters. Defence counsel commonly argue self-defence first and provocation in the alternative.
| Finding of the court | Legal consequence |
|---|---|
| All conditions of Article 25(1) met | Acquittal (Law No. 5271, Article 223(2)(d)); no civil liability to the attacker (Law No. 6098, Article 64) |
| Limit exceeded from excusable excitement, fear or panic | No penalty (Article 27(2); Law No. 5271, Article 223(3)(c)) |
| Limit exceeded without intent | Penalty for the negligent offence, reduced by one sixth to one third (Article 27(1)) |
| No self-defence, but reaction to an unjust act | Penalty reduced by one quarter to three quarters for unjust provocation (Article 29) |
| No self-defence and no provocation | Ordinary penalty, for example one year and six months to three years for intentional injury under Article 86(1), increased by one half if a weapon was used (Article 86(3)(e)) |
Under Article 160(2) of Law No. 5271, the prosecutor must collect evidence both for and against the suspect. In fight cases this usually means statements from both sides and from witnesses, hospital and forensic reports, and any camera footage. If the prosecutor concludes that self-defence is clear, the investigation is closed with a decision of non-prosecution; the other party, as the person harmed, can object to that decision before the criminal judgeship of peace within two weeks of service under Article 173. If the facts are disputed, the prosecutor usually files an indictment and leaves the question to the court.
The questions that recur in practice are these:
In serious cases, such as those involving a weapon or a death, the analysis becomes more technical, and our article on acquittal in attempted murder cases discusses how intent and defence are distinguished at that level.
Security camera footage from bars, shops, hotels, taxis and municipal cameras is often the single most important piece of evidence, because it shows who moved first and when the force stopped. Recordings are frequently overwritten after a short period, so the prosecutor should be asked in writing, as early as possible, to obtain them. Since the prosecutor must collect exculpatory evidence as well, a specific request naming the cameras and the time window is hard to ignore. Phone videos taken by bystanders should be secured with the original file, not only a forwarded copy.
The defender's own injuries are evidence of the attack. Go to a hospital or ask the police to send you for examination the same day, and make sure every injury, including bruises on the arms that show defensive movements, is recorded. The forensic assessment also determines the charge against the other side: under Article 86(2), an injury that can be treated by a simple medical intervention is prosecuted only on complaint and carries a lighter penalty, while fractures and life threatening injuries fall under the heavier Article 87. Our guide on obtaining an assault report in Türkiye explains the process.
Names and phone numbers of witnesses should be collected at the scene, since tourists and staff disperse quickly. Messages exchanged before or after the incident, for example threats sent by the attacker, can show who was the aggressor. Our article on using WhatsApp messages as evidence covers how such material is presented.
Under Article 147 of Law No. 5271, you must be told the accusation, your right to a lawyer, and your right to remain silent about the accusation. Under Article 202, an interpreter must be provided if you do not speak Turkish well enough to express yourself. Under Article 91(1), custody may not exceed 24 hours from the arrest, excluding travel time to the nearest judge, which may not exceed 12 hours. You may also ask that your consulate be informed, a right recognised by Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Our article on your rights when giving a police statement explains each step. The first statement is often decisive in self-defence cases, so it is usually better to give it with a lawyer present than to improvise an account through an interpreter at 3 a.m.
Ask a lawyer to file your own complaint against the attacker if you have not already done so, to request the camera footage, and to submit your medical records. Simple intentional injury and negligent injury are within the scope of reconciliation, uzlaştırma, under Article 253 of Law No. 5271, but injury aggravated under Article 86(3), for example with a weapon, is excluded. Reconciliation can end both files quickly, but agreeing to it is a choice to weigh carefully if you consider yourself the victim; our guide to offences subject to criminal reconciliation lists the categories. If the court imposes a ban on leaving the country as a judicial control measure under Article 109(3)(a), your lawyer can apply to have it lifted, especially where your stay in Türkiye is temporary.
A criminal investigation does not by itself lead to deportation, but Article 54(1)(d) of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection, Law No. 6458, allows a removal decision against foreigners who pose a threat to public order or public security, and the migration administration sometimes relies on violent incidents for that purpose. Where self-defence is established, the acquittal or non-prosecution decision is the strongest answer to such a decision. Our article on deportation orders in Türkiye explains how removal decisions are challenged, and our criminal law services page describes how we handle injury and self-defence files for foreign clients, including those who have already returned home.
Yes. Article 25(1) of Law No. 5237 provides that no penalty is imposed for proportionate acts needed to repel an unjust attack on your own or another person's rights.
It is the traditional Turkish term for legitimate self-defence, now called meşru savunma in the Penal Code; nefsi müdafaa is an older expression for the same concept.
No. Article 25(1) also covers an attack whose occurrence is certain, so you may act against an attacker who is clearly about to strike.
Yes. Article 25(1) covers rights belonging to another person, on the same conditions as defending yourself.
Yes, but only proportionate force. Serious bodily harm to protect an object of modest value will usually be found excessive.
Force used after the attack has ended is not self-defence. The court may still reduce the penalty for unjust provocation under Article 29 if you acted in anger caused by the attack.
Under Article 27(2), no penalty is imposed if the excess resulted from excusable excitement, fear or panic; the court decides whether the panic was understandable in the circumstances.
Under Article 27(1), you receive the penalty for the negligent form of the offence, reduced by one sixth to one third, provided the negligent form is punishable.
The text does not impose one, but courts weigh whether a safe and easy way out existed when assessing necessity and proportionality.
Self-defence repels an unjust attack by a person; necessity under Article 25(2) avoids a grave and certain danger, often by harming an innocent third party, and requires that no other means of protection existed.
The prosecutor first, who may close the file with a decision of non-prosecution; if the case goes to trial, the criminal court decides and acquits under Article 223(2)(d) of Law No. 5271.
No. Under Article 64 of Law No. 6098, a person acting in legitimate self-defence is not liable for damage to the attacker's person or property.
You have the right to a lawyer and to remain silent under Article 147 of Law No. 5271; in self-defence cases the first statement carries great weight, so it is usually wiser to wait for counsel.
It can, if the administration considers you a threat to public order under Article 54(1)(d) of Law No. 6458, which is why a prompt acquittal or non-prosecution decision is valuable.
No. Articles 25 and 27 of Law No. 5237 were not amended by Laws No. 7571 or 7589, although Law No. 7571 changed the negligent injury penalties in Article 89.
Self-defence under Article 25(1) of the Turkish Penal Code requires an unjust attack on a right of the defender or another person, an attack that is occurring or certain to occur or be repeated, and a defence that is necessary and proportionate in light of the circumstances at that moment. Where the limits are exceeded, Article 27 provides either no penalty, if the excess came from excusable excitement, fear or panic, or a reduced penalty for the negligent offence; and where defence fails entirely, unjust provocation under Article 29 may still reduce the sentence. These cases are won or lost on evidence gathered in the first days: camera footage, medical reports, witnesses and a careful first statement.
If you were attacked in Türkiye and are now facing a complaint, a charge of injury or an immigration problem because of it, we can secure the evidence, attend your statement with an interpreter, and present your defence to the prosecutor and the court. To discuss your situation in confidence, contact our legal team.
