WHAT IS THE OFFENSE OF PERSISTENT PURSUIT (STALKING)?
Today, the significant expansion of communication opportunities between individuals has made it easier to reach someone, while also enabling unwanted forms of communication to become continuous. A person physically following another person, going to places where they are located, repeatedly attempting to reach them via telephone and text messages, or continuing to establish communication through third-party intermediaries may carry importance under criminal law under certain conditions.
This form of conduct, expressed as “stalking” in international literature, was established as an independent offense in Turkish law through Article 123/A, which was added to the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 by Law No. 7406. Article 123/A of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) entered into force on 27.05.2022.
In the provision of TPC Art. 123/A: “A perpetrator who persistently causes serious distress to a person or causes that person or one of their relatives to worry about their safety by physically following them or attempting to establish contact by using communication and telecommunication tools, information systems, or third parties shall be sentenced to imprisonment from six months to two years.”
The second paragraph of the article regulates the aggravated circumstances requiring heavier penalties under specific conditions. Accordingly, if the offense is committed against a child, or against a spouse who has been granted a separation decree or has been divorced; if it causes the victim to change their school, workplace, or residence, or to drop out of school or quit their job; or if it is committed by a perpetrator against whom specific protective measures are in effect, the penalty shall be applied as imprisonment from one year to three years. The investigation and prosecution of the offense are subject to complaint.
For the offense of persistent pursuit to be constituted, merely attempting to reach a person is not sufficient. One of the acts specified in the law must be present, this act must be of a persistent nature, and the other conditions of the legal definition of the crime regarding the distress or safety concern specified in the law must materialize.
For this reason, a person calling an ex-partner once, encountering them coincidentally, or attempting to reach another person due to a legal matter does not, on its own, mean that the offense of persistent pursuit has occurred. The real issue is determining at what point the conduct ceases to be normal communication or encounter and transforms into a systematic pursuit targeted at the individual’s sphere of life.
THE LEGAL VALUE PROTECTED BY THE OFFENSE OF PERSISTENT PURSUIT
The offense of persistent pursuit is regulated under the “Offenses Against Liberty” section of the Turkish Penal Code. This systematic placement is significant in determining the legal value protected by the offense. The aim is to protect not only a person’s physical freedom, but also their ability to maintain their daily life according to their own free will and to act without being subjected to continuous interference by others.
A person suspecting that they are being continuously followed, being contacted through different communication channels, or being exposed to behaviors that could pose a threat to their safety may cause that person to alter their daily life.
For example;
- Changing the commute route to and from work,
- Closing social media accounts,
- Changing the telephone number,
- Constantly feeling uneasy when leaving the house,
- Considering changing one’s school or workplace
such consequences demonstrate the impact of persistent pursuit behavior on the individual.
Therefore, evaluating the legal value protected by the offense solely within a narrow framework such as the “right not to be disturbed” would not be accurate. The peace, security, psychological well-being of the individual, and their ability to live their life in accordance with their own free will must be evaluated together.
C-) PERPETRATOR AND VICTIM OF THE OFFENSE OF PERSISTENT PURSUIT
1-) Perpetrator Anyone can be the perpetrator of the offense of persistent pursuit. Since the law does not require the perpetrator to belong to a specific gender, profession, or personal characteristic, any person, female or male, can be the perpetrator of this offense.
Although persistent pursuit behaviors have a prominent manifestation in terms of violence against women, TPC Art. 123/A is not an offense created solely for the protection of women.
Consequently, in the event that a man is continuously followed by his ex-wife, harassed via social media, or subjected to contact attempts through his relatives, TPC Art. 123/A can also be applied if the other statutory conditions are met.
2-) Victim There is also no gender requirement regarding the victim of the offense. However, the lawmaker has specifically protected children as well as spouses who have been granted a separation decree or have been divorced, regulating persistent pursuit acts committed against these individuals as aggravated circumstances.
The victim’s concern regarding the safety not only of themselves but also of one of their relatives can also be taken into account within the scope of the article. Here, rather than interpreting the concept of “relative” expansively, an evaluation must be made based on the specific nature of the concrete case and in observance of the principle of legality in criminal law.
ACTS CONSTITUTING THE OFFENSE OF PERSISTENT PURSUIT
When examining TPC Art. 123/A, it is observed that the offense is regulated across two basic forms of conduct. The first of these is physical pursuit, and the second is attempting to establish contact by using communication and telecommunication tools, information systems, or third parties. The common denominator in all of these behaviors is the element of “persistence.”
1-) Physical Pursuit Physical pursuit refers to the perpetrator systematically directing themselves toward the places where the victim is present or visits, engaging in conduct that creates a perception in the victim of being followed. A person being continuously watched by the same individual while going to work, being waited for at school exits, being repeatedly seen around their residence, or having their daily movements tracked may constitute physical pursuit depending on the specifics of the concrete case. However, it should not be forgotten that not every encounter constitutes stalking/pursuit.
For example, two individuals living in the same neighborhood, working in the same commercial building, or coincidentally running into each other in a shopping mall does not constitute a crime on its own. What is decisive here is whether the conduct is coincidental and whether the perpetrator deliberately and systematically tracks the victim’s movements.
For instance, if the perpetrator, knowing the exact time their ex-spouse goes to work every day, waits along the same route for several weeks and moves alongside the victim as they pass, this may not be accepted as a coincidental encounter if the other conditions of the case are present.
2-) Attempting to Establish Contact via Communication and Telecommunication Tools Repeatedly attempting to establish communication using phone calls, SMS, electronic mail, letters, or similar communication tools can also be evaluated within the scope of the offense. Here, it is not required for the victim to necessarily answer or physically speak with the perpetrator.
For example;
- Repeating unanswered phone calls across different days,
- Using alternative numbers following the blocking of a communication channel,
- Continuously sending text messages,
- Continuing communication via electronic mail despite receiving no reply
may bring the offense of persistent pursuit to the fore, depending on the characteristics of the concrete case.
Conversely, reasonable communication attempts necessitated by an ongoing legal or personal relationship between the parties do not become an offense merely because they are unwelcome by the opposing party.
For example, communication between divorced spouses who share custody of common children regarding mandatory child-related matters should not be evaluated in the same manner as continuous communication directed at an ex-spouse regarding their private life.
PERSISTENT PURSUIT VIA SOCIAL MEDIA AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Technological advancements have significantly altered the execution methods of the offense of persistent pursuit. Today, it is possible for a person to carry out long-term pursuit conduct without physically monitoring the victim.
Actions such as opening multiple accounts on social media platforms, sending messages from new accounts after being blocked, constantly sending friend or follow requests, and attempting to communicate directly or indirectly with the victim may be subject to evaluation under TPC Art. 123/A depending on the circumstances of the concrete case.
However, an important distinction must be drawn here. A person merely viewing a publicly accessible social media account is not the same as repeatedly sending messages via new accounts despite the victim explicitly stating that they do not wish to be contacted. The boundaries of criminal law must not be overextended, particularly regarding social media usage.
For example, a person viewing a publicly shared post on social media or following an account does not automatically transform into the offense of persistent pursuit as long as no other conduct is present.
In contrast, the presence of complementary behaviors—such as a blocked perpetrator creating multiple accounts to communicate repeatedly, sending messages through mutual friends, and concurrently appearing at the victim’s workplace—will require a different legal assessment.
PERSISTENT PURSUIT THROUGH THIRD PARTIES
One of the noteworthy features of TPC Art. 123/A is the explicit regulation of the utilization of third parties. Instead of communicating directly with the victim, the perpetrator may attempt to establish communication by interposing a friend, relative, or another person.
For example, a blocked perpetrator persistently having a mutual friend send messages and seeking to meet the victim through this friend can be evaluated under TPC Art. 123/A based on the totality of the case.
However, the legal status of the third party must be examined separately. A third party facilitating ordinary communication without knowing that a crime is being committed is not the same as a third party who knowingly and continuously attempts to communicate with the victim in furtherance of the perpetrator’s goal. Therefore, whether complicity/participation provisions will be applied must be determined by taking into account the third party’s intent and their contribution to the act.
WHAT DOES PERSISTENCE MEAN? HOW MANY ACTS ARE REQUIRED IN PERSISTENT PURSUIT?
One of the concepts most likely to generate debate in the application of the offense of persistent pursuit is “persistence.” The lawmaker has not stipulated a specific numerical threshold for persistence. For this reason, there is no mathematical criterion such as “if done twice, the offense occurs” or “if five messages are sent, the offense occurs.”
In a concrete case;
- The connection of the acts with one another,
- The time interval between them,
- The nature of the behaviors,
- The victim’s previous reactions,
- Why the perpetrator maintained the conduct,
- Whether communication channels were altered,
- The past relationship between the parties
must be evaluated as a whole.
For example, if a person calls their ex-partner once and, upon receiving no answer, sends a text message a few hours later stating “I am trying to reach you regarding an important matter,” it would not be accurate to conclude that the offense of persistent pursuit has been established solely on the basis of these two acts.
Conversely, if the victim is called from alternative numbers despite blocking the phone number, distinct social media accounts are created, messages are conveyed through third parties, and the perpetrator shows up at the victim’s workplace, these behaviors must no longer be evaluated individually, but as a whole.
In the Court of Cassation’s approach to the concept of “persistence” under TPC Art. 123, it is observed that a specific number of acts cannot be deemed sufficient for every case. For TPC Art. 123/A, the same approach can be applied in conjunction with the specific nature of the concrete case. Academic reference works also emphasize that persistence cannot be reduced to a specific number and that the nature of each conduct must be demonstrated individually.
DOES THE VICTIM SAYING “LEAVE ME ALONE” CONSTITUTE THE ELEMENT OF PERSISTENCE ON ITS OWN?
The victim explicitly declaring that they do not want communication can serve as important data in evaluating the perpetrator’s subsequent actions. However, this circumstance alone does not automatically mean that the crime has been established.
For example, there is a substantial difference between a person attempting to communicate one more time to speak with their ex-spouse and completely cutting off communication when the other party does not respond or says “do not call me,” versus that same person making calls from different numbers for weeks despite this warning.
In the second scenario, the continuation of communication despite the victim’s explicit will can serve as a strong indicator in determining the element of persistence. Therefore, the victim’s will must be taken into account as one of the factors determining the character of the conduct in the concrete case.
WHAT DO “SERIOUS DISTRESS” AND “WORRY ABOUT SAFETY” MEAN?
It is observed that TPC Art. 123/A regulates not only the acts of pursuit or contact, but also that these acts must produce an impact of the quality specified in the statute upon the victim.
The law requires the occurrence of “serious distress” or the victim worrying about the safety of themselves or one of their relatives. For this reason, not every annoying or disturbing behavior transforms into the offense of persistent pursuit.
For example, whether the actions of a person who sends two messages to an ex-partner are genuinely of a nature to generate serious distress for the victim must be determined according to the circumstances of the case.
Here, it is not possible to entirely disregard the subjective feelings of the victim. However, accepting the occurrence of the crime solely on the basis of the statement “I was disturbed” would also not be correct in terms of the fundamental principles of criminal law.
The nature of the act, the method utilized, the history of the parties, the intensity of the conduct, and other evidence must be evaluated together. One of the most significant practical problems in this regard is drawing the line between personal sensitivity and conduct capable of objectively causing serious distress.
INTENT (MENS REA) IN THE OFFENSE OF PERSISTENT PURSUIT
The offense of persistent pursuit is an offense that can only be committed intentionally. The perpetrator must be aware of the nature of the conduct they carry out and must perform this conduct voluntarily. Here, the distinction between TPC Art. 123 and TPC Art. 123/A is particularly important.
While the aim of disturbing peace and tranquility is explicitly regulated as a specific intent in TPC Art. 123, no specific intent phrasing such as “solely to disturb peace and tranquility” is included in TPC Art. 123/A. Therefore, it cannot be said that the perpetrator must necessarily act with the purpose of harassing the victim.
The perpetrator acting out of a desire for reconciliation, jealousy, a desire for control, revenge, emotional attachment, or another personal motivation does not spontaneously eliminate the formation of the crime if the other conditions are met. However, the reason why the act was committed can be important, especially in distinguishing between a legally permissible communication attempt and systematic pursuit behavior capable of creating criminal liability.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TPC ART. 123 AND TPC ART. 123/A
One of the most critical distinctions in the practice of the offense of persistent pursuit is drawing the boundary between the offense of “disturbing the peace and tranquility of persons” regulated under TPC Art. 123 and TPC Art. 123/A. TPC Art. 123 governs acts based on the purpose of disturbing a person’s peace and tranquility through making phone calls, creating noise, or engaging in other unlawful conduct.
TPC Art. 123/A, on the other hand, specifically and separately regulates physical pursuit and attempts to establish contact through specific communication tools, information systems, or third parties. Therefore, it is not possible to use these two offenses interchangeably in every case. Particular attention must also be paid regarding the date of the offense.
TPC Art. 123/A entered into force on 27.05.2022. TPC Art. 123/A cannot be applied directly to acts that occurred prior to this date. Indeed, 2025 decisions of the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation also emphasized the relationship between the date of the offense and the entry-into-force date of the new offense type. Therefore, when making a legal characterization of a case, it must first be determined between which dates the event occurred.
RELATIONSHIP OF THE OFFENSE OF PERSISTENT PURSUIT WITH OTHER OFFENSES
In certain cases, acts of persistent pursuit may occur alongside other offenses. For instance, in addition to sending continuous messages to the victim, it is possible for the perpetrator to use threatening expressions, utter insults, or carry out a physical assault. In such a scenario, whether each act constitutes a separate offense must be examined individually.
For example, offenses such as:
- Threat,
- Insult,
- Intentional injury,
- Duress,
- Sexual harassment,
- Violation of domestic immunity
may come to the fore alongside persistent pursuit acts depending on the features of the concrete case.
What is important here is to avoid the outcome of penalizing the same conduct twice. When applying concurrence (joinder of offenses) provisions, the individual elements of each offense and the legal relationship between the acts must be evaluated. In terms of the position of TPC Art. 123/A vis-à-vis TPC Art. 123, the special-general norm relationship must also be considered according to the characteristics of the case.
SUCCESSIVE OFFENSE (CONTINUED CRIME) IN PERSISTENT PURSUIT
The element of persistence and the concept of successive offense (continued crime) must be distinguished from one another. In the offense of persistent pursuit, the perpetrator carrying out multiple behaviors can serve to bring about the element of “persistence” embedded within the legal definition of the crime itself.
Therefore, evaluating the combination of acts forming the statutory definition of the same offense as a successive offense within the meaning of TPC Art. 43 in every circumstance is not correct.
In other words, the perpetrator sending messages to the same victim at different times or tracking them on different dates must primarily be evaluated within the intrinsic elements of TPC Art. 123/A.
In addition, if an independent separate offense is formed within these same behaviors, TPC Art. 43 or other concurrence provisions may also arise separately with respect to that relevant offense. This distinction is critical in practice to prevent the excessive assessment of offenses and penalties arising from the same factual context.
ATTEMPT IN THE OFFENSE OF PERSISTENT PURSUIT
How the offense is structured holds importance in terms of criminal attempt. Since the perpetrator in the offense of persistent pursuit must carry out the acts stipulated in the law in a systematic manner, it is not always possible to qualify an isolated individual act that has not yet reached the level of persistence as an attempt.
For example, if the perpetrator calls a person only once and performs no other act, the act failing to constitute the completed offense of persistent pursuit versus the application of criminal attempt provisions are distinct matters.
For attempt provisions to be applied, the executive acts of the crime must have commenced and the crime must have failed to reach completion due to reasons beyond the perpetrator’s control. For this reason, accepting every case where the element of persistence did not materialize as an “attempt” is incorrect.
In legal doctrine, various opinions exist regarding attempt due to the structure of TPC Art. 123/A. Therefore, at what stage the acts remained in the concrete case must be evaluated separately.
COMPLICITY (PARTICIPATION) IN THE OFFENSE OF PERSISTENT PURSUIT
If multiple individuals act together, complicity provisions may arise. For example, if two individuals follow the victim together, or if one individual physically follows while the other continuously tries to reach the victim through communication channels, or if a third person knowingly assists in the process of establishing contact with the victim aware of the perpetrator’s aim, the complicity provisions of the TPC must be examined.
However, a person merely being present in the same environment with the perpetrator or being aware of the incident does not generate complicity liability on its own. In terms of complicity, the nature of the person’s contribution to the crime, their knowledge regarding the act, and their criminal intent are of paramount importance.
AGGRAVATED CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE OF PERSISTENT PURSUIT
Three distinct aggravated circumstances are regulated in the second paragraph of TPC Art. 123/A.
1-) Commission of the Offense Against a Child, or a Separated or Divorced Spouse If the offense is committed against a child, a spouse granted a judicial separation decree, or a divorced spouse, the penalty is applied as imprisonment from one year to three years. Here, it is observed that the lawmaker aims to provide higher protection regarding family relationships and children.
However, it must be specifically noted that dating or ex-partner relationships are not explicitly enumerated as an aggravated circumstance in the current statutory provision. Therefore, the mere past existence of a romantic relationship between the perpetrator and the victim is not sufficient on its own for the application of TPC Art. 123/A/2-a.
2-) Causing the Victim to Change Their Living Sphere If the victim changes their school, workplace, or residence, or drops out of school or quits their job, this aggravated circumstance arises. Here, the causal connection between the change and the act of persistent pursuit must be established.
For example, the victim’s workplace changing due to economic reasons is not the same as being forced to transition to a new workplace due to stalking/pursuit.
Therefore, a change occurring merely subsequent to the pursuit acts should not be deemed sufficient; the link between the change and the offense must be determined within the framework of the concrete case.
3-) Commission of the Offense by a Perpetrator Subject to a Protective or Restraining Order The commission of the offense of persistent pursuit by a perpetrator against whom a restraining order or an order prohibiting approach to the residence, school, or workplace has been rendered is also regulated as an aggravated circumstance. This provision ensures that criminal law is additionally activated when protective decisions are breached. In particular, the presence of injunction orders issued under Law No. 6284 is important in this regard.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAW NO. 6284 AND PERSISTENT PURSUIT
Law No. 6284 on the Protection of the Family and the Prevention of Violence Against Women and TPC Art. 123/A are distinct legal mechanisms. While TPC Art. 123/A regulates criminal liability, Law No. 6284 is important particularly regarding measures directed at protecting the victim of violence.
For this reason, the fact that a restraining or non-approach measure has been issued against a person may also hold significance under TPC Art. 123/A. However, the protective measure issued under 6284 and the crime under TPC Art. 123/A must not be confused with each other. Whether criminal liability arises must be determined by taking all elements of the offense under TPC Art. 123/A into account.
EVIDENCE IN THE OFFENSE OF PERSISTENT PURSUIT
Evidentiary substantiation is exceptionally vital in the offense of persistent pursuit. This is because the offense often consists not of a single act, but of a totality formed by conduct carried out across different dates.
For this reason, the following evidence may carry importance during the investigation and prosecution stages:
- Telephone call logs,
- SMS and messaging records,
- Correspondence on WhatsApp and similar applications,
- Records relating to social media accounts,
- Electronic mail contents,
- CCTV / camera footage,
- Witness testimonies,
- Workplace or residence entry-exit records,
- Previously issued protection orders,
- Records regarding messages sent by the perpetrator via third parties,
- Documents demonstrating the victim’s school or job change.
Particularly with respect to digital evidence, whether the evidence consists solely of a screenshot, what its source is, whether its integrity has been preserved, and whether it can be verified through technical forensic examination when necessary are critical.
Matters such as whether the social media account truly belongs to the defendant or whether the telephone number used was utilized by the defendant must be investigated separately where necessary. In criminal procedure, the aim is not solely to collect evidence supporting the accusation. Evidence in favor of the suspect or defendant must also be investigated.
Therefore, the content of the messages, the intervals at which they were sent, the communication style of the parties with each other, and the totality of the incident must be evaluated together.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMPLAINT IN THE OFFENSE OF PERSISTENT PURSUIT
In the third paragraph of TPC Art. 123/A, it is explicitly regulated that the investigation and prosecution of the offense are subject to complaint. Pursuant to TPC Art. 73, in offenses subject to complaint, the victim must, as a rule, file a complaint within six months from the date they learn of the act and the perpetrator.
Because the behaviors in persistent pursuit span across multiple periods of time, the starting point of the complaint limitation period must be evaluated separately for each concrete case. Particularly in case files involving continuous or subsequently repeated behaviors, the chronological order of the acts must be demonstrated in detail.
IS MEDIATION / RECONCILIATION APPLICABLE IN THE OFFENSE OF PERSISTENT PURSUIT?
No. It is explicitly stipulated in Article 253/3 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK) that the reconciliation path cannot be resorted to in the offense of persistent pursuit. Therefore, the fact that the offense is subject to complaint does not mean that it is subject to reconciliation. These two institutions are distinct from one another.
While a complaint is a procedural prerequisite sought for the conduct of an investigation and prosecution in certain offenses; reconciliation is a special procedural mechanism based on the parties reaching an agreement through a mediator/reconciler in offenses prescribed by law. For persistent pursuit, the first institution exists, while the second does not.
PENALTY FOR THE OFFENSE OF PERSISTENT PURSUIT
The penalty prescribed for the basic form of TPC Art. 123/A is imprisonment from six months to two years. In the event that one of the aggravated circumstances is present, the penalty increases to imprisonment from one year to three years.
The court will exercise its discretion within statutory boundaries in determining the base sentence by taking into account the specifics of the concrete case and the general provisions of the TPC. When determining the sentence, matters such as the intensity of the perpetrator’s conduct, the manner of occurrence of the event, and the gravity of the offense may be considered.
COMPETENT COURT AND TRIAL PROCEDURE IN THE OFFENSE OF PERSISTENT PURSUIT
In cases initiated under TPC Art. 123/A, the competent court is, as a rule, the Criminal Court of First Instance (Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi). Since the statutory upper limit of the basic form of the offense is two years, the application of the simple trial procedure may be possible within the framework of the conditions in CMK Art. 251. However, using an expression such as “the simple trial procedure is strictly applied” would not be accurate; the law regulates that it may be decided to apply this procedure when its conditions are met.
In the aggravated circumstance, since the upper limit of the penalty is three years, it remains above the two-year ceiling in CMK Art. 251 solely in terms of the upper limit.
In the event that other offenses are present in the case file, jurisdiction and the applicable trial procedure must be determined by evaluating all charges together.
EFFECTIVE REPENTANCE IN THE OFFENSE OF PERSISTENT PURSUIT
Offenses to which effective repentance can be applied are specifically regulated under the Turkish Penal Code. There is no separately regulated effective repentance provision with respect to TPC Art. 123/A.
Therefore, the perpetrator subsequent repentance does not generate a specific effective repentance discount on its own under TPC Art. 123/A. Nevertheless, the perpetrator’s attitude during the judicial proceedings and the consequences that may arise in terms of other legal institutions must be evaluated separately in the specific context of the case.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING THE OFFENSE OF PERSISTENT PURSUIT
1-) Does calling an ex-partner continuously constitute the offense of persistent pursuit? Merely “calling an ex-partner” is not sufficient on its own for the offense to occur. However, if continuous attempts are made to communicate through various means despite the request for communication being explicitly rejected, and if the other elements of the crime materialize, TPC Art. 123/A may arise.
2-) How many messages must be sent for persistent pursuit? There is no statutory number of messages stipulated in the law. What matters is the content of the messages and the times they were sent alongside their number, and whether they form genuine persistent conduct within the totality of the case.
3-) Is making a single phone call a crime? As a rule, a single telephone call or a single ring does not fulfill the element of “persistence” of the offense of persistent pursuit. However, if the same behavior constitutes another offense, that offense may be evaluated separately.
4-) Is sending continuous messages from social media a crime? It can be, depending on the nature of the messages and the manner of their repetition. In particular, continuing to communicate through different accounts or channels despite it being evident that the victim does not want communication is critical.
5-) Does sending a message again after being blocked constitute a crime? This circumstance alone does not automatically constitute a crime. However, systematically continuing communication by utilizing different accounts or numbers following the block is important in evaluating the element of persistence.
6-) Does the penalty increase in the offense of persistent pursuit against an ex-spouse? Yes. An offense committed against a spouse who has been granted a separation decree or has been divorced is regulated as an aggravated circumstance under TPC Art. 123/A/2-a.
7-) Does the penalty automatically increase in an offense committed against an ex-partner (boyfriend/girlfriend)? No. Romantic partners or ex-partners are not explicitly listed in the current provision of TPC Art. 123/A/2-a. Therefore, the mere existence of this relationship is not sufficient for the aggravated circumstance.
😎 Does the penalty increase if the victim is forced to quit their job? If it is established that the acts of persistent pursuit caused the victim to quit their job, an aggravated circumstance under TPC Art. 123/A/2-b may arise.
9-) What happens if a person subject to a restraining order continues to stalk/follow? If the other elements of the offense are also present, the commission of the persistent pursuit offense by a perpetrator subject to the relevant protective measure can be evaluated within the scope of the aggravated circumstance.
10-) Is the offense of persistent pursuit subject to mediation/reconciliation? No. Pursuant to CMK Art. 253/3, the reconciliation path cannot be resorted to in the offense of persistent pursuit.
11-) Is the victim’s statement alone sufficient in the offense of persistent pursuit? The evidentiary status of each case file differs. The victim’s statement is important; however, digital records, camera recordings, telephone logs, witness statements, and other material evidence are also crucial in proving the incident.
12-) Is persistent pursuit an offense committed only against women? No. There is no gender requirement regarding the victim in the statute.
13-) Are persistent pursuit and disturbing peace and tranquility the same offense? No. TPC Art. 123 and TPC Art. 123/A are distinct offense types. Which offense’s elements have materialized in the concrete case must be evaluated separately.
14-) Can an arrest (pretrial detention) be made due to persistent pursuit? Regarding arrest/detention, not only the name of the crime, but the arrest conditions under the CPC must be evaluated together. In particular, whether strong suspicion of a crime and statutory arrest grounds exist must be examined with respect to the concrete case.
15-) Is HAGB (Suspension of the Announcement of the Verdict) or sentence postponement possible in the offense of persistent pursuit? By evaluating the amount of sentence to be ruled in the concrete case, the defendant’s criminal record, and the relevant statutory conditions, whether institutions such as HAGB or postponement of sentence can be applied can be determined separately. A definitive conclusion should not be drawn on this matter merely by looking at the statutory upper limit of the crime.
COURT OF CASSATION (YARGITAY) DECISIONS REGARDING THE OFFENSE OF PERSISTENT PURSUIT
Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, 07.01.2025, Docket No. 2023/5745, Decision No. 2025/181 In the incident subject to the decision, it was stated that the defendant followed the intervening party (victim) for approximately 300 meters, attempted to establish communication, and maintained these behaviors despite the victim giving no response.
The Court of Cassation pointed out that the act must be evaluated under the offense of disturbing the peace and tranquility of persons regulated in TPC Art. 123, finding the acquittal decision rendered without sufficient investigation to be contrary to the law. The decision holds significance particularly regarding how the characterization of the offense should be determined in incidents occurring prior to the entry into force of TPC Art. 123/A. The citation of the decision is displayed in the same manner in 2025 academic studies.
Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, 07.04.2025, Docket No. 2023/5834, Decision No. 2025/3410 This decision also demonstrates the importance of the offense date regarding acts occurring prior to the entry into force of the offense of persistent pursuit.
Taking into account that TPC Art. 123/A entered into force on 27.05.2022, it is not possible to evaluate behaviors that took place prior to this date within the scope of the new offense type. The prior criminal law provisions must be applied according to the nature of the concrete case.
It is observed that the decision is shown in 2025 academic works as one of the current decisions of the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation concerning the application of persistent pursuit.
Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, 22.12.2021, Docket No. 2021/27098, Decision No. 2021/29961 Rendered when TPC Art. 123/A was not yet in force, this decision is of a nature that can still assist today in understanding the concept of “persistence.”
In the decision, there is an approach indicating that behaviors such as telephoning, coming in front of the victim’s house, and following must be evaluated as a whole. It is seen that the decision is among the guiding decisions regarding the element of persistence in current academic studies as well.
The point to be noted here is that older decisions under TPC Art. 123 should not be accepted as case law directly determining all elements of TPC Art. 123/A. These decisions offer rather a comparative evaluation opportunity in the application of the concept of “persistence.”
POINTS TO CONSIDER IN THE OFFENSE OF PERSISTENT PURSUIT
The following matters hold particular importance in disputes concerning the offense of persistent pursuit:
First, it must be determined whether the behaviors are genuinely of a persistent nature. Second, it must be examined whether each behavior constitutes one of the acts stipulated in the statutory definition of the offense. Third, the nature of the relationship between the parties and the purpose for which the communication was carried out must be evaluated. Fourth, if the victim asserts that they experienced serious distress or had safety concerns, this claim must be evaluated together with the other evidence in the case. Fifth, the authenticity and attribution of social media and other digital evidence must be investigated. Sixth, the date of the offense must be determined, and the law in force on the date the act was committed must be applied. Seventh, whether protective injunctions issued under Law No. 6284 are present and their effect regarding TPC Art. 123/A/2-c must be investigated.
It is not required for all of these matters to exist in the same case file simultaneously. However, particularly in pursuit cases spanning over a long period, many of these elements may arise at the same time.
CONCLUSION
The offense of persistent pursuit is an important criminal law regulation aimed at protecting individuals’ daily lives from continuous and systematic interference by others.
TPC Art. 123/A, added to the TPC by Law No. 7406, created a specific legal framework for many forms of behavior that previously had to be evaluated under different offense types. Nevertheless, the recency of the regulation necessitates the interpretation of concepts such as “persistence,” “serious distress,” and “worry about safety” with respect to concrete cases.
Because the element of persistence is not tied to a specific number, the quantity, duration, content, and nature of the behaviors must be evaluated together in each case. Especially in incidents occurring in ex-spouse or ex-partner relationships, the history of the parties, prior communication attempts, the victim’s reaction to these behaviors, and how the perpetrator utilized communication channels carry great weight.
Pursuit behaviors carried out via social media and information systems have become one of the most critical application areas of the offense today. However, a clear distinction must be made between merely viewing a social media account or following a public post versus systematically establishing communication by using new accounts and different communication channels despite the victim’s explicit will.
On the other hand, accurately drawing the distinction between TPC Art. 123 and TPC Art. 123/A is also important. In particular, it must be kept in mind that the new offense type cannot be applied to incidents occurring before the entry into force of TPC Art. 123/A.
In conclusion, when conducting a legal evaluation in the offense of persistent pursuit, one should not look at a single telephone conversation, a single text message, or a single encounter; the perpetrator’s behaviors must be handled as a whole. However, conducting a holistic evaluation does not mean that acts not included in the statute can also be incorporated into the scope of the crime.
Fundamental principles of criminal law such as legality, certainty, culpability, and the presumption of innocence (in dubio pro reo) must be safeguarded in every concrete case.
IMPORTANCE OF LEGAL COUNSEL (ATTORNEY)
Investigation and prosecution processes concerning the offense of persistent pursuit may require a technical legal evaluation, as the case is often not limited to just one or a few communication records.
From the perspective of the victim; which acts the complaint pertains to, what evidence will be presented, how digital records will be preserved, and which protective measures under Law No. 6284 can be requested are of prime importance.
From the perspective of the suspect or defendant; whether the carried-out behaviors genuinely conform to the statutory definition in TPC Art. 123/A, whether the element of persistence has materialized, whether the impact on the victim can be demonstrated with the evidence of the case, and whether the distinction between TPC Art. 123 and TPC Art. 123/A has been correctly drawn must be evaluated.
Evidence must be examined as a whole, particularly regarding social media messages, phone records, camera footage, and communications carried out through third parties.
The legal characterization made at the initial stage of a criminal investigation can directly affect the scope of the defense or complaint to be prepared in subsequent stages.
For this reason, in the event of facing an investigation or lawsuit regarding the offense of persistent pursuit, obtaining legal assistance from a specialized attorney from the very beginning of the process is crucial for preventing the forfeiture of rights and evaluating the file in all its aspects.
It must be remembered that in the offense of persistent pursuit, sometimes not a single act, but the totality of complementary behaviors is subjected to legal assessment. Therefore, maintaining the chronological order of events, preserving messages and conversations, storing digital evidence, and conducting the legal process consciously are of immense importance.