Repeated calls throughout the night, continued messages despite unwanted contact or noise directed at a particular person may warrant a criminal investigation. Not every disturbing act, however, constitutes the offence under Article 123 of the Turkish Criminal Code. Persistence, the person targeted and the offender’s purpose must be examined together.
What conduct falls within Article 123?
Article 123 concerns persistent telephone calls, noise or other unlawful conduct directed at a person solely to disturb their peace and tranquillity. It protects the ability to carry on daily life without targeted disturbance. Insulting or threatening words are not an additional prerequisite.
For communications through phones, messaging applications or social media, the whole exchange matters, not merely the platform. An apparently ordinary message does not erase the significance of a continuing pattern. Conversely, receiving an unwanted message does not by itself establish every statutory element.
How are persistence and purpose assessed?
The overall context matters more than a numerical threshold
The statute does not prescribe a fixed number of calls or messages that automatically establishes the offence. Frequency, duration, timing, connections between acts and continuation across different channels are relevant. Relying only on a total call count without examining the pattern may produce an incomplete assessment.
Contact through new accounts after a person rejects communication may be relevant alongside other evidence. A prior warning by the affected person is not a separate statutory prerequisite. Someone concerned about safety should not be expected to re-establish contact merely to create evidence.
The specific purpose of disturbing tranquillity
An upsetting result is not the same as acting solely to disturb someone’s tranquillity. A wrong number, a genuine emergency or a legitimate need to communicate must be distinguished from targeted disturbance. Purpose is assessed through the content, sequence of events and relationship between the parties.
Claiming a debt or relying on a family matter does not make every persistent act lawful. The reality of the stated reason and the manner and extent of contact require joint assessment. Correspondence explaining the context matters for the suspect as well as incriminating records.
Penalty and aggravated forms
Article 123 provides for imprisonment from three months to one year. It does not expressly provide an alternative judicial fine or a separate list of aggravated forms. The final sentence nevertheless depends on applicable general provisions and the circumstances of the case.
A short prison sentence may be considered for conversion to an alternative sanction under Article 50 where its conditions are met. This does not mean the offence carries only a fine from the outset or that conviction has no consequences. Nor should each call forming the persistent conduct automatically be treated as a separate punishable offence; the legal unity of the acts must be examined.
Complaint period and limitation
Prosecution requires a complaint. Under Article 73, the six-month complaint period runs from when the entitled person knows or learns both the act and the offender’s identity, subject to the limitation period. For conduct extending over time, identifying which acts form the same course of conduct can affect calculation; the latest call should not automatically be assumed to restart time for every earlier event.
For adults, the ordinary prosecution limitation period is eight years under Article 66(1)(e). Suspension, interruption and rules for minors must also be considered. This does not replace the six-month complaint period. The effects of withdrawing a complaint depend on the procedural stage and the conditions in Article 73.
Do reconciliation or prepayment apply?
The offence falls within criminal reconciliation. Where sufficient suspicion and the other statutory conditions exist, the file is referred to the reconciliation bureau. Accepting an offer to participate is not a conviction. Agreement and performance of an undertaking may have different procedural consequences depending on the stage of the case.
Where another offence against the same person is alleged, Article 253(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires separate examination. The rule concerning offences committed together with an offence outside reconciliation has an exception involving offences subject to prepayment. Each allegation must therefore be classified before a definitive conclusion is reached.
Prepayment does not apply to Article 123. Criminal reconciliation and prepayment are distinct procedures. The possibility of later converting a short prison sentence into a judicial fine does not create a right to prepayment.
Distinction from stalking and other offences
Stalking under Article 123/A is a separate offence, not an aggravated form of Article 123. The distinction involves persistent physical following or attempts to make contact through communication tools, information systems or third parties that cause serious unease or concern for the safety of the person or someone close to them. Although complaint-dependent, Article 123/A is excluded from reconciliation.
Threats, insults or sexual harassment within communications may engage different offences and rules on their relationship. Not all neighbourhood noise falls under Article 123 either. Other administrative or civil remedies may be relevant where a purpose solely to disturb a particular person is not established. Legal classification follows the evidence rather than the everyday label given to the incident.
How should evidence be preserved?
Record events chronologically, identify numbers and accounts, and preserve complete conversations. Screenshots should show dates, account details and context. Keep original devices and records, without alteration or selectively removing context. Witnesses, camera footage and earlier reports may also help establish what happened.
A call record may establish timing without proving the conversation’s content or caller’s purpose. The registered subscriber and actual user are not necessarily the same person. Unauthorised account access or unlawful recording can create a separate legal problem. Where collection methods are uncertain, lawful evidence preservation should be sought through the competent authorities.
Reporting and criminal proceedings
A complaint may be made to the public prosecutor’s office or law enforcement. It should clearly explain the sequence of events, known identifying information, evidence and intention to complain. If the offender is unknown, available numbers and account details may be supplied for investigation; the complainant need not wait to establish identity independently.
Investigators consider both incriminating and exculpatory evidence. A decision not to prosecute may follow if the elements or sufficient suspicion are absent. If reconciliation fails, prosecution still depends on the statutory conditions; refusing settlement does not itself establish guilt. The court evaluates the allegation and defence against the evidence.
Frequently asked questions
Must the number be blocked before making a complaint?
No. Article 123 contains no such prerequisite. Blocking may be a personal safety measure, but it does not replace assessment of the statutory elements and complaint deadline.
Does the absence of an insult rule out the offence?
The absence of an insult does not by itself exclude Article 123. The question is whether the specified conduct was persistent and undertaken solely to disturb the person’s tranquillity.
Is every screenshot conclusive evidence?
No. Its source, integrity, attribution and consistency with other records require examination. A single screenshot does not automatically determine conviction or acquittal.
Official sources and legal assessment
Review date: 23 September 2026. This article is based on accessible official Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code texts and the Ministry of Justice’s reconciliation offence list. It provides general information. Classification, deadlines and lawful evidence in a particular case require individual assessment.
Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 — Articles 50, 66, 67, 73, 75, 123 and 123/A
Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 — reporting, investigation and reconciliation
Ministry of Justice — Offences Eligible for Criminal Reconciliation