“Law No 6284 on Protection of the Family and Prevention of Violence against Women” was legislated in 2012, introducing a modern scheme to Turkish law on the protection of women against all forms of violence and prevention of violence against women and domestic violence. Pursuant to Article 1/1, the scope and purpose of the Law is, to protect and prevent violence against women, children, family members, stalking victims and potential victims.

The “Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence” (Istanbul Convention) has been in force in Turkish Law as of 1 August 2014. The Convention is statuary, and in the event of conflict with domestic law, the provisions of the Convention prevail (Const Art 90/5). Considering its extensive content, instead of a detailed inspection of the Convention in its entirety, only the relevant provisions are addressed in this study.

Law No. 6284 contains a wide scope and is not limited to domestic violence, and extends to other forms of violence such as stalking (Art 1/1). Definitions of violence, domestic violence and violence against women are parallel to the Convention’s regulations. Threat of acts of violence (Art 2/1/3), and also the likelihood of such acts (Art 1/1), are within the scope as well, regardless of their incidence in public or in private places (Art 2/1/d). 

Any individual who is or may be subject to acts of violence regulated in Law No 6284 is described as a victim of violence (Art 2/1/e). In brief, scope narrowing interpretations upon LGBTI individuals, family members, marital status and as such cannot be sustained.

The competent authorities to issue protection orders regulated under Law No 6284 are judicial (Art 4) and administrative chiefs (Art 3). The authorities have the discretion to apply, one or several of these orders, and they have the liberty to order similar relevant orders (Art 4/1). The judicial authority in question lies with the family court judge (Art 2/c). In order to prevent jurisdictional disputes, application to the “fastest and easiest” accessed family court, administrative chief and law enforcement offices is permitted (Art 8/1/2). The Law stipulates sui generis rules on burden of proof and submission of evidence. Although this principle is widely criticized and creates uneasiness that eventually causes errors in implementation, only protection orders are to be issued without the requirement of any evidence or report proving violence (Art 8/3/1). Preventive orders, on the other hand, are not directly subject to this exemption and should only be issued without delay to avoid jeopardizing the Law’s aim and purpose (Art 8/3/2, 3). Unfortunately, the principle regarding protection orders which allows the victim’s statement as sufficient evidence is also applied in issuing preventive orders. In contrast, further evidence of violence is demanded to issue protection orders, mainly by law enforcement. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the Law is yet to have been acquired even by the most involved authorities of implementation. It is also worth mentioning that Law No 6284 has built in safeguards allowing the perpetrator to object to the preventive measures (although the rule does not explicitly make the distinction between preventive and protection orders regarding the objection, the perpetrator should only be permitted to object to measures that have direct effect on his personal rights, i.e. preventive orders). In cases of an objection, the courts can rescind or modify the measure, which then, can a thorough examination of all the elements of the case, including any counterevidence, be performed.

Protection orders can be issued not only by request but also ex officio (Art 2/1/ğ). In case of violation of preventive orders by perpetrators, Law No 6284 stipulates preventive detention shall be ordered by a judge, which is imprisonment starting from 3 to 10 days, increasing with each violation from 10 to 30 days. But the overall duration of imprisonment may not exceed six months (Art 13/1, 2). 

As per Article 4, protective orders to be issued by the judge are, enabling the victim to change her workplace, issuing a new residential address apart from the joint matrimonial residence for married victims, registering a “matrimonial residence” notice to the land registry, and change of identity and relevant information and documents in life-threatening situations.  

Enabling the victim to change her workplace under the condition of her informed consent (Art 4/1/a) clearly aims to prevent the perpetrators access to the victim.  

Issuing a new residential address apart from the joint matrimonial residence for married victims is regulated under Article 4/1/b. Following issuance of this order, the spousal duty of cohabitation regulated under Article 185/3 of the Turkish Civil Code (TCC) will be judicially lifted, and the victim who deserts the residence is protected from possible claims for compensation of damages based on desertion (TCC Art 164) in divorce proceedings (emphasize on divorce grounds of fault still being in effect).

Registering a “matrimonial residence” notice to the land registry (Art 4/1/c) can also be issued as long as the conditions of the main principle regulated under Article 194 of the Turkish Civil Code are met. The effect of this annotation is to lock up the land registry of the property from further legal transactions without the consent of the spouse. The existing legal restriction on power of disposal regarding matrimonial residences is thereby publicly declared, and can be attested to third persons acting in good faith. The decision is referred to the relevant directorate of land registry to be carried out with haste, thereby enabling the victim to acquire the notice without application to the land registry with the necessary documents mandated under Art 194. 

In the existence of lethality risk, provided that other protective measures will be insufficient to prevent this risk, change of identity and other relevant documents can be issued with the victims’ informed consent (Art 4/ç). Reference is made to Law No 5726 on Witness Protection for mere purposes of implementation, apart which, the rules of Law No 6284 should apply. Incidentally, the prescribed six-month maximum duration of initially issued orders (Art 8/2/1) should not be enforced. In fact, the six-month limit should only apply to preventive measures. The victim should not be implicitly forced to apply for renewal or extension of initial protection measures. Aside from a set of general definitions, the principles for assessment of the lethality risk and a scheme of risk management envisaged in Art 51 of the Convention are regrettably left untouched under Law No 6284, which may lead the authorities to arbitrary and ambiguous risk assessments. Possible delays, setbacks, negligence, or bureaucratic uncertainties on implementation should be avoided bearing in mind the lethality risk. For this purpose, competent authorities should specifically be informed and subjected to in-service training on the principle of post-haste and cooperation duties in implementation.