Stalking and protection mechanisms: Going beyond standard restraining orders

Stalking, which entered the Turkish Penal Code as an independent crime in 2022, has become one of the most critical topics in our criminal law practice. During the same period, the protection mechanisms of Law No. 6284 have continued to be one of the fundamental legal tools in this field. In this context, victims can benefit from protective and preventive measures, and decisions such as non-approach and non-communication can be rapidly implemented.

The coexistence of these two regulations is essentially of strategic importance. While criminal law regarding stalking focuses on the committed act and its criminal liability, protection measures aim to prevent an ongoing or likely danger before any harm occurs. In other words, while the criminal norm addresses the committed act, the protection measure focuses on eliminating the potential danger. However, the fact that a restraining order has been issued against the perpetrator does not mean that the victim's safety is ensured on its own. The existence of a rapid and effective intervention mechanism in case of a violation of the order is of vital importance to ensure that the protection does not remain merely on paper.

How the system works the moment a protection order is violated constitutes a decisive threshold, especially in stalking files. Law No. 6284 provides for coercive imprisonment in case of violation of a protection order. Coercive imprisonment can be applied for three to ten days for the first violation, and five to thirty days for repeated violations, with the total duration not exceeding six months. In addition to this, an electronic monitoring system is also effectively implemented in Turkey. If an electronic tag is applied by a court decision, the locations of the perpetrator and the victim can be tracked simultaneously, and the violation of the determined distance can be directly subject to law enforcement intervention. It is observed that the system, following its initiation in Ankara and İzmir, has also been implemented in Antalya, Bursa, Istanbul, and Gaziantep, according to the statements of the Ministry of Family and Social Services.

It would be unfair to say that the existing legal tools in Turkey are completely inadequate. The real problem concerns how these tools are positioned against behaviors that show continuity and constantly change form, such as stalking. Today, when you go to a family court and request protection due to stalking, you will see that the protection texts you receive are usually copies of each other. Standard prohibition sentences stating that the perpetrator should not approach the victim's residence, workplace, or school are written, and the file is closed. However, stalking often does not consist of a single act. Behaviors such as phone calls, instant messages, social media contact, waiting around the workplace or home, indirect communication through third parties, or utilizing digital tools are added to each other over time, creating a chain of pressure. For this reason, the fact that the protection order is trapped in a single template text often does not provide the expected security.

One of the most remarkable models developed against this problem in comparative law is the Stalking Protection Orders system in England and Wales. This mechanism, introduced and implemented with the Stalking Protection Act of 2019, is a special protection tool designed directly against the risk of stalking. When the police assess that a person is engaging in stalking-related behaviors and poses a risk to a specific individual, they can request this order from the court without waiting for a previously finalized conviction.

The most fundamental aspect that distinguishes this model from the preventive measures in Turkey's Law No. 6284 or the Turkish Penal Code is the element of positive obligations. These measures issued by courts do not only prohibit the perpetrator from communicating with the victim or going to certain places; they can also stipulate positive obligations such as participating in intervention programs, undergoing suitability assessments, imposing restrictions on the use of electronic devices, or maintaining regular contact with law enforcement.

Thus, the protection order does not merely draw an abstract boundary around the victim but aims to directly change the behavioral patterns of the person creating the risk. This approach is essential for stalking because ending the stalking behavior may not be achieved solely by not physically approaching the victim's location. The method of stalking shows flexibility; physical contact can evolve into digital channels, or the perpetrator can maintain the same pressure through third parties.

The fact that the violation of an SPO constitutes a serious crime in England, and that the system was further expanded with the Crime and Policing Act that came into effect in 2026, paving the way for courts to issue these orders on their own initiative at the end of criminal proceedings, are concrete indicators of a holistic approach. Although the evaluations published by the British government point to problems such as delays in implementation and the inability to sufficiently operate positive obligations, the logic of the system is valuable in that it does not view the act of stalking as a simple violation of a non-approach order but establishes a mechanism personalized according to the nature of the risk.

A similar approach is also encountered in the Gewaltschutzgesetz regulation in Germany. German law grants the court the authority to prohibit the perpetrator from entering the victim's residence, being in their vicinity, visiting places they go to regularly, attempting to establish communication, or attempting to encounter the victim. Moreover, the Law explicitly includes persistent stalking against a person's clear will or monitoring via digital communication tools within the scope of protection measures.

In a period where digital tracking methods have become so widespread, prohibiting the perpetrator from only physically approaching the victim may be insufficient in every case. Methods such as fake accounts, different communication channels, contacts established through third parties, or the misuse of smart devices for tracking purposes must also be included in the scope of protection orders. Of course, it is essential that the boundaries of such interventions are drawn meticulously, observing the balance of proportionality and fundamental rights.

The conclusion to be drawn for Turkey is not to invent a completely new restraining mechanism, but to develop the existing structure in accordance with the nature of stalking. Instead of restraining orders given in the same template in every file, personalized measures that take into account the concrete nature of the stalking behavior can be constructed. If the perpetrator is physically stalking the victim, special distance rules can be introduced; if digital stalking is in question, clear prohibitions can be placed regarding social media accounts and communication channels, or contacts established through third parties can be clearly included in the scope of the measure.

However, it is not sufficient to pass off repeated violations each time with only a temporary coercive imprisonment. The repeated violation of a protection order is the clearest data that the risk is escalating. This situation should be accepted as a warning for expanding the scope of the measure, immediately activating electronic monitoring, or applying more severe protection tools. Electronic monitoring is one of the most functional tools of this tiered system, and the legal and technical infrastructure required for this already exists in Turkey. The effective use of electronic tags and similar systems for individuals who have previously violated measures or whose stalking persistence has intensified will prevent the protection order from being just a piece of paper that reacts only after a crime has been committed.

In conclusion, the strongest aspect of the mechanisms provided by Law No. 6284 is that it does not condemn the protection of the victim to the end of long-lasting criminal proceedings. However, the fundamental move needed in the face of the unique structure of the crime of stalking is to move this protection to a much more dynamic ground. An effective restraining order should be more than a standard text that only prohibits approaching the victim; it should be a holistic mechanism that considers the stalking behavior in all its aspects, narrows the perpetrator's field of movement, and can raise the protection bar in case of violation. Our current legal structure is not entirely foreign to this vision; what needs to be done is to transform restraining orders from template texts into a dynamic protection regime that can respond to the changing tactics of stalking, hardens as the risk increases, and reads a violation not just as a past rule violation but as a harbinger of a future serious danger.

Attorney Deniz Ali İlkem Demir