Age of Consent in Turkey: Why 15, 18 and Complaint Rules Matter

A single number can mislead here. “15” describes a dividing line between different protective provisions, while “18” defines childhood in the code. The type of conduct, the child’s ability to understand it, coercion, the offender’s position and the applicable complaint rules all affect the legal analysis.

Article 103 draws an important line at 15

Article 103(1)(a) covers every form of sexual behaviour involving a child under 15. It also covers an older child whose capacity to understand the legal meaning and consequences of the act has not developed. For other children, paragraph (b) addresses sexual behaviour involving force, threats, deception or another factor affecting the child’s will. Those distinctions must remain visible when discussing apparent agreement. Article 103(1).

The provision contains different penalties and aggravating circumstances, including particular protection for children under 12. The under-12 reference does not reduce the under-15 protection; it affects specified penalties. Article 103 also has a limited complaint provision for the lesser form described as sarkıntılık when the alleged offender is a child. That clause should not be generalised into a rule that every under-15 case needs a complaint. Article 103(1)–(4).

Article 104 is a separate offence, not a permission after 15

Article 104(1) provides two to five years’ imprisonment, upon complaint, for the specified intercourse with a child who has reached 15 without force, threats or deception. The Constitutional Court upheld the provision in its judgment of 18 March 2021. It expressly explained that the conduct remains an offence despite agreement, while investigation of the basic form depends on a complaint. Article 104(1); Constitutional Court, E.2020/82, K.2021/20, paragraph 21; printed page 1139.

The term cinsel ilişki has a specific judicial meaning. The Court of Cassation’s Criminal General Assembly distinguished its scope from the broader sexual-behaviour concept in Article 103. It should not be translated into a claim that Article 104 covers every possible sexual act. Equally, conduct outside that particular offence is not automatically lawful: Article 103, harassment, exploitation and image offences may still require examination. Criminal General Assembly, E.2022/46, K.2023/303, 24 May 2023, section V.B.

Article 104 does not expressly limit the alleged offender to an adult. The same General Assembly decision concerned a juvenile offender and distinguished the application of Articles 103 and 104. Therefore, a summary saying the provision concerns only adults, or that every relationship between minors is exempt, would be inaccurate. E.2022/46, K.2023/303.

The historical reference to a five-year age difference in older versions is also misleading if presented as a current defence. The old paragraph 2 was annulled, and its current replacement concerns a different situation: a relationship in which marriage is legally prohibited. The operative current article contains no general maximum-age-gap exception. Article 104 and amendment annotations.

A complaint condition does not make the conduct lawful

For the basic Article 104 offence, complaint is a condition of prosecution. It does not mean the conduct becomes lawful whenever nobody has yet complained. Article 73 generally sets a six-month period from the entitled person’s knowledge of the act and the offender, subject to the limitation rules. Identifying the correct claimant and starting date can require advice; do not calculate a deadline solely from an online summary. Articles 73 and 104.

In O.D., the Constitutional Court explained that a discerning minor has a personal right to complain. A parent’s right as legal representative is not independent of the child’s right, and the child’s wishes prevail where those wishes conflict in the circumstances discussed. This is a specific explanation of complaint rights and constitutional standing, not a restriction on reporting suspected abuse under every provision. O.D., application 2016/11927, 2 December 2020, paragraphs 26–29.

Article 104(2) removes the complaint requirement where the offender and victim are within a legally prohibited marriage relationship. Paragraph 3 similarly addresses specified pre-adoption care and foster-family protection, care or supervision roles. These aggravated forms must not be described as if the basic complaint rule applied to them. Article 104(2)–(3).

Capacity, authority and exploitation need their own checks

For an older child, whether the child can understand the act’s legal meaning and consequences matters under Article 103. Force, threats, deception and other influences on the child’s will may also bring conduct within that provision. Specified family, educational, healthcare, care and supervision relationships, or abuse of public or service authority, aggravate the Article 103 offence where its elements are established. A label such as “consensual” cannot settle all these questions. Article 103(1), (3) and (4).

Article 227 separately criminalises inducing or facilitating a child’s prostitution and specified procurement, accommodation or intermediation. Preparatory acts towards the child-prostitution offence are also punished as the completed offence. These protections concern exploitation of a child as defined by the code, rather than ending at the Article 103 dividing line of 15. Articles 6(1)(b) and 227(1).

Sexual images and private recordings have separate rules

Article 226(3) addresses using children, representative child images or people appearing to be children in producing the specified obscene material. It separately lists conduct including importing, copying, offering or selling, transporting, storing, exporting, possessing or making those products available to others. A relationship’s apparent agreement does not replace this separate statutory analysis. Article 226(3).

Article 226(7) has particular wording for scientific works and for artistic or literary works. The artistic and literary limb excludes paragraph 3 and requires preventing access by children. It should not be paraphrased as a general private-image or peer exception. The classification of a particular work and any other applicable offence need separate advice. Article 226(7).

Article 134 separately protects private life against the specified recording and unlawful disclosure of private images or sounds. Permission to participate in an encounter does not by itself establish permission to record it or disclose a recording. Article 105 also addresses sexual harassment, with aggravated circumstances including the specified use of postal or electronic communications and certain care or authority positions. Articles 105 and 134.

Civil majority and criminal responsibility are different questions

Civil Code Article 11 ordinarily fixes majority at 18 and provides that marriage makes a person civilly adult. Article 12 allows judicial declaration of civil majority in specified circumstances from 15. Those are civil-status rules. They must be read separately from the Criminal Code’s express definition of a child as someone under 18; they should not be used as a blanket explanation that marriage or emancipation erases a sexual offence. Civil Code, Articles 11–12; Criminal Code, Article 6(1)(b).

Criminal Code Article 31 separately addresses the alleged offender’s responsibility. It excludes criminal responsibility under 12, requires the specified assessment for ages 12–14, and provides a separate sentencing framework for ages 15–17. These rules concern the alleged offender; they do not change the protected child’s age or create a general peer defence. The current text includes an August 2026 amendment addressing specified homicide and aggravated-injury cases, which should not be confused with a sexual-consent exception. Article 31.

Common questions

Does turning 15 make intercourse lawful?

Not as a general rule. Article 104(1) describes a separate complaint-based offence even without force, threats or deception. Article 103 may still apply in the circumstances it specifies. Articles 103–104.

Is there a current five-year peer exception?

No general age-gap defence appears in current Article 104. Historical annotations about an annulled paragraph must not be mistaken for present permission. Article 104.

Can the parents’ wishes always replace the child’s complaint decision?

The Constitutional Court’s explanation concerning a discerning minor distinguishes the child’s personal right from the parent’s representative role. The applicable offence, the child’s capacity and the procedural circumstances must be established. O.D., paragraph 26.

Sources and practical next steps

Checked 6 November 2026 against the Ministry of Justice’s full public Criminal Code text, service version 18, including 2026 amendment annotations; the full Civil Code, service version 36; and the cited judicial decisions. The official court collection contains the full 2021 judgment at printed pages 1133–1140, PDF pages 180–187. Older judgments may quote historical penalties, so the current statute supplies the present penalty wording here.

Some official public links require JavaScript. The full legal text and source copies used for this editorial check are retained in our research records. This is an editorial English explanation, not an official translation or an individual legal opinion; no independent lawyer review is claimed.

For a specific situation, record the dates, exact ages, type of conduct, capacity, any force or deception, authority relationships, complaint history and any images or recordings. Those facts help a Turkish lawyer identify the applicable offence and procedure. Browse the Law & Rights library, compare the separate Greek and Bulgarian frameworks, or read our editorial approach.