The Turkish Grand National Assembly approved the 12th Judicial Package to implement reforms and legal adjustments within the national justice system.

The legislation is intended to accelerate judicial processes and maintain ongoing justice reforms. However, the package has sparked debate due to conflicting reports regarding whether it includes specific legal relief for individuals known as "IBAN victims."

Muhammed Emin Akbaşoğlu, an AK Party Group Deputy Chairman, said the 12th Judicial Package consists of 30 articles [1]. The package was presented to the assembly and moved toward adoption following discussions in the Justice Commission on June 24, 2026 [2].

Central to the public debate is the inclusion of provisions for those facing legal issues related to IBAN transfers. İdris Şahin, a lawmaker from the DEVA Party, said he brought the situation of IBAN victims to the agenda of the Justice Commission [3].

Reports on the final content of the package are contradictory. Gazete Vatan said the package contains an article providing sentence reductions and other facilities for IBAN victims [4]. Conversely, Cumhuriyet said the proposal did not include headers related to IBAN, executions, or the Attorneyship Law, suggesting the expected regulations remained outside the final text [5].

Further contradictions exist regarding the scope of the assembly's approval. While Haberler.com said the package was presented and accepted [1], Cumhuriyet said certain expected regulations were missing, affecting the perceived completeness of the adoption [5].

These discrepancies highlight a gap between the legislative intent voiced by some deputies and the final language of the approved text. The 12th Judicial Package aims to streamline the courts—a priority for the current administration—but the exclusion or inclusion of the IBAN provisions remains a point of contention among major news outlets.

“"30 maddeden oluşan 12. Yargı Paketi'nin TBMM'ye sunulduğunu açıkladı."”

The uncertainty surrounding the IBAN provisions suggests a potential disconnect between political promises and the final legislative output. If the relief for IBAN victims was omitted despite public demand, the government may face pressure from the DEVA Party and affected citizens to introduce supplementary legislation. This situation reflects the complexities of the Turkish legislative process where high-profile 'victim' categories often drive the political urgency of judicial reform packages.