08 Aug Passive Resistance
T.C.
SUPREME
4.CRIMINAL DIVISION 2006/5382 2006/13684 11.7.2006
Passive resistance to the officer on duty ( difficulty not to get into the police vehicle and try to escape – passive resistance is not a crime to be removed/acquittal provision )
Passive resistance (the act of being removed from the crime/acquittal must be ruled-to avoid getting into the police vehicle and to try to escape )
Difficulty in not getting into a police vehicle and trying to escape ( passive resistance to the officer on duty – the act of passive resistance is not a crime )
Resistance to the officer ( difficulty in not riding in the police vehicle and trying to escape – passive resistance to the act of being removed from the crime / acquittal should be ruled )
765 / m.260
5237 / m.265
Summary: in the action of the police complainant who wants to get away while being put on the team vehicle because of the defendant’s failure to give his identity and who wants to prevent it, the defendant is injured by his own fault even though he does not have any action; the act of difficulty not to get into the vehicle and trying to escape constitutes the crime of passive resistance as prescribed in TCK No. 765, TCY No. 5237.of 265.in the article, the crime of resisting to avoid the task with algebra and threat is regulated and the passive actions of persons against the officer that do not involve algebra and threat are not adopted as a crime.
Case: accused of resisting the officer in charge 260 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 765, Law No. 647 on the execution of sentences 4. 77 YTL in accordance with the articles. of criminal fines, B. 1. The Court of Cassation, which contains the order of the Criminal Court of First Instance, dated 20.12.2005, and the order of 2004/215 and 2005/853 against the decision given by the Ministry of justice for the benefit of the law No. 22134 and 25.5.2006 day, which contains the request for annulment order C.14.6.2006 days and 120203 no communiqué of the Attorney General of the case file sent to the Department was examined and discussed as required:
Verdict: “according to the scope of the dossier, TCK No. 765 on the defendant for the charge of passive Strength.nun is more in favor of the mentioned Law of betle 260.although the conviction provision has been established in accordance with the article, the court considers the defendant’s action to be an act of unwilling to give the identity of the police officer on duty upon asking for his identity and to want to walk away, considering that the action is not regulated in the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, considering that there is no, there was no hit in issuing a written conviction instead of acquittal.” is called.
In the act of causing difficulty not to get into the vehicle and attempting to escape, TCY No. 765 of the act of attempting to escape and attempting to escape, in the act of the police complainant wanting to get away while being put into the team vehicle because the defendant did not give his identity and to prevent it, although the defendant did not have anyof 260. TCY No. 5237, which entered into force on 1.6.2005, constituted the crime of passive resistance as stipulated in the article.of 265.it is understood that the passive actions of the persons against the officer, which do not involve algebra and threats, are not adopted as a crime, so the thought in the communiqué has been seen in place.
Result: TCY No. 765.of 260.article 5237, TCY.of 265.based on the belief that it is in the interest of the defendant compared to Article 260. the provision established by applying the article, CMY No. 5271.in accordance with article 309/1-3 of the law for the benefit of corruption, passive resistance act 5237 with TCY removed from being a crime charged with the accused’s acquittal of the crime, the sentence not to be imposed, 11.7.2006 was unanimously decided.
No Comments