OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT DUE TO THE LACK OF CONCLUSIVE AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THE CRIME OF THEFT - AŞIKOĞLU LAW OFFİCE
Aşıkoğlu started his position as the Alanya Public Prosecutor in 2009 and continued until 2013 when he quit his position to initiate his career as an attorney at law.
alanya,hukuk,bürosu,avukat,dava,danışma,mehmet,aşıkoğlu,mehmet aşıkoğlu,savcı,eski,ceza,ticaret,haciz,alacak,borçlar,Mehemet,Aşıkoğlu,alanya,avukat,hukuk,bürosu,alanya avukat, mehmet aşıkoğlu, alanya hukuk bürosu,Kerim Uysal,Kerem Yağdır,ahmet sezer, mustafa demir, hüsnü sert, jale karakaya, murat aydemir, ayşegül yanmaz
20911
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-20911,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-14.2,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.13.0,vc_responsive
 

OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT DUE TO THE LACK OF CONCLUSIVE AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THE CRIME OF THEFT

03 Apr OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT DUE TO THE LACK OF CONCLUSIVE AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THE CRIME OF THEFT

Posted at 00:38h in General, INFORMATION by
0 Likes

T.C Supreme Court 2. Criminal Department Base No:2014/30129 Decision No:2016/9161, Decision Date:12.5.2016

COURT : Criminal Court of First Instance
Crime : Theft, violation of housing immunity
SENTENCE : Conviction
The file was examined and considered as necessary;
I- The accused with the child … dragged into the crime;
The defendants….. and ……. about Article 53 of the TCK. the Constitutional Court’s decision No. 08/10/2015 of the day and No. 2014/140 of the 2015/2015, which entered into force on 24/11/2015 on the cancellation of some parts of the article, was also taken into consideration and it was considered possible to observe the implementation of the deprivation of rights provided for in this article at the execution stage.
According to the hearing, the evidence collected, the rationale, the judge’s opinion and discretion, the appeals are not in place, the rejection and APPROVAL of the provisions in accordance with the request,
II- The accused … and the child who was dragged into the crime;
1- In the face of the understanding that the defendant … was convicted of another crime in the same jurisdiction on the date of sentencing; the defendant was not asked if he wanted to be held immune from trial and no decision was taken on this matter, by not being present at the hearing dated 08/03/2013 where the verdict was announced and his conviction was decided by CMK No. 5271 196. restriction of the right of defense in violation of the article,
2- A child who has been dragged into a crime … In the face of the defense that he has not committed the crimes committed, a child who has been dragged into a crime or other crime., ……,
Since the appeals of the juvenile defender and the defendant who were dragged into the crime, which required a violation, were considered in place in this regard, it was unanimously decided that the provisions would be OVERTURNED for the reasons described on 12/05/2016.

 

You can read other articles and petition examples by clicking here.

Tags:
, , , , ,
No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran