09 Sep Appeal For The Sake Of Law
T.C. SUPREME
10.Criminal Division
Mainly: 2014/2577
Decision: 2014/2611
Decision Date: 14.04.2014
CRIME OF DRUG TRAFFICKING – REQUEST FOR VIOLATION OF THE LAW – POSTPONING THE EXECUTION AT THE REQUEST OF THE CONVICT – THE NEED TO DECIDE TO REJECT THE APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE EXECUTION JUDGE – THE PROVISION IS BROKEN
SUMMARY: the law numbered 5275 on the execution of sentences of the prisoners of postponing the execution Prompt> titled Item, request the postponement of the execution of the execution decision making in relation to the carrying out of Public Prosecutor’s office appreciation rights recognition, public prosecutor’s office against the decision on the request for a stay of execution by the path of disregarding any law is not foreseen, convicts appeal against the decision of the decision of denial of H hakimligi defender of hit should be made when, the decision to delay the execution of the convicted person’s prison sentence with the acceptance of the appeal is against the law, and the desire to break it in the interests of the law was therefore considered appropriate.
(5237 P. K. m. 52, 62, 188, 191) (5275 S. K. m. 17, 98) (5271 P. K. m. 309) (12. CD. 14.11.2011 T. 2011/11301 E. 2011/4822 K.)
Case: High Justice Department convicted of drug traffickingH. at the execution stage of the sentence, Hatay 2. At the request of the decision of 07.11.2013 and 2013/1054 on the acceptance of the appeal given by the Heavy Criminal Court for the benefit of the law, the file was sent to our apartment in the annex to the notification letter of the prosecutor general of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 07.02.2014.
File’s been reviewed.
As Necessary, Discussed And Considered:
Verdict: from the file under review;
a) convicted Y.H. on 03.05.2007, the Hatay Heavy Criminal Court decided 2007/104 and 2007/422 with the number 188/3, 191/3, 62 and 52 of the TCK. in accordance with the Articles 2 years 1 month imprisonment and 1000 TL judicial fine is punishable, the provision has been finalized,
b) the prisoner at the stage of execution, Law No. 5275 17. in accordance with the article, the request to postpone the execution of the prison sentence for 6 months was rejected by the Hatay Prosecutor General’s Office on 26.09.2013 by Decision No. 2013/1458,
c) after the convicted defense appealed the decision to reject the request to postpone the execution, the judge of the Hatay execution on 11.10.2013 2013/2151 basis and 2013/2136 decision number and the prosecutor of the Republic decided that there is no place to decide on the request for the convicted defense, since the legal path against the decision to refuse the request to postpone the execution is not provided for,
d) after the defense of the convict appealed the decision of the Hatay execution Judge, Hatay 2. By the Heavy Criminal Court on 07.11.2013 2013/1054 with the acceptance of the appeal with different business numbers to the cancellation of the decision of the Hatay execution Judge dated 11.10.2013, in accordance with the request of the convicted Prosecutor General’s Office of Hatay dated 26.09.2013 by the cancellation of the decision of Refusal, law No. 5275 17/1. in accordance with the article, it was decided that the prison sentence of the convicted person, which is 2 years and 1 month, should be postponed from 28.09.2013 until 28.03.2014
It was understood.
In a request and notice for violation of the law, <Supreme Court on a similar issue 12. 2011/11301 dated 14/11/2011 of the Criminal Division, based on the decision of 2011/4822 as stated in the law numbered 5275 on the execution of sentences of conviction or sliced pause in the interpretation of the provision, the penalty has been fulfilled, whether or not partially or completely can be filed later, which was enacted in the law in favour of the prisoner, if the sentencing court to determine the punishment to be carried out or elimination of duraksaman is asked to decide> 98/1 shaped. Article 17 of the same law. article 98 of Law No. 5275 does not cover objections to rejection decisions issued by prosecutors on requests for postponement of execution, the request to postpone the execution is not a situation that causes pause in the account of the sentence to be imposed. it was not necessary to request a decision from the court specified in the article, and the decision to reject the appeal in writing, rather than accepting the appeal, without regard to the refusal of the request for the postponement of the execution, will not be able to object to the rejection decisions made by the prosecutors.> by saying, Hatay 2. It was requested that the decision of the High Criminal Court dated 07.11.2013 be violated in the interest of the law.
Although it was stated that the authority had not been hit in deciding to reject the appeal, it was understood that the appeal had been accepted in the concrete case.
Conclusion: Law No. 5275 on the execution of criminal and security measures entitled <postponement of execution at the request of the convict> 17. in the article, request the postponement of the execution of the execution decision making in relation to the carrying out of Public Prosecutor’s office appreciation rights recognition, public prosecutor’s office against the decision on the request for a stay of execution by the path of disregarding any law is not foreseen, the execution of convicts dated 11.10.2013 hakimligi defender of Hatay’s appeal against the decision of the decision should be made when a denial of objections with the adoption of the postponement of the execution of his sentence the prisoner is unlawful and therefore place the decision in favor of the law seen in the reversal request; Hatay 2. 309 of CMK No. 5271 of the decision of the Heavy Criminal Court dated 07.11.2013 and amended 2013/1054. Article 3. violation of the law in accordance with paragraph 309 of the same law. Article 4. in order for the necessary actions to be taken in accordance with Paragraph (A) of the paragraph, it was unanimously decided on 14.04.2014 that the file should be sent to the prosecutor general’s office of the Supreme Court for transmission to the said Court.
No Comments