09 Sep Decision On The Postponement Of The Execution By The Prosecutor General’s Office, Which Conducts The Execution
Decision Date: 04.07.2013
CRIME OF POSSESSION OF AN UNLICENSED WEAPON – NO LEGAL PATH IS PROVIDED AGAINST THE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE DECISION MADE BY THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC, WHICH CONDUCTS THE EXECUTION, ON THE REQUEST FOR THE POSTPONEMENT OF THE EXECUTION – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION
SUMMARY: prompt postponing the execution of the law on the execution of sentences of the prisoners> titled item in terms of decision making and execution defer the execution of carrying out the Dec about giving discretion to the public prosecutor recognized by the prosecutor’s Office of the Republic carrying out the execution of the postponement of the execution of law against a decision given in the direction of the path is anticipated to prompt positive or negative about not in the aspect of the Criminal Court of Appeals the authority to review not, the request is rejected while <is not the place for a decision that> has required to overturn the decision.
(5275 P. K. m. 17) (5271 P. K. m. 309)
Case: convicted of possession of an unlicensed weapon. M.13/1 of the Firearms and knives and other tools Act No. 6136. Bakırköy 22 on the punishment of 1 year imprisonment and judicial fines of 1,500.00 Turkish lira in accordance with article. 17 of the Law No. 5275 on the execution of criminal and security measures of the convict during the execution of the decision of the Criminal Court of first instance dated 04/03/2010 and 2009/872 basis, 2010/130. the penalty for denial of the request to be postponed for 6 months in accordance with the Bakırköy public prosecutor 2012/2 dated 02/01/2013-8466 ilamat upon the adoption of the decision of appeals against the prisoner that his sentence will be postponed for a period of 6 months of Bakırköy 22. Bakırköy 11 regarding the fact that there is no place for a decision to be made on appeal to the additional decision of the Criminal Court of first instance dated 08/01/2013 and numbered 2009/872 basis, 2010/130. As for the file of the Criminal Court covering the decision of 22/01/2013 and 2013/500 different business;
Law No. 5275 on the execution of criminal and security measures entitled <postponement of execution at the request of the convict> 17. if the prosecutor general’s Office conducting the execution has decided in a positive or negative way to postpone the execution, the law against this decision is not provided for, since the actual court has not been hit in deciding to postpone the execution on the objection of the convict.5271 CMK with a bet. the main court has decided to postpone the execution on the objection of the convict. the main court has decided to postpone the execution on the objection of the decriminalized. the main court has decided to postpone the execution on the objection of the convict.nun 309. 26.03.2013 day of the Ministry of Justice General Directorate of Criminal Affairs and the request to overturn the Law No. 20028 in accordance with the article on the need to overturn the said decision in accordance with the Supreme Court of Cassation C. Attorney general’s office 09.07.2013 day and PUK/2013-128476 with the notification of our apartment was examined.
As necessary, discussed and considered:
Decision: Law No. 5275 on the execution of criminal and security measures entitled <postponement of execution at the request of the convict> 17. Article 22 bakirkey has given discretion to the Prosecutor General of the Republic, who conducts the execution, in terms of deciding on postponement and decapitation of the execution, since the law does not provide for a positive or negative decision made by the Prosecutor General of the Republic, who conducts the execution, on the request to postpone the execution. Because the Criminal Court of first instance has no authority to examine the objection, it is necessary to reject the request and to decide in writing that <there is no room for a decision> ,
Conclusion: Bakırköy 11 since the content of the notification of the Attorney General of the Supreme Court based on the request of the Ministry of Justice to break the law is seen in place in this respect. CMK of the decision of the Heavy Criminal Court on 22/01/2013 day, 2013/500 different business.nun 309. in accordance with the article, the court of Cassation to be sent to the site of the file to be corrupted, subsequent proceedings to be carried out by the Court of Cassation C. Tevdiine to the attorney general’s office was unanimously decided on 04.07.2013.