COURT OF CASSATION 2. Criminal Department

Base: 2011/9118

Decision: 2011/6579

142/1-f, 168/1, 62 of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 of the accused for theft. in accordance with the articles 231/5 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271, punishable by imprisonment for 6 months and 20 days. to withdraw the disclosure of the provision in accordance with Article 231/8. in accordance with Article 5 of the Criminal Court of First Instance dated 11/03/2010 and based on 2009/343 that there is no room for the discretion of the proxy fee in favor of the participating institution, as it was decided to be subject to a probation measure for 5 years and to release the disclosure of the provision, 2010/43 of his objection against the decision of the participating institution and the participating attorneys Attorney’s fee provision in favor of the adoption of the provision in the form of different business …how to fix 06/04/2010 Heavy Penal Court against the decision issued by the Ministry of Justice dated 14.01.2011 2010/281 day and 2010/637-Law No. 3711 ruining it for the benefit of the request, based on the case’s chief prosecutor of the Supreme Court No. 07.03.2011 day and it was read with a constant 2011/62994 tebligname being sent to our apartment.

In the communiqué requesting to disrupt the benefit of the law;

All file according to the scope, in spite of the announcement of the award decision to be postponed in terms of the retainer ordered not to appeal the decision but the appeal against the decision to be postponed the announcement of the award is referenced in the path of the law, if the appeal authority decided to release the announcement of the award back to the fact that the conditions, whether it is back to the decision to release the announcement of the award can review whether there is a violation of law where the realization of the crime by the authorities TCL, characterization of the basics such as an evaluation could not be made, CMK 5271, since there is no hit in deciding the appeal in writing, rather than rejecting the appeal, provided that the violations of the law contained in the undisclosed conviction provision cannot be checked, such violations of the law can only be examined by law when the decision is made to drop the case or if the provision is explained or a new provision is established.No. 309. violation of the decision referred to in accordance with the article was notified on the basis of a request to violate the need for the benefit of the law.

IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY:

About the defendant … CMK No. 5271 for the theft of electricity by the decision of the Criminal Court of First Instance dated 11.03.2010 No. 2009/343, 2010/43.231/5 of the. according to the article, it was decided to be postponed the announcement of the award, and participating on the objection of the attorneys on retainer that would have hukmolunmam High Criminal Court by the announcement of the award back the release conditions are evaluated, and the announcement of the award on the grounds that misses in the absence of the decision to be postponed, although it is accepted as the subject of the objection with the acceptance of the appeal, “the minimum wage schedule in accordance with the law in effect on the date of judgment of $ 1,000.it has been decided that the attorney’s fee will be taken from the defendant and given to the participating institution,”the provision will be corrected.

231 of the Law No. 5271. Article 5.due to the regulation in paragraph “Withdrawal of disclosure of the provision means that the established provision does not have any legal consequences for the defendant”, if the disclosure of the provision is delayed, the same article 12.in respect of this decision, which is subject to appeal in accordance with paragraph 231 of the law No. 5271, only the appeal authority. a limited assessment may be made of the existence of the conditions in Article 5 of the said article. supervision of the provision that has not yet been established in accordance with paragraph 231 and 271 of the said law, as stated in the decision of the Criminal General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Cassation dated 03.02.2009 and numbered 2009/4-131, 2009/12. it will be contrary to the regulations in the articles.

Violations of the law contained in the provision may only be subject to the supervision of ordinary and extraordinary legal remedies if the provision has acquired legal existence. Therefore; the provision of conviction dropped back disclosure, the disclosure provision of the fall, after the installation of a new decision or the judgment of conviction, however, subject to appellate review, the appeal in the path of the law for the benefit of the law without resorting to break the law if found by way finalisation conditions that can be examined only in the context of the provision at this stage may be controlled in the face of the fact that noncompliance with the law, and undisclosed, including provision of a legal entity is not found in noncompliance with the law,, it does not have the ability to study by way of objection, it was decided to accept the objection of the participating attorney to the content of the provision, and the request to overturn it for the benefit of the law is considered appropriate due to the correction of the lawyer’s fee in the provision, which was granted and finalized by the Criminal Court on (…), 06.04.2010 day and 2010/281 D.Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 of the decision No. 1.article 4.in accordance with paragraph (a) of paragraph (a), it was decided unanimously on 30.03.2011.

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