Supreme Court 2. Criminal Department

Basis: 2011/9118

Verdict: 2011/6579

142/1-f, 168/1, 62 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237. punishable by imprisonment of 6 months and 20 days in accordance with articles 231/5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271. in accordance with article 231/8. in accordance with Article 5 of the decision to be subject to probation for a period of years and the disclosure of the provision to be left back, there is no discretion in the power of attorney in favor of the participating institution, …dated 11/03/2010 and 2009/343 basis of the Criminal Court of First Instance, 2010/43 against the decision of the participating deputy to accept the appeal and the provision of attorney fee in favor of the participating institution regarding the correction of the provision …Heavy Criminal Court dated 06/04/2010 and 2010/281 different business no decision against the high Ministry of justice 14.01.2011 day and 2010/637-3711 for the benefit of the law on the case file

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

According to the scope of the whole file, although the decision to decline the disclosure of the provision has been made, the decision has been challenged in terms of not ruling on the power of attorney fee, but if the appeal against the decision to decline the disclosure of the provision is applied to the legal way, the objection authority can examine whether there are conditions, CMK No. 5271, where the illegalities in the content of the undisclosed conviction provision cannot be controlled, such illegalities can only be examined through the appellate law if the decision is made to drop the case or if the provision is announced or a new provision is established, since there is no hit in the decision in writing, instead of the rejection of the appeal.nun 309. in accordance with the article, the need to overturn the said decision has been notified based on the request to overturn it for the benefit of the law.

DULY NOTED:

About the accused … CMK No. 5271 on the charge of electricity theft by Decision No. 2009/343, 2010/43 of the Criminal Court of First Instance, dated 11.03.2010.of 231/5. in accordance with the article of the decision to leave the explanation of the provision has been decided, the participating Attorney, upon the objection that the power of attorney should not be ruled, …by the Heavy Criminal Court, the conditions of the disclosure of the provision has been evaluated and the reason for the decision to leave the provision back, although it is accepted that there is no impropriety, the attorney’s fee shall be taken from the defendant and given to the participating institution,” the decision has been made to correct the provision.

231 of law 5271. Article 5.12 of the same article if the disclosure of the provision is held back because of the regulation in paragraph “the cancellation of the provision shall mean that the established provision shall not have any legal effect on the accused”.subject to appeal in accordance with paragraph 231 of the law No. 5271 in terms of this decision, but by the objection authority. a limited assessment can be made as to whether the conditions in Article 5 of this article exist. supervision of the provision, which has not yet acquired assets in accordance with paragraph 231 and 271 of the aforementioned law, as stated in the decision of the Supreme Court Penal General Assembly dated 03.02.2009 and 2009/4-13 basis, 2009/12. it would be against the regulations in its articles.

The illegalities in the content of the provision can only be subject to the control of ordinary and extraordinary ways of law if the provision becomes a legal entity. Therefore; if the sentence of the conviction, which is not disclosed and which has not gained legal assets, can only be subject to appeal review after the disclosure of the sentence, the decision to be dropped or the establishment of a new conviction sentence, if the appeal is finalized without recourse to the law, in case the conditions are found, it can be examined by the, the objection of the participating attorney regarding the content of the provision has been decided to accept, the provision of the law for the benefit of the law due to the correction of attorney’s fee to be seen in place of the request to disrupt, ( … ) given and finalised by the Heavy Criminal Court, 06.04.2010 day and 2010/281 D.Resolution No. 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271.Article 4.in accordance with Paragraph (A) of its paragraph, a unanimous decision was made on 30.03.2011.