The detection and listening of intercepted communications is the listening and recording of the mutual conversations of telephone or similar telecommunications equipment and persons for intelligence purposes.

In cases where a judge’s decision or delay is inconvenient, the communication made through telecommunications can be detected, listened to, the signal information can be evaluated and recorded by the written order of the authorized administrative authority. In cases where delay is inconvenient, the written order shall be submitted to the approval of the competent and competent judge within 24 hours. The judge makes his decision within 24 hours at the latest. The injunction shall be eliminated if the term expires or the judge decides otherwise. In this case, the recordings of the content of the listening shall be destroyed within 10 days at the latest.; this situation is determined by a record and the record is kept for presentation in the audit. If the measure ends, the recordings relating to the content of the listening shall be destroyed within ten days at the latest. This situation is determined by a record and the record is kept for presentation in the audit. The decision and the written order shall include the identity of the person to whom the measure will be applied, the type of communication tool, the telephone numbers used or the code that allows the identification of the communication connection, and the type, scope and duration of the measure and the reasons that make the application to the measure necessary.

Judicial wiretapping is the listening and recording of the mutual conversations of telephone or similar telecommunications equipment and persons in order to obtain evidence in the investigation or prosecution stage for the crime.

Supervision of communication is provided as a secondary measure after the general collection of evidence, thus limiting the possibility of interference with one’s freedom of communication. The measure is conditional on the conduct of criminal investigation and prosecution for a crime and supervision of the communication of the suspect or defendant in that context. The fact that there are reasons for strong suspicion, that there is no possibility of obtaining evidence in any other way, and that the subject matter of wiretapping and recording phone calls; CMK md. It is listed as being covered by one of the offences listed in 135/6. The judge decides on the detection of listening and communication. In the judge’s decision, the type of the offence, the identity of the person to whom the injunction will be applied, the code that allows the determination of the Communication Connection, The Nature, content and duration of the injunction are specified. In cases where delay is inconvenient, the Public Prosecutor may issue a wiretap and determination order. The Public Prosecutor immediately submits his / her decision to the approval of the judge and the judge makes his / her decision within 24 hours at the latest. If the deadline expires or the judge decides otherwise, the measure is removed immediately by the public prosecutor. If the judge does not approve and disapproves the decision of the prosecutor’s office, the prosecutor’s office may appeal against that decision. In the event that records relating to detection and listening are destroyed, within 15 days at the latest from the end of the investigation phase, the Public Prosecutor’s Office shall give written information to the relevant person about the cause, scope, duration and outcome of the measure. The injunction can be made for a maximum of 3 months. The period can be extended once and lasts for 6 months in total.

Cases Where Wiretapping Violates Freedom Of Communication

National Security, Public Order, Crime Prevention, general protection of health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others relating to the duly given one or more of the reasons for the judge’s decision without; Where delay is prejudicial, again, for these reasons also, which has been authorized by law to be placed on a written order from the authority; in case of violation of privacy and the blocking of communication.
Freedom of communication, by the Public Authority, National Security, Public Safety, material welfare of the country, protection of order and order, prevention of crime, health or morality or the rights and freedoms of others outside the purpose of intervention.
CMK 135 as a protection measure of freedom of communication. As a protected legal benefit, regulated in Article 132 of the Turkish penal code. edited in Article. The following are the cases regulated as violations of these articles:;
– Violation of the privacy of communication between persons or the realization of this breach of privacy by recording the contents of the communication.

– Unlawful disclosure of the contents of communication between persons.

Public disclosure of the contents of the communications made with him without the consent of the other party.

– Publication of the content of communications between persons through the press and publication.

Wiretap In Defense

As a result of the defence immunity of the defender, the right to interview and correspondence without supervision and monitoring of the suspect and the defendant (CMK Article 154), supervision of his communication with the suspect and the defendant is prohibited. In this case, the Office of the defender, the residence and the telecommunications equipment in the settlement cannot be listened to. While there is no listening ban in terms of telecommunications equipment located outside these places, no ban has been issued in terms of mobile phones. However, communication between the suspect /defendant and the defender cannot be recorded in accordance with CMK 135/2, as the defense has the right to abstain from testimony despite the absence of prohibition.

The detection and listening of intercepted communications is the listening and recording of the mutual conversations of telephone or similar telecommunications equipment and persons for intelligence purposes.

In cases where a judge’s decision or delay is inconvenient, the communication made through telecommunications can be detected, listened to, the signal information can be evaluated and recorded by the written order of the authorized administrative authority. In cases where delay is inconvenient, the written order shall be submitted to the approval of the competent and competent judge within 24 hours. The judge makes his decision within 24 hours at the latest. The injunction shall be eliminated if the term expires or the judge decides otherwise. In this case, the recordings of the content of the listening shall be destroyed within 10 days at the latest.; this situation is determined by a record and the record is kept for presentation in the audit. If the measure ends, the recordings relating to the content of the listening shall be destroyed within ten days at the latest. This situation is determined by a record and the record is kept for presentation in the audit. The decision and the written order shall include the identity of the person to whom the measure will be applied, the type of communication tool, the telephone numbers used or the code that allows the identification of the communication connection, and the type, scope and duration of the measure and the reasons that make the application to the measure necessary.

Judicial wiretapping is the listening and recording of the mutual conversations of telephone or similar telecommunications equipment and persons in order to obtain evidence in the investigation or prosecution stage for the crime.

Supervision of communication is provided as a secondary measure after the general collection of evidence, thus limiting the possibility of interference with one’s freedom of communication. The measure is conditional on the conduct of criminal investigation and prosecution for a crime and supervision of the communication of the suspect or defendant in that context. The fact that there are reasons for strong suspicion, that there is no possibility of obtaining evidence in any other way, and that the subject matter of wiretapping and recording phone calls; CMK md. It is listed as being covered by one of the offences listed in 135/6. The judge decides on the detection of listening and communication. In the judge’s decision, the type of the offence, the identity of the person to whom the injunction will be applied, the code that allows the determination of the Communication Connection, The Nature, content and duration of the injunction are specified. In cases where delay is inconvenient, the Public Prosecutor may issue a wiretap and determination order. The Public Prosecutor immediately submits his / her decision to the approval of the judge and the judge makes his / her decision within 24 hours at the latest. If the deadline expires or the judge decides otherwise, the measure is removed immediately by the public prosecutor. If the judge does not approve and disapproves the decision of the prosecutor’s office, the prosecutor’s office may appeal against that decision. In the event that records relating to detection and listening are destroyed, within 15 days at the latest from the end of the investigation phase, the Public Prosecutor’s Office shall give written information to the relevant person about the cause, scope, duration and outcome of the measure. The injunction can be made for a maximum of 3 months. The period can be extended once and lasts for 6 months in total.

Cases Where Wiretapping Violates Freedom Of Communication

National Security, Public Order, Crime Prevention, general protection of health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others relating to the duly given one or more of the reasons for the judge’s decision without; Where delay is prejudicial, again, for these reasons also, which has been authorized by law to be placed on a written order from the authority; in case of violation of privacy and the blocking of communication.
Freedom of communication, by the Public Authority, National Security, Public Safety, material welfare of the country, protection of order and order, prevention of crime, health or morality or the rights and freedoms of others outside the purpose of intervention.
CMK 135 as a protection measure of freedom of communication. As a protected legal benefit, regulated in Article 132 of the Turkish penal code. edited in Article. The following are the cases regulated as violations of these articles:;
– Violation of the privacy of communication between persons or the realization of this breach of privacy by recording the contents of the communication.

– Unlawful disclosure of the contents of communication between persons.

Public disclosure of the contents of the communications made with him without the consent of the other party.

– Publication of the content of communications between persons through the press and publication.

Wiretap In Defense

As a result of the defence immunity of the defender, the right to interview and correspondence without supervision and monitoring of the suspect and the defendant (CMK Article 154), supervision of his communication with the suspect and the defendant is prohibited. In this case, the Office of the defender, the residence and the telecommunications equipment in the settlement cannot be listened to. While there is no listening ban in terms of telecommunications equipment located outside these places, no ban has been issued in terms of mobile phones. However, communication between the suspect /defendant and the defender cannot be recorded in accordance with CMK 135/2, as the defense has the right to abstain from testimony despite the absence of prohibition.