AŞIKOĞLU LAW OFFİCE | PETITION FOR APPEAL AGAINST THE SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF THE CURFEW
Aşıkoğlu started his position as the Alanya Public Prosecutor in 2009 and continued until 2013 when he quit his position to initiate his career as an attorney at law.
alanya,hukuk,bürosu,avukat,dava,danışma,mehmet,aşıkoğlu,mehmet aşıkoğlu,savcı,eski,ceza,ticaret,haciz,alacak,borçlar,Mehemet,Aşıkoğlu,alanya,avukat,hukuk,bürosu,alanya avukat, mehmet aşıkoğlu, alanya hukuk bürosu,Kerim Uysal,Kerem Yağdır,ahmet sezer, mustafa demir, hüsnü sert, jale karakaya, murat aydemir, ayşegül yanmaz
19512
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-19512,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-14.2,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.4.7,vc_responsive
 

PETITION FOR APPEAL AGAINST THE SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF THE CURFEW

PETITION FOR APPEAL AGAINST THE SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF THE CURFEW

ALANYA MAGISTRATE’S COURT ON DUTY

THE OBJECTOR :

address :

THE OBJECTED INSTITUTION :

SUBJECT OF APPEAL : The curfew is my objection to an administrative fine.

INSTRUCTIONS:

I do not accept that I have violated the Curfew Restriction and the other allegations against me, but I use Article 11/C of the Provincial Special Administration Law and Articles 27 and 72 of the Public Hifzissihha Law as the legal justification for the curfew restriction within the scope of the circular issued by the Ministry of Interior. The ingredients are shown in Fig.
Although the Provincial Administration Law clearly provided the Governors with the right to decide on certain issues and take measures, it was stated that the granting of a curfew based on this law was based on Article 2 of the Constitution. I would like to evaluate that it is contrary to the principle of “determination of the rule of law” regulated within the scope of the Article. 27 and 72 of the Public Health Law No. 1593. When the article is examined, it is seen that it includes powers such as quarantining for a certain period of time in homes or hospitals for patients and suspected cases, conducting examinations for travelers, quarantining for outbreaks located in a particular neighborhood.

13 of the Constitution of the states contained in the relevant articles. Article 15. According to the article, I consider it to be contrary. Article 13 of the Constitution. Restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms contained in Article 15 of the Constitution. When the article is examined, it is necessary that war, mobilization or extraordinary issues arise from situations where it is possible to restrict the basic rights and freedoms of a person. However, although the corona virus is an epidemic disease, the Constitution does not provide for the conditions specified and is covered by Articles 27 and 72 of the Public Health Law. It contradicts its clauses. I am convinced that the curfew imposed within the scope of the Provincial Administrative Law and the Public Health Law is contrary to the articles of the Constitution.

Again, the curfew that caused the punishment to be imposed on me began to be applied not by law, but by a circular. This practice is also contrary to the essence of the Constitution.

An application for an appeal against another administrative fine on the same topic, which was made on the basis of the same grounds mentioned above, Republic of Turkey Adana 5. According to Article 28/8-b of the Code of Misdemeanors No. 5326, “due to the illegality of the administrative sanction decision” by the Magistrate’s Office, the administrative fine imposed on the applicant was accepted by the said Court “dated 24.02.2021 and dated 2021/1183 D.It was abolished by ”Decision No. 1″. I believe that this decision constitutes a “precedent decision” and I am submitting the decision october addition to this appeal petition.

The administrative fine imposed on me has been deducted by the administrative law enforcement agencies. However, the authority in this regard does not belong to law enforcement agencies, but to the Local Property Supervisor. The establishment of an administrative fine by law enforcement agencies is illegal from the point of view of authority. The Court of Cassation 19, which was considered as a result of an appeal against another administrative fine on the same subject, which took place on the basis of the same grounds, was again considered on the basis of an appeal against another administrative fine on the same subject. The Criminal Department’s Case Law Text evaluates the illegality from the point of view of the aforementioned authority as follows:
Since the administrative fines written in this Law are issued by the local property supervisor, it has been assessed that the transaction will be unlawful in terms of the ”authority“ element in terms of the administrative law enforcement agency responsible for keeping the incident (misdemeanor) minutes to establish an administrative fine, as the authority to make an administrative sanction decision belongs to the local property supervisor.

For all these reasons, I request that the administrative fine imposed on me be canceled.

CONCLUSION AND REQUEST: For the reasons briefly described above, I sincerely ask and request that the decision be made to cancel the administrative fine of 3,150.00 TL, which was issued in violation of the law, with the acceptance of my appeal. 08/06/2021

Name and Surname

No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran