Court of Cassation 6.Criminal Department
Apartment:6
Date:2012
Base No:2010/2170
Decision No:2013/72
Source:UYAP
Related Articles:ARTICLES 143 AND 66 of the Turkish Commercial Code.
Related Concepts:143.ARTICLE-STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

T.C.
SUPREME
6. Criminal Department
ON BEHALF OF THE TURKISH NATION

Article No: 2010/2170 On Corruption
Decision No : 2013/72
Communiqué No: 6 – 2007/120398

THE DECISION EXAMINED;
COURT : Bakırköy 1. Criminal Court of First Instance
DATE : 13/12/2006
NUMBER : 2005/1081(E) and 2006/999(K)
DEFENDANT : Mehmet Metin NAZLICAN
CRIME : Theft
SENTENCE : Conviction
THE APPELLANT : Your defense of the accused
THE THOUGHT IN THE COMMUNIQUÉ : Do not disrupt

The verdict given by the Local Court was appealed, and the file was discussed according to the nature, type of punishment, duration and date of the crime of the application:

493/1, 102/3, 104/2 of TCY No. 765, which complies with the defendant’s action. according to articles 142/1-b, 143/1, 53, 66/1-e, 67/4, which comply with the same crime of TCY No. 5237, which entered into force on 01.06.2005. as a result of the application of the articles separately and as a whole, the aforementioned Law No. 7/2, Law No. 5252 No. 9/3. in view of the articles, the provisions of Law No. 5237 in terms of the statute of limitations are for the benefit of the accused and the same Law 66/1-e, 67/4 from 17.04.2000, when the crime was committed, until the date of the examination. the 12-year period stipulated in the articles has passed,

Since the appeals of the defendant Mehmet Metin Nazlican’s defense and the opinion in the communique were considered in place as such, the decision was OVERTURNED for the reason described, since the reason for the violation does not require a retrial 8/1 of the Law No. 5320. article 322 of the CMUK No. 1412. on the basis of the authority granted by the article, it was decided by majority vote on 14.01.2013 that the public case filed against the defendant should be dropped due to the statute of limitations.