Decision Of The Supreme Court Of The Republic Of Turkey<\/p>\n
15.Criminal Division
\nBasis: 2015\/10838
\nDecision: 2016\/6627
\nDecision Date: 22.06.2016<\/p>\n
CRIME OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY \u2013 SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THE ORIGINAL CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMOUNT OF PUNISHMENT REQUIRED BY THE CRIME-REDUCTION OF THE PUBLIC CASE<\/p>\n
Abstract: since it is understood that the six-year statute of limitations of the original case occurred from the date of the crime to the date of the decision, it was decided that the public case filed should be dropped due to the statute of limitations that took place, as the amount and Nev of the punishment required by the crime imposed on the child who was dragged into the crime.<\/p>\n
(5237 PP . Law. material. 66, 67, 125, 151, 152, 265)<\/p>\n
Case and decision: the provisions relating to the conviction of a child dragged into a crime for defamation, resisting a public official for not doing his duty and damaging public property were appealed by the child dragged into a crime defense, and the case was considered necessary by examining the case,<\/p>\n
1 – in the review of Appeals for decisions made on charges of defamation and resisting a public official not to perform his duty;<\/p>\n
No. 231 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure No. 5271. 231\/12 of the same law against the decision on the \u201cwithdrawal of the disclosure of the provision\u201d issued in accordance with article and which is not of a concluding nature in the case. according to the article, the way of Appeal is clear and there is no opportunity to appeal, about the child who was dragged into the crime, given on 04\/07\/2013, against the decision to leave the disclosure of the provision, the child who was dragged into the crime defense, 11.07.2013 on the objection made by the petition of the transfer,….. As it is understood that the decision made by the rejection decision made as a result of the review of the High Criminal Court has been finalized, the appeal request of the child defense who has been dragged into the crime is 8\/1 of law 5320. 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 1412, which must be applied in accordance with article. refusal in accordance with the article,<\/p>\n
2 – in the appellate review of the sentence given for damage to public property;<\/p>\n
Conclusion: 6-year statute of limitations calculated in accordance with articles 66\/1-e, 66\/2 and 67\/4 of the same law with Article 152\/1-a amended by law 6545, in which the punishment required by the crime is subject to the amount and Nev of the child who is dragged into the crime as of the date of the crime; with the understanding that it occurred from the date of the crime to the date of the decision; 8\/1 of law 5320. article 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 1412, which must be applied in accordance with article. in accordance with article 322 of the same law, the provision is broken, but this issue does not require a retrial. 223\/8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 5271 due to the statute of limitations of a public case filed for damage to public property on the basis of the authority granted by Article. his fall was decided by unanimous decision on 22.06.2016.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Decision Of The Supreme Court Of The Republic Of Turkey 15.Criminal Division Basis: 2015\/10838 Decision: 2016\/6627 Decision Date: 22.06.2016 CRIME OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY \u2013 SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THE ORIGINAL CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMOUNT OF PUNISHMENT REQUIRED BY THE CRIME-REDUCTION…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,220,218],"yoast_head":"\n