T.C. SUPREME
8.Criminal Division
Basis: 2013/9303
Decision: 2013/20061
Decision Date: 04.07.2013
CRIME OF POSSESSION OF AN UNLICENSED WEAPON – NO LEGAL PATH IS PROVIDED AGAINST THE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE DECISION MADE BY THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC, WHICH CONDUCTS THE EXECUTION, ON THE REQUEST FOR THE POSTPONEMENT OF THE EXECUTION – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION
SUMMARY: postponing the execution of the law on the execution of sentences of the prisoners prompt> item in terms of decision making and execution entitled defer the execution of carrying out the Dec about giving to the public prosecutor discretion is recognized by the prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of carrying out the execution in the direction of positive or negative about the postponement of the execution of law against a decision given prompt to the path is not anticipated, not in the aspect of the Criminal Court the authority to review appeals of…, the request is rejected while <this is not a decision that has required to overturn the decision.
(5275 P. K. m. 17) (5271 P. K. m. 309)
Case: convicted of possession of an unlicensed weapon. M.13/1 of the Firearms and knives and other tools Act No. 6136. Bakırköy 22 on the punishment of 1 year imprisonment and judicial fines of 1,500.00 Turkish lira in accordance with article. 17 of the Law No. 5275 on the execution of criminal and security measures of the convict during the execution of the decision of the Criminal Court of first instance dated 04/03/2010 and 2009/872 basis, 2010/130. the penalty for denial of the request to be postponed for 6 months in accordance with the Bakırköy public prosecutor dated 02/01/2013 2012/2-8466 ilamat upon the adoption of appeals against the decision of the prisoner of his sentence will be postponed for a period of 6 months Bakırköy 22. Bakırköy 11 on the fact that there is no place for a decision to be made on appeal to the October decision of the Criminal Court of first instance dated 08/01/2013 and numbered 2009/872 basis, 2010/130. As for the file of the Criminal Court covering the decision of 22/01/2013 and 2013/500 different business;
Law No. 5275 on the execution of criminal and security measures entitled 17. if the prosecutor general’s Office conducting the execution has decided in a positive or negative way to postpone the execution, the law against this decision is not provided for, since the actual court has not been hit in deciding to postpone the execution on the objection of the convict.5271 CMK with a bet. the main court has decided to postpone the execution on the objection of the convict. the main court has decided to postpone the execution on the objection of the decriminalized.nun 309. 26.03.2013 day of the Ministry of Justice General Directorate of Criminal Affairs and the request to overturn the Law No. 20028 in accordance with the article on the need to overturn the said decision in accordance with the Supreme Court of Cassation C. Attorney general’s office 09.07.2013 day and PUK/2013-128476 with the notification of our apartment was examined.
As necessary, discussed and considered:
Decision: Law No. 5275 on the execution of criminal and security measures entitled 17. Article 22 bakirkey has given discretion to the Prosecutor General of the Republic, who conducts the execution, in terms of deciding on postponement and decapitation of the execution, since the law does not provide for a positive or negative decision made by the Prosecutor General of the Republic, who conducts the execution, on the request to postpone the execution. Because the Criminal Court of first instance has no authority to examine the objection, it is necessary to reject the request and to decide in writing that ,
Conclusion: Bakırköy 11 since the content of the notification of the Attorney General of the Supreme Court based on the request of the Ministry of Justice to break the law is seen in place in this respect. CMK of the decision of the Heavy Criminal Court on 22/01/2013 day, 2013/500 different business.nun 309. in accordance with the article, the court of Cassation to be sent to the site of the file to be corrupted, subsequent proceedings to be carried out by the Court of Cassation C. Tevdiine to the attorney general’s office was unanimously decided on 04.07.2013.
