T.R. SUPREME COURT
- Criminal Chamber
Basis: 2016/3945
Decision: 2016/5659
Decision Date: 29.06.2016
LOADING – INCORRECT JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMES OF LOADING AND MEMBERSHIP OF CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS WITH INSUFFICIENT AND INSUFFICIENT REASONS
SUMMARY: Conviction of the accused on the charges of looting and membership of a criminal organization on the contrary, with appropriate and insufficient justification, without being discussed and shown on the spot in a way that would allow the audit, the evidence regarding the direct or indirect participation of the accused in the looting against the participant, necessitated quashing.
(5237 S. K. Art. 39, 168)
Case and Decision: The judgment rendered by the Local Court is appealed by the accused … and his defense, also with a hearing; As it was understood that the accused and his defense did not attend the hearing even though they were duly informed of the hearing date and did not present any excuses, the file was discussed according to the nature, punishment type, duration and crime date of the application at the end of the examination conducted without a hearing in terms of the aforementioned accused.
Member …’s last sentence of Article 14/4 added to the Anti-Terror Law by Law No. 6526 is contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and international treaties, and therefore applying to the Constitutional Court for annulment; In the examination carried out by rejecting the opinions of the member… that the examination of the judgment rendered because the aforementioned article conflicts with the international agreements accepted by our country, is completely overturned in accordance with the principle of equality and the right to a fair trial;
I- Establishing an organization for the purpose of committing a crime against the accused …, membership of an organization about the accused …, …, …, … and …, the convictions established for the accused … of aiding a criminal organization, and the Public Prosecutor’s assistance to the criminal organization about … Contrary to Article 1, violation of Article 12/1 of the Law No. 6136 about … from the accused; against the accused … against the provisions of acquittal established on charges of violating Article 12/1 of the Law No. 6136, abuse of office, attempting to influence the person performing the judicial function, failure of the public official to report the crime, concealing and destroying the evidence of the crime, providing benefits for an unauthorized business and mediating prostitution. in the examination of appeals;
Regarding the defendants who were sentenced to …, …, …, …, …, … and …; 08.10.2015 day, 2014/140- 08.10.2015 day, 2014/140- It was deemed possible to observe the decision numbered 2015/85 Principles and Decisions during the execution phase.
According to the content of the file and the minutes of the hearing, the available evidence collected and discussed at the place of decision, the justification and the discretion of the Board of Judges, the objections of the defendants …, …, …, …, … and …, …, the defendant … and the Public Prosecutor were rejected because their appeals were not found in place. APPROVAL of the provisions, other than criticism, which are found to be in accordance with the procedure and the law,
II- Plundering separately against … and complaining about the accused …, attempting to plunder against …, who complained about the accused …, …, …, … As for the verdict of conviction for robbery against the accused, and the appeal requests of the Public Prosecutor regarding the acquittal of the accused … on the charges of plunder and membership of an organization:
Other appeals were not seen on the spot.
However,
1- In the action specified as the event in the indictment (2.);
It was stated that …’s father … …, who complained before the date of the incident, was the guarantor for the 7.000.-TL loan that … …, who was also the uncle of the accused … By threatening the complainant of the accused, who gave a bill of 3,150.-TL and who was angry that this bill was not paid on time, he threatened the complainant, and went to the workplace of the complainant with the defendants …, …, … and … to resolve the dispute on 05.05.2008. On 27.05.2008, a public action was taken at Tuzla Criminal Court of First Instance for the crimes of “deprivation of liberty” and “threat” against the defendants …, …, …, …, …, who were caught by the security forces while they were speaking there. and as a result of the trial, it was decided to acquit the defendants with the decision dated 26/05/2009, numbered 2008/1176-2009/564 and the decision numbered 2008/1176-2009/564 and the decision regarding these crimes was not appealed. In the face of the realization that it has been finalized,
As mentioned in the decision of the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, dated 09.07.2013 and decision numbered 2012/2-1518, principle-2013/154,
Certain “sine qua non” conditions are sought in order for criminal proceedings to be carried out. One of these conditions, which hinders judgment, is the absence of a verdict or lawsuit, which is expressed as “Non bis in idem”.
Applied as a living legal norm without being expressly written in laws
