T.C. SUPREME
7.Criminal Division
Mainly: 2014/17363
Verdict: 2014/20586
Decision Date: 01.12.2014
CRIME OF INTENTIONAL WOUNDING-ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE SENTENCE MUST BE POSTPONED DUE TO ILLNESS, THERE IS A REGULATION THAT THE SENTENCING COURT WILL DECIDE – A COMPLAINT CAN BE FILED WITH THE EXECUTION JUDGE, WHICH IS A GENERAL PROVISION – THE PROVISION IS BROKEN
Summary: only in cases where the sentence must be postponed due to illness, when the court of sentencing decides that there is an arrangement in the form of the evil eye, after the execution of the sentence begins, in mandatory and urgent cases counted in the paragraph, if the request for a decommissioning of the execution is rejected, without regard to the fact that the execution Judge, which is a general provision against this process, can apply to the way of complaint, instead of accepting the appeal from this direction, in the decision to reject it, it was decided to break the provision by stating that it was not hit and that the need to break the said decision was made in reference to breaking it in the interest of the law.
(5275 P. K. m. 17, 98, 99, 100, 101) (4675 S. K. m. 4, 5) (5271 P. K. m. 309)
Case: accused of intentionally wounding, endangering general safety, carrying an unlicensed weapon and threatening M. D.’s, Ezine Criminal Court of First Instance dated 03.09.2013 and 2013/91 different work No. 2 years 7 months imprisonment within the scope of the decision execution, while his legal representative wife Z. D. 17/4 of the Law No. 5275 on the execution of sentences of the convict, at the request of the postponement of the execution carried out by.Canakkale Prosecutor General’s Office 12.09.2013 and 2013/3730 ilamat decision on the refusal of the request for postponement on the grounds that it does not meet the conditions specified in the article, since the duty and authority to decide on the appeal does not belong to the execution Judge, Canakkale execution Judge 22.10.2013 and 2013/1607, Appeal against the decision of 2013/1583 likewise, the Dardanelles for the denial of justice against the decision of the High Court dated 04.11.2013 Heavy Penal 2013/962 different business 77401 day and ruining the benefit of the law issued by the Ministry of 17.12.2013 a case file that contains the prompt of the Supreme Court’s chief prosecutor 06.01.2014 day and KYB. 2013-406567 was issued to the department with notice.
Decision: in the aforementioned notice;
Execution according to the file, after the commencement of the execution of the prisoner, made by the legal representative of the request for postponement of the execution of the Dardanelles by the prosecutor general’s Office of the Republic of enforcement judges to appeal against the decision on the rejection by the Dardanelles, the execution and issuance of enforcement judges to decide about the postponement of the execution Dec requests for denial of the request because it is not among the duties and powers also if a decision is made, the law 5275 on the execution of sentences numbered 17/4.after the execution of the sentence, in urgent cases listed in the paragraph are not mandatory and execution for periods of more than 6 months bassavciliginc of the Republic can be provided to the Dec-shaped arrangement resides in, but the request is rejected, whether to appeal against this decision cannot be contested if the appeal to authority, which has a special arrangement with regard to where you may be; and enforcement of the law on judges 4 No. 4675.Article 2.in the paragraph, the duty to examine and decriminalize complaints about transactions and activities such as the execution of sentences of convicts … is considered among the duties of the execution Judge, 101 of the law No. 5275 on the execution of sentences, for example, in which the legislator also wants to be decided by the court that rules on matters related to execution in certain special cases.according to Article 98 to 100 of the same law.98, in which decisions to be made in accordance with articles will be made by the court of law.Article 2.according to the paragraph, only in cases where the sentence should be postponed due to illness, the court of sentencing will decide., 17/4 of the Law No. 5275 on the execution of punishments.according to Article 4 and 5 of the law No. 4675, which is the general provision against this process, in case of refusal of the request for a decommissioning by the prosecutor general’s Office of the Republic in mandatory and urgent cases counted in the paragraph after the execution of the sentence has begun.in accordance with articles 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code 5271, the decision to reject the appeal in writing, rather than accepting the appeal in this direction, without regard to the way of Complaint can be applied to the execution Judge. according to the article, the need for a violation of the said decision was considered and considered necessary on behalf of the Turkish nation, referring to the violation of the law;
Conclusion: since the content of the notification based on the request of the Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Court to violate the law is seen in place, the decision of the Çanakkale Heavy Criminal Court 04.11.2013 day and 2013/962 different business, CMK.in accordance with article 309/4-a, subsequent transactions were made by the court at the scene, on 01.12.2014 it was decided unanimously.
