T.C.
SUPREME
- CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT
BASE NO. 2016/13073
DECISION NO. 2017/2290
DATE OF DECISION. 16.3.2017
340 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code of 2004 of the defendant … for violating the borrower’s pay requirement. according to Article 1 of Alanya on the punishment of up to 3 months of suspended imprisonment. According to the decision of the Executive Criminal Court dated 13/02/2014 and based on 2013/957, No. 2014/104, the same defendant was again executed in accordance with Article 340 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Code of 2004. according to Article 2 of Alanya on the punishment of up to 3 months of suspended imprisonment. Alanya 1 on the rejection of the appeal against the decision of the Executive Criminal Court dated 30/10/2014 and based on 2014/1084, No. 2014/1484. October 17, 2014 and 2014, 2016 days and 94660652-105-07-4589-2016- The case file attached to the letter containing the request to overturn the Ministry of Justice for the benefit of the law No. 94660652-105-4589-2016 against the decision of the Executive Criminal Court dated 17/11/2014 and numbered 2014/2016 of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Supreme Court.It was read by sending it to our apartment with notification No. 2016-333621.
According to the scope of the file, the defendant has Alanya 2. The Enforcement Directorate has committed a bet that it will pay the entire debt on 30/04/2013 during the foreclosure dated 12/02/2013, which it owes in the enforcement follow-up file No. 2012/9339, but in violation of the commitment, Alanya 1. Enforcement of the Criminal Court dated 13/02/2014 2013/957 based on the decision becomes final and without appeal by decision of 2014/104 was punished with confinement pressure, then on again during this time of 14/05/2014 foreclosures bet they’d pay the debt on the date of the second resides in 14/06/2014 entire time commitment, but the commitment is still upon the breach at this time in Alanya 2. Although it is understood that he was sentenced to life imprisonment by the decision of the Executive Criminal Court dated 30/10/2014 and based on 2014/1084 and Numbered 2014/1484, and the defendant’s appeal against this decision was also rejected,
1- ) The details of the Criminal General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Cassation dated 29/09/2009 and based on 2009/16-188, as stated in decision No. 2009/205 on the same debt relationship, the total amount of mandatory imprisonment may not exceed 3 months, regardless of whether the decision on mandatory imprisonment for up to 3 months is made twice in writing,
2- ) Article 340 of the Law No. 2004. in accordance with the article, the total amount of debt, the interest to be processed and processed, the power of attorney fee, executive fees and expenses must be determined together and the amount based on the borrower’s commitment must be clearly shown in the commitment minutes in order for the offense of violating the commitment to occur, a concrete execution trace file is given the same case in two separate agreements dated dated 12/02/2013 14/05/2014 commitment until the date of payment from the date of the creditor’s interest is not any sort of clarity about last will operate as waiver will operate until the date of payment of interest does not take the place of the declaration, for these reasons and the process of functioning and the amount of interest is shown separately in the report the commitment of both uncertainty exists, although we understand that the commitment is not valid because the defendant acquitted of the crime that had to be thrown on the elements due to avoid taking the Liberty, 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 on the grounds that no hits were seen in the decision to reject the appeal in writing, without regard to the fact that the decision to accept the appeal must be made.it was discussed and considered necessary to request that the decision referred to in accordance with the article be overturned for the benefit of the law:
CONCLUSION: Since the contents of the notice based on the Supreme Court Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office’s request for violation for the benefit of the law are deemed to be in place as of this respect, in the examination conducted in terms of reason No. (2) of the request for violation for the benefit of the law, Alanya 1. Enforcement of the Criminal Court dated 13/02/2014 2013/957 based on the decision of the decision of the CPC and dated 17/11/2014 2014/104 2014/141 of different business 309/4-d according to Article CORRUPTION, blameworthy ( defendant ) in both files confinement pressure is given about the abolition of the request for reversal reversal in favor of the law by reason of ( 1 ) No. place to be decided in terms of cause it wasn’t on 16.03.2017 it’s unanimous.
