Menu
En iyi Manavgat Avukatı
  • Anasayfa
  • Biz
  • İletişim
  • Blog
Close Menu
25/06/2022

Request for Release of the Accused in Cases at the Stage of the Supreme Court (Appeal against Detention)

Rabia Ekşi Uncategorized @tr alanya, antalya, law, lawyer, mahmutlar

In the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is stipulated that the suspect or accused may be asked to be released at all stages of the investigation and prosecution stages. (CMK m.104/1) The continuation or release of the suspect or accused from detention shall be decided by the judge or the court. These decisions can be appealed.

The first-degree trial stage has been completed and the decision on the request for release is made after the review of the file by the relevant department of the Regional Court of Justice or the Court of Cassation or the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, when the file arrives at the Regional Court of Cassation or the Supreme Court; this decision can also be made if you re.(CMK m.104/3)

The criminal files coming to the Supreme Court stage first come to the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court. The file is registered in the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Supreme Court of Cassation and a notification number is given to the file. The tracking of the file is done via this number. Then the file is sent to the archive to wait for the review order. The file that comes next is submitted to the Public prosecutor. After the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Court examines the file, the file is delivered to the relevant criminal court of the Supreme Court together with the notification number. Since all these stages are taking a long time, this situation is a great victimization for the defendants who are unjustly detained.

While this is the case; in the criminal case files coming to the Supreme Court stage, the issue of whether it is expected to send the file to the relevant department for the defendant’s request for release is encountered.

In Article 104/3 of the CMK; “ The decision on the request for release when the file arrives at the regional court of justice or the Supreme Court is made after the examination to be made on the file by the relevant department of the regional court of justice or the Supreme Court or the General Assembly of the Criminal Court of the Supreme Court. it has been said that “. As the wording of the article suggests, the arrival of the file to the Supreme Court (not to the relevant department) will be sufficient for the request for release, and the arrival of the file to the relevant department will not be expected.There is no indication that the file should come to the relevant department, it is only stated that the decision on the release request should be made after the examination to be made on the file by the relevant department. In the same article “ ……..it is issued after the examination to be carried out on the file. “it was stated that the request for release should be decided by examining the file (i.e., as the file came from the court of first instance).

As a result, we believe that even if the criminal case files that have reached the Supreme Court stage are waiting in line at the Public Prosecutor’s Office stage of the Supreme Court before the file is sent to the relevant department, a request for the defendant’s release can be made.

 

T.C. COURT OF CASSATION 1. CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT E. 2005/3139, K. 2006/79, T. 1.5.2006

SUMMARY: CMK about the eviction requests made to the Supreme Court.104/3 of the. in accordance with the article, a decision must be made by examining the file.

CASE: Convict Inc. U. according to the new TCK, with the petition dated 25.04.2006, the file was examined and eviction was requested.

CMK regarding the eviction request in the precedent file numbered 2005/5061.104 and 105 of the. in accordance with the articles of the Court of Cassation, the Prosecutor General’s Office, whose opinion was asked, issued on 10.06.2005, dated 13.06.2005 and numbered 2004/236797-1 in its reasoned response article CMK about the eviction requests made to the Supreme Court as a result.104/3 of the. 105 of the same law, since it must be decided by examination on the file in accordance with Article 105 of the same Law. since the article does not concern the courts of first instance and does not cover the Supreme Court review and the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court was not given the duty to express an opinion on the request, it was seen that no opinion was expressed on the bet.

At the same time, this opinion of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Supreme Court of Cassation, which was considered appropriate, was examined, limited to the request for the release of the file, which was not in the order of the appeal review:

CONCLUSION: The amount of the sentence imposed on the accused was decided unanimously on 01.05.2006 to request (REJECT) the release according to the time elapsed in detention.

You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.

Psychological Harassment in the Workplace (Mobbing) The Decision of the Supreme Court that the Request to Withdraw the Execution is Not Subject to Any Period of Time

Related Posts

Uncategorized @tr

Anayasa Mahkemesi 4 sözleşmeli personel alacak

Anayasa Mahkemesi Başkanlığı (Başkanlık) merkez teşkilatında istihdam edilmek üzere, yapılacak sözlü sınav esas alınmak suretiyle, Destek Personeli (Temizlik Görevlisi) pozisyonu için toplam 4 (dört) sözleşmeli personel alınacak. Anayasa Mahkemesi Başkanlığından: 4 (DÖRT) SÖZLEŞMELİ PERSONEL ALIMI HAKKINDA DUYURU Anayasa Mahkemesi Başkanlığı (Başkanlık) merkez teşkilatında 657 sayılı Devlet Memurları Kanunu’nun 4 üncü maddesinin (B) fıkrasına göre istihdam […]

Uncategorized @tr

TBB BAŞKANI SAĞKAN 5 NİSAN AVUKATLAR GÜNÜNDE KONUŞMA YAPTI

Avukatlar, Türkiye Barolar Birliği’nin öncülüğünde 5 Nisan Avukatlar Günü’nde Ankara’da ‘Savunmanın Bağımsızlığı ve Hukuka Saygı’ yürüyüşü yaptı. Barolar adına konuşma yapan Türkiye Barolar Birliği Başkanı Av. R. Erinç Sağkan, “Biz bugün hukuk devletini savunmak için, yargı bağımsızlığını savunmak için buradayız. Bu ses susturulamaz” dedi. “İSTANBUL BAROSU, HUKUKA AYKIRI YARGI KARARLARIYLA GÖREVİNDEN UZAKLAŞTIRILMAK İSTENİYOR” Anıtpark’ta bir […]

Uncategorized @tr

Determination and Recommendations regarding the Main Procedural Problems in Terms of Earthquake-Related Civil Cases

“It is Not Possible to Get Rid of the Responsibility of Those Responsible by Obscuring the Evidence of the Earthquake, On the Contrary, Their Responsibilities Increase” Prof. Dr. Muhammet Özekes (12.02.2023) If the CCP and procedural rules can be applied consciously, correctly and quickly, the judiciary can get out of this earthquake without being in […]

Uncategorized @tr

The Decision of the Council of State that the Consumer Bank Cannot Receive Account Operating Fees

COUNCIL OF STATE 15. apartment Basis: 2014/9570 Verdict: 2018/1194 Plaintiff : Consumer Problems Association Acting Director : Av… Respondent : Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency Acting Director : Av… Summary of the Case: Article 10 of the Regulation on the Procedures and Principles regarding Fees to be Collected from Financial Consumers, which entered into force […]

Uncategorized @tr

Negative Detection Case Based on the Guarantee Bond Claim, Exchange Monitoring Supreme Court Decision

T.C. SUPREME 19. law office MAIN NUMBER: 2016/3357 DECISION NO: 2016/13899 DECISION DATE: 24.10.2016 >> FOREIGN EXCHANGE MONITORING, NEGATIVE DETECTION CASE BASED ON THE CLAIM THAT THE BILL IS A SECURITY BILL, BURDEN OF PROOF AND STATE OF EVIDENCE 6100/m.222/5 6102/m.64 SUMMARY: The case is related to the request for negative determination. The plaintiff has […]

Back To Top
manavgat avukat

İletişim:

+905425139898

+902425139898

info@antalya.law

Adres

Hacet Mahallesi, Canlılar Sokak,
Avukatlar İş Merkezi, No: 7, Daire: 2-3
Alanya / Antalya

Copyright © 2020 Aşıkoğlu Hukuk ™ Aşıkoğlu Uluslararası Hukuk Bürosu, Her Hakkı Saklıdır

WhatsApp us