The Acquired Right Rule Related to the Provision Given as a Result of the Violation – Form

T.C. SUPREME
6. Criminal Department Main Number : 2018/891
Decision No :2018/1606
Decision Date : 28.02.2018

CRIME OF THEFT AND INJURY – THE VERDICT GIVEN AS A RESULT OF SPOILING
IT IS ALSO WRITTEN ABOUT THE VIOLATION OF THE ACQUIRED RIGHTS RULE RELATED TO
OPINION ON WHETHER TO REQUEST A WARRANT
THE NEED FOR NOTIFICATION – THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE REPUBLIC
BY EXTRADITION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE
SUMMARY: A written order on the violation of the acquired right rule related to the decision given as a result of the violation
in order to be sent to our apartment after the notification of the opinion on whether the request has been made or not
the file should be returned to the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court.
(5237 Pp. K. m. 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 86, 142) (5275 P. K. m. 99, 107)
Adana 9. The decision of the Assize Court dated 15/05/2015 and numbered 2015/59 Basis, 2015/206 Decision
with the accused … for the crimes of theft and intentional wounding of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237
imprisonment for 8 years and 9 months in accordance with articles 142/1-h-2, 43/1 and 9 months in accordance with Articles 86/2-3e of the same Law
it was decided to punish him with a fine, the Supreme Court 2. The Criminal Chamber dated 20/10/2015 and
With the decision numbered 2015/16089 Esas, 2015/18606 Decision, qualified looting and shackling of the accused’s actions
since the theft carried out in this way constitutes crimes, it was decided to spoil it with a bet, made
as a result of the trial, the accused has 6 years and 8 months in accordance with Articles 149/1-a, 168/3 of Law No. 5237 and
142/2-h, 43/1 and 168/2 of the same Law. with prison sentences of 3 years, 1 month and 15 days in accordance with the articles
in accordance with Article 326 / last of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271, a
due to the fact that the previous verdict was appealed only by the defendant and the defendant’s defense, the defendant
considering the acquired right, it was decided to punish him with a prison sentence of 8 years and 18 months
that’s understood.
Although by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court; “Adana 9. The High Criminal Court
with the decision dated 09/02/2016, the accused was found guilty of looting and theft
as a result, it has been decided that he will be punished with a prison sentence of 8 years and 18 months, although,
68 to 77 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 765. the institution of drinking penalties is regulated in the articles and,
while adopting the collection system as the basic principle, the collection of penalties is 77. top with substance
in the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237, where the border is set, for more than one crime committed by a person
there is no provision for the collection of the sentences he has been convicted of, and each sentence is separately
the Law on the Execution of Penal and Security Measures No. 5275, which protects their independence, also
99. in the article, on the other hand, “Each punishment imposed on a person is independent of the other. Assets
they protect separately. However, if there are other finalized provisions about a person, the 107th
a collection decision is requested from the court in order for the article to be applied.” inclusion of the provision
in the face of the collection of penalties that may be made after the entry into force of Law No. 5237
a hit in making a written decision without considering that the operation is a matter subject to execution
it has not been seen” by saying that the Criminal Procedure No. 5271

309 Of the Law. in accordance with article 9 of the Adana. The Assize Court dated 09/02/2016 and dated 2015/372
Although the basis requested the annulment of the decision No. 2016/54 Decision; Adana 9. harsh penalty
It is also written about the violation of the rule of acquired rights related to the judgment given as a result of the violation of the Court
to be sent to our apartment after giving an opinion on whether he has requested an order or not
a unanimous decision on the RETURN of the file to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Cassation on 28.02.2018
it was given.

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