Decision On The Regulation That The Sentencing Court Will Decide In Cases Where The Suspension Of The Sentence Is Required Due To Illness
T.C. JUDICIARY
7th Criminal Chamber
Main: 2014/17363
Decision: 2014/20586
Date of Decision: 01.12.2014
THE CRIME OF INTENTIONAL INJURY – THERE IS A REGULATION THAT THE SENTENCING COURT WILL DECIDE ONLY IN CASES WHERE IT IS NECESSARY TO POSTPONE THE SENTENCE DUE TO ILLNESS – IT IS POSSIBLE TO APPLY FOR A COMPLAINT TO THE EXECUTION JUDGE, WHICH IS A GENERAL PROVISION – THE VERDICT IS REVERSED
SUMMARY: Considering that there is a regulation that the sentencing court will decide only in cases where it is necessary to postpone the sentence due to illness, after the execution of the sentence is started, in case the request for suspension of execution is rejected by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office in the compulsory and urgent cases listed in the paragraph, without considering that a complaint can be filed to the execution judge, which is a general provision against this procedure, it was not deemed appropriate to reject the objection instead of accepting it in this respect, and it has been decided to revoke the judgment, and the need for reversal of the aforementioned decision has been notified by referring to the reversal for the benefit of the law.
(5275 CPC art. 17, 98, 99, 100, 101) (4675 CPC art. 4, 5) (5271 CPC art. 309)
Case: Upon the request for postponement of the execution made by his legal representative wife Z. D. upon the request for postponement of the execution made by his legal representative wife Z. D. during the execution of the 2 years and 7 months imprisonment sentence within the scope of the conciliation decision of Ezine Criminal Court of First Instance dated 03.09.2013 and numbered 2013/91 different work, upon the request for postponement of the execution made by his legal representative wife Z. D., on the grounds that the convict did not meet the conditions specified in Article 17/4 of the Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences, the Çanakkale Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office rejected the request for postponement on 12.09.2013. The objection against the decision dated 22.10.2013 and numbered 2013/1607 main, 2013/1583 of the Çanakkale Execution Judge dated 22.10.2013 regarding the rejection of the request on the grounds that the duty and authority to decide on the objection to the decision dated 2013/3730 and numbered 2013/3730 does not belong to the execution judge, was rejected by the Çanakkale Assize Court dated 04. 11.2013 dated 11.11.2013 and numbered 2013/962 different business against the decision of the Supreme Ministry of Justice dated 17.12.2013 and numbered 77401, the case file containing the request for reversal in favor of the law was read and submitted to the department with the notification of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation dated 06.01.2014 and numbered KYB. 2013-406567.
Decision: In the aforementioned notice;
According to the execution file, upon the rejection by the Çanakkale Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the request for postponement of the execution made by the legal representative of the convict after the execution started, the objection to this decision was rejected by the Çanakkale Execution Judgeship, although it was decided to reject the request because it was not among the duties and powers of the execution judge to decide on the requests for suspension of execution and postponement of execution, according to Article 17/4 of the Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences. According to Article 17/4 of the Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences, after the execution of the sentence is started, there is a regulation that the execution can be suspended for periods not exceeding 6 months by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office in the compulsory and urgent cases listed in the paragraph, but there is no special regulation on whether the request can be appealed against this decision in case of rejection, and if so, to which authority, and there is no special regulation on which authority to appeal, and in Article 4 of the Law No. 4675 on the Execution Judgeship. In paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law No. 4675 on the Execution Judgeship, the task of examining and deciding on complaints regarding the execution of the sentences of the convicts… is listed among the duties of the execution judgeship, and in some special cases, the legislator also wants a decision to be made by the court that sentenced in matters related to execution, for example, in accordance with Article 101 of the Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences. Pursuant to Article 101 of the Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences, it is stipulated that the decisions to be taken pursuant to Articles 98 to 100 of the same Law shall be taken by the sentencing court, and according to paragraph 2 of Article 98, the sentencing court shall take a decision only in cases where it is necessary to postpone the sentence due to illness, according to Article 17/4 of the Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences. According to Article 17/4 of the Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences, after the execution of the sentence is started, if the request for suspension of execution is rejected by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office in the compulsory and urgent cases listed in the paragraph, a complaint to the execution judge in accordance with Articles 4 and 5 of the Law No. 4675, which is a general provision against this procedure. Without considering that a complaint can be filed to the execution judge in accordance with Articles 4 and 5 of the Law No. 4675, which is a general provision, it was not deemed inappropriate to decide to reject the objection in writing instead of accepting it in this respect, and the necessity of reversing the aforementioned decision in accordance with Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Law No. 5271 has been notified by referring to the reversal in favor of the law, and the necessity has been discussed and considered on behalf of the Turkish Nation;
Conclusion Since the content of the notification of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Cassation based on the request for reversal for the benefit of the law is deemed appropriate, it was unanimously decided on 01.12.2014 that the decision of the Çanakkale Heavy Criminal Court dated 04.11.2013 and numbered 2013/962 Change of Business be reversed pursuant to Article 309/4-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the subsequent proceedings be carried out by the court in its place.