T.C. SUPREME COURT DECISION
7.Criminal Department
Base: 2016/10041
Decision: 2016/9083
Date of Decision: 30.06.2016
OFFENSE OF ABUSE OF TRUST DUE TO THE SERVICE – FAILURE TO MAKE A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE DECISION ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE – DUE TO VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION
SUMMARY: TCK’s .in accordance with the article, the non-short-term prison sentence to which he is sentenced is postponed in respect of the defendant referred to in the article.paragraph (C) in paragraph written, lack of rights, the defendant only on their descendants custody, guardianship or to the implementation kayyimlik in terms of powers, whether the descendants of the rest, except for the deprivation of rights and privileges with those without considering execution of the sentence until it is completed to the contrary that make for provision of facilities, goods not required to overturn a decision about the case has positive or negative.
(5237 P. K. m. 53) (5271 p. K. m. 231)
Case: The sentence given by the local court was appealed and the application was discussed and considered on behalf of the Turkish Nation after the file was read according to the nature, type of punishment, duration and date of the crime;
In the examination conducted according to the appeal of the defendant’s defense;
Since the additional decision of the court No. 18/02/2016 day and 2014/238 October 2016/31 Decision on the rejection of the appeal request is in accordance with the procedure and law, the defendant’s defense is not considered to be in place to approve the decision by rejecting appeals that are not considered as a request,
In the examination conducted considering that the appeal of the acting administration of the participating state is directed to the decision made within the scope of law No. 5607;
1- 16/10/2014 in the history of the defendant in the administration of the transport vehicle owned by a markerli sealed and in the province of Mersin in the Way … s to take to 19.824 mousse with a litre fuel is delivered from once Baykan County firefighters and law enforcement officers to the transporter Day 02 00 17/10/2014 fire in the determination of the intervention and as a result, unsealed 3 units from the tanker at the top of the Caps, two sealed, and in 2060 according to the report liter tanker fuel were seized in violation of the technical regulations markersiz pal, due to the fact that the accused could not explain the 86-minute delay in his route and the fuel oil situation, and it became clear that the fuel oil subject to the case was smuggled into the country, Law No. 6545 in force on the date of the crime is 89.“… However, if it is understood that fuel oil without a marker or with an invalid level is smuggled into the country illegally, as specified in paragraph 3/11-last article of Law No. 5607 amended by article, punishment shall be imposed in accordance with the provision of the tenth paragraph.” taking into account the supervisor’s decision, it is necessary to apply in accordance with Articles 3/5 and 3/10 of the law No. 3/11-the last sentence of the Law No. 5607 on the defendant, without taking into account that the application should be made in writing,
2-CMK’s 231st. the defendant, who is not prevented from the disclosure of the provision regulated in the article in terms of objective circumstances, requests that the disclosure of the provision be decided in his defense received at the instruction court and is not aware of the public damage because there is no KEMT warrant attached to the instruction, is notified that the amount of customs duties and other co-effective taxes and financial burdens provided for in the import of the goods subject to the case is a public damage and as a result october, if necessary, a decision should be made taking into account paragraph 231/9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while the public harm should not be remedied on the grounds that there is no room for the disclosure of the provision to be left undone,
3-24.11.2015 With the decision of the Constitutional Court dated 08.10.2015 and based on 2014/140, revoked No. 2015/85 and TCK No. 5237, which entered into force by publication in the Official Gazette No. 29542 dated 2015 No. 5237.of 53.due to the cancellation of some parts of the article, there is an obligation to re-evaluate this article,
53 OF the TCK.article 3.in accordance with the paragraph of the said article about the accused, whose non-short-term prison sentence he has been sentenced to has been postponed.it is stipulated in writing that the deprivation of rights written in paragraph (c) of paragraph (c) should not be applied only in terms of the defendant’s custody, guardianship or trusteeship powers over his own child, and it should be decided that he should be deprived of these rights and powers related to those other than the child until the execution of the sentence is completed,
4-No positive or negative decision has been made about the subject of the lawsuit,
Contrary to the law, since the appeals of the deputy of the participating administration have been considered in place as of this date, the provision is 8/1 of the Law No. 5320. article 321 of CMUK No. 1412, which is in force in accordance with its article.its DETERIORATION in accordance with the article was decided unanimously on 30.06.2016.
