If, due to the same act, there is a provision that has already been made for the same defendant or a lawsuit has been filed, the court decides to dismiss the case. (CMK 223/7. article) It does not matter whether the provision previously given to the defendant was given in Turkey or in a foreign country. In both cases, a decision is made to dismiss the case. CMK 223/7. in accordance with the article;
Due to the same verb,
About the same defendant,
If there is a definite provision or a lawsuit filed in advance, the case is decided to be dismissed.
CMK 223/7. in order to be able to decide on the rejection of the case within the scope of the article, there must be 2 cases. The first should be a previously filed lawsuit or a provision issued. The second is the case filed later. The decision on refusal is made for the second case.
The procedure for the decision to dismiss the case is as follows; First of all, the decided or derdest case file should be requested and examined. (First case) If as a result of the examination of the file brought, it is concluded that the defendant and the actual of both files are the same, the decision to dismiss the case is made to the second case in accordance with CMK 223/7.
At the beginning or at any stage of the trial, when the court finds that the prosecution of the act for which the defendant is being punished is not within its duty, another authority within the judicial jurisdiction or another court outside the judicial jurisdiction will issue a decision on non-duty when it determines that it is within its duty. CMK’s 5. according to the article, the court examines and decides if you are an official at every stage of the prosecution phase.
The court may issue two kinds of non-duty decisions, the first of which is a non-duty decision made by betting that another court is in charge in a judicial jurisdiction. Since these decisions are not final decisions, CMK’s 223. it is not considered among the provisions of Article 1, therefore, the Decisionless decisions issued in respect of courts within the judicial jurisdiction are in accordance with Article 5/2 of the CMK. it is subject to appeal in accordance with its article, the way of appeal against these decisions is closed.
The decisions of the court on the absence of duty made by betting that another judicial branch other than the judicial one is in charge are CMK’s 223/10. it was considered a verdict in accordance with its article, and therefore was subject to appeal. For example, the decisions of the court, the administrative judiciary or the Constitutional Court on the absence of office given by the bet are as follows.
You can reach our other articles, sample decisions and petitions by clicking here
