T.C. SUPREME COURT DECISION
7.Criminal Department
Base: 2014/30174
Decision: 2016/9031
Date of Decision: 30.06.2016
CRIME OF OPPOSITION TO LAW NO. 4733 – THE OWNER OF THE REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE USED IN THE CRIME WAS INFORMED OF THE CASE AND A VERDICT WAS ESTABLISHED BY INCOMPLETE EXAMINATION WITHOUT RECEIVING A DECLARATION ON CONFISCATION – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION
ABSTRACT: The owner of the registration of the vehicle used in the crime should be informed of the case, without receiving a declaration on confiscation and good faith of the vehicle 3. as a result of incomplete examination, without discussing the decision on the spot whether it belongs to a person or not, the decision required overturning the provision. It has been decided that the provision will be overturned.
(5607 P. K. m. 3) (5237 p. K. m. 53) (5271 p. K. m. 226, 257) (4733 Pp. K. m. 8) (ANY. MAH. 08.10.2015 T 2014/140 E. 2015/85 K.)
Case and Decision: The decision 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;
1- Contrary to the defendant’s defense that the defendant committed the crime of breakthrough, except for the allegation that the 5200 cartons of illegal cigarettes caught in the vehicle belonged to the defendant and offered him to transport, the defendant’s defense cannot obtain sufficient evidence to decide the defendant’s conviction in writing instead of acquittal,
2- 3/5 of the Law No. 5607 on the accused. although a public lawsuit was filed with a request to punish him in accordance with Article 8/4 of Law 4733 without granting october right to additional defense. 226/1 of the CMK by establishing a provision due to opposition to its article. violation of the article,
3- The owner of the registration of the vehicle used in the crime is CMK 257/2. in accordance with Article 3 of the well-being of the vehicle before being informed of the case and receiving a declaration of confiscation. the decision on whether it belongs to a person can be made in writing as a result of incomplete examination without discussing it on the spot,
4- TCK No. 5237 with the decision of the Constitutional Court dated 08.10.2015 and based on 2014/140, annulment No. 2015/85, which entered into force by publishing in the Official Gazette No. 29542 dated 24.11.2015 dated 24.11.2015.nm 53.due to the cancellation of some parts of the article, there is an obligation to re-evaluate this article,
TCK No. 5237.nun 53. article 3. in accordance with paragraph 1 of the same article.paragraph (C) of paragraph is written in the defendant’s own custody or in the service of the descendants of being on the conditional release of kayyimlig with custody rights to the descendants of the rest, except for the deprivation of these rights and privileges that make for execution of the sentence until it is completed without considering in writing, the provision of facilities,
5- While it is necessary to be satisfied with the confiscation of the goods subject to the case, it is 8/4 of the Law No. 4733. according to the article, it is also subject to liquidation by destruction,
6- It has been decided that the customs administration, which has no right to participate in the case, will also be accepted as a participant and that the “power of attorney fee in favor of the participating institution” will be decided in such a way that it cannot be understood which institution is appreciated in favor of, even if it receives the title of participant,
Conclusion: Contrary to the law, since the appeals of the defendants are 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 by unanimous decision on 30.06.2016.
