[ad_1]
In the decision of the Superior Criminal Court, the Constitutional Court statements, “The court’s decision to issue a new trial and the decision to stop immediately is an intervention to the decision made within the scope of duty and jurisdiction of our court. “.
Following the decision of the Constitutional Court of “violation of rights” with Enis Berberoğlu, who was removed as a deputy, the 14th Higher Criminal Court of Istanbul decided that the decision of the Constitutional Court was “within the scope of suitability control” and decided that there was room for a new trial.
“INSPECTION CANNOT BE CARRIED OUT”
In the decision of the Superior Criminal Court, he referred to the Law of Establishment of the Constitutional Court and the Law of Judicial Procedures and said: “At the end of the main examination, the Constitutional Court decides that the plaintiff’s right has been violated or not. In the event of a violation decision, it will be decided what should be done to remove the violation and its consequences. However, the suitability verification cannot be carried out and decisions such as an administrative act or transaction cannot be made “
In the decision, which alleges that the Constitutional Court will not be able to conduct a suitability check after the determination of the violation decision, the following statements were used:
“THE AYM IS INTERVENTING OUR DECISION”
“When the current decision of the Constitutional Court is examined in this context, the decision of the 16th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, after determining the violation of the plaintiff’s right with respect to the final prison sentence, was issued within the scope of our court’s duty and jurisdiction to give a new trial decision to our court and stop it immediately. it’s an interference with the decision. “
“REQUEST FOR TRIAL AND ENFORCEMENT WAIVER IN THE APPEAL PHASE”
“Because the demands for the suspension of the trial and the suspension of the execution were previously examined by the defense attorneys at the appeal stage, and these requests were rejected.”
“YOU CANNOT DECIDE AGAINST THESE APPLICATIONS UNDER THE AYM LAW”
“The Constitutional Court’s decision to guide our court regarding the new trial and suspension decision in a manner that constitutes a review of the suitability of these claims is within the scope of the suitability check. The action to be taken here must be to achieve that the violation of the Constitutional Court is eliminated after determining the violation of the right, in a way that does not have due control. However, in the decision of the Constitutional Court, after the violation of rights is determined, the decision of a new trial and the decision of suspension while determining what should be done to eliminate this violation are completely within the scope of the control of suitability. It was decided that the Constitutional Court did not have the authority to conduct a suitability audit, the decision of a new trial after the determination of a violation of rights in the current decision and the guiding action it had taken with respect to the suspension decision were within the scope of the suitability audit, and it was decided that there was no need for a new trial.
It may interest you
It may interest you
It may interest you
[ad_2]
