The Principle of the Irrevocability of Phases

N.A.

Makale detayları

The Principle of the Irrevocability of Phases

Yazarlar:

N.A.

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Public Law (Other)

Dergi:

İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası Vol.82 Issue 4, pp.1271-1287

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001341383

pISSN:

2636-7734

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Regarding the phasesstages in criminal procedure, investigation and the main trial stages come to mind. Although it is not directly mentioned in the current Code of Criminal Procedure with code no. 5271, there is an intermediate trial phase. This phase, which allows the return of the indictment with a limited period of time, is not important for our study because it is still considered as the investigation phase in terms of our current law. Because when the irrevocability of the stages is mentioned, what is meant exclusively is the irreversibility from the main trial phase to the investigation phase. Since the intermediate trial phase is also counted as the investigation phase, we can indirectly say that it is not possible to return to the intermediate trial phase from the main trial phase. Since the legislator does not qualify a separate phase, although there is no obstacle in terms of the principle of irrevocability from phases, it is not clear whether the prosecutor can withdraw the indictment independently of the court during the intermediate trial phase; to put it more accurately, it does not seem possible since it is not foreseen in the legislation. Indeed, with the start of the main trial phase, the phase in which the prosecutor effectively acts, comes to an end, and the task of executing and managing the process passes to the court. However, in some cases, the lack of judgement conditions or the emergence of obstacles to judgement may require returning to the investigation phase or making a decision to stop and correcting the relevant deficiencies by out-of-court authorities. For this reason, in some country practises, it is possible to return to the investigation phase during andor after the main hearing period. Because we do not have a regulation that allows this issue, in our opinion, irreparable results emerge in the main trial phase. Likewise, the recent annulment decision of the Constitutional Court regarding the accelerated proceeding also necessitates a return to the investigation phase. We have discussed this study in order to propose changes in our legislation by trying to explain within the framework of comparative law that it should be possible to return to the investigation phase in order to eliminate the injustices problems in the context of a fair trial that may arise in these and similar cases.

 Regarding the phasesstages in criminal procedure, investigation and the main trial stages come to mind. Although it is not directly mentioned in the current Code of Criminal Procedure with code no. 5271, there is an intermediate trial phase. This phase, which allows the return of the indictment with a limited period of time, is not important for our study because it is still considered as the investigation phase in terms of our current law. Because when the irrevocability of the stages is mentioned, what is meant exclusively is the irreversibility from the main trial phase to the investigation phase. Since the intermediate trial phase is also counted as the investigation phase, we can indirectly say that it is not possible to return to the intermediate trial phase from the main trial phase. Since the legislator does not qualify a separate phase, although there is no obstacle in terms of the principle of irrevocability from phases, it is not clear whether the prosecutor can withdraw the indictment independently of the court during the intermediate trial phase; to put it more accurately, it does not seem possible since it is not foreseen in the legislation. Indeed, with the start of the main trial phase, the phase in which the prosecutor effectively acts, comes to an end, and the task of executing and managing the process passes to the court. However, in some cases, the lack of judgement conditions or the emergence of obstacles to judgement may require returning to the investigation phase or making a decision to stop and correcting the relevant deficiencies by out-of-court authorities. For this reason, in some country practises, it is possible to return to the investigation phase during andor after the main hearing period. Because we do not have a regulation that allows this issue, in our opinion, irreparable results emerge in the main trial phase. Likewise, the recent annulment decision of the Constitutional Court regarding the accelerated proceeding also necessitates a return to the investigation phase. We have discussed this study in order to propose changes in our legislation by trying to explain within the framework of comparative law that it should be possible to return to the investigation phase in order to eliminate the injustices problems in the context of a fair trial that may arise in these and similar cases.

 Regarding the phasesstages in criminal procedure, investigation and the main trial stages come to mind. Although it is not directly mentioned in the current Code of Criminal Procedure with code no. 5271, there is an intermediate trial phase. This phase, which allows the return of the indictment with a limited period of time, is not important for our study because it is still considered as the investigation phase in terms of our current law. Because when the irrevocability of the stages is mentioned, what is meant exclusively is the irreversibility from the main trial phase to the investigation phase. Since the intermediate trial phase is also counted as the investigation phase, we can indirectly say that it is not possible to return to the intermediate trial phase from the main trial phase. Since the legislator does not qualify a separate phase, although there is no obstacle in terms of the principle of irrevocability from phases, it is not clear whether the prosecutor can withdraw the indictment independently of the court during the intermediate trial phase; to put it more accurately, it does not seem possible since it is not foreseen in the legislation. Indeed, with the start of the main trial phase, the phase in which the prosecutor effectively acts, comes to an end, and the task of executing and managing the process passes to the court. However, in some cases, the lack of judgement conditions or the emergence of obstacles to judgement may require returning to the investigation phase or making a decision to stop and correcting the relevant deficiencies by out-of-court authorities. For this reason, in some country practises, it is possible to return to the investigation phase during andor after the main hearing period. Because we do not have a regulation that allows this issue, in our opinion, irreparable results emerge in the main trial phase. Likewise, the recent annulment decision of the Constitutional Court regarding the accelerated proceeding also necessitates a return to the investigation phase. We have discussed this study in order to propose changes in our legislation by trying to explain within the framework of comparative law that it should be possible to return to the investigation phase in order to eliminate the injustices problems in the context of a fair trial that may arise in these and similar cases.

 Ceza muhakemesinde evreler denildiğinde soruşturma ve kovuşturma evreleri akla gelmektedir. Mevcut 5271 s. Ceza Muhakemesi Kanununda doğrudan anılmasa da ara muhakeme evresinin olduğu da kabul görmektedir. Kısıtlı bir süre ile iddianamenin iadesine imkân tanıyan bu evre mevzu hukukumuz açısından halen soruşturma evresi sayıldığından çalışma konumuz açısından önem arz etmemektedir. Zira evrelerden dönülmezlikten bahsedildiğinde, kastedilen münhasıran kovuşturma evresinden soruşturma evresine dönülmezliktir. Ara muhakeme evresi de soruşturma evresinden sayıldığından kovuşturma evresinden ara muhakeme evresine dönülemeyeceğini ise dolaylı olarak söyleyebilmekteyiz. Kanun koyucu ayrı bir evre nitelemesi yapmadığından evrelerden dönülmezlik ilkesi anlamında bir engel bulunmazsa da ara muhakeme evresinde mahkemeden bağımsız olarak savcının ilgili iddianameyi geri çekip çekemeyeceği açık değildir; daha doğru bir ifade ile mevzuatta öngörülmediğinden mümkün görünmemektedir. Gerçekten kovuşturma evresinin başlamasıyla birlikte savcının etkin olduğu evre sona ermiş olmakta ve süreci yürütme ve yönetme işi mahkemeye geçmektedir. Ancak muhakeme şartlarının eksikliği yahut muhakeme engellerinin ortaya çıkması kimi hallerde soruşturma evresine dönülmesini yahut durma kararı verilerek ilgili eksikliklerin mahkeme dışı makamlarca giderilmesini gerektirebilmektedir. Bu sebeple kimi ülke uygulamalarında soruşturma evresine dönüş duruşma devresi ve veya sonrasında mümkün kılınmıştır. Bizde ise bu konuya cevaz veren bir düzenleme bulunmadığı için bize göre telafisi kovuşturma evresinde mümkün olmayan sonuçlar ortaya çıkmaktadır. Keza Anayasa Mahkemesinin yakın tarihte seri muhakeme usulüne ilişkin olarak verdiği iptal kararı da soruşturma evresine dönüşü zorunlu kılmaktadır. Bu ve benzeri hallerde ortaya çıkabilecek haksızlıkları adil yargılanma bağlamındaki sorunları giderme adına soruşturma evresine dönülmesinin mümkün olması gerektiğini mukayeseli hukuk çerçevesinde açıklamaya çalışarak mevzuatımızda değişiklik önerisinde bulunma adına bu çalışmayı ele almış bulunmaktayız.

Makale detayları

The Principle of the Irrevocability of Phases

Yazarlar:

N.A.

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Public Law (Other)

Dergi:

İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası Vol.82 Issue 4, pp.1271-1287

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001341383

pISSN:

2636-7734

Irrevocability of Phases

Irreversibility of Stages

Stages Irrevocability

Irrevocability Between Stages

Immutability PrincipleSafhalardan Geri Dönülmezlik

Evrelerden Geri Dönülmezlik

Evrelerden Dönülmezlik

Evreler Arası Dönülmezlik İlkesi

Immutabilitätsprinzip (Değişmezlik İlkesi)

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: N.A.

Yayıncı: Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar: Public Law (Other)

Dergi: İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası Vol.82 Issue 4, pp.1271-1287

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 12/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001341383

pISSN: 2636-7734

Sayı

Yazarlar:

N.A.

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Public Law (Other)

Dergi:

İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası Vol.82 Issue 4, pp.1271-1287

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001341383

pISSN:

2636-7734