Decision on No Need for an Investigation (CMK art.158 f.6)

Cem Şenol

Makale detayları

Decision on No Need for an Investigation (CMK art.158 f.6)

Yazarlar:

Cem Şenol

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Environmental and Resources Law (Other)

Dergi:

İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası Vol.81 Issue 3, pp.749-771

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

4/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001315860

pISSN:

2636-7734

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 This study deals with the decision regarding no need for an investigation as regulated in Article 158.f.6 of the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code CPC. The regulation regarding the decision to not conduct an investigation SYOK gives the public prosecutor the authority to decide that no need exists for an investigation, with the exceptions of opening an investigation or making a decision that no need exists for prosecution due to the conditions of investigation not being met. However, when a perpetrator commits a crime, a punitive relationship emerges between the perpetrator and the state. For this reason, the prosecutors office is under the obligation to investigate news of a crime as soon as it is uncovered. This regulation gives prosecutors the authority to decide that no need exists for an investigation in the presence of certain conditions regarding the notice or complaint made to them and undoubtedly has rearranged the conditions under which the obligation to investigate emerges in Turkish law. Therefore, the study uses the literature review method to examine the changes to the principle of obligation to investigate in Turkish law through the decision that no need exists for an investigation. For this purpose, the study first emphasizes how the conditions the regulation requires in order to be able to make a decision not to investigate underline the fact that the act that is subject to notice and complaint does not constitute a crime is to be clearly understood without the need for any research, or that the notice and complaint are abstract and general in nature. The study then uses various concrete examples to discuss the situations in which these conditions are able to find areas of application. The study goes on to discuss the legal consequences of the decision and the legal remedies that can be applied in the face of such a decision. The study makes comparisons with the regulations that occur in German law regarding the principle of the obligation to investigate and offers suggestions regarding how the issue should be regulated in order to protect the right to not be labelled a criminal.

 This study deals with the decision regarding no need for an investigation as regulated in Article 158.f.6 of the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code CPC. The regulation regarding the decision to not conduct an investigation SYOK gives the public prosecutor the authority to decide that no need exists for an investigation, with the exceptions of opening an investigation or making a decision that no need exists for prosecution due to the conditions of investigation not being met. However, when a perpetrator commits a crime, a punitive relationship emerges between the perpetrator and the state. For this reason, the prosecutors office is under the obligation to investigate news of a crime as soon as it is uncovered. This regulation gives prosecutors the authority to decide that no need exists for an investigation in the presence of certain conditions regarding the notice or complaint made to them and undoubtedly has rearranged the conditions under which the obligation to investigate emerges in Turkish law. Therefore, the study uses the literature review method to examine the changes to the principle of obligation to investigate in Turkish law through the decision that no need exists for an investigation. For this purpose, the study first emphasizes how the conditions the regulation requires in order to be able to make a decision not to investigate underline the fact that the act that is subject to notice and complaint does not constitute a crime is to be clearly understood without the need for any research, or that the notice and complaint are abstract and general in nature. The study then uses various concrete examples to discuss the situations in which these conditions are able to find areas of application. The study goes on to discuss the legal consequences of the decision and the legal remedies that can be applied in the face of such a decision. The study makes comparisons with the regulations that occur in German law regarding the principle of the obligation to investigate and offers suggestions regarding how the issue should be regulated in order to protect the right to not be labelled a criminal.

 This study deals with the decision regarding no need for an investigation as regulated in Article 158.f.6 of the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code CPC. The regulation regarding the decision to not conduct an investigation SYOK gives the public prosecutor the authority to decide that no need exists for an investigation, with the exceptions of opening an investigation or making a decision that no need exists for prosecution due to the conditions of investigation not being met. However, when a perpetrator commits a crime, a punitive relationship emerges between the perpetrator and the state. For this reason, the prosecutors office is under the obligation to investigate news of a crime as soon as it is uncovered. This regulation gives prosecutors the authority to decide that no need exists for an investigation in the presence of certain conditions regarding the notice or complaint made to them and undoubtedly has rearranged the conditions under which the obligation to investigate emerges in Turkish law. Therefore, the study uses the literature review method to examine the changes to the principle of obligation to investigate in Turkish law through the decision that no need exists for an investigation. For this purpose, the study first emphasizes how the conditions the regulation requires in order to be able to make a decision not to investigate underline the fact that the act that is subject to notice and complaint does not constitute a crime is to be clearly understood without the need for any research, or that the notice and complaint are abstract and general in nature. The study then uses various concrete examples to discuss the situations in which these conditions are able to find areas of application. The study goes on to discuss the legal consequences of the decision and the legal remedies that can be applied in the face of such a decision. The study makes comparisons with the regulations that occur in German law regarding the principle of the obligation to investigate and offers suggestions regarding how the issue should be regulated in order to protect the right to not be labelled a criminal.

 Bu çalışma, Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu m.158.f.6da düzenlenen soruşturma yapılmasına yer olmadığı kararını ele almaktadır. Soruşturma yapılmasına yer olmadığı kararına SYOK ilişkin düzenleme, Cumhuriyet savcısına, bir suç isnadına ilişkin ihbarlar ve şikâyetler hakkında, soruşturma açmak veya soruşturma şartları oluşmamışsa kovuşturmaya yer olmadığı kararı vermek dışında soruşturma yapmaya yer olmadığına karar verme yetkisi tanımaktadır. Oysaki failin suç işlemesi ile birlikte fail ile devlet arasında bir cezalandırma ilişkisinin ortaya çıkar. Bu sebeple savcılık, bir suç haberini öğrenir öğrenmez onu soruşturma yükümlülüğü altındadır. Savcılara kendilerine yapılan ihbar veya şikâyet hakkında belli koşulların varlığı durumunda soruşturmaya yer olmadığı kararı verme yetkisi tanıyan bu düzenleme, hiç kuşkusuz Türk hukukunda soruşturma mecburiyetinin ortaya çıkış şartlarını yeniden düzenlemiştir. Bu nedenle çalışmada soruşturmaya yer olmadığı kararı ile birlikte Türk hukukunda soruşturmaya mecburiyeti ilkesinin ne şekilde değişim gösterdiği, literatür taraması yöntemi kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Bu amaçla öncelikle düzenlemenin soruşturmaya yer olmadığı kararı verilebilmesi için aradığı koşullar olan ihbar ve şikâyet konusu fiilin suç oluşturmadığının herhangi bir araştırma yapılmasını gerektirmeksizin açıkça anlaşılması ile ihbar ve şikâyetin soyut ve genel nitelikte olmasının ne anlama geldiği üzerinde durulmuştur. Bu koşulların uygulama alanı bulabileceği durumlar, çeşitli somut örnekler üzerinden tartışılmıştır. İkinci olarak kararın hukuki sonuçları ve karara karşı başvurulabilecek kanun yolları ele alınmıştır. Çalışmada soruşturma mecburiyeti ilkesini ilişkin olarak Alman hukukunda yapılan düzenlemeler ile karşılaştırmalar yapılmış, düzenlemenin gerekçesini oluşturan lekelenmeme hakkının korunması için konunun ne şekilde düzenlenmesi gerektiğine ilişkin önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Makale detayları

Decision on No Need for an Investigation (CMK art.158 f.6)

Yazarlar:

Cem Şenol

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Environmental and Resources Law (Other)

Dergi:

İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası Vol.81 Issue 3, pp.749-771

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

4/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001315860

pISSN:

2636-7734

Investigation

Prosecutor

Complaint

Right to not be Labelled a Criminal

ProsecutionSoruşturma

Savcı

Şikâyet

Lekelenmeme Hakkı

Karar

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Cem Şenol

Yayıncı: Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar: Environmental and Resources Law (Other)

Dergi: İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası Vol.81 Issue 3, pp.749-771

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 4/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001315860

pISSN: 2636-7734

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Cem Şenol

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Environmental and Resources Law (Other)

Dergi:

İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası Vol.81 Issue 3, pp.749-771

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

4/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001315860

pISSN:

2636-7734