SUPREME COURT 18. Criminal Department
2015/9759 E.
2015/13708 K.
OFFENSE : Insult
PROVISION : There is no place for punishment
The decision issued by the Local Court is appealed, but the duration of the application is determined by the nature of the decision and the date of the crime, as well as the request of the participating deputy for a judicial review in accordance with Article 318 of the CMUK No. 1412. according to the article, it was decided to REFUSE and the file was discussed:
Since there were no reasons for the refusal of the appeal request, the essence of the work was moved.
The minutes reflecting the trial process in which the conscientious opinion was formed were not found to be in place in the examination conducted according to the documents and the content of the justification.
But;
The defendant, prior to participating in-based partnerships and liabilities due to the current proceedings and insulting, stating that the criminal provision because a decision is made whether to perform in response to tort also, if the defendant gave in 1985 to join him, but couldn’t get back for pulling the messages will claim that because in the case against the defense, in the meantime a long time considered, without considering the principle of reciprocity will not occur conditions to that, on insufficient grounds deciding whether to provision the criminal,
It was decided unanimously on 17.12.2015 that the VIOLATION of the PROVISION contrary to the law and contrary to the request in the communiqué, the file should be sent to the court of main/sentence to be continued and concluded starting from the pre-trial stage of the trial, as the reasons for the appeal of the participating …attorney were deemed to be in place.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.