T.C.
SUPREME
5. CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT
Main Number: 2013/13743
Decision No: 2015/16274
K. Date:16.11.2015
The verdict given by the local court was appealed, the file was examined and the necessity was considered:
During the prosecution of the defendant, who is a lawyer registered in the Ankara Bar Association, against the debtors in the capacity of creditor’s attorney, S. surety for the debt.. S..despite the fact that an executive order has been notified to the address of residence of , S, who is only the bailiff of the bailiff, who has nothing to do with the debt and the debtor.. S.. with the name or likeness of participating in residence at another address on 12/11/2009 by ensuring attached and items locksmith through the door at home when he’s not opening, giving rise to the grievance, and thus to be kept by the offence of misconduct alleged to have been committed also, if you have file scope compared to the creditor notified the defendant of the address are provided by attending and, thus, the execution and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004, and Article 80 of 88. according to the articles, The Making of goods and marketable foreclosures execution of the task of taking into custody belongs to the creditor’s attorney and the Office of this process can be done in the absence of the defendant at the address of the request by the executive officer and the Executive Directorate for information regarding foreclosures and housing foreclosures of the process adopted by the defendant to be made in the absence of any of these operations after one day, the attendee’s debt relations foreclosed upon return of the goods to participate in the Executive Directorate to declare the defendant to request that in the face, considering that there is insufficient evidence that the accused has committed an act contrary to the requirements of his duty or negligent, it should be decided to acquit him of the crime thrown out, while his conviction should be ruled in writing with an erroneous assessment,
According to the admission, too;
257/1 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 of the act, the subsidy of which was adopted. 257/2 of the same Law, without regard to the fact that it constitutes a crime of misconduct with executive behavior in Article 2. establishment of a provision with the article,
Although it is accepted that the crime was committed by abusing the rights and authority in Article 53/1-e of Law No. 5237, Article 53/5 of the same Law on the accused. non-application of the article,
Contrary to the law, since the accused’s appeals were considered on the spot in this respect, the provision is 8/1 of Law No. 5320. it was unanimously decided on 16/11/2015 that the CMUK should be overturned in accordance with articles 321 and 326 / last, taking into account the article.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.