Events
The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment by the high criminal court for intentional manslaughter, and the criminal department of the district court of justice (criminal department), which examined the applicant’s appeal request, rejected the request on the merits. Upon the rejection of the appeal request, the applicant’s defense lawyer filed an objection with a petition dated 5/11/2018 within the period starting from the announcement of the decision in person. Criminal Department informed the applicant’s defence lawyer of its reasoned decision on 22/11/2018. The applicant’s defense lawyer submitted an additional petition to the criminal chamber on October 5, 2018, showing the grounds for appeal. Court of Cassation decided to reject the appeal on the grounds that the petition showing the grounds for appeal was filed after the seven-day legal period had expired.
The Allegations
Applicant claimed that his right of access to the court had been violated due to the decision to reject the appeal request on the grounds that the grounds of appeal had not been notified within the time limit.
The Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, the penal department has given notice in terms of the fifteen-day period, which is the general appeal period, but has not given notice of the granting of the petition containing the notice in terms of the seven-day period. Grounds of objection from the date of notification of the reasoned decision. In other words, the criminal Oct did not evaluate the appeal process as a whole; as of the notification of the reasoned decision, it gave incomplete information to the applicant about submitting an additional petition containing the grounds for appeal.
The Court of Cassation also rejected the applicant’s appeal request against the decision, which contained incomplete information in terms of the way of appeal, on the grounds that the applicant had submitted a petition stating the grounds for appeal after the seven-day legal period had expired. In this case, it is understood that the refusal of the Court of Cassation to the applicant’s appeal request without applying some balancing measures makes the right of access to the court more difficult and imposes an unwarranted burden on the applicant. Therefore, it was concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right of access to the court was disproportionate.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that the right of access to the court within the scope of the right to a fair trial had been violated.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.