Criminal Division 2021/2529 E., 2021/5616 K.
“Text of Justice”
COURT: First Instance Criminal Court
CRIME: Violation of Law No. 6831
JURISDICTION: Conviction
The case was reviewed, the need was discussed, and an assessment was made, taking into account the time limit for the appeal, the nature of the decision, and the date the crime was committed, based on the appeal against the decision issued by the Local Court:
Since there were no grounds for rejecting the appeal, the matter proceeded to the next stage. During the review,
the minutes, documents, and reasoning reflecting the trial process that formed the conscientious opinion were taken into account. Article 110/2 of Law No. 6831 refers to vegetation that must be deliberately burned, such as weeds, bushes, and crop stalks remaining in the field after harvest, located less than 4 kilometers from the nearest forested area, and it is understood that the crime of stubble burning was committed.
As understood from the file, it was determined that the defendant cut the grass collected in his field, and it burned as a result of the fire spreading but was extinguished before reaching the forested area. Therefore, the defendant’s action does not constitute the crime of stubble burning. Considering that the fire was 2550 meters away from the forested area, posing a forest fire hazard; that the act constituted a risk to public safety as stipulated in Article 171/1-a of the Turkish Penal Code; and that the error in determining the nature of the crime resulted in the crime of embezzlement, without taking this into account, according to the written decision;
1-
Pursuant to Article 141 of the Constitution and Articles 34 and 230 of the Criminal Procedure Code, court decisions must act in a manner that convinces the defendants and victims,
the prosecutor, and everyone else, and allows for review by the High Court.
In order for the Court of Cassation to be able to check the consistency of the grounds, the decision is based on all the data,
the conclusions reached by the court regarding this data, the allegations, the defenses, and the statements of the victims and witnesses.
It must be clearly stated that the reasoning behind the decision and the assessments regarding the court’s conscientious opinion are matters that enable the legal characterization of these acts and are accepted after the acts have been declared to be crimes. The reasons for increasing or reducing the penalty must be discussed in a legal context; this cannot be done without any justification by referring to the decision to postpone the announcement of the judgment by not complying with the judgment.
2- Pursuant to Article 110 of Law No. 6831, in determining the basic penalty,
if the relevant provision of the law is not complied with,
3-
Failure to comply with the requirement under Article 53 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 that deprivation of rights be imposed as a legal consequence of imprisonment for an intentional crime,
4- In the ruling announced on March 18, 2016, a decision was made in favor of the participant administration represented by proxy.
According to the Minimum Attorney Fee Schedule in effect on 03.04.2009, it was decided that the attorney’s fee
should be paid by deducting the attorney’s fee taken in case of non-compliance,
and
a notification will be made on the grounds that this situation is contrary to the law and that the participant attorney’s grounds for objection are deemed appropriate.
Contrary to Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320, pursuant to Article 321 of Law No. 1412, which should be applied, it was decided to close the file for the conclusion of the proceedings.
On 05/25/2021, it was unanimously decided to send it to court.