AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightThis study seeks answers to the questions of whether it is necessary to clearly specify the criminal act that is the subject of the accusation when filing a criminal complaint against the members of the Constitutional Court, to which authority the criminal complaint should be filed in the special investigation procedure, how the investigation should be conducted against the members of the Constitutional Court, and finally, what are the potential problems that this criminal complaint will cause in a society that has adopted the rule of law principle and in the international community.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
The 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation has decided not to comply with the Constitutional Court's ruling in the Şerafettin Can ATALAY 2 judgment on retrial to benefit from parliamentary immunity. This decision, the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation filed a criminal complaint to the Office of Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation against the members of the Constitutional Court who ruled on the violation of rights on the grounds that the Constitutional Court exceeded the limits of its judicial authority, such as judicial activism so that they could be tried before the Supreme Criminal Tribunal. This decision of the Court of Cassation raises many questions. This study seeks answers to the questions of whether it is necessary to clearly specify the criminal act that is the subject of the accusation when filing a criminal complaint against the members of the Constitutional Court, to which authority the criminal complaint should be filed in the special investigation procedure, how the investigation should be conducted against the members of the Constitutional Court, and finally, what are the potential problems that this criminal complaint will cause in a society that has adopted the rule of law principle and in the international community.
Özet
Yargıtay 3. Ceza Dairesi, Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin Şerafettin Can ATALAY 2 kararında verdiği milletvekili dokunulmazlığından yararlandırılmaya yönelik yeniden yargılama hükmüne uymama kararı almıştır. Yargıtay 3. Ceza Dairesi bu kararıyla Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin yargısal aktivizm gibi yargı yetkisinin sınırını aştığı gerekçesiyle hak ihlali kararı veren üyeler hakkında Yargıtay Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı’na Yüce Divan’da yargılanmaları için suç duyurusunda bulunmuştur. Yargıtay’ın bu kararı beraberinde birçok soru doğurmaktadır. Bu çalışmada Anayasa Mahkemesi üyeleri hakkında suç duyurusunda bulunurken isnat konusu suç fiilinin açıkça belirtilmesinin gerekip gerekmediği, özel soruşturma usulünde suç duyurusunun hangi makama yapılması gerektiği, Anayasa Mahkemesi üyeleri hakkında soruşturmanın ne şekilde yapılması gerektiği ve nihayetinde bu suç duyurusunun hukuk devleti ilkesini benimsemiş bir toplumda ve uluslararası camiada doğuracağı potansiyel sorunların ne olduğu sorularına cevap aranmaktadır.