Ceza Muhakemesi Şartlarının Genel Teorisi
Ali Şahin KılıçMuhakeme şartları, genel anlamıyla ceza muhakemesinin başlatılması veya devamı için bulunması gereken koşulları ifade eder. Bunların işlevi, ceza muhakemesinin başlamasını veya ilerlemesini bir şartın gerçekleşmesine bağlamaktır. Muhakeme şartının gerçekleşmemesi durumunda failin yargılanması ve fakat cezalandırılmamasından farklı olarak, işin esasının muhakeme edilmesi engellenir. Bu yönüyle muhakeme şartları, şahsi cezasızlık sebepleri gibi kişinin cezalandırılmasını engelleyen kurumlardan farklıdır. Muhakeme şartları, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku ile maddi ceza hukukunun ve diğer başka alanların kesişim noktasında bulunmaktadır. Bu makalede teorik arka planları dikkate alınarak muhakeme şartları saf muhakeme şartları ve karmaşık muhakeme şartları şeklinde ikiye ayrılarak incelenmiş ve bu muhakeme şartlarının teorik çerçevesinin ortaya konulması yönünde çaba sarf edilmiştir.
General Theory of Procedural Impediments in Criminal Procedure
Ali Şahin KılıçIn general, procedural impediments refer to prerequisites necessary for the initiation or progression of criminal proceedings. Their function is to condition the initiation or progression of criminal proceedings on the fulfillment of a specific condition. Unlike instances where the accused is tried but not punished due to the non-fulfillment of, for example, a ground for exclusion of punishment, the merits of the case are prevented from being adjudicated. Thus, procedural impediments are distinct from mechanisms like personal reasons for immunity from punishment, which obstruct the penalty of an individual. In this context, procedural impediments are at the intersection of criminal procedural law, substantive criminal law, and various other areas. In this article, procedural impediments are explored by categorizing them into pure and complex types based on their theoretical backgrounds, and it is endeavored to elucidate the theoretical framework of these procedural impediments.
In general, procedural impediments refer to prerequisites necessary for the initiation or progression of criminal proceedings. The concept of procedural impediments has been introduced into the doctrine of criminal law, mainly under the influence of civil procedural law. This concept was developed by the doctrine, embraced through jurisprudence, and incorporated into various legislations and has become one of the foundational institutions of criminal procedure. Procedural impediments are institutions designed to establish a balance between the actual state of affairs and ideals, thereby providing an exception to the principle of mandatory prosecution.
The theoretical framework of procedural impediments is linked to understanding their purpose and classification. Their common characteristics could be meaningfully articulated by adopting this viewpoint. This paper distinguishes between procedural impediments into pure and complex categories, considering their reasons for existence and functions. This distinction depends on whether an impediment is evaluated solely within the merits of criminal procedural law or is influenced by other systems.
Pure procedural impediments necessitate no exploration of crime policy or similar aspects when determining the rationale behind procedural impediments. In such cases, proceeding with a criminal trial would contradict the logic of adjudication or deviate from the minimum requirements of the legal system. The impediments in this category do not pose significant challenges in criminal proceedings, and their theoretical framework is relatively straightforward to delineate, as it can be fully explained by the requirements of the criminal procedural law system. The main challenge arises from impediments that cannot be explained by the logic of criminal proceedings.
In cases of complex procedural impediments that necessitate balancing, it is insufficient to resolve issues by strictly adhering to the dynamics of criminal law alone; the situation must be examined within the expansive context of the law’s interrelation with other systems. This implies that decisions regarding the necessity of such impediments are not limited to criminal law expertise. Nonetheless, when contemplating the establishment of such an impediment, the measures necessary to achieve a balance cannot be determined without considering the dynamics of substantive and procedural law. It is crucial to acknowledge that when there is a need to balance criminal proceedings with other state functions, an evaluation by a criminal justice authority should be the preferred course of action. Specifically, if conducting an investigation poses a significant risk to public interests, entrusting the decision-making process to the discretion of the public prosecutor or facilitating consultation with various entities in exercising this discretion seems to be the most rational solution.
