Difficulties Regarding the Requirement of Indicating the Reason for Appeal in Criminal Procedural Law
Fatih BirtekThe Turkish Court of Cassation began functioning on July 20, 2016. With this legal step, the Turkish Criminal Procedures (TCP) system transformed into a three-tier criminal justice system. First- and second-degree criminal procedures involve two aspects of judicial review: point of law and point of proof. However, the scope of judicial review of Turkish Court of Cassation includes only reviews points of law. The Court of Cassation only rules on the issue of point of law in material cases. The rules pertaining to the obligations for reason submittal and ultra petita have been adopted with regard to remedying legal appeals in the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code (TCPC). Therefore, the appeal must be made in a way that includes the whole reasons and also appellant can submit an additional petition which includes reasons of appeal. Although an application may be accepted as a request of appeal without showing a certain reason for the request, it cannot be accepted strictly as an appeal application. Therefore, the recent practices of the Court of Cassation have not been within the letter of the law. This study provides a detailed discussion of the characteristics of an appeal request, their importance in terms of the freedom of access to justice and the right to a fair trial, the obligation to indication the reasons for appeal in the appellate brief, the deadline for indicating reasons, and the legal results related to neglecting these requirements in line with theory and practice.
Ceza Muhakemesinde Temyiz Sebeplerinin Gösterilmesine İlişkin Zor(unlu)luk
Fatih Birtek20 Temmuz 2016 tarihi itibariyle istinaf kanun yolu fiilen uygulamaya girmiştir. Bu değişlikle birlikte Türk ceza muhakemesi sistemi üç dereceli bir muhakeme sistemine dönüşmüştür. İlk ve ikinci derece yargılamada, cezai uyuşmazlığın maddi vakıa (ispat) ve hukuki mesele yönü hakkında bir karar verilmekte iken; “hukuk derece” olarak kabul edilen temyiz yargılamasında kural olarak sadece hukuka aykırılık (hukuki mesele) incelenmekte ve bu konuda bir karar verilmektedir. Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nda, temyiz kanun yolu bakımından “sebep gösterme zorunluluğu” ve “başvuruda gösterilen sebeplerle sınırlı inceleme” kuralları benimsenmiştir. Bu sebeple, temyiz başvurusunun kararın bozulmasını gerektiren sebepleri içerecek şekilde yapılması veya temyiz sebeplerine ilişkin gerekçeyi içeren ek bir dilekçenin sunulması gerekmektedir. Aksi halde, temyiz isteminin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir. Temyiz isteminde bulunan süje tarafından somut bir sebep gösterilmeksizin, “hükmün hukuka aykırı olduğu”, “hükmün hukuka ve usule aykırı olduğu” biçimindeki bir ifadenin “soyut temyiz başvurusu” olarak kabulü mümkün ise de somut temyiz sebeplerinin/ gerekçelerinin gösterildiği bir başvuru olarak kabulü mümkün değildir. Bu sebeple Yargıtay’ın yakın tarihli kararlarında, temyiz kanun yolu başvurularında yer alan “hükmün hukuka ve usule aykırı olduğu” ifadesinin temyiz sebebinin bildirilmesi olarak kabul edilmesi; CMK m 294 hükmünde yer alan açık düzenlemenin “yorum adı altında” daraltılması/ anlamının değiştirilmesi veya diğer bir deyişle kanun hükmünün uygulanmaması anlamına gelmektedir. Bu çalışmada, temyiz kanun yolunun özellikleri, mahkemeye erişim hürriyeti ve adil yargılanma hakkı bakımından önemi, temyiz başvurusunda sebep gösterme zorunluluğu (zorluğu), temyiz sebeplerinin gösterilmesi gereken zaman dilimi ve temyiz sebeplerinin gösterilmemesine bağlanan yaptırımlar, teoride ve uygulamada öne sürülen görüşler doğrultusunda ayrıntılı bir şekilde ele alınmıştır.
Turkish Criminal Procedure System (TCPS) has been transformed into a three-tier structure, with the Courts of Cassation becoming operational on July 20, 2016. Firstand second-degree criminal procedures involve two aspects of judicial review: point of law and point of proof. Notwithstanding, the third level of criminal procedure is cassation and only includes point of law regarding judicial review. Therefore, the level of cassation (judicial review in the Court of Cassation) is referred to as the “judicial review”.
In accordance with case law for the ECHR and the Turkish Supreme Court, the rules for applying a judicial review (appeal) are not violated as long as they have been previously regulated by the law and do not approach or exceed upon the essence of the right of access to justice and the right to a fair trial. The violation of a legal rule (unlawfulness) constitutes the reason, subject, and outline of an appeal (application to the Court of Cassation) in terms of the a judicial review of the level of law within the three-tier structure. The appellate brief (petition of appeal) should include the appellant’s reason for cassation. Nonetheless the point of absolute unlawfulness (TCPA, Art. 289) is not mandatory for an appellate brief. The absence of any reasons for (merits of) cassation on the appellate brief are legally sanctioned as grounds for the the Criminal Circuit of the Court of Cassation to reject an appeal. Therefore, having the appellant indicate the reason(s) for cassation on the appellate brief is essential for it to be subjected to a judicial review from the Turkish Court of Cassation.
Articles 296/1 and 298 of the TCPC are incompatible with one another. Therefore, the indicating the reasons for (merits of) cassation on the appellate brief may have been previously submitted to a judicial review of the criminal circuit of the Court of Cassation, especially if a judgement is rendered without an opinion. Articles 296/1 and 298 of the TCPC must be amended by taking into account the principle of ultra petita regarding judicial reviews in the Court of Cassation. The essential problem with regard to indicating the merits of cassation arises for judgements that have been rendered without an opinion. When focusing on the legal arrangements in the TCPC within this situation, the first petition (i.e., appellate brief) is the first document filed for revealing the reason(s) for cassation regarding judgements rendered without an opinion. The second document involves the merits of cassation and is referred to as an additional petition.
The applicant must submit an appellate brief (first petition) within a certain legal timeframe after the judgment (Court of Cassation judgment) has been delivered to the applicant. Afterward the applicant may submit an additional petition that includes the merits of cassation. Submitting an appellate brief that contains reasons such as “we oppose to the judgement,” “we do not accept the judgement,” “we submit an appeal,” or “we make an appeal” are unacceptable as valid appeal reasons for judgements that have been rendered without an opinion. However, indicating a reason for (merits of) cassation on the appellate becomes difficult and especially challenging for appeals to the criminal circuit of the Court of Cessations regarding rulings stated as “formulated judgement,” particularly when taking into account the absence of the obligation of indicating the merits of cassation regarding appeals from parties apart from the public prosecutor, as the application for cassation (application brief) cannot include the merits of cassation by nature of the ruling in this process.
A valid application of cassation (application brief) includes a brief summary of the merits of the application (substantive law and/ or procedural law aspects) as long as the judgement has been rendered without an opinion. Afterward, the merits of the application can be submitted at the latest after the initial judicial review of the criminal circuit of the Court of Cassation using a second additional petition. Otherwise, the criminal circuit of the Court of Cassation will be able to make judicial review limited by the specific reason as determined in Article 289 of the TCPC.
The TCPC regulates the obligation of indicating the reason(s) for (i.e., merits of) cassation. The Code has clearly and precisely adopted in principle the rule of ultra petita with regard to cassation. However, the Turkish Court of Cassation does accept a valid application cassation regarding substantive criminal law for appellants who declare a judgement to be unlawful in terms of “law and procedure” by law of analogy despite analogy already having been prohibited in terms of clearly and precisely.
The statements (i.e., declarations) in the petition of cassation must be clear and require no interpretation in terms of the parties being represented by a lawyer. Otherwise, the application of cassation must be rejected. However, for parties who are not represented by a lawyer, the statements (i.e., declarations) on the petition of cassation must be interpreted as broadly as possible by taking into account the right of access to justice and the right to a fair trial. In this case, the merits of (i.e., reasons for) cassation should be revealed using an interpreter.
