T.R.
SUPREME COURT
- CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT 2006/5382 2006/13684 11.7.2006
PASSIVE RESISTANCE TO THE OFFICIAL OFFICER (Making Difficulty Not Getting In The Police Vehicle And Trying To Escape – Passive Resistance Action Is Decriminalized/Acquitted)
LIABILITY RESISTANCE ( His Action Is Decriminalized / Acquittal – Making Difficulty Not Getting Into The Police Vehicle And Trying To Escape )
MAKING DIFFICULTY TO GO TO THE POLICE VEHICLE AND ATTEMPTING TO ESCAPE (Passive Resistance to the Officer on Duty – The Action of Passive Resistance is Decriminalized)
STRENGTH TO THE OFFICER ( Making Difficulty Not Getting In The Police Vehicle And Trying To Escape – Passive Resistance Action Is Decriminalized / Acquittal Required)
765/m.260
5237/m.265
SUMMARY: Due to the defendant’s failure to give his identity, the team wanted to get away while he was put in his vehicle, and the police complainant, who wanted to prevent this, was injured by his own fault, although the defendant did not take any action; The act of making difficulties to avoid getting into the vehicle and trying to escape constitutes the passive resistance crime stipulated in the TPC No. 765, Article 265 of the Turkish Criminal Code numbered 5237 regulates the crime of resisting to not perform the duty by force and threat. not recognized as a crime.
CASE: Defendant of the crime of resisting the officer in charge, 77 TL in accordance with the Articles of 260 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 765, and Articles 4 of the Law No. 647 on the Execution of Penalties. B. Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals, which included the order of the 1st Criminal Court of First Instance, dated 20.12.2005, dated 20.12.2005 and numbered 2004/215, and the decision of the Ministry of Justice, dated 25.5.2006 and numbered 22134, requesting an annulment for the benefit of the law. With the communiqué dated 14.6.2006 and numbered 120203, the case file was examined by sending it to the Chamber and the necessary was discussed:
DECISION: In the communiqué, “According to the scope of the file, although the sentence was established pursuant to Article 260 of the Law, which is mentioned that the TCK numbered 765 is more favorable due to the crime of passive resistance, the court did not want to give his identity and walk away after the police officer in charge of the defendant’s action asked for his identity. Considering that the act was not regulated in the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, considering that the act was not regulated in the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, it was not correct to give a written conviction instead of acquitting the accused.” is called.
Since the accused did not give his identity, he wanted to get away while the team was put in his vehicle and the police complainant, who wanted to prevent this, was injured by his own fault, although the accused did not take any action; The act of making difficulties to avoid getting into the vehicle and trying to escape constitutes the passive resistance crime stipulated in the 260th article of the TTC No. 765, and the crime of resisting in order not to perform the duty by force and threat was regulated in the article 265 of the TTC No. 5237, which entered into force on 1.6.2005. Since it was understood that their passive actions that do not include force and threat against them were not accepted as a crime, the thought in the communiqué was seen on the spot.
CONCLUSION: Based on the thought that the 260th article of the TTC numbered 765 is for the benefit of the accused compared to the 265th article of the TTC numbered 5237, the provision established by the application of the 260th article of the TTC no. Since the act of resistance was decriminalized with the Turkish Criminal Code numbered 5237, it was unanimously decided on 11.7.2006 that the accused be acquitted of the charge and not to be sentenced.