Subversion in favor of law – Reversing for the benefit of the law is a legal remedy that is resorted to in order to eliminate the illegality of the decisions or provisions given by the judge or court and which are finalized without an appeal or appeal. This legal action can be taken by the Ministry of Justice, which sees the violation of the law. In this way, the decisions that are considered to be unlawful, which are finalized without going to the law, are subject to the review of the Supreme Court. The purpose of this legal remedy is to eliminate the illegalities in the finalized decisions and to ensure that the laws are applied equally within the country.

Subversion in favor of law

Subversion in favor of law

Since the application for reversing for the benefit of the law is stated in the letter of the law as a legal remedy that can be taken against the “decision” or “judgment” given by the judge or the court, this remedy can only be applied against the decisions made by the criminal judge or the criminal court. Therefore, this way cannot be taken against the decisions made by the Public Prosecutor, and this way cannot be used against the decisions of administrative sanctions given by the administrative authorities. In so far as it is possible to object to the said decisions, there is no obstacle to resorting to reversing for the benefit of the law against the decisions of the criminal judgeship or the criminal court given upon the objection.

This extraordinary legal remedy can only be appealed against decisions and provisions that have been given by the court of first instance and become final without going through an appeal or appeal.

In the institution of reversing for the benefit of the law, an application can be made against all kinds of criminal court decisions that do not pass the appeal or appeal examination as a rule. Thus, an application for reversal can be filed against a decision given by the Court of Appeal, which becomes final without appeal. In order to apply for this legal remedy, although the judgment is subject to appeal and appeal by law, this remedy must not have been used or it must be a judgment that is finalized by being given and not subject to appeal and appeal. It is indisputable that the decision of the first instance court is finalized without going through the appeal examination and will be subject to reversal examination for the sake of law, in cases where the appeal application is rejected due to the reasons why the appeal application is not made on time, the judge or court decision is inapplicable, or the applicant does not have the right to apply.

Decisions of the judges are subject to appeal, unless there is a contrary provision in the law. It is possible to object to court decisions only if they are clearly indicated in the law. A decision that is subject to an objection becomes final as a rule, upon the objection or, if no objection is made, with the expiration of the relevant legal period.

In order to apply for reversing for the benefit of the law, the decision or the provision must be unlawful. It is sufficient to have one of the contradictions in the decision and the judgment, both in terms of material and procedural aspects.

Although the legislator seeks “unlawfulness” in the decision or provision to apply for the said legal remedy, it has not been stated which issues will create a violation of the law. In general, we should state that “the non-application or misapplication of a rule of law” is against the law. CMK, art. In cases stated in Article 289 (CMUK, art. 308), it is assumed that there is a definite violation of the law. CMK art. The cases that constitute a definite violation of the law in accordance with the provision 289 are as follows:

The court was not constituted in accordance with the law,
Participation of a judge who is prohibited by law from performing his duty as a judge,
The judge’s participation in the decision despite the fact that the request for rejection has been put forward due to valid doubt, or this request is unlawfully rejected and the judge participates in the decision,
The court considers itself authorized and authorized to handle the case unlawfully,
To hold a hearing in the absence of the Public Prosecutor or other persons who are legally required to be present at the hearing,
The provision does not contain the justification in accordance with Article 230,
The limitation of the right to defense by a court decision in matters that are important to the verdict,
In cases where the judgment is based on evidence obtained by unlawful methods, it is considered that there is a definite violation of the law.

About the author


Leave a Comment