In short
A breach can strengthen a request for pre-trial detention; it is not an automatic conviction.
A breach can strengthen a request for pre-trial detention. It is not an automatic conviction.
The reading of the obligation is in the neighbouring article.
Not going to the unit on the line of the decision produces the fact of a breach.
Related articles: what judicial control is; the list of obligations.
Do not underestimate the breach, but do not assume an automatic result
Judicial control is a protective measure by which, during the investigation or the prosecution, the person is subjected to certain obligations without being placed in pre-trial detention. Obligations such as giving a signature, not going abroad, not approaching certain persons, or a security can change according to the scope of the decision. Not complying with one of these obligations is a serious procedural problem.
When a breach occurs, the approach that it happened once and nothing will happen is no more correct than the thought that I will now certainly be detained. The competent authority can assess the nature of the breach, whether it was intentional, the excuse, the earlier state of compliance, and the grounds for pre-trial detention in the file. A discussion of heavier judicial control or of pre-trial detention can come onto the agenda; the result does not arise of itself, a competent decision is required.
The first aim is not to hide the breach, but to enter it on the correct record and to prevent its continuation. The date and the hour the breach was noticed should be noted, the decision text should be found, and the documents that show the excuse should be gathered without delay.
Read the obligation in the decision text in full
The assessment of the breach starts over the written decision that determines what the person must do. The signature day, the hour interval, the signature place, the travel ban, the approach distance or the scope of communication is taken as the basis as it is written in the decision. If there is different information conveyed orally, this contradiction should be documented.
These points should be checked in the decision:
- The judgeship or the court that gave the decision
- The investigation or the file number
- The start date of each obligation
- The signature days and the place of the transaction
- The region, the person or the activity that is forbidden
- The date the decision was served
- Whether there is a decision of change or of lifting
If more than one judicial-control decision was given, how the last decision affected the earlier one should be examined. The reasoned or the full decision text should be obtained without contenting oneself with the summary information seen in UYAP. The conditions and kinds of judicial control explain the general structure of these decisions.
Record when and how the breach occurred
Not signing, entering a forbidden region, making contact, or a breach of a travel restriction are different facts. The date, the hour, the duration and the manner of occurrence of each breach should be written separately. Instead of the sentence that it happened by mistake, how the mistake arose should be made concrete.
These questions can be answered in the chronology:
- What was the obligation?
- On which date was the last act of compliance done?
- When was the breach noticed?
- Where were you at that time, and in what condition?
- Which document shows the excuse?
- When and how did you notify the relevant unit?
- Were the later obligations complied with?
Documents such as the signature book, a travel record, a hospital application, a break in transport, or a telephone call record can matter according to the conditions of the event. The document should not appear to have been produced later; its source should be capable of being verified.
Notify the excuse without delay and with documents
A health problem, an accident, being taken into custody, a natural disaster, an extraordinary situation that in fact prevents transport, or a wrong official direction can be put forward as an excuse. Every difficulty is not accepted automatically. Whether the excuse really prevented the performance of the obligation is assessed.
The file number, the kind of obligation, the time of the breach, the explanation of the excuse and the attached documents should take place in the notification. It should not be contented with giving oral information only to the officer at the signature unit. A petition in accordance with the procedure may also be required to the judicial authority that follows the decision. The delivery date and the document number should be kept.
The hospital document's writing only that an examination was made may not always show that going to sign was impossible. The time of the illness, the treatment and the restriction of movement are assessed together. Submitting a false excuse document, or one contrary to the truth, can give birth to new accusations heavier than the first breach.
Continue the existing obligations without interruption
A signature having been missed does not end the judicial-control decision. Unless the competent authority gives a decision of lifting or of change, the later signatures and bans continue. Leaving the obligation entirely by saying the breach happened anyway can turn a single event into continuous non-compliance.
The calendar should be rebuilt:
- Adding a double reminder to the coming signature days
- Confirming the signature place and the hour in writing
- Notifying in advance a clash with the work or education programme
- Keeping the record that is possible of each signature transaction
- Conveying a change of address and of telephone to the relevant authority
A telephone piece of information alone that the decision was lifted should not be relied on. Until a written decision or an official record is seen, the existing obligation should be complied with. If a new decision changes the old calendar, the start date is checked separately.
How are the possible results of the breach assessed?
In the criminal-procedure order, a heavier protective measure can be assessed about a person who breaches judicial control intentionally. This does not mean that automatic pre-trial detention will take place as soon as the breach minute is drawn up. The competent authority decides over the nature of the file, the risk of flight or of an effect on the evidence, the intentional character of the breach, and proportionality.
The possible assessments can include these:
- The excuse being accepted and the existing measure continuing
- The scope of the obligation being clarified
- Another or a heavier judicial control being added
- A request for, or an assessment of, pre-trial detention
- Reaching the result that there is no breach
The statutory conditions and a reasoning are required for a pre-trial detention decision. A breach, even if it is an important piece of data, does not of itself give birth to the same result in every file. The conditions of a pre-trial detention decision explain the separate assessment of this heavier measure.
Practical steps in a breach of the signature obligation
When the signature day is missed, contact should be made with the relevant unit as soon as possible. The name the officer said, the hour and the direction can be noted. If an oral explanation such as come the next day, there will be no problem is received, rather than relying on it, a written record or the method of judicial notification should be asked.
When one goes to the signature unit, signing backwards for the past day is not always possible or in accordance with the procedure. A record contrary to the truth should not be requested. Instead, it should be secured that the breach minute and the explanation of the excuse are drawn up correctly.
If, because of shift work or a care responsibility, the calendar cannot be applied continuously, rather than producing an excuse each time, a change of the obligation as to the day or the place can be requested. The work schedule, the care document and the alternative arrangement that is proposed should be made concrete.
Points to watch in a travel ban and a ban on leaving the country
While there is a ban on leaving the country, buying a ticket, having a visa, or an employer's assignment does not lift the ban. If necessary travel is foreseen in advance, a request for temporary lifting or for adaptation should be submitted to the decision authority. The request being given does not mean it was accepted; a written decision should be awaited.
If the ban is learned at the border gate, the transaction minute, the ticket and the notification records should be kept. Trying to overcome the ban, or using another identity or route, can strengthen the assessment that the breach was intentional. A financial loss that arises because of the cancellation of the travel does not of itself leave the measure without effect.
A ban on leaving the city, or a ban on a certain region, can also differ according to the decision text. It should not be assumed that, because there is a ban on going abroad, travel between cities is necessarily forbidden, or the reverse. Each restriction should be read from its own text.
Watch indirect contact in a ban on communication and on approach
An obligation not to communicate with a particular person can also cover, beside the telephone and the message, sending news by social media, by e-mail, or through a third person. The expression and the purpose of the decision are taken as the basis. The other side's writing or calling first does not of itself make answering free.
Incoming calls and messages should be kept without being deleted, and one should not enter an argument. If there is a need for necessary communication because of a joint child, work, or delivery of property, a safe intermediary channel or an adaptation of the decision can be requested. Creating an exception for oneself increases the risk of a breach.
A chance encounter and a planned approach are not the same. In a chance encounter, moving away, not continuing the contact, and recording the conditions of the event are important. Making an indirect allusion on social media, or conveying a message with a mutual friend, can also create a problem according to the scope of the decision.
A request to change or lift the measure
It can be put forward that judicial control has become disproportionate to its purpose, that the evidence has been collected, that the risk of flight has decreased, or that the obligation gives birth to a result that cannot be applied in daily life. The request should be more concrete than the abstract sentence that I am having a very hard time.
Among the matters that can be documented there can be regular work, a fixed residence, education, health treatment, a care obligation, the earlier period of compliance, and the necessity of travel. A lighter option that will secure the purpose can be proposed in the place of the existing measure. If a breach occurred, its reason and the plan that prevents its repetition should be told openly.
Until the request is concluded, the existing decision continues to be applied. Giving a petition for lifting does not suspend the signature or the ban. Service of a refusal or an acceptance decision, and the path of objection if there is one, should be checked according to the current procedure.
Notification and file tracking in Ankara
In Ankara the signature place and the judicial unit that gave the decision can be different. It should not be assumed that an oral explanation made to the signature unit reached the public prosecutor's or the court's file of itself. A written notification should be made to the appropriate authority with the investigation or the file number, and a document record should be taken.
If the file is in the investigation stage, the public prosecutor's office and the criminal judgeship of peace carry different roles; if it is in the prosecution stage, the court that conducts the trial does. To which authority which request will be submitted is determined according to the decision text and the stage of the file. Even if the transaction is delayed because of the volume, the person should continue the obligation.
A final assessment
In a breach of judicial control the safest approach is to find the decision text, to set out the chronology of the breach, to document the excuse without delay, and to continue the later obligations in full. A breach can lead to an assessment of a heavier measure; the result is not automatic. Intent, the excuse, the earlier compliance and the risks of the file are examined together.
This content is for general information. The kind of the breach, the scope of the decision, and the investigation or prosecution stage differ in every file. For the basis of the measure, what is judicial control?, for the conditions of the heavier measure, a pre-trial detention decision, and for the general frame, the criminal law contents can be read together.
How the breach record is read
A breach of a signature, travel or communication obligation is read from the obligation in the decision text. The office being in Çankaya does not change the competent authority; this separation is read from the obligation decision. The excuse document and the possibility that the measure will be made heavier are not the same result.
Conclusion
This article is for general information. The document, the period and the procedure of the concrete event should be read separately; there is no promise of an outcome from memory.