In short
When a decision supervising communication is served, the place to be read is the period, the line, and the charge line written in the decision. If one of the lines is missing, the gap is not filled from another document or from memory. How the supervision would be noticed technically, and how it would be prevented, is not in this article. Examination of an object done by seizing the telephone is a separate document. That the decision was served does not turn that decision into a judgment.
The upper lines of the paper that was served
From which authority the copy that was served came out, the date of the decision, and the file number are looked for in the upper block. Before the authority line is read, the decision is not treated as the same as an oral announcement. If the date is faint, that it is faint is written. A new date is not added. If the piece of service and the text of the decision are separate papers, the two are read together. The envelope alone may not show what the line and the charge are. The outgoing record on the envelope does not take the place of the period interval inside the decision.
To whom the decision was served is on a line as well. A service that went out to another person is not treated as applied of its own accord to the line in hand. A copy taken through an attorney is used to note which page remained missing. A missing page is not read as a completed decision. If there is no number in the margin of the page, a number is not added. If the place of the signature or the seal on the copy is empty, the gap is not filled with an approval that is remembered. If the approval line stands on the original in the file, the petition writes that that line is not on the copy given to the person.
If the decision stands like an annex of a confidential correspondence, the annex is separated by its own heading. If there is no annex heading, the annex is not completed as a surveillance decision. How many pages the text that was served is is read from the number of papers that came out of the envelope. If a page is missing, the missing page is not completed with a period or a line sentence that is treated as existing.
The period, the line, and the charge side by side
The period is the interval written in the decision. A day count memorised from the Act is not put into this text. If the decision writes a start and an end, that interval is taken as the basis. If there is no interval, a period is not treated as existing. If it appears by a separate decision that the period was extended, the extension has not been added inside the first text of its own accord. If the extension paper is not in the file, an extension is not assumed. If there is an extension paper, the authority, the date, and the new interval in its heading are read separately. The end in the first decision is not shifted of its own accord before it is written in the extension text.
The line is the number, the connection, or the means of communication the decision is tied to. If the decision writes one number, another number is not included in the supervision if the text does not also count it. If the line of the connection consists of a general communication sentence, the petition carries this generality as it is. A general sentence does not have every line counted as covered. If there is more than one number on the same person, the petition repeats the number written in the decision. A number that is not written is not added as a line the person says the person used.
The charge line shows which suspicion of an act the measure was tied to. If the name of the offence is not written in the decision, a name is not invented. If the name in the decision and the name in the indictment differ, the difference is shown by the two documents’ own sentences. The difference does not mean the measure will be lifted of its own accord. If there is no indictment yet, the charge stays in the sentence in the decision. If the name of the suspicion in the investigation file is not in the text of the decision, it is not carried inside the decision.
The decision separates in its own text whether it covers the content of the conversation, or the information of with whom and when the line was established. If the text does not separate them, a kind is not chosen. The choice is also read separately from the heading of the transcript. If there is no heading, the kind is not completed. A transcript of content and a list only of who called whom are not the same paper. Whichever is in hand is the one that is read. A kind that is not in hand is not taken out of the inside of the other.
The place where the decision ended, and the place where the record stands
The ending of the interval written in the decision does not mean the records in hand left the file of their own accord. If the record is standing, in which interval it was produced is read side by side with the text of the decision. If there is a record thought to fall outside the interval, the claim is written by showing the date on the record and the period line of the decision. If the date cannot be read, the claim is not built by producing a date. If the hour on the record and the day of the decision conflict, the conflict is written with the two lines side by side. The hour is not rounded so that they overlap.
The text of the decision does not take the place of the transcript of the record. If there is no transcript, content is not assumed. If there is a transcript, which interval of which line it belongs to is read from the heading of the transcript. If the heading and the decision do not overlap, the failure to overlap is passed into the petition. The failure to overlap is not a promise that the record will be taken out of the file. If a part of the transcript is illegible, the illegible part is not completed by guessing a meaning. The part that is read is carried in the sentence in which it was read.
Deletion of the records, closing of the line, or how the supervision would be understood technically is not in this text. The document that is read is the decision that was served. If a copy of the decision was not given to the person, the content is not built from a sentence that was heard. The copy is asked from the authority that holds the file. Before the copy comes, the period, the line, and the charge are not treated as completed.
Examination of the seized device is not this decision
Looking at the data inside the device by seizing the telephone is not the decision supervising communication itself. Seizure keeps the object. The scope of that examination is read from the minute and the decision belonging to the seizure step. The surveillance decision, when it is served, is read for the period, the line, and the charge line. The existence of one does not have the other treated as completed. The distinguishing number of the device is not put in place of the line of the connection. The line number does not complete the make of the device either.
While the device is not in the file, the surveillance decision is not written as if the device had been examined. While the device was taken and there is no surveillance decision, the seizure paper is not put in place of the surveillance decision. The two steps can stand side by side in the same file. Standing side by side does not mean the two are a single document. The petition separates which claim was written on which paper. Dissolving the two papers in a single paragraph closes which line is being argued.
A statement minute does not take the place of this decision either. A word said at the police or at the prosecution is not a decision showing that the line was supervised. The place of the statement in the file is under the evidential value of a police statement and a prosecution statement minute. The frame before the statement is in the article on before giving a statement. The list of rights kept during police custody stays under rights in police custody. This text does not build those four articles again. Even if it was said in the statement that the line was listened to, that sentence does not produce the period and line of the magistrate’s decision.
The sentence written into the file after service
The petition to be written after service repeats the three lines: how the period was written in the decision, how the line was described, and where the charge sentence stands in the decision. A missing line is stated as missing. The petition is limited to showing the difference between the transcript of the record and these three lines. Showing the difference is not saying that the record will fall from the judgment. The assessment belongs to the authority that holds the file in its hands. In Ankara, this authority is the court in the heading of the decision, or the prosecution that holds the file.
The date the decision was served is written from there if there is a piece of service. If there is no piece, a day of service is not added. Information that it reached you orally is not put in place of the date of service. If the piece of service went out to the attorney, the attorney’s name on the piece is read. If there is no name, the service is not treated as having reached the accused’s own hand. If that it reached is written separately, that writing is placed beside the attorney’s piece, not in its place.
The petition does not ask for the records to be destroyed. What is asked is that the difference between the three lines and the heading of the transcript be visible in the file. It is not said that the measure has been lifted before the difference is visible.
If there is more than one suspect, the decision separates on its own line which line it tied to which person. If it does not separate them, the petition writes that it did not separate them. If another suspect’s line number is not in the decision in hand, it is not included in this decision. The sentence that includes it is the line where that suspect’s name appears. If the name does not appear, the name is not added. If there is more than one conversation in the transcript of the record, the date of each conversation is read as far as it is written in the transcript. A conversation whose date line is empty is not completed with the day of the conversation beside it.
If there is a separate sentence in the text of the decision that the measure was lifted, the sentence is read as a lifting. While there is no sentence, the ending of the interval is not a lifting decision. If the lifting writing is a separate paper, the date of that paper is not put in place of the date of the first decision. The two dates stand side by side. The petition separates which paper wrote the period, and which one did or did not lift it. The frame is on the criminal law page.
Conclusion
When the decision is served, the period, the line, and the charge line are read. If the line is missing, it is not completed. An extension is not written inside the first interval while there is no separate paper. Noticing the supervision, and technically getting around it, is not in this text. Examination of the seized device is a separate document. Service does not make the decision a judgment. The basis is the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271.