In short
Absence does not give rise to the same result in every file. Service of the summons and the nature of the offence are read from the paper. If there is no annotation of service, missing the hearing is not assumed. The name of the offence is written in the indictment. This name separates, according to the statute, whether a judgment may be built in absence. A conviction is not the promise of this separation. Preparation of the room and the hour stands in the writing of the summons.
A returned envelope is not an annotation
Whether the summons reached you is read from the annotation of service or from the record of electronic service. If there is no annotation, a date is not invented. Giving news by telephone does not stand in for the annotation. If the envelope came back, the ground of the return is read separately. It is not said that service took place without a line of the ground. If the ground writes that the address was not found, that the addressee is not known, or that a part of the service is missing, the sentence is passed on in the form it has on the envelope. The sentence is not softened into a state of having been served.
A hearing about a defendant who was not summoned in accordance with the procedure is, as a rule, not conducted and finished in their absence. This rule does not mean that it ties every returned envelope to the same result. A record that the person was not found at the address and a summons that never went out are not the same paper. Which sending was made is seen from the piece of service in the file. If there is no piece, a second sending is not assumed. If there is more than one sending, the date and the result of each are read from its own piece. A later sending does not erase the annotation of the earlier one. A sending that has an annotation and a sending that came back stand on separate lines in the petition.
A screenshot of the electronic record is not made into a day of service when there is no record line. If there is a record line, the date is written from that line. If the name on the line does not overlap with the defendant's name on the summons, the failure to overlap is not hidden. Service that went out to another person is not the defendant's own annotation. The authority where absence is spoken of in Ankara is the court in the heading of the summons. An hour heard in another building does not complete the annotation of this heading.
The nature of the offence separates finishing
The statute keeps closed, for some offences, the building of a judgment while the defendant is not present. For some offences, if the summons was served in accordance with the procedure, it allows the hearing to continue in absence. The threshold is read from the characterisation in the indictment and from the statute. This text does not turn the threshold into a number. When the characterisation is not in the file, the offence is not completed as heavy or light. If the name in the indictment and the name said at the hearing differ, the difference is written from the two minutes. The difference does not change the threshold by itself. Whether it will change is the authority's work.
The evidence is assessed from the file even if the defendant is not in the room. The assessment does not have to produce a conviction. If the evidence that was gathered requires a decision other than a conviction, the statute may, in some files, allow that decision even before the examination is completed. The permission is not open for every offence. In a file where it is not open, absence is not a promise of acquittal either. The prosecutor's statement having finished does not give this permission by itself. The later step of the investigation is in the writing after the statement. The minute of the statement standing in the file does not mean that the defendant was present at the hearing either. Being present is read from the roll-call line in the minute of the hearing.
If the roll-call line writes that the defendant is present, saying later that they did not go does not erase that line. If the line writes that the defendant is absent, a claim that they were present is not built when there is no other sentence in the minute. If the attorney is in the room, the attorney's name does not by itself mean that the defendant was present. If the two names stand separately in the minute, they are read separately. If one is absent, the other is not put in its place.
Compulsory bringing is not a judgment
A decision of compulsory bringing may be given about a defendant who does not come without a valid reason and who was summoned in accordance with the procedure. The decision is for bringing the person to the day of the hearing. It is not the operative part of a judgment. It does not carry an amount of punishment. The order going out does not mean that the case ended in a conviction. If the order writes which day and which court, those lines are read. If there is no day, a day is not added. The order is not treated as having arisen by itself without an annotation of the summons. If the annotation and the order are separate papers, the two are placed side by side.
Arrest and detention are not the automatic result of not going to one session. The own condition of detention is in the writing a detention decision. This page does not build that condition. An order to be brought and a paper of arrest are not the same document either. Whichever is in the file is the one that is read. The ground of a short decision announced in absence is a separate paper. That separation is in the writing the reasoned decision. The short decision having been announced does not mean that the absence is a conviction. The sentence of the result is read from the own text of the short decision.
Not being at the hearing without the connection ever being opened is not participation by image. The request and the record of the image are in the writing SEGBİS. This text does not recount that record again as absence. If the minute says they took part by image, a minute of absence is not looked for separately. If the minute says they did not take part, a claim that the image was opened is not built when there is no record line.
An excuse does not change the day by itself
A health report, or another obstacle, is brought to the court. Bringing it is not treated as having built an adjournment. If the court finds the excuse in place, it writes the new day in the minute. Before it is written, the old hour does not come off. Which days the report covered is read from the report's own text. When there is no text, the excuse is not said to have been completed. Which institution the report belongs to is also read from the heading of the report. If the heading cannot be read, the name of the institution is not added. Whether the report covers the day of the hearing is seen from its own date line. If the date line is outside the day of the hearing, the petition writes this staying outside. A report that stayed outside is not treated as having closed the day by itself.
A petition of excuse does not change the nature of the offence. The nature is in the indictment. The petition does not erase the annotation of service either. If the annotation stands, the summons appears to have arrived. If there is no annotation, the petition does not turn a summons that did not arrive into one that arrived. On which day the petition reached the court is read, if there is one, from the line of referral. If there is no referral, a day of arrival is not added. Arrival is not a decision of adjournment. An adjournment is seen by the line of the new day in the minute.
A record of being a fugitive does not arise from one session
Being a fugitive is a decision built separately upon the person not being found. Not going to one session does not give rise to that decision by itself. If there is no decision of being a fugitive in the file, the person is not counted as a fugitive. If there is a decision, the date of the decision and the sentence of the ground are read from that paper. When there is no ground, being a fugitive is not completed as the name of an absence without excuse. A petition of excuse does not have erased the decision of being a fugitive either. Erasure, if it appears separately in the file, is read from that writing.
How a decision of being a fugitive will be operated is not written step by step on this page. The separation that is written is this: the minute of absence and the decision of being a fugitive are not the same document. The minute writes one session. The decision is a separate text tied to not being found. If the two are mixed, the petition has a decision that has not yet been built read as if it had been built.
If more than one session was not attended, the absence of each session is read from its own minute. If it writes present at the first session and absent at the second, the two are not joined as a single absence. Whichever session's service has an annotation, that session is shown separately. A session that has no annotation does not carry the result of the session that has an annotation by itself. If an order to be brought went out for one session and did not go out for the later session, the order belongs only to the day it writes. It does not spread to the later day by itself. If there is a minute that the order was enforced, the minute is not put in the place of the order. If the minute of enforcement writes on which day the person was brought, that day is read. If it does not write it, it is not said that they were brought. Being brought does not mean that the judgment was built either.
An interim decision given in absence, if its text writes the defendant's absence, has that sentence passed on. When there is no sentence, the interim decision is not completed by being treated as given in absence. The line of the new day in the interim decision comes to mean that the excuse was accepted only if the text says so. If the text writes only the day, the petition writes the day and does not add a ground of acceptance. If the new day was written in the minute, that day takes the place of the hour in the old summons. If it was not written, the old hour stands. If the defendant does not go to the new day either, the second absence is read from the second minute. The first excuse does not close the second session by itself. The own annotation of service of the second session is looked for separately. If there is no annotation, missing the second session is not assumed. The frame is on the criminal law page.
Conclusion
Absence is not tied to one sentence before the annotation of service and the name of the offence stand side by side. The sentence that is tied is not a conviction. An order to be brought and a judgment are in separate envelopes. An excuse does not erase the hour before it passes into the minute. Being a fugitive does not arise by itself from the absence of one session. The basis is the provisions on being present at the hearing of Criminal Procedure Law No. 5271.