Abstract:

When we examine the Turkish Law regarding to adjudication of public servant related to their public service misconduct and crimes, there have been a decrease of domination of executive branch. 4483 No. Code has created signifi cant changes comparing to previous codes (Provisional Law on Prosecution of Public ServantPLPPS) not only from subject of substance and procedure as well. Civil servants and other public service employee are included in the scope of subjective jurisdiction of the code. “Civil servant” is defi ned in common with administrative law defi nition. The scope of law from aspect of crime is narrowly defi ned compare to former law(PLPPS). While PLPPS had regulated crimes committed during public service, and crimes related to public service, 4483 No Code only regulates crimes committed during public service. One of the signifi cant differences No; 4483 Code has brought is permission system, which requires executive permission in order to initiate criminal investigation against public servant regarding to their public misconduct. “Competent Authority”, “Preliminary Examination”, and “Criminal Investigation Permission/Denial” are fundamental terms in this system. Preliminary examiner investigates the allegation, and uses some executive and judicial power. However it is very controversial that whether preliminary examiner can have all judicial power stemming from 5271 No Criminal Procedure Law like all public prosecutors have. The main purpose of the article is to examine and analyze power of preliminary examiner, and present permission procedure from aspect of fundamental rights and freedoms. In this study, the subject is compared previous and current law, illustrated fundamental similarities and differences about preliminary examiner, and permission system as well. In this regards, necessity of permission system is additionally discussed in whole article

Keywords: