Abstract:

In a criminal proceedings, the solution of the subject matter may depend on the solution of a matter that remains outside the jurisdiction of the criminal court in some cases. These problems, called the waiting problem, are a result of the connection. The first paragraph of Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act is guided by the following: "If the proof of the offence is due to the resolution of a matter entering the jurisdiction of a court other than the Criminal Courts, the Criminal Court may also decide on this matter in accordance with the provisions of this law. However, in connection with this issue, the competent court may make an anticipated issue decision concerning the opening of the case or the conclusion of the opened case. "In the study, we have reached the conclusion that the interpretation of the judgment as vocational and the decision of another criminal court of the criminal courts will not be considered an anticipating problem. According to article 127 of the Turkish Criminal Code, “the person is not punished if the fact that is confessed and creates a crime is proven. If the offence is confirmed for the offence, the offence is confirmed.” The judgment has been criticized by the view that an anticipated issue of decision may be made between the criminal courts through comparison. We concluded that there would be no decision between the criminal courts because the comparative method would not be applied in the exceptional provisions. In such cases, we have come to the conclusion that the judgment of CMK m. 218/1 should be revised in such a way as to enable the conclusion of a timely issue between the criminal courts to be applied in limited and compulsory cases due to the combination of cases as possible.

Keywords: