AN EVALUATION ON THE FACT THAT THE DECISION ON DELAYING THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT HAS NO CONSEQUENCES FOR THE ACCUSED

Some conditions are sought for the Decision on delaying the pronouncement of the judgment (DDPJ). However, in order not to exceed the scope and limits, the present study focused only on the results of the institution rather than these issues. Perhaps the most important result of the DDPJ is that the conviction for the accused does not have any legal consequences. In fact, since the sentence of conviction is not fully explained and notified to the relevant parties, no either legal remedy other than the legally stipulated objection procedure can be applied, and therefore the said provision is not finalized. In short, in cases where the pronouncement of the judgment is delayed, the case is pending and the person has the title of defendant. It is also necessary to make an examination in terms of the impact of the DDPJ on the civil and administrative jurisdictions. It is not possible for a situation created in favor of the perpetrator during the supervision period to be considered binding as if it were a sentence of conviction, with an approach other than the exceptions brought by the law within the framework of the integrity of the law. The decision on delaying the pronouncement of the judgment or the decision that forms the basis for it does not have the quality of a finalized conviction. Therefore, in the case of the DDPJ is made, this decision will not bind the civil judge, since there is no finalized conviction in terms of criminal law. On the other hand, as stated by the Constitutional Court, “in administrative disputes that continue due to actions outside the criminal case but which are the subject of the criminal case, reliance on a conviction decision that is deferred may contradict the presumption of innocence. On the other hand, it is not sufficient to mention that the presumption of innocence has been violated, just to mention the fact that the person has been tried and the decision on delaying the pronouncement of the judgment, as it constitutes the basis for the resolution of the administrative dispute. For this, the reasoning of the decision should be taken into account as a whole and it should be examined whether the final decision is based exclusively on the acts that have been decided to delay the pronouncement of the judgement.” From this point of view, the DDPJ will not have any direct impact on administrative disputes, -especially on the civil cervants’ trial, which we have examined below-.