Click to read the article in Turkish
Lawyer Efkan Bolaç was acquitted in a trial for "organizing, managing and participating in illegal gatherings and demonstrations" on April 8.
The legal period for appealing the ruling given at the hearing where prosecutor Süleyman Pala was also present was seven days.
However, the prosecutor appealed the decision 20 days later, on April 28, demanding Bolaç's acquittal be overturned.
Article 273 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Motion of appeal on facts and law and its time limit: A motion of appeal on facts and law shall be lodged within seven days after the pronouncement of the judgment with a written application submitted to the court that rendered the judgment, or by making a declaration to the clerk of the court; this declaration shall be taken into the records and the record shall be approved by the judge.
Thereupon, Bolaç's attorney Özge Çetin filed a petition with the court on April 30, demanding the rejection of the appeal because "It is a legal obligation to reject the appeal lodged by the Public Prosecutor after the legal deadline."
"Court should reject the appeal"
In a second petition on June 21, attorney Çetin reminded that the legal deadline had passed and the appeal was legally invalid.
"Although we have made a request that the application for appeal that was not made in due time should be rejected, the file was sent to the appeals court without considering our request," says the petition.
"The prosecutor ... conveying a Request for the Preservation of the Appeal Period and a Petition for a Request of Appeal is clearly against the procedure and the law and its approval is not possible."
Article 276 – Denial of the motion by the court that rendered the judgment: The court that rendered the attacked judgment shall deny the motion with the decision if the written application of the appeal on facts and law had been submitted after the expiring of the legal period, or the judgment is not open to the way of appeal on facts and law, or the party who filed the motion has no stand.
The case
Çetin's petition also included information about the merits of the case where Bolaç was acquitted.
"As part of the file, there have been no findings that the defendants disrupted the public order by using violence. Because it is not possible to make such findings with the tangible file," noted Çetin.
Bolaç and other defendants had gone to the İstanbul Courthouse to file an appeal against the results of the 2017 referendum for the switch to a presidential system and had helped other people to write petitions for that, which was exercising a constitutional right, noted the attorney
The verdict of acquittal was in compliance with the laws, she stated. (AS/VK)
