Fulfilling the requirements of violation decisions rendered by the Constitutional Court within the scope of an individual application is a legal obligation. Despite this obligation being clearly stated in the 1982 Constitution and Constitutional Court Law, as exemplified in the case of Kadri Enis Berberoğlu, the first-instance courts that authorize eliminating the consequences of such violations fail to fulfill the requirements of the Constitutional Court’s decisions. The Constitutional Court’s decision regarding Şerafettin Can Atalay (2) has also not been implemented by the competent and authorized first-instance court. This time, however, the failure to implement the Constitutional Court’s decision regarding an individual application had emerged through a different method and process. Indeed, instead of performing the necessary procedures indicated by the violation decision the Constitutional Court had issued, the competent first-instance court forwarded the file to the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Court of *Not: Makalenin değerlendirme, hakem ve karar süreçlerinde Baş Editör yer almamış, ilgili süreçler Baş Editör Yardımcıları ve diğer yazı kurulu üyeleri tarafından yürütülmüştür. Note: The Editor-in-Chief was not involved in the evaluation, peer-review and decision processes of the article. These processes were carried out by the Co-Editor-in-Chief and the other members of the editorial management board. Corresponding Author: Adem SÖZÜERE-mail: asozuer@istanbul.edu.tr Submitted: 17.12.2023 • Revision Requested: 25.12.2023 •Last Revision Received: 19.02.2024 • Accepted: 23.02.2024 This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) 275 Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi-Journal of Penal Law and Criminology Cassation. Deeming itself competent and authorized, this Criminal Chamber issued a decision titled “Non-Implementation of the Constitutional Court Decision” and contains several aspects in terms of being a precedent. Due to this particular circumstance, the study will examine not only the impact and binding nature of the decisions the Constitutional Court renders regarding an individual application within the context of the Şerafettin Can Atalay (2) Decision but also the discussions regarding legislative immunity and its exceptions in light of the relevant precedents of the Constitutional Court. In this context, study will also include the past precedents of the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation and the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation regarding exceptions to legislative immunity. This paper’s evaluation and conclusion section takes the form of a decision analysis examining whether Article 14 of the Constitution is directly applicable in terms of the exceptions to legislative immunity, as well as whether using interpretation to determine the crimes to be considered within the scope of this Article is compatible with the principle of legality. Furthermore, the study will provide recommendations regarding the effective implementation of individual application decisions.

Please click to read the entire article.