Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi 144.Sayı

60 Soruşturma Yapılmasına Yer Olmadığı Kararları (SYOK) ve Bu Kararların Ceza ... sıyla varılıp-varılamayacağı, bu karar türüyle soruşturma evresine bir de ön soruşturma aşaması eklenip eklenmediği sorularına yanıt ara- nacak ve alternatif öneriler getirilmeye çalışılacaktır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, Savcılık İşlem- leri, Soruşturmaya Yer Olmadığı Kararı, İkincillik İlkesi, Kovuşturma, Soruşturma, Hâkim Savcı Kararları, CMK, Dilekçenin İşleme Konul- maması Kararı, Kovuşturmanın Ertelenmesi, Lekelenmeme Hakkı, Savcıların İş Yükü Abstract: The subject of this article is the authorization given to the Prosecutors for “No Need for Investigation” brought by the annexation as 6 th paragraph to the Law No. 158 Criminal Procedure Law through the Article 140 of the Law No: 7078 With the introduction of our conviction on the legal nature of the new path in law and what kind of impact it may have in practice, it is aimed to inform the practitioners about this new type of deci- sion. This arrangement; in the case of fictive and general denuncia- tions and complaints that do not involve a specific crime or do not have any basis, it gives the public prosecutors the authority and re- sponsibility to directly decide that there is no need for investigation and to maintain these decisions in a separate area that is accessible by the prosecutor and the judge. The interaction of this new type of decision, which focuses on the necessity of the investigation, the initial suspicion, the right not to be stained, and the foreground investigations, and the concepts and principles of criminal procedure, are discussed one by one. With regard to the establishment of the right of non-staining, the “No Need for Investigation”, in terms of their qualifications, are similar but different decisions when it is compared with the “Deci- sion on Postponement of the Announcement of the Judgment” given by the judge at the end of the prosecution and also with the “Decision of No Need for Investigation” and “Decision on Postpone- ment of the Public Prosecution” and the “Decisions not to process the petition” by the prosecutor. Considering the aim of this arrangement to reduce the work- loads of the investigation and prosecution authorities, it will be sought to answer the questions whether this objective can be achieved under article 158/fg(6) and whether a preliminary investi- gation stage is added to the investigation phase by this type of deci- sion and alternative suggestions should be made. Keywords: Criminal Procedure Law, Prosecution Procedures, Decision for the Resolution for İnvestigation, Principle of Subsidiari- ty, Prosection, İnvestigation, Judge Prosecutor Decisions, Cmk (Law Of Criminal Procedure), Decision not to Process the Petition, Post- ponement of Prosecution, Right of Unslander (Untarnishment), the Workload of Prosecutors