Abstract
Instigation in criminal law means making someone, who does not
yet have an idea about committing a certain crime, decide to commit the crime. In order to hold the instigator responsible for participation, there
must be an act that was committed intentionally and unlawfully and re
ached at least the stage of attempt. If the perpetrator does not begin the
execution of the act directly, he/she cannot be held responsible for the
participation since the quantitative element of the accessoriness rule is
not yet fulfilled. In that case, where the main act was not committed and
the instigation was attempted, a general provision regarding the pu
nishment of the instigator has been regulated in the German Criminal
Code (GCC). The first paragraph of Art. 30 of the GCC stipulates that a
person who attempts to instigate someone else to commit a crime or to
instigate a crime shall be liable according to provision regulating crimi
nal attempts. The principles of criminal attempt are applied and the pe
nalty of the instigator is determined by making a reduction under Ger
man Law. However, attempted instigation is punishable in crimes that
require at least one year's imprisonment.
In this translation study, the decision of the The Hamm Higher Re
gional Court (OLG Hamm) dated 22.10.1991 and numbered L WS
249/91 is analyzed and the principles and limits of the criminal liability
of the instigator in cases of unsuccessful (successive) instigation in cri
minal law are discussed. First of all, the place of the aforementioned
provision of the GCC within the general systematics of the code is add
ressed. Under this title, the concepts of “attempted instigation” and
“failed/unsuccessful instigation” are discussed in terms of terminology
in terms of the doctrine of complicity. Bloy argues that although the
concept of attempted instigation is technically incorrect, it is more pre
ferred in doctrine and case law, that since the attempt and completion
of the act are associated with participation and the rules concerning
attempted instigation are applied, the concept of versuchte Anstiftung,
meaning “attempted instigation”, should not be preferred and thus, the
concept of mißlungene Anstiftung, meaning “unsuccessful/failed insti
gation” is preferred in the study. However, in our opinion, it is clear
that attempted instigation is inconclusive/resultless/unsuccessful ins
tigation and it can be justified to use the concept “failed instigation” to
express that the instigation was not completed for any reason.
However, the concept of attempted instigation best explains the mini
mum criminal liability of the instigate both conceptually and in terms of
the technique of criminal law. Moreover, attempted instigation is a mo
re general concept that includes all types of attempted instigation. Inaddition, it has been concluded that the aforementioned provision is
neither in the field of participation nor in the field of attempt doctrine,
on the contrary, it is a provision concerning the criminal liability of the
instigator preliminary to participation.
Attempted instigation has been considered as a sub-title of Art.
30 of the GCC and explained as a situation in which the instigator fails
to make the perpetrator decide to commit the act, and it has been
stated that there is a failed case of chain instigation in the present
case regarding the decision. It should be noted that in German law,
both in practice and doctrine, the punishability of attempted successi
ve instigation, which is considered worthy of punishment as a parti
cular form of attempted instigation, has also been accepted at the
normative scale. In this context, the difference between attempted
chain instigation and instigation of attempted instigation is mentio
ned and the difference between the reference points of failure in both
is indicated. In attempted chain instigation, this failure depends on
whether the perpetrator (the main instigator) attempted to provide
another instigator for his/her plan...continued in the article
Keywords
AKİM KALMIŞ AZMETTİRMEDE CEZAİ SORUMLULUĞUN İLKE VE SINIRLARI -AYNI ZAMANDA HAMM EYALET YÜKSEK MAHKEMESİNİN KARARININ TARTIŞILMASI (OLG HAMM V. 22.10.1991 - L WS 249/91)-
Abstract
Suça şerikliğin bir türü olan azmettirmenin cezalandırılabilmesi için
kasten ve hukuka aykırı olarak işlenen fiilin en azından teşebbüs aşama-
sına varmış olması gerekir. Diğer bir ifadeyle, teşebbüs aşamasında kal-
mış bir asıl fiilin varlığı şarttır. Aksi halde azmettirenin, sorumlu tutula-
bilmesi mümkün değildir. Asıl fiilin işlenmediği, yani azmettirmenin
kendisinin teşebbüs aşamasında kaldığı durum doktrinde akim kalmış
azmettirme (azmettirmeye teşebbüs) olarak ifade edilmektedir. Azmetti-
renin akim kalmış (zincirleme) azmettirmeden dolayı sorumlu tutulma-
sına ilişkin Alman Ceza Kanunu’nun 30. maddesinin 1. fıkrasında genel
bir düzenleme yapılmıştır. Alman hukukunda akim kalmış azmettirme-
nin cezalandırılmasının gerekçesi, hukuksal değerlerin tehlikeye girme-
sine yol açmak suretiyle olay üzerinde hâkimiyet kaybının tehlikeliliğine
(Kontrollverlust über das Geschehen) dayandırılmaktadır. Buna göre bir
kimseyi azmettirmekle; olay üzerinde hâkimiyet kaybı gerçekleşmekte,
azmettiren ikna konusunda elinden geleni yaparak kriminal olayı elinden
çıkarmakta ve artık hakimiyetini kuramayacağı nedensel bir süreci baş-
latmaktadır. Türk hukukunda ise bu fiilin cezalandırılmasına ilişkin ka-
nunda genel bir düzenleme yapılmamıştır. Ancak doktrinde azmettirme-
nin başlı başına bir haksızlık teşkil ettiğinden hareketle bu fiilin cezalan-
dırılması gerektiği artık kabul edilmektedir. Çevirisi yapılan bu çalışma-
da mezkûr hükmün bir alt vakası olarak akim kalmış azmettirmede cezai
sorumluluğun prensipleri ve sınırları; Hamm Eyalet Yüksek Mahkeme-
si’nin 22.10.1991 tarih ve L WS 249/91 sayılı kararı çerçevesinde bu
fiilin objektif ve sübjektif unsurları ele alınmıştır.
Keywords
