Postponement of the fine given to the people who burned the Haydarpaşa Train Station in the Supreme Court: During the isolation work, the Supreme Court found the 10 monthly penalty to be given to the owner of the company with the two workers who caused the burning of Haydarpaşa Train Station. 8. The apartment, the defendants' penalty for the 'good state' asked to be postponed. The local court did not postpone the punishment on the grounds that the damage was not covered and the crime was committed as a result of a serious negligence against the historical building.
3 was given a prison sentence of 10 per month for the burning of the historic building during the isolation work at Istanbul Haydarpaşa Station, and these fines were not postponed due to the fact that 'the crime was committed against a historical building'. This decision, which was rebutted by the public opinion, is even the Court of Appeals 8. The Criminal Chamber found that it was 'overdone' and was broken down. The court sent the file back to the local court to postpone the sentence, arguing that the decision to postpone the sentence was not taken into account, whether the defendants were regretful, their personality traits, their behavior in the proceedings and whether they would commit a crime again.
At the Haydarpasa Train Station, 28 November 2010 after the fire, the workers on the roof Zafer Ateş and Hüseyin Doğan and the company's owner İhsan Kaboğlu and Hüseyin Kaboğlu are responsible for 'causing a fire by ransom', TCDD engineers Suavi Günay and engineer Ayşe Kaplan was charged with 'imprisonment of general security' for three months to one year 's imprisonment.
Anatolia 8. At the end of the trial, which ended at 6 December 2013 in the Magistrates' Court, the workers had been sentenced by Ateş and Doğan and the company owner İhsan Kaboğlu for a month. The court did not postpone the punishment as the damage was not paid and the crime was committed as a result of serious negligence against the historical building. Engineer Suavi Günay and Ayşe Kaplan and Hüseyin Kabloğu, one of the owners of the company, were acquitted.
Supreme Court 8. The Penal Department overturned this decision, 22, in June. In the judgment, 10 found 8 incorrectly decided not to postpone the monthly punishment. The Criminal Chamber said that ığ the damage was not met and the crime was committed as a result of a serious negligence against a historical building ve is not a legal and sufficient justification. The decision, 'the defendants in the trial process without examining the status of regret, personality characteristics and behavior at the hearing to be taken into account the opinion that the crime will not decide, legally and on a sufficient grounds were decided' was defended.