Section 219 ter: Dika Bar on Confinement-Related Sentences

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 4292/2567 (2024)

   Where the Court of First Instance imposed confinement in lieu of imprisonment and the Court of Appeal affirmed, the case is barred from a fact-question Dika under Section 219 ter, and self-defense and lighter-sentence arguments are fact questions.

   The trial court imposed confinement in lieu of imprisonment and the Court of Appeal affirmed. Although a judge had certified the appeal, the Supreme Court held the case was barred from a fact-question Dika under Section 219 ter, and the defendant's self-defense and lenient-sentence arguments were fact questions.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 781/2567 (2024)

   Where the Court of Appeal only amends a collateral matter and leaves the confinement unchanged, it has not reversed the trial judgment, so a fact-question Dika is barred under Section 219 ter; and a judge may certify a Dika only for Sections 218, 219, and 220 cases, not Section 219 ter.

   The Court of Appeal amended only the license-suspension period and left the confinement of both defendants intact, which counts as not reversing the trial judgment, so the fact-question Dika was barred under Section 219 ter. The Supreme Court added that a judge's certification under Section 221 does not extend to Section 219 ter cases.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1230/2566 (2023)

   Where both the trial court and the Court of Appeal converted imprisonment into confinement, the case is barred from a fact-question Dika under Section 219 ter, and an argument requiring the court to re-find the facts is a fact question even if it aims at a legal conclusion.

   The trial court sentenced the defendant to three months converted to confinement, and the Court of Appeal likewise used confinement. The Supreme Court held the case barred under Section 219 ter, and the defendant's argument that he lacked intent to use a vehicle to facilitate theft required re-finding the facts and was therefore a fact question.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.