T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
M. A. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/16187)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 30\/4\/2025<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
G\u00fczay \u015eERBETC\u0130<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Hatice K\u00fcbra EK\u0130C\u0130<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, kamudaki g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan hukuk\u00e7unun baro staj listesine yaz\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin verilen karar\u0131n mahkemece iptal edilmesi nedeniyle \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Polis memuru olarak g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131rada ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2l kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcnde kararnamelerine (OHAL KHK’lar\u0131) dayan\u0131larak kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucu, baro staj listesine avukat stajyeri olarak yaz\u0131lma talebiyle Ankara Barosuna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucunun talebi Ankara Barosu Y\u00f6netim Kurulu taraf\u0131ndan kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan itiraz edilmi\u015ftir. \u0130tiraz dilek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucunun OHAL KHK’s\u0131 ile g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, kamu g\u00f6revlisi olma niteli\u011fini kaybetti\u011fi, hakk\u0131nda kovu\u015fturma bulundu\u011fu vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. T\u00fcrkiye Barolar Birli\u011fi (TBB) Y\u00f6netim Kurulu an\u0131lan itiraz\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. S\u00f6z konusu karar, Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) taraf\u0131ndan uygun bulunmayarak bir daha g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmek \u00fczere TBB’ye geri g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. TBB, \u00f6nceki karar\u0131nda \u0131srar ederek ba\u015fvurucunun baro staj listesine yaz\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 Ankara 10. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) y\u00fcr\u00fctmeyi durdurma talepli iptal davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, daval\u0131 TBB’nin yan\u0131nda iptal davas\u0131nda m\u00fcdahil olarak yer alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. Mahkeme \u00f6ncelikle y\u00fcr\u00fctmenin durdurulmas\u0131 talebini kabul etmi\u015f, sonras\u0131nda 30\/11\/2020 tarihli karar\u0131 ile dava konusu i\u015flemin iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan a\u00e7\u0131lan ceza davas\u0131n\u0131n derdest oldu\u011fu, ba\u015fvurucuya isnat edilen fiilin niteli\u011fi ile baro levhas\u0131na yaz\u0131lmas\u0131 durumunda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclecek kamu hizmetinin \u00f6nemi ve \u00f6zelli\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. An\u0131lan hususlar ile 19\/3\/1969 tarihli ve 1136 say\u0131l\u0131 Avukatl\u0131k Kanunu’nun ilgili d\u00fczenlemeleri dikkate al\u0131narak staj listesine yaz\u0131lma karar\u0131 i\u00e7in kovu\u015fturma sonucunun beklenmesinin yerinde olaca\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. \u0130ptal karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 TBB’nin istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurusu Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 12. \u0130dari Dava Dairesinin 11\/3\/2021 tarihli karar\u0131yla kesin olarak reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvuru 14\/4\/2021 tarihindeyap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
8. \u00d6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucunun adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, avukatl\u0131k yapabilmesi i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurdu\u011fu baro staj listesine yaz\u0131lma talebinin mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan reddedilmesi nedeniyle \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131,ba\u015fvurucuya isnat edilen fiilin niteli\u011fi ile baro staj levhas\u0131na yaz\u0131lmas\u0131 durumunda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclecek kamu hizmetinin \u00f6nemi ve \u00f6zelli\u011fi dikkate al\u0131narak karar verildi\u011fi, ba\u015fvurucunun baro staj levhas\u0131na yaz\u0131lmamas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6zel hayat\u0131na ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131 ne \u015fekilde etkiledi\u011fini yeterince ortaya koyamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 dile getirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru formunda yer alan beyanlar\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir (ayn\u0131 y\u00f6ndeki de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. Mehmet \u00c7etinkaya ve D.K. [GK], B. No: 2018\/27392, 15\/4\/2021; B.A.Y. [GK], B. No: 2019\/19788, 5\/7\/2022).<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddias\u0131n\u0131n baro staj listesine yaz\u0131lma talebinin reddedilmesine, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla serbest avukatl\u0131k yapmas\u0131n\u0131n engellenmesine ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Mesleki hayata y\u00f6nelik bu t\u00fcr tedbirlerin ya da m\u00fcdahalelerin hangi durumlarda \u00f6zel hayat ba\u011flam\u0131nda uygulanabilir oldu\u011fu hususunda belirlenen \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctler Tamer Mahmuto\u011flu ([GK], B. No: 2017\/38953, 23\/7\/2020, \u00a7\u00a7 84-96) karar\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucunun staj listesine yaz\u0131lma talebinin reddinin \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu ve an\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde belirtilen ko\u015fullara uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde Anayasa’n\u0131n 20. maddesini ihlal edece\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r (\u00d6mer \u00d6zcan [GK], B. No: 2019\/24047, 23\/3\/2023).<\/p>\n
13. Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00d6mer \u00d6zcan karar\u0131nda an\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin me\u015fru amac\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011funu tespit ederek kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine uygunluk ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck kriteriyle birlikte incelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. Bu kapsamda Anayasa Mahkemesi 1136 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 5. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131nda baz\u0131 su\u00e7lardan kovu\u015fturma alt\u0131nda bulunulmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde avukatl\u0131\u011fa al\u0131nma iste\u011fi hakk\u0131ndaki karar\u0131n kovu\u015fturma sonuna kadar ertelenebilece\u011fi ancak ilgili mevzuatta staj\u0131n \u00f6telenmesine dair a\u00e7\u0131k bir kanuni d\u00fczenlemenin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit etmi\u015ftir. Buradan hareketle staj\u0131n avukatl\u0131\u011fa kabul talebinde bulunman\u0131n \u00f6n \u015fart\u0131 olarak d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda bu kural\u0131n staja ba\u015fvuruda i\u015flerlik kazand\u0131r\u0131lacak \u015fekilde geni\u015f yorumlanmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckleri daraltan bir yorum oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir (\u00d6mer \u00d6zcan, \u00a7\u00a7 61, 63).<\/p>\n
15. Bununla birlikte an\u0131lan kararda kovu\u015fturman\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyetle sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde aday\u0131n staj listesinden ve avukat\u0131n baro levhas\u0131ndan kesin olarak silinece\u011finin mevzuatta a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a d\u00fczenlendi\u011finin g\u00f6zetilmesi gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar ba\u011flam\u0131nda hakk\u0131nda devam eden kovu\u015fturma bulunmas\u0131 sebebiyle ba\u015fvurucunun baro staj listesine yaz\u0131lmamas\u0131n\u0131n hangi zorlay\u0131c\u0131 toplumsal ihtiyac\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e ile ortaya konulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (\u00d6mer \u00d6zcan, \u00a7\u00a7 64, 65).<\/p>\n
16. Somut ba\u015fvuruda da an\u0131lan karardan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektirir bir husus bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa’n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile 5.000.000 TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen anayasal hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar ve zorunluluk bulunmaktad\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n 148. ve 153. maddeleri ile 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. ve 66. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flat\u0131p Anayasa Mahkemesinin ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere ve gerek\u00e7elere uygun bi\u00e7imde y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclecek yarg\u0131lama sonunda hak ihlalinin nedenlerini gidererek yeni bir karar vermektir (yeniden yarg\u0131lama konusunda bkz. Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2) [1. B.], B. No: 2016\/12506, 7\/11\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 53-60, 66; Kadri Enis Berbero\u011flu (3) [GK], B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n
19. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Adli yard\u0131m talebinin KABUL\u00dcNE,<\/p>\n
B. \u00d6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011eiYLE,<\/p>\n
C. Anayasa’n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR’\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
D. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Ankara 10. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2020\/937, K.2020\/1836) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. \u00d6demenin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
H. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 30\/4\/2025 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvuru, polis memur iken kamudaki g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan hukuk\u00e7unun baro levhas\u0131na yaz\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin talebinin mahkemece iptal edilmesi nedeniyle \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. Say\u0131n Mahkemece yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmede \u00e7o\u011funluk taraf\u0131ndan, ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 20. maddesindeki \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. A\u015fa\u011f\u0131da belirtti\u011fimiz gerek\u00e7elerle \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lm\u0131yorum. \u015e\u00f6yle ki;<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu, polis memuru olarak g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131rada FET\u00d6\/PDY ile irtibat ya da iltisak i\u00e7inde oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esi ile 672 say\u0131l\u0131 OHAL KHK\u2019s\u0131na dayan\u0131larak kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, baro levhas\u0131na stajyer olarak yaz\u0131lmak i\u00e7in Ankara Barosuna ba\u015fvurmu\u015f, bu ba\u015fvurusu kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun polis memurlu\u011fundan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, A\u011fr\u0131 1. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinde yarg\u0131lamas\u0131n\u0131n devam etti\u011fi belirtilerek T\u00fcrkiye Barolar Birli\u011fi\u2019ne itiraz edilmi\u015ftir. TBB\u2019nin red karar\u0131 Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan uygun bulunmayarak geri g\u00f6nderilmi\u015f, TBB\u2019nin karar\u0131nda \u0131srar etmesi \u00fczerine Bakanl\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130dare Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan y\u00fcr\u00fctmeyi durdurma karar\u0131 verilmi\u015f, yarg\u0131lama sonucunda TBB\u2019nin i\u015fleminin iptaline karar verilmi\u015f, bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan istinaf ba\u015fvurusu da B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan reddedilmi\u015ftir. Bunun \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu, Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019ne bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
1136 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Avukatl\u0131\u011fa Kabulde Engeller” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 5. maddesinin ilgili f\u0131kralar\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“A\u015fa\u011f\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 durumlardan birinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 halinde, avukatl\u0131k mesle\u011fine kabul istemi reddolunur : a) T\u00fcrk Ceza Kanununun 53 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinde belirtilen s\u00fcreler ge\u00e7mi\u015f olsa bile; kasten i\u015flenen bir su\u00e7tan dolay\u0131 iki y\u0131ldan fazla s\u00fcreyle hapis cezas\u0131na ya da Devletin g\u00fcvenli\u011fine kar\u015f\u0131 su\u00e7lar, Anayasal d\u00fczene ve bu d\u00fczenin i\u015fleyi\u015fine kar\u015f\u0131 su\u00e7lar, (\u2026) zimmet, irtik\u00e2p, r\u00fc\u015fvet, h\u0131rs\u0131zl\u0131k, doland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131l\u0131k, sahtecilik, g\u00fcveni k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullanma, hileli iflas, ihaleye fesat kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131rma, edimin ifas\u0131na fesat kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131rma, su\u00e7tan kaynaklanan malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlerini aklama veya ka\u00e7ak\u00e7\u0131l\u0131k su\u00e7lar\u0131ndan mahk\u00fbm olmak. _Aday\u0131n birinci f\u0131kran\u0131n (a) bendinde yaz\u0131l\u0131 cezalardan birini gerektiren bir su\u00e7tan kovu\u015fturma alt\u0131nda bulunmas\u0131 halinde, avukatl\u0131\u011fa al\u0131nmas\u0131 iste\u011fi hakk\u0131ndaki karar\u0131n bu kovu\u015fturman\u0131n sonuna kadar bekletilmesine karar verilebilir\u201d.<\/p>\n
1136 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Redde veya Kovu\u015fturma Sonuna Kadar Beklenmesine Dair Karara \u0130tiraz” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 8. maddesinin ilgili f\u0131kralar\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“\u2026Baro y\u00f6netim kurullar\u0131n\u0131n aday\u0131n levhaya yaz\u0131lmas\u0131 hakk\u0131ndaki kararlar\u0131, karar tarihinden itibaren onbe\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde T\u00fcrkiye Barolar Birli\u011fine g\u00f6nderilir. T\u00fcrkiye Barolar Birli\u011fi karar\u0131n kendisine ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihten itibaren bir ay i\u00e7inde uygun bulma veya bulmama karar\u0131n\u0131 ve itiraz\u0131n kabul veya reddi hakk\u0131ndaki kararlar\u0131n\u0131 onaylamak \u00fczere karar tarihinden itibaren bir ay i\u00e7inde Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderir. Bu kararlar Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihten itibaren iki ay i\u00e7inde Bakanl\u0131k\u00e7a karar verilmedi\u011fi veya karar onayland\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde kesinle\u015fir. Ancak Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 uygun bulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kararlar\u0131 bir daha g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmek \u00fczere, g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle birlikte T\u00fcrkiye Barolar Birli\u011fine geri g\u00f6nderir. Geri g\u00f6nderilen bu kararlar, T\u00fcrkiye Barolar Birli\u011fi Y\u00f6netim Kurulunca \u00fc\u00e7te iki \u00e7o\u011funlukla aynen kabul edildi\u011fi takdirde onaylanm\u0131\u015f, aksi halde onaylanmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r; sonu\u00e7 T\u00fcrkiye Barolar Birli\u011fi taraf\u0131ndan Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na bildirilir…_Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kra uyar\u0131nca verdi\u011fi kararlara kar\u015f\u0131, T\u00fcrkiye Barolar Birli\u011fi, aday ve ilgili baro; Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n uygun bulmay\u0131p bir daha g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmek \u00fczere geri g\u00f6ndermesi \u00fczerine T\u00fcrkiye Barolar Birli\u011fince verilen kararlara kar\u015f\u0131 ise, Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131, aday ve ilgili baro idari yarg\u0131 merciine ba\u015fvurabilir\u2026\u201d.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n baro levhas\u0131na kay\u0131t talebinin kabul\u00fcne dair Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131\u2019n\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 itiraz\u0131n ve yerel mahkemelerin T\u00fcrkiye Barolar Birli\u011fi (TBB)\u2019nin baro levhas\u0131na kay\u0131t i\u015fleminin iptal gerek\u00e7esi, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda Avukatl\u0131k Kanununun 5. maddesinde belirtilen su\u00e7lardan dolay\u0131 kovu\u015fturma bulunmas\u0131d\u0131r. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n \u201c\u00d6zel hayat\u0131n gizlili\u011fi\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 20. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda \u201cHerkes, \u00f6zel hayat\u0131na ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterilmesini isteme hakk\u0131na sahiptir. \u00d6zel hayat\u0131n ve aile hayat\u0131n\u0131n gizlili\u011fine dokunulamaz.\u201d h\u00fckm\u00fc yer almaktad\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131nda; \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterilmesini isteme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015finin \u00e7evresinde bulunanlarla temas kurma hakk\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011fi, ki\u015filerin mesleki hayatlar\u0131 ile \u00f6zel hayatlar\u0131 aras\u0131nda s\u0131k\u0131 bir ili\u015fkinin bulundu\u011fu, ki\u015finin mesle\u011fi ile ilgili tasarruflar\u0131n \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterilmesini isteme hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir (Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin Serap Tortuk karar\u0131, Ba\u015fvuru No; 2013\/9660, K. Tarihi; 21\/1\/2015, \u00a7 36; Yine bkz. AYM, B\u00fclent Polat karar\u0131, Ba\u015fvuru No;2013\/7666, K. Tarihi; 10\/12\/2015, \u00a7 62).<\/p>\n
Bununla birlikte Anayasa Mahkemesi, \u00f6zel hayata ili\u015fkin herhangi bir nedene dayanmayan ve ki\u015filerin mesleki hayatlar\u0131na ya da sosyal stat\u00fclerine y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahaleler ya da tedbirler i\u00e7eren her durumun do\u011frudan do\u011fruya \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu t\u00fcrden m\u00fcdahalelerin konu oldu\u011fu s\u00fcre\u00e7lerin \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesini ve g\u00fcvencelerinin harekete ge\u00e7irilmesini sa\u011flamaya elveri\u015fli olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, mesleki hayata ve sosyal stat\u00fcye y\u00f6nelik olarak ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen m\u00fcdahalelerin ya da al\u0131nan tedbirlerin ki\u015filerin sosyal ya\u015famlar\u0131na ve \u00e7evreleriyle kuracaklar\u0131 ileti\u015fime, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u00f6zel hayatlar\u0131na dolayl\u0131 da olsa bir etkisinin olaca\u011f\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir olsa da bu kapsamdaki ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015f ya da ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesi muhtemel etkinin meselenin \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda ele al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 gerekli k\u0131lacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde ciddi ve asgari bir a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131k d\u00fczeyinde oldu\u011funun ortaya konulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede \u00f6zel hayata ili\u015fkin herhangi bir nedene dayan\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n mesleki hayata ve sosyal stat\u00fcye y\u00f6nelen m\u00fcdahalelerin ya da tedbirlerin \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilebilmesi i\u00e7in muhataplar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6zel hayatlar\u0131 \u00fczerinde ciddi etkisinin olmas\u0131 veya bu d\u00fczeyde bir etkinin do\u011fmas\u0131n\u0131n muhtemel olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir ( Bkz. Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin 23.07.2024 tarihli, 2023\/25 E. ve 2024\/139 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131, \u00a745,46).<\/p>\n
Baro levhas\u0131na kay\u0131t talebinin yerel mahkemece iptaline ili\u015fkin m\u00fcdahale Avukatl\u0131k Kanununun 5. ve 8. maddeleri \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olup, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda kovu\u015fturma bulundu\u011fundan kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131 mevcuttur.Ki\u015filerin \u00f6zel hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterilmesini isteme hakk\u0131na getirilen s\u0131n\u0131rlaman\u0131n Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesi uyar\u0131nca \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc de olmas\u0131 gerekir. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi ise elveri\u015flilik, gereklilik ve orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k olmak \u00fczere \u00fc\u00e7 alt ilkeden olu\u015fmaktad\u0131r. Elveri\u015flilik \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen s\u0131n\u0131rlaman\u0131n ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli olmas\u0131n\u0131, gereklilik ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan s\u0131n\u0131rlaman\u0131n zorunlu olmas\u0131n\u0131 di\u011fer bir ifadeyle ayn\u0131 amaca daha hafif bir s\u0131n\u0131rlama ile ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmamas\u0131n\u0131, orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k ise ama\u00e7 ile ara\u00e7 aras\u0131nda adil bir denge kurulmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirmektedir. (bkz. Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin 23.07.2024 tarihli, 2023\/25 E. ve 2024\/139 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131, \u00a7 61). Avukatl\u0131k Kanununun 1. maddesinde avukatl\u0131\u011f\u0131n, kamu hizmeti ve serbest bir meslek oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015f, ayn\u0131 Kanunun 2. maddesinde ise, avukatl\u0131\u011f\u0131n amac\u0131n\u0131n; hukuki m\u00fcnasebetlerin d\u00fczenlenmesini, her t\u00fcrl\u00fc hukuki mesele ve anla\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n adalet ve hakkaniyete uygun olarak \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmesini ve hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n tam olarak uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 her derecede yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131, hakemler, resmi ve \u00f6zel ki\u015fi, kurul ve kurumlar nezdinde sa\u011flamak oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu anlamda avukatl\u0131k faaliyetinin, yarg\u0131 faaliyetinin \u00f6nemli ve ayr\u0131lmaz bir unsuru oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131k olup, baro levhas\u0131na kay\u0131t i\u00e7in Kanunun 5. maddesinde belirtilen su\u00e7lardan kovu\u015fturma bulunmamas\u0131 ko\u015fulunun aranmas\u0131n\u0131n me\u015fru amaca ula\u015fma bak\u0131m\u0131ndan elveri\u015fli ve gerekli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenemez.<\/p>\n
Kald\u0131 ki, somut olayda oldu\u011fu gibi herhangi bir Kanunda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen kural\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131ndan do\u011facak uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n idari yarg\u0131ya ta\u015f\u0131nabilmesi ve idarenin takdir hakk\u0131n\u0131 somut olay ba\u011flam\u0131nda do\u011fru bir \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirip de\u011ferlendirmedi\u011finin denetlenmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Somut olayda da Avukatl\u0131k Kanunu\u2019nun 8. maddesinin verdi\u011fi yetki \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan, TBB\u2019nin takdir hakk\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde verdi\u011fi karar\u0131n idare mahkemesince denetlenmesi s\u00f6z konusudur. Avukatl\u0131k Kanunu\u2019nun 5. maddesinde aday\u0131n birinci f\u0131kran\u0131n (a) bendinde yaz\u0131l\u0131 cezalardan birini gerektiren bir su\u00e7tan kovu\u015fturma alt\u0131nda bulunmas\u0131 halinde, avukatl\u0131\u011fa al\u0131nmas\u0131 iste\u011fi hakk\u0131ndaki karar\u0131n bu kovu\u015fturman\u0131n sonuna kadar bekletilmesine karar verilebilece\u011fi d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Kanunda bekletme i\u015flemi i\u00e7in bir s\u00fcre tayin edildi\u011fi ve kovu\u015fturman\u0131n sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131na kadar m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olabilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015f oldu\u011fundan, s\u00f6z konusu d\u00fczenlemenin, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u00f6zel hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterilmesini isteme hakk\u0131na orant\u0131s\u0131z, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz bir s\u0131n\u0131rlama getirmedi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda Avukatl\u0131k Kanununda belirtilen su\u00e7lardan, ceza kovu\u015fturmas\u0131n\u0131n devam etti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esi ile Bakanl\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan baro levhas\u0131na kay\u0131t yap\u0131lmas\u0131na itiraz edilmesi somut bir olgu olup, s\u00f6z konusu kovu\u015fturmalar neticelendikten sonra tekrar de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 her zaman m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fundan, ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6zel hayat\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale Anayasa\u2019ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
Yukar\u0131da belirtilen nedenlerle, ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 ihlal edilmedi\u011finden aksi y\u00f6ndeki \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lm\u0131yorum.<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 30\/4\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/16187 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR M. A. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/16187) Karar Tarihi: 30\/4\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : G\u00fczay \u015eERBETC\u0130 Ba\u015fvurucu : Vekili : Av. Hatice K\u00fcbra EK\u0130C\u0130 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, kamudaki g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan hukuk\u00e7unun baro staj listesine yaz\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin verilen karar\u0131n mahkemece iptal edilmesi nedeniyle \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Polis memuru olarak g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131rada ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2l kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcnde kararnamelerine (OHAL KHK’lar\u0131) dayan\u0131larak kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucu, baro staj listesine avukat stajyeri olarak yaz\u0131lma talebiyle Ankara Barosuna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucunun talebi Ankara Barosu Y\u00f6netim Kurulu taraf\u0131ndan kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan itiraz edilmi\u015ftir. \u0130tiraz dilek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucunun OHAL KHK’s\u0131 ile g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, kamu g\u00f6revlisi olma niteli\u011fini kaybetti\u011fi, hakk\u0131nda kovu\u015fturma bulundu\u011fu vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. T\u00fcrkiye Barolar Birli\u011fi (TBB) Y\u00f6netim Kurulu an\u0131lan itiraz\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. 3. S\u00f6z konusu karar, Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) taraf\u0131ndan uygun bulunmayarak bir daha g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmek \u00fczere TBB’ye geri g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. TBB, \u00f6nceki karar\u0131nda \u0131srar ederek ba\u015fvurucunun baro staj listesine yaz\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 Ankara 10. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) y\u00fcr\u00fctmeyi durdurma talepli iptal davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, daval\u0131 TBB’nin yan\u0131nda iptal davas\u0131nda m\u00fcdahil olarak yer …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-120124","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n