T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
G\u00dcL ALDEM\u0130R BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/42384)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 26\/3\/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
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan H\u00dcZMEL\u0130<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
G\u00fcl ALDEM\u0130R<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. P\u0131nar \u00c7EL\u0130K ARPACI<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, yetkili makamlardan izin al\u0131nmaks\u0131z\u0131n afi\u015f as\u0131lmas\u0131 sonucu idari para cezas\u0131 uygulanmas\u0131 nedeniyle ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Halkevleri \u00fcyesi olan ba\u015fvurucunun \u201cHalk Sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0130\u00e7in Halk \u0130ktidar\u0131, Ya\u015fas\u0131n 1 May\u0131s Sosyalizm Halkevleri\u201d ifadelerinin yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 80×10 cm boyutlar\u0131ndaki afi\u015fi, Odunpazar\u0131 Belediyesine ait reklam panosuna yap\u0131\u015ft\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 MOBESE kamera g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fclerinden tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda 30\/3\/2005 tarihli ve 5326 say\u0131l\u0131 Kabahatler Kanunu’nun 42. maddesi uyar\u0131nca izinsiz afi\u015f asma kabahatinden 427 TL idari para cezas\u0131 uygulanmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Kolluk g\u00f6revlilerince d\u00fczenlenen tutanakta, ba\u015fvurucunun bilboard\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra ayd\u0131nlatma direklerine de \u201c\u0130\u015fsizli\u011fe ve Yoksullu\u011fa \u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcm Halk \u0130ktidar\u0131, Ya\u015fas\u0131n 1 May\u0131s Sosyalizm\u201d ve \u201cFa\u015fizm, Salg\u0131n F\u0131rsat\u00e7\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131, Kayyum, Patriyarka, \u0130\u015fsizlik, Yoksulluk, Do\u011fa Talan\u0131, Gericilik, Bu Pisli\u011fi Devrim Temizler, Ya\u015fas\u0131n 1 May\u0131s Sosyalizm\u201d \u015feklinde Halkevleri imzal\u0131 afi\u015fleri ast\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015f olmakla, bu tespitlerin idari para cezas\u0131 tutana\u011f\u0131na yans\u0131t\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ayr\u0131ca dosya kapsam\u0131nda bu iddiay\u0131 destekleyen herhangi bir delilin sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu; afi\u015fi kendisinin yap\u0131\u015ft\u0131rmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kolluk g\u00f6revlilerince d\u00fczenlenen g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc inceleme ve tespit tutana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n delil olarak kabul edilemeyece\u011fini, bu g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcn\u00fcn uzman ve ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z bir bilirki\u015fi taraf\u0131ndan incelenmesi gerekti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek idari yapt\u0131r\u0131m karar\u0131na itiraz etmi\u015ftir. Eski\u015fehir \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, itiraz \u00fczerine Eski\u015fehir 3. Sulh Ceza H\u00e2kimli\u011fine (H\u00e2kimlik) sundu\u011fu yaz\u0131da ba\u015fvurucunun bilboard \u00fczerine afi\u015fi yap\u0131\u015ft\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc kayd\u0131 ve foto\u011fraflarla net \u015fekilde tespit edildi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015f; ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucunun kamuya a\u00e7\u0131k alanda afi\u015f ve ilan asma prosed\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc yerine getirmemesi nedeniyle cezaland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. H\u00e2kimlik, yapt\u0131r\u0131m karar\u0131n\u0131n mevzuata uygun oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle itiraz\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 14\/7\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 9\/8\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. 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
6. Ba\u015fvurucu; hakk\u0131nda idari yapt\u0131r\u0131m uygulanmas\u0131na neden olan afi\u015fin kendisi taraf\u0131ndan as\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu hususun kesin ve inand\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 bir delille ortaya konulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kimlik tespitinin tahmine ve yoruma dayal\u0131 olarak yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ayr\u0131ca cezaland\u0131rmaya dayanak olarak kullan\u0131lan maske takan bir ki\u015finin uzaktan \u00e7ekilmi\u015f foto\u011fraf\u0131n\u0131n kimlik tespitine elveri\u015fli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek, bu tespit temelinde cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir. \u00d6te yandan afi\u015fin kendisi taraf\u0131ndan as\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilse dahi s\u00f6z konusu eylem nedeniyle cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ihlal etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
7. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn mutlak bir hak olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, Anayasa’n\u0131n ilgili maddelerinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen sebeplerle s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131labilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca afi\u015f asma eyleminin yetkili makamlar\u0131n iznine tabi tutulmas\u0131n\u0131n kamu d\u00fczeninin korunmas\u0131 ve g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc kirlili\u011finin \u00f6nlenmesi amac\u0131na dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucunun adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda da de\u011ferlendirmelerde bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru formundaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu, her ne kadar afi\u015f asmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek cezaland\u0131rmaya itiraz etmi\u015fse de kamu g\u00f6revlilerince d\u00fczenlenen belgelerde ba\u015fvurucunun izinsiz afi\u015f ast\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilmi\u015f ve bu tespit temelinde idari yapt\u0131r\u0131m uygulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun idari yapt\u0131r\u0131mdan ka\u00e7\u0131nmak amac\u0131yla aleyhine beyanda bulunmama hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne y\u00f6nelik bir m\u00fcdahalenin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilmelidir. Nitekim, yaln\u0131zca kabahat niteli\u011finde bir eylemin i\u015flendi\u011finin kabul edilmesi h\u00e2linde anayasal g\u00fcvencelerden yararlan\u0131laca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 varsaymak, ki\u015filerin Anayasa’n\u0131n 26. maddesi ile g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na neden olacakt\u0131r (farkl\u0131 ba\u011flamda benzer y\u00f6nde de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. Bet\u00fcl \u00c7etin ve D\u00f6nd\u00fc Kur\u015funo\u011flu [2. B.], B. No: 2021\/43163, 9\/2\/2023, \u00a7 15). Bu tespitlerle uyumlu olarak ba\u015fvurucunun su\u00e7 unsuru i\u00e7ermeyen ifadeler i\u00e7eren afi\u015fi izinsiz ast\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle idari para cezas\u0131na tabi tutulmas\u0131n\u0131n, ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne y\u00f6nelik bir m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etti\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. 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 ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
10. \u0130fade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin dayana\u011f\u0131 olan 5326 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 42. maddesinin kanunilik \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. M\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’n\u0131n 26. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen s\u0131n\u0131rlama sebeplerinden kamu d\u00fczeninin korunmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu belirlemenin ard\u0131ndan, m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine uygunlu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden inceleme yap\u0131lacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
11. Somut olayda, ba\u015fvurucuya yaln\u0131zca belediyeye ait reklam panolar\u0131na izinsiz afi\u015f yap\u0131\u015ft\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle idari para cezas\u0131 uygulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ancak idarece d\u00fczenlenen belgelerde ve H\u00e2kimlik karar\u0131nda, bu yapt\u0131r\u0131ma dayanak te\u015fkil edecek ba\u015fka herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirmeye yer verilmemi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca dosya kapsam\u0131nda afi\u015fte yer alan ifadeler nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda kamu makamlar\u0131nca herhangi bir adli soru\u015fturma ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair bir bilgiye rastlanmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
12. Anayasa Mahkemesi, somut ba\u015fvuru ile benzer nitelikte olan \u00d6zkan Kuplay ([1. B.], B. No: 2021\/13005, 21\/11\/2023) karar\u0131nda, ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin anayasal \u00e7er\u00e7evede nas\u0131l de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fine ili\u015fkin ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan kararda, afi\u015f asma yoluyla yap\u0131lan d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131n\u0131n anayasal g\u00fcvencelerden yararland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak kamuya ait alanlara afi\u015f as\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n belirli \u00f6n ko\u015fullara ba\u011flanabilece\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. 5326 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 42. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda, izinsiz afi\u015f asman\u0131n kamu d\u00fczenini koruma ve g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc kirlili\u011fini \u00f6nleme amac\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilmekle birlikte, yaln\u0131zca izin \u015fart\u0131 ihlalinin tek ba\u015f\u0131na idari yapt\u0131r\u0131m i\u00e7in yeterli olamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00d6zellikle, kamu d\u00fczeninin bozulup bozulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya \u00e7evre kirlili\u011fine neden olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi hususlar\u0131n, kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n kararlar\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir (\u00d6zkan Kuplay, \u00a7\u00a7 9-12; farkl\u0131 ba\u011flamda benzer y\u00f6nde de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. Ahmet \u00d6zdem [2. B.], B. No: 2016\/13541, 28\/5\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 31, 33).<\/p>\n
13. Anayasa Mahkemesi, belediyeye ait reklam panolar\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n belirli hukuki prosed\u00fcrlere (kiralama, \u00fccret \u00f6deme vb.) tabi tutulabilece\u011fini ve izin al\u0131nmaks\u0131z\u0131n bu panolar\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde, somut olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak idari yapt\u0131r\u0131m\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra tazminat sorumlulu\u011fu veya adli soru\u015fturman\u0131n da s\u00f6z konusu olabilece\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan kararda Anayasa Mahkemesi, idare ve h\u00e2kimli\u011fin afi\u015fin kamu d\u00fczenini bozdu\u011fu veya g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc kirlili\u011fine neden oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek yaln\u0131zca izinsiz as\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle idari para cezas\u0131 uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131n, ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne m\u00fcdahale i\u00e7in yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (\u00d6zkan Kuplay, \u00a7\u00a7 13-16).<\/p>\n
14. Somut olayda da yapt\u0131r\u0131m konusu afi\u015fin kamu d\u00fczenini bozdu\u011fu veya g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc kirlili\u011fine yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair herhangi bir tespit veya de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n, yaln\u0131zca izinsiz as\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle ba\u015fvurucunun cezaland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu do\u011frultuda \u00d6zkan Kuplay karar\u0131nda ortaya konulan ilkeler ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan farkl\u0131 bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
15. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 26. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
16. \u0130fade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131 ile ilgili olarak bu a\u015famada bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile 100.000 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. \u00d6te yandan hak ihlali karar\u0131ndan Anayasa Mahkemesinin davan\u0131n sonucuyla ilgili olarak bir tutum sergiledi\u011fi sonucu \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmamal\u0131d\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesince verilen hak ihlali karar\u0131 uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sonu\u00e7lar\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olup davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, reddine ya da beraate veya mahk\u00fbmiyete karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi anlam\u0131na gelmemektedir. Kural olarak, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n her a\u015famas\u0131nda oldu\u011fu gibi ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 gidermek \u00fczere yeniden yap\u0131lacak yarg\u0131lama sonunda da delillerin dava ile ili\u015fkisini kurma ve bunlar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirip sonu\u00e7 \u00e7\u0131karma yetkisi ilgili mahkemelere aittir.<\/p>\n
20. \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 tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. \u0130fade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 26. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Di\u011fer ihlal iddias\u0131n\u0131n \u0130NCELENMES\u0130NE GEREK OLMADI\u011eINA,<\/p>\n
D. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Eski\u015fehir 3. Sulh Ceza H\u00e2kimli\u011fine (2021\/2579 D.\u0130\u015f) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. 487,60 TL har\u00e7 ile 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.487,60 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. \u00d6demelerin 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 26\/3\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 26\/3\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/42384 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 G\u00dcL ALDEM\u0130R BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/42384) Karar Tarihi: 26\/3\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : Hasan H\u00dcZMEL\u0130 Ba\u015fvurucu : G\u00fcl ALDEM\u0130R Vekili : Av. P\u0131nar \u00c7EL\u0130K ARPACI I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, yetkili makamlardan izin al\u0131nmaks\u0131z\u0131n afi\u015f as\u0131lmas\u0131 sonucu idari para cezas\u0131 uygulanmas\u0131 nedeniyle ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Halkevleri \u00fcyesi olan ba\u015fvurucunun \u201cHalk Sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0130\u00e7in Halk \u0130ktidar\u0131, Ya\u015fas\u0131n 1 May\u0131s Sosyalizm Halkevleri\u201d ifadelerinin yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 80×10 cm boyutlar\u0131ndaki afi\u015fi, Odunpazar\u0131 Belediyesine ait reklam panosuna yap\u0131\u015ft\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 MOBESE kamera g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fclerinden tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda 30\/3\/2005 tarihli ve 5326 say\u0131l\u0131 Kabahatler Kanunu’nun 42. maddesi uyar\u0131nca izinsiz afi\u015f asma kabahatinden 427 TL idari para cezas\u0131 uygulanmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Kolluk g\u00f6revlilerince d\u00fczenlenen tutanakta, ba\u015fvurucunun bilboard\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra ayd\u0131nlatma direklerine de \u201c\u0130\u015fsizli\u011fe ve Yoksullu\u011fa \u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcm Halk \u0130ktidar\u0131, Ya\u015fas\u0131n 1 May\u0131s Sosyalizm\u201d ve \u201cFa\u015fizm, Salg\u0131n F\u0131rsat\u00e7\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131, Kayyum, Patriyarka, \u0130\u015fsizlik, Yoksulluk, Do\u011fa Talan\u0131, Gericilik, Bu Pisli\u011fi Devrim Temizler, Ya\u015fas\u0131n 1 May\u0131s Sosyalizm\u201d \u015feklinde Halkevleri imzal\u0131 afi\u015fleri ast\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015f olmakla, bu tespitlerin idari para cezas\u0131 tutana\u011f\u0131na yans\u0131t\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ayr\u0131ca dosya kapsam\u0131nda bu iddiay\u0131 destekleyen herhangi bir delilin sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu; afi\u015fi kendisinin yap\u0131\u015ft\u0131rmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, …<\/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-124087","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n