T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
MEHMET KAPLAN BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/25439)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 13\/5\/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
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Ay\u015fenur TUNCER<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Mehmet KAPLAN<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, mahpusa a\u011fabeyinin vefat\u0131 dolay\u0131s\u0131yla taziyeleri kabul etmesi i\u00e7in izin verilmemesi nedeniyle \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru tarihinde ceza infaz kurumunda bulunan ba\u015fvurucunun, a\u011fabeyi vefat etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, ailesine taziye ziyareti yapma talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. \u00d6demi\u015f Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) ba\u015fvurucunun talebini reddetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Ceza ve Tevkifevleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f yaz\u0131s\u0131 gere\u011fince 13\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5275 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza ve G\u00fcvenlik Tedbirlerinin \u0130nfaz\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 94. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (a) bendinde ve 116. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda belirtilen mazeret izninin h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc ve tutuklular\u0131n yak\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n birisinin \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc h\u00e2linde cenaze defnedilse dahi taziye i\u00e7in \u00f6l\u00fcm tarihinden itibaren \u00fc\u00e7 g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde mevzuatta say\u0131l\u0131 \u015fartlar g\u00f6zetilerek verilmesinin uygun olaca\u011f\u0131, ayr\u0131ca COVID-19 salg\u0131n hastal\u0131\u011f\u0131 sebebiyle mazeret izninin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131nda sak\u0131nca bulundu\u011fu, bu nedenle merasime ve aile ziyaretine kat\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n uygun g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 \u00d6demi\u015f \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fine (\u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fi) \u015fik\u00e2yette bulunmu\u015ftur. \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fi, Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k karar\u0131nda herhangi bir hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek 9\/3\/2021 tarihinde \u015fik\u00e2yeti reddetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; ba\u015fvurucunun a\u011fabeyinin 5\/1\/2021 tarihinde vefat etti\u011fi, ba\u015fvurucunun taziye ziyareti talebi tarihinin 13\/1\/2021 oldu\u011fu, talep tarihi itibar\u0131yla cenaze i\u015flemlerine e\u015flik edemeyece\u011fi, sadece taziye ama\u00e7l\u0131 evine gidebilece\u011finin g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bunun yan\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130zmir ilinin \u00d6demi\u015f il\u00e7esinde ceza infaz kurumunda bulunmaktayken Siirt iline taziye ziyaretine gitmek istedi\u011fi ve ba\u015fvurucuya vir\u00fcs bula\u015fma ihtimali bulunmakla birlikte vir\u00fcs\u00fc ceza infaz kurumuna ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131 durumunda t\u00fcm mahpuslar\u0131n hayat\u0131n\u0131 riske atabilecek bir durumun meydana gelme ihtimalinin y\u00fcksek oldu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Bunun \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu, \u00d6demi\u015f 1. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi) itiraz yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. \u0130tiraz dilek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucu, a\u011fabeyinin vefat\u0131 \u00fczerine ailesinin \u00f6l\u00fcm belgesini 11\/1\/2021 tarihinde alabildi\u011fini, 13\/1\/2021 tarihinde de taziye ziyareti talebinde bulundu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcye izin verilmesi durumunda pandemi ko\u015fullar\u0131 nedeniyle hem h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan hem de ceza infaz kurumunda bulunan di\u011fer h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcler a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan telafisi zor zararlar ortaya \u00e7\u0131kabilme ihtimalinin bulundu\u011funu ve \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fi karar\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7elerin yerinde oldu\u011funu belirterek itiraz\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 5\/4\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 3\/5\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. 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
7. \u00d6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucunun adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu; a\u011fabeyinin vefat\u0131 nedeniyle ac\u0131l\u0131 ve zor g\u00fcnler ya\u015fayan ailesinin yan\u0131na taziye ziyaretine g\u00f6nderilmedi\u011fini, kararlarda keyf\u00ee gerek\u00e7eler sunuldu\u011funu, talep tarihinin salg\u0131n vakalar\u0131n\u0131n en az g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc d\u00f6nemde oldu\u011funu belirterek \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
9. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik \u015fik\u00e2yetleri incelenirken Anayasa ve mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri do\u011frultusunda somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda \u00f6nceki ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131 tekrar etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvuru, \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. 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 ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
12. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun, a\u011fabeyinin taziye kabul\u00fcne kat\u0131lma talebinin reddedilmesinin \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131na bir m\u00fcdahale olu\u015fturdu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r (Be\u015fir Do\u011fan [2. B.], B. No: 2013\/2335, 15\/12\/2015, \u00a7 30; Rasul Kocat\u00fcrk [GK], B. No: 2016\/8080, 26\/12\/2019, \u00a7 42).<\/p>\n
13. Bu m\u00fcdahalenin 5275 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 94. maddesinin (1) ve (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kralar\u0131nda yer alan d\u00fczenlemeler gere\u011fince kanuni temelinin bulundu\u011fu ve infaz kurumunun g\u00fcvenli\u011finin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 \u015feklinde me\u015fru amac\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu kabul edilmi\u015ftir (Rasul Kocat\u00fcrk, \u00a7\u00a7 45-50). Kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131 bulunan ve me\u015fru ama\u00e7 ta\u015f\u0131yan m\u00fcdahalenin ihlal te\u015fkil etmemesi i\u00e7in Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde yer verilen demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine de uygun olmas\u0131 gerekir. Bir m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine uygun kabul edilebilmesi i\u00e7in ise zorunlu bir toplumsal ihtiyac\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve orant\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011funun ortaya konulmas\u0131 beklenir (Ferhat \u00dcst\u00fcnda\u011f [1. B.], B. No: 2014\/15428, 17\/7\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 37, 45-48; Abuzer Uzun [2. B.], B. No: 2016\/61250, 13\/6\/2019, \u00a7 38; Rasul Kocat\u00fcrk, \u00a7\u00a7 51-57).<\/p>\n
14. Anayasa’n\u0131n 19. maddesi gere\u011fi h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc ve tutuklular\u0131n \u00f6zel ve aile hayat\u0131na birtak\u0131m s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar\u0131n getirilmi\u015f olmas\u0131, hukuka uygun olarak ceza infaz kurumunda tutulman\u0131n ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz ve do\u011fal bir sonucudur. Bu ba\u011flamda idarenin tutuklu ve h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fclerin \u00f6zel ve aile hayat\u0131na m\u00fcdahale konusunda takdir yetkisinin daha geni\u015f oldu\u011fu g\u00f6zetilmelidir. Burada m\u00fchim olan ceza infaz kurumunun g\u00fcvenli\u011finin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 amac\u0131 ile h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcn\u00fcn \u00f6zel ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterilmesi hakk\u0131 aras\u0131nda adil bir dengenin sa\u011flanm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131d\u0131r (Mehmet Koray Erya\u015fa [2. B.], B. No: 2013\/6693, 16\/4\/2015, \u00a7 89; Rasul Kocat\u00fcrk, \u00a7 56).<\/p>\n
15. Bununla birlikte Anayasa Mahkemesi; taziye ziyaretinin aile ili\u015fkileri ve k\u00fclt\u00fcr\u00fcm\u00fcz y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u00f6nemli bir yeri olmas\u0131 nedeniyle 5275 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da yak\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc h\u00e2linde h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcye mazeret izni verilmesi d\u00fczenlenerek cenaze merasimine kat\u0131lma imk\u00e2n\u0131 sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, izin s\u00fcreleri ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n gerekleri g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde kanun koyucunun iznin kapsam\u0131n\u0131 sadece defin i\u015flemi ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 tutmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc gerekti\u011fini vurgulayarak cenazeye kat\u0131lma talebini taziye ziyaretiyle birlikte ele alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca bu imk\u00e2ndan yararlanman\u0131n mutlak olmay\u0131p \u015fartlar\u0131n bulunmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde ve kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n yapacaklar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme sonucu uygun bulmalar\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 k\u0131l\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir (Rasul Kocat\u00fcrk, \u00a7\u00a7 58, 61).<\/p>\n
16. Bu ba\u011flamda Anayasa Mahkemesi; yak\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6len mahpusun izin talebinin kamu makamlar\u0131nca somut ko\u015fullar da dikkate al\u0131narak \u00f6zenli bir de\u011ferlendirme ile m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olan en k\u0131sa s\u00fcrede sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131, talebin kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 imk\u00e2n d\u00e2hilinde de\u011filse zorunluluk h\u00e2llerinin ve g\u00fcvenlik risklerinin somut olgu ve olaylara dayal\u0131 olarak yeterli gerek\u00e7eyle a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini kabul etmi\u015ftir (Muhittin Pirin\u00e7\u00e7io\u011flu (4) [1. B.], B. No: 2020\/28439, 21\/11\/2023, \u00a7\u00a7 13, 14; Rasul Kocat\u00fcrk, \u00a7\u00a7 61, 62). Anayasa Mahkemesi, an\u0131lan gerekliliklere uyulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve taleplerin \u00f6zenli bir \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirilmeyerek ki\u015filerin menfaatiyle kamusal menfaat aras\u0131nda adil denge kurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit etti\u011fi ba\u015fvurularda m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik bir toplumda gerekli ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc oldu\u011funun s\u00f6ylenemeyece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir (bir\u00e7ok karar aras\u0131ndan bkz. Rasul Kocat\u00fcrk, \u00a7 65; Yavuz Ge\u00e7im [2. B.], B. No: 2018\/15011, 24\/2\/2021; Muhittin Pirin\u00e7\u00e7io\u011flu (4), \u00a7 16; Abdullah Selvi [2. B.], B. No: 2020\/35123, 3\/4\/2024).<\/p>\n
17. Somut olayda ceza infaz kurumunda bulunan ba\u015fvurucunun, vefat eden a\u011fabeyinin taziye kabul\u00fcne kat\u0131lma talebinin Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan COVID-19 salg\u0131n\u0131n\u0131n neden oldu\u011fu bula\u015f riski gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek reddedildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131n\u0131n da an\u0131lan gerek\u00e7eye ek olarak vefat tarihi ve talep tarihi aras\u0131nda ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre ile gidilmek istenen ilin ceza infaz kurumunun bulundu\u011fu yere uzakl\u0131\u011f\u0131na i\u015faret ettikleri anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. Bu itibarla somut olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131nda verilen kararlarda COVID-19 salg\u0131n\u0131n\u0131n neden oldu\u011fu bula\u015f riskine ili\u015fkin genel gerek\u00e7eyle yetinilmi\u015f, sosyal mesafe ve maske kullan\u0131m\u0131 gibi tedbirler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ba\u015fvurucunun talebinin kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kamu makamlar\u0131 ba\u015fvurucunun talebinin kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in durumun gerektirdi\u011fi \u00f6zeni g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini, ilgili personelin g\u00f6revlendirilmesi i\u00e7in alternatif \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmler denedi\u011fini ortaya koyabilmi\u015f de\u011fildir. Ba\u015fvurucunun uzun s\u00fcre g\u00f6rmedi\u011fi a\u011fabeyinin vefat\u0131 \u00fczerine taziyesine kat\u0131lamamas\u0131n\u0131n neden oldu\u011fu derin \u00fcz\u00fcnt\u00fc dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda verilen kararlarda g\u00f6sterilen gerek\u00e7eler, ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131 ile toplumun \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131 aras\u0131nda adil denge kurulmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik ilgili ve yeterli unsurlara sahip de\u011fildir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun a\u011fabeyinin vefat\u0131 sonras\u0131nda taziyeye kat\u0131larak ailesine destek olma imk\u00e2n\u0131ndan yoksun kalmas\u0131nda kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n talebin reddedilmesi \u015feklindeki m\u00fcdahalesinin \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
19. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti ile maddi ve manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
21. \u0130nceleme tarihi itibar\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun a\u011fabeyinin vefat\u0131 \u00fczerinden uzun bir s\u00fcre ge\u00e7ti\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda taziye ziyaretlerine kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tespit edilen hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
22. \u00d6te yandan ihlalin niteli\u011fi dikkate al\u0131narak ba\u015fvurucuya net 34.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, maddi zarara ili\u015fkin olarak bilgi\/belge sunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan maddi 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 ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
C. Anayasa’n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucuya net 34.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE, tazminata ili\u015fkin di\u011fer taleplerin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. \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
F. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve bilgi i\u00e7in \u00d6demi\u015f \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fi (E.2021\/421, K.2021\/698) ile \u00d6demi\u015f 1. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (2021\/269 D.\u0130\u015f) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 13\/5\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 13\/5\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/25439 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 MEHMET KAPLAN BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/25439) Karar Tarihi: 13\/5\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 Kenan YA\u015eAR Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Ay\u015fenur TUNCER Ba\u015fvurucu : Mehmet KAPLAN I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, mahpusa a\u011fabeyinin vefat\u0131 dolay\u0131s\u0131yla taziyeleri kabul etmesi i\u00e7in izin verilmemesi nedeniyle \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvuru tarihinde ceza infaz kurumunda bulunan ba\u015fvurucunun, a\u011fabeyi vefat etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, ailesine taziye ziyareti yapma talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. \u00d6demi\u015f Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) ba\u015fvurucunun talebini reddetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Ceza ve Tevkifevleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f yaz\u0131s\u0131 gere\u011fince 13\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5275 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza ve G\u00fcvenlik Tedbirlerinin \u0130nfaz\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 94. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (a) bendinde ve 116. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda belirtilen mazeret izninin h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc ve tutuklular\u0131n yak\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n birisinin \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc h\u00e2linde cenaze defnedilse dahi taziye i\u00e7in \u00f6l\u00fcm tarihinden itibaren \u00fc\u00e7 g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde mevzuatta say\u0131l\u0131 \u015fartlar g\u00f6zetilerek verilmesinin uygun olaca\u011f\u0131, ayr\u0131ca COVID-19 salg\u0131n hastal\u0131\u011f\u0131 sebebiyle mazeret izninin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131nda sak\u0131nca bulundu\u011fu, bu nedenle merasime ve aile ziyaretine kat\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n uygun g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 \u00d6demi\u015f \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fine (\u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fi) \u015fik\u00e2yette bulunmu\u015ftur. \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fi, Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k karar\u0131nda herhangi bir hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\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-148755","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n