T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
ROMETA KODZOKOVA BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/21825)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 11\/12\/2024<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Cafiye Ece YALIM<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Rometa KODZOKOVA<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Ahmet Bersis KARABULUT<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, ceza kovu\u015fturmas\u0131 sonunda verilen m\u00fcsadere karar\u0131n\u0131n h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015ftirilmesiyle birlikte infaz\u0131 nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Rusya Federasyonu vatanda\u015f\u0131 olan ba\u015fvurucunun olay tarihinde Atat\u00fcrk Havaliman\u0131 (Havaliman\u0131) d\u0131\u015f hatlar terminalinden \u00fclkeye giri\u015f yaparken k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck bir paketi \u00e7antas\u0131na koymaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131rada Havaliman\u0131nda g\u00f6rev yapan polis memurlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan fark edilmesi \u00fczerine yap\u0131lan aramada 6.750 gr g\u00fcm\u00fc\u015f ve 4.210 gr alt\u0131n bulundurdu\u011fu tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda yap\u0131lan soru\u015fturma sonucunda Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) 25\/5\/2016 tarihli iddianamesiyle ba\u015fvurucunun 21\/3\/2007 tarihli ve 5607 say\u0131l\u0131 Ka\u00e7ak\u00e7\u0131l\u0131kla M\u00fccadele Kanunu’nun 3. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131, ayr\u0131ca 26\/9\/2004 tarihli ve 5237 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Ceza Kanunu’nun 54. maddesinin uygulanmas\u0131 talep edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y 34. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) 27\/2\/2020 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun ka\u00e7ak\u00e7\u0131l\u0131k su\u00e7unu i\u015fledi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle 5607 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 3. maddesinin birincif\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca 1 y\u0131l 6 ay hapis ve 400 g\u00fcn adli para cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun sab\u0131kas\u0131z olmas\u0131 ve kamu zarar\u0131n\u0131n da giderilmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131 dikkate alarak 4\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun 231. maddesi uyar\u0131nca H\u00fckm\u00fcn A\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n Geri B\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na (HAGB), ba\u015fvurucunun be\u015f y\u0131l s\u00fcre ile denetime tabi tutulmas\u0131na h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme su\u00e7a konu e\u015fyalar\u0131n 5607 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 13. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 ile 5237 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 54. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131na g\u00f6re m\u00fcsadere edilmesine de karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu 11\/5\/2020 tarihinde HAGB karar\u0131na itirazda bulunmu\u015ftur. Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y 22. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi (A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi) 23\/6\/2020 tarihinde itiraz\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde HAGB karar\u0131n\u0131n usul ve kanuna uygun oldu\u011fu, Mahkeme karar\u0131nda isabetsizlik bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Mahkemece 24\/6\/2020 tarihinde \u0130stanbul G\u00fcmr\u00fck Ticaret B\u00f6lge M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne (G\u00fcmr\u00fck M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc) su\u00e7a konu e\u015fyalar\u0131n m\u00fcsaderesine karar verildi\u011fi bildirilerek gere\u011fi i\u00e7in m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvuru 23\/7\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, ba\u015fvuru har\u00e7 ve giderlerini \u00f6deyecek gelirinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek adli yard\u0131m talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Anayasa Mahkemesinin Mehmet \u015eerif Ay (B. No: 2012\/1181, 17\/9\/2013) karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkeler dikkate al\u0131narak, ge\u00e7imini \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde g\u00fc\u00e7le\u015ftirmeksizin yarg\u0131lama giderlerini \u00f6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucunun a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmayan adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu; HAGB karar\u0131n\u0131n itiraz incelemesinin \u015fekli olarak yap\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle haks\u0131z \u015fekilde verilen m\u00fcsadere karar\u0131n\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131n denetlenmedi\u011fini, arama el koyma mevzuat\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini,Mahkemenin karar tarihinden be\u015f g\u00fcn sonra 3\/3\/2020 tarihli 31057 say\u0131l\u0131 Resmi Gazetede yay\u0131mlanarak y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren T\u00fcrk Paras\u0131n\u0131n K\u0131ymetini Koruma Hakk\u0131nda 32 Say\u0131l\u0131 Kararda De\u011fi\u015fiklik Yap\u0131lmas\u0131na Dair Karar (Cumhurba\u015fkan\u0131 Karar\u0131) ile en fazla 5 kg a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda standart i\u015flenmemi\u015f alt\u0131n\u0131n yolcu beraberinde yurda getirilmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn k\u0131l\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, de\u011fi\u015fiklik kapsam\u0131nda olu\u015fan yeni hukuki durumun bir hukuka uygunluk sebebi do\u011furdu\u011funu, lehine getirilen d\u00fczenlemeden yararland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, itiraz incelemesi sonunda ise gerek\u00e7esiz \u015fekilde itiraz\u0131n reddine karar verildi\u011fini, m\u00fcsadere karar\u0131na itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fcn incelenmedi\u011fini, m\u00fcsadere karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma ve m\u00fclkiyet haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
9. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde mevcut ba\u015fvuruda ba\u015fvurucunun adil yarg\u0131lanma ve m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi konusunda inceleme yap\u0131l\u0131rkenAnayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi ve Anayasa Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131 ile somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin esas itibar\u0131yla m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 ilgilendirdi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, ba\u015fvurucunun b\u00fct\u00fcn \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlali iddias\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\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 m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
12. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olay ve olgular\u0131 somut ba\u015fvuru ile benzer nitelikte olan S\u00fcleyman Ba\u015fmeydan ([GK], B. No: 2015\/6164, 20\/6\/2019) karar\u0131nda uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcsadere yoluyla yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin keyf\u00ee veya hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclebilece\u011fi bir yol olarak \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen temyiz kanun yoluna ba\u015fvuru imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n ask\u0131ya al\u0131narak h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 karar\u0131 ile m\u00fcsadere karar\u0131n\u0131n infaz\u0131na giri\u015filmesinin -yol a\u00e7\u0131lan belirsizlik ve yeterli g\u00fcvencelerin sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda- ba\u015fvurucuya \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckledi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Somut ba\u015fvuruda, an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bu do\u011frultuda ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
13. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
15. Anayasa Mahkemesi m\u00fcsadere tedbirine ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131sal s\u00fcre\u00e7 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 karar\u0131 verildi\u011fi takdirde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan belirsizli\u011fe i\u015faret ederek s\u00f6z konusu tedbirin h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015ftirilmesiyle birlikte infaz\u0131na giri\u015filmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla somut ba\u015fvuruda ihlalin ilgili kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcndeki belirsizlikten kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bununla birlikte h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n niteli\u011fi g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Zira yukar\u0131da da de\u011finildi\u011fi \u00fczere h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 veya davan\u0131n d\u00fc\u015fmesine karar verilmesi durumlar\u0131nda kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurulabilecektir. Buna g\u00f6re m\u00fcsadere s\u00fcreci hen\u00fcz kesinle\u015fmemi\u015ftir. Bu durumda m\u00fcsadere karar\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre\u00e7 kesinle\u015fti\u011finde infaz\u0131 yeterli bir giderim olu\u015fturacakt\u0131r (S\u00fcleyman Ba\u015fmeydan, \u00a7 72).<\/p>\n
16. Di\u011fer taraftan Anayasa Mahkemesinin Atilla Yazar ve di\u011ferleri ([GK], B. No: 2016\/1635, 5\/7\/2022) karar\u0131nda temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ncelikle ola\u011fan yasa yollar\u0131 ile \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme kavu\u015fturulmas\u0131 i\u00e7in (itiraz yolunun etkinle\u015ftirilmesi ya da istinaf\/temyiz kanun yollar\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 gibi) birtak\u0131m yasal d\u00fczenlemeler yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ve b\u00f6ylelikle HAGB kararlar\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa Mahkemesince ilk elden incelenmesi ihtimalinin \u00f6n\u00fcne ge\u00e7ilmesinin gerekti\u011fi belirterek bu konuda tespit edilen yap\u0131sal sorunun giderilmesi i\u00e7in T\u00fcrkiye B\u00fcy\u00fck Millet Meclisine bilgi verilmi\u015ftir(Atilla Yazar ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 177).<\/p>\n
17. Anayasa Mahkemesi 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 231. maddesinin be\u015finci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n iptaline ili\u015fkinnorm denetimi karar\u0131nda ise Atilla Yazar ve di\u011ferleri karar\u0131nda belirtilen eksikliklerin (Atilla Yazar ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7\u00a7 123-173) b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle giderilmesine y\u00f6nelik kanun koyucu taraf\u0131ndan gerekli de\u011fi\u015fikliklerin yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, HAGB kurumunun mevcut haliyle -bireysel ba\u015fvuru kararlar\u0131nda da i\u015faret edildi\u011fi \u00fczere- kamu otoritelerinin keyf\u00ee uygulamalar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nlemekte yetersiz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckler \u00fczerinde cayd\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 etki do\u011furdu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Anayasa Mahkemesi s\u00f6z konusu karar\u0131nda m\u00fcsaderenin HAGB karar\u0131 verilmesi durumunda hangi a\u015famada infaz edilece\u011fine ili\u015fkin olarak ise a\u00e7\u0131k bir kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f, S\u00fcleyman Ba\u015fmeydan karar\u0131nda kanun koyucunun m\u00fcsadere karar\u0131 i\u00e7in farkl\u0131 bir usul veya kanun yolu d\u00fczenleyebilece\u011fi gibi HAGB kararlar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de m\u00fcsadereye ili\u015fkin farkl\u0131 bir mekanizma da \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilece\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki de\u011ferlendirmesine de de\u011finmi\u015ftir (AYM, E.2022\/120, K.2023\/107, 01\/06\/2023).<\/p>\n
18. Nitekim 2\/3\/2024 tarihli 7499 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu ve Baz\u0131 Kanunlarda De\u011fi\u015fiklik Yap\u0131lmas\u0131na Dair Kanun’un 15. maddesi ile5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun 231. maddesinin be\u015finci f\u0131kras\u0131 de\u011fi\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan d\u00fczenlemedeh\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n, m\u00fcsadereye ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmler hari\u00e7, kurulan h\u00fckm\u00fcn san\u0131k hakk\u0131nda bir hukuk\u00ee sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmamas\u0131n\u0131 ifade edece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. \u00d6te yandan kanun de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011finden \u00f6nceki bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ilgilendiren ba\u015fvuru y\u00f6n\u00fcnden farkl\u0131 bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/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. 1. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Ba\u015fvurucuya 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. \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
E. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin bilgi i\u00e7in Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y 34. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesine (E.2016\/389, K.2020\/121) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 11\/12\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 11\/12\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/21825 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 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 ROMETA KODZOKOVA BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/21825) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 11\/12\/2024 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Cafiye Ece YALIM Ba\u015fvurucu : Rometa KODZOKOVA Vekili : Av. Ahmet Bersis KARABULUT \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, ceza kovu\u015fturmas\u0131 sonunda verilen m\u00fcsadere karar\u0131n\u0131n h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015ftirilmesiyle birlikte infaz\u0131 nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Rusya Federasyonu vatanda\u015f\u0131 olan ba\u015fvurucunun olay tarihinde Atat\u00fcrk Havaliman\u0131 (Havaliman\u0131) d\u0131\u015f hatlar terminalinden \u00fclkeye giri\u015f yaparken k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck bir paketi \u00e7antas\u0131na koymaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131rada Havaliman\u0131nda g\u00f6rev yapan polis memurlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan fark edilmesi \u00fczerine yap\u0131lan aramada 6.750 gr g\u00fcm\u00fc\u015f ve 4.210 gr alt\u0131n bulundurdu\u011fu tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda yap\u0131lan soru\u015fturma sonucunda Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) 25\/5\/2016 tarihli iddianamesiyle ba\u015fvurucunun 21\/3\/2007 tarihli ve 5607 say\u0131l\u0131 Ka\u00e7ak\u00e7\u0131l\u0131kla M\u00fccadele Kanunu’nun 3. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131, ayr\u0131ca 26\/9\/2004 tarihli ve 5237 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Ceza Kanunu’nun 54. maddesinin uygulanmas\u0131 talep edilmi\u015ftir. 3. Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y 34. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) 27\/2\/2020 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun ka\u00e7ak\u00e7\u0131l\u0131k su\u00e7unu i\u015fledi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle 5607 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 3. maddesinin birincif\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca 1 y\u0131l 6 ay hapis …<\/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-36772","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n