T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
NAD\u0130R F\u0130LO\u011eLU BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/37553)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 28\/11\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 1\/7\/2025 – 32943<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Recai AKYEL<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
H\u00fcseyin \u00d6zg\u00fcr SEV\u0130ML\u0130<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Nadir F\u0130LO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Ali \u00c7a\u011fatay KARAAHMET<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, idari para cezas\u0131n\u0131n iptal edilmesi talebiyle yap\u0131lan bir ba\u015fvuruda tan\u0131k sorgulama talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, bireysel ba\u015fvuru konusu olaylar\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fi tarihte Bilecik’te i\u00e7ki sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 da yap\u0131lan bir b\u00fcfe i\u015fletmektedir.<\/p>\n
3. Kolluk g\u00f6revlileri 31\/12\/2019 tarihinde saat 22.00’den sonra bu i\u015fyerinde i\u00e7ki sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin tutanak d\u00fczenlemi\u015f; tutanakta 31\/12\/2019 tarihinde saat 23.45’te ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015fletti\u011fi b\u00fcfeye bir ki\u015finin elleri bo\u015f \u015fekilde girdikten sonra elinde beyaz renkli po\u015fet i\u00e7inde R. ibareli \u015farapla \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6rmeleri \u00fczerine onu durdurduklar\u0131n\u0131, kimlik kontrol\u00fcnde Azerbaycan uyruklu A.M. oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan ki\u015fiye bu \u015farab\u0131 nereden ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 sorduklar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015fletti\u011fi b\u00fcfeden ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6yledi\u011fini, b\u00fcfeye girip ba\u015fvurucuya bilgi verdiklerini, ba\u015fvurucunun alkol sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savundu\u011funu, \u00fc\u00e7 kolluk g\u00f6revlisi ile A.M.nin imzalad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tutana\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucunun imzalamaktan imtina etti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Bu tutanak, Tar\u0131m ve Orman Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 T\u00fct\u00fcn ve Alkol Dairesi Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Daire Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015f; Daire Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015fyeri sahibi olan ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda 8\/6\/1942 tarihli ve 4250 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130spirto ve \u0130spirtolu \u0130\u00e7kiler \u0130nhisar\u0131 Kanunu’nun 6. maddesinin be\u015finci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n son c\u00fcmlesinde yer alan “Alkoll\u00fc i\u00e7kiler, 22.00 ila 06.00 saatleri aras\u0131nda perakende olarak sat\u0131lamaz.” h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle ayn\u0131 Kanun’un 7. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (e) bendi uyar\u0131nca 52.060 TL idari para cezas\u0131 uygulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, hakk\u0131ndaki idari para cezas\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in Bilecik Sulh Ceza H\u00e2kimli\u011fine (H\u00e2kimlik) iptal ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvuru dilek\u00e7esinde;<\/p>\n
i. Kolluk g\u00f6revlileri b\u00fcfeye geldi\u011finde yanlar\u0131nda getirdikleri tutana\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6sterip yabanc\u0131 uyruklu bir ki\u015fiye i\u00e7ki satt\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle tutana\u011f\u0131 imzalamas\u0131n\u0131 istediklerini ancak bu ki\u015fiye saat 22.00’den sonra i\u00e7ki satmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131,<\/p>\n
ii. O s\u0131rada b\u00fcfede bulunan e\u015fi A.G.F. ile kendilerine yard\u0131m eden M.C.K.n\u0131n i\u00e7ki sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na tan\u0131k oldu\u011funu s\u00f6yleyip b\u00fcfedeki g\u00fcvenlik kamera kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131 birlikte incelemeyi ve b\u00fcfeden i\u00e7ki ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddia edilen ki\u015finin getirtilerek kendileriyle y\u00fczle\u015ftirilmesini teklif etti\u011fi h\u00e2lde kolluk g\u00f6revlilerinin bunu reddetti\u011fini,<\/p>\n
iii. Satt\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddia edilen \u015farap markas\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fckenmi\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle bu \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc satmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu y\u00f6ndeki itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n tutana\u011fa aktar\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 istemesine ra\u011fmen kolluk g\u00f6revlilerinin bu hususlar\u0131 tutana\u011fa yazmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131,<\/p>\n
iv. Olaydan sonra yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ara\u015ft\u0131rmada kolluk g\u00f6revlilerinin A.M.yi durdurduklar\u0131nda A.M. nin T\u00fcrk\u00e7e bilmedi\u011fini fark ettiklerini, bunun \u00fczerine onunla i\u015faret diliyle konu\u015fmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 ve terc\u00fcman olmaks\u0131z\u0131n ald\u0131klar\u0131 beyana dayanarak tutanak d\u00fczenlediklerini \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fini,<\/p>\n
v. Kendisinin A.M.yi bulup onunla terc\u00fcman arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, terc\u00fcman\u0131n aktard\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6re A.M.nin kolluk g\u00f6revlilerinin dediklerinden bir \u015fey anlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, sivil k\u0131yafetli bu ki\u015filerin sigara alabilecekleri bir yer olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 sorduklar\u0131nda onlara bu b\u00fcfeyi i\u015faret etti\u011fini, ona i\u00e7kiyi nereden ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 sordu\u011funda isekendi b\u00fcfesi yerine ba\u015fka yerden al\u0131p belinde ta\u015f\u0131rken yakaland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6yledi\u011fini, A.M. ile yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 konu\u015fmaya M.C.K., \u00dc.\u00c7. ve terc\u00fcman oldu\u011funu beyan etti\u011fi C.H.nin de tan\u0131k oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
vi. S\u00f6z konusu sat\u0131\u015fa ili\u015fkin \u00e7eli\u015fkilerin giderilmesi i\u00e7in ba\u015fvuru incelemesinin duru\u015fma a\u00e7\u0131larak yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 ve terc\u00fcman oldu\u011funu s\u00f6yledi\u011fi ki\u015fi de d\u00e2hil olmak \u00fczere ba\u015fvuru dilek\u00e7esinde adlar\u0131 ge\u00e7en ki\u015filerin tan\u0131k s\u0131fat\u0131yla ifadelerinin al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. H\u00e2kimlik; an\u0131lan ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerine incelemenin duru\u015fma a\u00e7\u0131larak yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, an\u0131lan tutana\u011f\u0131 d\u00fczenleyen \u00fc\u00e7 kolluk g\u00f6revlisinin duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r edilmesine ve olay yerinde bulunan kameralar\u0131n kolluk g\u00f6revlileri taraf\u0131ndan tespit edilerek olay an\u0131na dair kay\u0131tlar\u0131n getirtilmesine karar vermi\u015ftir. Kolluk g\u00f6revlileri kamera kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n tespitine dair yapt\u0131klar\u0131 ara\u015ft\u0131rma sonucunda olay\u0131n \u00fczerinden ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre itibar\u0131yla b\u00fcfe ve \u00e7evresindeki yerlere ait kameralarda olay an\u0131na dair kay\u0131tlar\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Daire Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131, H\u00e2kimli\u011fe g\u00f6nderdi\u011fi yaz\u0131 ekinde A.M.de bulundu\u011fu belirtilen \u015farap \u015fi\u015fesine dair foto\u011fraflar\u0131 da sunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
7. H\u00e2kimli\u011fin 30\/9\/2020 tarihinde yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 duru\u015fma s\u0131ras\u0131nda, y\u0131ll\u0131k izinde oldu\u011fu belirtilen bir kolluk g\u00f6revlisi haricinde tutanakta imzas\u0131 bulunan iki kolluk g\u00f6revlisi ile ba\u015fvurucunun e\u015fi A.G.F. ve olay g\u00fcn\u00fc b\u00fcfede \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 belirtti\u011fi M.C.K. ile \u00dc.\u00c7. haz\u0131r bulunmu\u015ftur. Kolluk g\u00f6revlileri tan\u0131k s\u0131fat\u0131yla al\u0131nan ifadelerinde birbirleriyle benzer \u015fekilde tutanakta yaz\u0131lan hususlar\u0131n do\u011fru oldu\u011funu ve i\u00e7ki alan ki\u015finin T\u00fcrk\u00e7eyi anlay\u0131p konu\u015fabildi\u011fini s\u00f6ylemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucunun e\u015fi A.G.F. tan\u0131k s\u0131fat\u0131yla verdi\u011fi ifadesinde; kolluk g\u00f6revlileri b\u00fcfeye geldiklerinde b\u00fcfenin \u00f6n\u00fcnde kendisi, ba\u015fvurucu, M.C.K. ve \u00dc.\u00c7. ile oturduklar\u0131n\u0131, i\u00e7ki sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 yapmad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6stermek i\u00e7in birlikte kamera kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131 izlemeyi teklif ettikleri h\u00e2lde kolluk g\u00f6revlilerinin bunu kabul etmeyip, sat\u0131\u015fa dair belge sunmad\u0131klar\u0131 gibi i\u00e7ki ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia ettikleri ki\u015fiyi de b\u00fcfeye getirmediklerini, M.C.K.n\u0131n olaydan sonra A.M.yi bulup b\u00fcfeye bir terc\u00fcmanla birlikte getirdi\u011fini s\u00f6ylemi\u015f ve A.M. ile konu\u015ftuklar\u0131nda kolluk g\u00f6revlilerinin kendisine s\u00f6yledikleri aras\u0131nda “sigara” kelimesini anlad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, nereden sigara alabileceklerini sorduklar\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcp b\u00fcfeyi g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini, \u00fczerinde yakalanan \u015farab\u0131 b\u00fcfeden sat\u0131n almad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6yledi\u011fini, ba\u015fvurucunun yan\u0131na M.C.K., \u00dc.\u00c7., A.M. ve terc\u00fcman olan ki\u015fiyi al\u0131p A.M.yi yeniden ifadesi al\u0131nmak \u00fczere karakola g\u00f6t\u00fcrd\u00fckleri h\u00e2lde bu ki\u015finin ifadesinin al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 aktarm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu; duru\u015fma s\u0131ras\u0131nda A.G.F.nin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra M.C.K., \u00dc.\u00c7., A.M. ve terc\u00fcman oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc H.C.nin de tan\u0131k s\u0131fat\u0131yla beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015f; H\u00e2kimlik ise Duru\u015fma Tutana\u011f\u0131’na M.C.K. ile \u00dc.\u00c7.nin b\u00fcfede sigortal\u0131 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan olmad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n beyan edildi\u011fini aktard\u0131ktan sonra bu nedenle olay tarihinde b\u00fcfede \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131p \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmad\u0131klar\u0131 konusunda \u00e7eli\u015fki oldu\u011fundan bahisle tan\u0131k s\u0131fat\u0131yla ifadelerinin al\u0131nmas\u0131na dair talebi reddetmi\u015ftir. Di\u011fer yandan A.M. ile C.H.nin de duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r edilerek tan\u0131k s\u0131fat\u0131yla beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131na dair talebin iptal ba\u015fvurusu hakk\u0131nda karar verilece\u011fi s\u0131rada de\u011ferlendirilmesine karar vererek duru\u015fmay\u0131 sonland\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
10. H\u00e2kimlik, duru\u015fma sonras\u0131 dosya \u00fczerinden yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 inceleme sonunda 7\/10\/2020 tarihli kararla iptal ba\u015fvurusunu reddetmi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7eli kararda ba\u015fvurucunun savunmalar\u0131na, kolluk g\u00f6revlilerinin d\u00fczenledi\u011fi tutanak ile duru\u015fmada beyanlar\u0131 al\u0131nan tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131na at\u0131fta bulunan H\u00e2kimlik; olay an\u0131na ili\u015fkin belirleyici delilin b\u00fcfedeki kamera kayd\u0131 oldu\u011funu vurgulam\u0131\u015f ve ba\u015fvurucunun a\u015famalarda b\u00fcfesinin kameras\u0131na ait kay\u0131tlar\u0131 sunmamas\u0131n\u0131n hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir. H\u00e2kimlik ayr\u0131ca kolluk g\u00f6revlilerinin d\u00fczenledi\u011fi tutana\u011f\u0131n resm\u00ee belge niteli\u011finde ve aksi ispat edilene kadar i\u00e7eri\u011finin ger\u00e7ek oldu\u011funu, kolluk g\u00f6revlilerinin de tan\u0131k s\u0131fat\u0131yla al\u0131nan beyanlar\u0131nda tutana\u011f\u0131 do\u011frulad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun bu tutana\u011f\u0131n aksini ispat etmeye yarayacak delil sunamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, talebi do\u011frultusunda di\u011fer ki\u015filerin de tan\u0131k s\u0131fat\u0131yla ifadelerinin al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 uzataca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmi\u015f; bu nedenle an\u0131lan ki\u015filerin dinlenmesi taleplerini reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu, iptal ba\u015fvurusunda ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc itirazlar\u0131na ek olarak;<\/p>\n
i. A.M.nin duru\u015fma s\u0131ras\u0131nda ifadesinin al\u0131nmas\u0131 suretiyle bu ki\u015finin T\u00fcrk\u00e7e bilip bilmedi\u011finin ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131labilece\u011fini, kolluk g\u00f6revlilerinin d\u00fczenledi\u011fi tutana\u011f\u0131n aksini bu suretle ispatlayabilece\u011fi h\u00e2lde ba\u015fta A.M. olmak \u00fczere ba\u015fvurusunda ve duru\u015fma s\u0131ras\u0131nda dinlenmesini talep etti\u011fi ki\u015filerin dinlenmemesi nedeniyletutana\u011fa etkili \u015fekilde itiraz edemedi\u011fini,<\/p>\n
ii. B\u00fcfeye gelen kolluk g\u00f6revlilerinden kamera kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131 incelemelerini istemesine ra\u011fmen g\u00f6revlilerin bu incelemeyi yapmad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, sonradan da g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fclerin silindi\u011fini fark etti\u011fini, sonu\u00e7 olarak H\u00e2kimli\u011fin delil toplama konusunda idareye ait olan g\u00f6rev ve sorumlulu\u011fu kay\u0131tlar\u0131n sunulmamas\u0131 nedeniyle hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak kendisine y\u00fckledi\u011fini beyan ederek H\u00e2kimlik karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 itiraz kanun yoluna m\u00fcracaat etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucunun itiraz\u0131, Eski\u015fehir 3. Sulh Ceza H\u00e2kimli\u011finin (itiraz makam\u0131) 26\/10\/2020 tarihli karar\u0131yla kesin olarak reddedilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai karar\u0131 ayn\u0131 tarihte \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 24\/11\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
13. 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
14. Ba\u015fvurucu, kolluk g\u00f6revlilerince d\u00fczenlenen tutanakta kendisinden i\u00e7ki sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilen A.M.nin duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r edilerek sorgulanmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n sa\u011flanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
15. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; konuya ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131sal i\u00e7tihatlara de\u011finildikten sonra ihlal iddialar\u0131 ele al\u0131n\u0131rken an\u0131lan i\u00e7tihatlar ile somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
16. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131 adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
17. 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 ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
18. Anayasa Mahkemesi, bir\u00e7ok karar\u0131nda tan\u0131k kavram\u0131n\u0131 san\u0131\u011fa isnat edilen fiil hakk\u0131nda bilgi veren herhangi bir ki\u015fi \u015feklinde \u00f6zerk olarak yorumlam\u0131\u015f ve tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 ile ilgili ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Anayasa Mahkemesi, tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131yla ilgili olarak verdi\u011fi kararlar\u0131nda somut bir yarg\u0131lama \u00f6ncesinde veya haricinde elde edilen tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n delil olarak kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn yarg\u0131laman\u0131n adilli\u011fine zarar verip vermedi\u011fini de\u011ferlendirmek i\u00e7in \u00fc\u00e7 a\u015famal\u0131 bir test uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ifade etmektedir. Buna g\u00f6re ilk olarak tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n mahkemede haz\u0131r edilmemesinin ge\u00e7erli bir nedeninin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na bak\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Ancak buna ili\u015fkin ge\u00e7erli bir nedenin ortaya konulmamas\u0131, tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011finin kabul edilmesi i\u00e7in yeterli de\u011fildir. \u0130kinci olarak san\u0131\u011f\u0131n sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tan\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan verilen beyan\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyetin dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 tek veya belirleyici delil olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmelidir. Sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmayan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131n\u0131n tek veya belirleyici delil oldu\u011funun tespit edilmesi durumunda ise \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc a\u015fama olarak savunma taraf\u0131n\u0131n maruz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu zorluklar\u0131n telafi edilmesi amac\u0131yla yeterli d\u00fczeyde kar\u015f\u0131 dengeleyici g\u00fcvenceler sa\u011flayan bir usul\u00fcn y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcl\u00fcp y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmedi\u011fi ortaya konulmal\u0131d\u0131r (Atila O\u011fuz Boyal\u0131 [2. B.], B. No: 2013\/99, 20\/3\/2014, \u00a7\u00a7 34-56; Sel\u00e7uk Demir [2. B.], B. No: 2014\/9783, 22\/1\/2015, \u00a7\u00a7 27-46; AZ. M. [2. B.], B. No: 2013\/560, 16\/4\/2015, \u00a7\u00a7 45-67; Baran Karada\u011f [2. B.], B. No: 2014\/12906, 7\/5\/2015, \u00a7\u00a7 49-76; Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz [1. B.], B. No: 2019\/30221, 28\/12\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 33-42; Abdurrahim Balur [2. B.], B. No: 2013\/5467, 7\/1\/2016, \u00a7 80; Onur Urbay [1. B.], B. No: 2014\/6222, 6\/3\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 36, 40; Zekeriya Sevim [2. B.], B. No: 2018\/18989, 16\/6\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 44, 51; Metin Akdemir (2) [1. B.], B. No: 2020\/3964, 21\/9\/2022, \u00a7 36; U\u011fur \u00d6zcan [1. B.], B. No: 2021\/12137, 26\/7\/2022, \u00a7 40).<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda incelenmesi gereken ilk sorun, duru\u015fmada dinlenmeyen tan\u0131k A.M.nin duru\u015fmada dinlenmemesinin ge\u00e7erli bir nedene dayan\u0131p dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r. Olayda ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda 22.00-06.00 saatleri aras\u0131nda i\u00e7ki sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle idari para cezas\u0131 uygulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu idari para cezas\u0131, kolluk g\u00f6revlilerinin A.M.nin saat 23.45’te i\u00e7ki ald\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin beyan\u0131 sonucu d\u00fczenledikleri tutana\u011fa dayanmaktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu; i\u00e7kinin A.M.ye kendi i\u015fletti\u011fi b\u00fcfeden sat\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, Azerbaycan vatanda\u015f\u0131 olan bu ki\u015finin T\u00fcrk\u00e7e bilmedi\u011fini, bu nedenle kolluk g\u00f6revlilerinin A.M.ye sorduklar\u0131 soruyu A.M.nin anlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve onlara i\u00e7kiyi kendi b\u00fcfesinden ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemedi\u011fini, bu ki\u015fiyi olaydan sonra tan\u0131k M.C.K.n\u0131n bulup d\u00fckk\u00e2na getirdi\u011fini, onunla ancak yine M.C.K.n\u0131n yan\u0131nda gelen terc\u00fcman C.H. arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla anla\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, aralar\u0131nda ge\u00e7en konu\u015fmada da A.M.nin g\u00f6revlilerin kendisinden sigara alabilecekleri bir yer olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 sorduklar\u0131n\u0131 san\u0131p b\u00fcfeyi g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini, i\u00e7kiyi ise ba\u015fka bir yerden ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6yledi\u011fini iddia ederek A.M.nin duru\u015fmada dinlenmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki talebini H\u00e2kimli\u011fe iletmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 5, 8). H\u00e2kimlik ise tan\u0131k A.M.nin duru\u015fmada dinlenmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir i\u015flem yapmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re tan\u0131k A.M.nin duru\u015fmada dinlenmesi i\u00e7in H\u00e2kimlik makul bir \u00e7aba sergilememi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131ndan yararland\u0131r\u0131lmamas\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7erli bir nedene dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn g\u00f6z\u00fckmemektedir.<\/p>\n
20. \u0130kinci olarak H\u00e2kimlik\u00e7e verilen karar\u0131n tek veya belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde, ba\u015fvurucunun sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tan\u0131k A.M. taraf\u0131ndan verilen ve tutana\u011fa aktar\u0131lan ifadeye dayan\u0131p dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na bak\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Somut olayda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k, saat 22.00’den sonra i\u00e7ki sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131l\u0131p yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. H\u00e2kimlik, ba\u015fvurunun reddi karar\u0131nda A.M.nin saat 23.45’te elindeki po\u015fette bulunan i\u00e7kiyi ba\u015fvurucunun b\u00fcfesinden ald\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair kollu\u011fa verdi\u011fi s\u00f6zl\u00fc beyan neticesinde tutulan 31\/12\/2019 tarihli tutana\u011f\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra ba\u015fvurucunun b\u00fcfedeki kameran\u0131n olay an\u0131na dair kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131 sunmamas\u0131na da dayanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (bkz. \u00a7 10). Ba\u015fvurucu ve e\u015fi olan tan\u0131k A.G.F. ise b\u00fcfeye gelen kolluk g\u00f6revlilerine kamera kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131 birlikte incelemeyi teklif etmelerine ra\u011fmen g\u00f6revlilerin A.M.nin beyan\u0131yla yetinip inceleme yapmad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu ayr\u0131ca aradan ge\u00e7en s\u00fcrede silinen kay\u0131tlar\u0131 vaktinde temin etmenin idarenin g\u00f6revi oldu\u011fu h\u00e2lde bu konuda kendisine sorumluluk y\u00fcklendi\u011fini \u00f6ne s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 8, 11). Bu noktada kolluk g\u00f6revlilerinin tutanakta ve tan\u0131k s\u0131fat\u0131yla verdikleri ifadelerde b\u00fcfeye girdikleri zaman i\u00e7ki sat\u0131\u015f\u0131na dair kamera kayd\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda ara\u015ft\u0131rma yapt\u0131klar\u0131na ve ba\u015fvurucunun -ayr\u0131ca tan\u0131k A.G.F.nin i\u00e7ki sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair itiraz\u0131n\u0131 desteklemek i\u00e7in kamera kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131 incelemeyi teklif etti\u011fine ili\u015fkin itiraz y\u00f6n\u00fcnden herhangi bir a\u00e7\u0131klama yapmad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 da belirtmek gerekir.<\/p>\n
21. \u00d6te yandan Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’nin (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) 6. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirtilmemi\u015f olmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n susma hakk\u0131 ve kendini su\u00e7lamama hakk\u0131 (nemo tenetur ilkesi) adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n unsurlar\u0131ndand\u0131r. Susma hakk\u0131 ve kendini su\u00e7lamama hakk\u0131, \u00f6ncelikle bir ki\u015finin sorulara cevap vermeyi reddetti\u011fi i\u00e7in mahk\u00fbm edilemeyece\u011fi anlam\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131r. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi (A\u0130HM) kararlar\u0131nda, her ne kadar S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin 6. maddesinde \u00f6zellikle belirtilmemi\u015f olsa da sessiz kalma ve bunun bir par\u00e7as\u0131 olan- kendini su\u00e7lamama hakk\u0131n\u0131n adil yarg\u0131lanma kavram\u0131n\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturan ve genel olarak kabul edilen uluslararas\u0131 kurallar\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcnde bulunan bir hak oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu hakk\u0131n gerek\u00e7eleri aras\u0131nda, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n yetkililerce uygunsuz bir \u015fekilde zorlamaya maruz kalmaya kar\u015f\u0131 korunmas\u0131 yoluyla adaletin tecellisindeki hatal\u0131 uygulamalar\u0131 \u00f6nlemek ve 6. maddenin hedeflerini yerine getirmek bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda s\u00f6z konusu hak, masumiyet karinesiyle yak\u0131ndan ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131d\u0131r (John Murray\/Birle\u015fik Krall\u0131k, B. No: 18731\/91, 8\/2\/1996, \u00a7 45; Saunders\/Birle\u015fik Krall\u0131k, B. No: 19187\/91, 17\/12\/1996, \u00a7 68, 69; Kolu\/T\u00fcrkiye, B. No: 35811\/97, 2\/8\/2005, \u00a7 51). Kendini su\u00e7lamama hakk\u0131, \u00f6ncelikle su\u00e7lanan ki\u015finin sessiz kalma iradesine sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterilmesiyle ilgilidir ve bir ceza davas\u0131nda iddia makam\u0131n\u0131n san\u0131\u011f\u0131n iradesini hi\u00e7e sayarak zorlama veya bask\u0131yla elde edilen delillere ba\u015fvurmaks\u0131z\u0131n san\u0131k aleyhindeki davay\u0131 kan\u0131tlamaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir (Bykov\/Rusya [BD], B. No: 4378\/02, 10\/3\/2009, \u00a7 92).<\/p>\n
22. Benzer \u015fekilde Funke\/Fransa (B. No: 10828\/84, 25\/2\/1993) ba\u015fvurusuna konu olayda, g\u00fcmr\u00fck yetkililerince yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki serveti konusunda beyanda bulunmas\u0131 talep edildi\u011fi h\u00e2lde cevap vermeyen, evinde yap\u0131lan aramada da delil niteli\u011finde belge ele ge\u00e7irilemeyen ba\u015fvurucu, s\u00f6z konusu talep konusuyla ilgili beyanda bulunmamas\u0131 nedeniyle para cezas\u0131yla cezaland\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. A\u0130HM, ba\u015fvurucunun cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131yla g\u00fcmr\u00fck idaresince var oldu\u011funa inan\u0131lan belgelerin tedarik edilmesinin ama\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendirerek konuyu kendini su\u00e7lamama hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda ele alm\u0131\u015f ve g\u00fcmr\u00fck mevzuat\u0131ndan kaynaklanan \u00f6zel ko\u015fullar nedeniyle de olsa an\u0131lan hak do\u011frultusunda ba\u015fvurucudan kendi aleyhinde olabilecek delili sunmas\u0131n\u0131n talep edilemeyece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Funke\/Fransa, \u00a7 44).<\/p>\n
23. Masumiyet karinesi, Anayasa’n\u0131n 38. maddesinin d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131nda da “Su\u00e7lulu\u011fu h\u00fckmen sabit oluncaya kadar kimse su\u00e7lu say\u0131lamaz.” \u015feklinde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Masumiyet karinesi, hakk\u0131nda su\u00e7 isnad\u0131 bulunan bir ki\u015finin adil bir yarg\u0131lama sonunda su\u00e7lu oldu\u011funa dair kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm tesis edilene kadar masum say\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ifade etmekte ve hukuk devleti ilkesinin de bir gere\u011fini olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r (AYM, E.2013\/133, K.2013\/169, 26\/12\/2013). An\u0131lan karine, ki\u015finin su\u00e7 i\u015fledi\u011fine dair kesinle\u015fmi\u015f bir yarg\u0131 karar\u0131 olmadan su\u00e7lu olarak kabul edilmemesini g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na almaktad\u0131r. Bunun sonucu olarak ki\u015finin masumiyeti as\u0131l oldu\u011fundan su\u00e7lulu\u011fu ispat k\u00fclfeti iddia makam\u0131na ait olup kimseye su\u00e7suzlu\u011funu ispat m\u00fckellefiyeti y\u00fcklenemez. Ayr\u0131ca hi\u00e7 kimse, su\u00e7lulu\u011fu h\u00fckmen sabit oluncaya kadar yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131 ve kamu otoriteleri taraf\u0131ndan su\u00e7lu olarak nitelendirilemez ve su\u00e7lu muamelesine tabi tutulamaz (K\u00fcr\u015fat Eyol [2. B.], B. No: 2012\/665, 13\/6\/2013, \u00a7 26). San\u0131k masumiyet karinesi gere\u011fi su\u00e7suz say\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmakta ve maddi ger\u00e7e\u011fe ula\u015f\u0131lmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Maddi ger\u00e7e\u011fe ula\u015fmak i\u00e7in su\u00e7 isnad\u0131 alt\u0131nda olan ki\u015fiden masum oldu\u011funu ispat etmesi istenemez. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc su\u00e7 isnad\u0131 alt\u0131nda da olsa ki\u015fi, h\u00fckmen sabit oluncaya kadar su\u00e7suz kabul edilmektedir (Adem H\u00fcseyino\u011flu [2. B.], B. No: 2014\/3954, 15\/2\/2017, \u00a7 35).<\/p>\n
24. Bu durumda H\u00e2kimli\u011fin ba\u015fvurucunun kamera kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131 teslim etmemesini onun aleyhinde bir durum olarak de\u011ferlendirmesini masumiyet karinesinin g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcmlerinden olan susma hakk\u0131 ve kendini su\u00e7lamama hakk\u0131yla ba\u011fda\u015ft\u0131rmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn g\u00f6r\u00fcnmemektedir.Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla iki kolluk g\u00f6revlisi tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n i\u00e7eri\u011fini beyanlar\u0131yla do\u011frulad\u0131klar\u0131 tutanakta yer verilen A.M.ye ait s\u00f6zl\u00fc ifadenin dolayl\u0131 olarak karara g\u00f6t\u00fcren tek olmasa da belirleyici nitelikte delil oldu\u011funun kabul edilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
25. Son olarak duru\u015fmada s\u0131nanmayan tan\u0131k A.M.nin beyan\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 savunma taraf\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 zorluklar\u0131 telafi eden dengeleyici g\u00fcvencelerin ba\u015fvurucuya tan\u0131n\u0131p tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 incelenmelidir. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle yarg\u0131lama da sorgulanmam\u0131\u015f tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n incelemelere tabi tutularak g\u00fcvenilirli\u011finin ve do\u011frulu\u011funun saptanmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla kabahatli oldu\u011fu iddia edilen ki\u015fiye telafi edici g\u00fcvenceler sa\u011flayan bir usul\u00fcn izlenip izlenmedi\u011fi ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bu kapsamda H\u00e2kimlik\u00e7e karar verilirken s\u0131nanmam\u0131\u015f tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131n\u0131 destekleyen ba\u015fka do\u011frulay\u0131c\u0131 delillere dayan\u0131lmas\u0131 telafi edici g\u00fcvencelerden biri olarak kabul edilebilir. Somut olayda H\u00e2kimlik, gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131nda sorgulanmayan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131na g\u00f6re haz\u0131rlanan ve i\u00e7eri\u011fi iki kolluk g\u00f6revlisi tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyanlar\u0131yla do\u011frulanan tutana\u011fa a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131k vererek ba\u015fvurucunun yasakl\u0131 saat diliminde i\u00e7ki satma kabahatini i\u015fledi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. H\u00e2kimlik karar\u0131nda tan\u0131k beyan\u0131n\u0131n do\u011frulu\u011funun teyit edilmesi amac\u0131yla yeterli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde ba\u015fka do\u011frulay\u0131c\u0131 delile at\u0131f yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn g\u00f6z\u00fckmemektedir. Do\u011frulay\u0131c\u0131 delil olarak i\u00e7kiye ait foto\u011fraflar da (bkz.\u00a76) kolluk g\u00f6revlisi tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131yla birlikte de\u011ferlendirilmedi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucuyla ili\u015fkilendirilmesine elveri\u015fli de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
26. Sorgulanamayan tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenilirli\u011finin ve do\u011frulu\u011funun saptanmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla sa\u011flanabilecek bir di\u011fer telafi edici g\u00fcvence ise kabahatli oldu\u011fu iddia edilen ki\u015fiye olay\u0131 kendi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan anlatma ve delillerini sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmas\u0131d\u0131r. Yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun olay\u0131 kendi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan H\u00e2kimli\u011fe a\u00e7\u0131klama, iddia ve delillerini sunma, tutana\u011f\u0131n i\u00e7eri\u011finin g\u00fcvenilirli\u011fine ve do\u011frulu\u011funa \u015f\u00fcphe d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrme imk\u00e2n\u0131 buldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Kamu g\u00f6revlilerince d\u00fczenlenen tutana\u011f\u0131n ger\u00e7ekli\u011fi karinesi aksi ispat edilebilir nitelikte olup bu ba\u011flamda ba\u015fvurucu, tan\u0131k M.C.K.n\u0131n olaydan sonra A.M.yi b\u00fcfeye getirdi\u011finde bu ki\u015finin Azerbaycan uyruklu olmas\u0131 nedeniyle T\u00fcrk\u00e7e bilmedi\u011fini \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fini ve onunla terc\u00fcman C.H. arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla ileti\u015fim kurdu\u011funu, aralar\u0131nda ge\u00e7en konu\u015fma s\u0131ras\u0131nda A.M.nin tutana\u011fa yans\u0131yan s\u00f6zl\u00fc beyan\u0131n\u0131 do\u011frulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek tutanak i\u00e7eri\u011findeki vak\u0131ay\u0131 ink\u00e2r etmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun tan\u0131k A.G.F.nin beyan\u0131yla da desteklenen bu iddias\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda tutana\u011fa yans\u0131yan su\u00e7lay\u0131c\u0131 beyanlar\u0131yla ilgili olarak ba\u015fvurucuya A.M.yi sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131 sa\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131n cezaya dayanak olan tutana\u011f\u0131n aksini ispat edebilmesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
27. Ancak H\u00e2kimlik, ba\u015fvurucunun itiraz dilek\u00e7esinde ve yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda belirtti\u011fi bu iddialarla ilgili olarak bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dahas\u0131 A.M.nin T\u00fcrk\u00e7eyi anlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusundaki itiraz a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan bu ki\u015fiye terc\u00fcmanl\u0131k yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen C.H. ile ba\u015fvurucunun duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r etti\u011fi ki\u015filerden \u00f6zellikle olaydan sonra A.M.yi bulup b\u00fcfeye getirdi\u011fini ve aralar\u0131nda ge\u00e7en konu\u015fmaya tan\u0131k oldu\u011funu iddia etti\u011fi M.C.K.n\u0131n dinlenmemesi hususunda ge\u00e7erli bir neden de ortaya koymam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Nitekim Duru\u015fma Tutana\u011f\u0131’nda M.C.K.n\u0131n b\u00fcfede sigortal\u0131 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan olmamas\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya isnat edilen fiil hakk\u0131nda bilgi verebilmesine hangi nedenle engel olaca\u011f\u0131na dair a\u00e7\u0131klama yoktur (bkz. \u00a7 9). Sonu\u00e7 olarak g\u00fcvenilirli\u011fi ve do\u011frulu\u011fu test edilmemi\u015f tan\u0131k A.M.nin beyan\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde savunma taraf\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 zorluklar\u0131 telafi edecek kar\u015f\u0131 dengeleyici g\u00fcvencelerin tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
28. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
29. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
30. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu kapsamda karar\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flatmak ve Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gideren, ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun yeni bir karar vermektir (30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen bireysel ba\u015fvuruya \u00f6zg\u00fc yeniden yarg\u0131lama kurumunun \u00f6zelliklerine ili\u015fkin kapsaml\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamalar i\u00e7in 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
31. Belirli bir davaya ili\u015fkin olarak delilleri de\u011ferlendirme ve g\u00f6sterilen delilin davayla ilgili olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verme yetkisi kural olarak yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 y\u00fcr\u00fcten derece mahkemelerine aittir (Orhan K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 [GK], B. No: 2014\/4704, 1\/2\/2018, \u00a7 44). Bu ba\u011flamda somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun idari para cezas\u0131na dayanak olan kabahati i\u015fleyip i\u015flemedi\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde karar vermek Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi de\u011fildir. Anayasa Mahkemesince verilen ihlal karar\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun idari para cezas\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin ba\u015fvurusunun kabul\u00fc anlam\u0131na gelmedi\u011fi gibi ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n gereklerinin yerine getirilmesi amac\u0131yla yap\u0131lacak yeniden yarg\u0131lama neticesinde ba\u015fvurucunun ba\u015fvurusunun kabul edilmesi gerekti\u011fi anlam\u0131na da gelmemektedir. \u0130hlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 gidermek \u00fczere gereken i\u015flemler yerine getirildikten sonra yap\u0131lacak de\u011ferlendirmede H\u00e2kimlik\u00e7e delillerin takdir bi\u00e7imine g\u00f6re benzer veya farkl\u0131 bir sonuca var\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Bilecik Sulh Ceza H\u00e2kimli\u011fine (2020\/1027 D. \u0130\u015f) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.446,90 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. \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
F. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 28\/11\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 28\/11\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/37553 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 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR NAD\u0130R F\u0130LO\u011eLU BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/37553) Karar Tarihi: 28\/11\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 1\/7\/2025 – 32943 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : H\u00fcseyin \u00d6zg\u00fcr SEV\u0130ML\u0130 Ba\u015fvurucu : Nadir F\u0130LO\u011eLU Vekili : Av. Ali \u00c7a\u011fatay KARAAHMET I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, idari para cezas\u0131n\u0131n iptal edilmesi talebiyle yap\u0131lan bir ba\u015fvuruda tan\u0131k sorgulama talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, bireysel ba\u015fvuru konusu olaylar\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fi tarihte Bilecik’te i\u00e7ki sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 da yap\u0131lan bir b\u00fcfe i\u015fletmektedir. 3. Kolluk g\u00f6revlileri 31\/12\/2019 tarihinde saat 22.00’den sonra bu i\u015fyerinde i\u00e7ki sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin tutanak d\u00fczenlemi\u015f; tutanakta 31\/12\/2019 tarihinde saat 23.45’te ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015fletti\u011fi b\u00fcfeye bir ki\u015finin elleri bo\u015f \u015fekilde girdikten sonra elinde beyaz renkli po\u015fet i\u00e7inde R. ibareli \u015farapla \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6rmeleri \u00fczerine onu durdurduklar\u0131n\u0131, kimlik kontrol\u00fcnde Azerbaycan uyruklu A.M. oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan ki\u015fiye bu \u015farab\u0131 nereden ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 sorduklar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015fletti\u011fi b\u00fcfeden ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6yledi\u011fini, b\u00fcfeye girip ba\u015fvurucuya bilgi verdiklerini, ba\u015fvurucunun alkol sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savundu\u011funu, \u00fc\u00e7 kolluk g\u00f6revlisi ile A.M.nin imzalad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tutana\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucunun imzalamaktan imtina etti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. 4. Bu tutanak, Tar\u0131m ve Orman Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 T\u00fct\u00fcn ve Alkol Dairesi Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Daire Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015f; Daire …<\/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-132714","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n