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
\u00d6MER TEK\u0130N BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/18518)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 14\/5\/2025<\/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
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
G\u00fczay \u015eERBETC\u0130<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer TEK\u0130N<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 <\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, mahpusa vefat eden annesinin taziyesini 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. Ceza infaz kurumunda bulunan ba\u015fvurucunun annesi vefat etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, annesinin taziyesine kat\u0131lma talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) ba\u015fvurucunun talebini reddetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde, COVID-19 salg\u0131n hastal\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve al\u0131nan tedbirler gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fine \u015fik\u00e2yette bulunmu\u015ftur. \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fi ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetini esasa girmeden reddetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde 28\/6\/2013 tarihli ve 28691 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan H\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc ve Tutuklulara Yak\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6l\u00fcm\u00fc veya Hastal\u0131\u011f\u0131 Nedeniyle Verilebilecek Mazeret \u0130zinlerine Dair Y\u00f6netmelik\u2019in (Y\u00f6netmelik) 5. maddesine g\u00f6re yetkinin Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda oldu\u011fu, H\u00e2kimli\u011fin g\u00f6rev ve yetkisinde de\u011ferlendirilebilecek herhangi bir karar veya talep olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifadesine yer verilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine itiraz yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince karar isabetsizlik bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan itiraz\u0131n reddine kesin olarak karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 18\/3\/2021tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 16\/4\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
5. 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. \u00d6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucunun adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, annesinin taziyesine kat\u0131lmas\u0131na izin verilmemesi nedeniyle aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucu ayr\u0131ca mesnetsiz bir gerek\u00e7eye dayal\u0131 olarak taziye izninin verilmedi\u011fini b\u00f6ylece ailesinin ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ac\u0131y\u0131 payla\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n elinden al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek anayasal haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; ceza infaz kurumunda bulanan ba\u015fvurucunun taziyeye kat\u0131lma talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi hususunda m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik toplum d\u00fczeni bak\u0131m\u0131ndan gereklili\u011fi ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc incelenirken olay tarihi ve \u00f6ncesindeki pandemi ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde tutulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yeti konusunda yap\u0131lacak incelemede Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ile somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Somut olayda, ba\u015fvurucunun vefat eden annesinin 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, 16\/12\/2019, \u00a7 42).<\/p>\n
10. Bu m\u00fcdahalenin 13\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5275 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza ve G\u00fcvenlik Tedbirlerinin \u0130nfaz\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun\u2019un 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 bulundu\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\u2019n\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.], No: 2016\/61250, 13\/6\/2019, \u00a7 38; Rasul Kocat\u00fcrk, \u00a7\u00a7 51-57).<\/p>\n
11. Anayasa\u2019n\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
12. 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 verilmesinin 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 talebinin taziye ziyaretiyle ile birlikte ele alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca bu imk\u00e2ndan yararlanman\u0131n mutlak olmay\u0131p \u015fartlar\u0131n bulunmas\u0131 h\u00e2line 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
13. 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, Be\u015fir Do\u011fan, Yavuz Ge\u00e7im [2. B.], B. No: 2018\/15011, 24\/2\/2021; Muhittin Pirin\u00e7\u00e7io\u011flu (4); Abdullah Selvi, [2. B.] B.No: 2020\/35123, 3\/4\/2024 ).<\/p>\n
14. Somut olayda, ceza infaz kurumunda bulunan ba\u015fvurucunun vefat eden annesinin taziye t\u00f6renine kat\u0131lma talebinin Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan COVID-19 salg\u0131n\u0131n\u0131n neden oldu\u011fu bula\u015fma riski gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek reddedildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fi ve A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan ise ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yet ve itiraz\u0131 hakk\u0131nda esasa ili\u015fkin bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
15. Bu itibarla somut olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131nda Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k karar\u0131nda COVID-19 salg\u0131n\u0131n\u0131n neden oldu\u011fu bula\u015fma 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. Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k; 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 annesinin taziyesine kat\u0131lamamas\u0131n\u0131n neden oldu\u011fu derin \u00fcz\u00fcnt\u00fc dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k karar\u0131nda g\u00f6sterilen gerek\u00e7eler; ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131 ile toplumun \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131 aras\u0131nda adil denge kurulmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik ikna edici, ilgili ve yeterli unsurlara sahip de\u011fildir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun 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 (Abdullah Selvi, [2. B.] B. No: 2020\/35123, 3\/4\/2024, \u00a7\u00a7 16, 17; Murat Kaymak\u00e7\u0131 [2. B.], B. No: 2020\/35000, 3\/4\/2024, \u00a7 14; Muhittin Pirin\u00e7\u00e7io\u011flu (4), \u00a7 15).<\/p>\n
16. 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
17. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespitine ve 100.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
18. \u0130nceleme tarihi itibar\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun annesinin taziye t\u00f6renine kat\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve vefat \u00fczerinden uzun bir s\u00fcre ge\u00e7ti\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda 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
19. \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.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucunun 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\u2019n\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 bilgi i\u00e7in Tav\u015fanl\u01311. \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fi (E.2021\/245), Tav\u015fanl\u0131 A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi (2021\/178 D.\u0130\u015f) ile Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 14\/5\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 14\/5\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/18518 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 \u00d6MER TEK\u0130N BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/18518) Karar Tarihi: 14\/5\/2025 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN Raport\u00f6r : G\u00fczay \u015eERBETC\u0130 Ba\u015fvurucu : \u00d6mer TEK\u0130N I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, mahpusa vefat eden annesinin taziyesini 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. Ceza infaz kurumunda bulunan ba\u015fvurucunun annesi vefat etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, annesinin taziyesine kat\u0131lma talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) ba\u015fvurucunun talebini reddetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde, COVID-19 salg\u0131n hastal\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve al\u0131nan tedbirler gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilmi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fine \u015fik\u00e2yette bulunmu\u015ftur. \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fi ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetini esasa girmeden reddetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde 28\/6\/2013 tarihli ve 28691 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan H\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc ve Tutuklulara Yak\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6l\u00fcm\u00fc veya Hastal\u0131\u011f\u0131 Nedeniyle Verilebilecek Mazeret \u0130zinlerine Dair Y\u00f6netmelik\u2019in (Y\u00f6netmelik) 5. maddesine g\u00f6re yetkinin Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda oldu\u011fu, H\u00e2kimli\u011fin g\u00f6rev ve yetkisinde de\u011ferlendirilebilecek herhangi bir karar veya talep olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifadesine yer verilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine itiraz yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince karar isabetsizlik bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan itiraz\u0131n reddine kesin olarak karar verilmi\u015ftir. 4. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 18\/3\/2021tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 16\/4\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. 5. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik …<\/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-152899","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n