T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
MUCAH\u0130T KENDAL ARAZ VE \u00d6MER TUN\u00c7ER BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/50718)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 16\/5\/2024<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Muhammed Nuri \u00d6ZG\u00dcR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1. Mucahit Kendal ARAZ<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Bedri KURAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
2. \u00d6mer TUN\u00c7ER<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Emrullah \u015eAM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, karar sonucunu de\u011fi\u015ftirebilecek nitelikteki esasl\u0131 iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olay\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi tarihte park h\u00e2linde bulunan ar\u0131zal\u0131 bir kamyonetin arka k\u0131sm\u0131nda 16 havai fi\u015fek, po\u015fetler i\u00e7inde at\u0131ma haz\u0131r 13 molotofkokteyli, 2 penye maske bulunmu\u015ftur. Bunun \u00fczerine Mersin Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne silah sa\u011flama, tehlikeli maddelerin izinsiz olarak bulundurulmas\u0131 veya el de\u011fi\u015ftirmesi su\u00e7lar\u0131ndan soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Soru\u015fturma kapsam\u0131nda an\u0131lan po\u015fetlerin \u00fczerinde yap\u0131lan kriminal incelemede ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n parmak izine rastlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunun \u00fczerine Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ifadelerini alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular; po\u015fetin \u00fczerinde parmak izinin neden \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bilmedi\u011fini, olayla bir ilgisinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, PKK ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc ile bir ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
3. Soru\u015fturma sonucunda Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n an\u0131lan su\u00e7lardan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015ftir. Mersin 3. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) iddianameyi kabul ederek yarg\u0131lamaya ba\u015flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. Yarg\u0131lama \u00fc\u00e7 celsede bitirilmi\u015ftir. Birinci celsede m\u00fcdafileri ile haz\u0131r bulunan ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n savunmalar\u0131 al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular; soru\u015fturma a\u015famas\u0131nda verdi\u011fi ifade ile ayn\u0131 do\u011frultuda po\u015fetlerin \u00fczerinde parmak izinin neden \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bilmedi\u011fini ve su\u00e7lamalar\u0131 kabul etmedi\u011fini beyan etmi\u015ftir. Bu celsede iddia makam\u0131 esas hakk\u0131ndaki m\u00fctalaas\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015f, eylemlerinin bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne silah sa\u011flama su\u00e7unu olu\u015fturdu\u011fu kanaatiyle ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n an\u0131lan su\u00e7tan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmalar\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 haz\u0131rlamak \u00fczere ba\u015fvuruculara s\u00fcre vererek duru\u015fmay\u0131 ertelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. \u0130kinci celsede ba\u015fvuruculardan M\u00fccahit Kendal Araz’\u0131n m\u00fcdafiinin mazereti nedeniyle yarg\u0131lamaya ili\u015fkin esasl\u0131 bir i\u015flem yap\u0131lmadan duru\u015fma ertelenmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131laman\u0131n \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ve son celsesine kat\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n m\u00fcdafileri esas hakk\u0131ndaki m\u00fctalaaya kar\u015f\u0131 savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Duru\u015fma sonucunda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne silah sa\u011flama su\u00e7undan 12 y\u0131l 6 ay hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“…ele ge\u00e7irilen molotof kokteylleri ile di\u011fer malzemelerin i\u00e7ine konuldu\u011fu pembe naylon po\u015fet \u00fczerinde san\u0131k \u00d6mer Tun\u00e7er’in sol el ba\u015f parmak izinin, Kitapsan ibareli naylon po\u015fet \u00fczerinde de san\u0131k M\u00fccahit Kendal Araz’\u0131n sol el orta parmak izinin tespit edildi\u011fi, PKK\/KCK ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc g\u00fcd\u00fcm\u00fcnde yay\u0131n yapan F\u0131ratnews.com isimli internet sitesinde 09.07.2012 g\u00fcn\u00fc yay\u0131nlanan bildiride ‘halk insiyatifi:\u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck mitingine kat\u0131lmak tarihsel bir g\u00f6revdir’ ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 haberin i\u00e7eri\u011finde ter\u00f6rist ba\u015f\u0131 [A.\u00d6.ya] \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck i\u00e7in eylem yap\u0131lmas\u0131 talimat\u0131 verildi\u011fi, yakalanan patlay\u0131c\u0131 maddeler ile di\u011fer maddelerin bu eylem \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131s\u0131 nedeni ile yap\u0131lacak eylemlerde kullan\u0131lmak \u00fczere san\u0131klar\u0131n da i\u00e7eresinde oldu\u011fu ki\u015filer taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlan\u0131p sakland\u0131\u011f\u0131, san\u0131klar\u0131n bu \u015fekilde \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctlerine silah sa\u011flama su\u00e7unu i\u015fledikleri anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
San\u0131klar savunmalar\u0131nda su\u00e7lamay\u0131 kabul etmemi\u015f iseler de, yukar\u0131da da a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere ele ge\u00e7irilen molotof kokteylleri ile di\u011fer malzemelerin i\u00e7ine konuldu\u011fu pembe naylon po\u015fet ile Kitapsan ibareli naylon po\u015fet \u00fczerinde san\u0131klar \u00d6mer Tun\u00e7er ve M\u00fccahit Kendal Araz’\u0131n parmak izleri tespit edilmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu patlay\u0131c\u0131lar ve di\u011fer materyaller ile ilgili olarak haklar\u0131nda kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131l\u0131p mahkumiyetine karar verilen [\u0130.A.] san\u0131k M\u00fccahit Kendal’in akrabas\u0131d\u0131r. \u0130kametleri de m\u00fc\u015fterek de\u011fildir. Bu nedenle patlay\u0131c\u0131 maddelerin ve di\u011fer e\u015fyalar\u0131n haz\u0131rlanmas\u0131na birlikte kat\u0131ld\u0131klar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. San\u0131k \u00d6mer Tun\u00e7er[‘in] ise di\u011fer san\u0131klar ile bir akrabal\u0131\u011f\u0131 yoktur. Ancak ayn\u0131 yerde bulunan po\u015fetler \u00fczerinde parmak izleri tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Bunun tesad\u00fcfle izah\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. \u00d6te yandan san\u0131k \u00d6mer Tun\u00e7er’in patlay\u0131c\u0131lar\u0131n yakaland\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00fcn Adana’da \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmakta oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015f ise de, patlay\u0131c\u0131lar\u0131n yakaland\u0131\u011f\u0131 yere ne zaman konuldu\u011fu belli de\u011fildir. \u00d6nceden oraya saklanmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Kald\u0131 ki Adana-Mersin aras\u0131 mesafe dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda g\u00fcn\u00fcbirlik gelip gidilmesi kolay bir mesafedir. Bu yak\u0131nl\u0131ktan dolay\u0131 Mersin’de oturup da Adana’da \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan ve g\u00fcn\u00fcbirlik gelip giden pek \u00e7ok insan vard\u0131r. Bu nedenle su\u00e7tan kurtulmaya y\u00f6nelik savunmalara itibar edilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
… san\u0131klar\u0131n 13 adet molotof kokteyli, 16’l\u0131 havai fi\u015fek ve di\u011fer malzemeleri PKK-KCK ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn muzahir kitlelerinin sokak g\u00f6sterilerinde kullan\u0131lmak \u00fczere depolanarak da\u011f\u0131t\u0131ma haz\u0131rland\u0131\u011f\u0131, PKK\/KCK ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc g\u00fcd\u00fcm\u00fcnde yay\u0131n yapan F\u0131ratnews.com isimli internet sitesinin 09.07.2012 tarihli ‘Halk inisiyatifi: \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck mitingine kat\u0131lmak tarihsel bir g\u00f6revdir’ ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 ‘K\u00fcrdistan Halk \u0130nisiyatifi, 14 Temmuz’da Diyarbak\u0131r’da yap\u0131lacak olan \u00d6nderli\u011fe \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck \u0130\u00e7in Demokratik Direni\u015f’ mitingine kat\u0131l\u0131m \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131s\u0131nda bulunarak, ‘\u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck mitingine kat\u0131lmak tarihsel bir g\u00f6rev ve sorumluluktur’ dedi. …ibarelerin yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 haberin devam\u0131nda, ‘…\u00d6nder Apo’nun \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc sa\u011flan\u0131ncaya, s\u00f6m\u00fcrgeci fa\u015fist sistemin K\u00fcrdistan topraklar\u0131nda defedilinceye kadar kesintisiz bir direni\u015f i\u00e7erisinde olaca\u011f\u0131z.’ \u015feklinde \u00f6rg\u00fct taban\u0131na ve m\u00fczahir kitlesine halen \u0130mral\u0131 Cezaevinde h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc bulunan \u00f6rg\u00fct liderinin \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne kavu\u015funcaya kadar yurt genelinde Serhildan (Ba\u015fkald\u0131r\u0131) t\u00fcr\u00fc eylemlerin artt\u0131r\u0131larak devam ettirilmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde eylem \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131lar\u0131nda bulundu\u011fu, san\u0131klar\u0131n bu \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131lar do\u011frultusunda eylemlerde kullan\u0131lmak \u00fczere 13 tane molotof kokteylini ve di\u011fer malzemeleri depolad\u0131\u011f\u0131 vicdani kan\u0131s\u0131na var\u0131larak TCK.n\u0131n 315.maddesi gere\u011fince cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmalar\u0131na karar vermek gerekmi\u015ftir.”<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucular, di\u011fer nedenlerle birlikte somut delil bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde gerek\u00e7esi a\u00e7\u0131klanmaks\u0131z\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 verildi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle temyiz kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Yarg\u0131tay “usul ve kanuna uygun bulunan” karar\u0131n onanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015f, mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 26\/5\/2021 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu \u00d6mer Tun\u00e7er’in ba\u015fvurusunda hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa, an\u0131lan hakka ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yet ile ba\u015fvurucu M\u00fccahit Kendal Araz’\u0131n ba\u015fvurusunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu M\u00fccahit Kendal Araz’\u0131n 2021\/53087 numaral\u0131 ba\u015fvurusunun konu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden irtibat nedeniyle 2022\/50718 numaral\u0131 ba\u015fvuru dosyas\u0131 ile birle\u015ftirilmesine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
A. Gerek\u00e7eli Karar Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu \u00d6mer Tun\u00e7er; su\u00e7a konu e\u015fyan\u0131n i\u00e7inde oldu\u011fu po\u015fetin \u00fczerinde bulunan parmak izi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda dosyada bir delil bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, lehine deliller toplanmadan yaln\u0131zca parmak izi deliline dayan\u0131larak mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 verildi\u011fini, savunmalar\u0131nda ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc hususlar\u0131n neden reddedildi\u011finin kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu suretle masumiyet karinesinin ve adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucu M\u00fccahit Kendal Araz; yaln\u0131zca su\u00e7a konu e\u015fyan\u0131n i\u00e7inde bulundu\u011fu po\u015fetin \u00fczerinde parmak izinin bulunmas\u0131 nedeniyle subjektif de\u011ferlendirme ile mahk\u00fbmiyetine karar verildi\u011fini, bu suretle masumiyet karinesi ile gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
10. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k); Mahkemenin dava konusu maddi olay ve olgular\u0131, delilleri, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kla ilgili vard\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucu ve kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdir yetkisinin nedenlerini gerek\u00e7elendirdi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n kanun yolu \u015fik\u00e2yeti niteli\u011finde olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ncelikle de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011finin alt\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7izmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca Bakanl\u0131k; savunman\u0131n yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131n\u0131n tamam\u0131nda lehine olan hususlar\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrebildi\u011fi, aleyhe delillere kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kabildi\u011fi ve yarg\u0131lamaya konu olaya ili\u015fkin subjektif g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc mahkemeye sunabildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc payla\u015fm\u0131\u015f; gerek\u00e7eli kararda Mahkemenin itiraz edilen delillere neden itibar edildi\u011fini ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 olarak gerek\u00e7elendirdi\u011fini vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u015fik\u00e2yetleri adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 g\u00fcvencelerinden biri olan gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131, Anayasa’n\u0131n 141. maddesi de dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ki\u015filerin adil bir \u015fekilde yarg\u0131lanmalar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamay\u0131 ve denetlemeyi ama\u00e7lamaktad\u0131r. Gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131, yarg\u0131lamada ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen t\u00fcm iddialara ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde yan\u0131t verilmesi gerekti\u011fi \u015feklinde anla\u015f\u0131lamaz. Bu nedenle, gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterme zorunlulu\u011funun kapsam\u0131 karar\u0131n niteli\u011fine g\u00f6re de\u011fi\u015febilir. Taraflar\u0131n uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sonucuna etkili nitelikteki iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n mahkemesince ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e ile kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 gerekir. Di\u011fer taraftan kanun yolu incelemesi yapan merciin, yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 yapan mahkemeyle ayn\u0131 sonuca ula\u015fmas\u0131 ve bunu ayn\u0131 gerek\u00e7eyi kullanarak veya ayn\u0131 at\u0131fla karar\u0131na yans\u0131tmas\u0131, karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7elendirilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yeterlidir. Bununla birlikte ilk derece mahkemesince kar\u015f\u0131lanmayan iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n bu defa kanun yolu merciince de de\u011ferlendirilmemesi gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlaline yol a\u00e7ar (Muhittin Kaya ve Muhittin Kaya \u0130n\u015faat Taahh\u00fct Madencilik G\u0131da Turizm Pazarlama Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2013\/1213, 4\/12\/2013, \u00a7\u00a7 25, 26; Vesim Parlak, B. No: 2012\/1034, 20\/3\/2014, \u00a7\u00a7 33, 34; Yasemin Ek\u015fi, B. No: 2013\/5486, 4\/12\/2013, \u00a7\u00a7 56, 57; Mehmet Yavuz, B. No: 2013\/2995, 20\/2\/2014, \u00a7 51; Sencer Ba\u015fat ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2013\/7800, 18\/6\/2014, \u00a7\u00a7 31-39; M\u00fcn\u00fcr Ata, B. No: 2014\/4958, 22\/1\/2015, \u00a7\u00a7 37-43; Hikmet \u00c7elik ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/4894, 15\/12\/2015, \u00a7\u00a7 54-59; \u015eah Tar\u0131m \u0130n\u015f. Tur. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2013\/7847, 9\/3\/2016, \u00a7\u00a7 36-48).<\/p>\n
13. Somut ba\u015fvuruya konu olayda, bir internet sitesinde yay\u0131mlanan bildiride PKK\/KCK ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn faaliyetleri kapsam\u0131nda eylem \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131s\u0131nda bulunulmas\u0131ndan iki g\u00fcn sonra park h\u00e2linde bulunan bir kamyonetin arka k\u0131sm\u0131nda molotofkokteylleri ve havai fi\u015fekler bulunmas\u0131 \u00fczerine soru\u015fturma ba\u015flat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Molotofkokteylleri ve havai fi\u015feklerin i\u00e7inde bulundu\u011fu po\u015fet \u00fczerinde yap\u0131lan kriminal incelemede ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n parmak izlerine rastlanmas\u0131 nedeniyle y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen soru\u015fturma sonucunda ba\u015fvurucular hakk\u0131nda silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne silah sa\u011flama ve tehlikeli maddelerin izinsiz olarak bulundurulmas\u0131 veya el de\u011fi\u015ftirmesi su\u00e7lar\u0131ndan kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131lama sonucunda Mahkeme; su\u00e7a konu e\u015fyan\u0131n i\u00e7inde bulundu\u011fu po\u015fetlerde ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n parmak izlerinin bulunmas\u0131n\u0131n tesad\u00fcfi olamayaca\u011f\u0131, bu nedenle ayn\u0131 konuya ili\u015fkin ba\u015fka davada yarg\u0131lanan san\u0131klar ile ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u00f6rg\u00fct ad\u0131na yap\u0131lacak eylemlerde kullan\u0131lmak \u00fczere patlay\u0131c\u0131 maddeleri haz\u0131rlad\u0131klar\u0131 ve silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne silah sa\u011flama su\u00e7unu i\u015fledikleri sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00f6ylelikle Mahkeme davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili olabilecek t\u00fcm iddia ve savunmalar\u0131 tart\u0131\u015farak h\u00fckme ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeterli gerek\u00e7eyi karar\u0131nda g\u00f6stermi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, bu gerek\u00e7eyle ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyetine karar vermi\u015f; karar\u0131n kanun yolu incelemesinde de\u011ferlendirme konusu h\u00fck\u00fcm ve gerek\u00e7esi uygun bulunmu\u015ftur (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 5, 6).<\/p>\n
14. Yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde ba\u015fvuruculara parmak izinin tespitine ili\u015fkin delile kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kma imk\u00e2n\u0131 sa\u011flanm\u0131\u015f, ba\u015fvurucular parmak izinin neden po\u015fetlerin \u00fczerinde bulundu\u011funu bilmedi\u011fini beyan etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n parmak izinin kendilerine ait olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin savunmas\u0131n\u0131n veya kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 delil hakk\u0131nda ara\u015ft\u0131rma taleplerinin bulundu\u011funa ve kar\u015f\u0131lanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir itiraz\u0131n\u0131n ya da ayr\u0131 ve a\u00e7\u0131k bir yan\u0131t verilmesini gerektiren usul veya esasa dair bir iddias\u0131n\u0131n mevcut olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, dosyada mevcut deliller de\u011ferlendirilerek ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n an\u0131lan su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lan kararda ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7e bulundu\u011fu ve gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir ihlal olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
15. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Di\u011fer \u0130hlal \u0130ddialar\u0131<\/p>\n
16. Ba\u015fvurucu M\u00fccahit Kendal Araz’\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddias\u0131n\u0131n Veysi Ado ([GK], B. No: 2022\/100837, 27\/4\/2023) karar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa; ba\u015fvurucu \u00d6mer Tun\u00e7er’in lehe delillerin toplanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na, yeterli delil elde edilmeden hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 delillere g\u00f6re mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 verildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddias\u0131n\u0131n Ahmet Sa\u011flam (B. No: 2013\/3351, 18\/9\/2013) karar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurular\u0131n B\u0130RLE\u015eT\u0130R\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
B. 1. Gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilebilirlik kriterlerini sa\u011flamamas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
C. Yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin ba\u015fvurucular \u00fczerinde b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na 16\/5\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 16\/5\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/50718 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 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 MUCAH\u0130T KENDAL ARAZ VE \u00d6MER TUN\u00c7ER BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/50718) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 16\/5\/2024 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Muhammed Nuri \u00d6ZG\u00dcR Ba\u015fvurucular : 1. Mucahit Kendal ARAZ Vekili : Av. Bedri KURAN \u00a0 : 2. \u00d6mer TUN\u00c7ER Vekili : Av. Emrullah \u015eAM \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, karar sonucunu de\u011fi\u015ftirebilecek nitelikteki esasl\u0131 iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olay\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi tarihte park h\u00e2linde bulunan ar\u0131zal\u0131 bir kamyonetin arka k\u0131sm\u0131nda 16 havai fi\u015fek, po\u015fetler i\u00e7inde at\u0131ma haz\u0131r 13 molotofkokteyli, 2 penye maske bulunmu\u015ftur. Bunun \u00fczerine Mersin Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne silah sa\u011flama, tehlikeli maddelerin izinsiz olarak bulundurulmas\u0131 veya el de\u011fi\u015ftirmesi su\u00e7lar\u0131ndan soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Soru\u015fturma kapsam\u0131nda an\u0131lan po\u015fetlerin \u00fczerinde yap\u0131lan kriminal incelemede ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n parmak izine rastlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunun \u00fczerine Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ifadelerini alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular; po\u015fetin \u00fczerinde parmak izinin neden \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bilmedi\u011fini, olayla bir ilgisinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, PKK ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc ile bir ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savunmu\u015ftur. 3. Soru\u015fturma sonucunda Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n an\u0131lan su\u00e7lardan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015ftir. …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,535],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20140","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n