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
L.B. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/27173)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 2\/10\/2024<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
G\u0130ZL\u0130L\u0130K TALEB\u0130 KABUL<\/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
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Mehmet AKTEPE<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
L.B.<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Hasan YILMAZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, beyanlar\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu (san\u0131k) taraf\u0131ndan sorgulanmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n verilmemesi nedeniyle tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Tokat Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesiyle o tarihte polis memuru olarak g\u00f6rev yapan ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Soru\u015fturma neticesinde Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle 10\/5\/2017 tarihli iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015ftir. \u0130ddianamede \u00f6zetle ba\u015fvurucunun tan\u0131k ifadelerine g\u00f6re sohbet ad\u0131 verilen \u00f6rg\u00fctsel toplant\u0131lara kat\u0131lmak suretiyle \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011fi iddia edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. \u0130ddianamenin kabul\u00fc ile a\u00e7\u0131lan dava, Tokat 2. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince g\u00f6r\u00fclmeye ba\u015flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131lamada 25\/1\/2018 tarihinde duru\u015fma haz\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flemleri yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tensip Tutana\u011f\u0131’nda -di\u011ferlerinin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra- tan\u0131klar R.Y., M.K., N.Y. ve \u015e.G.nin zorla getirilmelerine, tan\u0131k T.U.nun ise istinabe yoluyla dinlenilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Duru\u015fma, d\u00f6rt celsede bitirilmi\u015ftir. Birinci celsede tan\u0131klar R.Y. ve N.Y. duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r edilmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131k R.Y., 2013 y\u0131l\u0131 ortalar\u0131nda yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu sohbette ba\u015fvurucuyu yaln\u0131zca bir defa g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc zaten kollukta da kendisini zor te\u015fhis etti\u011fini beyan etmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131k N.Y. al\u0131nan beyan\u0131nda, ba\u015fvurucuyu ayn\u0131 \u015fubede \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131klar\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 tan\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak FET\u00d6\/PDY \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyesi olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda bilgisinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131k T.U.nun bilgi ve g\u00f6rg\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn tespiti i\u00e7in yaz\u0131lan talimata ikmalen cevap verilmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan tan\u0131k, istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nan beyan\u0131nda polis memuru olan ba\u015fvurucunun 2014-2015 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda 3-4 ay kadar kendi sohbet grubunda oldu\u011funu, daha sonra M.K.nin sohbet grubuna ge\u00e7ti\u011fini, sohbetlere kat\u0131lmak d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda \u00f6rg\u00fctsel bir faaliyeti olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bilmedi\u011fini, sohbetlere 2016 y\u0131l\u0131 temmuz ay\u0131na kadar devam etti\u011fini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc belirtmi\u015ftir. Ayn\u0131 celsede tan\u0131klar M.K. ve \u015e.G.nin adreslerinin Mahkemenin yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda oldu\u011fu belirlendi\u011finden istinabe yoluyla dinlenilmelerine ve Asya Kat\u0131l\u0131m Bankas\u0131 Anonim \u015eirketine (Bank Asya) m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131larak ba\u015fvurucunun hesap hareketlerinin istenmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. \u0130kinci celsede Bank Asyaya yaz\u0131lan m\u00fczekkereye ve tan\u0131k \u015e.G.nin bilgi ve g\u00f6rg\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn tespiti i\u00e7in yaz\u0131lan talimata verilen cevaplar Mahkemece okunmu\u015ftur. An\u0131lan tan\u0131k; istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nan beyan\u0131nda kendisinin de ba\u015fvurucu gibi polis oldu\u011funu, daha \u00f6nceki beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n tamamen duyum ve tahmine dayal\u0131 oldu\u011funu, ba\u015fvurucuyla sohbet toplant\u0131lar\u0131nda kar\u015f\u0131la\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc celsede tan\u0131k M.K.nin bilgi ve g\u00f6rg\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn tespiti i\u00e7in yaz\u0131lan talimata ikmalen verilen cevap okunmu\u015ftur. An\u0131lan tan\u0131k; istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nan beyan\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucuyu sohbet toplant\u0131lar\u0131na kat\u0131lmas\u0131 sebebiyle tan\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ba\u015fvurucu ile T.U. arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile tan\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, genelde sohbet yap\u0131lan yerde bir araya geldiklerini, bunun d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda da birbirlerinin evine gidip geldiklerini belirtmi\u015ftir. Ayn\u0131 celsede iddia makam\u0131 esas hakk\u0131nda m\u00fctalaa sunmu\u015ftur. Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiinin esas hakk\u0131nda m\u00fctalaaya kar\u015f\u0131 savunma haz\u0131rlamak i\u00e7in talep ettikleri s\u00fcrenin verilmesine ve duru\u015fman\u0131n 13\/3\/2018 tarihine ertelenmesine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Mahkeme 13\/3\/2018 tarihli son celsede ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan 6 y\u0131l 3 ay hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7eli kararda; tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131na g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun sohbet ad\u0131 verilen, \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn d\u0131\u015far\u0131ya a\u00e7\u0131k olmayan toplant\u0131lar\u0131na kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, FET\u00d6\/PDY’nin yay\u0131n organ\u0131 olan www.aktifhaber.com internet sitesini 530 kez ziyaret etti\u011fi ve her ne kadar \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 tevdi raporunda san\u0131\u011f\u0131n Bank Asya hesab\u0131n\u0131 artt\u0131rmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilmi\u015fse de s\u00f6z konusu tarihlerde hesap artt\u0131r\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu ve bu artt\u0131r\u0131m\u0131n salt bor\u00e7 \u00f6deme \u015feklinde i\u015flemlerden ibaret olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucunun hesab\u0131nda belli bir miktar para bulundurdu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“… dosya i\u00e7erisindeki belgelerden de anla\u015f\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere \u00f6rg\u00fct liderinin talimat\u0131ndan sonra hesab\u0131nda 2013 Aral\u0131k ve 2014 Ocak ay\u0131nda bakiye 0 iken, 2014 \u015eubat ay\u0131nda 1600 TL, Mart ay\u0131nda 1600 TL, Nisan ay\u0131nda 1600 TL olup, May\u0131s ay\u0131 itibariyle 0 TL para bulunmas\u0131, hesap hareketlerinin incelenmesinde; 20\/02\/2014 tarihinde 1600 TL, 18\/03\/2014 tarihinde 1600 TL, 15\/04\/2014 tarihinde 1600 TL, 23\/10\/2014 tarihinde 1791 TL ba\u015fka bankadan eft \u015feklinde i\u015flemler ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirdi\u011fi<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
Dosya kapsam\u0131ndaki beyanlar irdelendi\u011finde; tan\u0131k [T.U.nun] Tokat ili [p]olis [m]emurlar\u0131 sorumlusu olarak san\u0131k hakk\u0131nda beyanda bulundu\u011fu, tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n t\u00fcm polis dosyalar\u0131m\u0131zda yer alan ve \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn Tokat ili [p]olis yap\u0131lanmas\u0131n\u0131 anlatan detayl\u0131 beyanlar\u0131ndan da bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere; gerek \u00f6rg\u00fcte \u00fcye kazand\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla gerekse \u00f6rg\u00fct hiyerar\u015fisine dahil olduktan sonra \u00f6rg\u00fctten kopmalar\u0131 engellemek amac\u0131yla ki\u015filerin s\u0131k\u0131 takibi yap\u0131lmakta, sohbet grubunda bulunanlar\u0131n sohbet hocalar\u0131\/grup sorumlusu\/sorumlu abi vb. adlarla hiyerar\u015fide daha \u00fcstte yer alan \u00f6rg\u00fcte sad\u0131k ki\u015filere sorumlu k\u0131l\u0131nmaktad\u0131rlar. Tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n kapsaml\u0131 ifadesinde yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 yap\u0131lan t\u00fcm san\u0131klar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00f6rg\u00fctte yer ald\u0131klar\u0131 s\u00fcre, kimin sorumlulu\u011funda olduklar\u0131 gibi detayl\u0131 bilgisi mevcuttur. Bu nedenle baz\u0131 san\u0131klar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00f6rg\u00fctten ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 duymad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve san\u0131\u011f\u0131n temmuz 2016’ya kadar sohbetlere kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmi\u015f olup san\u0131k [L]’\u0131n \u00f6rg\u00fctte bulundu\u011fu s\u00fcre ve konumuna ili\u015fkin olarak da benzer bir beyan\u0131 mevcuttur. Tokat ili [p]olis [m]emurlar\u0131 sorumlusu oldu\u011fu dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda san\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00f6rg\u00fct hiyerar\u015fisine dahil oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin en belirleyici tan\u0131k beyan\u0131 [T.U.nun] beyanlar\u0131d\u0131r. Tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n bu beyan\u0131 (sohbete kat\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin) di\u011fer tan\u0131klar [M.K] ile [R.Y.nin] beyanlar\u0131yla da \u00f6rt\u00fc\u015fmektedir. Bu nedenle san\u0131\u011f\u0131n FET\u00d6\/PDY mensubu oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin mahkememizde tam bir kan\u0131 olu\u015fmu\u015ftur.” <\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu; istinaf ve temyiz dilek\u00e7elerinde -di\u011ferlerinin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra- h\u00fckme gerek\u00e7e yap\u0131lan tan\u0131klar\u0131n mahkeme huzurunda dinlenmedi\u011fini, Ses ve G\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc Bili\u015fim Sistemi (SEGB\u0130S) ile ba\u011flant\u0131 kurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve soru sorma hakk\u0131n\u0131n kulland\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. H\u00fck\u00fcm kanun yolu denetiminden ge\u00e7erek 2\/2\/2021 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 15\/5\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 27\/5\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
11. Komisyon, adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne, tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa ve an\u0131lan hakka ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetin kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucu, mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131na dayanak yap\u0131lan ve belirleyici delil olan tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nmas\u0131 nedeniyle tan\u0131klara soru sorma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve bu suretle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
13. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde;<\/p>\n
i. Mahkemenin dava konusu maddi olay ve olgular\u0131, delilleri de\u011ferlendirmesini, hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131 ve uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kla ilgili vard\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucu ve kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdir yetkisinin sebeplerini gerek\u00e7elendirdi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131n\u0131n kanun yolu \u015fik\u00e2yeti niteli\u011finde olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ncelikle de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
ii. Ba\u015fvurucuya hakk\u0131nda beyanda bulunan ve istinabe yoluyla beyanlar\u0131 al\u0131nan tan\u0131klar T.U., \u015e.G. ve M.K.n\u0131n ifadelerinin okundu\u011fu ve ba\u015fvurucunun bu beyanlara kar\u015f\u0131 itiraz ve savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 dile getirdi\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda beyanda bulunan di\u011fer tan\u0131klar R.Y. ve N.Y.nin beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucunun da haz\u0131r bulundu\u011fu ilk celse s\u0131ras\u0131nda al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131 adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. 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
16. 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 (Atila O\u011fuz Boyal\u0131, B. No: 2013\/99, 20\/3\/2014; Sel\u00e7uk Demir, B. No: 2014\/9783, 22\/1\/2015; AZ. M., B. No: 2013\/560, 16\/4\/2015; Baran Karada\u011f, B. No: 2014\/12906, 7\/5\/2015; Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, B. No: 2019\/30221, 28\/12\/2021). Buna g\u00f6re bir ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131nda san\u0131\u011f\u0131n aleyhine olan tan\u0131klar\u0131 sorguya \u00e7ekme veya \u00e7ektirme hakk\u0131 vard\u0131r. Hakk\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 s\u00fcrecinde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n tan\u0131klara soru y\u00f6neltebilmesi, onlarla y\u00fczle\u015febilmesi ve tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n do\u011frulu\u011funu s\u0131nama imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip olmas\u0131 adil bir yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yap\u0131labilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan gereklidir (AZ. M., \u00a7 55). Di\u011fer yandan bir mahk\u00fbmiyet -tek veya belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde- san\u0131\u011f\u0131n soru\u015fturma veya yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir kimse taraf\u0131ndan verilen ifadelere dayand\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve dengeleyici g\u00fcvenceler sa\u011flayan bir usul \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f ise san\u0131\u011f\u0131n haklar\u0131 Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesindeki g\u00fcvencelerle ba\u011fda\u015fmayacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde k\u0131s\u0131tlanm\u0131\u015f olur (Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, \u00a7 35).<\/p>\n
17. 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 edilmemesi ge\u00e7erli bir nedenin mevcudiyetine dayanmal\u0131d\u0131r. \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\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir. 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 olumsuzlu\u011fun 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 (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Abdurrahim Balur, B. No: 2013\/5467, 7\/1\/2016, \u00a7 80; Onur Urbay, B. No: 2014\/6222, 6\/3\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 36, 40; Zekeriya Sevim, B. No: 2018\/18989, 16\/6\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 44, 51). Bu kapsamda, h\u00fckme ula\u015f\u0131l\u0131rken sorgulanmam\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 (Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, \u00a7 39). Mahkemenin yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresi d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki tan\u0131klar\u0131n -san\u0131\u011f\u0131n da onlara soru sormas\u0131na imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayacak ve sorulan sorulara verdikleri cevaplar hakk\u0131nda ki\u015fisel izlenim edinme f\u0131rsat\u0131 elde edecek \u015fekilde- Ses ve G\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc Bili\u015fim Sistemi (SEGB\u0130S) gibi vas\u0131talarla dinlenmesi telafi edici bir g\u00fcvence olabilir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte U\u011fur \u00d6zcan, B. No: 2021\/12137, 26\/7\/2022, \u00a7 40). Sorgulanmayan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenilirli\u011finin ve do\u011frulu\u011funun saptanmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla savunma taraf\u0131na sa\u011flanabilecek bir di\u011fer telafi edici g\u00fcvence ise san\u0131\u011fa olay\u0131n kendi versiyonunu anlatma ve delillerini sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131d\u0131r (Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, \u00a7 40).<\/p>\n
18. Somut olayda Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan aleyhe beyanda bulunan tan\u0131klar T.U., \u015e.G. ve M.K.n\u0131n istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nan beyanlar\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiine okunmu\u015f ancak tan\u0131klar\u0131n duru\u015fmada dinlenilmesine ili\u015fkin herhangi bir \u00e7aba g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015ftir. \u0130lgili duru\u015fma tutana\u011f\u0131 ve gerek\u00e7eli kararda da tan\u0131klar\u0131n Mahkemede haz\u0131r edilememesinin veya ayn\u0131 anda g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcl\u00fc ve sesli ileti\u015fim tekni\u011finin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle dinlenilmemesinin hangi ge\u00e7erli nedene dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir a\u00e7\u0131klamaya yer verilmemi\u015ftir. 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 h\u00fckm\u00fcn tek ba\u015f\u0131na veya belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde ba\u015fvurucunun sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir tan\u0131k\/tan\u0131klar taraf\u0131ndan verilen ifadeye dayal\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
19. Mahkeme; ba\u015fvurucunun Bank Asyadaki mutat olmayan hesap hareketlerine, \u00f6rg\u00fctle ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 bir internet sitesini 530 kez ziyaret etti\u011fi tespitine, tan\u0131klar T.U. ve M.K.n\u0131n istinabe yoluyla, tan\u0131k R.Y.nin ise huzurda al\u0131nan beyanlar\u0131na istinaden mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fc kurmu\u015ftur. Gerek\u00e7eli kararda ayr\u0131ca tan\u0131k T.U.nun Tokat ili polis memurlar\u0131 sorumlusu oldu\u011fu ve bu kapsamda ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 beyanda bulundu\u011fu belirtilerek ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6rg\u00fct hiyerar\u015fisine d\u00e2hil oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin en belirleyici tan\u0131k beyan\u0131n\u0131n T.U.nun beyanlar\u0131 oldu\u011fu vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. Yarg\u0131tay uygulamas\u0131na g\u00f6re Bank Asyada parasal i\u015flem ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftiren ki\u015finin ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne yard\u0131m su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131labilmesi ancak ki\u015finin \u00f6rg\u00fct liderinin talimat\u0131 ile i\u015flem yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ku\u015fkuya yer b\u0131rakmayacak bi\u00e7imde ortaya konulmas\u0131 ile m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr [bir\u00e7ok karar aras\u0131ndan bkz. (kapat\u0131lan) Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesinin 15\/1\/2019 tarihli ve E.2018\/4959, K.2019\/145; 5\/3\/2019 tarihli ve E.2018\/6408, K.2019\/1447; 2\/3\/2021 tarihli ve E.2019\/5505, K.2021\/1793say\u0131l\u0131 kararlar\u0131]. Bu y\u00f6ndeki de\u011ferlendirme ise san\u0131\u011f\u0131n Bank Asya nezdindeki 2014 y\u0131l\u0131 \u00f6ncesi de d\u00e2hil olmak \u00fczere hesap a\u00e7\u0131l\u0131\u015f bilgileri, ayl\u0131k bakiye geli\u015fimi ve t\u00fcm hesap hareketlerine ili\u015fkin kay\u0131tlar dosyaya celbedilip incelenerek temin edilen kay\u0131tlar \u00fczerinde uzman bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131n\u0131p \u00f6rg\u00fct liderinin talimat\u0131ndan sonra ve bu talimat do\u011frultusunda kat\u0131l\u0131m hesab\u0131 a\u00e7ma, d\u00f6viz veya alt\u0131n alma, para yat\u0131rma vb. i\u015flemlerinin bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilerek yap\u0131lacakt\u0131r [bir\u00e7ok karar aras\u0131ndan bkz. (kapat\u0131lan) Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesinin 18\/5\/2021 tarihli ve E.2019\/2369, K.2021\/3193 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131].<\/p>\n
21. Mahkemenin gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131nda tan\u0131k beyan\u0131n\u0131n belirleyici oldu\u011funa yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k vurgu ve ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6rg\u00fct liderinin talimat\u0131 ile Bank Asyada parasal i\u015flem yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ku\u015fkuya yer b\u0131rakmayacak bi\u00e7imde ortaya konulmas\u0131 i\u00e7in kay\u0131tlar \u00fczerinde uzman bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131nmamas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, duru\u015fmada dinlenmeyen tan\u0131klar T.U. ve M.K.n\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki kanaatin olu\u015fmas\u0131nda dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015fmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmayan tan\u0131klar\u0131n anlat\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131na g\u00f6t\u00fcren tek olmasa da belirleyici nitelikte delil oldu\u011funun kabul edilmesi gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
22. Yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde ba\u015fvurucuya olaylar\u0131 kendi bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131na g\u00f6re anlatma ve delillerini sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dosyada tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131 destekleyen ba\u015fka deliller de bulunmaktad\u0131r. Ancak Mahkemenin yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresi d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki tan\u0131klar\u0131 ba\u015fvurucunun da onlara soru sormas\u0131na imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayacak \u015fekilde SEGB\u0130S gibi vas\u0131talarla neden dinlemedi\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir bilgi ve belgeye ula\u015f\u0131lamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tan\u0131klar\u0131n yaz\u0131l\u0131 beyanlar\u0131 duru\u015fmada okunmu\u015f ise de ba\u015fvurucu, tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n tespiti s\u0131ras\u0131nda haz\u0131r bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ses ve g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc nakli yoluyla da olsa onlar\u0131 sorgulayamam\u0131\u015f; sorulan sorulara verdikleri cevaplar hakk\u0131nda izlenim edinme f\u0131rsat\u0131 elde edememi\u015ftir. Bu y\u00fczden tan\u0131klar\u0131n g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi tepkiler konusunda Mahkemenin dikkatini \u00e7ekememi\u015f, b\u00f6ylelikle tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenilirli\u011fi test edilememi\u015ftir. Mahkeme de tan\u0131klar beyanda bulunurken g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi tepkilerle ilgili olarak izlenim edinememi\u015ftir. H\u00fckme ula\u015f\u0131l\u0131rken sorgulanmam\u0131\u015f tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ba\u015fka delillere de dayan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n beyanlar\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde mahk\u00fbmiyete temel al\u0131nan tan\u0131klar\u0131 sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmamas\u0131 nedeniyle savunma makam\u0131n\u0131n maruz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rlamay\u0131 telafi etti\u011fini s\u00f6ylemek de m\u00fcmk\u00fcn g\u00f6z\u00fckmemektedir. Sonu\u00e7 olarak g\u00fcvenilirli\u011fi ve do\u011frulu\u011fu test edilmemi\u015f tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde savunman\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 zorluklar\u0131 telafi edecek kar\u015f\u0131 dengeleyici g\u00fcvencelerin sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda istinabe yoluyla beyanlar\u0131 al\u0131nan tan\u0131klar\u0131n duru\u015fmada ya da ses veya g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc nakli yoluyla dinlenmemesinin bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetini zedeledi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
23. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
24. Ba\u015fvurucu ihlalin tespiti, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi ile maddi ve manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen hak 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\u011fiyarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yenidenyarg\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 (Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2), 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
26. Bu konuda \u00f6nemle belirtilmelidir ki su\u00e7lu-su\u00e7suz karar\u0131 vermek ya da daha hafif veya a\u011f\u0131r ceza belirlemek Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi de\u011fildir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Ruh\u015fen Mahmuto\u011flu, B. No: 2015\/22, 15\/1\/2020, \u00a7 67). 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 ilk derece mahkemeleri ile kanun yolu mercilerine aittir (Orhan K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 [GK], B. No: 2014\/4704, 1\/2\/2018, \u00a7 44). Bu ba\u011flamda somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde karar vermek Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi de\u011fildir. Anayasa Mahkemesince verilen ihlal karar\u0131, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n beraat etti\u011fi anlam\u0131na gelmedi\u011fi gibi ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n gereklerinin yerine getirilmesi amac\u0131yla yap\u0131lacak yeniden yarg\u0131lama neticesinde san\u0131k hakk\u0131nda mutlaka beraat karar\u0131 verilmesi gerekti\u011fi anlam\u0131na da gelmemektedir. \u0130hlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 gidermek \u00fczere gereken i\u015flemler yerine getirildikten sonra yap\u0131lacak de\u011ferlendirmede Mahkemenin mevcut belgelerle birlikte delillerin takdir bi\u00e7imine g\u00f6re benzer veya farkl\u0131 bir sonuca varmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
27. Bunun yan\u0131nda tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n yarg\u0131lama evrelerindeki beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n delil de\u011feriyle ilgili bir derecelendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na almamaktad\u0131r. Di\u011fer birifadeyle bu hak, tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n duru\u015fmadaki beyanlar\u0131na \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fck tan\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir g\u00fcvence i\u00e7ermemektedir. Savunmaya duru\u015fmada tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 sorgulama f\u0131rsat\u0131 tan\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve san\u0131\u011f\u0131n di\u011fer haklar\u0131na sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterildi\u011fi s\u00fcrece tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n a\u015famalardaki beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n hangisine itibar edilece\u011fi meselesi karar veren mahkemenin takdirindedir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Musa Y\u0131lmaz Acar, B. No: 2013\/1664, 16\/7\/2014,\u00a7 53).<\/p>\n
28. \u00d6te yandan ihlalin niteli\u011fine g\u00f6re yeniden yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan manevi tazminat, ba\u015fvurucu u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etti\u011fi maddi zararla ilgili bilgi ve belge sunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan da maddi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Kamuya a\u00e7\u0131k belgelerde ba\u015fvurucunun kimli\u011finin gizli tutulmas\u0131 talebinin KABUL\u00dcNE,<\/p>\n
B. Tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
C. Anayasa\u2019n\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 Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU’nun kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
D. 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 Tokat 2. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (E.2017\/74, K.2018\/115) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. \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
H. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 2\/10\/2024 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY<\/p>\n
1. “\u0130stinabe yoluyla beyanlar\u0131 al\u0131nan tan\u0131klar\u0131n duru\u015fmada ya da ses veya g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc nakli yoluyla dilenmemesinin bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetini zedeledi\u011fi, Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine” dair \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne i\u015ftirak etmemekteyim. \u015e\u00f6yle ki;<\/p>\n
2. Dosya kapsam\u0131ndan anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere duru\u015fma d\u00f6rt celsede bitirilmi\u015ftir. Birinci celsede tan\u0131klar R.Y. ve N.Y. duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r edilmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131klardan T.U. nun istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nan beyanlar\u0131 mahkemede okunmu\u015ftur. Ayn\u0131 celsede (Birinci celse) tan\u0131klar M.K. ve \u015e.G. nin adreslerinin mahkemenin yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda oldu\u011fu belirlendi\u011finden istinabe yoluyla dinlenmelerine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. \u0130kinci celsede Bank Asyaya yaz\u0131lan m\u00fczekkereye ve tan\u0131klardan \u015e.G.nin istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nan beyanlar\u0131 okunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
4. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc celsede tan\u0131klardan M.K.n\u0131n istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nan beyanlar\u0131 okunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
5. Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan aleyhe beyanda bulunan tan\u0131klar T.U., \u015e.G. ve M.K.n\u0131n istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nan beyanlar\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiine okunmu\u015f ancak s\u00f6z konusu tan\u0131klar\u0131n (istinabe yoluyla dinlenen) duru\u015fmada dinlenmesine ili\u015fkin herhangi bir \u00e7abas\u0131\/talebi olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. Mahkeme; Ba\u015fvurucunun Bank Asyadaki mutad olmayan hesap hareketlerine, \u00f6rg\u00fctle ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 bir internet sitesini 530 kez ziyaret etti\u011fi tespitine, tan\u0131klar T.U. ve M.K.n\u0131n istinabe yoluyla, tan\u0131k R.Y.nin ise huzurda al\u0131nan beyanlar\u0131na istinaden mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fc kurdu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Gerek\u00e7eli kararda ayr\u0131ca tan\u0131k T.U.nun Tokat ili polis memurlar\u0131 sorumlusu oldu\u011fu ve bu kapsamda Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 beyanda bulundu\u011fu belirtilerek Ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6rg\u00fct hiyerar\u015fisine dahil oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin belirleyici tan\u0131k beyan\u0131n\u0131n T.U.nun beyanlar\u0131 oldu\u011fu vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7. Mahkemenin karar\u0131na bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda istinabe yoluyla dinlenen tan\u0131klar\u0131n anlat\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131nda tek delil olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Gerek A\u0130HM, gerekse AYM bir\u00e7ok karar\u0131nda adil yarg\u0131lanma g\u00fcvencelerinden a\u00e7\u0131k bir \u015fekilde feragat edilebilece\u011fi gibi \u00f6rt\u00fcl\u00fc \u015fekilde feragat edilmesinin de m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011funa i\u015faret etmi\u015flerdir. Yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda, istinabe yoluyla dinlenen tan\u0131klar\u0131n huzurda da beyan vermelerini ve tan\u0131klar\u0131 sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanmay\u0131 istememesinin Ba\u015fvurucunun tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131ndan feragat etti\u011fi anlam\u0131na da gelmesi s\u00f6z konusu olabilecektir. Bu hususu de\u011ferlendirecek olan da t\u00fcm tan\u0131k ve delilleri y\u00fcz y\u00fcze ilkesi gere\u011fince dinleyen ve yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 y\u00fcr\u00fcten derece mahkemesidir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda Ba\u015fvurucu ilk derece yarg\u0131lamas\u0131nda yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 yapan mahkeme huzurunda tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanma y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir talepte bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Somut olay\u0131n t\u00fcm bu \u00f6zellikleri birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiinin tan\u0131klar\u0131n istinabe yoluyla dinlenmesinin ne gibi sonu\u00e7lar do\u011furaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 makul bir \u015fekilde \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilecek durumda olduklar\u0131, imkanlar\u0131 varken zaman\u0131nda tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131 yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 yapan mahkeme huzurunda dile getirmeyen Ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiinin bu tav\u0131rlar\u0131 s\u00f6z konusu haktan z\u0131mnen feragat anlam\u0131na gelmektedir.<\/p>\n
10. A\u00e7\u0131klanan bu gerek\u00e7elerle \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fun g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne i\u015ftirak etmemekteyim.<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
\u00a0Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 2\/10\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/27173 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 L.B. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/27173) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 2\/10\/2024 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 G\u0130ZL\u0130L\u0130K TALEB\u0130 KABUL \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR Raport\u00f6r : Mehmet AKTEPE Ba\u015fvurucu : L.B. Vekili : Av. Hasan YILMAZ \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, beyanlar\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu (san\u0131k) taraf\u0131ndan sorgulanmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n verilmemesi nedeniyle tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Tokat Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesiyle o tarihte polis memuru olarak g\u00f6rev yapan ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Soru\u015fturma neticesinde Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle 10\/5\/2017 tarihli iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015ftir. \u0130ddianamede \u00f6zetle ba\u015fvurucunun tan\u0131k ifadelerine g\u00f6re sohbet ad\u0131 verilen \u00f6rg\u00fctsel toplant\u0131lara kat\u0131lmak suretiyle \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011fi iddia edilmi\u015ftir. 4. \u0130ddianamenin kabul\u00fc ile a\u00e7\u0131lan dava, Tokat 2. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince g\u00f6r\u00fclmeye ba\u015flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131lamada 25\/1\/2018 tarihinde duru\u015fma haz\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flemleri yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tensip Tutana\u011f\u0131’nda -di\u011ferlerinin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra- tan\u0131klar R.Y., M.K., N.Y. ve \u015e.G.nin zorla getirilmelerine, tan\u0131k T.U.nun ise istinabe yoluyla dinlenilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. 5. Duru\u015fma, d\u00f6rt celsede bitirilmi\u015ftir. Birinci celsede tan\u0131klar R.Y. ve …<\/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-20205","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n