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
ZOUZAN HAMDO BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/3814)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 15\/1\/2025<\/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
Recai AKYEL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Sinan ARMA\u011eAN<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Zouzan HAMDO<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Cumali \u015e\u0130M\u015eEK<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 etme karar\u0131 verilmesi nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 ile k\u00f6t\u00fc muamele yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Suriye Arap Cumhuriyeti (Suriye) vatanda\u015f\u0131 olan 1993 do\u011fumlu erkek ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda Gaziantep Valili\u011fi 3\/10\/2018 tarihinde izinsiz faaliyette bulunan \u00f6zel bir okulda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izni olmaks\u0131z\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle 4\/4\/2013 tarihli ve 6458 say\u0131l\u0131 Yabanc\u0131lar ve Uluslararas\u0131 Koruma Kanunu’nun 54. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (\u011f) bendi uyar\u0131nca s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 etme ve yurdu terke davet kararlar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. S\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 etme karar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun nereye s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 edilece\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir bilgiye yer verilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu, s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 etme karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 Gaziantep 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) iptal davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f; di\u011fer iddialar\u0131 yan\u0131nda Suriye’deki i\u00e7 \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u00fclkesine geri g\u00f6nderilmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia ederek verilen karar\u0131n iptal edilmesini istemi\u015ftir. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 16\/1\/2019 tarihinde davay\u0131 kesin olarak reddederken gerek\u00e7esinde daval\u0131 idarenin savunma dilek\u00e7esini g\u00f6zeterek ba\u015fvurucunun geri g\u00f6nderme yasa\u011f\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki ki\u015filerden oldu\u011funu, bu nedenle men\u015fe \u00fclkesine g\u00f6nderilmeyece\u011fini de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, ret karar\u0131 \u00fczerine bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucunun dosyas\u0131 2016\/24613 numaral\u0131 dosya ile birle\u015ftirilmi\u015f ve 2\/6\/2020 tarihinde, s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 etme i\u015fleminin iptaline ili\u015fkin davada men\u015fe \u00fclkedeki risk konusunda ara\u015ft\u0131rma ve de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmadan ve bu konuda ilgili kurumdan izahat al\u0131nmadan karar verilmesi nedeniyle k\u00f6t\u00fc muamele yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. \u0130hlal karar\u0131 \u00fczerine \u0130dare Mahkemesince yap\u0131lan yeniden yarg\u0131lamada daval\u0131 idareden ba\u015fvurucunun geri g\u00f6nderme yasa\u011f\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki iddialar\u0131yla ilgili baz\u0131 sorular\u0131 cevaplamas\u0131 istenmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 idare verdi\u011fi cevapta ba\u015fvurucunun s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 edilme karar\u0131 sonras\u0131nda terke davet edildi\u011fini, nereye s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 edilece\u011fiyle ilgili bir ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, g\u00f6n\u00fcll\u00fc olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde Suriye’ye g\u00f6nderilebilece\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca gidebilece\u011fi g\u00fcvenli \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc \u00fclkenin belirlenmedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Verilen cevap sonras\u0131nda \u0130dare Mahkemesi 28\/10\/2020 tarihinde yine davay\u0131 kesin olarak reddetmi\u015ftir. \u0130dare Mahkemesi gerek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucunun Suriye’ye s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 edilmedi\u011fini\/edilmeyece\u011fini, g\u00fcvenli \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc \u00fclkenin bulunmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu \u00fclkeye g\u00f6nderilece\u011fini, idarenin Suriye’deki k\u00f6t\u00fc muamele riskini dikkate alarak ba\u015fvurucuya insani ikamet izni sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve bu \u015fekilde yurtta kalmas\u0131na izin verdi\u011fini de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. 1\/12\/2020 tarihinde nihai karar\u0131 \u00f6\u011frenen ba\u015fvurucu 31\/12\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. Komisyon; adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu; Suriye’de devam eden \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmalar nedeniyle \u00fclkesine geri g\u00f6nderilemeyece\u011fini, \u0130dare Mahkemesinin hatal\u0131 \u015fekilde kendisine ikamet izniverildi\u011fini de\u011ferlendirdi\u011fini ve davas\u0131n\u0131 hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak yeniden reddedip Anayasa Mahkemesinin ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131rmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek k\u00f6t\u00fc muamele yasa\u011f\u0131 ile adil yarg\u0131lanma, ya\u015fam ve etkili ba\u015fvuru haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 etme karar\u0131 ve buna ili\u015fkin iptal davas\u0131 s\u00fcrecinden bahsedilerek Anayasa Mahkemesinin daha \u00f6nce benzer olaylarda belirledi\u011fi kriterlerin dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi bildirilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda ba\u015fvuru formundakine benzer iddialarda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvuru, k\u00f6t\u00fc muamele yasa\u011f\u0131 ve ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda birlikte incelenmi\u015ftir (benzer bir inceleme i\u00e7in bkz. Abdulkerim Hammud, B. No: 2019\/24388, 2\/5\/2023, \u00a7 44).<\/p>\n
10. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir nedeni de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
11. S\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 etme i\u015flemi sonucunda yabanc\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6nderilece\u011fi \u00fclkede k\u00f6t\u00fc muamele yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilece\u011finin iddia edilmesi h\u00e2linde idari ve yarg\u0131sal makamlar taraf\u0131ndan s\u00f6z konusu \u00fclkede ger\u00e7ek bir ihlal riskinin bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn ortaya \u00e7\u0131kabilmesi i\u00e7in \u00f6ncelikli olarak ba\u015fvurucu iddia etti\u011fi k\u00f6t\u00fc muamele riskinin ne oldu\u011funu makul \u015fekilde a\u00e7\u0131klamal\u0131, (varsa) bu iddiay\u0131 destekleyen bilgi ve belge sunmal\u0131, bu iddialar belli bir ciddilik seviyesinde olmal\u0131d\u0131r (A.A. ve A.A. [GK], B. No: 2015\/3941, 1\/3\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 62, 63). Anayasa Mahkemesinin \u00f6ncelikli rol\u00fc idari ve yarg\u0131sal makamlar taraf\u0131ndan an\u0131lan yasak kapsam\u0131ndaki usul g\u00fcvencelerinin sa\u011flan\u0131p sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 denetlemekten ibarettir. Usul g\u00fcvencelerinin sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumlarda ise geri g\u00f6nderilen \u00fclkede ger\u00e7ek bir k\u00f6t\u00fc muamele riskinin olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ayr\u0131ca de\u011ferlendirilir (A.A. ve A.A., \u00a7 71).<\/p>\n
12. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 etme karar\u0131na bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun nereye g\u00f6nderilece\u011fi belirtilmedi\u011fi gibi men\u015fe \u00fclkesine g\u00f6nderilmesinde bir sak\u0131nca bulundu\u011fu da tespit edilmemi\u015ftir. Bu durumda 6458 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 52. maddesine g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun men\u015fe \u00fclkesine g\u00f6nderilmesi ihtimal dahilinde g\u00f6z\u00fckmektedir. Her ne kadar \u0130dare Mahkemesi ba\u015fvurucunun Suriye’ye g\u00f6nderilmeyece\u011fini de\u011ferlendirmi\u015f ise de bu de\u011ferlendirmenin idari makamlar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu \u00f6zelinde ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir karara dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Di\u011fer taraftan \u0130dare Mahkemesinin kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn aksine daval\u0131 idarenin cevap dilek\u00e7esinde (bkz. \u00a7 4) ba\u015fvurucuya ikamet izni verilerek yurtta kal\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n yasal h\u00e2le getirildi\u011fi de belirtilmemi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u0130dare Mahkemesinin davay\u0131 reddetmesi sonras\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun men\u015fe \u00fclkesine g\u00f6nderilebilmesinin \u00f6n\u00fcnde bir engel kalmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
13. Anayasa Mahkemesi H\u00fcsam Ibrahim (B. No: 2020\/20131, 4\/10\/2023, \u00a7\u00a7 40-44) ba\u015fvurusunda uluslararas\u0131 kurulu\u015flar\u0131n raporlar\u0131n\u0131, Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131n\u0131 ve Suriyelilere ge\u00e7ici koruma stat\u00fcs\u00fc verilmesini g\u00f6zeterek Suriye’nin geneline \u015fiddet olaylar\u0131n\u0131n h\u00e2kim oldu\u011fu ve insan haklar\u0131 ihlallerinin yo\u011fun olarak ya\u015fand\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015f ve g\u00fcncel olan bu risk nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun Suriye’ye s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 edilemeyece\u011fine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan H\u00fcsam Ibrah\u0131m ba\u015fvurusundaki de\u011ferlendirme ve sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir neden olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Sonu\u00e7 olarak men\u015fe \u00fclkesine s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 edilme ihtimali olan ba\u015fvurucunun a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 iptal davas\u0131nda \u0130dare Mahkemesinin Anayasa’n\u0131n 17. maddesinin gerektirdi\u011fi \u00f6zende bir inceleme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00f6z edilemez.<\/p>\n
14. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan k\u00f6t\u00fc muamele yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti ile 50.000 TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
16. Tespit edilen ihlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin usul ve esaslar 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. maddesinde yer almaktad\u0131r. 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\u011fi mahkemece 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 (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
17. \u0130hlalin niteli\u011fine g\u00f6re yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. S\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 etme karar\u0131 nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 ile k\u00f6t\u00fc muamele yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 ile k\u00f6t\u00fc muamele yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Gaziantep 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2020\/619, K.2020\/886) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \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
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 G\u00f6\u00e7 \u0130daresi Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
H. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 15\/1\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 15\/1\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/3814 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 ZOUZAN HAMDO BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/3814) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 15\/1\/2025 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL \u00a0 \u00a0 Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u00a0 \u00a0 Muhterem \u0130NCE \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Sinan ARMA\u011eAN Ba\u015fvurucu : Zouzan HAMDO Vekili : Av. Cumali \u015e\u0130M\u015eEK \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 etme karar\u0131 verilmesi nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 ile k\u00f6t\u00fc muamele yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Suriye Arap Cumhuriyeti (Suriye) vatanda\u015f\u0131 olan 1993 do\u011fumlu erkek ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda Gaziantep Valili\u011fi 3\/10\/2018 tarihinde izinsiz faaliyette bulunan \u00f6zel bir okulda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izni olmaks\u0131z\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle 4\/4\/2013 tarihli ve 6458 say\u0131l\u0131 Yabanc\u0131lar ve Uluslararas\u0131 Koruma Kanunu’nun 54. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (\u011f) bendi uyar\u0131nca s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 etme ve yurdu terke davet kararlar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. S\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 etme karar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun nereye s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 edilece\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir bilgiye yer verilmemi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu, s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 etme karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 Gaziantep 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) iptal davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f; di\u011fer iddialar\u0131 yan\u0131nda Suriye’deki i\u00e7 \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u00fclkesine geri g\u00f6nderilmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia ederek verilen karar\u0131n iptal edilmesini istemi\u015ftir. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 16\/1\/2019 tarihinde davay\u0131 kesin olarak reddederken gerek\u00e7esinde daval\u0131 idarenin savunma dilek\u00e7esini g\u00f6zeterek …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34812","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n