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
H. K. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/15720)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 7\/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
Hikmet Murat AKKAYA<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Utku Co\u015fkuner SAKARYA<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, beyanlar\u0131 h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan tan\u0131klar\u0131n san\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan duru\u015fmada sorgulanmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n verilmemesi ve savunma tan\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n dinlenmesi talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle tan\u0131k dinletme ve sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ni\u011fde Cumhuriyet savc\u0131s\u0131 olarak g\u00f6reve ba\u015flayan ba\u015fvurucu s\u0131ras\u0131yla Akku\u015f, Patnos, Saruhanl\u0131 savc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131, ceza ve tevkifevleri e\u011fitim merkezi m\u00fcd\u00fcr yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 veceza ve tevkifevleri genel m\u00fcd\u00fcr yard\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6revinde bulunduktan sonra 24\/2\/2011 tarihinde Yarg\u0131tay \u00fcyesi olarak se\u00e7ilmi\u015ftir. Darbe te\u015febb\u00fcs\u00fcnden sonra Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesiyle hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 4\/2\/1983 tarihli ve 2797 say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay Kanunu’nun 46. maddesinin m\u00fclga alt\u0131nc\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n yeniden d\u00fczenlenmesine istinaden ba\u015fvurucuya ili\u015fkin soru\u015fturma evrak\u0131, Yarg\u0131tay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Yarg\u0131tay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nca 23\/10\/2017 tarihinde iddianame d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. \u0130ddianamede; ba\u015fvurucunun staj d\u00f6neminde \u00f6rg\u00fcte ait evlerde bulundu\u011fu, ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc mensuplar\u0131n\u0131n 2010 y\u0131l\u0131nda H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Y\u00fcksek Kurulunda (HSYK) \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fu ele ge\u00e7irmelerini m\u00fcteakiben \u00f6rg\u00fct liderinin talimat\u0131 ile \u00f6rg\u00fct \u00fcyelerinin kendi aralar\u0131nda yapt\u0131klar\u0131 toplant\u0131lar sonucunda ba\u015fvurucunun Yarg\u0131tay \u00fcyeli\u011fine se\u00e7ilmesine karar verilen isimlerden oldu\u011fu, Bylock kullanan \u00f6rg\u00fct \u00fcyelerinin kendi aralar\u0131ndaki yaz\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131nda kendisinden \u00f6rg\u00fct \u00fcyesi olarak bahsedildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. \u0130ddianameye g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda birisi gizli tan\u0131k olmak \u00fczere on ki\u015fi beyanda bulunmu\u015ftur. Bunlar aras\u0131nda HSYK eski \u00fcyeleri yan\u0131nda daha \u00f6nce Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda (Bakanl\u0131k) ve Yarg\u0131tayda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan ki\u015filer de yer almaktad\u0131r. Tan\u0131klar, ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6rg\u00fct yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 i\u00e7inde yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir. Bu kapsamda tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131 \u015fu \u015fekildedir:<\/p>\n
i. A.H.: “Kendisini bakanl\u0131kta \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131ndan beri tan\u0131r\u0131m. Fetullah G\u00fclen cemaati mensubu oldu\u011funu biliyorum. Se\u00e7ilmesi de Fetullah G\u00fclen cemaati listesine girmesinden dolay\u0131 olmu\u015ftur.”<\/p>\n
ii. C.G.: “Ben tefti\u015f kuruluna CTE Genel m\u00fcd\u00fcr yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 olunca o zamanki m\u00fc\u015fte\u015far [A.K.]d\u0131. Hem\u015ferimdi. CTE genel m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc olaca\u011f\u0131m y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yayg\u0131n bir dedikodu vard\u0131. Bu nedenle ismini verdi\u011fim isimler beni yeniden kendi saflar\u0131na katmak i\u00e7in \u00e7abalar oldu. Ancak ben devam eden toplant\u0131lar\u0131na kat\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131m i\u00e7in genel m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fck i\u00e7inde bana kar\u015f\u0131 bu yap\u0131 bana tav\u0131rl\u0131yd\u0131. Hatta genel m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc bana kar\u015f\u0131 k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rtt\u0131lar. H.K.[,] genel m\u00fcd\u00fcr karadenizli, istedi\u011fim gibi dolduruyorum. Adam gaza geliyor. Tarz\u0131nda konu\u015fuyordu.<\/p>\n
iii. \u0130.O.: “Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda [D.M.C.]in yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131yd\u0131. Fetullah G\u00fclen cemaat mensuplar\u0131n\u0131n istedi\u011fi ve bu cemaatin kontenjan\u0131ndan Yarg\u0131tay \u00fcyeli\u011fine se\u00e7ilmi\u015ftir. Kendisini fazla tan\u0131mam.”<\/p>\n
iv. K.T.: “Fetullah G\u00fclen cemaati mensubu oldu\u011funu biliyorum”.<\/p>\n
v. M.K.\u00d6.: “Fetullah G\u00fclen cemaati mensubudur. Kendisini tan\u0131r\u0131m.”<\/p>\n
vi. N.\u00d6.: “Fetullah G\u00fclen cemaati mensubu olarak bilinen [A.Y.], H.K. ve [\u0130.T.A.] odama gelip sohbet ediyorlard\u0131.”<\/p>\n
vii. \u00d6.K.: “Fetullah G\u00fclen cemaat mensuplar\u0131n\u0131n Yarg\u0131tay \u00fcyeli\u011fine se\u00e7tirdi\u011fi isimlerden olmas\u0131 nedeniyle tan\u0131yorum.”<\/p>\n
viii. T.T.: “Ben Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y Adliyesinde staja ba\u015flad\u0131ktan sonra, stajyer olan sonradan Yarg\u0131tay \u00fcyesi olan [R.\u00c7.] beni ziyarete geldi. Kendisinin oturdu\u011fu Aksaray Horhor’daki evine davet etti. Bu evde stajyerler kal\u0131yordu. Bu evde namaz k\u0131lar, sohbet eder, \u00e7ay i\u00e7erdik. Ben bu evde [A.A.], H. K. ile tan\u0131\u015ft\u0131m.” <\/p>\n
ix. Gizli tan\u0131k Sinop, gerek ikili sohbetlerde gerekse g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 adliyelerde FET\u00d6 mensubu oldu\u011funu duydu\u011fu ki\u015filer aras\u0131nda H. K.’\u0131n da bulundu\u011funu s\u00f6ylemi\u015ftir. Di\u011fer taraftan B.E. de \u015f\u00fcphelinin bu yap\u0131ya mensup olanlar aras\u0131nda ismini saym\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. Haz\u0131rlanan iddianame, Yarg\u0131tay 9. Ceza Dairesi (Daire) taraf\u0131ndan 6\/11\/2017 tarihinde kabul edilmi\u015f ve yarg\u0131lama ba\u015flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. D\u00fczenlenen tensip zapt\u0131nda, di\u011fer hususlar\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra, ba\u015fvurucunun 4\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun 177. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca tan\u0131k ve bilirki\u015fi davetini veya savunma delillerinin toplanmas\u0131n\u0131 istemesi h\u00e2linde, ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu olaylar\u0131 g\u00f6stermek suretiyle bu husustaki dilek\u00e7esini duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fcnden en az be\u015f g\u00fcn \u00f6nce verebilece\u011finin bildirilmesine ve duru\u015fman\u0131n 13\/12\/2017 tarihinde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu tensip zapt\u0131, ba\u015fvurucuya 20\/11\/2017 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu 12\/12\/2017 tarihinde savunma dilek\u00e7esi sunmu\u015f; tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131yla ilgili k\u0131s\u0131mda s\u00f6z konusu ifadeleri kabul etmedi\u011fini, tan\u0131klar\u0131n cezadan kurtulabilmek i\u00e7in aleyhe beyanda bulundu\u011funu ve bu \u015fah\u0131slar\u0131n tan\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilmemesi gerekti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f; hakk\u0131nda beyanda bulunan tan\u0131klara ili\u015fkin olarak a\u00e7\u0131klamalarda bulunmu\u015ftur. Bylock mesaj\u0131nda yaz\u0131lanlar\u0131 da kabul etmedi\u011fini, bu yaz\u0131\u015fmalarda kendisinden \u00f6rg\u00fct \u00fcyesi olarak bahsedildi\u011fine dair bir ibare olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, Bylock kullan\u0131c\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmesini, kendinin ve 12 ya\u015f\u0131ndaki \u00e7ocu\u011funun ismini ne maksatla yazd\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n sorulmas\u0131n\u0131 istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. \u0130lk duru\u015fmada ba\u015fvurucu, yaz\u0131l\u0131 olarak sundu\u011fu savunmas\u0131n\u0131 duru\u015fmada da aynen dile getirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafii de tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n soyut oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015f ve m\u00fcvekkilinin tahliyesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Duru\u015fma sonunda eksik evrak\u0131n ikmal edilmesi i\u00e7in duru\u015fman\u0131n 5\/3\/2018 tarihine ertelenmesine ve ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda beyanda bulunan tan\u0131klardan Ankara d\u00e2hilinde bulunanlar\u0131n zorla getirilmelerine, Ankara d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda olduklar\u0131 belirlenenlerin ise beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in bulunduklar\u0131 yer N\u00f6bet\u00e7i A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine talimat yaz\u0131lmas\u0131na, ayr\u0131ca yaz\u0131lacak talimata san\u0131k m\u00fcdafilerinin tan\u0131klar\u0131n dinlenmesi hususundaki duru\u015fmalardan haberdar edilmesinin istenmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Tan\u0131klardan T.T.nin talimat yoluyla al\u0131nan ifadesi s\u0131ras\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafiileri yap\u0131lan tebligata ra\u011fmen kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130stanbul 14. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince 19\/2\/2018 tarihinde beyan\u0131 al\u0131nan T.T., etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k kapsam\u0131nda daha \u00f6nce verdi\u011fi ifadelerine benzer \u015fekilde tan\u0131kl\u0131k yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu kapsamda 1992-1994 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda staj yaparken ba\u015fvurucuyla tan\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendinin de yap\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011funu, ba\u015fvurucuyu o d\u00f6nemde stajyer h\u00e2kimlerin oldu\u011fu evde g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, bir y\u0131l boyunca bu eve gidip geldi\u011fini, ba\u015fvurucunun bu evde kalmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fcdafii ile haz\u0131r oldu\u011fu 5\/3\/2018 tarihli celsede, yedi tan\u0131k dinlenilmi\u015ftir. Bu tan\u0131klar; ba\u015fvurucu ile ge\u00e7mi\u015fte bir tan\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, g\u00fcnl\u00fck hayatta ba\u015fvurucuyla i\u015f d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda vakit ge\u00e7irip ge\u00e7irmedi\u011fini, Yarg\u0131tay \u00fcyeli\u011fine ba\u015fvurucunun nas\u0131l se\u00e7ildi\u011fini anlatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu kapsamda tan\u0131klar, ba\u015fvurucuyla ilgili kanaatlerini olu\u015fturan hususlar\u0131 ge\u00e7mi\u015fte g\u00f6revi esnas\u0131nda ya\u015fad\u0131klar\u0131 olaylar \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde anlatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tan\u0131klardan baz\u0131lar\u0131 ise daha \u00f6nceki ifadelerinin tutana\u011fa eksik veya yanl\u0131\u015f ge\u00e7irildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak gerek ba\u015fvurucu gerekse de ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafii soru sorabilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Bu kapsamda tan\u0131klardan \u0130.O.nun Daire huzurundaki ifadelerinin bir k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015fu \u015fekildedir:<\/p>\n
i. “… 2010 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan HSK se\u00e7imlerinden sonra Yarg\u0131tay ve Dan\u0131\u015ftay’a se\u00e7ilecek yeni \u00fcyelerin belirlenmesi i\u00e7in HSK \u00fcyelerinden 8 arkada\u015f\u0131n\u0131n kendilerini [M.K.]n\u0131n evine davet ettiklerini, [A.H.] ve [B.E.] ile buraya gittiklerinde, [T.G.], [A.B.], [B.\u00c7.], [N.\u00d6.], [H.S], [R.Y.], [A.K.] ve [\u00d6.K.]nun orada oldu\u011funu g\u00f6rd\u00fcklerini, HSK Genel Sekreteri [M.K.], Genel Sekreter Yard\u0131mc\u0131lar\u0131 [E.D.] ve [M.B.]\u0131n, Yarg\u0131tay savc\u0131s\u0131 [A.B.] ile [N.D.], [\u00d6.A.] ve hat\u0131rlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kadar\u0131yla [M.\u00d6.]in orada olduklar\u0131n\u0131, uyumlu hareket etmenin \u00f6nemine vurgu yap\u0131lmas\u0131ndan sonra, orada bulunanlar\u0131n, 350 civar\u0131nda isim tespit ettiklerini, bu isimler aras\u0131ndan se\u00e7im yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde amac\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fece\u011fini s\u00f6ylediklerini, kendilerinin de sadece tespit edilen bu isimler aras\u0131ndan se\u00e7im yapamayacaklar\u0131n\u0131, zira HSK Genel Kurulunda birlikte hareket etmeleri gereken 6 \u00fcyenin orada olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, onlar\u0131n da kendilerinin de adaylar\u0131 oldu\u011funu, ancak listeye bakabileceklerini s\u00f6ylediklerini, bunun \u00fczerine isimleri tek tek de\u011ferlendirmeye ge\u00e7tiklerini, 160 ki\u015finin tamam\u0131n\u0131n o listeden se\u00e7ilmeyece\u011fini s\u00f6yleyince orada, se\u00e7ilmesine kesin g\u00f6z\u00fcyle bakt\u0131klar\u0131 isimler \u00fczerinde fazla durmadan daha ziyade kendilerine yak\u0131n ki\u015filer \u00fczerinde durma \u015feklinde bir refleks geli\u015ftirildi\u011fini, kendilerinin bu say\u0131y\u0131 olabildi\u011fince d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrmek i\u00e7in, di\u011ferlerinin ise bu say\u0131y\u0131 art\u0131rmak i\u00e7in \u00e7abalad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu \u015fekildeki m\u00fczakereler sonucunda 80 ismin ilk elemeyi ge\u00e7ti\u011fini, san\u0131k H.K.’\u0131n da bu 80 ki\u015fi i\u00e7erisinde oldu\u011funu, yani orada \u00f6nerilen isimlerden birisi oldu\u011funu, k\u0131demi, sicili ve Bakanl\u0131ktaki Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcr Yard\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 pozisyonu itibar\u0131yla engel bir durumunun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendilerinin de bir itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, se\u00e7ilmesinden sonra san\u0131\u011f\u0131n 4. Hukuk Dairesinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, eski m\u00fcste\u015far [A.K.] hakk\u0131ndaki tamam\u0131 iftira dolu, gayrime\u015fru ili\u015fkisi oldu\u011fu ve gayrime\u015fru \u00e7ocu\u011fu bulundu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde Cemaate yak\u0131n bir internet sitesinde \u00e7\u0131kan haberden sonra tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131p ilk derece mahkemesinde davay\u0131 kazanmas\u0131n\u0131 m\u00fcteakiben 4. Hukuk Dairesinde karar\u0131n ele\u015ftiri s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle bozulmas\u0131, yani [A.K.]\u0131n aleyhine karar verilmesi s\u00fcrecinde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n da bozma y\u00f6n\u00fcnde oy kullanmas\u0131ndan sonra [A.K.]\u0131n, ‘Biz bu arkada\u015f\u0131n se\u00e7ilmesini istedik, bizim Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcr Yard\u0131mc\u0131m\u0131zd\u0131, bu kadar iftiraya b\u00f6yle bir \u015fey nas\u0131l yapar, \u00fcstelik birlikte \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z arkada\u015flar.’ diyerek k\u0131zd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 hat\u0131rlad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 2013 y\u0131l\u0131nda Cemaatin Yarg\u0131taydaki a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 etkinli\u011fini k\u0131rmak amac\u0131yla d\u00fczenledikleri yemeklere Cemaatle birlikte hareket etti\u011fi i\u00e7in san\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7a\u011f\u0131rmad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131,..”<\/p>\n
ii. Tan\u0131klardan B.E.nin Daire huzurundaki ifadesi \u015fu \u015fekildedir:<\/p>\n
“San\u0131k H. K.’la ilgili bilgilerinin Aral\u0131k 2013 \u00f6ncesi d\u00f6neme ait oldu\u011funu, san\u0131\u011f\u0131 Ceza Tevkifevleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde E\u011fitim Merkezi M\u00fcd\u00fcr Yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 ve Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcr Yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 nedeniyle tan\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, san\u0131kla yak\u0131n tan\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak bir personelci olarak san\u0131\u011f\u0131n Cemaate yak\u0131n birisi oldu\u011funu bildi\u011fini, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n 2011 y\u0131l\u0131nda bakanl\u0131ktan Yarg\u0131taya ve Dan\u0131\u015ftaya se\u00e7ilen 10’dan fazla ki\u015fiden birisi oldu\u011funu, se\u00e7im s\u0131ras\u0131nda hem Cemaat mensubu HSK \u00fcyeleri taraf\u0131ndan desteklendi\u011fini, hem de siyasi referans\u0131 oldu\u011funu hat\u0131rlad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131”<\/p>\n
iii. Tan\u0131klardan K.T.nin Daire huzurundaki ifadesi \u015fu \u015fekildedir:<\/p>\n
“San\u0131\u011f\u0131 o zamanki ad\u0131yla Cemaat toplant\u0131s\u0131nda birebir hi\u00e7 g\u00f6rmedi\u011fini, 4. Hukuk Dairesindeki ve 9. Ceza Dairesindeki \u00fcyelerin \u00e7o\u011funun Cemaat \u00fcyesi oldu\u011funun s\u00f6ylendi\u011fini, gerek 17-25 Aral\u0131k 2013 \u00f6ncesinde gerekse sonras\u0131nda Yarg\u0131tay koridorlar\u0131nda ya da ikili toplant\u0131larda, sohbetlerde, m\u00fczakerelerde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n Cemaat mensubu oldu\u011funun s\u00f6ylendi\u011fini, ancak somut bir bilgisinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131,”<\/p>\n
iv. Tan\u0131klardan \u00d6.K.nin Daire huzurundaki ifadesi \u015fu \u015fekildedir:<\/p>\n
” HSK \u00fcyesi se\u00e7ilmeden \u00f6nce san\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir kez Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 CTE Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcr Yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 iken makam\u0131nda ziyaret etti\u011fini, 24.02.2011 tarihinde yap\u0131lan Yarg\u0131tay \u00dcyeli\u011fi se\u00e7iminde, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n Bakanl\u0131ktan gelmesi nedeniyle M\u00fcste\u015far\u0131n tasvibi ile se\u00e7ildi\u011fini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, ancak se\u00e7imden sonra san\u0131\u011f\u0131n da Cemaat cenah\u0131ndan se\u00e7ildi\u011finin HSK kulislerinde konu\u015fuldu\u011funu”<\/p>\n
v. Tan\u0131klardan M.K.\u00d6.n\u00fcn Daire huzurundaki ifadesi \u015fu \u015fekildedir:<\/p>\n
” San\u0131k H. K.’\u0131 Bakanl\u0131\u011fa gelmesinden sonra tan\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, gerek Bakanl\u0131kta iken, gerekse Yarg\u0131taya se\u00e7ilmesinden sonra sohbet, Cemaat anlam\u0131nda bir diyalo\u011funun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, eski M\u00fcste\u015far [A.K.]\u0131n davac\u0131 oldu\u011fu tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n 4. Hukuk Dairesinde bozulmas\u0131nda davac\u0131 m\u00fcste\u015far aleyhine oy kullanmas\u0131ndan sonra san\u0131\u011f\u0131n da Cemaat mensubu oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki s\u00f6zleri [A.H.]den duydu\u011funu, 2011’de Yarg\u0131taya se\u00e7ilmesini Bakan\u0131n istedi\u011fini duydu\u011funu, 2013’te internette yay\u0131nlanan Cemaat\u00e7i listesinde ad\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011funu, Bakanl\u0131kta kendisiyle ilgili s\u00f6ylenenlerin Cemaat\u00e7i oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde oldu\u011funu,<\/p>\n
vi. Tan\u0131klardan A.H.nin Daire huzurundaki ifadesi \u00f6zetle \u015fu \u015fekildedir:<\/p>\n
“2011 y\u0131l\u0131nda san\u0131\u011f\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u00dcyeli\u011fine se\u00e7tiklerini, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n listesinde de oldu\u011funu, Cemaat\u00e7i Kurul \u00dcyeleri taraf\u0131ndan da istendi\u011fini, yani konsens\u00fcs ile se\u00e7ildi\u011fini, se\u00e7imden \u00f6nce HSK Genel Sekreteri [M.K.]n\u0131n daveti \u00fczerine onun evinde topland\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, haz\u0131rlanan 350-400 ki\u015filik listenin projeksiyon ile duvara yans\u0131t\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, tek tek isimler \u00fczerinde konu\u015fuldu\u011funu, bu isimler aras\u0131nda Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan se\u00e7ilenleri hat\u0131rlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n Bakanl\u0131k listesinde ad\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011funu, buna Cemaat\u00e7i Kurul \u00dcyelerinin itiraz etmedi\u011fini, se\u00e7elim dediklerini, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n isminin 350-400 ki\u015filik listede ad\u0131n\u0131n olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 hat\u0131rlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, Erzincan eski Ba\u015fsavc\u0131s\u0131 [\u0130.C.]i makam\u0131ndan al\u0131p tutuklanmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan [O.\u015e.]\u0131n g\u00f6rev yerinin de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesi ile ilgili g\u00fcndem toplant\u0131s\u0131na o zamanki m\u00fcste\u015far [A.K.]\u0131n kat\u0131lmamas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bask\u0131 oldu\u011funu, buna ra\u011fmen m\u00fcste\u015far\u0131n toplant\u0131ya kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve [O.\u015e.]\u0131n g\u00f6rev yerinin de\u011fi\u015ftirildi\u011fini, bunun hemen sonras\u0131nda Cemaat\u00e7i oldu\u011fu bilinen aktifhaber.com isimli internet sitesinde M\u00fcste\u015far\u0131n saunadan \u00e7\u0131kmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, hamamda keyfetti\u011fi, gayrime\u015fru bir e\u015fi ve \u00e7ocu\u011fu bulundu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde \u00f6zel hayat\u0131na ili\u015fkin haber yay\u0131nland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, [A.K.]\u0131n tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, [A.K.]dan duydu\u011funa g\u00f6re, dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131ndan sonra bu internet sitesinin avukat\u0131n\u0131n [A.K.]n\u0131n yan\u0131na giderek ‘Siz bu davadan vazge\u00e7in, biz de haberi internet sitesinden kald\u0131ral\u0131m’ diye teklifte bulundu\u011funu, [A.K.]n\u0131n konu\u015fmaya gerek g\u00f6rmeden avukat\u0131 kovdu\u011funu, bu davay\u0131 [A.K.]n\u0131n kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dosyan\u0131n temyiz i\u00e7in Yarg\u0131taya geldi\u011fini, karar\u0131n Yarg\u0131tayda bozuldu\u011funu, bozmadan sonra [A.K.]la sohbet ettikleri s\u0131rada [A.K.]n\u0131n kendisine, ‘Bizim se\u00e7ti\u011fimiz isimler, senin hem\u015fehrin H\u00fcseyin Bey de var i\u015fin i\u00e7inde, bu nas\u0131l vefas\u0131zl\u0131k, ben bu davada haks\u0131z de\u011filim, iftira at\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131, bunu Cemaatin zorlamas\u0131yla, s\u0131rf Cemaate ait bir site tazminat \u00f6demeye mahk\u00fbm olmas\u0131n diye bu gen\u00e7ler yapt\u0131.’ diyerek sitemde bulundu\u011funu”<\/p>\n
vii. Tan\u0131k N.\u00d6.n\u00fcn Daire huzurundaki ifadesi \u00f6zetle \u015fu \u015fekildedir:<\/p>\n
“Ergenekon davas\u0131na bakan h\u00e2kimler hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan tazminat davalar\u0131na bakan Daire olmas\u0131 nedeniyle 4. Hukuk Dairesinin yap\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6zellikle de\u011fi\u015ftirildi\u011fini, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n da burada \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 nedeniyle onun da Cemaat mensubu oldu\u011funu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, 17-25 Aral\u0131k yarg\u0131 darbe giri\u015fimi sonras\u0131nda bu yap\u0131da acayip bir de\u011fi\u015fiklik oldu\u011funu, daha \u00f6nceden kendisine selam vermeyen insanlar\u0131n selam vermeye ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bunlardan birinin de san\u0131k H. K.oldu\u011funu, soru\u015fturma a\u015famas\u0131ndaki, \u201cFetullah G\u00fclen Cemaati mensubu olarak bilinen …, H.K. ve … odama gelip sohbet ediyorlard\u0131.\u201d \u015feklindeki ifadesinin do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131,”<\/p>\n
10. Celse sonunda tan\u0131k C.G.nin talimat yoluyla dinlenilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131nda ge\u00e7mesi \u00fczerine Adalet Bakan\u0131 eski m\u00fcste\u015far\u0131 A.K.n\u0131n FET\u00d6\/PDY’ye m\u00fczahir bir haber sitesinde yay\u0131mlanan haberden dolay\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 manevi tazminat davas\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay 4. Hukuk Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan davac\u0131 aleyhine verilen bozma karar\u0131 istenmi\u015ftir. Bir sonraki celsenin 7\/6\/2018 tarihinde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Celse aras\u0131nda Bylock yaz\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131nda 59344 ve 57171 ID No.lu ki\u015filerin kimlik bilgilerinin tespit edildi\u011fine dair Yarg\u0131tay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 15\/3\/2018 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131 sunulmu\u015ftur. Bu kapsamda yap\u0131lan yaz\u0131\u015fman\u0131n Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n eski bir \u00fcyesi olan A.A. ile\u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn bir “sivil imam\u0131” aras\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. \u0130lgili yaz\u0131\u015fmalar \u015fu \u015fekildedir:<\/p>\n
“59344 ID [A.A.]dan 57171 ID [C.K.]ya: \u2018H\u00fcseyin bey ve Bilal beyin notlar\u0131na cevap<\/p>\n
alabildik mi abi\u2019 saat: 00.09.24 <\/p>\n
59344 ID [A.A.]dan 57171 ID [C.K.]ya: \u2018H. K.\u2019 saat: 00.10.52<\/p>\n
59344 ID [A.A.]dan 57171 ID [C.K.]ya: \u2018O\u011flu Elvankentte \u00f6zel okulda 7. s\u0131n\u0131f\u2019 saat:<\/p>\n
00.11.31<\/p>\n
59344 ID [A.A.]dan 57171 ID [C.K.]ya: \u2018Okulun ad\u0131n\u0131 \u015fimdi hat\u0131rlam\u0131yorum. H…<\/p>\n
K.\u2019 saat: 00.12.05<\/p>\n
59344 ID [A.A.]dan 57171 ID [C.K.]ya: \u2018G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fen abisi, H…\u2019ya ve arkada\u015flar\u0131na<\/p>\n
Babalar\u0131n\u0131z\u0131n gruplar\u0131 var m\u0131, grup abisi kim, ismi ne\u2019 gibi sorular sormu\u015f\u2019 saat: 00.13.40<\/p>\n
59344 ID [A.A.]dan 57171 ID [C.K.]ya: \u2018Do\u011fal olarak baba da i\u015fkillenmi\u015f. O g\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
beri \u00e7ocu\u011fu g\u00f6ndermiyor\u2019 saat:00.14.34<\/p>\n
59344 ID [A.A.]dan 57171 ID [C.K.]ya: \u2018Teyit i\u00e7in haber bekliyor\u2019 saat: 00.15.15<\/p>\n
59344 ID [A.A.]dan 57171 ID [C.K.]ya: \u2018Bug\u00fcn yine sordu. \u00c7abukla\u015ft\u0131rabilirsek iyi<\/p>\n
olur\u2019 saat: 00.15.58″<\/p>\n
12. Celse aras\u0131nda ayr\u0131ca Yarg\u0131tay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 19\/3\/2018 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n ekinde ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda beyanda bulunan ve eski bir Cumhuriyet savc\u0131s\u0131 olan A.\u00d6.n\u00fcn ifadeleri yer alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yine 2\/4\/2018 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda beyanda bulunan ve etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k kapsam\u0131nda ifade veren B.\u00dc. isimli bir \u015f\u00fcphelinin beyan\u0131 ilk kez dosyaya girmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. \u00d6te yandan tan\u0131k C.G., K\u0131r\u0131kkale 2. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince talimat yoluyla 22\/5\/2018 tarihinde dinlenilmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu duru\u015fmaya ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafiileri yap\u0131lan tebli\u011fe ra\u011fmen kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu tan\u0131k ifadesinde \u015funlar\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir:<\/p>\n
“Ben san\u0131\u011f\u0131 Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Ceza Tevkifevleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde ikimizde Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcr Yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmam\u0131z nedeniyle tan\u0131yorum. Birlikte \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z s\u00fcre boyunca tan\u0131\u011f\u0131m ve bildi\u011fim kadar\u0131 ile FET\u00d6\/PDY den oldu\u011funu biliyorum. \u0130kimiz Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcr Yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011fumuz i\u00e7in birlikte yine Bakanl\u0131kta Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcr Yard\u0131mc\u0131lar\u0131 olan [M.K.\u00d6.], …, …, …, …, …’larla birlikte hat\u0131rlad\u0131\u011f\u0131m kadar\u0131 ile bir ka\u00e7 toplant\u0131ya kat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131k. Kendisi daha sonra HSYK n\u0131n ilk listesinden Yarg\u0131tay \u00dcyesi se\u00e7ildi. Ondan sonra kendisi ile hi\u00e7 bir g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmem olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ben Ceza Tevkifevleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131m tarihlerde H.K. bana Daire Ba\u015fkan\u0131 [R.\u0130.B.]in Bakanl\u0131kta ve Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fckte eski oldu\u011funu, bize anlataca\u011f\u0131 \u015feyler oldu\u011funu, evine gidip bir \u00e7ay\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7orbas\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7ersek daha kolay anlataca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6yledi. R. Daire Ba\u015fkan\u0131, ben Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcr Yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131y\u0131m, bana Bakanl\u0131kta anlatamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 evinde anlataca\u011f\u0131 ne olabilir, ne anlatacaksa gelsin burada anlats\u0131n diyerek kabul etmedim. Bir keresinde de H. K. ‘Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcr Karadenizli, istedi\u011fim gibi dolduruyorum, adam gaza geliyor’ tarz\u0131nda konu\u015fuyordu. O zamanki Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcr [N.K.]d\u0131. Ben toplant\u0131lar\u0131na kat\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131m i\u00e7in FET\u00d6’c\u00fc olan Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fck \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131 bana kar\u015f\u0131 mobbing uyguluyor, hatta Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc bana kar\u015f\u0131 k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rt\u0131yordu. Daha \u00f6nce Savc\u0131l\u0131kta verdi\u011fim ifadelerimde san\u0131kla ilgili ifadelerimi aynen tekrar ederim. “<\/p>\n
14. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc celsede ba\u015fvurucunun, tan\u0131k C.G.nin ifadesine ili\u015fkin beyanlar\u0131 al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan bu tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyanlar\u0131 ile huzurda dinlenen M.K.\u00d6.n\u00fcn beyanlar\u0131 aras\u0131nda \u00e7eli\u015fki oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclerek M.K.\u00d6.n\u00fcn bir kez daha dinlenilmesi istenmi\u015ftir. Yine Yarg\u0131tay 4. Hukuk Dairesinde o d\u00f6nem g\u00f6revli olan \u00fcyelerin de dinlenebilece\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca celse aras\u0131nda ifadeleri dosyaya giren ki\u015filerin ve gizli tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n dinlenilmesi Cumhuriyet savc\u0131s\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan talep edilmi\u015ftir. Daire, ilgili ki\u015filerin dinlenmesi talebini kovu\u015fturmaya bir katk\u0131 sa\u011flamayaca\u011f\u0131 kanaatiyle reddetmi\u015ftir. Esas hakk\u0131nda m\u00fctalaa al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in duru\u015fma ertelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. D\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc celsede Yarg\u0131tay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n esas hakk\u0131ndaki m\u00fctalaas\u0131 al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiinin talebi \u00fczerine s\u00fcre verilerek duru\u015fma ertelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. Son celsede savunma tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 olan ve Bylock yaz\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131nda ismi ge\u00e7en ba\u015fvurucunun o\u011flu, m\u00fcdafinin talebi \u00fczerine duru\u015fmada dinlenilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun son savunmas\u0131 al\u0131nd\u0131ktan sonra ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyeli\u011fi nedeniyle 8 y\u0131l 9 ay hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 cihetine gidilmi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7enin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015fu \u015fekildedir:<\/p>\n
“…<\/p>\n
san\u0131\u011f\u0131[n] hakimlik staj\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nemden itibaren \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde oldu\u011fu, sonraki her d\u00f6nemde \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn sohbet ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi \u00f6rg\u00fctsel toplant\u0131lar\u0131na d\u00fczenli olarak kat\u0131l\u0131p, \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn emir ve talimatlar\u0131na uygun olarak hareket ederek yarg\u0131 mahrem yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 i\u00e7erisinde yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00f6rg\u00fcte ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kesintisiz devam ettirdi\u011fi, 24.02.2011 tarihinde FET\u00d6\/PDY mensubu oldu\u011fu iddia edilen HSYK \u00fcyelerinin deste\u011fi ile Yarg\u0131tay \u00fcyesi olarak se\u00e7ildikten sonra ise \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn Yarg\u0131tay yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 i\u00e7erisinde yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131, … gerekti\u011finde \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131na uygun olarak karar verdi\u011fi, \u00e7ocu\u011funun e\u011fitiminin \u00f6rg\u00fct taraf\u0131ndan takip edildi\u011fi, kendisinin ByLock kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair tespit yap\u0131lamam\u0131\u015f ise de; \u00f6rg\u00fct i\u00e7erisinde san\u0131\u011fa g\u00f6re daha etkin konumda oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn ba\u015fka mensuplar\u0131n\u0131n ByLock yaz\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131na g\u00f6re 12.11.2015 tarihi itibariyle san\u0131\u011f\u0131n da FET\u00d6\/PDY silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn bir mensubu oldu\u011fu, \u00f6rg\u00fct liderinin Bank Asya\u2019y\u0131 kurtarma talimat\u0131ndan sonra bizzat kendisi ad\u0131na hesap a\u00e7\u0131p para yat\u0131rmasa da birlikte ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 e\u015finin kat\u0131l\u0131m hesab\u0131 a\u00e7arak alt\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131 bu bankaya yat\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve b\u00f6ylece \u00f6rg\u00fct liderinin talimat\u0131n\u0131 ailece yerine getirdikleri, anlat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere san\u0131\u011f\u0131n y\u0131llard\u0131r FET\u00d6\/PDY silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn hiyerar\u015fik yap\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7erisinde yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131, verilen talimatlar\u0131 yerine getirdi\u011fi ve verilebilecek talimatlar\u0131 yerine getirmeye haz\u0131r konumda oldu\u011fu, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla kendi iradesini \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn iradesine terk etti\u011fi, b\u00f6ylece \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyesi olmak su\u00e7unun unsurlar\u0131 itibariyle olu\u015ftu\u011fu kanaatine var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
… san\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00f6rg\u00fcte bilerek ve isteyerek kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn niteli\u011fi ve ama\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 ba\u015ftan itibaren bildi\u011fi, \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn bir par\u00e7as\u0131 olmay\u0131 istedi\u011fi ve bu ama\u00e7la faaliyet g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi, \u00f6rg\u00fct i\u00e7erisinde olma iradesinin devaml\u0131l\u0131k g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi, \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn kanunun su\u00e7 sayd\u0131\u011f\u0131 fiilleri i\u015flemek amac\u0131yla kurulmu\u015f bir \u00f6rg\u00fct oldu\u011funu bilerek \u00fcye olmak kas\u0131t ve iradesi ile hareket etti\u011fi, b\u00f6ylece san\u0131k a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan at\u0131l\u0131 silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olmak su\u00e7unun maddi ve manevi unsurlar\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015ftu\u011fu kanaatine var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
17. H\u00fck\u00fcm ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafii taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir. Sadece ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafiinin temyiz talebinin usule uygun oldu\u011fu kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Bu kapsamda yap\u0131lan incelemede Yarg\u0131tay Ceza Genel Kurulu h\u00fckm\u00fcn onanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca kovu\u015fturma a\u015famas\u0131nda gerek huzurda gerekse de talimat yoluyla dinlenilen tan\u0131klar\u0131n kendileriyle ilgili soru\u015fturmalardaki ilk beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n da dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca Bylock yaz\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 temyiz incelemesinin reddedilme sebepleri aras\u0131nda yer almaktad\u0131r. Karar gerek\u00e7esinde tan\u0131k dinletilmesi taleplerinin de\u011ferlendirilmesi ve beyanlar\u0131 h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan dinlenilme usulleri k\u0131sm\u0131nda yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirme \u015fu \u015fekildedir:<\/p>\n
“…Dosyan\u0131n incelenmesinde; beyanlar\u0131 h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan tan\u0131klar\u0131n kendi haklar\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen soru\u015fturmalarda m\u00fcdafileri huzurunda al\u0131nan ifadelerinde kendi iradeleriyle beyanda bulunmu\u015f olmalar\u0131, a\u015famalarda herhangi bir kimse taraf\u0131ndan kendilerine hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 vaatte bulundu\u011funa ya da bu y\u00f6nde zorland\u0131klar\u0131na dair delile dayanan somut iddialar\u0131n\u0131n bulunmamas\u0131, kovu\u015fturma a\u015famas\u0131nda yap\u0131lan oturumlarda ayr\u0131nt\u0131lar\u0131 SEGB\u0130S kay\u0131tlar\u0131ndan da anla\u015f\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere kendilerine tan\u0131kl\u0131\u011fa ili\u015fkin kanuni haklar\u0131n\u0131n hat\u0131rlat\u0131lmas\u0131, her birinin tan\u0131kl\u0131k yapacaklar\u0131n\u0131 ve yemin de edeceklerini s\u00f6yleyerek san\u0131k m\u00fcdafisinin de haz\u0131r bulundu\u011fu ortamda beyanda bulunmu\u015f olmalar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda; mahkeme h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 delile dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. SEGB\u0130S kay\u0131tlar\u0131na g\u00f6re, kovu\u015fturmada dinlenen tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131 itibar\u0131yla mahkemece ayn\u0131 hususlarda yeniden tan\u0131k dinlenilmesine gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n yoklu\u011funda dinlenen tan\u0131klar\u0131n yeniden dinlenilmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki talebinin, tan\u0131klar\u0131n dinlendi\u011fi celsede san\u0131k m\u00fcdafisinin haz\u0131r oldu\u011fu, soru sorma imkan\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131, sonraki celsede de san\u0131\u011fa tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 savunma hakk\u0131n\u0131n verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan san\u0131k ve m\u00fcdafisinin tan\u0131k dinletme ve dinlenen tan\u0131klar\u0131n yeniden dinletilmesine y\u00f6nelik taleplerinin reddine karar verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda; mahkemenin bu y\u00f6ndeki takdirinin yeterli gerek\u00e7eyi i\u00e7erdi\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.”<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 2\/5\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 15\/5\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur<\/p>\n
19. Komisyon; adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne, tan\u0131k dinletme ve sorgulama hakk\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa, an\u0131lan hakka ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
A. Tan\u0131k Sorgulama Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvurucu; talimat yoluyla dinlenen ki\u015filerin beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n kendisinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ortamda al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu tan\u0131klar\u0131n soru\u015fturma ve kovu\u015fturma esnas\u0131ndaki ifadeleri aras\u0131nda \u00e7eli\u015fki oldu\u011funu, \u00e7eli\u015fkili beyanlar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131klat\u0131lmas\u0131na izin verilmedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
21. Bakanl\u0131k tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131 sunmu\u015f; tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda gerek\u00e7eli kararda yer verilen de\u011ferlendirmeler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fc kuruldu\u011funu, mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, A\u0130HM ve Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 ile somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc \u015fartlar\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131narak de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi \u015feklinde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda formdaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
22. Ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131 tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
23. 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 -sadece 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
24. 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\u0131\u011f\u0131n verdi\u011fi 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 zorluklar\u0131n telafi edilmesi amac\u0131yla yeterli d\u00fczeyde kar\u015f\u0131 dengeleyici g\u00fcvenceler sa\u011flayan bir usul\u00fcn y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcl\u00fcp y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmedi\u011fi ortaya konulmal\u0131d\u0131r (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\u0131k 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 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). Duru\u015fmada 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
25. Somut olayda Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun aleyhinde beyanda bulunan tan\u0131klar T.T. ve C.G.nin istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nan beyanlar\u0131 (bkz. s\u0131ras\u0131yla \u00a7 7, \u00a7 13) ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiine okunmu\u015f ancak tan\u0131klar\u0131n huzurda dinlenilmesine ili\u015fkin herhangi bir \u00e7aba g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015ftir. Di\u011fer taraftan ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafii de verilen bilgiye ra\u011fmen tan\u0131klara soru sormak i\u00e7in talimat duru\u015fmalar\u0131na kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130lgili duru\u015fma tutana\u011f\u0131 ve gerek\u00e7eli kararda 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 tan\u0131klar taraf\u0131ndan verilen ifadelere dayal\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
26. Dairenin gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131 ve Yarg\u0131tay Ceza Genel Kurulunun temyiz talebinin reddine dair karar\u0131 birlikte ele al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan delillerin bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde tutulmas\u0131 gerekmektedir. Ba\u015fvurucunun mahk\u00fbmiyetinde ve temyiz talebinin reddedilmesinde talimat yoluyla dinlenilen tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda duru\u015fmada dinlenilen tan\u0131klar\u0131n soru\u015fturma ve kovu\u015fturma evrelerindeki ifadeleri ile di\u011fer delillerin dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Tan\u0131klar, ba\u015fvurucuyla ilgili kanaatlerini olu\u015fturan hususlar\u0131 ge\u00e7mi\u015fte g\u00f6revi esnas\u0131nda ya\u015fad\u0131klar\u0131 olaylar \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde anlatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu kapsamda \u00f6zelikle ba\u015fvurucunun 24\/2\/2011 tarihinde FET\u00d6\/PDY mensubu oldu\u011fu iddia edilen HSYK \u00fcyelerinin deste\u011fi ile Yarg\u0131tay \u00fcyesi olarak se\u00e7ildi\u011fi ve se\u00e7ildikten sonra da \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn Yarg\u0131tay yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 i\u00e7inde yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 Daire taraf\u0131ndan tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Huzurda dinlenilen tan\u0131klar\u0131n bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n o d\u00f6nemde HSYK \u00fcyesi olmas\u0131 bu ba\u011flamda \u00f6nem arz etmektedir. Di\u011fer taraftan duru\u015fmada dinlenmeyen tan\u0131klardan T.T. ba\u015fvurucunun meslek hayat\u0131na ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nemle ilgili bilgi vermi\u015f; di\u011fer tan\u0131k C.G. ise ba\u015fvurucunun Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcr Yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011fu d\u00f6nemle ilgili olarak kanaatlerini belirtmekle yetinmi\u015ftir. Huzurda dinlenen tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda talimat yoluyla dinlenen tan\u0131klar\u0131n ifadeleri tek veya belirleyici \u015fekilde ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn hiyerar\u015fik yap\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7inde yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6stermemektedir.<\/p>\n
27. Ba\u015fvurucunun sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tan\u0131klar T.T. ve C.G.nin beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n tek veya belirleyici delil olarak mahk\u00fbmiyette kullan\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmesi nedeniyle tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131yla ilgili uygulanan testin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc a\u015famas\u0131yla ilgili bir inceleme yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
28. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131n\u0131n bir ihlalin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k olmas\u0131 nedeniyle a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
B. Tan\u0131k Dinletme Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fi \u0130ddias\u0131<\/p>\n
29. Ba\u015fvurucu, huzurda dinlenilen tan\u0131klar\u0131n at\u0131f yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay bozma karar\u0131nda imzas\u0131 bulunan di\u011fer \u00fcyeler ile o d\u00f6nem Yarg\u0131tay 4. Hukuk Dairesi olan Ba\u015fkan\u0131n tan\u0131k olarak dinletilmesi taleplerinin keyf\u00ee olarak reddedildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ayr\u0131ca daha \u00f6nce ayn\u0131 g\u00f6revde bulundu\u011fu ve talimat yoluyla dinlenen C.G. adl\u0131 ki\u015finin beyan\u0131nda ge\u00e7en R.\u0130.B.nin de tan\u0131k olarak dinlenilmedi\u011finden yak\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunun yan\u0131nda savunma tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n Bylock yaz\u0131\u015fmas\u0131ndaki gibi bir konu\u015fman\u0131n ge\u00e7medi\u011fini belirtmesi kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda ilgili yaz\u0131\u015fmay\u0131 yapan Yarg\u0131tay eski \u00fcyesinin ve Bylock yaz\u0131\u015fmas\u0131nda ismi ge\u00e7en di\u011fer ki\u015finin dinlenilmemesini \u015fik\u00e2yet etmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca FET\u00d6\/PDY ile ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131 nedeniyle kapat\u0131lan Uluslararas\u0131 Hukuk ve Adalet Vakf\u0131n\u0131n kurucu \u00fcyeleri ile s\u00f6z konusu Vakfa \u00fcye olan \u00fcst d\u00fczey birka\u00e7 yarg\u0131 mensubunun dinlenilmesini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
30. Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde tan\u0131k dinletme hakk\u0131 ile ilgili olarak bir a\u00e7\u0131klamaya yer verilmemi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu; Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda son celsede tahkikat\u0131n geni\u015fletilmesi talebinde bulundu\u011funu, bu kapsamda ceza ve tevkifevleri genel m\u00fcd\u00fcr yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011fu d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin olarak a\u00e7\u0131klama yapan C.G.nin bahsetti\u011fi ki\u015filerin tan\u0131k olarak dinlenilmesini istedi\u011fini, s\u00f6z konusu ifadenin g\u00fcvenirli\u011fini test etmek istedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Di\u011fer taraftan tan\u0131k M.K.\u00d6. ile C.G.nin ifadelerinden hangi beyan\u0131na hangi gerek\u00e7eyle \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fck tan\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirtilmedi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015f ve tan\u0131k dinletilmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki di\u011fer beyanlar\u0131n\u0131 ba\u015fvuru formunda oldu\u011fu gibi tekrar etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
31. Savunma tan\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n da iddia tan\u0131klar\u0131yla ayn\u0131 ko\u015fullar alt\u0131nda davet edilmelerinin ve dinlenmelerinin sa\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 isteme hakk\u0131, silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ilkesinin bir gere\u011fidir. Tan\u0131klar\u0131n dinlenmek \u00fczere \u00e7a\u011f\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirmesi, kural olarak derece mahkemelerinin takdir yetkisi d\u00e2hilindedir. Ancak bu hak, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n lehine olan b\u00fct\u00fcn tan\u0131klar\u0131n \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 ve dinlenmesini gerektirmez. Bu d\u00fczenlemenin esas amac\u0131, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n ayn\u0131 ko\u015fullar alt\u0131nda ve silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ilkesi ne uygun olarak tan\u0131k dinletme talebinde bulunabilmesinin sa\u011flanmas\u0131d\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla bir san\u0131\u011f\u0131n baz\u0131 tan\u0131klar\u0131 dinletemedi\u011finden \u015fik\u00e2yet etmesi yeterli olmay\u0131p ayr\u0131ca bu tan\u0131klar\u0131n dinlenmesinin hangi nedenlerle \u00f6nemli oldu\u011funu ve ger\u00e7e\u011fin ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131 i\u00e7in neden gerekli oldu\u011funu a\u00e7\u0131klamak suretiyle tan\u0131k dinletme talebini desteklemesi gerekmektedir (Atila O\u011fuz Boyal\u0131, B. No: 2013\/99, 20\/3\/2014, \u00a7 47; Ahmet Zeki \u00dc\u00e7ok, B. No: 2013\/1966, 25\/3\/2015, \u00a7 70, Ali F\u0131rt\u0131na, B. No: 2014\/14575, 6\/7\/2017, \u00a7 27).<\/p>\n
32. Ba\u015fvurucu, ilk celse tarihinden bir g\u00fcn \u00f6nce sundu\u011fu yaz\u0131l\u0131 savunmas\u0131nda Bylock mesaj\u0131nda yaz\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu iddialar\u0131 kabul etmemi\u015f; kullan\u0131c\u0131lar\u0131n tespit edilmesini ve yaz\u0131lar\u0131n ne maksatla sorulmas\u0131n\u0131 istemi\u015ftir. Ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde taleplerini s\u00f6zl\u00fc olarak da birinci celsede bildirmi\u015ftir. Di\u011fer taraftan ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda huzurda beyanlar\u0131 al\u0131nan tan\u0131klar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucunun da imza att\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir karardan bahsetmeleri \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu ile beraber ayn\u0131 Hukuk Dairesinde g\u00f6rev yapan Daire Ba\u015fkan\u0131n\u0131n ve di\u011fer \u00fcyelerin tan\u0131k olarak dinlenilmesini istemi\u015ftir. Yine ba\u015fvurucu, talimat yoluyla dinlenilen C.G.nin ifadeleri \u00fczerine Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 eski bir Daire Ba\u015fkan\u0131 R.\u0130.B.nin de dinlenilmemesini \u015fik\u00e2yet etmi\u015ftir. Daire kovu\u015fturmaya bir katk\u0131 sa\u011flamayaca\u011f\u0131 kanaatiyle gerek ba\u015fvurucunun gerekse de Cumhuriyet savc\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n taleplerini reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
33. \u00d6ncelikle ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda Bylock yaz\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 olarak yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, A.A. taraf\u0131ndan di\u011fer ki\u015fiye Bylock \u00fczerinden mesaj g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi ve di\u011fer ki\u015fi taraf\u0131ndan cevap mahiyetinde bir mesaj g\u00f6nderilmedi\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu kapsamda dinlenilmesi istenilen ki\u015finin esas olarak Yarg\u0131tay eski \u00fcyesi A.A. oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bununla birlikte ba\u015fvurucunun A.A.n\u0131n dinletilmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde herhangi bir giri\u015fimde bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu iddiay\u0131 \u00e7\u00fcr\u00fctmek amac\u0131yla o\u011flunun duru\u015fmada dinlenilmesini istedi\u011fi, o\u011flunun da duru\u015fmada dinlenildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde iddia edildi\u011finin aksine usul\u00fcne uygun \u015fekilde sunuldu\u011fu kabul edilen ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafinin temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde tan\u0131k A.A.n\u0131n dinlenilmesi gerekti\u011fine y\u00f6nelik bir \u015fik\u00e2yet de bulunmamaktad\u0131r. A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle A.A. y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131nda daha ileri bir inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
34. Ba\u015fvurucunun FET\u00d6\/PDY ile ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131 nedeniyle kapat\u0131lan Uluslararas\u0131 Hukuk ve Adalet Vakf\u0131na 26\/12\/2011 tarihinde 500 TL havale g\u00f6nderdi\u011fi Yarg\u0131tay karar\u0131nda hukuki de\u011ferlendirme k\u0131sm\u0131nda yer almamakta, sadece mali analiz raporunda bir tespit olarak belirtilmektedir. Mahk\u00fbmiyete hi\u00e7bir \u015fekilde dayanak olmamas\u0131 nedeniyle s\u00f6z konusu Vakf\u0131n \u00fcyelerinin dinlenilmemesinin yarg\u0131lamaya bir katk\u0131 sunmayaca\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
35. Yarg\u0131tay 4. Hukuk Dairesi Ba\u015fkan\u0131 ve \u00fcyelerinin dinlenilmesine ili\u015fkin hususlar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ise huzurda dinlenilen tan\u0131klar\u0131n yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda benzer \u015fekilde aleyhe olarak de\u011ferlendirilebilecek birtak\u0131m olaylar\u0131 anlatmas\u0131 \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucunun bu konuda talebinin oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Konu, Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 eski m\u00fcste\u015far\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015filik haklar\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle FET\u00d6\/PDY’ye m\u00fczahir bir haber sitesinin sorumlular\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 manevi tazminat davas\u0131nda Yarg\u0131tay 4. Hukuk Dairesince verilen bozma karar\u0131yla ili\u015fkilidir. \u00d6ncelikle belirtmek gerekir ki s\u00f6z konusu m\u00fcste\u015far\u0131n 2013 y\u0131l\u0131nda vefat etmesi nedeniyle dinlenilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun bu sebeple kararda imzas\u0131 bulunan di\u011fer ki\u015filerin dinlenilmesini istedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Ancak meselenin bozma karar\u0131 veya bozma karar\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eden \u00f6te eski m\u00fcste\u015far\u0131n tan\u0131klarla yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 konu\u015fmalar s\u0131ras\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucudan \u00f6zellikle bahsetmesi ve ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda somut dava \u00fczerinden birtak\u0131m beyanlarda bulunmas\u0131 \u00fczerine geli\u015fti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. S\u00f6z konusu konu\u015fmalar tan\u0131klar taraf\u0131ndan yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda dile getirilmi\u015ftir. \u00dcstelik karara ba\u011flanan dosya istenilmi\u015f ve Daire taraf\u0131ndan da inceleme yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu nedenle o d\u00f6nem g\u00f6rev yapan Yarg\u0131tay 4. Hukuk Dairesi Ba\u015fkan\u0131n\u0131n ve \u00fcyelerinin dinlenilmesinin ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131lanmas\u0131na bir yenilik katmayaca\u011f\u0131 kanaatinin keyf\u00ee olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131nda ele al\u0131nan as\u0131l hususun ba\u015fvurucunun Yarg\u0131tay \u00fcyesi olarak verilebilecek talimatlar\u0131 yerine getirmeye haz\u0131r konumda olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile ili\u015fkili oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
36. Son olarak ba\u015fvurucu kendisinin genel sekreter yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 olarak bir s\u00fcre g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Ceza ve Tevkifevlerinde, daire ba\u015fkan\u0131 olarak g\u00f6rev yapan R.\u0130.B.nin dinlenilmemesini \u015fik\u00e2yet etmi\u015ftir. Bu y\u00f6ndeki bir talep ne yarg\u0131lama esnas\u0131nda ne de usul\u00fcne uygun \u015fekilde sunuldu\u011fu kabul edilen ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafiinin temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde dile getirilmi\u015ftir. Bu nedenle daha ileri bir inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
37. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k dinletme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131n\u0131n, ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi ve a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olma sebepleriyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. Tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN’\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
2. Tan\u0131k dinletme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi ve a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedenleriyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN’\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
B. Adli yard\u0131m talebi ile birlikte ge\u00e7ici olarak muaf tutulan 446,9 TL har\u00e7tan ibaret yarg\u0131lama giderinin 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 339. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca ba\u015fvurucudan tahsiline Komisyon a\u015famas\u0131nda karar verildi\u011finden, yarg\u0131lama giderleri a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan KARAR VER\u0130LMES\u0130NE YER OLMADI\u011eINA 7\/1\/2025tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY GEREK\u00c7ES\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin ilgili kararlar\u0131nda A\u0130HM gibi tan\u0131k kavram\u0131 \u00f6zerk olarak \u201csan\u0131\u011fa isnat edilen fiil hakk\u0131nda bilgi veren ki\u015fi\u201d \u015feklinde yorumlanm\u0131\u015f ve tan\u0131k sorgulama ile ilgili ilkeler belirlenmi\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. A\u0130HM i\u00e7tihad\u0131 i\u00e7in bkz.; Batk ve di\u011f.\/\u00c7ek Cumhuriyeti, B. No: 54146\/09, 12.1.2017, par. 38; Simon Price\/Birle\u015fik Krall\u0131k,No: 15602\/07,15.9.2016, par. 130; Al-Khawaja ve Tahery\/Birle\u015fik Krall\u0131k, No : 26766\/05, 22228\/06, 15.12.2011, p. 128-135). 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. Adil bir yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc i\u00e7in, 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 gerekmektedir (bkz. AZ. M., par. 55).<\/p>\n
2. Tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n tespiti amac\u0131yla uygulanacak testin ilk a\u015famas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tan\u0131k mahkemede haz\u0131r edilmemi\u015fse bu durum ge\u00e7erli bir nedene 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\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmelidir (A\u0130HM ve AYM taraf\u0131ndan uygulanan bu kriterin tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 g\u00fcvencesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetersizli\u011fine dair ele\u015ftiri i\u00e7in bkz.; Yal\u0131m Y. \u00d6zbalc\u0131, Tek veya Belirleyici Delil Olma Gereklili\u011fi: Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesinin \u015e\u00fcpheli veya San\u0131k Aleyhine Olan Beyanlar\u0131n S\u0131nanmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda \u00c7izdi\u011fi S\u0131n\u0131r, Su\u00e7 ve Ceza Dergisi, 2024, S.2, s. 284 vd.). Bu do\u011frultuda sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmayan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131n\u0131n tek veya belirleyici delil oldu\u011funun tespit edilmesi durumunda ise \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc a\u015fama olarak savunma taraf\u0131n\u0131n maruz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu zorluklar\u0131n telafi edilmesi amac\u0131yla yeterli d\u00fczeyde kar\u015f\u0131 dengeleyici g\u00fcvenceler sa\u011flayan bir usul\u00fcn y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcl\u00fcp y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmedi\u011fi ortaya konulmal\u0131d\u0131r (bkz. AYM Abdurrahim Balur, B. No: 2013\/5467, 7\/1\/2016, par. 80; AYM Onur Urbay, B. No: 2014\/6222, 6\/3\/2019, par. 36, 40; AYM Zekeriya Sevim, B. No: 2018\/18989, 16\/6\/2021, par. 44, 51). Bu kapsamda h\u00fckme ula\u015f\u0131l\u0131rken sorgulanmam\u0131\u015f tan\u0131k 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, par. 39). 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, san\u0131\u011fa olay\u0131 kendi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden anlatma ve delillerini sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131d\u0131r (Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, par. 40).<\/p>\n
3. Yukar\u0131da belirtilen inceleme y\u00f6ntemi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan mevcut ba\u015fvuruya ili\u015fkin mahkeme karar\u0131nda dayan\u0131lan delillere de\u011finilmelidir. \u0130ncelenen ba\u015fvuruda mahkemenin h\u00fckme esas ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ilk olgu ba\u015fvuran\u0131n \u00fcye se\u00e7ilirken \u00f6rg\u00fct listesinde bulundu\u011funa ili\u015fkin tan\u0131k anlat\u0131mlar\u0131d\u0131r. Bununla birlikte tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n bu y\u00f6ndeki ifadesinde ba\u015fvuran\u0131n Bakanl\u0131kta \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 ve mesleki durumu itibar\u0131yla kendilerinin de bir itiraz\u0131n\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Bu durumda di\u011fer delillerin a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n da g\u00f6zden ge\u00e7irilmesi gerekir. Bir k\u0131s\u0131m tan\u0131klar\u0131n anlat\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n ise duyuma ve tahmine dayal\u0131 oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. H\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan ve istinabe ile dinlenen di\u011fer iki tan\u0131k T.T. ile C.G. ise ba\u015fvuran\u0131n kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 sohbet toplant\u0131lar\u0131 ve Bakanl\u0131k\u2019taki faaliyetleri ile ilgili anlat\u0131mda bulunmu\u015ftur. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc olarak h\u00fckme temel al\u0131nan delil, Byloc yaz\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131nda A.A. ile C.K. aras\u0131nda ge\u00e7en ileti\u015fimde ba\u015fvuran\u0131n ad\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7iyor olmas\u0131d\u0131r. Bu noktada ba\u015fvurucunun Byloc kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilemedi\u011fini hat\u0131rlatmak gerekir.<\/p>\n
4. Bu durumda gerek tan\u0131klar T.T. ile C.G.\u2019nin anlat\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n, gerekse Byloc yaz\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131nda g\u0131yab\u0131nda ge\u00e7en ileti\u015fimin taraflar\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131k olarak dinlenmesi ve ba\u015fvurucunun duru\u015fmada dinlenecek tan\u0131klara soru sorma hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanabilmesi yarg\u0131laman\u0131n usul g\u00fcvenceleri bak\u0131m\u0131ndan b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131maktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fka deyi\u015fle ilk olarak ad\u0131 ge\u00e7en iki tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n anlat\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n mahkumiyet karar\u0131nda belirleyici oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmesine kar\u015f\u0131n Mahkeme an\u0131lan tan\u0131klar\u0131 huzurda veya Segbis arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla bizzat dinleme y\u00f6ntemine neden ba\u015fvuramad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair bir gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6stermi\u015f de\u011fildir. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucunun tan\u0131klar T.T. ile C.G.\u2019ye ili\u015fkin tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcndeyim.<\/p>\n
5. \u00d6te yandan yine h\u00fck\u00fcmde belirleyici etkisi olan, iki ki\u015fi aras\u0131ndaki Byloc g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fme kayd\u0131nda ba\u015fvuran\u0131n \u00e7ocu\u011fu ile ilgilenilmesinden s\u00f6z edildi\u011fi, ba\u015fvuran\u0131n ise bu durumu i\u015fitip \u201ci\u015fkillendi\u011fi ve o g\u00fcnden itibaren \u00e7ocu\u011funu g\u00f6ndermedi\u011fi\u201dnin belirtildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Bu durumda s\u00f6z konusu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmenin i\u00e7eri\u011fine ili\u015fkin tan\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131n karar sonucu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00f6nemi ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmaktad\u0131r. Bu nedenle g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmenin taraflar\u0131 olan tan\u0131klar\u0131n dinlenmesine ili\u015fkin talebin makul bir gerek\u00e7eye dayan\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n reddedilmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n da tan\u0131k dinletme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilmesine neden oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcyle \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lamad\u0131m.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 7\/1\/2025 tarihli ve 2020\/15720 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 H. K. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/15720) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 7\/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 : Hikmet Murat AKKAYA Ba\u015fvurucu : Vekili : Av. Utku Co\u015fkuner SAKARYA \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, beyanlar\u0131 h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan tan\u0131klar\u0131n san\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan duru\u015fmada sorgulanmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n verilmemesi ve savunma tan\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n dinlenmesi talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle tan\u0131k dinletme ve sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ni\u011fde Cumhuriyet savc\u0131s\u0131 olarak g\u00f6reve ba\u015flayan ba\u015fvurucu s\u0131ras\u0131yla Akku\u015f, Patnos, Saruhanl\u0131 savc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131, ceza ve tevkifevleri e\u011fitim merkezi m\u00fcd\u00fcr yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 veceza ve tevkifevleri genel m\u00fcd\u00fcr yard\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6revinde bulunduktan sonra 24\/2\/2011 tarihinde Yarg\u0131tay \u00fcyesi olarak se\u00e7ilmi\u015ftir. Darbe te\u015febb\u00fcs\u00fcnden sonra Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesiyle hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 4\/2\/1983 tarihli ve 2797 say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay Kanunu’nun 46. maddesinin m\u00fclga alt\u0131nc\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n yeniden d\u00fczenlenmesine istinaden ba\u015fvurucuya ili\u015fkin soru\u015fturma evrak\u0131, Yarg\u0131tay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. 3. Yarg\u0131tay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nca 23\/10\/2017 tarihinde iddianame d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. \u0130ddianamede; ba\u015fvurucunun staj d\u00f6neminde \u00f6rg\u00fcte ait evlerde bulundu\u011fu, ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc mensuplar\u0131n\u0131n 2010 y\u0131l\u0131nda H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Y\u00fcksek Kurulunda (HSYK) \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fu ele …<\/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-36228","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n