T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
TURAN \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/23803)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 28\/11\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 5\/6\/2025 – 32921<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Recai AKYEL<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Ay\u015fenur TUNCER<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Turan \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Tar\u0131k \u00c7A\u011eLAYAN<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen adli soru\u015fturma gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek tesis edilen bilirki\u015fi listesinden \u00e7\u0131karma i\u015flemi nedeniyle \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. <\/p>\n
2. Mali m\u00fc\u015favir olan ba\u015fvurucu, ayn\u0131 zamanda Antalya Adalet Komisyonu Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 2017 y\u0131l\u0131 hukuk ve ceza bilirki\u015fi listesinde kay\u0131tl\u0131 olarak bilirki\u015filik yapmaktayken Antalya Bilirki\u015filik B\u00f6lge Kurulu Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n (Ba\u015fkanl\u0131k) 12\/4\/2017 tarihli karar\u0131yla hukuk ve ceza bilirki\u015fi listelerinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kararda ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan devam eden adli soru\u015fturma oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle 23\/7\/2016 tarihli ve 29779 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan 667 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Al\u0131nan Tedbirlere \u0130li\u015fkin Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin (667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) 4. maddesi ile 3\/11\/2016 tarihli ve 6754 say\u0131l\u0131 Bilirki\u015filik Kanunu’nun 13. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (a) bendi uyar\u0131nca bilirki\u015filik sicilinden ve kay\u0131tl\u0131 oldu\u011fu 2017 y\u0131l\u0131 hukuk ve ceza bilirki\u015fi listelerinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011fa itirazda bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fkanl\u0131k 14\/6\/2017 tarihinde itiraz\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015f; kararda667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 4. maddesinde belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctlerine veya Mill\u00ee G\u00fcvenlik Kurulunca devletin mill\u00ee g\u00fcvenli\u011fine kar\u015f\u0131 faaliyette bulundu\u011funa karar verilen yap\u0131, olu\u015fum veya gruplara \u00fcyeli\u011fi, mensubiyeti veya iltisak\u0131 yahut bunlarla irtibat\u0131 oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilen ve ayn\u0131 gerek\u00e7eyle haklar\u0131nda su\u00e7 soru\u015fturmas\u0131 veya kovu\u015fturmas\u0131 y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc tespit edilen bilirki\u015filerin mevcut bilirki\u015fi listesinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131labilece\u011fini, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131n\u0131n devam etti\u011fini vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu, s\u00f6z konusu i\u015flemin iptal edilmesi ve i\u015flem nedeniyle yoksun kalaca\u011f\u0131 parasal haklar\u0131n\u0131n yasal faiziyle birlikte tazmin edilmesi talebiyle Antalya 3. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dava dilek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucu; Anayasa’da su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesinin yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, d\u00fczenleyici i\u015flem ile kanunda su\u00e7 say\u0131lmayan fiil i\u00e7in ceza verildi\u011fini, dokuz y\u0131ll\u0131k bilirki\u015filik g\u00f6revi boyunca adli ve idari bir ceza almad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek i\u015flemin hukuki temelden yoksun oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. <\/p>\n
5. Mahkeme 31\/5\/2018 tarihinde davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015f; karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda bir k\u0131s\u0131m emare nedeniyle silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7unu soru\u015fturma ba\u015flat\u0131lmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda idare taraf\u0131ndan su\u00e7un s\u00fcbuta ermesi aranmas\u0131 gerekmedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Bunun yan\u0131nda bilirki\u015filerin yarg\u0131lama faaliyetine katk\u0131da bulundu\u011funu ve yarg\u0131lama faaliyetinin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc \u015f\u00fcpheden uzak olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ifade ederek idare taraf\u0131ndan en az\u0131ndan irtibat d\u00fczeyinde bir ba\u011flant\u0131n\u0131n olabilece\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131larak tesis edilen dava konusu i\u015flemde hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. <\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. \u0130stinaf ba\u015fvuru dilek\u00e7esinde ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2l uygulamas\u0131n\u0131n sona erdi\u011fi ve ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda verilmi\u015f bir adli veya idari ceza bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7. Konya B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 5. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi (Daire) 12\/12\/2018 tarihli karar\u0131yla istinaf talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; ba\u015fvurucunun hakk\u0131ndaki idari i\u015flemin iptali ile birlikte bu i\u015flem nedeniyle yoksun kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 parasal haklar\u0131n yasal faiziyle tazmin edilmesi talebinde bulundu\u011fu ancak Mahkemece sadece dava konusu yap\u0131lan i\u015flemler hakk\u0131nda karar verildi\u011fi, bu i\u015flemler nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun yoksun kalaca\u011f\u0131 parasal haklar\u0131n\u0131n tazmini talebi hakk\u0131nda inceleme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun t\u00fcm talepleri kar\u015f\u0131lanmaks\u0131z\u0131n eksik inceleme suretiyle verilen karar\u0131n usul h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Dairenin kald\u0131rma karar\u0131 sonras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda 30\/1\/2019 tarihinde davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Kararda idari i\u015flemin iptali talebi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan 31\/5\/2018 tarihli karardaki gerek\u00e7eye aynen yer verilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6ylelikle ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan soru\u015fturma ba\u015flat\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle idare taraf\u0131ndan en az\u0131ndan irtibat d\u00fczeyinde bir ba\u011flant\u0131 olabilece\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131larak tesis edilen dava konusu i\u015flemde hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, var\u0131lan bu sonuca g\u00f6re de idarece tazmini gereken bir zarar olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015f olup Daire oy\u00e7oklu\u011fuyla 24\/2\/2020 tarihinde mahkeme karar\u0131nda kald\u0131rma nedenlerinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir. Azl\u0131k oyunda ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki beraat karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fip kesinle\u015fmedi\u011finin ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 sonucunda esas hakk\u0131nda bir karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi kanaatini belirtmi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai karar\u0131 \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 13\/7\/2020 tarihinde ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
11. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n
12. \u00d6te yandan Antalya 10. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda 28\/11\/2019 tarihinde beraat karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7mi\u015fe d\u00f6n\u00fck, soyut ve subjektif ifadeler i\u00e7erdi\u011fi, ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn finans kayna\u011f\u0131 olan bankada bulunan hesab\u0131nda bakiye art\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 i\u015flemler yapmas\u0131, \u00f6rg\u00fcte m\u00fczahir kurumlarda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 ve 667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK ile kapat\u0131lan dernekte y\u00f6netim kurulu yedek \u00fcyesi olmas\u0131 gibi tespitlerin at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7un s\u00fcbutu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yeterli mahiyette olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Sonu\u00e7 olarak ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6rg\u00fctle organik ba\u011f kurup bir hiyerar\u015fi i\u00e7inde emir ve talimat ald\u0131\u011f\u0131na, verilen emir ve talimatlar\u0131 yerine getirmeye haz\u0131r oldu\u011funa, s\u00fcreklilik, \u00e7e\u015fitlilik ve yo\u011funluk g\u00f6steren eylem ve faaliyetlerde bulundu\u011funa ili\u015fkin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc \u015f\u00fcpheden uzak, kesin ve inand\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 delil bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan beraat karar\u0131 verildi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucu; ilk derece mahkemesince hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddedildi\u011fini, istinaf a\u015famas\u0131nda hakk\u0131nda verilen beraat karar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmedi\u011fini, ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2lin sona ermesi nedeniyle an\u0131lan d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin mevzuat\u0131n taraf\u0131na uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamada adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n, maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve geli\u015ftirilmesi hakk\u0131n\u0131n, \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma hakk\u0131n\u0131n, ifade h\u00fcrriyeti ile m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; ba\u015fvurucu ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc iddialar\u0131n mahkemelerce delillerin de\u011ferlendirilmesine ve hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, mahkeme kararlar\u0131nda bariz takdir hatas\u0131 veya a\u00e7\u0131k bir keyf\u00eelik olu\u015fturan bir husus olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa Mahkemesince dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Bunun yan\u0131nda insan haklar\u0131na ili\u015fkin baz\u0131 uluslararas\u0131 belgelerde devletlerin kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131klar\u0131 sava\u015f veya ulusun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ya da ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131 tehdit eden ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc durumlarda durumun gereklerine uygun olarak temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin ola\u011fan d\u00f6neme nazaran daha fazla k\u0131s\u0131tlanabilmesine imk\u00e2n tan\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki tedbirlerin OHAL d\u00f6neminde al\u0131nmas\u0131 nedeniyle yap\u0131lacak incelemede Anayasan\u0131n 15. maddesinin de dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. <\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131n\u0131n bilirki\u015fi listesinden kayd\u0131n\u0131n silinmesi i\u015fleminin iptaline ve yoksun kalaca\u011f\u0131 parasal haklar\u0131n tazminine y\u00f6nelik a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n reddedilmesine, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla bilirki\u015filik faaliyetinin engellenmesine ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ki\u015filerin mesleki hayatlar\u0131n\u0131n onlar\u0131n \u00f6zel hayatlar\u0131yla s\u0131k\u0131 ili\u015fkisinin oldu\u011fu ve meslek hayat\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalelerde \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcndeme geldi\u011fi yads\u0131namaz. Bununla birlikte \u00f6ncelikle bu t\u00fcr m\u00fcdahalelerin hangi durumlarda \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmeye uygun oldu\u011fu veya ba\u015fvuru konusu edilen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n hangilerinin bu ba\u011flamda uygulanabilir kabul edilece\u011fi hususlar\u0131nda belirlenen \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctler dikkate al\u0131narak de\u011ferlendirmeler yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekir (Tamer Mahmuto\u011flu [GK], B. No: 2017\/38953, 23\/7\/2020, \u00a7 82; Mehmet Zile, B. No: 2019\/8391, 15\/3\/2023, \u00a7 27 ).<\/p>\n
16. Anayasa Mahkemesi, \u00f6nceki bir\u00e7ok karar\u0131nda, \u00f6zel hayata ili\u015fkin herhangi bir nedene dayan\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n mesleki hayata y\u00f6nelen m\u00fcdahalelerin \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilebilmesi gerekli olan ko\u015fullar\u0131n neler oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin detayl\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmelerde bulunmu\u015ftur (Tamer Mahmuto\u011flu, \u00a7\u00a7 84-90; C.A. (3) [GK], B. No: 2018\/10286, 2\/7\/2020, \u00a7\u00a7 97-101; Ayla Demir \u0130\u015fat [GK], B. No: 2018\/24245, 8\/10\/2020, \u00a7\u00a7 106-110). Ba\u015fvurucunun bilirki\u015fi listesinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n otomatik olarak uygulanabilirli\u011fini sa\u011flamamakla birlikte mevcut ba\u015fvurudaki m\u00fcdahalenin ba\u015fvurucunun mesleki faaliyetlerinin aksamas\u0131na, sosyal \u00e7evresiyle olan ili\u015fkilerine ve itibar\u0131na olumsuz \u015fekilde etki etti\u011fi, bu etkinin ciddi oldu\u011fu ve belirli bir a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131k d\u00fczeyine ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finden ba\u015fvuru, \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden uygulanabilir bulunmu\u015f ve bu kapsamda incelenmi\u015ftir (benzer y\u00f6ndeki de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. Mehmet Zile, \u00a7 28). Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvuruya konu olay\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fi s\u00fcre\u00e7teki ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2l (OHAL) \u015fartlar\u0131na, OHAL ilan\u0131na ve uygulanan tedbirlere ili\u015fkin genel bilgiler i\u00e7in bkz. Mehmet Zile, \u00a7\u00a7 5-7).<\/p>\n
17. 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 \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
18. Anayasa Mahkemesi Mehmet Zile karar\u0131na konu benzer somut olayda Anayasa’n\u0131n 15. maddesi uyar\u0131nca, m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’daki \u00e7ekirdek haklarla ilgili olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, an\u0131lan maddenin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda say\u0131lan hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere dokunup dokunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, milletleraras\u0131 hukuktan do\u011fan y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklere ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil edip etmedi\u011fi ve durumun gerektirdi\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespitiyle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 bir inceleme yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmi\u015ftir (Mehmet Zile, \u00a7\u00a7 30-33). An\u0131lan kararda ba\u015fvurucunun bilirki\u015fi listesinden isminin \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin tedbirin ve bu kapsamda yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131nca sonuca ba\u011flanan uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n Anayasa’n\u0131n 15. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda durumun gerektirdi\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde oldu\u011funun s\u00f6ylenebilmesi i\u00e7in \u00f6ncelikle keyf\u00ee olmamas\u0131 ve s\u00f6z konusu tedbirin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilirken elbette T\u00fcrkiye’de OHAL ilan\u0131na sebebiyet veren durumun \u00f6zellikleri ve OHAL ilan\u0131 sonras\u0131nda ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan \u015fartlar\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir (Mehmet Zile, \u00a7 34). <\/p>\n
19. Ayr\u0131ca Anayasa Mahkemesi, yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda devam eden bir ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 olmas\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcyle iltisakl\u0131 ya da irtibatl\u0131 oldu\u011funun kabul edilebilmesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan bir \u015f\u00fcpheye neden olsa da bunun ba\u015fkaca somut eylem, olay ya da olgularla desteklenmedi\u011fi durumda bu t\u00fcrden bir \u015f\u00fcpheye dayan\u0131larak bilirki\u015fi listesinden isminin \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n kamusal makamlardan beklenen ikna edici nitelikte gerek\u00e7e ortaya konulmas\u0131 y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olu\u015fturdu\u011funu Mehmet Zile karar\u0131nda kabul etmi\u015ftir. Kararda, irtibatl\u0131 ya da iltisakl\u0131 olarak kabul edilmek i\u00e7in ki\u015fi hakk\u0131nda yaln\u0131zca kovu\u015fturma bulunmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli kabul edilmesinin s\u00f6z konusu kavramlar\u0131n kapsam ve s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n yarg\u0131 kararlar\u0131yla belirlenmesi konusunda yarg\u0131sal makamlara tan\u0131nan takdir yetkisinin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklere uygun \u015fekilde kullan\u0131lmamas\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctleriyle irtibat ya da iltisak i\u00e7inde bulundu\u011funun kabul\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan hakk\u0131nda derdest bir ceza davas\u0131n\u0131n bulunmas\u0131n\u0131n tek ba\u015f\u0131na yeterli g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve s\u00f6z konusu i\u015flem ya da karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinin bu tespit \u00fczerinden olu\u015fturuldu\u011fu durumda ilgili ki\u015finin beraatine karar verilmesinin s\u00f6z konusu gerek\u00e7eyi tamamen dayanaks\u0131z duruma getirece\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir (Mehmet Zile, \u00a7 45). <\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda ise ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda devam eden bir ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131 bulunmas\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcyle iltisakl\u0131 ya da irtibatl\u0131 oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde yeterli g\u00f6r\u00fclerek bilirki\u015fi listesinden isminin \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek\u00e7e yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kald\u0131 ki, an\u0131lan ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131 sonucunda a\u00e7\u0131lan kamu davas\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda beraat karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle somut olayda da an\u0131lan ilkelerden ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektirir bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r. <\/p>\n
21. Sonu\u00e7 olarak mevcut ba\u015fvuruya \u00f6zg\u00fc \u015fartlarda, mali m\u00fc\u015favir olan ve bilirki\u015filik yapan ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctleriyle irtibatl\u0131 ya da iltisakl\u0131 oldu\u011fu hususunda verilen idari ve yarg\u0131sal kararlarda ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7enin ortaya konuldu\u011fundan s\u00f6z edilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn g\u00f6r\u00fcnmemektedir. Bunun yan\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun ilave tedbirlere maruz b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin gereklili\u011fin s\u00f6z konusu kavramlar\u0131n kapsam\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6sterecek \u015fekilde somut olgulara dayal\u0131 olarak ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7elerle a\u00e7\u0131klanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Uygulanan somut tedbirin ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde do\u011furaca\u011f\u0131 etki de g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6zellikle yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde devletten beklenen y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerin OHAL \u015fartlar\u0131nda da yerine getirilmesi gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131k olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen mevcut ba\u015fvurunun \u015fartlar\u0131nda an\u0131lan y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011fe uygun \u015fekilde hareket edilmedi\u011fi kanaatine var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. <\/p>\n
22. Bu itibarla \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen g\u00fcvencelere uygun \u015fekilde ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmeyen tedbirin durumun gerektirdi\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcy\u00fc korudu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenemeyece\u011finden OHAL d\u00f6neminde Anayasa’n\u0131n temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n durdurulmas\u0131n\u0131 ve s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fczenleyen15. maddesindeki \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctlere uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
23. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
24. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi ve 3.000.000 TL manevi tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesi 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\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerinin yapmas\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
26. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in ihlalin tespitinin ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. \u00d6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Antalya 3. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2019\/26, K.2019\/80) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.446,90 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \u00d6demelerin 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 Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 28\/11\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 28\/11\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/23803 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR TURAN \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/23803) Karar Tarihi: 28\/11\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 5\/6\/2025 – 32921 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Ay\u015fenur TUNCER Ba\u015fvurucu : Turan \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK Vekili : Av. Tar\u0131k \u00c7A\u011eLAYAN I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen adli soru\u015fturma gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek tesis edilen bilirki\u015fi listesinden \u00e7\u0131karma i\u015flemi nedeniyle \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Mali m\u00fc\u015favir olan ba\u015fvurucu, ayn\u0131 zamanda Antalya Adalet Komisyonu Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 2017 y\u0131l\u0131 hukuk ve ceza bilirki\u015fi listesinde kay\u0131tl\u0131 olarak bilirki\u015filik yapmaktayken Antalya Bilirki\u015filik B\u00f6lge Kurulu Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n (Ba\u015fkanl\u0131k) 12\/4\/2017 tarihli karar\u0131yla hukuk ve ceza bilirki\u015fi listelerinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kararda ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan devam eden adli soru\u015fturma oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle 23\/7\/2016 tarihli ve 29779 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan 667 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Al\u0131nan Tedbirlere \u0130li\u015fkin Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin (667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) 4. maddesi ile 3\/11\/2016 tarihli ve 6754 say\u0131l\u0131 Bilirki\u015filik Kanunu’nun 13. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (a) bendi uyar\u0131nca bilirki\u015filik sicilinden ve kay\u0131tl\u0131 oldu\u011fu 2017 y\u0131l\u0131 hukuk ve ceza bilirki\u015fi listelerinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011fa itirazda bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fkanl\u0131k 14\/6\/2017 tarihinde itiraz\u0131n reddine …<\/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-107301","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n