T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00d6.S. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/21522)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 15\/4\/2025<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
G\u0130ZL\u0130L\u0130K TALEB\u0130 KABUL<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Eren Can BENAKAY<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u00d6.S.<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Alk\u0131m Beng\u00fcsen DUYGULU<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; arabuluculuk siciline kaydolmak amac\u0131yla yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun reddine dair i\u015fleme kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan davada, davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili iddian\u0131n kararda kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Antalya Barosuna kay\u0131tl\u0131 olarak avukatl\u0131k yapan ba\u015fvurucu, arabuluculuk siciline kaydolmak i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda, silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan Antalya 10. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinde kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilerek 7\/6\/2012 tarihli ve 6325 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131nda Arabuluculuk Kanunu’nun 20. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (d) bendinde yer alan “Ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctleriyle iltisakl\u0131 veya irtibatl\u0131 olmamak” ko\u015fulunu sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle ba\u015fvuru reddedilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, ret i\u015fleminin iptali talebiyle 27\/2\/2019 tarihinde iptal davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ankara 7. \u0130dare Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) 12\/12\/2019 tarihinde davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu olayda, dava dosyas\u0131nda yer alan bilgi ve belgeler ile UYAP sistemi \u00fczerinde yap\u0131lan ara\u015ft\u0131rma neticesinde, Antalya 10. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi’nce 2017\/34 esas numaral\u0131 dosya \u00fczerinden davac\u0131 hakk\u0131nda ‘Silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma’ su\u00e7u kapsam\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen kovu\u015fturma bulundu\u011fu ve kovu\u015fturman\u0131n h\u00e2len devam etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bu durumda, dosyada bulunan bilgi ve belgeler ile yukar\u0131da an\u0131lan mevzuat\u0131n birlikte de\u011ferlendirilmesinden, davac\u0131 hakk\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen kovu\u015fturmaya esas su\u00e7un niteli\u011fi ve bu kovu\u015fturman\u0131n h\u00e2len devam etti\u011fi g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulunduruldu\u011funda, ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctleriyle irtibatl\u0131 ve iltisakl\u0131 olmama ko\u015fulu sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan davac\u0131n\u0131n arabuluculuk siciline kay\u0131t ba\u015fvurusunun reddine dair dava konusu i\u015flemde hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.”<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu, bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 28\/1\/2020 tarihinde istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 10. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi (B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi) 17\/6\/2020 tarihinde istinaf ba\u015fvurusunu kesin olarak reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Nihai karar ba\u015fvurucuya 10\/7\/2020 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 13\/7\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan a\u00e7\u0131lan kamu davas\u0131nda Antalya 10. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi 25\/2\/2021 tarihinde beraat karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Kararda; ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn hiyerar\u015fik yap\u0131s\u0131na d\u00e2hil oldu\u011fu, \u00f6rg\u00fctsel faaliyet kapsam\u0131nda s\u00fcreklilik, \u00e7e\u015fitlilik ve yo\u011funluk i\u00e7eren eylemlerde bulundu\u011funu g\u00f6sterir somut herhangi bir anlat\u0131m\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Gizli tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n somut olaylara dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi s\u00f6z konusu beyanlarda ba\u015fvurucunun emir ve talimat almad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn hiyerar\u015fik yap\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7inde yer almad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair anlat\u0131m\u0131n bulundu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Gizli tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n bir k\u0131s\u0131m beyan\u0131 ile san\u0131k H.E.nin arac\u0131ndan ele ge\u00e7irilen dok\u00fcmanlar\u0131n birbiriyle \u00e7eli\u015fti\u011fi ve ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan soru\u015fturma\/kovu\u015fturma bulunan \u015fah\u0131slar\u0131n avukatl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 y\u00fcr\u00fctmesinin at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7un delili olamayaca\u011f\u0131 aktar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Savunmas\u0131n\u0131n aksini kan\u0131tlayabilecek ve mahk\u00fbmiyetine esas te\u015fkil edecek her t\u00fcrl\u00fc \u015f\u00fcpheden uzak, kesin ve ikna edici delil bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011finin sabit olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kararda yer alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Karar 11\/11\/2022 tarihinde temyiz edilmemesi \u00fczerine kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu, kesinle\u015fmemi\u015f ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak davas\u0131n\u0131n reddedildi\u011fini ve hakk\u0131nda kovu\u015fturma a\u015famas\u0131na ge\u00e7mi\u015f bir yarg\u0131lama bulunmas\u0131n\u0131n ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc ile iltisak anlam\u0131na gelmeyece\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Hakk\u0131nda su\u00e7lu oldu\u011funu belirten karar bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcrece masum oldu\u011funu ve Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan da bu \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirilme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n somut bir gerek\u00e7e i\u00e7ermedi\u011fini belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n, gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ve masumiyet karinesinin ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
9. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; ba\u015fvurucunun arabuluculuk siciline kay\u0131t i\u00e7in ba\u015fvuru yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihlerde ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7u kapsam\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen kovu\u015fturma bulundu\u011fu, kovu\u015fturman\u0131n h\u00e2len devam etti\u011fi ve istinaf a\u015famas\u0131nda oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu tespitler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda da ba\u015fvurucunun arabuluculuk siciline kay\u0131t talebinin ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctleriyle iltisakl\u0131 veya irtibatl\u0131 olmamak \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedildi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun arabuluculuk sicilinden ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctlerine iltisakl\u0131 veya irtibatl\u0131 olmamak \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle kaydedilmemesinin amac\u0131n\u0131n kamu d\u00fczeni ve g\u00fcvenli\u011finin korunmas\u0131, su\u00e7 i\u015flenmesinin \u00f6nlenmesi ve ba\u015fkalar\u0131n\u0131n hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerinin korunmas\u0131 oldu\u011fu aktar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131n\u0131n kararlar\u0131ndaki tespit ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7eler i\u00e7erdi\u011fi ve \u00e7at\u0131\u015fan haklar aras\u0131nda adil dengenin kuruldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda, ba\u015fvuru formunda belirtilen hususlar\u0131 tekrar etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olaylar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan hukuki nitelendirmesi ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olmay\u0131p olay ve olgular\u0131n hukuki tavsifini kendisi takdir eder. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131n\u0131n adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. 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 gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
13. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131, ki\u015filerin hakkaniyete uygun bir \u015fekilde yarg\u0131lanmalar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamay\u0131 ve bu amaca uygunluk y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yarg\u0131laman\u0131n denetlenmesini ama\u00e7lamaktad\u0131r. Mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131n, davan\u0131n temel maddi ve hukuki sorunlar\u0131 ile taraflarca ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen ve davan\u0131n sonucunu etkileyen iddia ve itirazlar hakk\u0131nda delillerle ba\u011f kurulmak suretiyle yeterli gerek\u00e7e i\u00e7ermesi zorunludur. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n hukuki ve maddi sorunlar\u0131yla ilgisiz de\u011ferlendirmelere kararda yer verilmesi de gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131yla ba\u011fda\u015fmamaktad\u0131r. Karar gerek\u00e7esinin belirtilen unsurlar\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 g\u00fcvencelerine uygun \u015fekilde y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcl\u00fcp y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmedi\u011finin taraflarca \u00f6\u011frenilmesini sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi ayr\u0131ca demokratik bir toplumda kendi adlar\u0131na verilen yarg\u0131 kararlar\u0131n\u0131n sebeplerini toplumun \u00f6\u011frenmesinin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in de gereklidir (baz\u0131 eklemeler ve farkl\u0131l\u0131klarla birlikte bkz. Sencer Ba\u015fat ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2013\/7800, 18\/6\/2014, \u00a7\u00a7 31, 34).<\/p>\n
14. Di\u011fer taraftan kanun yolu incelemesi yapan merciin, yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 yapan mahkemeyle ayn\u0131 sonuca ula\u015fmas\u0131 ve bunu ayn\u0131 gerek\u00e7eyi kullanarak veya ayn\u0131 at\u0131fla karar\u0131na yans\u0131tmas\u0131, karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7elendirilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yeterli g\u00f6r\u00fclebilir. Bununla birlikte ilk derece mahkemesince kar\u015f\u0131lanmayan veya ancak ilk defa kanun yolu merciine ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclebilecek nitelikteki esasl\u0131 iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n kanun yolu merciince de de\u011ferlendirilmemesi gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlaline yol a\u00e7abilir (baz\u0131 eklemeler ve farkl\u0131l\u0131klarla birlikte bkz. Mehmet Yavuz [1. B.], B. No: 2013\/2995, 20\/2\/2014, \u00a7 51).<\/p>\n
15. Mahkeme ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen kovu\u015fturma bulunmas\u0131 nedeniyle dava konusu i\u015flemi hukuka uygun bulmu\u015ftur. \u00d6ncelikle s\u00f6z konusu yarg\u0131lamada ba\u015fvurucunun beraatine karar verildi\u011fi ve karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fti\u011fi belirtilmelidir. Mahkeme ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda kovu\u015fturma oldu\u011funu bildirmi\u015f, bu olguyu aktarmakla birlikte herhangi bir \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirmemi\u015ftir. Kararda yaln\u0131zca ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda kovu\u015fturma bulundu\u011fu bilgisine yer verilmi\u015ftir. Ancak bu bilginin verilmesi yeterli de\u011fildir. Ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131nda yer alan bilgi ve belgelere ula\u015f\u0131larak s\u00f6z konusu verilerin arabuluculuk siciline kaydolunmas\u0131na olan etkisinin de\u011ferlendirilmesinin \u00f6n\u00fcnde -masumiyet karinesine uygun olmak ko\u015fuluyla- herhangi bir engel bulunmamaktad\u0131r.Olaya bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ise Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131nda yer alan olgular\u0131n dava konusu i\u015fleme olumsuz etkisi irdelenmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. Somut olayda Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n yukar\u0131da belirtilen ba\u011flamda bir gerek\u00e7e i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi, B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan ise bu karara at\u0131f yap\u0131larak herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu itibarla yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcreci bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucunun gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR bu sonuca kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucunun e\u015fitlik ilkesinin, etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma hakk\u0131n\u0131n da ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc g\u00f6r\u00fclmekte ise de gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131 ile ilgili olarak bu a\u015famada bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile miktar belirtmeksizin manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen anayasal hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar ve zorunluluk bulunmaktad\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n 148. ve 153. maddeleri ile 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. ve 66. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flat\u0131p Anayasa Mahkemesinin ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere ve gerek\u00e7elere uygun bi\u00e7imde y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclecek yarg\u0131lama sonunda hak ihlalinin nedenlerini gidererek yeni bir karar vermektir (yeniden yarg\u0131lama konusunda bkz. Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2) [1. B.], 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
21. \u00d6te yandan hak ihlali karar\u0131ndan Anayasa Mahkemesinin davan\u0131n sonucuyla ilgili olarak bir tutum sergiledi\u011fi sonucu \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmamal\u0131d\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesince verilen hak ihlali karar\u0131 uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sonu\u00e7lar\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olup davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, reddine ya da beraate veya mahk\u00fbmiyete karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi anlam\u0131na gelmemektedir. Kural olarak, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n her a\u015famas\u0131nda oldu\u011fu gibi ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 gidermek \u00fczere yeniden yap\u0131lacak yarg\u0131lama sonunda da delillerin dava ile ili\u015fkisini kurma ve bunlar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirip sonu\u00e7 \u00e7\u0131karma yetkisi ilgili mahkemelere aittir.<\/p>\n
22. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Kamuya a\u00e7\u0131k belgelerde ba\u015fvurucunun kimli\u011finin gizli tutulmas\u0131 talebinin KABUL\u00dcNE,<\/p>\n
B. Gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
C. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR’\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
D. Di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n \u0130NCELENMES\u0130NE GEREK OLMADI\u011eINAOYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
E. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Ankara 7. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2019\/384, K.2019\/2860) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. 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
H. \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
\u0130. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 15\/4\/2025 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu, arabulucular siciline kayd\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 nedeniyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada, davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili iddian\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f, Say\u0131n Mahkemece \u00e7o\u011funluk taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. A\u015fa\u011f\u0131da belirtti\u011fimiz gerek\u00e7elerle \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lm\u0131yorum.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucunun arabulucular siciline kay\u0131t talebinin reddine ili\u015fkin i\u015flemin gerek\u00e7esi, ba\u015fvurucunun, Arabuluculuk Kanununun 20. maddesindeki ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctleriyle iltisakl\u0131 veya irtibatl\u0131 olmama \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. \u0130dare Mahkemesi iptal talebinin reddine ili\u015fkin 12.12.2019 tarihli karar\u0131nda, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan kovu\u015fturma yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kovu\u015fturman\u0131n halen devam etti\u011fi, bu nedenle i\u015flemde hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi de idare mahkemesinin gerek\u00e7elerini yerinde buldu\u011fundan davac\u0131n\u0131n istinaf talebini reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6325 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131nda Arabuluculuk Kanununun 20. maddesinin 2. f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (d) bendinde arabulucular siciline kaydolmak i\u00e7in \u201cTer\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctleriyle iltisakl\u0131 veya irtibatl\u0131 olmamak\u201d ko\u015fuluna yer verilmi\u015ftir. Kuralda yer alan ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc kavram\u0131, 3713 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 7. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda cebir ve \u015fiddet kullan\u0131larak; bask\u0131, korkutma, y\u0131ld\u0131rma, sindirme veya tehdit y\u00f6ntemlerinden biriyle, Anayasa\u2019da belirtilen Cumhuriyet\u2019in niteliklerini, siyasi, hukuki, sosyal, laik, ekonomik d\u00fczeni de\u011fi\u015ftirmek, devletin \u00fclkesi ve milletiyle b\u00f6l\u00fcnmez b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc bozmak, T\u00fcrk Devleti\u2019nin ve Cumhuriyet\u2019in varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tehlikeye d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrmek, devlet otoritesini zaafa u\u011fratmak veya y\u0131kmak veya ele ge\u00e7irmek, temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckleri yok etmek, devletin i\u00e7 ve d\u0131\u015f g\u00fcvenli\u011fini, kamu d\u00fczenini veya genel sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 bozmak ama\u00e7lar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olarak su\u00e7 i\u015flemek \u00fczere kurulmu\u015f \u00f6rg\u00fctler olarak tan\u0131mlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re, ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc kavram\u0131 Kanunda tan\u0131mlanm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fundan belirsiz veya \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemez oldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenemez. (Bkz. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 23.07.2024 tarihli, 2023\/25 E. ve 2024\/139 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131, \u00a749).<\/p>\n
Kuralda yer alan iltisak ve irtibat kavramlar\u0131 ile ilgili olarak Anayasa Mahkemesi 14\/11\/2019 tarihli ve E.2018\/89, K.2019\/84 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda (\u00a7 30,31), iltisakl\u0131 kavram\u0131n\u0131n kavu\u015fan, biti\u015fen, birle\u015fen; irtibatl\u0131 kavram\u0131n\u0131n ise ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 anlam\u0131na geldi\u011fini, bu ibarelerin genel kavram niteli\u011finde oldu\u011funu, objektif anlam\u0131n\u0131n kapsam ve s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n durum ve \u015fartlara g\u00f6re yarg\u0131 i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131yla de\u011ferlendirilerek belirlenebilece\u011fini, bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle an\u0131lan ifadelerin kategorik olarak belirsiz oldu\u011funun s\u00f6ylenemeyece\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla kapsam ve s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n tespiti m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olan s\u00f6z konusu ifadelerin de belirsiz oldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenemez. (Ayn\u0131 y\u00f6nde bkz. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 23.07.2024 tarihli, 2023\/25 E. ve 2024\/139 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131, (\u00a7 52,53 ).<\/p>\n
Arabuluculuk Kanunu incelendi\u011finde, sicile kay\u0131tl\u0131 arabulucular\u0131n uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131 davaya d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fmeden \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme kavu\u015fturmak i\u00e7in faaliyet y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, d\u00fczenlenen tutanaklar\u0131n anla\u015fma ile sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131 halinde icra edilebildi\u011fi, anla\u015fma sa\u011flanamamas\u0131 halinde davaya d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, bu anlamda arabuluculuk faaliyetinin bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm y\u00f6ntemi oldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenebilir. Bu nedenle, arabulucular siciline kay\u0131t i\u00e7in ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctleri ile irtibatl\u0131 ya da iltisakl\u0131 olmama ko\u015fulunun aranmas\u0131n\u0131n me\u015fru amaca ula\u015fma bak\u0131m\u0131ndan elveri\u015fli ve gerekli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenemez.<\/p>\n
Kural uyar\u0131nca arabulucular siciline kay\u0131t ba\u015fvurusunda bulunan\u0131n fiillerin irtibat ve iltisak kapsam\u0131nda bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespitinde idarenin takdir yetkisi bulunmakla birlikte bu yetki s\u0131n\u0131rs\u0131z nitelikte de\u011fildir. \u0130rtibatl\u0131 ve iltisakl\u0131 olma hususu, somut olarak ispatlanabilir olay ve olgulara dayanmal\u0131d\u0131r. Kuralda temel \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct olarak \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen, kavu\u015fan, biti\u015fen, birle\u015fen anlam\u0131na gelen iltisakl\u0131 kavram\u0131 ile iki unsur aras\u0131nda ili\u015fki sa\u011flamay\u0131 ifade eden irtibatl\u0131 kavramlar\u0131 aras\u0131nda derece\/a\u015fama ve yo\u011funluk olarak fark bulunsa da kural ba\u011flam\u0131nda s\u00f6z konusu kavramlar\u0131n ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce ve amac\u0131n\u0131n benimsenerek hareket edilmesi ya da farkl\u0131 nedenlerle de olsa s\u00f6z konusu \u00f6rg\u00fct ya da yap\u0131n\u0131n faaliyetleriyle ilgili ve uyumlu davran\u0131\u015flarda bulunulmas\u0131 anlam\u0131na geldi\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. (Anayasa Mahkemesinin 23.07.2024 tarihli, 2023\/25 E. ve 2024\/139 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 \u00a7 64, 65; Ayn\u0131 y\u00f6nde bkz. (AYM, E.2018\/137, K.2022\/86, 30\/6\/2022, \u00a7524, 525).<\/p>\n
Kald\u0131 ki, somut olayda oldu\u011fu gibi herhangi Kanunda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen kural\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131ndan do\u011facak uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n idari yarg\u0131ya ta\u015f\u0131nabilmesi ve idarenin irtibat ya da iltisak kavram\u0131n\u0131 somut olay ba\u011flam\u0131nda do\u011fru bir \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirip de\u011ferlendirmedi\u011finin denetlenmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Bu ba\u011flamda, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyeli\u011fi su\u00e7undan a\u00e7\u0131lan ceza davas\u0131n\u0131n devam etti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esi ile idare taraf\u0131ndan arabulucular siciline kay\u0131t yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 somut bir olgu olup, s\u00f6z konusu dava ve soru\u015fturmalar neticelendikten sonra tekrar de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 her zaman m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fundan, ba\u015fvurucunun ceza kovu\u015fturmas\u0131 sonu\u00e7lan\u0131ncaya kadar arabulucular siciline kayd\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 Anayasa\u2019ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
Bu nedenlerle, ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 ihlal edilmedi\u011finden, aksi y\u00f6ndeki \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lm\u0131yorum.<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 15\/4\/2025 tarihli ve 2020\/21522 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 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR \u00d6.S. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/21522) Karar Tarihi: 15\/4\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR G\u0130ZL\u0130L\u0130K TALEB\u0130 KABUL Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Eren Can BENAKAY Ba\u015fvurucu : \u00d6.S. Vekili : Av. Alk\u0131m Beng\u00fcsen DUYGULU I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru; arabuluculuk siciline kaydolmak amac\u0131yla yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun reddine dair i\u015fleme kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan davada, davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili iddian\u0131n kararda kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Antalya Barosuna kay\u0131tl\u0131 olarak avukatl\u0131k yapan ba\u015fvurucu, arabuluculuk siciline kaydolmak i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda, silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan Antalya 10. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinde kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilerek 7\/6\/2012 tarihli ve 6325 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131nda Arabuluculuk Kanunu’nun 20. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (d) bendinde yer alan “Ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctleriyle iltisakl\u0131 veya irtibatl\u0131 olmamak” ko\u015fulunu sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle ba\u015fvuru reddedilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, ret i\u015fleminin iptali talebiyle 27\/2\/2019 tarihinde iptal davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Ankara 7. \u0130dare Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) 12\/12\/2019 tarihinde davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir: “Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu olayda, dava dosyas\u0131nda yer alan bilgi ve belgeler ile UYAP sistemi \u00fczerinde yap\u0131lan ara\u015ft\u0131rma neticesinde, Antalya 10. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi’nce 2017\/34 esas numaral\u0131 dosya \u00fczerinden davac\u0131 hakk\u0131nda ‘Silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma’ su\u00e7u kapsam\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen …<\/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-141570","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n