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
MUSTAFA T\u00dcLEK BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/4296)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 13\/2\/2024<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u00c7a\u011flar \u00d6NCEL<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Mustafa T\u00dcLEK<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. G\u00f6khan A\u011eIRBA\u015e<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, haks\u0131z tutuklama tedbiri dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u00f6denen tazminat\u0131n yetersiz olmas\u0131 nedeniyle ki\u015fi h\u00fcrriyeti ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu 28\/3\/2002 tarihinde silahla ya\u011fma su\u00e7lamas\u0131yla tutuklanm\u0131\u015f, 21\/5\/2004 tarihinde 36 y\u0131l hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tay 6. Ceza Dairesi 13\/7\/2005 tarihinde h\u00fckm\u00fcn bozulmas\u0131na ve ba\u015fvurucunun tahliyesine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Bozma karar\u0131 \u00fczerine yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda beraatine karar verilen ba\u015fvurucu 11\/9\/2014 tarihinde \u0130stanbul 17. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) dava a\u00e7arak 10.311,76 TL maddi, 22.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Mahkeme, davan\u0131n s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddine karar vermi\u015f; an\u0131lan karar Yarg\u0131tay 12. Ceza Dairesince (Daire) bozulmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu, bozma karar\u0131ndan sonra Mahkemeye sundu\u011fu \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esi ile maddi tazminat talebini 11.741,91 TL, manevi tazminat talebini ise 200.000 TL olarak art\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f; ayr\u0131ca h\u00fckmedilecek manevi tazminata tutuklama tarihinden itibaren faiz i\u015fletilmesine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Mahkeme 11\/9\/2018 tarihli h\u00fck\u00fcm gere\u011fince davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, ba\u015fvurucuya 10.441,91 TL maddi ve 22.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesi ile bu tazminatlara tutuklanma tarihinden itibaren yasal faiz i\u015fletilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. An\u0131lan karar\u0131n temyizi \u00fczerine Daire 2\/12\/2019 tarihinde h\u00fckm\u00fcn d\u00fczeltilerek onanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Kararda, ba\u015fvurucunun bozma karar\u0131ndan sonraki bir tarihte sundu\u011fu \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esiyle dava dilek\u00e7esinde talep etti\u011fi maddi tazminat miktar\u0131 ve manevi tazminat\u0131n miktar\u0131 ile faiz ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihini de\u011fi\u015ftirdi\u011fi, buna kar\u015f\u0131n yasal olarak ancak ilk h\u00fck\u00fcm tarihine kadar \u0131slah talebinde bulunulabilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu nedenle h\u00fckm\u00fcn maddi tazminata ili\u015fkin k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n -dava dilek\u00e7esindeki talep ile ba\u011fl\u0131 kal\u0131narak- 10.311,76 TL olarak belirlendi\u011fi ve h\u00fckmedilen manevi tazminata dava tarihinden itibaren faiz i\u015fletilmesi suretiyle h\u00fckm\u00fcn d\u00fczeltilerek onand\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Nihai karar, ba\u015fvurucuya 1\/1\/2020 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 24\/1\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
8. Komisyonca 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
9. Ba\u015fvurucu; tutuklulu\u011fun hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 nedeniyle a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tazminat davas\u0131nda h\u00fckmedilen tazminat miktarlar\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck oldu\u011funu, Dairenin d\u00fczelterek onama karar\u0131nda \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esinin ilk h\u00fck\u00fcm tarihine kadar ibraz edilmesi gerekti\u011fini belirtmesine kar\u015f\u0131n ilk yarg\u0131laman\u0131n s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden -usulden- reddedilmesi nedeniyle \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esi sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek ki\u015fi h\u00fcrriyeti ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131, adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 ve m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
10. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; Mahkemenin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kla ilgili vard\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucu ve kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdir yetkisinin sebeplerini gerek\u00e7elendirdi\u011fi belirtilerek ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n kanun yolu \u015fik\u00e2yeti niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda genel hatlar\u0131yla ba\u015fvuru formunda belirtti\u011fi iddialar\u0131n\u0131 tekrarlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvuru, ki\u015fi h\u00fcrriyeti ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Anayasa Mahkemesi Siyami H\u0131d\u0131ro\u011flu karar\u0131yla koruma tedbirleri nedeniyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tazminat davas\u0131na konu tedbir zaman bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetkisinden \u00f6nce uygulansa bile bu yol t\u00fcketildikten sonra yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurularda zaman bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetkisizlik karar\u0131 verilmemesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (bkz. Siyami H\u0131d\u0131ro\u011flu, B. No: 2018\/11489, 11\/1\/2024, \u00a7\u00a7 29-32). Somut olayda da ba\u015fvurucunun, s\u00f6z konusu tazminat yolunu Anayasa Mahkemesinin zaman bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetkisinin ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihten sonra t\u00fcketti\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda zaman bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetkisizlik nedeniyle kabul edilemezlik karar\u0131 verilmemesi gerekti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bununla birlikte a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
13. Anayasa Mahkemesi G\u00fclseren \u00c7\u0131tak ([G.K.], B. No: 2020\/1554, 27\/4\/2023) karar\u0131nda, haklar\u0131nda kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya beraat karar\u0131 verilenlerin 4\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu\u2019nun 141. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen tazminat yolunu t\u00fckettikten sonra yakalama, g\u00f6zalt\u0131 veya tutuklaman\u0131n hukuki olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00f6denen tazminat\u0131n yetersiz oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131yla yapt\u0131klar\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvurularda ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketildi\u011finin kabul edilebilmesi i\u00e7in yaln\u0131zca 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 141. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (e) bendi kapsam\u0131nda bir tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli olaca\u011f\u0131 sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Zira bu h\u00fck\u00fcmle yakalama, g\u00f6zalt\u0131 ve tutuklaman\u0131n daha sonra verilen kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya beraat karar\u0131yla hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 h\u00e2le geldi\u011finin kabul edildi\u011fi, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla 141. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (e) bendi uyar\u0131nca a\u00e7\u0131lan tazminat davalar\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 19. maddesinin dokuzuncu f\u0131kras\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede bu bent kapsam\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan davalarda hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k kanun gere\u011fince kabul edildi\u011finden a\u011f\u0131r ceza mahkemesince bu bende dayan\u0131larak tazminat \u00f6denmesi durumunda Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 19. maddesinin dokuzuncu f\u0131kras\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lacak inceleme tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n yeterli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirlemekle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 olacakt\u0131r (G\u00fclseren \u00c7\u0131tak, \u00a7\u00a7 36-39).<\/p>\n
14. Somut ba\u015fvuruda da A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan bir miktar manevi tazminata h\u00fckmedilmi\u015f olup ba\u015fvuruda yap\u0131lacak inceleme h\u00fckmedilen tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n yeterlili\u011fini belirlemekle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 olacakt\u0131r (M.E., B. No: 2018\/696, 9\/5\/2019, \u00a7 47).<\/p>\n
15. \u00d6ncelikle Anayasa Mahkemesinin Ziynet Benli ([GK], B. No: 2019\/23977, 15\/2\/2023) karar\u0131nda; mevzuatta tahkikat\u0131n devam etti\u011fi durumlarda bozma karar\u0131ndan sonra \u0131slah yap\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir d\u00fczenleme bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, aksine 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun 177. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda \u0131slah\u0131n tahkikat\u0131n sona ermesine kadar yap\u0131labilece\u011finin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Kararda, bozma karar\u0131ndan sonra tahkikata devam edildi\u011fi h\u00e2llerde \u0131slah yap\u0131lamamas\u0131n\u0131n anayasal anlamda kanunilik \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fc bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemez bir durum oldu\u011fu vurgulanarak \u0131slah m\u00fcessesesinin Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n gereklilikleri ile de uyumlu oldu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Kararda son olarak, her ne kadar \u0131slah\u0131n ancak bozma karar\u0131na kadar yap\u0131labilmesi suretiyle bozma karar\u0131yla ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan hukuki sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n korunmas\u0131 hedeflense de mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfete yol a\u00e7\u0131lmamas\u0131 i\u00e7in \u0131slah m\u00fcessesesinin ama\u00e7lar\u0131na uygun olarak kategorik bir yakla\u015f\u0131m yerine davaya konu zarar\u0131n veya alaca\u011f\u0131n miktar\u0131n\u0131n tespiti bak\u0131m\u0131ndan bozma karar\u0131ndan sonra tahkikat\u0131n devam etti\u011fi durumlara y\u00f6nelik olarak her somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (ayn\u0131 kararda bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 55-56).<\/p>\n
16. Somut ba\u015fvuruya konu tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131 inceleyen A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi, davay\u0131 s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddetmi\u015f ancak an\u0131lan karar\u0131n Dairece bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun bozma karar\u0131ndan sonra \u0131slah talebinde bulunmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen tahkikat\u0131n sona ermedi\u011fi g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin, ba\u015fvurucunun bozma karar\u0131ndan sonra \u0131slahta bulunamayaca\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin yorumunun, Anayasa Mahkemesinin Ziynet Benli karar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda kanuni bir dayana\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. \u00d6te yandan derece mahkemelerinin tazminat i\u00e7in somut olay\u0131n \u015fartlar\u0131na g\u00f6re takdir yetkisi bulunmakla birlikte meydana gelen ihlalle orant\u0131l\u0131 olmayan \u00f6nemsiz miktarda bir tazminat, Anayasa’n\u0131n 19. maddesinin dokuzuncu f\u0131kras\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olacakt\u0131r. \u00d6te yandan tazminat miktar\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin benzer davalarda verdi\u011fi tazminat miktar\u0131na g\u00f6re kayda de\u011fer \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck olmamal\u0131d\u0131r. Bununla birlikte h\u00fckmedilen miktar\u0131n Anayasa Mahkemesinin benzer durumlarda verilmesine h\u00fckmetti\u011fi tazminat miktar\u0131ndan belirli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck olmas\u0131 tek ba\u015f\u0131na Anayasa’n\u0131n 19. maddesinin dokuzuncu f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi anlam\u0131na gelmez. Tazminat\u0131n Anayasa’n\u0131n 19. maddesinin dokuzuncu f\u0131kras\u0131yla uyumlu olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilirken somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekir (M.E., \u00a7 48).<\/p>\n
18. Bunun yan\u0131nda manevi tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n yeterli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirlenirken tazminata karar veren derece mahkemesinin karar tarihinde Anayasa Mahkemesinin benzer ba\u015fvurular \u00fczerine verdi\u011fi veya verebilece\u011fi tazminat miktar\u0131na g\u00f6re bir kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lacakt\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesince yakalama, g\u00f6zalt\u0131 veya tutuklaman\u0131n hukuki olmamas\u0131 nedeniyle manevi tazminata h\u00fckmedilirken ki\u015finin sosyal ve ekonomik durumu, mesleki ve toplumsal konumu, \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7un niteli\u011fi, koruma tedbirine neden olan olay\u0131n cereyan tarz\u0131, tedbirin ki\u015finin \u00fczerinde b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131 olumsuz etkiler ve tedbirin s\u00fcresi, tedbir nedeniyle meydana gelen ihlalin a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nmaktad\u0131r (bkz. Siyami H\u0131d\u0131ro\u011flu, \u00a7 35).<\/p>\n
19. Somut olayda A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi, beraat karar\u0131 ile sona eren kovu\u015fturma kapsam\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun 3 y\u0131l 3 ay 15 g\u00fcn s\u00fcreyle tutuklu kalmas\u0131 nedeniyle 22.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla yap\u0131lacak inceleme bu miktar\u0131n Anayasa Mahkemesinin benzer durumlarda verilmesine h\u00fckmetti\u011fi veya h\u00fckmedebilece\u011fi tazminat miktar\u0131na nazaran yeterli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesiyle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 olacakt\u0131r. Manevi tazminat\u0131n belirlenmesine ili\u015fkin yukar\u0131da belirtilen kriterler, somut olaydaki tutukluluk s\u00fcresinin uzunlu\u011fu ve tedbir nedeniyle meydana gelen ihlalin a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde manevi tazminat miktar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde; mezk\u00fbr miktar\u0131n -tazminata karar veren ilk derece mahkemesinin karar tarihi itibar\u0131yla- Anayasa Mahkemesinin benzer durumlarda verebilece\u011fi tazminat miktar\u0131na g\u00f6re d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck oldu\u011fu tespit edilmi\u015ftir (Anayasa Mahkemesinin tutuklaman\u0131n hukukili\u011fiyle ilgili iddialarda h\u00fckmetti\u011fi tazminat miktarlar\u0131, ilk derece mahkemesinin karar tarihi olan 2018 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in asgari 20.000 TL, ortalama 54.000 TL, azami 135.000 TL’dir. 2024 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in ise asgari tutar 148.500 TL’dir). A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince h\u00fckmedilen tazminat\u0131n Anayasa Mahkemesinin benzer durumlarda verilmesine h\u00fckmetti\u011fi veya h\u00fckmedebilece\u011fi tazminat miktar\u0131yla ayn\u0131 olmas\u0131 gerekmemekle birlikte \u00f6denmesine h\u00fckmedilen miktar\u0131n -somut olaydaki tutukluluk s\u00fcresi de g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde- tazminat hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fc zay\u0131flatacak kadar d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 19. maddesinin -\u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak- dokuzuncu f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
21. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti, yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile maddi ve manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
22. Anayasa Mahkemesince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda Anayasa’n\u0131n 19. maddesinin -\u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak- dokuzuncu f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Bu itibarla ihlalin mahkeme karar\u0131ndan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen s\u00f6z konusu 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 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flatmak ve Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gideren, ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun yeni bir karar vermektir (Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2), B. No: 2016\/12506, 7\/11\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 53-60, 66; Kadri Enis Berbero\u011flu (3) [GK], B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n
23. \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 tazminat taleplerinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Ki\u015fi h\u00fcrriyeti ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 19. maddesinin -\u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak- dokuzuncu f\u0131kras\u0131nda g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ki\u015fi h\u00fcrriyeti ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere \u0130stanbul 17. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (E.2018\/26, K.2018\/288) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 19.246,90 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \u00d6demenin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
G. Karar\u0131n birer \u00f6rne\u011finin bilgi i\u00e7in Yarg\u0131tay 12. Ceza Dairesi (E.2019\/1106, 2019\/11212) ile Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 13\/2\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 13\/2\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/4296 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 MUSTAFA T\u00dcLEK BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/4296) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 13\/2\/2024 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN \u00a0 \u00a0 Muhterem \u0130NCE Raport\u00f6r : \u00c7a\u011flar \u00d6NCEL Ba\u015fvurucu : Mustafa T\u00dcLEK Vekili : Av. G\u00f6khan A\u011eIRBA\u015e \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, haks\u0131z tutuklama tedbiri dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u00f6denen tazminat\u0131n yetersiz olmas\u0131 nedeniyle ki\u015fi h\u00fcrriyeti ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu 28\/3\/2002 tarihinde silahla ya\u011fma su\u00e7lamas\u0131yla tutuklanm\u0131\u015f, 21\/5\/2004 tarihinde 36 y\u0131l hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tay 6. Ceza Dairesi 13\/7\/2005 tarihinde h\u00fckm\u00fcn bozulmas\u0131na ve ba\u015fvurucunun tahliyesine karar vermi\u015ftir. 3. Bozma karar\u0131 \u00fczerine yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda beraatine karar verilen ba\u015fvurucu 11\/9\/2014 tarihinde \u0130stanbul 17. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) dava a\u00e7arak 10.311,76 TL maddi, 22.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. 4. Mahkeme, davan\u0131n s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddine karar vermi\u015f; an\u0131lan karar Yarg\u0131tay 12. Ceza Dairesince (Daire) bozulmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu, bozma karar\u0131ndan sonra Mahkemeye sundu\u011fu \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esi ile maddi tazminat talebini 11.741,91 TL, manevi tazminat talebini ise 200.000 TL olarak art\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f; ayr\u0131ca h\u00fckmedilecek manevi tazminata tutuklama tarihinden itibaren faiz i\u015fletilmesine karar verilmesini talep …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,535],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21920","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n