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
D\u0130DEM BAYDAR \u00dcNSAL BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/28358)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 17\/9\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 7\/3\/2025 – 32834<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/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
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Tu\u011f\u00e7e TAKCI<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Didem BAYDAR \u00dcNSAL<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Fatih G\u00d6K\u00c7E<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, karar sonucunu etkileyecek nitelikteki esasl\u0131 iddialar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. DHKP\/C silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma, ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn propagandas\u0131n\u0131 yapma, 6\/10\/1983 tarihli ve 2911 say\u0131l\u0131 Toplant\u0131 ve G\u00f6steri Y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015fleri Kanunu\u2019na muhalefet, g\u00f6revi yapt\u0131rmamak i\u00e7in direnme, mala zarar verme su\u00e7lar\u0131ndan hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma s\u00fcre\u00e7leri devam eden \u0130.G. hakk\u0131nda 8\/5\/2020 tarihinde cemevinde d\u00fczenlenen cenaze t\u00f6reninde meydana gelen olaylar nedeniyle \u0130stanbul Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) taraf\u0131ndan soru\u015fturma ba\u015flat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Olay ve Yakalama Tutana\u011f\u0131’na g\u00f6re Cumhuriyet savc\u0131s\u0131, cemevindeki eylemcilerin yakalanmas\u0131 ve burada arama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 talimat\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Bunun \u00fczerine g\u00fcvenlik g\u00fc\u00e7leri cemevindeki morgun \u00f6n\u00fcnde kollar\u0131n\u0131 birbiriyle kenetlemi\u015f vaziyette oturma eylemi yapan \u015fah\u0131slara da\u011f\u0131lmamalar\u0131 h\u00e2linde g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nacaklar\u0131 uyar\u0131s\u0131nda bulunmu\u015f, eylemcilerin da\u011f\u0131lmamas\u0131 \u00fczerine saat 13.05’te ba\u015fvurucunun da aralar\u0131nda oldu\u011fu eylemciler yakalanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yap\u0131lan i\u015flemler hakk\u0131nda saat 15.00’te bilgilendirilen Cumhuriyet savc\u0131s\u0131, yakalanan \u015fah\u0131slar\u0131n d\u00f6rt g\u00fcn s\u00fcreyle g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 talimat\u0131 vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. 12\/5\/2020 tarihinde Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, cemevinde yap\u0131lan aramada DHKP\/C silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn kullan\u0131m\u0131na tahsis edilen silah ve materyallerin ele ge\u00e7irilmesi, \u015f\u00fcpheliler hakk\u0131ndaki di\u011fer soru\u015fturmalar nedeniyle \u015f\u00fcphelilerin \u00f6rg\u00fctle ba\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131yla silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma isnad\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun da aralar\u0131nda bulundu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphelilerin tutuklanmas\u0131 talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi (UYAP) \u00fczerinden yap\u0131lan incelemede ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki tutuklama talebi i\u015flemlerinin saat 16.13-16.36 aras\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011fi, 16.17, 16.35 ile 16.38’de ise \u0130stanbul 4. Sulh Ceza H\u00e2kimli\u011fince (Sulh Ceza H\u00e2kimli\u011fi) tutuklama talebine ili\u015fkin belgenin okundu\u011fu tespit edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Yine UYAP \u00fczerinden yap\u0131lan incelemede ba\u015fvurucu ve di\u011fer \u015f\u00fcphelilerin vekilinin Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011fa sundu\u011fu 12\/5\/2020 tarihli (saat 15.17) dilek\u00e7eyle, \u015f\u00fcphelilerin 8\/5\/2020 tarihinde saat 13.05 s\u0131ralar\u0131nda g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, g\u00f6zalt\u0131 s\u00fcresi dilek\u00e7enin yaz\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 saat 15.17 itibar\u0131yla dolmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131ktaki i\u015flemlerinin h\u00e2l\u00e2 ba\u015flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u015f\u00fcphelilerin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak tutulmaya devam edildiklerini belirterek sal\u0131verilmelerini talep etti\u011fi tespit edilmi\u015ftir. UYAP kay\u0131tlar\u0131na g\u00f6re bu dilek\u00e7e saat 16.24’te taranm\u0131\u015f; 17.13’te Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k k\u00e2tibi, 20.03’te ise Cumhuriyet savc\u0131s\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan okunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. Sulh Ceza H\u00e2kimli\u011fi 12\/5\/2020 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucu ve di\u011fer yedi \u015f\u00fcphelinin sorgusunu ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmi\u015f ve “… mevcut delil durumu, \u015f\u00fcphelilerin ifadeleri, g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc inceleme tutanaklar\u0131, \u015f\u00fcphelilerin bahse konu cem evinde bulunduklar\u0131 ancak polislere mukavemette bulunan \u015fah\u0131slar aras\u0131nda yer ald\u0131klar\u0131na dair her hangi bir delil ya da g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc kayd\u0131 bulunmamas\u0131, \u015f\u00fcpheliler Didem Baydar \u00dcnsal ve [S.\u015e.nin] cem evinde cenazesi bulunan \u015fah\u0131s\u0131n vekaletnameli olarak m\u00fcdafiileri olmalar\u0131, yine el koymas\u0131 yap\u0131lan materyallerin \u015f\u00fcphelilerin tasarrufu alt\u0131nda bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na da\u015fr parmak izi incelemesinin hen\u00fcz tamamlanmam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131, \u015f\u00fcphelilerin sabit ikametgah sahibi olu\u015fu, \u015f\u00fcphelilerin \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7 ile ilgili delillerin toplanm\u0131\u015f olu\u015fu dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u015f\u00fcphelilerin bu a\u015famada tutuklanmas\u0131n\u0131n a\u011f\u0131r bir tedbir olaca\u011f\u0131…” gerek\u00e7esiyle tutuklama talebinin reddine, \u015f\u00fcpheliler hakk\u0131nda mahkemede ifade verinceye kadar yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 adli kontrol tedbiri uygulanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Sorgu s\u0131ras\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fcdafii ek g\u00f6zalt\u0131 s\u00fcresi verilip verilmedi\u011finin bildirilmesini talep etmesi \u00fczerine Olay ve Yakalama Tutana\u011f\u0131’na g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun saat 13.05’te g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131, sorgu an\u0131nda saatin 18.18 oldu\u011fu bilgilerinin tutana\u011fa ge\u00e7irildi\u011fi, sorgu s\u0131ras\u0131nda m\u00fcdafiinin ba\u015fvurucunun g\u00f6zalt\u0131 uzatma karar\u0131 bulunmamas\u0131na ra\u011fmen be\u015f saattir hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak tutuldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu 8\/6\/2020 tarihli dilek\u00e7eyle 4\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun 141. maddesi uyar\u0131nca tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dava dilek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucu 8\/5\/2020 tarihinde saat 13.05’te hakk\u0131nda yakalama i\u015flemi ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011fini, sonras\u0131nda d\u00f6rt g\u00fcnl\u00fck g\u00f6zalt\u0131 karar\u0131 verildi\u011fini, 12\/5\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011flen saatlerinde \u0130stanbul Adliyesine getirildi\u011fini, saat 13.05’i ge\u00e7mesine ve hakk\u0131nda g\u00f6zalt\u0131 s\u00fcresinin uzat\u0131lmas\u0131 karar\u0131 bulunmamas\u0131na ra\u011fmen ne savc\u0131l\u0131\u011fa g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ne de serbest b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ayn\u0131 tarihte saat 17.30 s\u0131ralar\u0131nda Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131kta ifadesi al\u0131nmadan tutuklanmas\u0131 talebiyle Sulh Ceza H\u00e2kimli\u011fine sevk edildi\u011fini, sorgu sonras\u0131nda saat 19.30 s\u0131ralar\u0131nda serbest b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fini bildirerek haks\u0131z bir \u015fekilde 6,5 saat \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden mahrum edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f ve20.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu ayr\u0131ca Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131n\u0131n k\u00fcnyelerini de belirtmek suretiyle i\u00e7tihatlar uyar\u0131nca haks\u0131z g\u00f6zalt\u0131 tedbiri nedeniyle tazminat talep edilebilmesi i\u00e7in takipsizlik yahut beraat karar\u0131n\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya bu kararlar\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesi \u015fart\u0131n\u0131n aranmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 da belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. \u0130stanbul 9. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi (A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi) 22\/10\/2020 tarihinde “…\u0130stanbul Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 Ter\u00f6r Su\u00e7lar\u0131 Soru\u015fturma B\u00fcrosu’na yaz\u0131lan m\u00fczekkereye verilen cevapta; … 08\/05\/2020 tarihinde g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131, 12\/05\/2020 tarihinde sevk edildi\u011fi \u0130stanbul 4.Sulh Ceza Hakimli\u011finin… karar\u0131… ile adli kontrol karar\u0131 verildi\u011fi, g\u00f6zalt\u0131nda ge\u00e7irdi\u011fi s\u00fcreyi ba\u015fka bir cezadan mahsup edilmedi\u011fi ancak hen\u00fcz Didem BAYDAR \u00dcNSAL hakk\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen soru\u015fturma dosyas\u0131nda karar verilmedi\u011fi husu[s]lar\u0131n\u0131n belirtildi\u011fi bu haliyle soru\u015fturman\u0131n halen devam etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmakla \u015fartlar\u0131 olu\u015fmayan davan\u0131n reddine…” gerek\u00e7esiyle tazminat talebinin reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak hakk\u0131ndaki soru\u015fturman\u0131n devam etti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesinin haks\u0131z oldu\u011funu belirterek istinaf talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. \u0130stinaf talebi B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince 26\/5\/2021 tarihinde “…karar yerinde g\u00f6sterilen delillere, mahkemenin kovu\u015fturma sonu\u00e7lar\u0131na uygun olarak olu\u015fan kanaat ve takdirine, incelenen dosya kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunan davac\u0131 vekilinin ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc nedenler yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f olmakla…” gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai karar\u0131 6\/6\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fini bildirmi\u015f olup 9\/6\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
11. UYAP \u00fczerinden yap\u0131lan incelemede ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7unu i\u015fledi\u011fi iddias\u0131yla hakk\u0131nda kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve davan\u0131n derdest oldu\u011fu tespit edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Komisyon; ba\u015fvurucunun adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne ve yarg\u0131lama giderlerini \u00f6demekten ge\u00e7ici olarak muaf tutulmas\u0131na, iddialar\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucu; g\u00f6zalt\u0131 s\u00fcresi doldu\u011fu h\u00e2lde haks\u0131z olarak 6,5 saate yak\u0131n tutuldu\u011funu, Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011fa sundu\u011fu sal\u0131verilme talepleriyle ilgili olarak bir i\u015flem yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek ki\u015fi h\u00fcrriyeti ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131n\u0131n, Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131na da ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak tazminat talebinde bulunulabilmesi i\u00e7in as\u0131l davan\u0131n sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi kabul\u00fcyle tazminat talebinin haks\u0131z olarak reddedildi\u011fini, ayn\u0131 durumdaki ki\u015filerin tazminat taleplerinin kabul edildi\u011fine dair sundu\u011fu itirazlar\u0131 ve bu y\u00f6ndeki mahkeme kararlar\u0131 da g\u00f6zetilmeden karar verildi\u011fini belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 ile e\u015fitlik ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
14. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, somut olay\u0131n \u015fartlar\u0131 g\u00f6zetilerek de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi bildirilmi\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 \u00f6z\u00fc, Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n hen\u00fcz h\u00fck\u00fcm verilmeden ve derdest davalarda da koruma tedbirlerine dayal\u0131 olarak tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131labilece\u011fine ili\u015fkin aksi y\u00f6nde kararlar\u0131na ra\u011fmen “soru\u015fturman\u0131n devam etti\u011fi” gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n haks\u0131z olarak reddedilmesine y\u00f6neliktir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla 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
16. 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 iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
17. Yarg\u0131tay 12. Ceza Dairesinin15\/5\/2012 tarihli ve E.2011\/20114, K.2012\/12183 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u201c5271 say\u0131l\u0131 CMK’n\u0131n; “Tazminat istemi” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 141. maddesi incelendi\u011finde, bir k\u0131s\u0131m tazminat nedenleri konusunda karar verilmesi i\u00e7in, davan\u0131n esas\u0131yla ilgili bir karar\u0131n verilmesi zorunlulu\u011funun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 dolay\u0131s\u0131yla bu nedenlere dayal\u0131 istemlerde, davan\u0131n sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131na gerek bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 yasal d\u00fczenlemeden a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. \u00d6rne\u011fin, g\u00f6zalt\u0131 s\u00fcresi yasada a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirtilmi\u015f olup, yasadaki bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde hakim \u00f6n\u00fcne \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131l\u0131p, \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n saptanmas\u0131n\u0131n davan\u0131n esas\u0131yla herhangi bir ilgisi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi bu konudaki talep konusunda karar verilmesi i\u00e7in davan\u0131n esas\u0131 hakk\u0131nda karar verilmesine de gerek bulunmamaktad\u0131r.\u201d <\/p>\n
18. Yarg\u0131tay 12. Ceza Dairesinin 1\/10\/2012 tarihli ve E.2012\/21752, K.2012\/20353 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u201cDavac\u0131lar vekilleri arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla kasten yaralama olay\u0131na kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131klar\u0131 gerek\u00e7esi ile yetkili Cumhuriyet savc\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6zalt\u0131 emri olmaks\u0131z\u0131n kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131 \u015fekilde g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131klar\u0131 ve bir g\u00fcn g\u00f6zalt\u0131nda kald\u0131klar\u0131 nedeniyle 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 CMK\u2019n\u0131n 141 ve devam\u0131 maddeleri uyar\u0131nca manevi tazminat isteminde bulunmu\u015flard\u0131r. Yarg\u0131lama yapan… A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince, tazminat istemine konu ceza davas\u0131n\u0131n derdest olup, hen\u00fcz sonu\u00e7lanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, g\u00f6zalt\u0131ndaa ge\u00e7irilen s\u00fcrelerin TCK\u2019n\u0131n 63. maddesi uyar\u0131nca cezadan mahsubunun s\u00f6z konusu olabilece\u011fi, derdest davalarda koruma tedbirleri nedeniyle tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7eleriyle, tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
5271 say\u0131l\u0131 CMK\u2019n\u0131n; ‘Tazminat istemi’ ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 141. maddesi incelendi\u011finde, bir k\u0131s\u0131m tazminat nedenleri konusunda karar verilmesi i\u00e7in, davan\u0131n esas\u0131yla ilgili bir karar\u0131n verilmesi zorunlulu\u011funun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 dolay\u0131s\u0131yla bu nedenlere dayal\u0131 istemlerde, davan\u0131n sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131na gerek bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 yasal d\u00fczenlemeden a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bu kapsamda somut olay incelendi\u011finde, talebin dava sonucuyla veya verilecek h\u00fck\u00fcmle bir ilgisi bulunmamaktad\u0131r. G\u00f6zalt\u0131nda veya tutuklulukta ge\u00e7en s\u00fcrelerin, san\u0131klar\u0131n mahkumiyeti halinde bu cezalar\u0131ndan mahsubu imkan\u0131n\u0131n bulunmas\u0131 da ula\u015f\u0131lan bu sonucu de\u011fi\u015ftirmeyecektir. Hal b\u00f6yle iken, davan\u0131n esas\u0131yla ilgili hen\u00fcz h\u00fck\u00fcm verilmedi\u011fi ve derdest davalarda koruma tedbirlerine dayal\u0131 olarak dava a\u00e7\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin gerek\u00e7enin yasal bir dayana\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi mahkemenin bu y\u00f6ndeki de\u011ferlendirmesi de isabetsiz olup, davan\u0131n kabul\u00fc yerine, yaz\u0131l\u0131 gerek\u00e7elerle reddine karar verilmesi,<\/p>\n
Kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131 olup… [bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir.]\u201d <\/p>\n
19. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda herkesin adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015f ancak gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131ndan a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a s\u00f6z edilmemi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesine “…ile adil yarg\u0131lanma” ibaresinin eklenmesine ili\u015fkin gerek\u00e7ede, T\u00fcrkiye’nin taraf oldu\u011fu uluslararas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerde de g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n madde metnine d\u00e2hil edildi\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Nitekim Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’nin 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131ndaki hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n kapsam\u0131na gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n da d\u00e2hil oldu\u011funu Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi bir\u00e7ok karar\u0131nda vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 g\u00fcvencesini de kapsad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilmesi gerekir (Abdullah Top\u00e7u, B. No: 2014\/8868, 19\/4\/2017, \u00a7 75).<\/p>\n
20. Anayasa’n\u0131n 141. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131nda da \u201cB\u00fct\u00fcn mahkemelerin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc kararlar\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli olarak yaz\u0131l\u0131r.\u201d denilerek mahkemelere kararlar\u0131n\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli yazma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc y\u00fcklenmi\u015ftir. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ilkesi gere\u011fi, an\u0131lan Anayasa kural\u0131 da gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesinde g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmal\u0131d\u0131r (Abdullah Top\u00e7u, \u00a7 76).<\/p>\n
21. Bir kararda tam olarak hangi unsurlar\u0131n bulunmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi davan\u0131n niteli\u011fine ve \u015fartlar\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. Muhakeme s\u0131ras\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k ve somut bir bi\u00e7imde \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclen iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili olmas\u0131, ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle davan\u0131n sonucunu de\u011fi\u015ftirebilecek nitelikte bulunmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde davayla do\u011frudan ilgili olan bu hususlara mahkemelerce yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e ile yan\u0131t verilmesi gerekir. Aksi bir tutumla mahkemenin davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili oldu\u011funu kabul etti\u011fi bir husus hakk\u0131nda ilgili ve yeterli bir yan\u0131t vermemesi hak ihlaline neden olabilecektir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Sencer Ba\u015fat ve di\u011ferleri, [GK], B. No: 2013\/7800, 18\/6\/2014, \u00a7\u00a7 35, 39).<\/p>\n
22. Ba\u015fvurucu; hem dava dilek\u00e7esinde hem de istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvuru dilek\u00e7esinde haks\u0131z g\u00f6zalt\u0131 tedbiri uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131yla tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in as\u0131l davan\u0131n sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131n\u0131n gerekmedi\u011fini, bu y\u00f6nde Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 bulundu\u011funu dile getirmi\u015ftir. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince g\u00f6zalt\u0131n\u0131n hukukili\u011fiyle ilgili bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmadan, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki soru\u015fturman\u0131n devam etti\u011finden bahisle davan\u0131n reddine karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu durumda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in esasl\u0131 olan ve karar\u0131n sonucunu de\u011fi\u015ftirebilecek nitelikteki iddialar A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi karar\u0131nda tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f ve kar\u015f\u0131lanmam\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fundan ba\u015fvurucunun gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
23. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle 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\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
24. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlal tespiti ve 20.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesi 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 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
26. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in 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. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere \u0130stanbul 9. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (E.2020\/166 ve K.2020\/221) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Tazminata ili\u015fkin taleplerin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \u00d6demenin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 17\/9\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 17\/9\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/28358 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 D\u0130DEM BAYDAR \u00dcNSAL BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/28358) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 17\/9\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 7\/3\/2025 – 32834 \u00a0 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 Muhterem \u0130NCE \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Tu\u011f\u00e7e TAKCI Ba\u015fvurucu : Didem BAYDAR \u00dcNSAL Vekili : Av. Fatih G\u00d6K\u00c7E \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, karar sonucunu etkileyecek nitelikteki esasl\u0131 iddialar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. DHKP\/C silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma, ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn propagandas\u0131n\u0131 yapma, 6\/10\/1983 tarihli ve 2911 say\u0131l\u0131 Toplant\u0131 ve G\u00f6steri Y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015fleri Kanunu\u2019na muhalefet, g\u00f6revi yapt\u0131rmamak i\u00e7in direnme, mala zarar verme su\u00e7lar\u0131ndan hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma s\u00fcre\u00e7leri devam eden \u0130.G. hakk\u0131nda 8\/5\/2020 tarihinde cemevinde d\u00fczenlenen cenaze t\u00f6reninde meydana gelen olaylar nedeniyle \u0130stanbul Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) taraf\u0131ndan soru\u015fturma ba\u015flat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Olay ve Yakalama Tutana\u011f\u0131’na g\u00f6re Cumhuriyet savc\u0131s\u0131, cemevindeki eylemcilerin yakalanmas\u0131 ve burada arama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 talimat\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Bunun \u00fczerine g\u00fcvenlik g\u00fc\u00e7leri cemevindeki morgun \u00f6n\u00fcnde kollar\u0131n\u0131 birbiriyle kenetlemi\u015f vaziyette oturma eylemi yapan \u015fah\u0131slara da\u011f\u0131lmamalar\u0131 h\u00e2linde g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nacaklar\u0131 uyar\u0131s\u0131nda bulunmu\u015f, eylemcilerin da\u011f\u0131lmamas\u0131 \u00fczerine saat 13.05’te ba\u015fvurucunun da aralar\u0131nda oldu\u011fu eylemciler yakalanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yap\u0131lan i\u015flemler hakk\u0131nda saat 15.00’te …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34998","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n