T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
ERDAL SULAR VE MEHMET SULAR BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/53503)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 14\/1\/2025<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Murat BA\u015ePINAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1. Erdal SULAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
2. Mehmet SULAR<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Nejat TOPRAK<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; m\u00fcdafiinin mazeretinin kabul edilmemesi nedeniyle savunma i\u00e7in gerekli zaman ve kolayl\u0131klara sahip olma hakk\u0131n\u0131n, haberdar edilmeyen bir su\u00e7tan \u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fc cezaland\u0131r\u0131lma nedeniyle de su\u00e7lamay\u0131 \u00f6\u011frenme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkindir. Ba\u015fvurucunun adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda ba\u015fkaca ihlal iddialar\u0131 da bulunmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
2. Kahramanmara\u015f K\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck ve Orta \u00d6l\u00e7ekli M\u00fckellefler Grup Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 24\/12\/2013 tarihli ihbar\u0131 \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucular hakk\u0131nda Kahramanmara\u015f Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, soru\u015fturma neticesinde ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n tefecilik fiilini gizleyebilmek i\u00e7in cep telefon kont\u00f6r\u00fc faturalar\u0131n\u0131 sahte olarak d\u00fczenlediklerini ve b\u00f6ylece y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fckleri pos tefecili\u011fi faaliyetiyle 2008-2009 y\u0131llar\u0131nda sahte ve muhteviyat\u0131 yan\u0131lt\u0131c\u0131 belge d\u00fczenleyerek bunlar\u0131 kulland\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 belirtilerek 4\/1\/1961 tarihli ve 213 say\u0131l\u0131 Vergi Usul Kanunu’na muhalefet etmek su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmalar\u0131 talebiyle 2\/7\/2014 tarihinde iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015ftir. \u0130ddianamede, m\u00fc\u015fteki Kahramanmara\u015f Vergi Denetim Kurumu m\u00fcfetti\u015finin ba\u015fvurucular hakk\u0131nda d\u00fczenledi\u011fi su\u00e7 duyurusu raporuna dayanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. Kahramanmara\u015f 5. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) g\u00f6r\u00fclen yarg\u0131laman\u0131n 21\/11\/2014 tarihli ilk celsesinde savunmas\u0131 al\u0131nan ba\u015fvurucu Mehmet Sular su\u00e7lamalar\u0131 kabul etmemi\u015f ve savunmas\u0131nda su\u00e7a konu i\u015fyerini kendisinin ve karde\u015fi olan di\u011fer ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015fletmedi\u011fini, yine karde\u015fi olan R.S.nin i\u015fletti\u011fini, olay tarihinde karde\u015fi R.S.nin i\u015flerinin bozuk oldu\u011funu bu nedenle kredi kart\u0131n\u0131 ona verdi\u011fini beyan etmi\u015ftir. Ayn\u0131 celse tan\u0131klar A.B., A.P., E.Y., F.D., H.B., \u0130.B., K.S., M.K.F., M.T.\u00dc., M.A., M.P., O.N., O.\u015e., \u00d6.F.C., \u00d6.Y., S.\u00d6., S.Z., \u015e.P., V.A. ve S.A.n\u0131n beyanlar\u0131 da al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tan\u0131klar beyanlar\u0131nda nakit ihtiya\u00e7lar\u0131 i\u00e7in bir miktar komisyon kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda kredi kart\u0131 \u00e7ekimi yapt\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131k M.U. ise kredi kart\u0131n\u0131 al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f ihtiyac\u0131 i\u00e7in kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmi\u015ftir. 6\/3\/2015 tarihli ikinci celsede dinlenen tan\u0131klar O.C., G.L.Y., \u0130.D., H.\u0130.D., E.T., O.\u015e., N.G., R.S. ve H.A.S. de beyanlar\u0131nda nakit ihtiya\u00e7lar\u0131 i\u00e7in bir miktar komisyon kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda kredi kart\u0131 \u00e7ekimi yapt\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. \u0130stinabe yoluyla savunmas\u0131 al\u0131nan ba\u015fvurucu Erdal Sular da savunmas\u0131nda su\u00e7lamalar\u0131 kabul etmeyerek su\u00e7a konu i\u015fyeriyle ilgisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu i\u015fyerinin karde\u015fi R.S. taraf\u0131ndan i\u015fletildi\u011fini beyan etmi\u015ftir. Yine istinabe yoluyla beyanlar\u0131 al\u0131nan tan\u0131k \u0130.A., Sular adl\u0131 i\u015fyerinden birka\u00e7 kez telefon ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, B.Y. kredi kart\u0131ndan nakde d\u00f6n\u00fck i\u015flemler yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00d6.E. ise D. isimli i\u015fyerinde sekiz y\u0131l kadar sat\u0131\u015f temsilcisi olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, san\u0131klar\u0131n bu i\u015fyerinin hem sahibi hem de aralar\u0131nda a\u011fabey-karde\u015f ili\u015fkisi oldu\u011funu ancak i\u015fyerinin R.S. ad\u0131na faaliyet g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini, \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131klar\u0131 s\u00fcre zarf\u0131nda s\u0131k\u0131\u015ft\u0131klar\u0131 zaman kredi kart\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 ve zaman\u0131 geldi\u011finde de kredi kart\u0131 \u00f6demesini yapt\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, bunun i\u00e7in de ekstra herhangi bir \u00fccret \u00f6demediklerini, \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131klar\u0131 s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde herhangi bir tefecilik olay\u0131na \u015fahit olmad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, i\u015fyerinin cep telefonu ve aksesuar sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 yapan bir ticarethane oldu\u011funu beyan etmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131k \u00d6.E. daha sonra 26\/2\/2019 tarihli talimatla al\u0131nan beyan\u0131nda ise Kahramanmara\u015f merkezde bulunan Sular \u0130leti\u015fim’de t\u00fcm i\u015flerine R.S.nin bakt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, karde\u015fi Mehmet Sular’\u0131n da kendisiyle beraber \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, Erdal Sular’\u0131n d\u00fckkana pek gelmedi\u011fini, iki y\u0131la yak\u0131n s\u00fcre bu i\u015fyerinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde bir usuls\u00fczl\u00fck yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6rmedi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. \u00d6te yandan ba\u015fvurucular hakk\u0131nda ayn\u0131 eylemler nedeniyle Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131kta devam eden di\u011fer bir soru\u015fturmada 13\/10\/2014 tarihli iddianame haz\u0131rlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu iddianamede 2008 ve 2009 y\u0131llar\u0131 hesaplar\u0131 incelenmesi neticesinde m\u00fc\u015fteki kurum m\u00fcfetti\u015fleri taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen raporda \u015f\u00fcphelilerin kredi kart\u0131 arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla R.S.nin ad\u0131n\u0131 kullanarak komisyon kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda bor\u00e7 para verdikleri ve komisyon geliri elde ettikleri, tefecilik faaliyetinde bulunduklar\u0131, tefecilik faaliyetini gizleyebilmek i\u00e7in temin edilen baz\u0131 cep telefonu kont\u00f6r faturalar\u0131 ile m\u00fckellef taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen baz\u0131 cep telefonu kont\u00f6r\u00fc faturalar\u0131n sahte oldu\u011fu, pos tefecili\u011fi diye tabir edilen bu eylemlerini gizlemek amac\u0131yla birden fazla kez sahte ve muhteviyat\u0131 itibari ile yan\u0131lt\u0131c\u0131 belge d\u00fczenledikleri belirtilerek vergi ka\u00e7ak\u00e7\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131, tefecilik ve 23\/2\/2006 tarihli ve 5464 say\u0131l\u0131 Banka Kartlar\u0131 ve Kredi Kartlar\u0131 Kanunu’nun 36. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda ger\u00e7e\u011fe ayk\u0131r\u0131 harcama belgesi d\u00fczenlemek su\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 i\u015fledikleri iddia edilmi\u015ftir. \u0130ddianamenin kabul\u00fcyle birlikte a\u00e7\u0131lan dava Kahramanmara\u015f 8. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesinde (2014\/754 E.) g\u00f6r\u00fclmeye ba\u015flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular; m\u00fcdafiinin de talebi do\u011frultusunda 9\/3\/2015 tarihli \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc celsede bu davan\u0131n, Kahramanmara\u015f 5. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesinde devam eden di\u011fer dosyayla birle\u015ftirilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Mahkemece, ba\u015fvurucular m\u00fcdafiinin de haz\u0131r oldu\u011fu 8\/10\/2015 tarihli d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc celse birle\u015ftirme karar\u0131 verilerek birle\u015fen dosya okunmu\u015f ve dosyaya eklenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Mahkemece, devam eden yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda istinabe yoluyla bilirki\u015fi raporu ald\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00dc\u00e7 ki\u015filik bilirki\u015fi heyetinden al\u0131nan 27\/5\/2016 tarihli raporun sonu\u00e7 k\u0131sm\u0131nda pos cihazlar\u0131n\u0131n amac\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve 2008-2009 y\u0131llar\u0131nda kont\u00f6r sat\u0131\u015flar\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen faturalar\u0131n sahte belgeler oldu\u011funun tespit edildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. 8\/12\/2016 tarihli dokuzuncu celsede bilirki\u015fi raporu, ba\u015fvurucular m\u00fcdafiine okunmu\u015ftur. Mahkeme 9\/5\/2017 tarihli on birinci celsede ayn\u0131 bilirki\u015fi heyetinden ek rapor al\u0131nmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Ayn\u0131 bilirki\u015fi heyetince tanzim edilen 24\/5\/2017 tarihli ek rapor ba\u015fvurucular m\u00fcdafiinin de haz\u0131r oldu\u011fu 19\/9\/2017 tarihli on ikinci celse okunmu\u015ftur. An\u0131lan raporda da 2008-2009 y\u0131llar\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen faturalar\u0131n ger\u00e7ek mal ve hizmet al\u0131\u015f veri\u015fine dayal\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, eylemler sebebiyle vergi kayb\u0131 oldu\u011fu, eylemlerin \u00f6d\u00fcn\u00e7 para verme hakk\u0131ndaki 30\/9\/1983 tarihli m\u00fclga 90 say\u0131l\u0131 \u00d6d\u00fcn\u00e7 Para Verme \u0130\u015fleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararnameye uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaati belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucular m\u00fcdafii 2\/6\/2021 tarihli yirmi ikinci celse mesleki mazeretine ili\u015fkin dilek\u00e7eyi Mahkemeye g\u00f6ndermi\u015ftir. Dilek\u00e7ede, Kahramanmara\u015f \u0130cra Hukuk Mahkemesinin 2020\/735 Esas say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131n\u0131n saat 13.45’te duru\u015fmas\u0131 oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Mahkemece, daha \u00f6nceki celse ba\u015fvurucular ve m\u00fcdafiileri ad\u0131na ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131\u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fc bildiren davetiyelerden ba\u015fvurucu Mehmet Sular’a ait olan davetiye par\u00e7as\u0131 hen\u00fcz d\u00f6nmeden yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmede Cumhuriyet Savc\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n da talebi do\u011frultusunda dosyan\u0131n geldi\u011fi a\u015fama dikkate al\u0131narak san\u0131klar m\u00fcdafinin belgelendirilmemi\u015f mazeretinin reddine karar verilerek yarg\u0131lamaya devam edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Ayn\u0131 duru\u015fmada Cumhuriyet savc\u0131s\u0131 iddianame do\u011frultusunda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde m\u00fctalaas\u0131n\u0131 sunmu\u015f ve Mahkemece ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n 2008 ve 2009 y\u0131llar\u0131 i\u00e7in ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 iki kez Vergi Usul Kanunu’na muhalefet su\u00e7lar\u0131ndan 3 y\u0131l 1 ay 15 g\u00fcn hapis, tefecilik su\u00e7undan 2 y\u0131l 1 ay hapis ve 100 TL adli para cezas\u0131, Banka ve Kredi Kartlar\u0131 Kanunu’na muhalefet su\u00e7undan 2 y\u0131l 1 ay hapis ve 100 TL adli para cezalar\u0131yla cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmalar\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Kararda, ilgili kurumlarla yap\u0131lan yaz\u0131\u015fma cevaplar\u0131, tan\u0131k anlat\u0131mlar\u0131 ve bilirki\u015fi parorlar\u0131 birlikte de\u011ferlendirilerek Mahkemece delil olarak h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Gerek\u00e7eli kararda, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n kredi kart\u0131 arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla komisyon kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda bor\u00e7 para vermek suretiyle tefecilik su\u00e7unu i\u015fledi\u011fi, tefecilik faaliyetini gizleyebilmek i\u00e7in temin edilen baz\u0131 cep telefonu kont\u00f6r faturalar\u0131n\u0131n sahte oldu\u011fu, pos tefecili\u011fi diye tabir edilen bu eylemleri gizlemek amac\u0131yla birden fazla kez sahte ve muhteviyat\u0131 itibari ile yan\u0131lt\u0131c\u0131 belge d\u00fczenledikleri belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. An\u0131lan karar\u0131n istinaf edilmesi \u00fczerine Gaziantep B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 14. Ceza Dairesi (Daire) taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan incelemede verilen 27\/10\/2021 tarihli kararda, ba\u015fvurucular hakk\u0131nda tefecilik su\u00e7undan ve 2009 y\u0131l\u0131na ili\u015fkin Vergi Usul Kanunu’na muhalefet su\u00e7undan verilen mahk\u00fbmiyetlere ili\u015fkin ba\u015fvurular kesin olmak \u00fczere esastan reddedilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca 2008 y\u0131l\u0131na ili\u015fkin verilen mahk\u00fbmiyette zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresi doldu\u011fu belirtilerek an\u0131lan davan\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmesine veBanka ve Kredi Kartlar\u0131 Kanunu’na muhalefet su\u00e7undan verilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn de kald\u0131r\u0131larak fiilin sadece tefecilik su\u00e7una v\u00fccut verece\u011fi belirtildikten sonra ayr\u0131ca bu su\u00e7tan h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131na yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucular m\u00fcdafii kesinle\u015fen mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine kar\u015f\u0131 temyiz kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. \u0130stinaf Dairesi, verilen h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin kesin nitelikte olduklar\u0131n\u0131 belirterek an\u0131lan temyiz talebini 12\/11\/2021 tarihli ek kararla reddetmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tay 11. Ceza Dairesi 18\/9\/2023 tarihli karar\u0131yla, ek karar\u0131n onanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 9\/11\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 23\/11\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
A. Savunma \u0130\u00e7in Gerekli Zaman ve Kolayl\u0131klara Sahip Olma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurucular, m\u00fcdafiilerinin mazeret dilek\u00e7esinin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak reddedilmesi ve ba\u015fvuruculardan Mehmet Sular ad\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan davetiye sonucu hen\u00fcz d\u00f6nmeden karar verilimesi nedenleriyle esas hakk\u0131ndaki m\u00fctalaya kar\u015f\u0131 savunma yapamad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 belirterek savunma hakk\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131s\u0131tland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015flerdir.<\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanma hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak savunma i\u00e7in gerekli zaman ve kolayl\u0131klara sahip olma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesi uyar\u0131nca herkes iddia, savunma ve adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na sahiptir. Anayasa’n\u0131n an\u0131lan maddesinde adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131ndan ayr\u0131 olarak iddia ve savunma hakk\u0131na birlikte yer verilmesi, taraflara iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcnde dile getirme f\u0131rsat\u0131 tan\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi anlam\u0131n\u0131 da i\u00e7ermektedir (Mehmet Fidan, B. No: 2014\/14673, 20\/9\/2017, \u00a7 37).<\/p>\n
17. Ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131nda savunma hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131, demokratik toplumun temel ilkelerindendir (Erol Ayde\u011fer, B. No: 2013\/4784, 7\/3\/2014, \u00a7 32). \u0130ddiaya kar\u015f\u0131 savunma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcrece adil muhakeme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Savunma hakk\u0131 tan\u0131nmadan ki\u015filerin cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131, Anayasa’n\u0131n 38. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan masumiyet karinesine de uygun de\u011fildir (Ufuk Rifat \u00c7obano\u011flu, B. No: 2014\/6971, 1\/2\/2017, \u00a7 36).<\/p>\n
18. Su\u00e7 isnad\u0131 alt\u0131ndaki ki\u015fiye savunma hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u015feklen de\u011fil ger\u00e7ek anlamda sa\u011flanmas\u0131 gerekir. Bunun i\u00e7in su\u00e7 isnad\u0131 alt\u0131ndaki ki\u015fi, savunma i\u00e7in yeterli imk\u00e2na yani gerekli zaman ve kolayl\u0131klara sahip olmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bu itibarla an\u0131lan g\u00fcvence adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n kapsam ve i\u00e7eri\u011fine d\u00e2hil ve bu hakk\u0131n do\u011fal sonucudur. Di\u011fer yandan Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesine “…ile adil yarg\u0131lanma” ibaresinin eklenmesine ili\u015fkin gerek\u00e7ede, taraf oldu\u011fumuz uluslararas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerce de g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lama hakk\u0131n\u0131n madde metnine d\u00e2hil edildi\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Nitekim Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’nin (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) 6. maddesinin (3) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (b) bendinde, bir su\u00e7 ile itham edilen herkesin savunmas\u0131n\u0131 haz\u0131rlamak i\u00e7in gerekli zaman ve kolayl\u0131klara sahip olma hakk\u0131 d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir (Ufuk Rifat \u00c7obano\u011flu, \u00a7 37).<\/p>\n
19. Anayasa Mahkemesi de savunma i\u00e7in gerekli zaman ve kolayl\u0131klara sahip olma hakk\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde belirtilen adil yarg\u0131lanma kavram\u0131 yan\u0131nda me\u015fru vas\u0131ta ve yollardan yararlanma kavram\u0131n\u0131n da kapsam\u0131nda oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir (AYM, E.1992\/8, K.1992\/39, 16\/6\/1992).<\/p>\n
20. Gerekli zaman yarg\u0131lanan ki\u015finin hakk\u0131ndaki iddialar\u0131 \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra savunma i\u00e7in zorunlu haz\u0131rl\u0131klar\u0131 yapabilece\u011fi s\u00fcreyi ifade etmektedir. Savunma i\u00e7in gerekli kolayl\u0131k kavram\u0131 ise \u015f\u00fcpheliye\/san\u0131\u011fa savunma i\u00e7in yard\u0131mc\u0131 olacak veya olabilecek zorunlu olan imk\u00e2nlar\u0131 ifade etmekte ve silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fini sa\u011flamay\u0131 ama\u00e7lamaktad\u0131r. Su\u00e7 isnad\u0131 alt\u0131ndaki ki\u015fiye sa\u011flanmas\u0131 zorunlu kolayl\u0131klar, savunma i\u00e7in gerekli olanlard\u0131r. Bu kolayl\u0131klardan biri de kovu\u015fturma evresinde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n m\u00fcdafii arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla deliller \u00fczerine g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f sunmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n verilmesidir. Bu hak y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de somut olay\u0131n \u00f6zelliklerinin belirleyicili\u011fi b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6neme sahiptir. De\u011ferlendirme, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc g\u00f6zetilerek yap\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Ufuk Rifat \u00c7obano\u011flu, \u00a7\u00a7 43, 45).<\/p>\n
21. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucular m\u00fcdafiinin de haz\u0131r bulundu\u011fu ilk celsede ba\u015fvurucu Mehmet Sular, su\u00e7lamaya ili\u015fkin olarak ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 bir \u015fekilde savunma yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Di\u011fer ba\u015fvurucunun istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nan savunmas\u0131n\u0131n okundu\u011fu celsede de m\u00fcdafii haz\u0131r bulunmu\u015ftur. Yine tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131 ve bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131n\u0131n okunmas\u0131 gibi esasl\u0131 i\u015flemlerin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 t\u00fcm celselerde ba\u015fvurucular m\u00fcdafii haz\u0131r bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucular ve m\u00fcdafii haz\u0131r bulunarak dosyadaki delillere kar\u015f\u0131 iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015flerdir.<\/p>\n
22. Yarg\u0131laman\u0131n son celsesine ise ba\u015fvurucular ve m\u00fcdafii kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu celsede ba\u015fvurucular m\u00fcdafii taraf\u0131ndan Mahkemeye mesleki mazerete ili\u015fkin dilek\u00e7e g\u00f6nderilmi\u015f ve ayn\u0131 adliyede \u0130cra Hukuk Mahkemesinde duru\u015fmas\u0131 oldu\u011fu mazeret olarak belirtilmi\u015ftir. M\u00fcdafiinin mesleki mazeret bildirerek son celsesine kat\u0131lmamas\u0131 \u00fczerine Mahkeme, dosyan\u0131n geldi\u011fi a\u015famay\u0131 da dikkate al\u0131narak ba\u015fvurucular m\u00fcdafinin belgelendirilmemi\u015f mazeretinin reddine karar vermi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7 9). Ayn\u0131 celse Cumhuriyet Savc\u0131s\u0131 iddianame i\u00e7eri\u011fiyle uyumlu olacak \u015fekilde ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinde bulunmu\u015f ve Mahkeme de m\u00fctalaa gibi ba\u015fvurucular ve m\u00fcdafiinin yoklu\u011funda h\u00fckm\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (bkz. \u00a7 10). Ba\u015fvurucu Mehmet Sular ad\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan davetiye hen\u00fcz d\u00f6nmeden karar verilmi\u015f ise de, her iki ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafiinin ayn\u0131 olmas\u0131 ve m\u00fcdafinin de duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fcnden haberdar olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, an\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafiinin tebligat d\u00f6nmeden karar verildi\u011fi iddias\u0131 sonuca etkili g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
23. Ba\u015fvuru konusu yarg\u0131lama yirmi iki celsede tamamlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvuruculara kovu\u015fturma evresinde m\u00fcdafii arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla deliller \u00fczerine g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n savunma i\u00e7in zorunlu haz\u0131rl\u0131klar\u0131 yapabilecekleri s\u00fcreye sahip olduklar\u0131, bir m\u00fcdafiinin yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanmak suretiyle yarg\u0131lama a\u015famalar\u0131nda savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 yapt\u0131klar\u0131, dava dosyas\u0131nda yer alan delillere kar\u015f\u0131 iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fckleri anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvuru dosyas\u0131 incelendi\u011finde silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak ba\u015fvurucuya delillerini sunma ve inceletme ile itiraz etme hususlar\u0131nda uygun olanaklar\u0131n sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir delil de bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Eldeki ba\u015fvuruya konu olayda a\u00e7\u0131klanan esas hakk\u0131ndaki m\u00fctalaada da iddianamede belirtilen olaylar ve su\u00e7 nitelemesi aynen tekrar edilmi\u015ftir. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u015fik\u00e2yetine konu esas hakk\u0131ndaki m\u00fctalaan\u0131n mahkemenin karar\u0131n\u0131 esasl\u0131 bir \u015fekilde de\u011fi\u015ftirebilecek nitelikte yeni durum ortaya \u00e7\u0131karmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
24. \u00d6te yandan ba\u015fvurucular, ayn\u0131 m\u00fcdafiinin hukuki ve teknik yard\u0131m\u0131ndan faydalanarak karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf talebinde bulunmu\u015f; iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 olarak a\u00e7\u0131klama imk\u00e2n\u0131na da sahip olmu\u015ftur. Nitekim yap\u0131lan istinaf incelemesinde de talep gibi bir k\u0131s\u0131msu\u00e7lardan verilen mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fck\u00fcmleri (bkz. \u00a7 11) ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Sonu\u00e7 olarak yarg\u0131lamaya bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda -somut olay\u0131n \u00f6zel ko\u015fullar\u0131nda- ba\u015fvurucunun savunma i\u00e7in gerekli zaman ve kolayl\u0131klara sahip olma hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir ihlalin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/p>\n
25. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Su\u00e7lamay\u0131 (\u0130snad\u0131) \u00d6\u011frenme Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
26. Ba\u015fvurucular; Vergi Usul Kanunu’na muhalefetten dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n tefecilik ile Banka ve Kredi Karlar\u0131 Kanunu’na muhalefet su\u00e7lar\u0131ndan da h\u00fck\u00fcm kuruldu\u011funu, bu hususlar\u0131n iddianame bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi ek savunma da verilmedi\u011fini belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda savunma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
27. Ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131, adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki su\u00e7lamay\u0131 (isnad\u0131) \u00f6\u011frenme hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
28. Anayasa Mahkemesi benzer iddialar\u0131n ileri s\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u015fvurulara ili\u015fkin olarak bir\u00e7ok karar\u0131nda isnad\u0131 (su\u00e7lamay\u0131) \u00f6\u011frenme hakk\u0131 ile ilgili ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re su\u00e7 isnad\u0131 alt\u0131ndaki ki\u015fiye savunma hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u015feklen de\u011fil ger\u00e7ek anlamda sa\u011flanmas\u0131 gerekir. Bunun i\u00e7in su\u00e7 isnad\u0131 alt\u0131nda bulunan ki\u015fiye, savunmas\u0131n\u0131 haz\u0131rlay\u0131p mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcnde dile getirebilmesi ve b\u00f6ylece yarg\u0131laman\u0131n sonucunu etkileyebilmesi i\u00e7in isnad\u0131n bildirilmesi gerekir. Hakk\u0131ndaki isnad\u0131 bilmeyen kimsenin savunma yapmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. \u0130snat, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n savunma yapabilmesi i\u00e7in bildirilmektedir. Bunun i\u00e7in bildirimde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n hangi fiil ile su\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve hangi su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131klanmal\u0131d\u0131r. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle san\u0131k, isnad\u0131n sebebinden ve niteli\u011finden haberdar edilmelidir. San\u0131\u011f\u0131n hangi fiili nerede ve ne zaman i\u015fledi\u011fi (y\u00fcklenen su\u00e7u olu\u015fturan olay\/olaylar) isnad\u0131n sebebini olu\u015fturur. Bunlar\u0131n soyut olarak de\u011fil san\u0131\u011f\u0131n savunma haz\u0131rlayabilmesine yeterli d\u00fczeyde ve ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 olarak a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 gerekir. B\u00f6ylelikle san\u0131k, davaya konu fiili nerede ve ne zaman i\u015flemekle su\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bilece\u011finden savunmas\u0131n\u0131 buna g\u00f6re yapabilecektir. Fiilin hukuki y\u00f6nden vas\u0131fland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ise isnad\u0131n niteli\u011fidir. Su\u00e7laman\u0131n niteli\u011fi hakk\u0131ndaki bilgi de savunma yapmaya yeterli d\u00fczeyde olmal\u0131 ve san\u0131\u011f\u0131n i\u015flemekle su\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131 fiilin hangi normu ihlal etti\u011fi bildirimde belirtilmelidir. Yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda fiilin hukuki niteli\u011finin de\u011fi\u015fmesi durumunda da san\u0131k bu de\u011fi\u015fiklikten haberdar edilmelidir. B\u00f6ylelikle silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerine uygun olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n adilli\u011fi de sa\u011flanm\u0131\u015f olur (Ali Kemal Tekin, B. No: 2014\/875, 2\/2\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 40-43).<\/p>\n
29. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda; haz\u0131rlanan ilk iddianame olan 2\/7\/2014 tarihli iddianamede ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n eylemi Vergi Usul Kanunu’na muhalefet su\u00e7u olarak nitelendirilmesine kar\u015f\u0131n, iddianame i\u00e7eri\u011finde tefecilik faaliyetinden de bahsedilmi\u015ftir. Sonradan d\u00fczenlenen ve ilk dava ile birle\u015fen 13\/10\/2014 tarihli iddianamede ise yine ayn\u0131 olaylar anlat\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra t\u00fcm su\u00e7lardan (vergi ka\u00e7ak\u00e7\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131, tefecilik ve Banka ve Kredi Kartlar\u0131 Kanunu’nun 36. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda ger\u00e7e\u011fe ayk\u0131r\u0131 harcama belgesi d\u00fczenlemek) cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmalar\u0131 talebinde bulunulmu\u015ftur. Dahas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan bu ikinci dava, ba\u015fvurucular m\u00fcdafiinin de talebi \u00fczerine m\u00fckerrer yarg\u0131laman\u0131n \u00f6n\u00fcne ge\u00e7ilmesi amac\u0131yla birle\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir. Savunmaya ili\u015fkin verilen beyan ve sunulan dilek\u00e7elerde de t\u00fcm su\u00e7lara y\u00f6nelik a\u00e7\u0131klamalar yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/p>\n
30. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla iddia makam\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan t\u00fcm eylemler iddianamelerde anlat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve hukuki vas\u0131flar\u0131 nitelendirilmi\u015ftir. Savunmalarda iddianamelerde anlat\u0131lan eylemler ve su\u00e7lara y\u00f6nelik olarak al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Sonu\u00e7 olarak somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun isnad\u0131n sebebinden ve niteli\u011finden haberdar olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ya da savunmas\u0131n\u0131 haz\u0131rlay\u0131p mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcnde dile getirme imk\u00e2n\u0131ndan yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenemez.<\/p>\n
31. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n da a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
C. Di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131<\/p>\n
32. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n hangi delilin hangi su\u00e7a ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu hususunda kararda yeterli a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, savunmalar\u0131nda ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fckleri hususlara neden itibar edilmedi\u011fi konusunda ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilmeden istinaf talebinin reddedildi\u011fi belirtilerek gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n\u0131n Abdullah Top\u00e7u, (B. No: 2014\/8868, 19\/4\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 75-76), Mehmet Yavuz (B. No: 2013\/2995, 20\/2\/2014, \u00a7 51), Yasemin Ek\u015fi (B. No: 2013\/5486, 4\/12\/2013, \u00a7 57) kararlar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda; istinaf a\u015famalar\u0131ndaki duru\u015fma istemlerinin dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, talepleri hakk\u0131nda bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirterek incelemenin duru\u015fmas\u0131z yap\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle s\u00f6zl\u00fc yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n\u0131n Nevruz Bozkurt (B. No: 2013\/664, 17\/9\/2013, \u00a7 32), Feyyaz Bayram (B. No: 2014\/7822, 16\/11\/2016, \u00a7 84-86) kararlar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda; dava konusu olayda zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n dolmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen haks\u0131z olarak cezaland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131klar\u0131, belirtilen i\u015fyeriyle ilgili olmad\u0131klar\u0131na dair savunmalar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131n\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm kurmaya yeterli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, eksik ara\u015ft\u0131rma ve inceleme sonucunda karar verildi\u011fi belirtilerek hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n\u0131n da Ahmet Sa\u011flam (B. No: 2013\/3351, 18\/9\/2013, \u00a7 42) karar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda savunma i\u00e7in gerekli zaman ve kolayl\u0131klara sahip olma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda su\u00e7lamay\u0131 (isnad\u0131) \u00f6\u011frenme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
3. Di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin ba\u015fvurucular \u00fczerinde BIRAKILMASINA 14\/1\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 14\/1\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/53503 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 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 ERDAL SULAR VE MEHMET SULAR BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/53503) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 14\/1\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Murat BA\u015ePINAR Ba\u015fvurucular : 1. Erdal SULAR \u00a0 \u00a0 2. Mehmet SULAR Vekili : Av. Nejat TOPRAK \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru; m\u00fcdafiinin mazeretinin kabul edilmemesi nedeniyle savunma i\u00e7in gerekli zaman ve kolayl\u0131klara sahip olma hakk\u0131n\u0131n, haberdar edilmeyen bir su\u00e7tan \u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fc cezaland\u0131r\u0131lma nedeniyle de su\u00e7lamay\u0131 \u00f6\u011frenme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkindir. Ba\u015fvurucunun adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda ba\u015fkaca ihlal iddialar\u0131 da bulunmaktad\u0131r. 2. Kahramanmara\u015f K\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck ve Orta \u00d6l\u00e7ekli M\u00fckellefler Grup Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 24\/12\/2013 tarihli ihbar\u0131 \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucular hakk\u0131nda Kahramanmara\u015f Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, soru\u015fturma neticesinde ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n tefecilik fiilini gizleyebilmek i\u00e7in cep telefon kont\u00f6r\u00fc faturalar\u0131n\u0131 sahte olarak d\u00fczenlediklerini ve b\u00f6ylece y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fckleri pos tefecili\u011fi faaliyetiyle 2008-2009 y\u0131llar\u0131nda sahte ve muhteviyat\u0131 yan\u0131lt\u0131c\u0131 belge d\u00fczenleyerek bunlar\u0131 kulland\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 belirtilerek 4\/1\/1961 tarihli ve 213 say\u0131l\u0131 Vergi Usul Kanunu’na muhalefet etmek su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmalar\u0131 talebiyle 2\/7\/2014 tarihinde iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015ftir. \u0130ddianamede, m\u00fc\u015fteki Kahramanmara\u015f Vergi Denetim Kurumu m\u00fcfetti\u015finin ba\u015fvurucular hakk\u0131nda d\u00fczenledi\u011fi su\u00e7 duyurusu raporuna dayanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 4. Kahramanmara\u015f …<\/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-36922","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n