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
CELAL KAYA BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/25779)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 17\/9\/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
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Mustafa \u015eENOCAK<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Celal KAYA<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Yusuf KAYA<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, beyanlar\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan tan\u0131klar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu (san\u0131k) taraf\u0131ndan duru\u015fmada sorgulanmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n verilmemesi nedeniyle tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. \u0130stanbul Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesiyle ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Soru\u015fturma neticesinde Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle 27\/1\/2017 tarihinde iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015f; iddianamede \u00f6zetle ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 olmas\u0131 neticesinde \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. \u0130ddianamenin kabul\u00fc ile a\u00e7\u0131lan dava, \u0130stanbul 22. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince g\u00f6r\u00fclmeye ba\u015flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131lamada 10\/2\/2017 tarihinde duru\u015fma haz\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flemleri yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tensip Tutana\u011f\u0131’nda -di\u011ferlerinin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra- \u0130stanbul \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc KOM \u015eube M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131larak ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda ByLock kayd\u0131 bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ByLock kayd\u0131 var ise ki\u015finin bu sistemi kullanarak yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 her t\u00fcrl\u00fc haberle\u015fme, yaz\u0131\u015fma ve i\u015flemin \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmi\u015f d\u00f6k\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc g\u00f6steren analiz raporunun istenmesine, Bilgi ve Teknoloji Kurumuna (BTK) m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131larak ba\u015fvurucunun ByLock IP adreslerine eri\u015fim sa\u011flay\u0131p sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n sorulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Duru\u015fma on iki celsede bitirilmi\u015ftir. Birinci ve d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc celseler aras\u0131nda Mahkemece eksikliklerin giderilmesi amac\u0131yla usule ili\u015fkin i\u015flemler yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Be\u015finci celsede BTK’ya yaz\u0131lan m\u00fczekkereye cevap verilmi\u015ftir. BTK taraf\u0131ndan g\u00f6nderilen CD i\u00e7eri\u011finde ba\u015fvurucunun ByLock program\u0131na 555…66 No.lu telefonundan 16\/10\/2014-30\/4\/2015 tarihleri aras\u0131nda toplam 1.692 kez ba\u011flant\u0131 sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ayn\u0131 celsede duru\u015fma salonunda haz\u0131r edilen tan\u0131k T.A. Mahkemece dinlenilmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131k T.A. al\u0131nan beyan\u0131nda, Temmuz 2013’te g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 Erzincan’dan \u0130stanbul’a kriminal kursuna geldi\u011fini, geldi\u011fi tarihten itibaren iki ay kadar \u0130stanbul’da kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu iki ayl\u0131k d\u00f6nemde d\u00f6rt be\u015f kez sohbete gitti\u011fini, bu gidi\u015flerde genel olarak ba\u015fvurucuyu da g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, iki ay sonra tekrar Erzincan’a d\u00f6nd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, Erzincan’a d\u00f6nd\u00fckten sonra ba\u015fvurucuyla bir daha g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmedi\u011fini, 17-25 Aral\u0131k s\u00fcrecinden sonra sohbetlere gitmeyi b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir. Mahkemece tan\u0131k E.\u0130.nin istinabe yoluyla dinlenilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Alt\u0131nc\u0131 celsede Mahkemece, eksikliklerin giderilmesi amac\u0131yla usule ili\u015fkin i\u015flemler yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yedinci celsede tan\u0131k E.\u0130.nin bilgi ve g\u00f6rg\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn tespiti i\u00e7inyaz\u0131lan talimata ikmalen cevap verilmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131k E.\u0130.nin istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nan beyan\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucuyu tan\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 2013-2015 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda \u0130stanbul’a Kriminalde \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nemde sohbetlere kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ba\u015fvurucuyu da bu sohbetlerde g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, sohbetlerde Fethullah G\u00fclen’in kitaplar\u0131n\u0131n okunup videolar\u0131n\u0131n izlettirildi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Sekizinci, dokuzuncu ve onuncu celselerde eksikliklerin giderilmesi amac\u0131yla Mahkeme, usule ili\u015fkin i\u015flemler yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. On birinci celsede iddia makam\u0131 esas hakk\u0131nda m\u00fctalaa sunmu\u015ftur. Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiinin s\u00fcre talebinin kabul\u00fcne ve duru\u015fman\u0131n yeni celsesinin 13\/11\/2017 tarihinde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. On ikinci celsede ba\u015fvurucu; m\u00fcdafiinin de haz\u0131r bulunmas\u0131yla esas hakk\u0131nda m\u00fctalaaya kar\u015f\u0131 savunmas\u0131n\u0131 yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan alt s\u0131n\u0131rdan uzakla\u015farak 9 y\u0131l hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Kararda, ba\u015fvurucunun; FET\u00d6\/PDY silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn en \u00e7ok \u00f6nem verdi\u011fi emniyet te\u015fkilat\u0131nda polis olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131, kullanmakta oldu\u011fu telefon hatt\u0131 ile16\/10\/2014 ile 30\/4\/2015 tarihleri aras\u0131nda ByLock sa\u011flay\u0131c\u0131s\u0131na ba\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131, teknik olarak toplam 1692 sinyal tespiti yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, tan\u0131k olarak dinlenen T.A. ve E.\u0130.nin beyanlar\u0131na g\u00f6re 2013-2015 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda sohbet olarak nitelendirilen \u00f6rg\u00fctsel toplant\u0131lara kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilerek silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyesi olma su\u00e7unun s\u00fcbut buldu\u011fu kanaatine ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu; gerek\u00e7eli temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde di\u011ferlerinin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra beyanlar\u0131 h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n duru\u015fmada dinlenilmedi\u011fini, Ses ve G\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc Bili\u015fim Sistemi (SEGB\u0130S) ile ba\u011flant\u0131 kurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, soru sorma hakk\u0131n\u0131n kulland\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Bu h\u00fck\u00fcm, Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan “t\u00fcm dosya kapsam\u0131 g\u00f6zetilerek, di\u011fer delillerin at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7un s\u00fcbutu i\u00e7in yeterli oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmekle, san\u0131klar\u0131n ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funu bildiren ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 ByLock tespit ve de\u011ferlendirme tutana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n dosyaya gelmesi beklenilmeden karar verilmesi sonuca etkili g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f” \u015feklinde onanm\u0131\u015f ve 10\/7\/2020 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 28\/7\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 14\/8\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
11. Komisyon; hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131, silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkeleri d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa, an\u0131lan haklara ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucu; mahkumiyet karar\u0131nda beyan\u0131na yer verilen tan\u0131k E.\u0130.nin huzurda dinlenilmesi i\u00e7in Mahkemenin herhangi bir giri\u015fimde bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendisine tan\u0131\u011fa soru sorma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu suretle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
13. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nan beyan\u0131n\u0131n duru\u015fmada okundu\u011fu ve ba\u015fvurucunun bunlara kar\u015f\u0131 iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 dile getirdi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131 adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. 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
16. Anayasa Mahkemesi, bir\u00e7ok karar\u0131nda tan\u0131k kavram\u0131n\u0131 san\u0131\u011fa isnat edilen fiil hakk\u0131nda bilgi veren herhangi bir ki\u015fi \u015feklinde \u00f6zerk olarak yorumlam\u0131\u015f ve tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 ile ilgili ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir (Atila O\u011fuz Boyal\u0131, B. No: 2013\/99, 20\/3\/2014; Sel\u00e7uk Demir, B. No: 2014\/9783, 22\/1\/2015; AZ. M., B. No: 2013\/560, 16\/4\/2015; Baran Karada\u011f, B. No: 2014\/12906, 7\/5\/2015; Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, B. No: 2019\/30221, 28\/12\/2021).Buna g\u00f6re bir ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131nda san\u0131\u011f\u0131n aleyhine olan tan\u0131klar\u0131 sorgulama veya sorgulatma hakk\u0131 vard\u0131r. Hakk\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 s\u00fcrecinde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n tan\u0131klara soru y\u00f6neltebilmesi, onlarla y\u00fczle\u015febilmesi ve tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n do\u011frulu\u011funu s\u0131nama imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip olmas\u0131 adil bir yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yap\u0131labilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan gereklidir (AZ. M., \u00a7 55). Di\u011fer yandan bir mahk\u00fbmiyet -tek veya belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde- san\u0131\u011f\u0131n soru\u015fturma veya kovu\u015fturma evresinde sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir kimse taraf\u0131ndan verilen ifadelere dayand\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve dengeleyici g\u00fcvenceler sa\u011flayan bir usul \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f ise san\u0131\u011f\u0131n haklar\u0131 Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesindeki g\u00fcvencelerle ba\u011fda\u015fmayacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde k\u0131s\u0131tlanm\u0131\u015f olur (Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, \u00a7 35).<\/p>\n
17. Anayasa Mahkemesi, tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131yla ilgili olarak verdi\u011fi kararlar\u0131nda duru\u015fma \u00f6ncesinde veya haricinde elde edilen tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n delil olarak kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn yarg\u0131laman\u0131n adilli\u011fine zarar verip vermedi\u011fini de\u011ferlendirmek i\u00e7in \u00fc\u00e7 a\u015famal\u0131 bir test uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ifade etmektedir. Buna g\u00f6re ilk olarak tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n mahkemede haz\u0131r edilmemesi ge\u00e7erli bir nedenin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 aranmal\u0131d\u0131r. \u0130kinci olarak san\u0131\u011f\u0131n sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tan\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan verilen beyan\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyetin dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 tek veya belirleyici delil olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir. Sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmayan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131n\u0131n tek veya belirleyici delil oldu\u011funun tespit edilmesi durumunda ise \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc a\u015fama olarak savunma taraf\u0131n\u0131n maruz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu zorluklar\u0131n telafi edilmesi amac\u0131yla yeterli d\u00fczeyde kar\u015f\u0131 dengeleyici g\u00fcvenceler sa\u011flayan bir usul\u00fcn y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcl\u00fcp y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmedi\u011fi ortaya konulmal\u0131d\u0131r (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Abdurrahim Balur, B. No: 2013\/5467, 7\/1\/2016, \u00a7 80; Onur Urbay, B. No: 2014\/6222, 6\/3\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 36, 40; Zekeriya Sevim, B. No: 2018\/18989, 16\/6\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 44, 51). Bu kapsamda, h\u00fckme ula\u015f\u0131l\u0131rken sorgulanmam\u0131\u015f tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131n\u0131 destekleyen ba\u015fka do\u011frulay\u0131c\u0131 delillere dayan\u0131lmas\u0131 telafi edici g\u00fcvencelerden biri olarak kabul edilebilir (Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, \u00a7 39). Mahkemenin yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresi d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki tan\u0131klar\u0131n -san\u0131\u011f\u0131n da onlara soru sormas\u0131na imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayacak ve sorulan sorulara verdikleri cevaplar hakk\u0131nda ki\u015fisel izlenim edinme f\u0131rsat\u0131 elde edecek \u015fekilde- SEGB\u0130S gibi vas\u0131talarla dinlenmesi telafi edici bir g\u00fcvence olabilir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte U\u011fur \u00d6zcan, B. No: 2021\/12137, 26\/7\/2022, \u00a7 40). Duru\u015fmada sorgulanmayan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenilirli\u011finin ve do\u011frulu\u011funun saptanmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla savunma taraf\u0131na sa\u011flanabilecek bir di\u011fer telafi edici g\u00fcvence ise san\u0131\u011fa olay\u0131n kendi versiyonunu anlatma ve delillerini sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131d\u0131r (Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, \u00a7 40).<\/p>\n
18. Yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 y\u00fcr\u00fcten mahkemenin yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresi d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki tan\u0131klar\u0131n savunman\u0131n onlara soru sormas\u0131na imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayacak \u015fekilde, SEGB\u0130S gibi vas\u0131talarla dinlenilmesi de telafi edici g\u00fcvencelerden biri olarak de\u011ferlendirilebilir (Metin Akdemir (2), B. No: 2020\/3964, 21\/9\/2022 \u00a7 36).<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda incelenmesi gereken ilk sorun, tan\u0131k E.\u0130.nin duru\u015fmada dinlenmemesinin ge\u00e7erli bir nedene dayan\u0131p dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r. Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun mahk\u00fbmiyetine karar verirken istinabe yoluyla dinlenen tan\u0131k E.\u0130.nin beyanlar\u0131na da dayanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tan\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiinin yoklu\u011funda istinabe mahkemesince dinlenmi\u015f ve ba\u015fvurucu aleyhinde \u00e7e\u015fitli a\u00e7\u0131klamalarda bulunmu\u015ftur. Mahkeme, tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n duru\u015fmaya getirilmesinin zor olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131yla ilgili bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmam\u0131\u015f; tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n bulundu\u011fu yerin Mahkemenin yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda olmas\u0131n\u0131 tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n istinabe yoluyla dinlenmesi i\u00e7in yeterli bir sebep saym\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130lgili duru\u015fma tutana\u011f\u0131 ve gerek\u00e7eli kararda, tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n ayn\u0131 anda g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcl\u00fc ve sesli ileti\u015fim tekni\u011finin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle dinlenilmemesinin hangi ge\u00e7erli nedene dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir a\u00e7\u0131klamaya da yer verilmemi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun tan\u0131k sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131ndan yararland\u0131r\u0131lmamas\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7elendirilmesi y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc somut olayda kamu makamlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yerine getirilmemi\u015ftir. Ancak ge\u00e7erli bir neden ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmemesi, tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011finin kabul edilmesi i\u00e7in yeterli de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
20. \u0130kinci olarak h\u00fckm\u00fcn ba\u015fvurucunun duru\u015fmada sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir tan\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan verilen ifadeye tek veya belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde dayal\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Mahkeme, gerek\u00e7eli kararda 16\/10\/2014-30\/4\/2015 tarihleri aras\u0131nda ByLock’un sunucusuna ba\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n (1.692 kez) tespitine, tan\u0131klar\u0131n 2013-2015 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki sohbet olarak nitelendirilen \u00f6rg\u00fctsel toplant\u0131lara kat\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin beyanlar\u0131na istinaden mahk\u00fbmiyet sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu h\u00fck\u00fcm, Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan “t\u00fcm dosya kapsam\u0131 g\u00f6zetilerek, di\u011fer delillerin at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7un s\u00fcbutu i\u00e7in yeterli oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmekle, san\u0131klar\u0131n ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funu bildiren ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 ByLock tespit ve de\u011ferlendirme tutana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n dosyaya gelmesi beklenilmeden karar verilmesi sonuca etkili g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f” \u015feklinde onanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihad\u0131 uyar\u0131nca san\u0131\u011f\u0131n ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7unun s\u00fcbutu a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan belirleyici olmas\u0131 durumunda ByLock Tespit ve De\u011ferlendirme Tutana\u011f\u0131’n\u0131n dosyaya getirtilmesi, an\u0131lan tutana\u011f\u0131n temin edilememesi h\u00e2linde operat\u00f6r kay\u0131tlar\u0131 ile e\u015fle\u015ftirme yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere BTK’dan getirtilen CGNAT kay\u0131tlar\u0131 ile HTS sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131l\u0131p belirtilen hat \u00fczerinden ByLock kullanan ki\u015finin san\u0131k olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 do\u011frultusunda bilirki\u015fiden teknik rapor al\u0131narak h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 gerekmektedir [bir\u00e7ok karar aras\u0131ndan bkz. (kapat\u0131lan) Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesinin 30\/6\/2021 tarihli ve E.2020\/2018, K.2021\/4527; Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesinin 4\/10\/2022 tarihli ve E.2021\/18943, K.2022\/5428 say\u0131l\u0131 kararlar\u0131]. Somut olayda ByLock Tespit ve De\u011ferlendirme Tutana\u011f\u0131 dosyaya getirtilmedi\u011fi gibi Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihad\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131klanan teknik bilirki\u015fi raporu da temin edilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
22. Gerek\u00e7eli karar i\u00e7eri\u011fi ve h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan delillere ili\u015fkin Yarg\u0131tay uygulamas\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda duru\u015fmada dinlenen tan\u0131k T.A.n\u0131n 17-25 Aral\u0131k s\u00fcrecinden \u00f6nce ba\u015fvurunun sohbetlere kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmesi kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda istinabe yolu ile beyan\u0131 al\u0131nan tan\u0131k E.\u0130.nin 2013-2015 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun sohbetlere kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin beyan\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki kanaatin olu\u015fmas\u0131nda ve temel cezan\u0131n alt s\u0131n\u0131rdan uzakla\u015f\u0131larak tayin edilmesinde dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015fmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmayan tan\u0131k beyan\u0131n\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131na g\u00f6t\u00fcren tek olmasa da belirleyici nitelikte delil oldu\u011funun kabul edilmesi gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
23. Yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde ba\u015fvurucuya olaylar\u0131 kendi bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131na g\u00f6re anlatma ve delillerini sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Buna ek olarak h\u00fckme ula\u015f\u0131l\u0131rken sorgulanmam\u0131\u015f tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ba\u015fka delillere de dayan\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ancak Mahkemenin yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresi d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucunun da onlara soru sormas\u0131na imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayacak \u015fekilde SEGB\u0130S gibi vas\u0131talarla neden dinlemedi\u011fine ya da tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n istinabe olunan Mahkemede dinlenirken ba\u015fvurucunun haberdar edilip edilmedi\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir bilgi ve belgeye ula\u015f\u0131lamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n istinabe mahkemelerince al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f yaz\u0131l\u0131 beyanlar\u0131 duru\u015fmada okunmu\u015f ise de ba\u015fvurucu, tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n tespiti s\u0131ras\u0131nda haz\u0131r bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ses ve g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc nakli yoluyla da olsa onlar\u0131 sorgulayamam\u0131\u015f; sorulan sorulara verdi\u011fi cevaplar hakk\u0131nda izlenim edinme f\u0131rsat\u0131 elde edememi\u015ftir. Bu y\u00fczden tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n tepkileri konusunda Mahkemenin dikkati \u00e7ekilememi\u015f, tan\u0131\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n do\u011frulu\u011fu ve g\u00fcvenilirli\u011fi test edilememi\u015ftir. Mahkeme de tan\u0131k beyanda bulunurken tepkileriyle ilgili olarak izlenim edinememi\u015ftir. \u00d6te yandan h\u00fckme ula\u015f\u0131l\u0131rken sorgulanmam\u0131\u015f tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ba\u015fka delillere de dayan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n beyanlar\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde mahk\u00fbmiyete temel al\u0131nan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmamas\u0131 nedeniyle savunma makam\u0131n\u0131n maruz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rlamay\u0131 telafi etti\u011fini s\u00f6ylemek de m\u00fcmk\u00fcn g\u00f6z\u00fckmemektedir. Sonu\u00e7 olarak g\u00fcvenilirli\u011fi ve do\u011frulu\u011fu test edilmemi\u015f tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde savunman\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 zorluklar\u0131 telafi edecek kar\u015f\u0131 dengeleyici g\u00fcvencelerin sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda tan\u0131klar\u0131n duru\u015fmada veya SEGB\u0130S yoluyla dinlenmemesinin bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetini zedeledi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
24. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
25. Bu konuda \u00f6nemle belirtilmelidir ki su\u00e7lu-su\u00e7suz karar\u0131 vermek ya da daha hafif veya a\u011f\u0131r ceza belirlemek Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi de\u011fildir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Ruh\u015fen Mahmuto\u011flu, B. No: 2015\/22, 15\/1\/2020, \u00a7 67). Belirli bir davaya ili\u015fkin olarak delilleri de\u011ferlendirme ve g\u00f6sterilen delilin davayla ilgili olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verme yetkisi kural olarak yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 y\u00fcr\u00fcten derece mahkemelerine aittir (Orhan K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 [GK], B. No: 2014\/4704, 1\/2\/2018, \u00a7 44). Bu ba\u011flamda somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde karar vermek Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi de\u011fildir. Anayasa Mahkemesince verilen ihlal karar\u0131, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n beraat etti\u011fi anlam\u0131na gelmedi\u011fi gibi ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n gereklerinin yerine getirilmesi amac\u0131yla yap\u0131lacak yeniden yarg\u0131lama neticesinde san\u0131k hakk\u0131nda mutlaka beraat karar\u0131 verilmesi gerekti\u011fi anlam\u0131na da gelmemektedir. \u0130hlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 gidermek \u00fczere gereken i\u015flemler yerine getirildikten sonra yap\u0131lacak de\u011ferlendirmede Mahkemenin mevcut belgelerle birlikte delillerin takdir bi\u00e7imine g\u00f6re benzer veya farkl\u0131 bir sonuca varmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
26. Bunun yan\u0131nda tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n yarg\u0131lama evrelerindeki beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n delil de\u011feriyle ilgili bir derecelendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na almamaktad\u0131r. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle bu hak, tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n duru\u015fmadaki beyanlar\u0131na \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fck tan\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir g\u00fcvence i\u00e7ermemektedir. Savunmaya duru\u015fmada tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 sorgulama f\u0131rsat\u0131 tan\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve san\u0131\u011f\u0131n di\u011fer haklar\u0131na sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterildi\u011fi s\u00fcrece tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n a\u015famalardaki beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n hangisine itibar edilece\u011fi meselesi karar veren mahkemenin takdirindedir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Musa Y\u0131lmaz Acar, B. No: 2013\/1664, 16\/7\/2014, \u00a7 53).<\/p>\n
27. Ba\u015fvurucu, silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin de ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 \u015fik\u00e2yeti y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7 g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucunun bu iddias\u0131n\u0131n ayr\u0131ca incelenmesine yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
28. Ba\u015fvurucu ihlalin tespiti, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi, maddi ve manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
29. Tespit edilen ihlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin usul ve esaslar 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. maddesinde yer almaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
30. 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 (6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 50. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen bireysel ba\u015fvuruya \u00f6zg\u00fc yeniden yarg\u0131lama kurumunun \u00f6zelliklerine ili\u015fkin kapsaml\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamalar i\u00e7in bkz. 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
31. Maddi zarara ili\u015fkin olarak bilgi\/belge sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in maddi tazminat talebinin; ihlalin 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 da manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n \u0130NCELENMES\u0130NE GEREK BULUNMADI\u011eINA,<\/p>\n
D. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere \u0130stanbul 22. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (E.2017\/13, K.2017\/173) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. 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
G. \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
H. 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 2020\/25779 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 CELAL KAYA BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/25779) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 17\/9\/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 Muhterem \u0130NCE \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Mustafa \u015eENOCAK Ba\u015fvurucu : Celal KAYA Vekili : Av. Yusuf KAYA \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, beyanlar\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan tan\u0131klar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu (san\u0131k) taraf\u0131ndan duru\u015fmada sorgulanmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n verilmemesi nedeniyle tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. \u0130stanbul Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesiyle ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Soru\u015fturma neticesinde Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle 27\/1\/2017 tarihinde iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015f; iddianamede \u00f6zetle ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 olmas\u0131 neticesinde \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir. 4. \u0130ddianamenin kabul\u00fc ile a\u00e7\u0131lan dava, \u0130stanbul 22. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince g\u00f6r\u00fclmeye ba\u015flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131lamada 10\/2\/2017 tarihinde duru\u015fma haz\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flemleri yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tensip Tutana\u011f\u0131’nda -di\u011ferlerinin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra- \u0130stanbul \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc KOM \u015eube M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131larak ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda ByLock kayd\u0131 bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ByLock kayd\u0131 var ise ki\u015finin bu sistemi kullanarak yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 her t\u00fcrl\u00fc haberle\u015fme, yaz\u0131\u015fma ve i\u015flemin \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmi\u015f d\u00f6k\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc g\u00f6steren analiz raporunun istenmesine, Bilgi ve Teknoloji …<\/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-20133","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n