T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
MUSTAFA AKBULUT BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/34827)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 17\/7\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 23\/12\/2024 – 32761<\/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
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u015eahap KAYMAK<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Mustafa AKBULUT<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fc olarak ceza infaz kurumunda bulunan ba\u015fvurucunun idari i\u015flemin iptali talebiyle a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n vesayet makam\u0131 karar\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n tek ba\u015f\u0131na dava a\u00e7ma ehliyetinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru 23\/10\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvuru, ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinin idari y\u00f6nden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n incelemesinden sonra Komisyona sunulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
4. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. B\u00f6l\u00fcm Ba\u015fkan\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin birlikte yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ve Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi (UYAP) arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla eri\u015filen bilgi ve belgeler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu, Eski\u015fehir \u0130l Mill\u00ee E\u011fitim M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (MEM) b\u00fcnyesinde \u00f6\u011fretmen olarak g\u00f6rev yapmaktayken 1\/9\/2016 tarihli ve 29818 m\u00fckerrer say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan 15\/8\/2016 tarihli ve 672 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Kamu Personeline \u0130li\u015fkin Al\u0131nan Tedbirlere Dair Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname (672 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) ile kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Eski\u015fehir 2. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin 5\/5\/2017 tarihli karar\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131na (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan 12 y\u0131l hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Bireysel ba\u015fvuru tarihi itibar\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucu, h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fc olarak Keskin T Tipi Kapal\u0131 Ceza \u0130nfaz Kurumunda bulunmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu 12\/6\/2017 tarihli dilek\u00e7esiyle Sosyal G\u00fcvenlik Kurumundan (SGK) emekli ayl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Bu talebe cevaben SGK Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Emeklilik Hizmetleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc Kamu G\u00f6revlileri Emeklilik Daire Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 18\/9\/2017 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131nda, yap\u0131lacak i\u015fleme esas olmak \u00fczere emekli ayl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u011flanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in ya\u015f ve hizmet \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 tamamlay\u0131p tamamlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunun sorularak emeklili\u011fe hak kazanm\u0131\u015f ise bilgi ve belgelerin g\u00f6nderilmesinin MEM’den istendi\u011fi ba\u015fvurucuya bildirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. MEM’in 12\/10\/2017 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131 ekinde ba\u015fvurucuya emekli ayl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u011flanmas\u0131na esas olmak \u00fczere al\u0131nan emekliye sevk onay\u0131 ve ilgili belgeler SGK’ya g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucu, MEM’e hitaben yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 25\/2\/2019 tarihli dilek\u00e7eyle ge\u00e7en s\u00fcrede taraf\u0131na bilgi verilmedi\u011finden bahisle SGK’n\u0131n hakk\u0131nda talep etti\u011fi bilgi formunun g\u00f6nderilmesini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. S\u00f6z konusu dilek\u00e7eye istinaden MEM’in 11\/3\/2019 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131yla, ba\u015fvurucunun emekliye sevk i\u015flemi i\u00e7in 26\/9\/2017 tarihli Valilik onay\u0131 al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131, onay ve di\u011fer belgelerin 12\/10\/2017 tarihli yaz\u0131lar\u0131n ekinde SGK’ya g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi ba\u015fvurucuya bildirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurucu 26\/2\/2019 tarihli dilek\u00e7esiyle de SGK’dan emekli ayl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u011flanmas\u0131 talebinin ak\u0131beti hakk\u0131nda bilgi istemi\u015f ancak yasal s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde cevap verilmedi\u011finden bahisle bu talebinin reddedildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek emeklilik i\u015flemlerinin tamamlanmas\u0131 suretiyle emekli ayl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ba\u011flanmas\u0131 ve emekli ikramiyesinin \u00f6denmesi talebinin z\u0131mnen reddine y\u00f6nelik i\u015flemin iptaline ili\u015fkin olarak SGK’ya kar\u015f\u0131 Ankara 10. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
15. Mahkeme davan\u0131n konusuz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde daval\u0131 idare taraf\u0131ndan 16\/10\/2019 tarihinde dosyaya sunulan dilek\u00e7ede 1\/7\/2017 tarihinden itibaren ba\u015fvurucuya emekli ayl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve emekli ikramiyesi tahakkuk ettirildi\u011finin belirtildi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 idarenin istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 \u00fczerine Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 11. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi (B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi) istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. Bunun \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu 24\/12\/2019 tarihinde SGK’dan emekli ayl\u0131k ve ikramiyesi ge\u00e7 \u00f6dendi\u011finden dolay\u0131 yasal faiz uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015f, talep 21\/1\/2020 tarihinde mevzuatta ilgililere ge\u00e7 yap\u0131lan \u00f6demeler i\u00e7in herhangi bir d\u00fczenleme bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
17. Ret i\u015fleminin iptali talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada tek h\u00e2kim taraf\u0131ndan 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu’nun 15. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (b) bendi gere\u011fince davan\u0131n ehliyet y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc olan bir ki\u015finin tek ba\u015f\u0131na dava a\u00e7amayaca\u011f\u0131, dava a\u00e7mas\u0131n\u0131n vesayet makam\u0131n\u0131n iznini gerektirdi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonucunda mahk\u00fbmiyetine karar verilen ve bu karar uyar\u0131nca ceza infaz kurumunda h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fc olarak bulunan ba\u015fvurucunun vesayet makam\u0131 karar\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n tek ba\u015f\u0131na dava a\u00e7ma ehliyetinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu karara kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan istinaf ba\u015fvurusu B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesince 24\/9\/2020 tarihinde kesin olarak reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
18. Nihai karar\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu 1\/10\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucu 23\/10\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. \u00d6te yandan UYAP arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla eri\u015filen bilgi ve belgelerden ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131na (bkz. \u00a7 8) kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan istinaf ba\u015fvurusu Ankara B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 4. Ceza Dairesinin 31\/12\/2018 tarihli karar\u0131yla reddedildi\u011fi ancak temyiz \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesinin 17\/2\/2021 tarihli karar\u0131yla makul bir ceza tayini yerine fazla cezaya h\u00fckmedildi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle karar\u0131n bozuldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
A. Ulusal Hukuk<\/p>\n
1. \u0130lgili Mevzuat<\/p>\n
20. 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanunu ile Vergi Usul Kanununun uygulanaca\u011f\u0131 haller” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 31. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n birinci c\u00fcmlesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“1. Bu Kanunda h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmayan hususlarda; hakimin davaya bakmaktan memnuiyeti ve reddi, ehliyet, \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc \u015fah\u0131slar\u0131n davaya kat\u0131lmas\u0131, davan\u0131n ihbar\u0131, taraflar\u0131n vekilleri, dosyan\u0131n taraflar ve ilgililerce incelenmesi, feragat ve kabul, teminat, mukabil dava, bilirki\u015fi, ke\u015fif, delillerin tespiti, yarg\u0131lama giderleri, adli yard\u0131m hallerinde ve duru\u015fma s\u0131ras\u0131nda taraflar\u0131n mahkemenin suk\u00fcnunu ve inzibat\u0131n\u0131 bozacak hareketlerine kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lacak i\u015flemler, elektronik i\u015flemler ile ses ve g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc nakledilmesi yoluyla duru\u015fma icras\u0131nda Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanunu h\u00fck\u00fcmleri uygulan\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
21. 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun “Dava ehliyeti” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 51. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Dava ehliyeti, meden\u00ee haklar\u0131 kullanma ehliyetine g\u00f6re belirlenir.”<\/p>\n
22. 22\/11\/2001 tarihli ve 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 10. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Ay\u0131rt etme g\u00fcc\u00fcne sahip ve k\u0131s\u0131tl\u0131 olmayan her ergin ki\u015finin fiil ehliyeti vard\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
23. 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k tarihi itibar\u0131yla y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte olan “\u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 ceza” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 407. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Bir y\u0131l veya daha uzun s\u00fcreli \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 bir cezaya mahk\u00fbm olan her ergin k\u0131s\u0131tlan\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Cezay\u0131 yerine getirmekle g\u00f6revli makam, b\u00f6yle bir h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcn\u00fcn cezas\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7ekmeye ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendisine vasi atanmak \u00fczere hemen yetkili vesayet makam\u0131na bildirmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr.”<\/p>\n
2. Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131<\/p>\n
24. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Onikinci Dairesinin 13\/6\/2017 tarihli ve E.2017\/574, K.2017\/3133 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Dava; Gaziantep \u00dcniversitesi, \u015eahinbey Ara\u015ft\u0131rma ve Uygulama Hastanesinde memur olarak g\u00f6rev yapan davac\u0131n\u0131n, 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Devlet Memurlar\u0131 Kanunu’nun 48\/A-5 ve 98\/b maddeleri uyar\u0131nca Devlet memurlu\u011fu g\u00f6revine son verilmesine ili\u015fkin 12\/3\/2014 tarihli […] i\u015fleminin iptali ile kesilen 2\/3 oran\u0131ndaki maa\u015f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u0130dare Mahkemesince, davac\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fmi\u015f karar ile h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, h\u00fckmen tutuklu oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan mahkum olmamak \u015fart\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmemi\u015f oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle dava konusu i\u015flemin iptaline, i\u015flem nedeniyle yoksun kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 parasal haklar\u0131n \u00f6denmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
Olayda; davac\u0131n\u0131n, “Kasten \u0130nsan \u00d6ld\u00fcrme” su\u00e7unu i\u015fledi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle 12 y\u0131l 6 ay hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na dair \u015eanl\u0131urfa 2. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi’nin […] karar\u0131n\u0131n temyiz edildi\u011fi ve Yarg\u0131tay Birinci Ceza Dairesinin 10\/2\/2016 tarihli […] karar\u0131 ile onanarak kesinle\u015fti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan \u015eanl\u0131urfa 2. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi’nin karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fmedi\u011finden bahisle davac\u0131n\u0131n h\u00fckmen tutuklu oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle dava konusu i\u015flemin iptali ile davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015flem nedeniyle yoksun kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 parasal haklar\u0131n \u00f6denmesi yolunda \u0130dare Mahkemesi’nce verilen kararda hukuka uyarl\u0131k bulunmamaktad\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
25. Dan\u0131\u015ftay On\u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc Dairesinin 17\/1\/2022 tarihli ve E.2021\/5179, K.2022\/87 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in, dava konusu Kurul karar\u0131na dayanak al\u0131nan 4734 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 11. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (a) bendinde yer alan ‘h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc bulunma’ kavram\u0131n\u0131n irdelenmesi gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
5275 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza ve G\u00fcvenlik Tedbirlerinin \u0130nfaz\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 4. maddesi uyar\u0131nca, mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fck\u00fcmleri kesinle\u015fmedik\u00e7e infaz olunamaz. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla yarg\u0131lama sonucunda ceza verilmi\u015f ancak bu karar kesinle\u015fmemi\u015fse ki\u015fi h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc say\u0131lmamakta ve cezan\u0131n infaz\u0131na ba\u015flanamamaktad\u0131r. Ceza mahkemesince yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda hakk\u0131nda verilen mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 (cezas\u0131) kesinle\u015fmi\u015f, infaz a\u015famas\u0131nda bulunan ki\u015filere ‘h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc’ denilmekte, cezas\u0131 hen\u00fcz kesinle\u015fmemi\u015f ki\u015filer i\u00e7in duruma g\u00f6re ‘h\u00fckmen tutuklu’ veya ‘h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fc’ kavramlar\u0131 kullan\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Kanun yolu davas\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 \u00fczerine kolektif olan yarg\u0131lama faaliyeti yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131ndan, kesinle\u015fmemi\u015f karara kar\u015f\u0131 ola\u011fan kanun yoluna (istinaf veya temyiz) ba\u015fvurulmu\u015fsa, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n devam\u0131 aral\u0131ks\u0131zd\u0131r. Kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurulmas\u0131, karar\u0131n yarg\u0131 h\u00e2lini almas\u0131na, yani karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesine engel olmakta ve yarg\u0131lama \u00fcst derecede bir ba\u015fka yarg\u0131lama makam\u0131na devredilmi\u015f olmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Sonu\u00e7 olarak, hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc olmaya infaz\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda sonu\u00e7lar ba\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumlarda, bundan ‘kesin h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn’ anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, bunun da ola\u011fan kanun yollar\u0131 t\u00fcketildikten sonra ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan kesin h\u00fck\u00fcmle olu\u015fan h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck oldu\u011fu kabul edilmektedir. Bundan \u00f6nceki a\u015famadaki h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn, istinaf veya temyiz a\u015famas\u0131nda verilecek bir kararla ortadan kalkabilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fundan, buna kesin hukuki sonu\u00e7lar ba\u011flamamak gerekir.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
Bu itibarla, her ne kadar daval\u0131 idarece dava konusu i\u015flem 4734 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 11\/1-(a) maddesi uyar\u0131nca tesis edilmi\u015f ise de, davac\u0131 \u015firketin %51 orta\u011f\u0131 ve y\u00f6netim kurulu ba\u015fkan vekili olan ki\u015fi hakk\u0131nda verilen cezalar\u0131n kesinle\u015fmedi\u011fi, temyiz a\u015famas\u0131n\u0131n devam etti\u011fi, hen\u00fcz hakk\u0131nda kesinle\u015fmi\u015f bir mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla i\u015fleme dayanak al\u0131nan kuralda belirtilen su\u00e7lardan ‘h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc bulunma’ \u015fart\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n da orta\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011fu i\u015f ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n teklifinin h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckten bahisle de\u011ferlendirme d\u0131\u015f\u0131 b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir.”<\/p>\n
B. Uluslararas\u0131 Hukuk<\/p>\n
26. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’nin (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Herkes davas\u0131n\u0131n, medeni hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri ile ilgili uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar[\u0131n] … esas\u0131 konusunda karar verecek olan, …bir mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan kamuya a\u00e7\u0131k olarak ve makul bir s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde g\u00f6r\u00fclmesini isteme hakk\u0131na sahiptir…”<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
27. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 17\/7\/2024 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. Adli Yard\u0131m Talebi Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
28. Ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131lama giderlerini \u00f6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun oldu\u011funu belirterek adli yard\u0131m talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
29. Anayasa Mahkemesinin Mehmet \u015eerif Ay (B. No: 2012\/1181, 17\/9\/2013) karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkeler dikkate al\u0131narak, ge\u00e7imini \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde g\u00fc\u00e7le\u015ftirmeksizin yarg\u0131lama giderlerini \u00f6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucunun a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmayan adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Mahkemeye Eri\u015fim Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130ddialar\u0131 ve Bakanl\u0131k G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/p>\n
30. Ba\u015fvurucu; hapis cezas\u0131 kesinle\u015fmi\u015f olan h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fclerin dava a\u00e7ma haklar\u0131n\u0131 vasileri arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendisinin h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc de\u011fil h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fc oldu\u011funu, hakk\u0131nda verilen hapis cezas\u0131 kesinle\u015fmedi\u011finden vasi atanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
31. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; yarg\u0131 mercilerinin maddi olay ve olgular ile delilleri de\u011ferlendirdi\u011fi, hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131 ve uygulanmas\u0131 ile uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kla ilgili vard\u0131klar\u0131 sonucu ve kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdir yetkisinin sebeplerini gerek\u00e7elendirdi\u011fi, Sosyal G\u00fcvenlik Kurumu Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan temin edilen g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f ve ilgili belgelerin ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetlerine ili\u015fkin olarak yap\u0131lacak incelemede de\u011ferlendirilmek \u00fczere g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi konusunda inceleme yap\u0131l\u0131rken Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ile Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihad\u0131 ve somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi bildirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
32. Anayasa’n\u0131n “Hak arama h\u00fcrriyeti” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 36. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Herkes, me\u015fru vas\u0131ta ve yollardan faydalanmak suretiyle yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddia ve savunma ile adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na sahiptir.”<\/p>\n
a. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
33. 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 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
b. Esas Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
i. Hakk\u0131n Kapsam\u0131 ve M\u00fcdahalenin Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
34. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, herkesin yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddiada bulunma ve savunma hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bir unsurudur. Di\u011fer yandan Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesine “adil yarg\u0131lanma” ibaresinin eklenmesine ili\u015fkin gerek\u00e7ede, T\u00fcrkiye’nin taraf oldu\u011fu uluslararas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerce de g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n madde metnine d\u00e2hil edildi\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. S\u00f6zle\u015fme’yi yorumlayan Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi (A\u0130HM) S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2014\/13156, 20\/4\/2017, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
35. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcne ta\u015f\u0131yabilmek ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n etkili bir \u015fekilde karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilmek anlam\u0131na gelmektedir (\u00d6zkan \u015een, B. No: 2012\/791, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 52). Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ki\u015finin mahkemeye ba\u015fvurmas\u0131n\u0131 engelleyen veya mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 anlams\u0131z h\u00e2le getiren ya da onu \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde etkisizle\u015ftiren m\u00fcdahaleler mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilir.<\/p>\n
36. Ba\u015fvuruya konu kararda, 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fclerin vesayet alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131na dair kurallar\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131yas yoluyla h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fc olan ba\u015fvurucu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden uygulanarak davan\u0131n ehliyet y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddine karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
37. Bu kapsamda h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fcn\u00fcn vesayet makam\u0131 karar\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n tek ba\u015f\u0131na dava a\u00e7ma ehliyetinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesinin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
ii. M\u00fcdahalenin \u0130hlal Olu\u015fturup Olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
38. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcmlerinden biri olan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 mutlak bir hak olmay\u0131p bu hakk\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Ancak mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalede bulunulurken Anayasa’n\u0131n temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin genel ilkeleri d\u00fczenleyen 13. maddesinin g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
39. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetler, \u00f6zlerine dokunulmaks\u0131z\u0131n yaln\u0131zca Anayasan\u0131n ilgili maddelerinde belirtilen sebeplere ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ve ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir. Bu s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar, Anayasan\u0131n s\u00f6z\u00fcne ve ruhuna, demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin ve l\u00e2ik Cumhuriyetin gereklerine ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamaz.”<\/p>\n
40. An\u0131lan hakka y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahale Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde belirtilen \u015fartlara uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin ihlalini te\u015fkil edecektir.<\/p>\n
41. Bu itibarla yukar\u0131da belirtilen m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ve somut ba\u015fvuruya uygun d\u00fc\u015fen, kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme, hakl\u0131 bir sebebe dayanma (me\u015fru ama\u00e7) ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmama \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctlerine uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
\u00a0(1) Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
42. Hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin, bunlara yap\u0131lacak m\u00fcdahalelerin ve s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rmalar\u0131n kanunla d\u00fczenlenmesi bu haklara ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere keyf\u00ee m\u00fcdahaleyi engelleyen, hukuk g\u00fcvenli\u011fini sa\u011flayan demokratik hukuk devletinin en \u00f6nemli unsurlar\u0131ndan biridir (Tahsin Erdo\u011fan, B. No: 2012\/1246, 6\/2\/2014, \u00a7 60). M\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131 \u00f6ncelikle \u015fekl\u00ee manada bir kanunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 zorunlu k\u0131lar. T\u00fcrkiye B\u00fcy\u00fck Millet Meclisi taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan \u015fekl\u00ee anlamda bir kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmamas\u0131 hakka yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyi anayasal temelden yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131r (Ali H\u0131d\u0131r Akyol ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2015\/17510, 18\/10\/2017, \u00a7 56).<\/p>\n
43. Kanunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kadar kanun metninin ve uygulamas\u0131 da bireylerin davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n sonucunu \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilece\u011fi kadar hukuki belirlilik ta\u015f\u0131mal\u0131d\u0131r (Necmiye \u00c7ift\u00e7i ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/1301, 30\/12\/2014, \u00a7 55). M\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131, i\u00e7 hukukta m\u00fcdahaleye ili\u015fkin yeterince ula\u015f\u0131labilir ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir kurallar\u0131n bulunmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir (T\u00fcrkiye \u0130\u015f Bankas\u0131 A.\u015e. [GK], B. No: 2014\/6192, 12\/11\/2014, \u00a7 44). Kanunilik unsuru y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131l\u0131rken yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131nca m\u00fcdahaleye imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin yorumu ve bu h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin olaya uygulanmas\u0131 bariz takdir hatas\u0131 ya da a\u00e7\u0131k bir keyf\u00eelik i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi s\u00fcrece bu alanda bir inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvurunun amac\u0131yla ba\u011fda\u015fmaz. Ancak yarg\u0131 mercilerinin m\u00fcdahaleye imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131k bir bi\u00e7imde hatal\u0131 yorumlad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n ve uygulad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n tespiti h\u00e2linde m\u00fcdahalenin kanunilik temelinden yoksun oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131labilir (Ramazan Atay, B. No: 2017\/26048, 29\/1\/2020, \u00a7 29).<\/p>\n
\u00a0(2) \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/p>\n
44. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun ge\u00e7 \u00f6denen emekli ayl\u0131klar\u0131 ve ikramiyesine yasal faiz i\u015fletilmesi talebiyle yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurunun reddine ili\u015fkin i\u015flemin iptaline dair a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 dava Mahkemece ehliyet y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddedilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf ba\u015fvurusunu reddederek mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n ehliyet ret gerek\u00e7esini aynen kabul etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
45. Bu kapsamda mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir kanuni d\u00fczenlemenin \u015feklen var olmas\u0131 yeterli olmay\u0131p kurallar\u0131n keyf\u00eeli\u011fe izin vermeyecek kadar belirli ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir nitelikte olmas\u0131 gerekir.<\/p>\n
46. Esasen temel haklar\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rlayan kanunun bu niteliklere sahip olmas\u0131 Anayasa’n\u0131n 2. maddesinde g\u00fcvenceye al\u0131nan hukuk devleti ilkesinin de bir gere\u011fidir. Hukuk devletinde kanuni d\u00fczenlemeler hem ki\u015filer hem de idare y\u00f6n\u00fcnden herhangi bir duraksamaya ve ku\u015fkuya yer vermeyecek \u015fekilde a\u00e7\u0131k, net, anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r, uygulanabilir ve nesnel olmal\u0131; ayr\u0131ca kamu otoritelerinin keyf\u00ee uygulamalar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 koruyucu \u00f6nlem i\u00e7ermelidir. Kanunda bulunmas\u0131 gereken bu nitelikler hukuki g\u00fcvenli\u011fin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan da zorunludur. Zira bu ilke hukuk normlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir olmas\u0131n\u0131, bireylerin t\u00fcm eylem ve i\u015flemlerinde devlete g\u00fcven duyabilmesini, devletin de yasal d\u00fczenlemelerinde bu g\u00fcven duygusunu zedeleyici y\u00f6ntemlerden ka\u00e7\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 gerekli k\u0131lar (AYM, E.2015\/41, K.2017\/98, 4\/5\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 153, 154). Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde s\u0131n\u0131rlama \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fc olarak belirtilen kanunilik, Anayasa’n\u0131n 2. maddesinde g\u00fcvenceye ba\u011flanan hukuk devleti ilkesi \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda yorumlanmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
47. 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da vesayeti gerektiren k\u0131s\u0131tlama nedenleri aras\u0131nda say\u0131lan \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 ceza h\u00e2li 407. maddede d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan maddenin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda bir y\u0131l veya daha uzun s\u00fcreli \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 bir cezaya mahk\u00fbm olan her erginin k\u0131s\u0131tlanaca\u011f\u0131, ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda ise cezay\u0131 yerine getirmekle g\u00f6revli makam\u0131n b\u00f6yle bir h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcn\u00fcn cezas\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7ekmeye ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendisine vasi atanmak \u00fczere hemen yetkili vesayet makam\u0131na bildirmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc oldu\u011fu h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
48. Kurala g\u00f6re ergin olmak kayd\u0131yla bir y\u0131l veya daha uzun s\u00fcreli \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 bir cezaya mahk\u00fbm olan ki\u015filer mutlak olarak vesayet alt\u0131na al\u0131nacaklard\u0131r. Bu konuda cezan\u0131n verildi\u011fi mahkeme; mahk\u00fbmiyete sebep su\u00e7un niteli\u011fi, a\u011f\u0131r ya da hafif hapis cezas\u0131na mahk\u00fbmiyet \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131mamakta, k\u0131s\u0131tlama i\u00e7in h\u00fckmedilen cezan\u0131n s\u00fcresi dikkate al\u0131nmaktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle mahkemenin mahk\u00fbmun kendi i\u015flerini g\u00f6recek durumda olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hakk\u0131nda ara\u015ft\u0131rma yapmas\u0131na gerek olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan vasi atan\u0131p atanmamas\u0131na dair bir takdir yetkisi bulunmamaktad\u0131r. \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 ceza i\u00e7in mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131n\u0131n verilerek kesinle\u015fmesinden sonra infaz\u0131n ba\u015flamas\u0131yla, ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcn\u00fcn cezas\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7ekmeye ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 andan itibaren derh\u00e2l cezay\u0131 yerine getirmekle g\u00f6revli makam h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcn\u00fcn cezas\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7ekmeye ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcye vasi atanabilmesi i\u00e7in vesayet makam\u0131na bildirecektir. Yetkili vesayet makam\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcye bir vasi atayacakt\u0131r. Vesayet hapis h\u00e2linin sona ermesiyle ayr\u0131ca bir mahkeme karar\u0131na gerek olmaks\u0131z\u0131n kendili\u011finden ortadan kalkacakt\u0131r. Ko\u015fullu sal\u0131verilme vesayetin sona ermesi i\u00e7in yeterli olmay\u0131p ayr\u0131ca cezan\u0131n \u00e7ekilip bitirilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 gerekir (AYM, E.2022\/105, K.2023\/54, 22\/3\/2023, \u00a7 9).<\/p>\n
49. Bir y\u0131l veya daha uzun s\u00fcreli \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 bir cezaya mahk\u00fbm olan ki\u015filerden sadece cezas\u0131 infaz edilmek \u00fczere hapsedilenlerin kural\u0131n kapsam\u0131na girdi\u011fine dikkat \u00e7ekmek gerekir. S\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 ehliyetsiz say\u0131lan, bir y\u0131l veya daha uzun s\u00fcreli \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 bir cezaya mahk\u00fbm olan ki\u015filer ay\u0131rt etme g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc haiz bulunduklar\u0131ndan s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 da olsa belirli i\u015flemleri yapabilirler ve hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 eylemlerinden dolay\u0131 sorumludur. Bu ki\u015filer kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131ks\u0131z kazand\u0131rma amac\u0131na y\u00f6nelik ba\u011f\u0131\u015flama, ibra, kefalet alacakl\u0131s\u0131 olma, i\u015fgal ve ihraz yoluyla m\u00fclkiyet kazanma gibi i\u015flemleri vasinin iznini almaks\u0131z\u0131n tek ba\u015flar\u0131na yapabilir (AYM, E.2022\/105, K.2023\/54, 22\/3\/2023, \u00a7 10).<\/p>\n
50. Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u0131n i\u00e7tihad\u0131 da hakk\u0131ndaki mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 kesinle\u015fmemi\u015f s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 ehliyetsizlerin bir y\u0131l veya daha uzun s\u00fcreli \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 cezaya mahk\u00fbm edilmesi sebebiyle dava a\u00e7ma ehliyetlerinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndedir. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 kesinle\u015fmeyen s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 ehliyetsizler tek ba\u015flar\u0131na dava a\u00e7ma yetkisine sahiptir. Nitekim 13\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5275 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza ve G\u00fcvenlik Tedbirlerinin \u0130nfaz\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 4. maddesinde mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn kesinle\u015fmesi infaz\u0131n \u015fart\u0131 olarak d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn kesinle\u015fmesi ile cezas\u0131 infaz edilebilir a\u015famada bulunan ki\u015fi h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc olarak tan\u0131mlanmaktad\u0131r. \u0130nfaz a\u015famas\u0131ndan \u00f6nce ise kesinle\u015fmi\u015f bir mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 ki\u015fi h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fc stat\u00fcs\u00fcndedir.<\/p>\n
51. Ba\u015fvuru konusu davada Mahkeme h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fc olan ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda verilen mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fip kesinle\u015fmedi\u011fini ve cezan\u0131n infaz\u0131na ba\u015flan\u0131p ba\u015flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmeden mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fal bir sonucu olarak ba\u015fvurucunun k\u0131s\u0131tland\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul\u00fcnden hareketle dava a\u00e7ma ehliyetinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Burada 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 407. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n lafz\u0131nda ge\u00e7en ”k\u0131s\u0131tlan\u0131r” ibaresinin ne anlama geldi\u011finin a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 gerekir. S\u00f6z konusu ibare h\u00e2lihaz\u0131rda ki\u015finin uhdesinde olan bir yetkinin s\u0131n\u0131rlanmas\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelir. K\u0131s\u0131tlanan \u015fey kural\u0131n kapsama ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ki\u015filerin k\u0131s\u0131tlama karar\u0131 \u00f6ncesi tam olarak sahip olduklar\u0131 fiil ehliyetidir. Fiil ehliyetinin ne oldu\u011fu ise belli bir sistematik d\u00e2hilinde 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ilgili h\u00fck\u00fcmleri g\u00f6zetilerek d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Oysaki Mahkeme bu hususlarda herhangi bir ara\u015ft\u0131rma yapmadan ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda salt mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 verilmesini k\u0131s\u0131tl\u0131l\u0131k i\u00e7in yeterli g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
52. Anayasa’n\u0131n 11. maddesi uyar\u0131nca Anayasa h\u00fck\u00fcmleri yasama, y\u00fcr\u00fctme ve yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131n\u0131, idare makamlar\u0131n\u0131, di\u011fer kurulu\u015f ve ki\u015fileri ba\u011flayan temel hukuk kurallar\u0131d\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re kamu g\u00fcc\u00fc kullanan makamlar\u0131n her t\u00fcrl\u00fc i\u015f ve i\u015flemlerinde \u00f6ncelikle Anayasa h\u00fck\u00fcmlerini g\u00f6zetmeleri zorunludur. Di\u011fer taraftan Anayasa’n\u0131n 138. maddesine g\u00f6re h\u00e2kimler Anayasa’ya, kanuna ve hukuka uygun olarak vicdani kanaatlerine g\u00f6re h\u00fck\u00fcm verirler. G\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fczere yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131n\u0131n uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131 \u00f6ncelikle Anayasa h\u00fck\u00fcmlerini dikkate alarak \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme kavu\u015fturmalar\u0131 anayasal bir zorunluluktur. Bu ba\u011flamda bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincilli\u011fi ilkesi Anayasa Mahkemesinin ilk elden yani do\u011frudan inceleme yapmamas\u0131n\u0131 ifade etti\u011fi gibi esas itibar\u0131yla idari ve yarg\u0131sal makamlar\u0131n \u00f6nlerindeki meseleleri ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131 \u00f6ncelikle Anayasa’ya uygun bi\u00e7imde sonuca ba\u011flamalar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden birincil derecede sorumlu olduklar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6sterir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Mehmet Apayd\u0131n, B. No: 2015\/13099, 8\/1\/2020, \u00a7 46).<\/p>\n
53. Nitekim \u00f6zellikle temel kanunlarda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck ve iyi niyet kurallar\u0131, hakk\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 yasa\u011f\u0131 gibi genel ilkeler ile baz\u0131 h\u00e2llerde olay\u0131n \u00f6zelliklerine ve durumun gereklerine g\u00f6re h\u00e2kime takdir yetkisi tan\u0131nmas\u0131 uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcnde Anayasa’ya uygun yorum imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131yan s\u00f6z konusu etkili hukuksal koruman\u0131n bir gere\u011fi olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclmelidir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ister \u00f6zel ki\u015filer aras\u0131 isterse de taraflardan birinin kamu g\u00fcc\u00fc oldu\u011fu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar olsun her durumda h\u00e2kimin hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131 Anayasa’ya uygun bir bi\u00e7imde yorumlamas\u0131 ve yarg\u0131 yetkisinin kullan\u0131m\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde \u00f6zellikle Anayasa ile g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetlerin korunmas\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6zetmesi beklenir (Mehmet Apayd\u0131n, \u00a7 47).<\/p>\n
54. Ayr\u0131ca belirtmek gerekir ki mahkemeler, \u00f6nlerindeki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011fa uygulayacaklar\u0131 mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmlerini anayasal ilke ve g\u00fcvenceleri g\u00f6zeterek yorumlamak mecburiyetindedir. Bir mevzuat h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn birden farkl\u0131 bi\u00e7imde yorumlanmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fu h\u00e2llerde Anayasa’ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 olan yorumun benimsenmesinden ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmas\u0131 Anayasa’n\u0131n \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ilkesinin bir gere\u011fidir. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle Anayasa’ya uygun yorum ilkesi h\u00e2kimin hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131 yorumlama serbest\u00eesinin s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla h\u00e2kimin bir hukuk kural\u0131n\u0131n anlam ve kapsam\u0131n\u0131 tespit ederken Anayasa’y\u0131 ve anayasal ilkeleri hesaba katmamas\u0131 Anayasa’n\u0131n normlar hiyerar\u015fisinin tepesinde yer almas\u0131n\u0131 anlams\u0131z h\u00e2le getirir. Bu ba\u011flamda Anayasa k\u00e2\u011f\u0131t \u00fczerinde kalan bir metin de\u011fil ya\u015fayan, hukuk sistemini y\u00f6nlendiren, her t\u00fcrl\u00fc kamusal tasarrufta g\u00f6zetilmesi gereken hukuki bir belgedir (Mehmet Fatih Bulucu [GK], B. No: 2019\/26274, 27\/10\/2022, \u00a7 76).<\/p>\n
55. 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’daki bir y\u0131l veya daha uzun s\u00fcreli \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 ceza alan ki\u015filerin k\u0131s\u0131tlanaca\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin kural\u0131n hakk\u0131ndaki mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 hen\u00fcz kanun yolu incelemesinden ge\u00e7erek kesinle\u015fmemi\u015f ve cezas\u0131 infaz edilebilir a\u015famaya gelmemi\u015f ki\u015filer bak\u0131m\u0131ndan da uygulanabilece\u011fine dair Mahkemenin yorumu kanunilik ilkesiyle ba\u011fda\u015fmamaktad\u0131r. Zira kanun koyucu mezk\u00fbr Kanun’un 407. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda cezas\u0131n\u0131n infaz\u0131na ba\u015flanan ki\u015filerin vesayet alt\u0131na al\u0131naca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bu kural ile \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 bir ceza nedeniyle h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcn\u00fcn, \u00f6zellikle \u015fahsi ve mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131yla ilgili baz\u0131 hukuki i\u015flemleri yapamayaca\u011f\u0131ndan kendisine kanun gere\u011fince mutlak olarak vasi atanmas\u0131yla korunmas\u0131 ama\u00e7lanmaktad\u0131r (AYM, E.2022\/105, K.2023\/54, 22\/3\/2023, \u00a7 31).<\/p>\n
56. Kald\u0131 ki mahkeme karar\u0131nda h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fclerin k\u0131s\u0131tlanmas\u0131 sebebiyle dava a\u00e7abilmeleri i\u00e7in vesayet makam\u0131n\u0131n izni olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131k bir kanun h\u00fckm\u00fc g\u00f6sterilememi\u015ftir. 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ilgili maddelerinde de h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fclerin tek ba\u015flar\u0131na dava a\u00e7amayacaklar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik a\u00e7\u0131k veya \u00f6rt\u00fcl\u00fc bir h\u00fck\u00fcm yer almamaktad\u0131r. Bunun aksine 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 407. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 ile 5275 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 4. maddesi birlikte g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulunduruldu\u011funda h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fclerin de\u011fil h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fclerin tek ba\u015f\u0131na dava a\u00e7ma ehliyetlerinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Bu nedenle 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 407. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 dikkate al\u0131narak h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fclerin tek ba\u015flar\u0131na dava a\u00e7amayacaklar\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilmesi anayasal anlamda kanunilik \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fc bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemez bir durumdur.<\/p>\n
57. Dava a\u00e7mak, ki\u015filerin belirli bir konuda sahip olduklar\u0131n\u0131 iddia ettikleri bir hakka y\u00f6nelik olarak hukuksal bir sonu\u00e7, h\u00fck\u00fcm elde etmek i\u00e7in yarg\u0131 organ\u0131na ba\u015fvurmalar\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmektedir. Bu itibarla davay\u0131 \u00e7\u00f6zecek yarg\u0131 merciinden beklenen, delilleri de\u011ferlendirmek ve hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131 yorumlamak suretiyle uyu\u015fmazl\u0131ktaki maddi ger\u00e7e\u011fi ortaya \u00e7\u0131karmak ve b\u00f6ylece davan\u0131n her iki taraf\u0131na da hakk\u0131 olan\u0131 teslim etmektir (Ahmet \u00d6zgan ve \u015eule \u00d6zgan [GK], B. No: 2020\/21347, 21\/12\/2023, \u00a7 69). Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun dava tarihi itibar\u0131yla hakk\u0131ndaki mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fmedi\u011fi ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla cezas\u0131n\u0131n infaz\u0131na ba\u015flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6zetilmeden karar verilmi\u015ftir. H\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fclerin tek ba\u015flar\u0131na dava a\u00e7amayacaklar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik yorum yap\u0131l\u0131rken h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcler ile ilgili kurallarla s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 olarak de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00dcstelik mahkeme karar\u0131nda, ba\u015fvurucunun ceza infaz kurumunda h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fc oldu\u011fu belirtilmesine ra\u011fmen gerek\u00e7eye esas al\u0131nan mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fti\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir tespitte bulunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fclerin vesayet makam\u0131 karar\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n dava a\u00e7amayaca\u011f\u0131 sonucuna nas\u0131l ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 da a\u00e7\u0131klanamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Zira ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fmedi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr (bkz. \u00a7 19).<\/p>\n
58. Yukar\u0131da yap\u0131lan tespitler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde yarg\u0131 mercilerince davac\u0131lar\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc ya da h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fc stat\u00fcs\u00fcnde oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmeden b\u00fct\u00fcn uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden hi\u00e7birinin dava a\u00e7ma ehliyeti olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015feklindeki kategorik yorum hukuken \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir de\u011fildir. Di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle ilgili kural\u0131n yorumundan h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fclerin 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 407. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda olduklar\u0131na dair bir anlam \u00e7\u0131kmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
59. Bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fclerin tek ba\u015flar\u0131na dava a\u00e7amayacaklar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik mevzuatta a\u00e7\u0131k bir engel bulunmamas\u0131na ra\u011fmen kategorik bir yakla\u015f\u0131mla h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fclerin hukuki stat\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcler gibi de\u011ferlendirilmek suretiyleancak vesayet makam\u0131 karar\u0131 ile dava a\u00e7abilmelerinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fu hususundaki yorumun \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemez oldu\u011fu ve anayasal anlamda kanunilik \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcne uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
60. Di\u011fer taraftan Anayasa Mahkemesinin 22\/3\/2023 tarihli ve E.2022\/105, K.2023\/54 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131yla 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un bir y\u0131l veya daha uzun s\u00fcreli \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 bir cezaya mahk\u00fbm olan her erginin k\u0131s\u0131tlanaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve cezay\u0131 yerine getirmekle g\u00f6revli makam taraf\u0131ndan ilgilinin cezas\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7ekmeye ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kendisine vasi atanmak \u00fczere yetkili vesayet makam\u0131na bildirmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc oldu\u011funu \u00f6ng\u00f6ren 407. maddesinin iptal edildi\u011finin de alt\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7izmek gerekir.<\/p>\n
61. Bu h\u00e2liyle Mahkemenin ehliyet y\u00f6n\u00fcnden usulden reddetti\u011fi davada ba\u015fvurucunun vesayet makam\u0131 karar\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n dava a\u00e7amayaca\u011f\u0131na h\u00fckmedilmesinin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Var\u0131lan bu sonuca g\u00f6re m\u00fcdahalenin me\u015fru bir amac\u0131n\u0131n bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n veya \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesine gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
62. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
63. Ba\u015fvurucu, ayr\u0131ca ge\u00e7 \u00f6denen emekli ayl\u0131klar\u0131 ve ikramiyesine yasal faiz i\u015fletilmemesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015fse de mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verildi\u011finden di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak kabul edilebilirlik ve esas y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ayr\u0131ca bir inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VI. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
64. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ve 50.000 TL manevi tazminat talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
65. 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 (30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda 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
66. \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 ba\u015fvurucunun manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VII. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Adli yard\u0131m talebinin KABUL\u00dcNE,<\/p>\n
B. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
C. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n \u0130NCELENMES\u0130NE GEREK BULUNMADI\u011eINA,<\/p>\n
E. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Ankara 10. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2020\/432, K.2020\/415) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 17\/7\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 17\/7\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/34827 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u00a0 \u00a0 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 MUSTAFA AKBULUT BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/34827) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 17\/7\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 23\/12\/2024 – 32761 \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 \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN \u00a0 \u00a0 Muhterem \u0130NCE Raport\u00f6r : \u015eahap KAYMAK Ba\u015fvurucu : Mustafa AKBULUT \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru, h\u00fck\u00fcm\u00f6zl\u00fc olarak ceza infaz kurumunda bulunan ba\u015fvurucunun idari i\u015flemin iptali talebiyle a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n vesayet makam\u0131 karar\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n tek ba\u015f\u0131na dava a\u00e7ma ehliyetinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 23\/10\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Ba\u015fvuru, ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinin idari y\u00f6nden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n incelemesinden sonra Komisyona sunulmu\u015ftur. 4. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. 5. B\u00f6l\u00fcm Ba\u015fkan\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin birlikte yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. 6. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 7. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ve Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi (UYAP) arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla eri\u015filen bilgi ve belgeler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir: 8. Ba\u015fvurucu, …<\/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-21821","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n