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
S. K. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/20052)<\/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
Zehra GAYRETL\u0130<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Lezgin Ahmet BAYBA\u015e\u0130N<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, ByLock deliline ili\u015fkin veriler \u00fczerinde bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Diyarbak\u0131r Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) eski polis memuru olan ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131na (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcye oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131yla 19\/3\/2017 tarihinde iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015ftir. \u0130ddianamede; FET\u00d6\/PDY’nin kurulu\u015fu ve yap\u0131s\u0131 hakk\u0131nda genel bilgilere yer verdikten sonra “ByLock Sistem Sorgu Tasnif Tutana\u011f\u0131” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 tutana\u011fa dayanarak ba\u015fvurucunun 0505…13 numaral\u0131 hat \u00fczerinden \u00f6rg\u00fct taraf\u0131ndan haberle\u015fmede kullan\u0131lan ByLock isimli kriptolu mesajla\u015fma uygulamas\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edildi\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca tan\u0131k U.E.nin ba\u015fvurucunun FET\u00d6\/PDY mensubu oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde beyan\u0131 oldu\u011funu a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Diyarbak\u0131r 5. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) nezdinde a\u00e7\u0131lan kamu davas\u0131nda 28\/3\/2017 tarihinde duru\u015fma haz\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flemleri yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tensip Tutana\u011f\u0131’nda Diyarbak\u0131r \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc Ka\u00e7ak\u00e7\u0131l\u0131k ve Organize Su\u00e7larla \u015eube M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131lmak suretiyle ba\u015fvurucunun ByLock kayd\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilerek d\u00fczenlenecek evrak\u0131n g\u00f6nderilmesinin istenmesine ve duru\u015fman\u0131n 1\/6\/2017 tarihinde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Diyarbak\u0131r \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne yaz\u0131lan m\u00fczekkere \u00fczerine dava dosyas\u0131na g\u00f6nderilen “ByLock Sistem Sorgu Tasnif Tutana\u011f\u0131” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 tutanak ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiinin haz\u0131r bulundu\u011fu yarg\u0131laman\u0131n 21\/9\/2017 tarihli ikinci celsesinde okunmu\u015ftur. Mahkemenin gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131na g\u00f6re an\u0131lan tutanakta ba\u015fvurucunun 0505…13 numaral\u0131 hat ve 3…2 IMEI numaral\u0131 cep telefonuyla ByLock kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirlenmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu; bu tutana\u011fa kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda ByLock program\u0131n\u0131 kullanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dosyada yer alan teknik bilgilerin yetersiz oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
5. Mahkeme,yarg\u0131laman\u0131n1\/6\/2017 tarihli birinci celsesinde U.E.nin beyan\u0131n\u0131n istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in bulundu\u011fu yer mahkemesine talimat yaz\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Mahkemece yaz\u0131lan talimat uyar\u0131nca tan\u0131k U.E.nin istinabe mahkemesince al\u0131nan beyan\u0131 yarg\u0131laman\u0131n 12\/12\/2017 tarihli son celsesinde okunmu\u015ftur. Tan\u0131k U.E. beyan\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun cemaat abisi oldu\u011funu ifade etmi\u015ftir. Duru\u015fmada okunan tan\u0131k beyan\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafii, tan\u0131k beyan\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenilir olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve aleyhe hususlar\u0131 kabul etmedikleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnde savunma yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. \u00d6te yandan Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun ByLock sunucusuna ait hedef IP’lere eri\u015fim sa\u011flay\u0131p sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve eri\u015fim sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilirse buna ili\u015fkin tarihlerin bildirilmesi amac\u0131yla Bilgi Teknolojileri ve \u0130leti\u015fim Kurumuna (BTK) m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Yaz\u0131lan m\u00fczekkere \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucunun kullan\u0131m\u0131ndaki 0 505…13 numaral\u0131 hat ve cep telefonuyla 2014 y\u0131l\u0131n\u0131n 9. ve 11. aylar\u0131 aras\u0131nda ByLock sunucusuna ait oldu\u011fu belirlenen IP adreslerine ba\u011flant\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin kay\u0131t (CGNAT) BTK taraf\u0131ndan Mahkemeye sunulmu\u015ftur. Bununla birlikte ba\u015fvurucunun kullan\u0131m\u0131ndaki hat \u00fczerinden ByLock kullanan ki\u015finin ba\u015fvurucu olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit etmek \u00fczere bahsi ge\u00e7en cep telefonu hatt\u0131na ili\u015fkin HTS kay\u0131tlar\u0131 ile BTK taraf\u0131ndan g\u00f6nderilen kay\u0131tlar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle haz\u0131rlanan teknik bilirki\u015fi raporunun Mahekemece al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair herhangi bir bilgi veya belgeye dava dosyas\u0131nda rastlanmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7. Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda FET\u00d6\/PDY’ye \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan 6 y\u0131l 3 ay hapis cezas\u0131na h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“… San\u0131k hakk\u0131nda tanzim edilen bylock sistem sorgu tasnif tutana\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6re san\u0131\u011f\u0131n 0505… 13 numaral\u0131 hat ve 3 […] 2 \u0131me\u0131 numaral\u0131 cep telefonlar\u0131 ile [ByLock] isimli program\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmi\u015f olmas\u0131, yine ayn\u0131 hatt\u0131n [ByLock] tespit edilen telefonlarda kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin BTK d\u00f6k\u00fcmanlar\u0131n\u0131n dosya kapsam\u0131nda mevcut oldu\u011fu, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n bylock tespit edilen GSM hatt\u0131 ve cep telefonu ile 2014 y\u0131l\u0131 9. ve 11. Aylar\u0131 aras\u0131nda [ByLock] serverlerine ait ip adreslerin ba\u011flant\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ili\u015fkin BTK kay\u0131tlar\u0131, san\u0131k aleyhinde verilen tan\u0131k [U.E.] beyanlar\u0131 ve t\u00fcm dosya kapsam\u0131 birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde; [ByLock] isimli program hususunda Yarg\u0131tay Ceza Genel Kurulunun i\u00e7tihad\u0131 g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n fet\u00f6 pdy silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn gizli haberle\u015fme program\u0131 olan [ByLock]isimli program\u0131 kullanarak ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn hiyerar\u015fik yap\u0131s\u0131na dahil olarak \u00f6rg\u00fct i\u00e7erisinde faaliyet y\u00fcr\u00fctmek suretiyle \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7unu i\u015fledi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmakla san\u0131k hakk\u0131nda TCK’n\u0131n 314\/2. maddesi gere\u011fince takdiren asgari hadden ceza tayin edilmi\u015ftir…”<\/p>\n
8. \u0130stinaf talebi Gaziantep B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin 19\/4\/2018 tarihli karar\u0131 ile esastan reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde di\u011ferlerinin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funun \u015f\u00fcpheye yer vermeyecek \u015fekilde somut delillerle ispat edilemedi\u011fini belirterek karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
10. H\u00fck\u00fcm, Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesince 25\/1\/2021 tarihinde onanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131tay karar\u0131nda dosyadaki di\u011fer delillerin at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7un s\u00fcbutu i\u00e7in yeterli olmas\u0131 nedeniyle ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 ByLock Tespit ve De\u011ferlendirme Tutana\u011f\u0131’n\u0131n dosyaya gelmesi beklenmeden karar verilmesinin sonuca etkili olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvuru 6\/4\/2021 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyon, adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne ve gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 ile tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa, an\u0131lan haklara ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetin 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; mahk\u00fbmiyete esas al\u0131nan ByLock verilerine ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n\u0131n ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131 adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkeleri \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. 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
15. Anayasa Mahkemesi Esra Sara\u00e7 Arslan ([GK], B. No: 2019\/10514, 28\/12\/2022) ba\u015fvurusunda ByLock deliline ili\u015fkin veriler \u00fczerinde bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan ba\u015fvuruda ilk derece mahkemesi ba\u015fvurucunun ByLock kay\u0131tlar\u0131 \u00fczerinde bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebini reddetmi\u015f ve ByLock sorgu sonucu raporu ile CGNAT kay\u0131tlar\u0131na istinaden ba\u015fvurucunun ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funu kabul ederek mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tay, ba\u015fvurucunun sulh ceza h\u00e2kimli\u011finde verdi\u011fi ve ByLock program\u0131n\u0131 merak\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 indirdi\u011fi ancak kullanmadan sildi\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki beyan\u0131na dayanarak ByLock Tespit Ve De\u011ferlendirme Tutana\u011f\u0131 getirilmeden karar verilmesinin sonuca etkili olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f ve h\u00fckm\u00fc onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. An\u0131lan kararda Anayasa Mahkemesi, yarg\u0131 merciinin mahk\u00fbmiyete gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi olgular\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden sadece Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan dosyaya sunulan sorgu sonucu raporunu ve CGNAT kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131 dikkate almas\u0131n\u0131n, tutuklu yarg\u0131lanan ba\u015fvurucunun bu tutanak ve kay\u0131tlar\u0131n do\u011frulu\u011funun ve g\u00fcvenilirli\u011finin s\u0131nanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in talep etti\u011fi bilirki\u015fi incelemesinin yeterli bir inceleme\/de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmadan reddedilmesinin ba\u015fvurucuyu iddia makam\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda usule ili\u015fkin imk\u00e2nlardan yararlanma noktas\u0131nda \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde dezavantajl\u0131 konuma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc tespit etmi\u015f ve adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir (Esra Sara\u00e7 Arslan \u00a7\u00a7 55-60).<\/p>\n
16. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyeli\u011fi su\u00e7undan mahk\u00fbm olmas\u0131nda ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin ByLock Sistem Sorgu Tasnif Tutana\u011f\u0131, CGNAT kay\u0131tlar\u0131 ve tan\u0131k U.E.nin beyan\u0131 delil olarak de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine verdi\u011fi beyan\u0131n ve ba\u015fvurucunun ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin delillerin a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda Mahkemece herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirmede bulunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ancak tan\u0131k beyan\u0131n\u0131n istinabe mahkemesince al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131, beyan\u0131n tespiti s\u0131ras\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu haz\u0131r bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 sorgulama f\u0131rsat\u0131 elde edemedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (bkz. \u00a7 5). Buna g\u00f6re tan\u0131k beyan\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenilirli\u011fi ve do\u011frulu\u011fu hususunda tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin tutana\u011f\u0131n ve CGNAT kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131na g\u00f6t\u00fcren belirleyici nitelikte delil oldu\u011funun kabul edilmesi gerekir. Buna g\u00f6re yukar\u0131da an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvuruda silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verildi\u011finden ba\u015fvurucunun di\u011fer \u015fik\u00e2yetleri hakk\u0131nda kabul edilebilirlik ve esas y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ayr\u0131ca bir inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi ile maddi ve manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen anayasal hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar ve zorunluluk bulunmaktad\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n 148. ve 153. maddeleri ile 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. ve 66. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flat\u0131p Anayasa Mahkemesinin ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere ve gerek\u00e7elere uygun bi\u00e7imde y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclecek yarg\u0131lama sonunda hak ihlalinin nedenlerini gidererek yeni bir karar vermektir (yeniden yarg\u0131lama konusunda 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
21. \u00d6te yandan hak ihlali karar\u0131ndan Anayasa Mahkemesinin davan\u0131n sonucuyla ilgili olarak bir tutum sergiledi\u011fi sonucu \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmamal\u0131d\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesince verilen hak ihlali karar\u0131 uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sonu\u00e7lar\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olup davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, reddine ya da beraate veya mahk\u00fbmiyete karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi anlam\u0131na gelmemektedir. Kural olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n her a\u015famas\u0131nda oldu\u011fu gibi ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 gidermek \u00fczere yeniden yap\u0131lacak yarg\u0131lama sonunda da delillerin dava ile ili\u015fkisini kurma ve bunlar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirip sonu\u00e7 \u00e7\u0131karma yetkisi ilgili mahkemelere aittir.<\/p>\n
22. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR’\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
C. Di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n \u0130NCELENMES\u0130NE GEREK OLMADI\u011eINA OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
D. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Diyarbak\u0131r 5. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (E.2017\/297, K.2017\/748) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan 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 14\/1\/2025 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu, karar sonucunu de\u011fi\u015ftirebilecek nitelikteki esasl\u0131 bir iddian\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015f, Say\u0131n Mahkemece yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmede \u00e7o\u011funluk taraf\u0131ndan, ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasan\u0131n 36. maddesinde yer alan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi kabul edilmi\u015ftir. A\u015fa\u011f\u0131da belirtti\u011fim nedenlerle \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lm\u0131yorum. \u015e\u00f6yle ki;<\/p>\n
Konya Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuran R.T. ad\u0131n\u0131n bylock listesinde yer almas\u0131 nedeniyle kamu g\u00f6revinden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ancak GSM hatt\u0131n\u0131 kullanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in kay\u0131nbiraderine verdi\u011fini bylock\u2019un onun taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olabilece\u011fini, kendisinin sahibi oldu\u011fu di\u011fer hatlarda bu program\u0131 kullanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmi\u015ftir. Bunun \u00fczerine R.T.\u2019nin kay\u0131nbiraderi olan ba\u015fvurucu Diyarbak\u0131r Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nca ba\u015flat\u0131lan soru\u015fturma kapsam\u0131nda g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fcdafi e\u015fli\u011finde ifadesi al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu 2005 y\u0131l\u0131ndan beri hatt\u0131 kendisinin kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmi\u015f, ancak bylock kullanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan 19 Mart 2017 tarihli iddianame ile ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130ddianame A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme tan\u0131k U.E\u2019nin Gebze\u2019de istinabe yoluyla ifadesine ba\u015fvurmu\u015f, tan\u0131k ifadesinde kendisinin de Diyarbak\u0131r\u2019da polis olarak g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun cemaat abisi oldu\u011funu, kendisinin ona zimmetli oldu\u011funu, darbe giri\u015fiminden \u00f6nce tango program\u0131n\u0131 telefonuna ba\u015fvurucunun y\u00fckledi\u011fini, darbe giri\u015fimi sonras\u0131nda bu program \u00fczerinden \u201ckendine dikkat et askerin sa\u011f\u0131 solu belli olmaz\u201d \u015feklinde mesaj yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beayn etmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131k ifadesi duru\u015fmada okunmu\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu veya m\u00fcdafi beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015f, tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r bulundurularak sorgulanmas\u0131n\u0131 istememi\u015ftir. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc duru\u015fmada ise, ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafi tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7eli\u015fkili oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece BTK\u2019ya m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131larak CGNAT kay\u0131tlar\u0131 sorulmu\u015f, BTK taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 hatta ili\u015fkin 2024 y\u0131l\u0131 9. ila 11. aylar\u0131 aras\u0131nda bylock sunucular\u0131na ba\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin ilgili kay\u0131tlar dosyaya sunulmu\u015ftur. Mahkemece ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olmak su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme gerek\u00e7esinde Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131na da de\u011finerek, 2014 y\u0131l\u0131 9. ve 11. aylar\u0131 aras\u0131nda san\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131lan GSM hatt\u0131n\u0131n bylock serverlerine ait IP adreslerine ba\u011flant\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, ayr\u0131ca san\u0131k aleyhinde tan\u0131k U.E.\u2019nin beyanlar\u0131 oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf talebi B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince reddedilmi\u015f, temyiz istemi de Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan reddedilerek h\u00fck\u00fcm onanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu gerek soru\u015fturma gerekse kovu\u015fturma s\u00fcre\u00e7lerinde m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanm\u0131\u015f, iddianameye konu eylemler ve dosya kapsam\u0131 hakk\u0131nda bilgi verilmi\u015f ve savunmas\u0131 al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dosya kapsam\u0131nda tan\u0131k ifadeleri al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu\u2019ya tan\u0131k beyan\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 savunma imkan\u0131 tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. BTK\u2019ya yaz\u0131lan m\u00fczekkere ile bylock program\u0131n\u0131 kullan\u0131p kullanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sorulmu\u015f ve bylock sunucusuna ba\u011flant\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131lamada ba\u015fvurucu\u2019ya esas hakk\u0131nda m\u00fctalaaya savunma imkan\u0131 tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f ve ba\u015fvurucunun savunmas\u0131 sonras\u0131nda h\u00fck\u00fcm verilmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 yapan A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi t\u00fcm dosya kapsam\u0131n\u0131 nazara alarak, hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131 nas\u0131l uygulad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve yorumlad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ayr\u0131ca takdir yetkisini gerek\u00e7elendirerek h\u00fck\u00fcm kurmu\u015ftur. Yerel Mahkemenin karar\u0131 istinaf ve temyiz kanun yollar\u0131ndan ge\u00e7erek kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re, ba\u015fvurucunun bireysel ba\u015fvurusunda yer alan iddialar\u0131 kanun yolu \u015fikayeti niteli\u011fini haiz olup, bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bu hususlar\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
Dosya i\u00e7eri\u011finden anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere, ba\u015fvurucu, ba\u015fvuruya konu olaydan \u00f6nce polis olarak g\u00f6rev yapmaktad\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesi, Ayd\u0131n Yavuz ve Di\u011ferleri ba\u015fvurusunda (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2016\/22169, Karar Tarihi: 20\/6\/2017, R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 30\/6\/2017-30110) darbe te\u015febb\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn arkas\u0131ndaki yap\u0131lanmaya ili\u015fkin olarak FET\u00d6\/PDY \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn \u00f6zellikleri hakk\u0131nda kapsaml\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamalara yer vermi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu kararda Mill\u00ee G\u00fcvenlik Kurulu\u2019nun (MGK) 20\/7\/2016 tarihli toplant\u0131s\u0131nda darbe giri\u015fiminin de\u011ferlendirildi\u011fi, bu de\u011ferlendirmede darbe giri\u015fiminin FET\u00d6 taraf\u0131ndan TSK i\u00e7indeki mensuplar\u0131 vas\u0131tas\u0131yla ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn kurulu\u015f a\u015famas\u0131ndan itibaren etkisi alt\u0131na ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 e\u011fitim kurulu\u015flar\u0131, sivil toplum kurulu\u015flar\u0131, medya kurulu\u015flar\u0131, ticari kurulu\u015flar ve kamu g\u00f6revlileri arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla milleti ve devleti kontrol alt\u0131nda tutmay\u0131 ama\u00e7lad\u0131\u011f\u0131, yetkili makamlar taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan \u00e7ok say\u0131da s\u00f6zl\u00fc ve yaz\u0131l\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamada genel olarak, darbe te\u015febb\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn Fetullah G\u00fclen’in talimat\u0131 ile ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve onun onaylad\u0131\u011f\u0131 plan do\u011frultusunda TSK i\u00e7inde yuvalanm\u0131\u015f FET\u00d6\/PDY mensuplar\u0131, \u00f6rg\u00fct y\u00f6neticisi konumundaki kamu g\u00f6revlileri, siviller ile polis ve jandarma i\u00e7ine s\u0131zm\u0131\u015f FET\u00d6\/PDY \u00fcyeleri taraf\u0131ndan icra edildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin ayn\u0131 karar\u0131nda yetkili makamlarca ve soru\u015fturma mercilerince 15 Temmuz darbe te\u015febb\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn faili oldu\u011fu belirtilen FET\u00d6\/PDY’ye ili\u015fkin olarak \u00f6zellikle son y\u0131llarda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen soru\u015fturma ve kovu\u015fturmalarda bu yap\u0131lanman\u0131n \u00f6zelliklerine ve faaliyetlerine ili\u015fkin bir\u00e7ok tespit ve de\u011ferlendirmeye yer verilerek, \u00f6zetle; FET\u00d6\/PDY’nin y\u00f6neticileri ve \u00fcyelerinin, faaliyetlerini gizlilik esas\u0131yla y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve gizlili\u011fi sa\u011flayacak haberle\u015fme y\u00f6ntemleri kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131, gizlilik anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131, devlet y\u00f6netimi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00f6nemli g\u00f6r\u00fclen TSK, yarg\u0131, emniyet ve m\u00fclki idare birimlerinde ayr\u0131 bir titizlikle uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131, FET\u00d6\/PDY’nin ger\u00e7ek amac\u0131n\u0131n devleti ele ge\u00e7irmek oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Yine Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131nda belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere, delillerin de\u011ferlendirilmesi ve hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincilli\u011fi ilkesi yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 yapan derece mahkemelerinin g\u00f6revidir. Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi ise, derece mahkemelerinin yorumlar\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a keyfi veya bariz takdir hatas\u0131 i\u00e7erecek nitelikte olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 incelemektir. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyeli\u011finin s\u00fcbut buldu\u011funu kabul eden yerel mahkeme somut olay ba\u011flam\u0131nda tan\u0131k ifadelerini ve di\u011fer delilleri de\u011ferlendirmi\u015f, karar\u0131n\u0131 gerek\u00e7elendirmi\u015f ve h\u00fck\u00fcm kurmu\u015ftur. Yerel mahkeme gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131nda bylock delilleri yan\u0131nda tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131 da nazara ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f olup, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda mahkumiyet h\u00fckm\u00fc kurarken tek ve belirleyici delil olarak bylock deliline dayanmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yerel mahkemenin karar\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli olup, hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131nda bariz takdir hatas\u0131 veya a\u00e7\u0131k bir keyfilik de mevcut de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
Bu nedenlerle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lm\u0131yorum.<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 14\/1\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/20052 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 S. K. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/20052) \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 : Zehra GAYRETL\u0130 Ba\u015fvurucu : Vekili : Av. Lezgin Ahmet BAYBA\u015e\u0130N \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru, ByLock deliline ili\u015fkin veriler \u00fczerinde bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Diyarbak\u0131r Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) eski polis memuru olan ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131na (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcye oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131yla 19\/3\/2017 tarihinde iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015ftir. \u0130ddianamede; FET\u00d6\/PDY’nin kurulu\u015fu ve yap\u0131s\u0131 hakk\u0131nda genel bilgilere yer verdikten sonra “ByLock Sistem Sorgu Tasnif Tutana\u011f\u0131” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 tutana\u011fa dayanarak ba\u015fvurucunun 0505…13 numaral\u0131 hat \u00fczerinden \u00f6rg\u00fct taraf\u0131ndan haberle\u015fmede kullan\u0131lan ByLock isimli kriptolu mesajla\u015fma uygulamas\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edildi\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca tan\u0131k U.E.nin ba\u015fvurucunun FET\u00d6\/PDY mensubu oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde beyan\u0131 oldu\u011funu a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Diyarbak\u0131r 5. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) nezdinde a\u00e7\u0131lan kamu davas\u0131nda 28\/3\/2017 tarihinde duru\u015fma haz\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flemleri yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tensip Tutana\u011f\u0131’nda Diyarbak\u0131r \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc Ka\u00e7ak\u00e7\u0131l\u0131k ve Organize Su\u00e7larla \u015eube M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131lmak suretiyle ba\u015fvurucunun ByLock kayd\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilerek d\u00fczenlenecek evrak\u0131n g\u00f6nderilmesinin istenmesine …<\/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-49504","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n