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
E. D. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/106078)<\/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
Hikmet Murat AKKAYA<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, tutuklu olarak yarg\u0131lanan san\u0131\u011f\u0131n resen g\u00f6revlendirilen m\u00fcdafi ile ceza infaz kurumunda g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fememesi nedeniyle m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ordu 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 Y.\u00c7. hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu \u015fahs\u0131n 2\/6\/2017 tarihli ifadesinde etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmleri kapsam\u0131nda ifade verdi\u011fi ve ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda birtak\u0131m beyanlarda bulundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
3. Bunun \u00fczerine Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, FET\u00d6\/PDY \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda da 7\/6\/2017 tarihinde soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015f ve Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n karar\u0131 ile ba\u015fvurucunun g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 talimat\u0131 vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucunun t\u00fcm aramalara ra\u011fmen bulunamamas\u0131 \u00fczerine 4\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun 98. maddesi uyar\u0131nca Ordu 2. Sulh Ceza H\u00e2kimli\u011fince 9\/6\/2017 tarihinde yakalama karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, Kars\/Ka\u011f\u0131zman’da 22\/8\/2020 tarihinde yakalanm\u0131\u015f ve g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130fadesi al\u0131nmadan \u00f6nce talebi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu resen g\u00f6revlendirilen Av. M.A.B. ile bir g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fme yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015f\u00fcpheli s\u0131fat\u0131yla ilk ifadesi yine Av. M.A.B. e\u015fli\u011finde, Ordu Ka\u00e7ak\u00e7\u0131l\u0131k ve Organize Su\u00e7larla M\u00fccadele Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015eube M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde 25\/8\/2020 tarihinde al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden yararlanmak istedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015f ve buna g\u00f6re ifade vermi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k nezdinde de m\u00fcdafii e\u015fli\u011finde benzer \u015fekilde ifade verdikten sonra tutuklamaya sevk edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Sulh Ceza H\u00e2kimli\u011findeki sorgusu s\u0131ras\u0131nda kolluktaki ve Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131ktaki ifadelerini aynen tekrar etti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafii Av. M.A.B., ba\u015fvurucunun a\u015famalardaki ifadelerinin dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 suretiyle adli kontrol tedbiri ile ba\u015fvurucunun tahliyesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Ordu 1. Sulh Ceza H\u00e2kimli\u011finin 26\/8\/2020 tarihli karar\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucu, tutuklanm\u0131\u015f; Ordu E tipi Kapal\u0131 Ceza \u0130nfaz Kurumuna (Ceza \u0130nfaz Kurumu) konulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131yla 8\/9\/2020 tarihinde iddianame d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Ordu 2. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince iddianamenin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte tensip zapt\u0131yla 15\/9\/2020 tarihinde yetkisizlik karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir. Yetkisizlik karar\u0131na itiraz edilmemesi \u00fczerine dosya Kars N\u00f6bet\u00e7i A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Kars 2. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) tensip zapt\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun tutukluluk h\u00e2linin devam\u0131na, pandemi s\u00fcreci ve defter yo\u011funlu\u011fu nedeniyle duru\u015fman\u0131n 2\/12\/2020 tarihine b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na; di\u011fer hususlar\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra m\u00fcdafii olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde ba\u015fvurucuya Kars Barosu Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nca zorunlu m\u00fcdafi atama i\u015fleminin yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu; pandeminin olmas\u0131 ve seyahat k\u0131s\u0131tlamas\u0131 nedeniyle g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc avukatlar\u0131n y\u00fcksek \u00fccret talep etti\u011fini, maddi durumunun iyi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dosyan\u0131n Ordu Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmesini ve kendisine barodan m\u00fcdafi g\u00f6revlendirilmesini 30\/11\/2020 tarihli dilek\u00e7eyle Mahkemeden talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu 2\/12\/2020 tarihli birinci celseye Ses ve G\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc Bili\u015fim Sistemi (SEGB\u0130S) vas\u0131tas\u0131yla kat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafii olarak Kars Barosu avukatlar\u0131ndan S.A. atanm\u0131\u015f ve duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucunun savunmas\u0131 al\u0131n\u0131rken ve celse devam ederken etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmleri konusunda yeteri kadar bilgi sahibi olmamas\u0131 nedeniyle m\u00fcdafii taraf\u0131ndan etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ile ilgili olarak kendisine k\u0131sa bir a\u00e7\u0131klama yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 SEGB\u0130S \u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcmleme Tutana\u011f\u0131’ndan anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, bir su\u00e7 i\u015flemedi\u011fini belirterek etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden yararlanmak istememi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun savunmas\u0131ndan sonra tan\u0131klar dinlenmi\u015f ve Cumhuriyet Savc\u0131s\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan esas hakk\u0131nda m\u00fctalaa sunulmu\u015ftur. Celse sonunda ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafiinin talebi \u00fczerine savunma i\u00e7in s\u00fcre verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu, ikinci celse \u00f6ncesi Ceza \u0130nfaz Kurumu arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla savunma dilek\u00e7esi sunmakla birlikte SEGB\u0130S \u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcmleme Tutana\u011f\u0131’n\u0131n kendisine g\u00f6nderilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Dosyaya yeni giren belgeler de olmas\u0131 nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun savunma yapabilmesi i\u00e7in duru\u015fma bir kez daha ertelenmi\u015ftir. Bu kapsamda ba\u015fvurucunun ceza infaz kurumunda bilgisayar ortam\u0131nda inceleme yapabilmesi i\u00e7in gerekli imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131 Mahkemece Ceza \u0130nfaz Kurumundan istenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu, tutuksuz olarak yarg\u0131lanmak istedi\u011fine dair 6\/4\/2021 tarihli dilek\u00e7esinde di\u011fer hususlar\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra avukat\u0131yla g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fme imk\u00e2n\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ailesinin kendisine muhta\u00e7 oldu\u011funu ve Ordu’ya getirilme sebebini anlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun tahliye talebi ayn\u0131 g\u00fcn reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucu, Ceza \u0130nfaz Kurumu arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla 12\/4\/2021 tarihinde yaz\u0131l\u0131 olarak savunma dilek\u00e7esi sunmu\u015f; 13\/4\/2021 tarihli \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ve son celseye yine SEGB\u0130S arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla kat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafii Av. S.A. duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r bulunmu\u015ftur. Duru\u015fmada Cumhuriyet Savc\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n esas hakk\u0131ndaki m\u00fctalaas\u0131n\u0131 sunmas\u0131ndan sonra ba\u015fvurucu, etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden faydalanma talebinin oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafii de benzer \u015fekilde ba\u015fvurucunun etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden yararland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015f, m\u00fcvekkilinin a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 stres alt\u0131nda oldu\u011funu ifade ederek celse s\u0131ras\u0131nda verdi\u011fi tutars\u0131z ifadelerin dikkate al\u0131nmamas\u0131n\u0131 istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. Duru\u015fma sonunda Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan 8 y\u0131l 1 ay 15 g\u00fcn hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve ba\u015fvurucunun tutukluluk h\u00e2linin h\u00fckmen devam\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Mahk\u00fbmiyette tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun ikrar i\u00e7eren beyanlar\u0131, inceleme raporlar\u0131, ByLock raporlar\u0131 ve dosya kapsam\u0131ndaki deliller bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak dikkate al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu kapsamda ba\u015fvurucunun 2009-2016 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda Ordu’da FET\u00d6\/PDY’nin hiyerar\u015fisi i\u00e7inde ev abisi, b\u00f6lge talebe mesul\u00fc, \u00fcniversite mesul\u00fc, kredi yurtlar mesul\u00fc ve FET\u00d6\/PDY’nin asker\u00ee mahrem yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 i\u00e7inde faaliyet y\u00fcr\u00fcten askerlerin sohbet hocas\u0131 olarak g\u00f6rev ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca kendi ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 ve ba\u015fkalar\u0131 \u00fczerine kay\u0131tl\u0131 hatlar \u00fczerinden FET\u00d6\/PDY’nin kriptolu haberle\u015fme program\u0131 olan ByLock ileti\u015fim sistemini kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131, 2016 y\u0131l\u0131ndan sonraki s\u00fcre\u00e7te de gizlilik i\u00e7inde \u00f6rg\u00fctle organik ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131 devam ettirdi\u011fi hususlar\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden yararlanamamas\u0131 soru\u015fturmadaki ikrar i\u00e7eren beyanlar\u0131ndan kovu\u015fturma esnas\u0131nda d\u00f6nmesine dayanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurucu; istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde ve ek beyan\u0131nda di\u011fer hususlar\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra avukat\u0131yla g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015femedi\u011fini, avukat\u0131n\u0131 ilk kez duru\u015fma s\u0131ras\u0131nda g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, haklar\u0131n\u0131n ne oldu\u011funu bilmedi\u011fini ve hukuk bilgisinin normal vatanda\u015f kadar oldu\u011funu beyan etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafii 23\/6\/2021 tarihli dilek\u00e7ede bir kamu kurumunda avukat olarak g\u00f6reve ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek art\u0131k g\u00f6revini yerine getiremeyece\u011fini belirtmi\u015f ve yeni bir avukat atanmas\u0131n\u0131 yerel mahkemeden talep etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu da barodan m\u00fcdafi atanmas\u0131n\u0131 Kars A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinden 18\/10\/2021 tarihinde talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. Ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf talebi, Erzurum B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 6. Ceza Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan 4\/10\/2021 tarihinde esastan reddedilmi\u015ftir. Dairenin talebi \u00fczerine Erzurum Barosundan Av. A.O.\u00d6. 20\/10\/2021 tarihinde m\u00fcdafi olarak atanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130stinaf talebinin reddi karar\u0131, ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafii A.O.\u00d6.ye ayn\u0131 g\u00fcn elektronik tebligat ile tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvurucu ve ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafii temyiz talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu; temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde di\u011fer hususlar\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra avukat\u0131yla g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015femedi\u011fini, s\u00f6ylediklerinin yanl\u0131\u015f anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, baro avukat\u0131n\u0131n dosyaya v\u00e2k\u0131f olmadan ve kendisiyle g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeden savunma yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00fcyesi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn su\u00e7lusu oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde beyanda bulundu\u011funu, bunun \u00fczerine Mahkeme Ba\u015fkan\u0131’n\u0131n tutum ve davran\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6zle g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcr \u015fekilde de\u011fi\u015fti\u011fini beyan etmi\u015ftir. Temyiz incelemesi sonucunda Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesinin 3\/10\/2022 tarihli karar\u0131yla h\u00fckm\u00fcn onanmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 6\/12\/2022 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 15\/12\/2022 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
19. Komisyon; adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne, m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanma hakk\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa, an\u0131lan hakka ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20. Anayasa Mahkemesi ilgili ceza infaz kurumundan yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun avukat\u0131yla bir g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fme yap\u0131p yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair bilgi ve belge istemi\u015ftir. Ordu E tipi Kapal\u0131 Ceza \u0130nfaz Kurumunun 22\/2\/2024 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda resen g\u00f6revlendirilen m\u00fcdafi ile herhangi bir \u015fekilde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fme yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bununla birlikte ba\u015fvurucunun Ordu Barosu avukatlar\u0131ndan H.H.K. ile 11\/11\/2020 tarihinde, soru\u015fturma esnas\u0131nda zorunlu m\u00fcdafii olan Av. M.A.B. ile de 8\/9\/2020 tarihinde tutuldu\u011fu ceza infaz kurumunda birer g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
21. Ba\u015fvurucu; g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131narak Ordu’ya getirildi\u011fini, g\u00f6zalt\u0131 i\u015flemleri s\u0131ras\u0131nda kendisine k\u00f6t\u00fc muamelede bulunuldu\u011funu, yetkisizlik karar\u0131 sonras\u0131 Kars Barosundan atanan avukatla g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fme yapabilmesinin imk\u00e2ns\u0131z h\u00e2le getirildi\u011fini, mesafenin uzak olmas\u0131, maddi imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve pandemi s\u00fcrecindeki k\u0131s\u0131tlamalardan dolay\u0131 avukat tutamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131lama boyunca Kars Barosundan atanan avukatla hi\u00e7bir \u015fekilde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclmedi\u011fini, SEGB\u0130S arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile kendisini ilk kez duru\u015fma esnas\u0131nda g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda soru\u015fturmadaki ifadeleri ile ilgili a\u00e7\u0131klama yapmak istedi\u011fi h\u00e2lde izin verilmedi\u011fini, karar duru\u015fmas\u0131 \u00f6ncesi su\u00e7lu oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde avukat\u0131n\u0131n beyanda bulundu\u011funu, bu nedenle heyetin kanaatini de\u011fi\u015ftirerek alt s\u0131n\u0131rdan uzakla\u015fmak suretiyle kendisine ceza verdi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
22. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, ba\u015fvurucunun g\u00f6zalt\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde \u00fc\u00e7 defa m\u00fcdafii ile g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, Ordu E Tipi Kapal\u0131 Ceza \u0130nfaz Kurumunda bar\u0131nd\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde iki farkl\u0131 m\u00fcdafi ile toplam iki defa g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, t\u00fcm kovu\u015fturma s\u00fcrecinde m\u00fcdafi ile temsil edildi\u011fi, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n ilk celsesinden itibaren h\u00fck\u00fcm tarihine kadar m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararland\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun tutuklu bulundu\u011fu s\u00fcre\u00e7te t\u00fcm duru\u015fmalara kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, yine avukat\u0131 S.A.n\u0131n da t\u00fcm yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecine kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafi S.A.n\u0131n t\u00fcm yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde ortaya konulan delillerden haberdar olarak savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 sundu\u011fu ve kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurdu\u011fu ve somut olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda benzer \u015fekilde \u015fik\u00e2yetlerini yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
23. Ba\u015fvuru, m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
24. 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 m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
25. Anayasa Mahkemesi Yusuf Karaku\u015f ve di\u011ferleri (B. No: 2014\/12002, 8\/12\/2016) karar\u0131nda m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanma hakk\u0131 ile ilgili ilkeleri ve anayasal temelleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re savunma hakk\u0131n\u0131n etkin bir \u015fekilde kullanma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanma hakk\u0131 ayn\u0131 zamanda adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer bir unsuru olan silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ilkesinin de gere\u011fidir. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanma hakk\u0131 hem savunma hakk\u0131n\u0131n etkin bir \u015fekilde kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamakta hem de silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ilkesine i\u015flerlik kazand\u0131rmaktad\u0131r (Yusuf Karaku\u015f ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 74). M\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanma hakk\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00f6nemli olan -yarg\u0131lamaya bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda- \u015f\u00fcphelinin\/san\u0131\u011f\u0131n m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan etkili bi\u00e7imde yararlanm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131d\u0131r ancak avukata eri\u015fim y\u00f6n\u00fcnden getirilen k\u0131s\u0131tlama yarg\u0131laman\u0131n sonraki a\u015famalar\u0131nda telafi edilmi\u015f ise savunma hakk\u0131 ihlal edilmi\u015f say\u0131lmaz (Yusuf Karaku\u015f ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 78).<\/p>\n
26. San\u0131\u011f\u0131n maddi imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131k nedeniyle m\u00fcdafi se\u00e7ebilecek durumda olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmesi \u00fczerine Mahkeme, resen m\u00fcdafi g\u00f6revlendirmi\u015ftir. Bu g\u00f6revlendirmenin amac\u0131 yarg\u0131laman\u0131n sona erdirilebilmesi i\u00e7in kanuni d\u00fczenlemeler uyar\u0131nca gerekli ko\u015fullar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 de\u011fildir. M\u00fcdafi g\u00f6revlendirilmesinin amac\u0131, \u015f\u00fcphelinin\/san\u0131\u011f\u0131n savunma haklar\u0131n\u0131 etkili \u015fekilde kullanmas\u0131n\u0131 g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na almakt\u0131r. \u015e\u00fcphelinin\/san\u0131\u011f\u0131n hukuki donan\u0131ma sahip iddia makam\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda dezavantajl\u0131 bir konumda bulunmadan etkili bir savunma yapabilmesi m\u00fcdafinin hukuki yard\u0131m\u0131ndan ger\u00e7ek anlamda yararlanabilmesi ile m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Bu kapsamda m\u00fcdafi g\u00f6revlendirilmesi m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanma hakk\u0131n\u0131 \u015feklen de\u011fil somut ve etkili \u015fekilde sa\u011flayabilecek nitelikte olmal\u0131d\u0131r (Emre Kunt [GK], B. No: 2019\/5577, 8\/3\/2023, \u00a7 64).<\/p>\n
27. Ba\u015fvurucu, hakk\u0131nda silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7unu i\u015fledi\u011fi \u015f\u00fcphesiyle ba\u015flat\u0131lan soru\u015fturma kapsam\u0131nda Kars’ta yakaland\u0131ktan sonra 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 94. maddesi do\u011frultusunda ba\u015fvurucunun Ordu’ya g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fclmesi gerekmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun buradaki ifadeleri resen g\u00f6revlendirilen m\u00fcdafi e\u015fli\u011finde al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, bu a\u015famada etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden yararlanmak istedi\u011fini belirterek ikrar niteli\u011finde beyanlarda bulunmu\u015f ve bunun \u00fczerine tutuklanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, tutukland\u0131ktan sonra Ordu E tipi Kapal\u0131 Ceza \u0130nfaz Kurumuna konulmu\u015ftur. Yetkisizlik karar\u0131 sonras\u0131 Kars’ta y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen yarg\u0131lamadaki celselere ba\u015fvurucu, SEGB\u0130S arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla kat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f; duru\u015fma \u00f6ncesi talebi de g\u00f6zetilerek kendisine m\u00fcdafi tayin edilmesi gerekmi\u015f ve 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 150. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda Kars Barosundan bir m\u00fcdafi atanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
28. Kovu\u015fturma evresinde ba\u015fvurucu ile kendisine resen atanan m\u00fcdafi birbirine uzak illerdedir. Ceza \u0130nfaz Kurumundan istenen bilgi ve belgelere g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucu ile Kars Barosu taraf\u0131ndan atanan m\u00fcdafi daha \u00f6nce bir g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fme yapmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Nitekim Mahkeme Ba\u015fkan\u0131’n\u0131n sordu\u011fu sorular kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafiinin etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k kurumunun ne oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin olarak ba\u015fvurucuya birtak\u0131m a\u00e7\u0131klamalar yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 SEGB\u0130S \u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcmleme Tutana\u011f\u0131’ndan anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu da m\u00fcdafiinin bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131ndan sonra su\u00e7 i\u015flemedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015f ve etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden faydalanmak istemedi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, daha \u00f6nce h\u00e2kim huzurunda verdi\u011fi ifadelerden ilk olarak bu a\u015famada d\u00f6nm\u00fc\u015f ancak karar \u00f6ncesindeki son celsede etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden faydalanmak istedi\u011fini tekrar dile getirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafii son celsede “m\u00fcvekkilin \u00f6ncelikle beraatini, aksi bir kanaat oldu\u011fu takdirde lehe h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin uygulanarak alt s\u0131n\u0131rdan ceza verilmesini” talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
29. Ba\u015fvurucu, kovu\u015fturma esnas\u0131nda barodan atanan m\u00fcdafii ile hi\u00e7bir \u015fekilde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015femedi\u011fini dile getirmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun talebine ili\u015fkin herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmam\u0131\u015f; yarg\u0131lamaya Kars Barosu taraf\u0131ndan m\u00fcdafi olarak g\u00f6revlendirilen S.A.n\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 ile devam etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
30. Somut olayda Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun tutuklu bulundu\u011fu yerin barosundan m\u00fcdafi atanmas\u0131 talebine ili\u015fkin herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi ba\u015fvurucu ile m\u00fcdafinin farkl\u0131 yerlerde bulunmas\u0131n\u0131n savunma a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan do\u011furdu\u011fu zorlu\u011fun ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik alternatif bir y\u00f6nteme de ba\u015fvurmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu kapsamda ba\u015fvurucunun t\u00fcm savunmalar\u0131n\u0131n SEGB\u0130S vas\u0131tas\u0131yla kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 oturumlarda al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmal\u0131d\u0131r. Dahas\u0131 Mahkemenin duru\u015fmaya kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 SEGB\u0130S vas\u0131tas\u0131yla sa\u011flanan ba\u015fvurucuya m\u00fcdafi ile \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc bir \u015fahs\u0131n g\u00f6zetimi olmaks\u0131z\u0131n, bilgi al\u0131\u015fveri\u015finin gizlili\u011finin korunmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik tedbirler al\u0131narak g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fme imk\u00e2n\u0131 sunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da duru\u015fma tutanaklar\u0131 ve Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi (UYAP) kay\u0131tlar\u0131ndan anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bununla birlikte SEGB\u0130S’in m\u00fcdafiye \u015f\u00fcpheli veya san\u0131kla mahrem bir bi\u00e7imde ileti\u015fim kurma imk\u00e2n\u0131 sunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da ifade edilmelidir.<\/p>\n
31. Kovu\u015fturma evresinde duru\u015fma \u00f6ncesi hukuki bir destek alamayan, dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7eri\u011findeki delillere ili\u015fkin fikir al\u0131\u015fveri\u015fi yapmak suretiyle savunmas\u0131n\u0131 m\u00fcdafii ile d\u00fczenleme imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulamayan, bu kapsamda etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k kurumu hakk\u0131nda yeterli bilgi sahibi olmayan ba\u015fvurucunun daha \u00f6nce ikrar niteli\u011findeki ifadelerinin tersine bir \u015fekilde beyanda bulunmas\u0131 ve buna g\u00f6re savunma yapmas\u0131 nazara al\u0131narak etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden faydalanmas\u0131 uygun g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir. Bu kapsamda ba\u015fvurucunun 8 y\u0131l 1 ay 15 g\u00fcn hapis cezas\u0131 ile mahk\u00fbmiyetine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Temyiz ba\u015fvuru dilek\u00e7esinde yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde \u0131srarla dile getirdi\u011fi taleplerine cevap verilmeyerek yok say\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade eden ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fcdafi ile g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fme imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulamadan mahk\u00fbm edildi\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki itiraz\u0131na duru\u015fmas\u0131z olarak yap\u0131lan istinaf ve temyiz kanun yolu incelemelerinde de cevap verilmemi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Mahkemenin yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 ile savunma a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan dezavantajl\u0131 durumun kanun yolu a\u015famas\u0131nda da telafi edilmedi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
32. Somut olayda yarg\u0131laman\u0131n tamam\u0131nda tutuklu bulunan ve m\u00fcdafi se\u00e7ebilecek maddi imk\u00e2na sahip olmayan ba\u015fvurucuya m\u00fcdafinin hukuki yard\u0131m\u0131ndan etkili bir \u015fekilde yararlanma imk\u00e2n\u0131 sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ko\u015fullarda Mahkemece izlenen y\u00f6ntemin silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkeleri ile savunma i\u00e7in gerekli zaman ve kolayl\u0131klardan yararlanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n gereklerine uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanma hakk\u0131ndan kaynaklanan menfaatlerini koruyan g\u00fcvenceler i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu durum, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n bir b\u00fct\u00fcn h\u00e2linde adil olmaktan \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131na neden olmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
33. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
34. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespitiyle birlikte yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca maddi ve manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
35. 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 mercilerinin yapmas\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 (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
36. \u0130hlalin 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 maddi ve manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. M\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanma 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 m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Kars 2. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (E.2020\/298, K.2021\/115) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 14\/1\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 14\/1\/2025 tarihli ve 2022\/106078 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 E. D. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/106078) \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 : Hikmet Murat AKKAYA Ba\u015fvurucu : \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, tutuklu olarak yarg\u0131lanan san\u0131\u011f\u0131n resen g\u00f6revlendirilen m\u00fcdafi ile ceza infaz kurumunda g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fememesi nedeniyle m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ordu 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 Y.\u00c7. hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu \u015fahs\u0131n 2\/6\/2017 tarihli ifadesinde etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmleri kapsam\u0131nda ifade verdi\u011fi ve ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda birtak\u0131m beyanlarda bulundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. 3. Bunun \u00fczerine Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, FET\u00d6\/PDY \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda da 7\/6\/2017 tarihinde soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015f ve Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n karar\u0131 ile ba\u015fvurucunun g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 talimat\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. 4. Ba\u015fvurucunun t\u00fcm aramalara ra\u011fmen bulunamamas\u0131 \u00fczerine 4\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun 98. maddesi uyar\u0131nca Ordu 2. Sulh Ceza H\u00e2kimli\u011fince 9\/6\/2017 tarihinde yakalama karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir. 5. Ba\u015fvurucu, Kars\/Ka\u011f\u0131zman’da 22\/8\/2020 tarihinde yakalanm\u0131\u015f ve g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130fadesi al\u0131nmadan \u00f6nce talebi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu resen g\u00f6revlendirilen Av. M.A.B. ile bir g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fme yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015f\u00fcpheli s\u0131fat\u0131yla ilk ifadesi yine …<\/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-77727","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n