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
\u0130SMA\u0130L AYDEM\u0130R BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/24563)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 11\/6\/2024<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Recai AKYEL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Burak G\u00dcNG\u00d6R<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u0130smail AYDEM\u0130R<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Mehmet \u00c7AVDAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, beyanlar\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n san\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan duru\u015fmada sorgulanmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n verilmemesi nedeniyle tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Kocaeli Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) ba\u015fvurucunun Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131na (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcye oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesiyle olay tarihinde astsubay olan ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Soru\u015fturma neticesinde Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015f; iddianamede ba\u015fvurucunun soru\u015fturma a\u015famas\u0131ndaki beyanlar\u0131 ile iki tan\u0131k ifadesine g\u00f6re 2010 ile 2011 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki sivil \u00f6\u011frencilik d\u00f6neminde ve mesle\u011fe ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 2012 y\u0131l\u0131nda bir s\u00fcre \u00f6rg\u00fct evinde kalmak, himmet ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda para vermek suretiyle \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. \u0130ddianamenin kabul\u00fc ile a\u00e7\u0131lan dava, Kocaeli 4. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince (Mahkeme) g\u00f6r\u00fclmeye ba\u015flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131lamada duru\u015fma haz\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flemleri yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tensip Tutana\u011f\u0131’nda di\u011fer hususlar\u0131n yan\u0131nda tan\u0131k E.K.n\u0131n istinabe yoluyla, M.A.n\u0131n ise huzurda dinlenilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131k E.K.n\u0131n bilgi ve g\u00f6rg\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn tespiti i\u00e7in yaz\u0131lan talimata ikmalen cevap verilmi\u015f ve etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131ktan yararlanan tan\u0131k; Ba\u015fkale A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinde istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nan ifadesinde soru\u015fturma s\u00fcrecindeki beyanlar\u0131n\u0131 teyit etmi\u015f ve ba\u015fvurucunun 2010 ve 2011 y\u0131llar\u0131ndaki \u00f6\u011frencilik d\u00f6neminde ve meslek hayat\u0131na ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 2012 y\u0131l\u0131nda be\u015f ay s\u00fcreyle kendisi ile \u00f6rg\u00fct evinde kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. 29\/11\/2017 tarihli birinci celsede Mahkeme huzurunda ifadesi al\u0131nan di\u011fer tan\u0131k M.A. soru\u015fturma s\u00fcrecindeki beyanlar\u0131 bask\u0131 ve tehdit alt\u0131nda verdi\u011fini belirterek ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc ile bir ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn evlerinde kal\u0131p kalmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda herhangi bilgi ve g\u00f6rg\u00fcs\u00fc bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Yine ayn\u0131 celsede ba\u015fvurucu, savunmas\u0131nda soru\u015fturma evresinde bask\u0131 ve tehdit alt\u0131nda beyanda bulundu\u011funu belirterek sonraki s\u00fcre\u00e7te kendisine k\u00f6t\u00fc muamelede bulundu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ilgililer hakk\u0131nda \u015fik\u00e2yette bulunmu\u015fsa da kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 karar\u0131 verildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu; hi\u00e7bir s\u00fcre\u00e7te \u00f6rg\u00fct evlerinde kalmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, e\u011fitim g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc 2010 ve 2011 y\u0131llar\u0131nda kiralad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6\u011frenci evinde kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, meslek hayat\u0131na ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 2012 y\u0131l\u0131nda ise asker\u00ee birlik d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalmas\u0131n\u0131n zaten yasak oldu\u011funu, bu s\u00fcre\u00e7te de asker\u00ee birlikte kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, himmet ya da ba\u015fka bir ad alt\u0131nda \u00f6rg\u00fcte yard\u0131mda bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, aleyhine beyanlarda bulunan E.K.n\u0131n etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131ktan yararlanarak ceza almamak ad\u0131na ismini verdi\u011fini ve beyanlar\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu esas hakk\u0131ndaki m\u00fctalaaya kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda \u00f6nceki savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 tekrarlayarak isnat edilen su\u00e7u i\u015flemedi\u011fini beyan etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. \u0130kinci celsede Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan 6 y\u0131l 3 ay hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“[S]an\u0131\u011f\u0131n, Hereke MYO da e\u011fitim g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc d\u00f6nem i\u00e7inde o d\u00f6nem cemaat ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda bilinen yap\u0131n\u0131n evlerinde kald\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu yap\u0131ya mensup askeri okullara \u00f6\u011frenci yerle\u015ftiren \u00f6rg\u00fct mensuplar\u0131 arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla s\u0131navlara y\u00f6nlendirildikleri, zira [E.K.n\u0131n] m\u00fcdafi huzuruyla al\u0131nan soru\u015fturma ifadesinde; ‘Kocaeli’ye Ankara’dan b\u00fcy\u00fck bir abinin gelece\u011fini, bu abi ile g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeleri gerekti\u011finin s\u00f6ylenmesi \u00fczerine, Kocaeli’ye geldi\u011fini, burada san\u0131k \u0130smail [ba\u015fvurucu] F. ve b\u00fcy\u00fck abi olarak nitelendirilen ki\u015fi ile bir odada g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcklerini, 2012 y\u0131l\u0131 mart\u0131nda Bal\u0131kesir Astsubay Meslek Y\u00fcksekokulu’nda e\u011fitime ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131’ ifade etmi\u015f; soru\u015fturma a\u015famas\u0131nda Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ifadesi al\u0131nan San\u0131k \u0130smail AYDEM\u0130R ise ifadesinde; ‘Hereke’de cemaat evinde kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u0131nav \u00f6ncesi bir erkek \u015fahs\u0131n kendileriyle g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeye kendisi, [F.] ve [E.K.n\u0131n] g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, Bal\u0131kesir Astsubayl\u0131k Okulunda [F.] ve [E.nin birlikte e\u011fitim ald\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, G\u00fczelyal\u0131’daki evde kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nemde eve gelen abinin maa\u015f\u0131ndan y\u00fczde 10 himmet istedi\u011fini, bir ka\u00e7 kez 75 TL ve 100 TL para verdi\u011fini’ anlatarak her ne kadar tan\u0131k anlat\u0131m\u0131 ile beyanlar\u0131 \u00f6rt\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015fse de mahkememiz huzurundaki savunmas\u0131nda bu ifadesinden d\u00f6nm\u00fc\u015f, her ne kadar soru\u015fturma a\u015famas\u0131ndaki m\u00fcdafi huzuruyla al\u0131nan kolluk ifadesi ve 06.02.2017 tarihinde Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131ndaki ifadesinden d\u00f6nm\u00fc\u015fse de ifadesinin tan\u0131k anlat\u0131mlar\u0131 ile \u00f6rt\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, sonras\u0131nda at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7lamadan kurtulmaya matuf beyanda bulundu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilerek…”<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu, istinaf ve temyiz dilek\u00e7elerinde di\u011ferlerinin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra tan\u0131k E.K.n\u0131n mahkeme huzurunda dinlenilmedi\u011fi ve soru sorma hakk\u0131n\u0131n kulland\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. H\u00fck\u00fcm, kanun yolu denetiminden ge\u00e7erek kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 18\/5\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 28\/5\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
10. Komisyon; adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne, tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki iddialar\u0131n kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa, an\u0131lan hakka 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
11. Ba\u015fvurucu; gerek\u00e7eli kararda beyanlar\u0131na yer verilen tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n huzurda dinlenilmesi i\u00e7in Mahkemenin herhangi bir giri\u015fimde bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, tan\u0131\u011fa soru sorma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n kendisine tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131 adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. 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
14. Anayasa Mahkemesi, bir\u00e7ok karar\u0131nda tan\u0131k kavram\u0131n\u0131 san\u0131\u011fa isnat edilen fiil hakk\u0131nda bilgi veren herhangi bir ki\u015fi \u015feklinde \u00f6zerk olarak yorumlam\u0131\u015f ve tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 ile ilgili ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir (Atila O\u011fuz Boyal\u0131, B. No: 2013\/99, 20\/3\/2014; Sel\u00e7uk Demir, B. No: 2014\/9783, 22\/1\/2015; AZ. M., B. No: 2013\/560, 16\/4\/2015; Baran Karada\u011f, B. No: 2014\/12906, 7\/5\/2015; Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, B. No: 2019\/30221, 28\/12\/2021). Buna g\u00f6re bir ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131nda san\u0131\u011f\u0131n aleyhine olan tan\u0131klar\u0131 sorgulama veya sorgulatma hakk\u0131 vard\u0131r. Hakk\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 s\u00fcrecinde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n tan\u0131klara soru y\u00f6neltebilmesi, onlarla y\u00fczle\u015febilmesi ve tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n do\u011frulu\u011funu s\u0131nama imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip olmas\u0131 adil bir yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yap\u0131labilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan gereklidir (AZ. M., \u00a7 55). Di\u011fer yandan bir mahk\u00fbmiyet -tek veya belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde- san\u0131\u011f\u0131n soru\u015fturma veya yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir kimse taraf\u0131ndan verilen ifadelere dayand\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve dengeleyici g\u00fcvenceler sa\u011flayan bir usul \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f ise san\u0131\u011f\u0131n haklar\u0131 Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesindeki g\u00fcvencelerle ba\u011fda\u015fmayacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde k\u0131s\u0131tlanm\u0131\u015f olur (Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, \u00a7 35).<\/p>\n
15. Anayasa Mahkemesi, tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131yla ilgili olarak verdi\u011fi kararlar\u0131nda somut bir yarg\u0131lama \u00f6ncesinde veya haricinde elde edilen tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n delil olarak kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn yarg\u0131laman\u0131n adilli\u011fine zarar verip vermedi\u011fini de\u011ferlendirmek i\u00e7in \u00fc\u00e7 a\u015famal\u0131 bir test uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ifade etmektedir. Buna g\u00f6re ilk olarak tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n mahkemede haz\u0131r edilmemesi i\u00e7in ge\u00e7erli bir nedenin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fart\u0131 aranmal\u0131d\u0131r. \u0130kinci olarak san\u0131\u011f\u0131n sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tan\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan verilen beyan\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyetin dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 tek veya belirleyici delil olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmelidir. Sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmayan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131n\u0131n tek veya belirleyici delil oldu\u011funun tespit edilmesi durumunda ise \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc a\u015fama olarak savunma taraf\u0131n\u0131n maruz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu olumsuzlu\u011fun telafi edilmesi amac\u0131yla yeterli d\u00fczeyde kar\u015f\u0131 dengeleyici g\u00fcvenceler sa\u011flayan bir usul\u00fcn y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcl\u00fcp y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmedi\u011fi ortaya konulmal\u0131d\u0131r (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Abdurrahim Balur, B. No: 2013\/5467, 7\/1\/2016, \u00a7 80; Onur Urbay, B. No: 2014\/6222, 6\/3\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 36, 40; Zekeriya Sevim, B. No: 2018\/18989, 16\/6\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 44, 51). Bu kapsamda h\u00fckme ula\u015f\u0131l\u0131rken sorgulanmam\u0131\u015f tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131n\u0131 destekleyen ba\u015fka do\u011frulay\u0131c\u0131 delillere dayan\u0131lmas\u0131 telafi edici g\u00fcvencelerden biri olarak kabul edilebilir (Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, \u00a7 39). Mahkemenin yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresi d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki tan\u0131klar\u0131n -san\u0131\u011f\u0131n da onlara soru sormas\u0131na imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayacak ve sorulan sorulara verdikleri cevaplar hakk\u0131nda ki\u015fisel izlenim edinme f\u0131rsat\u0131 elde edecek \u015fekilde- Ses ve G\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc Bili\u015fim Sistemi (SEGB\u0130S) gibi vas\u0131talarla dinlenmesi telafi edici bir g\u00fcvence olabilir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. U\u011fur \u00d6zcan, B. No: 2021\/12137, 26\/7\/2022, \u00a7 40). Sorgulanmayan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenilirli\u011finin ve do\u011frulu\u011funun saptanmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla savunma taraf\u0131na sa\u011flanabilecek bir di\u011fer telafi edici g\u00fcvence ise san\u0131\u011fa olay\u0131n kendi versiyonunu anlatma ve delillerini sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131d\u0131r (Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, \u00a7 40).<\/p>\n
16. Somut olayda Mahkeme; tan\u0131k E.K.n\u0131n huzurda dinlenilmesine ili\u015fkin herhangi bir \u00e7aba g\u00f6stermemi\u015ftir. Duru\u015fma Tutana\u011f\u0131 ve gerek\u00e7eli kararda da tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n Mahkemece duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r edilememesinin veya ayn\u0131 anda g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcl\u00fc ve sesli ileti\u015fim tekni\u011finin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle dinlenilmemesinin hangi ge\u00e7erli nedene dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir a\u00e7\u0131klamaya yer verilmemi\u015ftir. Ancak buna ili\u015fkin ge\u00e7erli bir nedenin ortaya konulmamas\u0131, tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011finin kabul edilmesi i\u00e7in yeterli de\u011fildir. \u0130kinci olarak h\u00fckm\u00fcn tek ba\u015f\u0131na veya belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde ba\u015fvurucunun sorgulama ya da sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir tan\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan verilen ifadeye dayal\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. Mahkeme, gerek\u00e7eli kararda -di\u011ferlerinin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra- tan\u0131k E.K.n\u0131n beyanlar\u0131na istinaden mahk\u00fbmiyet sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Gerek\u00e7eli karar i\u00e7eri\u011fi g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda tan\u0131k E.K.n\u0131n \u00f6rg\u00fct evinde birlikte kald\u0131klar\u0131na ili\u015fkin beyan\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7unu i\u015fledi\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki kanaatin olu\u015fmas\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucunun soru\u015fturma evresindeki beyanlar\u0131na itibar edilmesi noktas\u0131nda dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015fmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr (bkz. \u00a7 7). Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmayan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n anlat\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131na g\u00f6t\u00fcren tek olmasa da belirleyici nitelikte delil oldu\u011funun kabul edilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
18. Yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde ba\u015fvurucuya olaylar\u0131 kendi bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131na g\u00f6re anlatma ve delillerini sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dosyada tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131 destekleyen ba\u015fka deliller de bulunmaktad\u0131r. Ancak Mahkemenin yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresi d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucunun da ona soru sormas\u0131na imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayacak \u015fekilde SEGB\u0130S gibi vas\u0131talarla neden dinlemedi\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir bilgi ve belgeye ula\u015f\u0131lamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tan\u0131k, istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nan beyan\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6rg\u00fct evinde kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015fse de ba\u015fvurucu haz\u0131r bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n verdi\u011fi cevaplar hakk\u0131nda izlenim edinme f\u0131rsat\u0131 elde edememi\u015ftir. Bu y\u00fczden tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n tepkileri konusunda Mahkemenin dikkatini \u00e7ekememi\u015f, b\u00f6ylelikle tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenilirli\u011fi test edilememi\u015ftir. Mahkeme de tan\u0131k beyanda bulunurken ba\u015fvuran\u0131n ve tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi tepkilerle ilgili olarak izlenim edinememi\u015ftir. \u00d6te yandan h\u00fckme ula\u015f\u0131l\u0131rken sorgulanmam\u0131\u015f tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ba\u015fka delillere de dayan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n, beyanlar\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde mahk\u00fbmiyete temel al\u0131nan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmamas\u0131 nedeniyle savunma makam\u0131n\u0131n maruz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rlamay\u0131 telafi etti\u011fini s\u00f6ylemek de m\u00fcmk\u00fcn g\u00f6z\u00fckmemektedir. Sonu\u00e7 olarak g\u00fcvenilirli\u011fi ve do\u011frulu\u011fu test edilmemi\u015f tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde savunman\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 zorluklar\u0131 telafi edecek kar\u015f\u0131 dengeleyici g\u00fcvencelerin sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n duru\u015fmada veya SEGB\u0130S yoluyla dinlenmemesinin bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetini zedeledi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
19. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi ve manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
21. 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\u015flat\u0131p Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gidererek ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun bir yarg\u0131lama sonunda yeni bir karar vermektir (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
22. Tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131, tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n yarg\u0131lama evrelerindeki beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n delil de\u011feriyle ilgili bir derecelendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na almamaktad\u0131r. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle bu hak, tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n duru\u015fmadaki beyanlar\u0131na \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fck tan\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir g\u00fcvence i\u00e7ermemektedir. Savunmaya duru\u015fmada tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 sorgulama f\u0131rsat\u0131 tan\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve san\u0131\u011f\u0131n di\u011fer haklar\u0131na sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterildi\u011fi s\u00fcrece tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131ndaki beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n hangisine itibar edilece\u011fi meselesi karar veren mahkemenin takdirindedir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Musa Y\u0131lmaz Acar, B.No: 2013\/1664, 16\/7\/2014, \u00a7 53).<\/p>\n
23. Belirli bir davaya ili\u015fkin olarak delilleri de\u011ferlendirme ve g\u00f6sterilen delilin davayla ilgili olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verme yetkisi kural olarak yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 y\u00fcr\u00fcten derece mahkemelerine aittir (Orhan K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 [GK], B. No: 2014\/4704, 1\/2\/2018, \u00a7 44). Bu ba\u011flamda somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7unu i\u015fleyip i\u015flemedi\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde karar vermek Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi de\u011fildir. \u0130hlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 gidermek \u00fczere gereken i\u015flemler yerine getirildikten sonra yap\u0131lacak de\u011ferlendirmede delillerin takdir bi\u00e7imine g\u00f6re mahkemenin benzer veya farkl\u0131 bir sonuca varmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
24. \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 manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Kocaeli 4. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (E.2017\/576, K.2018\/66) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \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
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 11\/6\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 11\/6\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/24563 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 \u0130SMA\u0130L AYDEM\u0130R BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/24563) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 11\/6\/2024 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL \u00a0 \u00a0 Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u00a0 \u00a0 Muhterem \u0130NCE \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Burak G\u00dcNG\u00d6R Ba\u015fvurucu : \u0130smail AYDEM\u0130R Vekili : Av. Mehmet \u00c7AVDAR \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, beyanlar\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n san\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan duru\u015fmada sorgulanmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n verilmemesi nedeniyle tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Kocaeli Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) ba\u015fvurucunun Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131na (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcye oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesiyle olay tarihinde astsubay olan ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Soru\u015fturma neticesinde Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015f; iddianamede ba\u015fvurucunun soru\u015fturma a\u015famas\u0131ndaki beyanlar\u0131 ile iki tan\u0131k ifadesine g\u00f6re 2010 ile 2011 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki sivil \u00f6\u011frencilik d\u00f6neminde ve mesle\u011fe ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 2012 y\u0131l\u0131nda bir s\u00fcre \u00f6rg\u00fct evinde kalmak, himmet ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda para vermek suretiyle \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir. 4. \u0130ddianamenin kabul\u00fc ile a\u00e7\u0131lan dava, Kocaeli 4. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince (Mahkeme) g\u00f6r\u00fclmeye ba\u015flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131lamada duru\u015fma haz\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flemleri yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tensip Tutana\u011f\u0131’nda di\u011fer hususlar\u0131n yan\u0131nda tan\u0131k E.K.n\u0131n istinabe yoluyla, M.A.n\u0131n ise huzurda dinlenilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131k …<\/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-17983","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n