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
KAZIM \u0130SKENDER URAL \u00d6ZBEK BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/58594)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 31\/10\/2024<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\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
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/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
Murat BA\u015ePINAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Kaz\u0131m \u0130skender Ural \u00d6ZBEK<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, ceza mahkemesi karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan itiraz ba\u015fvurusunun s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. \u0130stanbul Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 8\/10\/2019 tarihli iddianamesinin kabul\u00fc ile ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130stanbul 17. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesince (Mahkeme) g\u00f6r\u00fclen yarg\u0131lamada ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafinin haz\u0131r bulundu\u011fu 9\/9\/2021 tarihli celsede basit yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fc uygulanarak ba\u015fvurucunun kasten yaralama su\u00e7undan 2.240,00 TL adli para cezas\u0131yla cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na itiraz kanun yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere karar verilmi\u015ftir. Kararda h\u00fck\u00fcm f\u0131kras\u0131nda kanun yoluna ili\u015fkin \u015fu hususlara yer verilmi\u015ftir:<\/p>\n
“San\u0131\u011f\u0131n ve m\u00fc\u015ftekinin y\u00fcz\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131, karar\u0131n san\u0131\u011fa tefhiminden itibaren 7 g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde h\u00fckm\u00fc veren mahkemeye veya bulunan yer mahkemesine bir dilek\u00e7e verilmesi veya zab\u0131t katibine bir beyanda bulunulmas\u0131, bu beyan\u0131n tutana\u011fa ge\u00e7irilmesi ve tutana\u011f\u0131n hakime onaylatt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle 5271 Say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun 252\/1 maddesi gere\u011fi h\u00fckme kar\u015f\u0131 \u0130T\u0130RAZ edilebilece\u011fine …”<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 16\/9\/2021 tarihinde itiraz kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Mahkemece yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucu “itiraz ba\u015fvurusu s\u00fcresinde yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131” gerek\u00e7esiyle itiraz konusunda nihai karar verilmek \u00fczere dosya inceleme mercine g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“… San\u0131k Kas\u0131m \u0130skender Ural \u00d6ZBEK, mahkememizin 2019\/981 esas 2021\/1019 karar say\u0131l\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 16\/09\/2021 tarihli dilek\u00e7esi ile itiraz etmi\u015f ise de, mahkememizin karar\u0131n\u0131n 09\/09\/2021 tarihinde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n y\u00fcz\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 verildi\u011fi, tefhimden itibaren 7 g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde itirazhakk\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n itiraz\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcresinde yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan,s\u00fcresinde yap\u0131lmayan itiraz\u0131n reddine dair …”<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucunun itiraz\u0131 hakk\u0131nda inceleme merci olan \u0130stanbul 7. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi 19\/10\/2021 tarihli karar\u0131nda, itiraz\u0131n s\u00fcresinde yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve Mahkemece yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmenin yerinde oldu\u011funu belirterek itiraz\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015fu \u015fekildedir:<\/p>\n
” … 9\/9\/2021 tarihinde san\u0131\u011fa tefhim edilen karara san\u0131\u011f\u0131n 7 g\u00fcnl\u00fck itiraz s\u00fcresi ge\u00e7tikten sonra 16\/9\/2021 tarihinde itiraz etti\u011fi, itiraz\u0131n s\u00fcresinde yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ek karar\u0131n usul ve yasaya uygun oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmakla itiraz\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekmi\u015ftir.”<\/p>\n
5. Nihai karar 11\/11\/2021 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafine tebli\u011f edilmi\u015f ve 13\/12\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, gerek\u00e7eli itiraz dilek\u00e7esinin s\u00fcresinde sunuldu\u011fu h\u00e2lde hatal\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme sonucu itiraz isteminin reddedilmesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
8. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, konuya ili\u015fkin mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ile yarg\u0131sal kararlara de\u011finilerek ihlal iddialar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilirken bu hususlar\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n da dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda, bireysel ba\u015fvuru formunda ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvuru, adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. 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
11. Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00d6zkan \u015een (B. No: 2012\/791, 7\/11\/2013), Cemile Aky\u0131ld\u0131z (B. No: 2014\/1382, 22\/9\/2016) Ertu\u011frul Dalba\u015f (B. No: 2014\/7805, 25\/10\/2017), Hasan \u0130\u015ften (B. No: 2015\/1950, 22\/2\/2018), Nihal Uslukol (B. No: 2016\/73086, 25\/9\/2019) ve H\u00fcseyin Volkan Kurt, (B. No: 2019\/42687, 8\/3\/2023) kararlar\u0131nda mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Somut olayda, Mahkemece 9\/9\/2021 tarihli celsede ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafinin y\u00fcz\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 verilen (tefhim edilen) h\u00fckme y\u00f6nelik itiraz dilek\u00e7esinin s\u00fcresinde verilmedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle itiraz talebinin s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir m\u00fcdahalede bulunuldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
13. An\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinde belirtilen ko\u015fullar\u0131 yerine getirmedi\u011fi m\u00fcddet\u00e7e Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinin ihlalini te\u015fkil edecektir. Bu nedenle \u00f6ncelikle ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
14. Temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 rejimini d\u00fczenleyen Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilece\u011fi temel bir ilke olarak benimsenmi\u015ftir (kanunilik \u015fart\u0131na ba\u015fka ba\u011flamlarda dikkat \u00e7eken kararlar i\u00e7in bkz. Sevim Akat E\u015fki, B. No: 2013\/2187, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 36; Tu\u011fba Arslan [GK], B. No: 2014\/256, 25\/6\/2014, \u00a7 82; Hayriye \u00d6zdemir, B. No: 2013\/3434, 25\/6\/2015, \u00a7\u00a7 56-61; Halk Radyo ve Televizyon Yay\u0131nc\u0131l\u0131k A.\u015e. [GK], B. No: 2014\/19270, 11\/7\/2019, \u00a7 35; Hamit Yakut [GK], B. No: 2014\/6548, 10\/6\/2021, \u00a7 76; Atilla Yazar ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2016\/1635, 5\/7\/2022, \u00a7 100).<\/p>\n
15. 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).<\/p>\n
16. M\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131 \u00f6ncelikle \u015fekl\u00ee manada bir kanunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 zorunlu k\u0131lar. \u015eekl\u00ee manada kanun, T\u00fcrkiye B\u00fcy\u00fck Millet Meclisi (TBMM) taraf\u0131ndan Anayasa’da belirtilen usule uygun olarak kanun ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan d\u00fczenleyici yasama i\u015flemidir. Hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere m\u00fcdahale edilmesi ancak yasama organ\u0131nca kanun ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan d\u00fczenleyici i\u015flemlerde m\u00fcdahaleye imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan bir h\u00fckm\u00fcn bulunmas\u0131 \u015fart\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. TBMM 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; Tu\u011fba Arslan, \u00a7 96; Fikriye Aytin ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/6154, 11\/12\/2014, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
17. Kanunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kadar kanun metninin ve uygulamas\u0131n\u0131n da bireylerin davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n sonucunu \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilece\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde hukuki belirlilik ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131 gerekir. Bir di\u011fer ifadeyle kanunun niteli\u011fi de kanunilik ko\u015fulunun sa\u011flan\u0131p sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespitinde \u00f6nem arz etmektedir (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 gerektirmektedir (T\u00fcrkiye \u0130\u015f Bankas\u0131 A.\u015e. [GK], B. No: 2014\/6192, 12\/11\/2014, \u00a7 44).<\/p>\n
18. Mahkemelerin yorumlar\u0131n\u0131n ve uygulamalar\u0131n\u0131n kanunun a\u00e7\u0131k lafz\u0131yla \u00e7eli\u015fti\u011fi veya kanun metni dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda bireyler taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2llerde yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine var\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr (baz\u0131 farkl\u0131l\u0131klarla birlikte bkz. Ziya \u00d6zden, B. No: 2016\/67737, 19\/11\/2019, \u00a7 59; Ramazan Atay, B. No: 2017\/26048, 29\/1\/2020, \u00a7 29; W\u0131sam Sula\u0131man Dawood Eaqadah [GK], B. No: 2021\/2831, 15\/2\/2023, \u00a7 81). Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla kanunilik \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan Anayasa Mahkemesince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken, incelemeye konu kurallar\u0131n yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131nca yap\u0131lan yorumlar\u0131n\u0131n, ki\u015filerce \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilecek belirlilikte olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n veya kanunun a\u00e7\u0131k lafz\u0131yla \u00e7eli\u015fip \u00e7eli\u015fmedi\u011finin tespit edilmesidir (baz\u0131 eklemelerle birlikte bkz. Mehmet Demircio\u011flu [GK], B. No: 2020\/35797, 14\/9\/2023, \u00a7 33).<\/p>\n
19. Somut olayda Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun tefhim edilen h\u00fckme kar\u015f\u0131 -yedi g\u00fcnl\u00fck- yasal s\u00fcre ge\u00e7tikten sonra itiraz sebeplerini g\u00f6sterir dilek\u00e7e sundu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle 4\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun 252. maddesi uyar\u0131nca itiraz isteminin reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20. Mahkemenin h\u00fck\u00fcm f\u0131kras\u0131nda karar\u0131n san\u0131\u011fa tefhiminden itibaren 7 g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde itiraz edilebilece\u011finin belirtildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir (bkz. \u00a7 2). S\u00fcrelerin hesaplanmas\u0131yla ilgili olarak 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunu’nun 39. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda g\u00fcn ile belirlenen s\u00fcrelerde, tebligat\u0131n yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ertesi g\u00fcn\u00fc i\u015flemeye ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir (Anayasa Mahkemesinin benzer y\u00f6ndeki de\u011ferlendirmesi i\u00e7in bkz. Binali Boran, B. No: 2016\/1235, 24\/10\/2019, \u00a7 47). Ba\u015fvuru konusu yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecine ili\u015fkin Mahkeme karar\u0131 ba\u015fvurucuya haz\u0131r bulundu\u011fu 9\/9\/2021 tarihli celsede y\u00fcz\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 okunmak suretiyle tefhim edilmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re somut olayda ertesi g\u00fcn ba\u015flayacak hesaplamayla 16\/9\/2021 tarihinde yap\u0131lan itiraz\u0131n yedi g\u00fcnl\u00fck itiraz s\u00fcresi i\u00e7erisinde oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/p>\n
21. \u00d6te yandan ba\u015fvurucunun k\u0131sa kararla birlikte karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esini \u00f6\u011frenemedi\u011fi, gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131n da ba\u015fvurucuya tebli\u011f edilmedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla karar gerek\u00e7esini bilmeyen ba\u015fvurucudan k\u0131sa karar\u0131n tefhiminden itibaren itiraz kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmas\u0131n\u0131 beklemenin de ba\u015fvurucuya a\u011f\u0131r bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckledi\u011fi tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Bu durumda kanun yolu mercilerinin somut olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131nda itiraz s\u00fcresini, ilk derece mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan karar gerek\u00e7esi a\u00e7\u0131klanmadan tefhim tarihinden itibaren ba\u015flatmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin yorumlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemez nitelikte oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Cansan \u0130plik Pazarlama Sanayi ve D\u0131\u015f Ticaret A.\u015e., B. No: 2021\/30498, 17\/4\/2024, \u00a7 18; Nihal Uslukol, \u00a7 51).<\/p>\n
22. A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle, somut olayda itiraz i\u00e7in belirtilen yedi g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcrenin hesaplanma \u015feklinin kanuni dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 ve bu konudaki yarg\u0131sal yorumun da \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemez olmas\u0131 nedenleriyle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\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
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
23. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ile yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
24. 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 (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
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\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
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere \u0130stanbul 17. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesine (E.2019\/981, K.2021\/1019) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. 487,60 TL har\u00e7tan olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. \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
F. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 31\/10\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 31\/10\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/58594 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 KAZIM \u0130SKENDER URAL \u00d6ZBEK BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/58594) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 31\/10\/2024 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN \u00a0 \u00a0 Muhterem \u0130NCE \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Murat BA\u015ePINAR Ba\u015fvurucu : Kaz\u0131m \u0130skender Ural \u00d6ZBEK \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, ceza mahkemesi karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan itiraz ba\u015fvurusunun s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. \u0130stanbul Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 8\/10\/2019 tarihli iddianamesinin kabul\u00fc ile ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130stanbul 17. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesince (Mahkeme) g\u00f6r\u00fclen yarg\u0131lamada ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafinin haz\u0131r bulundu\u011fu 9\/9\/2021 tarihli celsede basit yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fc uygulanarak ba\u015fvurucunun kasten yaralama su\u00e7undan 2.240,00 TL adli para cezas\u0131yla cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na itiraz kanun yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere karar verilmi\u015ftir. Kararda h\u00fck\u00fcm f\u0131kras\u0131nda kanun yoluna ili\u015fkin \u015fu hususlara yer verilmi\u015ftir: “San\u0131\u011f\u0131n ve m\u00fc\u015ftekinin y\u00fcz\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131, karar\u0131n san\u0131\u011fa tefhiminden itibaren 7 g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde h\u00fckm\u00fc veren mahkemeye veya bulunan yer mahkemesine bir dilek\u00e7e verilmesi veya zab\u0131t katibine bir beyanda bulunulmas\u0131, bu beyan\u0131n tutana\u011fa ge\u00e7irilmesi ve tutana\u011f\u0131n hakime onaylatt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle 5271 Say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun 252\/1 maddesi gere\u011fi h\u00fckme kar\u015f\u0131 \u0130T\u0130RAZ edilebilece\u011fine …” 3. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan …<\/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-21505","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n