T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
MUSTAFA NAZLI BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/29044)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 28\/11\/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
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Zehra GAYRETL\u0130<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Mustafa NAZLI<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. G\u00f6khan MARA\u015e<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, beyanlar\u0131 mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131nda belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde delil olarak kullan\u0131lan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n duru\u015fmada sorgulanamamas\u0131 nedeniyle tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru 13\/8\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyon, adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama ve hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma haklar\u0131 ile su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesi d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa, an\u0131lan \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin ise kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ve Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi (UYAP) arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla eri\u015filen bilgi ve belgeler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
5. K\u0131r\u015fehir Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) K\u0131r\u015fehir \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc i\u00e7indeki Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131na (FET\u00d6\/PDY) mensup ki\u015filerin ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Soru\u015fturma kapsam\u0131nda baz\u0131 tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131 al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. Soru\u015fturma sonucunda Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda FET\u00d6\/PDY \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131yla 15\/11\/2016 tarihinde iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015ftir. \u0130ddianamede; FET\u00d6\/PDY’nin kurulu\u015fu ve yap\u0131s\u0131 hakk\u0131nda genel bilgilere yer verildikten sonra tan\u0131klar H.A., C.K. ve S.K.n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine verdi\u011fi, ba\u015fvurucunun sohbet isimli \u00f6rg\u00fctsel toplant\u0131lara kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve himmet ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda para toplad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki beyanlar\u0131na dayan\u0131larak ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyesi olma su\u00e7unu i\u015fledi\u011fi iddia edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. K\u0131r\u015fehir A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) nezdinde a\u00e7\u0131lan kamu davas\u0131nda 5\/12\/2016 tarihinde duru\u015fma haz\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flemleri yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tensip Tutana\u011f\u0131’nda K\u0131r\u015fehir \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131lmak suretiyle ba\u015fvurucunun ByLock kayd\u0131n\u0131n olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilerek d\u00fczenlenecek evrak\u0131n g\u00f6nderilmesine, soru\u015fturma evresinde ba\u015fvurucu aleyhinde beyanda bulunan H.A., C.K. ve S.K.n\u0131n tan\u0131k olarak dinlenmesine ve duru\u015fman\u0131n 6\/3\/2017 ile 10\/3\/2017 tarihleri aras\u0131nda yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Duru\u015fma tarihinden \u00f6nceK\u0131r\u015fehir \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u015fvurucunun Bylock program\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik tespiti i\u00e7eren tutana\u011f\u0131 Mahkemeye g\u00f6ndermi\u015ftir. Tutanakta ba\u015fvurucunun 0 505…66 numaral\u0131 GSM hatt\u0131 \u00fczerinden ByLock program\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, m\u00fcdafiinin de haz\u0131r bulunmas\u0131yla duru\u015fman\u0131n 8\/3\/2017 tarihli celsesinde savunma yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu; savunmas\u0131nda tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7eli\u015fkili oldu\u011funu, bu beyanlar\u0131 kabul etmedi\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
10. Duru\u015fman\u0131n 10\/3\/2017 tarihli celsesinde ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6rg\u00fct i\u00e7i gizli haberle\u015fme program\u0131 olan ByLock program\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmesinin ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7unu i\u015fledi\u011fini g\u00f6steren kuvvetli bir delil oldu\u011fu belirtilerek tutuklanmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. \u00d6te yandan tan\u0131klar H.A., C.K. ve S.K. hakk\u0131nda daha \u00f6nce verilen zorla getirme kararlar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda i\u015flem yapan kolluk birimleri; tan\u0131klar\u0131n K\u0131r\u015fehir’deki ikamet adreslerinden ta\u015f\u0131nmalar\u0131 nedeniyle duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r edilemediklerini Mahkemeye bildirmi\u015ftir. Bunun \u00fczerine Mahkeme ikamet adresleri yarg\u0131 yetkisinin d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda oldu\u011fu tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nabilmesi i\u00e7in istinabe mahkemelerine talimat yaz\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Bu kapsamda istinabe mahkemelerince beyanlar\u0131 al\u0131nan tan\u0131klar H.A., C.K. ve S.K. soru\u015fturma evresinde ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine verdikleri beyanlar\u0131 tekrar etmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re tan\u0131k H.A. beyan\u0131nda \u00f6zetle kendisinin de kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 sohbetlerin baz\u0131lar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun da bulundu\u011funu ifade etmi\u015ftir. Di\u011fer tan\u0131k C.K. 2012 y\u0131l\u0131 Kadir Gecesi’nde d\u00fczenlenen \u00f6rg\u00fctsel toplant\u0131ya ba\u015fvurucunun da kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmi\u015ftir. Di\u011fer tan\u0131k S.K. ise istanabe mahkemesince al\u0131nan beyan\u0131nda \u00f6zetle ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn grup sorumlusu oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiinin haz\u0131r bulundu\u011fu duru\u015fman\u0131n 10\/3\/2017 tarihli celsesinde S.T.A. tan\u0131k olarak dinlenmi\u015ftir. S.T.A. kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir sohbette ba\u015fvurucuyu bir kez g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc beyan etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. Mahkeme, duru\u015fman\u0131n 21\/6\/2017 tarihli celsesinde ba\u015fvurucunun kullan\u0131m\u0131nda oldu\u011funu beyan etti\u011fi GSM numaras\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak 2014 Ocak ay\u0131ndan 2016 Eyl\u00fcl ay\u0131na kadar arayan, aranan ve mesajla\u015f\u0131lan numaralar\u0131 i\u00e7eren baz istasyonlu HTS kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n BTK’dan istenmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Bu m\u00fczekkere \u00fczerine BTK’dan g\u00f6nderilen HTS kay\u0131tlar\u0131 duru\u015fman\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiinin haz\u0131r bulundu\u011fu 9\/8\/2017 tarihli celsesinde okunmu\u015ftur. Mahkeme HTS kay\u0131tlar\u0131 \u00fczerinden inceleme yap\u0131larak rapor d\u00fczenlenmesi i\u00e7in K\u0131r\u015fehir \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadele \u015eube M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vererek duru\u015fmay\u0131 ertelemi\u015ftir. 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 Mahkemece al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair herhangi bir bilgi veya belgeye dava dosyas\u0131nda rastlanmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. Duru\u015fman\u0131n takip eden celselerinde dosya aras\u0131na al\u0131nan t\u00fcm bilgi ve belgeler ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiine okunarak ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiinin bunlara kar\u015f\u0131 beyanlar\u0131 al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu kapsamda ba\u015fka dosya san\u0131\u011f\u0131 A.\u00c7.nin tan\u0131k s\u0131fat\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine verdi\u011fi “Mustafa Nazl\u0131 da Valilikte Vali Bey\u2019in korumas\u0131yd\u0131. O da fet\u00f6c\u00fcd\u00fcr. Onu da defalarca g\u00f6rd\u00fcm toplant\u0131larda. Y\u00fcksek de himmet verirdi.” \u015feklindeki beyan\u0131 da dosyaya al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
15. Duru\u015fman\u0131n tamamlanmas\u0131 sonucu Mahkeme ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda FET\u00d6\/PDY’ye \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan 7 y\u0131l 6 ay hapis cezas\u0131na h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“San\u0131k hakk\u0131ndaki [ByLock] kay\u0131tlar\u0131nda ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 olan ve kendisi taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etti\u011fi [0505..66] GSM numaras\u0131 \u00fczerinde, […] IME\u0130 numaras\u0131 ile 12\/11\/2014 tespit tarihli [ByLock] kayd\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bylock kayd\u0131nda belirtilen GSM numaras\u0131 ve \u0130mei numaras\u0131n\u0131n BTK’dan gelen san\u0131\u011fa ait(aranan-arayan-baz-imei kay\u0131tl\u0131) HTS kay\u0131tlar\u0131nda belirtilen 0505 […] 3466 GSM numaras\u0131 ve […] imei numaras\u0131n\u0131n birebir ayn\u0131 oldu\u011funun anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve San\u0131\u011f\u0131n [ByLock] kayd\u0131nda belirtilen GSM numaras\u0131 ve IMEI bilgilerinin BTK’dan gelen HTS kay\u0131tlar\u0131ndaki numara ve imei ile birebir \u00f6rt\u00fc\u015fmesi, uyumlu olmas\u0131, [0505… 3466] hatta ait oldu\u011fu tespit edilmi\u015f ByLock Baz bilgilerinden de san\u0131\u011f\u0131n kullanm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu hat ve IMEI numaras\u0131ndan ByLock program\u0131na defalarca giri\u015f yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, IP \u00e7ak\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, BTK’dan gelen ve KOM \u015fube’den gelen resmi kay\u0131tlarla da de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n Bylock isimli program\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve san\u0131\u011f\u0131n ByLock kullanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki savunmas\u0131na itibar edilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
… san\u0131\u011f\u0131n, s\u0131radan bir vatanda\u015f\u0131n temin edip kullanma imkan\u0131 olmayan ve sadece Fet\u00f6\/PDY \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc mensuplar\u0131nca haberle\u015fme amac\u0131yla kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 bilinen Bylock isimli program\u0131n\u0131 GSM hatt\u0131 \u00fczerinden kullanmas\u0131, HTS kay\u0131tlar\u0131nda mahkememizde hakk\u0131nda Fet\u00f6 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyeli\u011finden iddianame d\u00fczenlenen \u015fah\u0131slarla yo\u011fun telefon irtibat\u0131n\u0131n bulunmas\u0131, tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131na g\u00f6re FET\u00d6 toplant\u0131lar\u0131na kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve himmet ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda \u00f6rg\u00fcte para verdi\u011fi, para toplad\u0131\u011f\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda san\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn hiyerar\u015fik yap\u0131s\u0131na dahil oldu\u011fu ve b\u00f6ylelikle \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7unu i\u015fledi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. …”<\/p>\n
16. \u0130stinaf talebi Ankara B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 19. Ceza Dairesinin 29\/3\/2019 tarihli karar\u0131 ile esastan reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
17. 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, tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, beyanlardaki \u00e7eli\u015fkilerin giderilmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f; temyiz talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
18. Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesince 18\/6\/2020 tarihinde karar onanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131tay karar\u0131nda dosyadaki mevcut 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
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
A. Ulusal Hukuk<\/p>\n
19. Tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ilgili ulusal mevzuat i\u00e7in bkz. U\u011fur \u00d6zcan, B. No: 2021\/12137, 26\/7\/2022, \u00a7\u00a7 17-22<\/p>\n
20. Yarg\u0131tay Ceza Genel Kurulunun 26\/9\/2017 tarihli ve E.2017\/16.MD-956, K.2017\/370 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“ByLock ileti\u015fim sisteminde ba\u011flant\u0131 tarihinin, ba\u011flant\u0131y\u0131 yapan IP adresinin, hangi tarihler aras\u0131nda ka\u00e7 kez ba\u011flant\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, haberle\u015fmelerin kimlerle ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011finin ve i\u00e7eri\u011finin tespiti m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Bu kapsamda, ba\u011flant\u0131 tarihi ve ba\u011flant\u0131y\u0131 yapan IP adresi ile hangi tarihler aras\u0131nda ka\u00e7 kez ba\u011flant\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi durumunda, somut olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131na g\u00f6re ki\u015finin bu \u00f6zel ileti\u015fim sisteminin bir par\u00e7as\u0131 oldu\u011fu kabul edilecek, ayr\u0131ca bu a\u011fa dahil olan ki\u015filerin a\u011f i\u00e7inde ba\u015fka ki\u015fi ya da ki\u015filerle yapt\u0131klar\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fme i\u00e7eriklerinin olmas\u0131 da aranmayacakt\u0131r. Haberle\u015fmelerin kimlerle yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve i\u00e7eriklerinin tespiti ise, ki\u015finin ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc i\u00e7indeki hiyerar\u015fik konumunun (\u00f6rg\u00fct y\u00f6neticisi\/\u00f6rg\u00fct \u00fcyesi) belirlenmesinde yol g\u00f6sterici olacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
ByLock ileti\u015fim sisteminin FET\u00d6\/PDY silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc mensuplar\u0131n\u0131n kullanmalar\u0131 amac\u0131yla olu\u015fturulan ve m\u00fcnhas\u0131ran bu ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn bir k\u0131s\u0131m mensuplar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131lan bir a\u011f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle; \u00f6rg\u00fct talimat\u0131 ile bu a\u011fa dahil olundu\u011funun ve gizlili\u011fi sa\u011flamak i\u00e7in haberle\u015fme amac\u0131yla kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, her t\u00fcrl\u00fc \u015f\u00fcpheden uzak, kesin kanaate ula\u015ft\u0131racak teknik verilerle tespiti, ki\u015finin \u00f6rg\u00fctle ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6steren bir delil olacakt\u0131r…”<\/p>\n
21. (Kapat\u0131lan) Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesinin 2\/5\/2018 tarihli ve E.2018\/395, K.2018\/1566 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Yarg\u0131tay Ceza Genel Kurulu\u2019nun 26.09.2017 tarih, 2017\/16.MD-956 E.2017\/370 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile onanarak kesinle\u015fen Dairemizin ilk derece mahkemesi s\u0131fat\u0131yla verdi\u011fi 24.04.2017 tarih, 2015\/3 Esas, 2017\/3 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere, By[L]ock ileti\u015fim sisteminin FET\u00d6\/PDY silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc mensuplar\u0131n\u0131n kullanmalar\u0131 amac\u0131yla olu\u015fturulan ve m\u00fcnhas\u0131ran bu su\u00e7 \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn bir k\u0131s\u0131m mensuplar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131lan bir a\u011f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle \u00f6rg\u00fct talimat\u0131 ile bu a\u011fa dahil olundu\u011funun ve gizlili\u011fi sa\u011flamak i\u00e7in haberle\u015fme amac\u0131yla kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n her t\u00fcrl\u00fc \u015f\u00fcpheden uzak, kesin kanaata ula\u015ft\u0131racak teknik verilerle tespiti halinde ki\u015finin \u00f6rg\u00fctle ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6steren bir delil olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul edildi\u011fi g\u00f6zetilerek; ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funu kabul etmeyen ve aleyhine ba\u015fka yeterli delil de bulunmayan san\u0131\u011f\u0131n, ByLock uygulamas\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ku\u015fkuya yer vermeyecek \u015fekilde teknik verilerle tespiti halinde, [ByLock] kullan\u0131c\u0131[s\u0131] oldu\u011funa dair delilin su\u00e7 vasf\u0131n\u0131n tayini a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan belirleyici nitelikte olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, ilgili birimlerden ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 olarak ByLock tesbit ve de\u011ferlendirme raporu ile HIS (CGNAT) sorgu kay\u0131tlar\u0131 getirtilip de\u011ferlendirilerek, duru\u015fmada san\u0131k ve m\u00fcdafiine okunup diyecekleri sorulduktan sonra bir karar verilmesi gerekirken, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n [ByLock] kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funa dair yetersiz belgelere dayan\u0131larak eksik ara\u015ft\u0131rma ile yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde karar verilmesi… [bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir.]”<\/p>\n
22. (Kapat\u0131lan) Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesinin 28\/6\/2018 tarihli ve E.2018\/1279, K.2018\/2142 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funu kabul etmeyen san\u0131\u011f\u0131n ByLock uygulamas\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ku\u015fkuya yer vermeyecek \u015fekilde teknik verilerle tespiti halinde ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funa dair delilin su\u00e7un s\u00fcbutu a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan belirleyici nitelikte olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, ilgili birimlerden ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 ByLock tespit ve de\u011ferlendirme tutana\u011f\u0131 getirtilip de\u011ferlendirilerek duru\u015fmada san\u0131k ve m\u00fcdafiine okunup diyecekleri sorulduktan sonra bir karar verilmesi gerekirken, EGM KOM Daire Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen yetersiz By[L]ock CBS sorgu tutana\u011f\u0131na dayan\u0131larak eksik ara\u015ft\u0131rmayla yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131… [bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir.]”<\/p>\n
23. (Kapat\u0131lan) Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesinin 22\/12\/2020 tarihli ve E.2020\/4706, K.2020\/6676 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funu kabul etmeyen san\u0131\u011f\u0131n, ByLock uygulamas\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ku\u015fkuya yer vermeyecek \u015fekilde teknik verilerle tespiti halinde, ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funa dair delilin at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7un s\u00fcbutu a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan belirleyici nitelikte olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 ByLock tespit ve de\u011ferlendirme raporunun ilgili birimlerden getirtilmesi, tespit ve de\u011ferlendirme raporunun temin edilememesi halinde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n teknik olarak bu program\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespiti a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan H\u0130S (CGNAT) ve HTS kay\u0131tlar\u0131 \u00fczerinde bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 [bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir.]”<\/p>\n
24. (Kapat\u0131lan) Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesinin 30\/6\/2021 tarihli ve E.2020\/2018, K.2021\/4527 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Dairemizin 20.02.2018 tarih 2017\/3618 Esas 2018\/705 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile ‘ByLock ileti\u015fim sisteminin’ FET\u00d6\/PDY silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc mensuplar\u0131n\u0131n kullanmalar\u0131 amac\u0131yla olu\u015fturulan ve m\u00fcnhas\u0131ran bu su\u00e7 \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn bir k\u0131s\u0131m mensuplar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131lan bir a\u011f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle; \u00f6rg\u00fct talimat\u0131 ile bu a\u011fa dahil olundu\u011funun ve gizlili\u011fi sa\u011flamak i\u00e7in haberle\u015fme amac\u0131yla kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, her t\u00fcrl\u00fc \u015f\u00fcpheden uzak, kesin kanaate ula\u015ft\u0131racak teknik verilerle tespiti halinde, ki\u015finin \u00f6rg\u00fctle a\u011flant\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6steren delil oldu\u011funun kabul edildi\u011fi dikkate al\u0131narak, somut dosyada san\u0131\u011f\u0131n ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7un s\u00fcbutu a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan belirleyici nitelikte olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda; ‘ByLock tespit ve de\u011ferlendirme tutana\u011f\u0131’n\u0131n dosyaya getirtilmesi, de\u011ferlendirme ve tespit tutana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n temin edilememesi halinde, operat\u00f6r kay\u0131tlar\u0131 ile e\u015fle\u015ftirme yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Bilgi Teknolojileri ve \u0130leti\u015fim Kurumundan getirtilen CGNAT kay\u0131tlar\u0131 ile HTS sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131l\u0131p belirtilen hat \u00fczerinden ByLock kullanan ki\u015finin san\u0131k olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 do\u011frultusunda bilirki\u015fiden teknik rapor al\u0131narak yarg\u0131lamaya devamla bir h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 gerekirken eksik ara\u015ft\u0131rma ile yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131… [bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir.]”<\/p>\n
B. Uluslararas\u0131 Hukuk<\/p>\n
25. Tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ilgili uluslararas\u0131 hukuk i\u00e7in bkz. Nurcan G\u00fclabi, B. No: 2015\/15355, 23\/5\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 24-27.<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
26. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 28\/11\/2024 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. Tan\u0131k Sorgulama Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130ddialar\u0131 ve Bakanl\u0131k G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/p>\n
27. Ba\u015fvurucu, beyanlar\u0131 mahk\u0217miyet h\u00fckm\u00fcne esas al\u0131nan tan\u0131klar\u0131n duru\u015fmada dinlenmemeleri nedeniyle tan\u0131klara soru sorma imk\u00e2n\u0131 elde edemedi\u011fini belirterek tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
28. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda beyanda bulunan tan\u0131klar H.A., C.K. ve S.K.n\u0131n istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nan beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n duru\u015fmada ba\u015fvurucuya okunarak tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiinin diyeceklerinin soruldu\u011fu, bu suretle ba\u015fvurucunun beyanlardan haberdar oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015f; genel olarak ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilemez oldu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
29. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olaylar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan hukuki nitelendirmesi ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olmay\u0131p olay ve olgular\u0131n hukuki tavsifini kendisi takdir eder (Tahir Canan, B. No: 2012\/969, 18\/9\/2013, \u00a7 16). Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131 adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
a. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
30. 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 adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
b. Esas Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
i. Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
31. 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 kovu\u015fturma evresinde sorgulama ya da 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
32. 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 ge\u00e7erli bir nedenin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na bak\u0131lmal\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 zorluklar\u0131n 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). Duru\u015fmada 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, san\u0131\u011fa olay\u0131 kendi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan anlatma ve delillerini sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131d\u0131r (Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, \u00a7 40). Bundan ba\u015fka tan\u0131klar\u0131n onlara soru sorulmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayacak \u015fekilde ayn\u0131 anda ses ve g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc nakleden vas\u0131talarla dinlenmesi de savunma taraf\u0131na sa\u011flanabilecek telafi edici g\u00fcvencelerden biri olarak de\u011ferlendirilebilir.<\/p>\n
ii. \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/p>\n
33. Mahkeme, mahk\u0217miyet karar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun duru\u015fmada sorgulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131na dayanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Nitekim Mahkeme, tan\u0131k H.A.n\u0131n kendisinin de kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 sohbet toplant\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n baz\u0131lar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun da bulundu\u011funu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki beyan\u0131n\u0131 h\u00fckme esas alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme mahk\u0217miyet h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc kurarken bir di\u011fer tan\u0131k C.K.n\u0131n 2012 y\u0131l\u0131 Kadir Gecesi’nde d\u00fczenlenen sohbetlere ba\u015fvurucunun da kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki beyan\u0131na dayanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yine duru\u015fmada sorgulanmayan tan\u0131k S.K.n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda verdi\u011fi ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn grup sorumlusu oldu\u011funa dair beyan\u0131 da delil olarak de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fka soru\u015fturmalarda ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131klamalarda bulunan bir di\u011fer tan\u0131k A.\u00c7.nin tan\u0131k s\u0131fat\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine verdi\u011fi “Mustafa Nazl\u0131 da Valilikte Vali Bey\u2019in korumas\u0131yd\u0131. O da fet\u00f6c\u00fcd\u00fcr. Onu da defalarca g\u00f6rd\u00fcm toplant\u0131larda. Y\u00fcksek de himmet verirdi.” \u015feklindeki beyan\u0131 da dosyaya al\u0131narak bunun duru\u015fmada okunmas\u0131yla yetinilmi\u015ftir. Beyanlar\u0131 h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan tan\u0131klardan sadece biri duru\u015fmada dinlenmi\u015f, di\u011fer d\u00f6rt tan\u0131k ise dinlenmemi\u015ftir (bkz \u00a7\u00a7 11, 12).<\/p>\n
34. Mahkeme, konutlar\u0131 yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bulunan tan\u0131klar\u0131n duru\u015fmaya getirilmesinin zor olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131yla ilgili bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmam\u0131\u015f; tan\u0131klar\u0131n salt konutlar\u0131n\u0131n yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda olmas\u0131n\u0131 istinabe yoluyla dinlenmeleri i\u00e7in ge\u00e7erli sebep saym\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun tan\u0131k sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131ndan yararland\u0131r\u0131lmamas\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7elendirilmesi y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc somut olayda kamu makamlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yerine getirilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
35. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu; \u00f6rg\u00fct i\u00e7i gizli haberle\u015fmeye yarayan ByLock program\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik kolluk birimlerince d\u00fczenlenen tutana\u011fa (sorgu tutana\u011f\u0131na) ve duru\u015fmada dinlenmeyen tan\u0131klar H.A., C.K., S.K. ile A.\u00c7.nin beyanlar\u0131na dayal\u0131 olarak mahk\u0217m edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar incelendi\u011finde duru\u015fmada dinlenmeyen tan\u0131klar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine verdi\u011fi beyanlar\u0131n ve di\u011fer delillerin a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda Mahkemece herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirmede bulunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
36. FET\u00d6\/PDY ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7lardan haklar\u0131nda soru\u015fturma ve\/veya kovu\u015fturma y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen ki\u015filerin ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 olduklar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki iddialara ili\u015fkin olarak ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fckleri itiraz ve \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin de soru\u015fturma mercileri ve yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131nca de\u011ferlendirmeye al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede ki\u015filerin an\u0131lan uygulamay\u0131 kullan\u0131p kullanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespiti amac\u0131yla baz\u0131 teknik ara\u015ft\u0131rma ve incelemelerin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Yarg\u0131tay ile b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemelerinin kararlar\u0131nda bu ara\u015ft\u0131rma ve incelemelerin nas\u0131l yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131na, hangi tespitlerin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2linde ki\u015filerin ByLock program\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilmesi gerekti\u011fine dair esaslar belirlenmi\u015ftir (an\u0131lan kararlar\u0131n bir k\u0131sm\u0131 i\u00e7in bkz. Ferhat Kara [GK], B. No: 2018\/15231, 4\/6\/2020, \u00a7\u00a7 91-104).<\/p>\n
37. Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihad\u0131 uyar\u0131nca san\u0131\u011f\u0131n ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7unun s\u00fcbutu a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6nemli a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131kta bir delil olmas\u0131 durumunda ByLock Tespit ve De\u011ferlendirme Tutana\u011f\u0131’n\u0131n dosyaya getirtilmesi, an\u0131lan tutana\u011f\u0131n temin edilememesi h\u00e2linde operat\u00f6r kay\u0131tlar\u0131 ile e\u015fle\u015ftirme yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere BTK’dan getirtilen CGNAT kay\u0131tlar\u0131 ile HTS sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131l\u0131p belirtilen hat \u00fczerinden ByLock kullanan ki\u015finin san\u0131k olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 do\u011frultusunda bilirki\u015fiden teknik rapor al\u0131narak h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 gerekmektedir (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 20-24). Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda ba\u015fvurucu, ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde savunma yapmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen Mahkemece ByLock Tespit ve De\u011ferlendirme Tutana\u011f\u0131 dosyaya getirtilmedi\u011fi gibi Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihad\u0131nda belirlenen standartlarda teknik bilirki\u015fi raporu da temin etmemi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re Mahkemenin ByLock kullan\u0131m\u0131yla ilgili yeterli ara\u015ft\u0131rma ve inceleme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn g\u00f6z\u00fckmemektedir.<\/p>\n
38. Yarg\u0131tay, ByLock deliliyle ilgili ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 hususunu de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tay karar\u0131nda ”Di\u011fer delillerin at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7un s\u00fcbutu i\u00e7in yeterli oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmekle, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funu bildiren ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 ByLock tespit ve de\u011ferlendirme tutana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n dosyaya gelmesi beklenilmeden karar verilmesi sonuca etkili bulanmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.” \u015feklinde gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek di\u011fer delillerin mahk\u00fbmiyete yeter nitelikte oldu\u011fu kanaatiyle onama karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir. Bu durumda ba\u015fvurucunun ByLock program\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n teknik verilerle ispat edilmesi noktas\u0131nda ByLock Tespit ve De\u011ferlendirme Tutana\u011f\u0131’n\u0131n dosyaya gelmesinin beklenmemesi ve CGNAT kay\u0131tlar\u0131 ile HTS sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131larak ba\u015fvurucunun ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funun belirlenmesi i\u00e7in Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n istedi\u011fi standartlarda teknik bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131nmamas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda duru\u015fmada dinlenmeyen tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131na g\u00f6t\u00fcren tek olmasa da belirleyici nitelikte delil oldu\u011funun kabul edilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
39. 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. Ancak Mahkemenin yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresi d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki tan\u0131klar\u0131 ba\u015fvurucunun da onlara 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\u0131klar\u0131n yaz\u0131l\u0131 beyanlar\u0131 duru\u015fmada okunmu\u015f ise de ba\u015fvurucu, tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n tespiti s\u0131ras\u0131nda haz\u0131r bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ses ve g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc nakli yoluyla da olsa onlar\u0131 sorgulayamam\u0131\u015f; sorulara verdikleri cevaplar hakk\u0131nda izlenim edinme f\u0131rsat\u0131 elde edememi\u015ftir. Bu y\u00fczden tan\u0131klar\u0131n g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi tepkiler konusunda Mahkemenin dikkati \u00e7ekilememi\u015f, tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenilirli\u011fi test edilememi\u015ftir. Mahkeme de tan\u0131klar beyanda bulunurken g\u00f6sterdikleri tepkilerle ilgili olarak izlenim edinememi\u015ftir. \u00d6te yandan h\u00fckme ula\u015f\u0131l\u0131rken sorgulanmam\u0131\u015f tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyan\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ba\u015fka delillere de dayan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n beyanlar\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde mahk\u00fbmiyete temel al\u0131nan tan\u0131klar\u0131 sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131 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\u0131klar\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
40. 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
B. Di\u011fer \u0130hlal \u0130ddialar\u0131<\/p>\n
41. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bylock Tespit ve De\u011ferlendirme Tutana\u011f\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde yerle\u015fik yarg\u0131 i\u00e7tihad\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmak \u00fczere eksik incelemeyle karar verildi\u011fini ve kendisine isnat edilen eylemlerin yasal faaliyetler olup ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011fi zaman bunlar\u0131n su\u00e7 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtip bu eylemlere dayan\u0131larak mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 verilmesinin su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesini ihlal etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucunun tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u015fik\u00e2yeti ile su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fi \u015fik\u00e2yeti hakk\u0131nda ayr\u0131ca bir inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
VI. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
42. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ile manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
43. 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
44. 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 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde karar vermek Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi de\u011fildir. Anayasa Mahkemesince verilen ihlal karar\u0131, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n beraat etti\u011fi anlam\u0131na gelmedi\u011fi gibi ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n gereklerinin yerine getirilmesi amac\u0131yla yap\u0131lacak yeniden yarg\u0131lama neticesinde san\u0131k hakk\u0131nda mutlaka beraat karar\u0131 verilmesi gerekti\u011fi anlam\u0131na da gelmemektedir. \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
45. \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 manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
VII. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\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. Di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n \u0130NCELENMES\u0130NE GEREK OLMADI\u011eINA,<\/p>\n
D. 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 K\u0131r\u015fehir A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (E.2016\/202, K.2017\/490) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. Tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan 30.446,90 TL 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\u0130NE28\/11\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 28\/11\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/29044 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u00a0 \u00a0 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 MUSTAFA NAZLI BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/29044) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 28\/11\/2024 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL \u00a0 \u00a0 Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Zehra GAYRETL\u0130 Ba\u015fvurucu : Mustafa NAZLI Vekili : Av. G\u00f6khan MARA\u015e \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru, beyanlar\u0131 mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131nda belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde delil olarak kullan\u0131lan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n duru\u015fmada sorgulanamamas\u0131 nedeniyle tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 13\/8\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyon, adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama ve hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma haklar\u0131 ile su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesi d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa, an\u0131lan \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin ise kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 4. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ve Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi (UYAP) arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla eri\u015filen bilgi ve belgeler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir: 5. K\u0131r\u015fehir Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) K\u0131r\u015fehir \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc i\u00e7indeki Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131na (FET\u00d6\/PDY) mensup ki\u015filerin ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32188","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n