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
H. P. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/36601)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 10\/12\/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
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
Hikmet Murat AKKAYA<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Ahmet \u00c7ABUKEL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, darbe te\u015febb\u00fcs\u00fc sonras\u0131nda san\u0131\u011f\u0131n Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fundan bahisle y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen yarg\u0131lamada tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, ba\u015fvuru konusu olaylar\u0131n ge\u00e7ti\u011fi tarihte Ayd\u0131n \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc nezdinde 4. s\u0131n\u0131f emniyet m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc olarak g\u00f6rev yapmaktad\u0131r. Ayd\u0131n Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda Anayasal d\u00fczeni ortadan kald\u0131rmaya te\u015febb\u00fcs etme ve silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 i\u015fledi\u011fi iddias\u0131yla soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Soru\u015fturma kapsam\u0131nda Ayd\u0131n 2. Sulh Ceza H\u00e2kimli\u011fi 30\/7\/2016 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda yakalama karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ayd\u0131n Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucu ile toplam 44 \u015f\u00fcpheli hakk\u0131nda 22\/3\/2017 tarihinde iddianame d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Haz\u0131rlanan iddianamede ba\u015fvurucunun Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131na (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talep edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ayd\u0131n 3. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen yarg\u0131lamada, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki yakalama karar\u0131n\u0131n infaz edilememi\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden dosyan\u0131n tefrikine 22\/1\/2018 tarihinde karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, Kahramanmara\u015f’ta 27\/9\/2019 tarihinde yakalanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun yakaland\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcrece kadar ba\u015fvurucu ile ilgili \u00d6.Y. adl\u0131 tan\u0131k istinabe yoluyla dinlenilmi\u015ftir. Ayd\u0131n 3. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi, Ses ve G\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc Bili\u015fim Sistemi (SEGB\u0130S) yoluyla yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 duru\u015fma sonunda ba\u015fvurucunun tutuklanmas\u0131na ve yetkisizlik karar\u0131 ile Kahramanmara\u015f A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin yetkili oldu\u011funa karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Yetkisizlik karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesi \u00fczerine yarg\u0131lamaya Kahramanmara\u015f 3. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) nezdinde devam edilmi\u015ftir. 23\/10\/2019 tarihli Tensip Tutana\u011f\u0131 ile dokuz tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n istinabe yoluyla dinlenilmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde ara karar\u0131 al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca gizli tan\u0131k Garson’dan ele ge\u00e7irilen ve Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nca incelemesi yap\u0131lan Micro SD karta ili\u015fkin soru\u015fturma i\u015flemlerine dair tutanak ve mahkeme kararlar\u0131 ile gizli tan\u0131k Garson’un mahkemede tan\u0131k olarak verdi\u011fi ifadeden birer suretinin dosyaya konulmas\u0131na dair ara karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. 19\/12\/2019 tarihli ilk celsede ba\u015fvurucu, savunmas\u0131n\u0131 yapm\u0131\u015f ve istinabe yoluyla dinlenen baz\u0131 tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak okunan belgeleri inceleme f\u0131rsat\u0131 bulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan daha sonra savunma yapaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafii ise ba\u015fvurucu ile ilgili beyanda bulunan ki\u015filerin SEGB\u0130S ile dinlenilmelerini talep etmi\u015f, y\u00fczle\u015ftirme yap\u0131larak soru sormak istediklerini beyan etmi\u015ftir. Celse sonunda, ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafiinin tan\u0131klar\u0131n SEGB\u0130S yoluyla dinlenilmeleri talebinin reddine ancak ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafiinin tan\u0131klara sorulmas\u0131n\u0131 istedi\u011fi hususlar\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 olarak bildirmesi h\u00e2linde bu hususta de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131larak gerekli i\u015flemlerin yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. \u0130kinci celsede, gelen bilgi ve belgelere ili\u015fkin olarak ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiinin beyanlar\u0131 al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafii; dosyada \u00f6rg\u00fct \u00fcyeli\u011fine ili\u015fkin yeterli ve inand\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 delil olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00d6.Y.nin beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7eli\u015fkili ve tutars\u0131z oldu\u011funu, dinlenen di\u011fer tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131nda da m\u00fcvekkil aleyhine somut bir anlat\u0131m bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Di\u011fer tan\u0131klar\u0131n b\u00fcy\u00fck bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n, ba\u015fvurucunun 15 Temmuz gecesi g\u00f6revi olmamas\u0131na ra\u011fmen \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne gece 03.00 sular\u0131nda geldi\u011fini beyan etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bu s\u00fcre\u00e7te tan\u0131k \u00d6.Y.nin istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nan en son beyan\u0131 ise \u015fu \u015fekildedir:<\/p>\n
” Ben, Ayd\u0131n’da 4. S\u0131n\u0131f Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc olarak g\u00f6rev yap\u0131yordum. Bana sorulan Halil POLAT’\u0131 2012 y\u0131llar\u0131nda tan\u0131d\u0131m. Sohbetlerimiz olurdu. Bu sohbetleri [T.A.] isminde biri d\u00fczenlerdi. 2014 y\u0131l\u0131nda Turan’\u0131n Konya’ya ta[y]ini \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131. Sohbet abili\u011fini ise daha sonra [\u015e.E.] isimli biri yapmaya ba\u015flad\u0131. Zaten [\u015e.E.] geldikten sonra iki gruba ayr\u0131ld\u0131k her iki gruba da [\u015e.E.] bakard\u0131. Toplant\u0131larda namaz k\u0131l\u0131n\u0131r, Kuran okunur, dini sohbetler yap\u0131l\u0131r, kitap okunur, Fetullah G\u00dcLEN’e ait Cd’ler izlenir dinlenirdi. Halil Polat’\u0131n himmet ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda para verip vermedi\u011fini bizzat g\u00f6rmedim, ama muhtemelen vermi\u015ftir….”<\/p>\n
9. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ve d\u00f6rd\u00fcnce celselerde gizli tan\u0131k Yaprak’\u0131n soru\u015fturma a\u015famas\u0131ndaki beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6nderilmesi i\u00e7in Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131na yaz\u0131lan m\u00fczekkerenin cevab\u0131 beklenilmi\u015ftir. G\u00f6nderilen belgeye g\u00f6re gizli tan\u0131k Yaprak’\u0131n anlat\u0131mlar\u0131ndan 1997-2001 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda Tokat’ta g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, daha sonra Erzurum’a ve en son Ayd\u0131n’a tayin oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Gizli tan\u0131k, \u00f6rg\u00fct i\u00e7inde bildi\u011fi ki\u015fileri anlatmakla beraber ba\u015fvurucunun ismi ifadesinde yer almamaktad\u0131r. Be\u015finci celsede eksikli\u011fin tamamlanmas\u0131 \u00fczerine Cumhuriyet savc\u0131s\u0131 esas hakk\u0131ndaki m\u00fctalaas\u0131n\u0131 sunmu\u015ftur. Son celsede ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafii ile ba\u015fvurucunun beyanlar\u0131 al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f, ba\u015fvurucunun son s\u00f6z\u00fc sorularak h\u00fck\u00fcm verilmi\u015ftir. 2\/9\/2020 tarihli karara g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyeli\u011fi kapsam\u0131nda neticeten 6 y\u0131l 8 ay hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015fu \u015fekildedir:<\/p>\n
“… tan\u0131k [\u00d6.Y.nin] beyan\u0131nda Ayd\u0131n ilinde \u00f6rg\u00fct kapsam\u0131nda san\u0131\u011f\u0131nda i\u00e7erisinde bulundu\u011fu bir gruplar\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu, grupta [B.\u0130.], [N.K.] ve sonra da Halil Polat’\u0131n kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 2014 y\u0131l\u0131ndan sonra[B.\u0130.nin] bir devresi olan [N.G.nin] de geldi\u011fini,[N.G.nin] gelmesiyle kolejden birbirlerini tan\u0131d\u0131klar\u0131 i\u00e7in Halil Polat ile ikisinin ayr\u0131 bir grup olu\u015fturduklar\u0131n\u0131 ve gruplar\u0131n\u0131n ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, himmet verme ve Bylock kullanma hususunda bir bilgisinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, tan\u0131k beyan\u0131ndan san\u0131k Halil POLAT’\u0131n 17\/25 Aral\u0131k s\u00fcrecinden sonra 2014 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7erisinde de \u00f6rg\u00fct toplant\u0131lar\u0131na kat\u0131lmaya devam etti\u011finin anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, …, san\u0131k ad\u0131na olan veri inceleme raporunda san\u0131\u011fa ‘A5’ kodunun verildi\u011fi, A5 kodunun ‘Fet\u00f6 mensubiyeti olan, teslimiyeti, sadakati ve ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 en \u00fcst seviyede olan ki\u015fileri’ ifade etti\u011fini, bu delil kapsam\u0131nda san\u0131k Halil POLAT’a verilen ‘A5’ kodunun san\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00f6rg\u00fct i\u00e7erisinde \u00f6nemli bir yerinin oldu\u011funu g\u00f6sterir nitelikte oldu\u011fu,…, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 505 351 .. .. numaral\u0131 telefon hatt\u0131nda 35329706… ve 35329706… imei numaral\u0131 telefon cihazlar\u0131nda 31\/12\/2014 tarihli Bylock kayd\u0131n\u0131n tespit edildi\u011fi, Bylock i\u00e7eriklerinin tespit edilemedi\u011fi, CGNAT kay\u0131tlar\u0131nda 46.166.160.181 say\u0131l\u0131 IP adresine 31\/12\/2014 – 25\/03\/2015 tarihleri aras\u0131nda eri\u015fim sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ancak Bylock i\u00e7erikleri elde edilemedi\u011finden Bylock iddialar\u0131n\u0131n ispatlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve san\u0131k aleyhine olacak \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirilemedi\u011fi, dosyada bulunan [D.S.ye] ait bylock i\u00e7eriklerinde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n ad\u0131n\u0131n konu\u015fmalarda ge\u00e7ti\u011fi, s\u00f6z konusu Bylock i\u00e7erikleri ile san\u0131k Halil POLAT’\u0131n ili\u015fkilendirilemedi\u011fi, san\u0131k Halil POLAT’\u0131n al\u0131nan savunmalar\u0131n su\u00e7tan kurtulmaya y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011fu bu nedenle savunmalar\u0131na itibar edilemeyece\u011fi, san\u0131k ad\u0131na olan aleyhe tan\u0131k [\u00d6.Y.] beyan\u0131 ve beyanla \u00f6rt\u00fc\u015fen veri inceleme raporu dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda san\u0131\u011f\u0131n FET\u00d6\/PDY silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc i\u00e7erisinde yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131,…”<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf istemi 23\/10\/2020 tarihinde esastan reddedilmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tay (kapat\u0131lan) 16. Ceza Dairesi, “…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 bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.” gerek\u00e7esiyle h\u00fckm\u00fcn onanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Bu \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm, istinaf ve temyiz kanun yolu denetiminden ge\u00e7erek 8\/4\/2021 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 3\/8\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 4\/8\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
12. Komisyon, ki\u015fi h\u00fcrriyeti ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fine ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetin kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa, adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine 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
A. Tan\u0131k Sorgulama Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddias\u0131na g\u00f6re gizli tan\u0131k Yaprak, istinabe yoluyla dinlenen \u00d6.Y. adl\u0131 ki\u015fidir. Ba\u015fvurucu, dosyada tan\u0131k olarak beyan\u0131 al\u0131nan ve daha \u00f6nce gizli tan\u0131k Yaprak ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda ifade veren \u00d6.Y.nin beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7e\u011fi yans\u0131tmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden faydalanmak i\u00e7in g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yerlerde g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ki\u015filerin ad\u0131n\u0131 rastgele verdi\u011fini, beyanlar\u0131nda \u00e7eli\u015fki oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131lama esnas\u0131nda aleyhe beyanda bulunan tan\u0131klarla y\u00fczle\u015fmenin veya tan\u0131klar\u0131n Mahkeme huzurunda bizzat ifadelerinin al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan yak\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; ba\u015fvurucunun haz\u0131r bulundu\u011fu duru\u015fmada tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n okundu\u011funu, ba\u015fvurucunun tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrebilme olana\u011f\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca 19\/12\/2019 tarihli celsede ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafiye tan\u0131klara sorulmak istenilen sorular bildirildi\u011fi takdirde gerekli i\u015flemlerin yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirtildi\u011fi, bu konuda mahkemeye herhangi bir bildirimde bulunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Di\u011fer taraftan gerek\u00e7eli kararda ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki dosya kapsam\u0131ndaki delillerin de\u011ferlendirilerek mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn tesis edildi\u011fi, mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131nda tan\u0131k beyan\u0131 yan\u0131 s\u0131ra ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda Garson adl\u0131 \u015fah\u0131stan elde edilen SD karta ili\u015fkin veri inceleme raporunda yer alan bilgilere de dayan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 hat\u0131rlat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda, ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak tan\u0131k ifadelerinin \u00e7eli\u015fkili oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131 adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. 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
17. 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 sorguya \u00e7ekme veya \u00e7ektirme 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
18. 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 mevcudiyetine dayanmal\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\u0131k 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). 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\u0131n kendi versiyonunu 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 andases ve g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc nakleden vas\u0131talarladinlenmesi de savunma taraf\u0131na sa\u011flanabilecek telafi edici g\u00fcvencelerden biri olarak de\u011ferlendirilebilir (bkz. Metin Akdemir (2), B. No: 2020\/3964, 21\/9\/2022 \u00a7 36).<\/p>\n
19. Somut olayda Mahkemece, konutu yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bulunan tan\u0131klar\u0131n duru\u015fmaya getirilmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131yla ilgili bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f, tan\u0131klar\u0131n konutunun yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda olmas\u0131 istinabe yoluyla dinlenmesi i\u00e7in yeterli bir sebep say\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucununs\u00f6z konusu tan\u0131klara soru sormas\u0131na imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayacak \u015fekilde SEGB\u0130S gibi vas\u0131talarla neden dinlenmedi\u011fi de belirtilmemi\u015ftir. 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. Ancak buna ili\u015fkin bir nedenin ortaya konulmam\u0131\u015f olmas\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 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
20. Mahkeme, mahk\u0217miyet karar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun duru\u015fmada sorgulayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tan\u0131k \u00d6.Y.nin beyan\u0131 ile gizli tan\u0131k Garson’dan elde edilen Micro SD karttaki veri inceleme raporuna dayanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131tay karar\u0131 da bunu desteklemektedir. Bu kapsamda dosyada yer alan tan\u0131k \u00d6.Y.nin beyan\u0131 ile gizli tan\u0131k Garson’dan elde edilen veri inceleme raporu dikkate al\u0131nmak suretiyle ba\u015fvurucunun cezaland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. Yarg\u0131tay uygulamas\u0131na g\u00f6re san\u0131klar\u0131n Garson kod adl\u0131 gizli tan\u0131ktan ele ge\u00e7irilen SD kart i\u00e7inde “A5” olarak kodlanmas\u0131n\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyet i\u00e7in yeterli olmay\u0131p bunun i\u00e7in destekleyici bir ifade yahut ba\u015fkaca bilgi ve belge bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekmektedir [(kapat\u0131lan)Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesinin 25\/1\/2021 tarihli ve E.2020\/1608, K.2021\/75 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131] (benzer y\u00f6ndeki de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. M.G., B. No: 2020\/5305, 11\/5\/2023, \u00a7 32). Bu kapsamda duru\u015fmada dinlenmeyen tan\u0131k beyan\u0131n\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131na g\u00f6t\u00fcren tek olmasa da belirleyici nitelikte delil oldu\u011funun kabul edilmesi gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
22. 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\u0131\u011f\u0131n 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. A\u015famalarda tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n yaz\u0131l\u0131 beyan\u0131 duru\u015fmada okunmu\u015fsa da ba\u015fvurucu, tan\u0131k beyan\u0131n\u0131n tespiti s\u0131ras\u0131nda haz\u0131r bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ses ve g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc nakli yoluyla da olsa sorgulayamam\u0131\u015f; sorulan sorulara verdi\u011fi cevaplar hakk\u0131nda ki\u015fisel izlenim edinme f\u0131rsat\u0131 elde edememi\u015ftir. Bu y\u00fczden tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi tepkiler konusunda Mahkemenin dikkati \u00e7ekilememi\u015f, tan\u0131k beyan\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenilirli\u011fi test edilememi\u015ftir. Mahkeme de tan\u0131k beyanda bulunurken g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi tepkilerle ilgili olarak izlenim edinememi\u015ftir. \u00d6te yandan, h\u00fckme ula\u015f\u0131l\u0131rken sorgulanmam\u0131\u015f tan\u0131k beyan\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ba\u015fka delillere de dayan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n beyan\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde mahk\u00fbmiyete temel al\u0131nan tan\u0131\u011f\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 beyan\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu 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
23. 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
24. Ba\u015fvurucu, Garson kod adl\u0131 gizli tan\u0131ktan elde edilen SD karta ili\u015fkin veri inceleme raporuna delil olarak dayan\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.Tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi \u015fik\u00e2yeti y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7 ve h\u00fckmedilen giderim g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine dair di\u011fer \u015fik\u00e2yet hakk\u0131nda kabul edilebilirlik ve esas y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ayr\u0131ca bir inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ile birlikte yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 istemektedir.<\/p>\n
26. 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 , 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) , B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n
27. Bununla birlikte belirtilmelidir ki su\u00e7lu-su\u00e7suz karar\u0131 vermek ya da daha hafif veya a\u011f\u0131r ceza belirlemek de Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi de\u011fildir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Ruh\u015fen Mahmuto\u011flu, B. No: 2015\/22, 15\/1\/2020, \u00a7 67). 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
28. 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 evresindeki 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
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’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\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u0130NCELEME YAPILMASINA 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 Kahramanmara\u015f 3. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (E.2019\/292, K. 2020\/98) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 487,60 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.487,60 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin BA\u015eVURUCUYA \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \u00d6demelerin 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 10\/12\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 10\/12\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/36601 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 H. P. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/36601) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 10\/12\/2024 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \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 : Hikmet Murat AKKAYA Ba\u015fvurucu : Vekili : Av. Ahmet \u00c7ABUKEL \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, darbe te\u015febb\u00fcs\u00fc sonras\u0131nda san\u0131\u011f\u0131n Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fundan bahisle y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen yarg\u0131lamada tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, ba\u015fvuru konusu olaylar\u0131n ge\u00e7ti\u011fi tarihte Ayd\u0131n \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc nezdinde 4. s\u0131n\u0131f emniyet m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc olarak g\u00f6rev yapmaktad\u0131r. Ayd\u0131n Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda Anayasal d\u00fczeni ortadan kald\u0131rmaya te\u015febb\u00fcs etme ve silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 i\u015fledi\u011fi iddias\u0131yla soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Soru\u015fturma kapsam\u0131nda Ayd\u0131n 2. Sulh Ceza H\u00e2kimli\u011fi 30\/7\/2016 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda yakalama karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. 3. Ayd\u0131n Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucu ile toplam 44 \u015f\u00fcpheli hakk\u0131nda 22\/3\/2017 tarihinde iddianame d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Haz\u0131rlanan iddianamede ba\u015fvurucunun Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131na (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talep edilmi\u015ftir. 4. Ayd\u0131n 3. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen yarg\u0131lamada, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki yakalama karar\u0131n\u0131n infaz edilememi\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden dosyan\u0131n tefrikine 22\/1\/2018 tarihinde karar verilmi\u015ftir. 5. Ba\u015fvurucu, Kahramanmara\u015f’ta 27\/9\/2019 …<\/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-34416","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n