T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
S. D. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/21958)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 20\/11\/2024<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Burak G\u00dcNG\u00d6R<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Mehmed Akif KAV\u00c7AKAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; beyanlar\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n, san\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan duru\u015fmada sorgulanmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n verilmemesi nedeniyle tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Antalya Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesiyle olay tarihinde \u00f6\u011fretmen olan ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Soru\u015fturma neticesinde Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015ftir. \u0130ddianamede ba\u015fvurucunun; \u00f6rg\u00fctle iltisakl\u0131 e\u011fitim kurumunda \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131, Bank Asya hesab\u0131nda \u015f\u00fcpheli para hareketlili\u011fi bulundu\u011fu, \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn yay\u0131n organlar\u0131na abonelikleri oldu\u011fu, \u00f6rg\u00fct toplant\u0131lar\u0131na kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve sohbet hocal\u0131\u011f\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki tan\u0131k ifadesine istinaden at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011fi iddia edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. \u0130ddianamenin kabul\u00fc ile a\u00e7\u0131lan dava, Antalya 10. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince (Mahkeme) g\u00f6r\u00fclmeye ba\u015flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131lamada duru\u015fma haz\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flemleri yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tensip Tutana\u011f\u0131’nda di\u011fer hususlar\u0131n yan\u0131nda tan\u0131klardan S.A.n\u0131n istinabe yoluyla dinlenilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n bilgi ve g\u00f6rg\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn tespiti i\u00e7in yaz\u0131lan istinabe yaz\u0131s\u0131na ikmalen cevap verilmi\u015f ve tan\u0131k Kumluca 2. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesinde beyanda bulunmu\u015ftur. An\u0131lan beyan\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“…daha \u00f6nce ifade vermi\u015ftim aynen tekrar ederim, ben Kolej de 2009-2010 sezonunda hizmetli olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya ba\u015flad\u0131m ve okul kapan\u0131ncaya kadar burada \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya devam ettim. Sal\u0131 g\u00fcnleri \u00f6\u011flen 13,00 gibi m\u00fcd\u00fcrler m\u00fcd\u00fcr yard\u0131mc\u0131lar\u0131 toplant\u0131 yap\u0131yorlard\u0131 bu toplant\u0131ya … girerdi saat 15,00 e kadar toplant\u0131 yaparlard\u0131, saat 15,00 den sonra da anons yap\u0131l\u0131rd\u0131 t\u00fcm \u00f6\u011fretmenler toplant\u0131ya \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131l\u0131rd\u0131, biz saat 17,00 gibi i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131kard\u0131k, erkek \u00f6\u011fretmenler sal\u0131 g\u00fcnleri okulda kal\u0131rlard\u0131, bayan \u00f6\u011fretmenler \u00e7\u0131karlard\u0131, biz gittikten sonra ne yapt\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 bilmiyorum ancak bizden sinevizyon, bilgisayar\u0131 \u00fcst kata ta\u015f\u0131mam\u0131z\u0131 isterlerdi, en \u00fcst kat\u0131n temizli\u011fi bendeydi ben oradan biliyordum. Fetullah G\u00fclen den bahsettiklerini duyard\u0131m, kitaplar\u0131ndan bahsederlerdi Serkan Demirta\u015f [ba\u015fvurucu] erkek \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlara haftada bir saat dini sohbet ederdi, bu sohbet olay\u0131 2016 y\u0131l\u0131nda bitti…Ben \u00fcst kat\u0131 temizlerken onlar kapal\u0131 oda da Fethullah G\u00fclen’in vaazlar\u0131n\u0131 dinlerlerdi, ben sesini duyard\u0131m, o zamanlarda bizi i\u00e7eri almazlard\u0131…”<\/p>\n
5. Mahkeme huzurunda savunma yapan ba\u015fvurucu, istinabe yoluyla dinlenen tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131ktan yararlanmak amac\u0131yla aleyhinde beyanlarda bulunmu\u015f olabilece\u011fini ve \u00f6rg\u00fct ad\u0131na herhangi bir faaliyette bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, esas hakk\u0131nda m\u00fctalaaya kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda da \u00f6nceki savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 tekrarlayarak isnat edilen su\u00e7u i\u015flemedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan 6 y\u0131l 3 ay hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“[S]an\u0131\u011f\u0131n, 2016-2017 y\u0131llar\u0131nda \u00f6rg\u00fcte m\u00fczahir [K.\u00d6.T.] okulunda m\u00fcd\u00fcr yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 olarak g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00f6rg\u00fcte m\u00fczahir Bank Asya isimli bankada hesab\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu… 30.01.2014 tarihinde 5.500 TL yat\u0131r\u0131larak kat\u0131l\u0131m hesab\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu bakiyenin korunarak artan bir \u015fekilde 2014 Ekim ay\u0131nda 18.000 TL\u2019ye ve 2014 Aral\u0131k ay\u0131nda 26.000 TL\u2019ye y\u00fckseldi\u011fi, bakiyenin Aral\u0131k ay\u0131 sonunda en son 113 TL\u2019ye indi\u011fi, talimat yolu ile yemini taht\u0131nda dinlenen [S.A.n\u0131n]; hizmetli olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 kolejde sal\u0131 g\u00fcnleri mesai bitiminden sonra erkek \u00f6\u011fretmenlerin kolejden \u00e7\u0131kmad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, kendisinden sinevizyon ve bilgisayar\u0131n \u00fcst kata ta\u015f\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 istediklerini, bu katta yap\u0131lan toplant\u0131da Fethullah G\u00fclen ve kitaplar\u0131ndan bahsettiklerini duydu\u011funu, Serkan Demirta\u015f\u2019\u0131n [ba\u015fvurucu] erkek \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlara haftada bir saat dini sohbet verdi\u011fini, bu sohbet olay\u0131n\u0131n 2016 y\u0131l\u0131na kadar devam etti\u011fini beyan etti\u011fi, bu \u015fekilde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n idarecili\u011fini yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 okulda ‘sohbet’ ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen \u00f6rg\u00fctsel toplant\u0131lar\u0131 organize etti\u011fi, bu toplant\u0131lara kat\u0131lan \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlara \u00f6rg\u00fct propagandas\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00f6rg\u00fct liderinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerini aktard\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r…”<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu; istinaf ve temyiz dilek\u00e7elerinde di\u011ferlerinin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra tan\u0131k S.A.n\u0131n mahkeme huzurunda dinlenilmedi\u011fi ve soru sorma hakk\u0131n\u0131n kulland\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. H\u00fck\u00fcm, kanun yolu denetiminden ge\u00e7erek kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 11\/2\/2022 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 17\/2\/2022 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
9. Komisyon; tan\u0131k sorgulama ile m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanma hakk\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki iddialar\u0131n kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa, an\u0131lan haklara 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
10. Ba\u015fvurucu; gerek\u00e7eli kararda beyanlar\u0131na yer verilen tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n huzurda dinlenilmesi i\u00e7in Mahkemenin herhangi bir giri\u015fimde bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendisine tan\u0131\u011fa soru sorma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131 adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
13. Anayasa Mahkemesi, bir\u00e7ok karar\u0131nda tan\u0131k kavram\u0131n\u0131 san\u0131\u011fa isnat edilen fiil hakk\u0131nda bilgi veren herhangi bir ki\u015fi \u015feklinde \u00f6zerk olarak yorumlam\u0131\u015f ve tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 ile ilgili ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir (Atila O\u011fuz Boyal\u0131, B. No: 2013\/99, 20\/3\/2014; Sel\u00e7uk Demir, B. No: 2014\/9783, 22\/1\/2015; AZ. M., B. No: 2013\/560, 16\/4\/2015; Baran Karada\u011f, B. No: 2014\/12906, 7\/5\/2015; Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, B. No: 2019\/30221, 28\/12\/2021). Buna g\u00f6re bir ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131nda san\u0131\u011f\u0131n aleyhine olan tan\u0131klar\u0131 sorgulama veya sorgulatma hakk\u0131 vard\u0131r. Hakk\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 s\u00fcrecinde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n tan\u0131klara soru y\u00f6neltebilmesi, onlarla y\u00fczle\u015febilmesi ve tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n do\u011frulu\u011funu s\u0131nama imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip olmas\u0131 adil bir yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yap\u0131labilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan gereklidir (AZ. M., \u00a7 55). Di\u011fer yandan bir mahk\u00fbmiyet -tek veya belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde- san\u0131\u011f\u0131n soru\u015fturma veya yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir kimse taraf\u0131ndan verilen ifadelere dayand\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve dengeleyici g\u00fcvenceler sa\u011flayan bir usul \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f ise san\u0131\u011f\u0131n haklar\u0131 Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesindeki g\u00fcvencelerle ba\u011fda\u015fmayacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde k\u0131s\u0131tlanm\u0131\u015f olur (Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, \u00a7 35).<\/p>\n
14. 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 edilmemesinin ge\u00e7erli bir nedeninin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fart\u0131 aranmal\u0131d\u0131r. \u0130kinci olarak san\u0131\u011f\u0131n sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tan\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan verilen beyan\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyetin dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 tek veya belirleyici delil olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmelidir. Sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmayan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131n\u0131n tek veya belirleyici delil oldu\u011funun tespit edilmesi durumunda ise \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc a\u015fama olarak savunma taraf\u0131n\u0131n maruz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu olumsuzlu\u011fun telafi edilmesi amac\u0131yla yeterli d\u00fczeyde kar\u015f\u0131 dengeleyici g\u00fcvenceler sa\u011flayan bir usul\u00fcn y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcl\u00fcp y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmedi\u011fi ortaya konulmal\u0131d\u0131r (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Abdurrahim Balur, B. No: 2013\/5467, 7\/1\/2016, \u00a7 80; Onur Urbay, B. No: 2014\/6222, 6\/3\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 36, 40; Zekeriya Sevim, B. No: 2018\/18989, 16\/6\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 44, 51). Bu kapsamda h\u00fckme ula\u015f\u0131l\u0131rken sorgulanmam\u0131\u015f tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131n\u0131 destekleyen ba\u015fka do\u011frulay\u0131c\u0131 delillere dayan\u0131lmas\u0131 telafi edici g\u00fcvencelerden biri olarak kabul edilebilir (Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, \u00a7 39). Mahkemenin yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresi d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki tan\u0131klar\u0131n -san\u0131\u011f\u0131n da onlara soru sormas\u0131na imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayacak ve sorulan sorulara verdikleri cevaplar hakk\u0131nda ki\u015fisel izlenim edinme f\u0131rsat\u0131 elde edecek \u015fekilde- Ses ve G\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc Bili\u015fim Sistemi (SEGB\u0130S) gibi vas\u0131talarla dinlenmesi telafi edici bir g\u00fcvence olabilir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. U\u011fur \u00d6zcan, B. No: 2021\/12137, 26\/7\/2022, \u00a7 40). Sorgulanmayan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenilirli\u011finin ve do\u011frulu\u011funun saptanmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla savunma taraf\u0131na sa\u011flanabilecek bir di\u011fer telafi edici g\u00fcvence ise san\u0131\u011fa olay\u0131n kendi versiyonunu anlatma ve delillerini sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131d\u0131r (Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, \u00a7 40).<\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda incelenmesi gereken ilk sorun, beyan\u0131 delil olarak kabul edilen tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n duru\u015fmada dinlenmemesinin ge\u00e7erli bir nedene dayan\u0131p dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r. Somut olayda Mahkeme, tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 huzurda dinlemeye ili\u015fkin herhangi bir \u00e7aba g\u00f6stermemi\u015ftir. Duru\u015fma Tutana\u011f\u0131 ve gerek\u00e7eli kararda da tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r edilememesinin veya ayn\u0131 anda g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcl\u00fc ve sesli ileti\u015fim tekni\u011finin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle dinlenilmemesinin hangi ge\u00e7erli nedene dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir a\u00e7\u0131klamaya yer vermemi\u015ftir. Ancak buna ili\u015fkin ge\u00e7erli bir nedenin ortaya konulmamas\u0131 tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011finin kabul edilmesi i\u00e7in yeterli de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
16. \u0130kinci olarak h\u00fckm\u00fcn tek 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. Somut olayda Mahkeme; ba\u015fvurucunun Bank Asyadaki mutat olmayan hesap hareketlerine (\u00a7 6) ve \u00f6rg\u00fct ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 kurumda y\u00f6netici olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma kayd\u0131na dair hususlar\u0131 da de\u011ferlendirmek suretiyle isnat edilen su\u00e7un olu\u015ftu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. Gerek\u00e7eli karar i\u00e7eri\u011finden Mahkemenin -tan\u0131k S.A.n\u0131n beyanlar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda- Bank Asyadaki mutat olmayan hesap hareketleri ve FET\u00d6\/PDY ile iltisakl\u0131 kurumda y\u00f6netici olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin delillere dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu kapsamda duru\u015fmada sorgulanamayan tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131na g\u00f6t\u00fcren tek veya belirleyici nitelikte delil oldu\u011funu kabul etmek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tan\u0131k S.A.n\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n tek veya belirleyici delil olarak mahk\u00fbmiyette kullan\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmesi nedeniyle tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131yla ilgili uygulanan testin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc a\u015famas\u0131yla ilgili bir inceleme yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. 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 edilmedi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM ve Kenan YA\u015eAR bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
A. Di\u011fer \u0130hlal \u0130ddias\u0131<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanma hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin iddias\u0131n\u0131n, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n esas\u0131na ili\u015fkin s\u00fcre\u00e7ler ile kanun yolu a\u015famalar\u0131nda m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan Hikmet Balabano\u011flu (B. No: 2012\/1334, 17\/9\/2013) karar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. Tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
2. Di\u011fer ihlal iddias\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LMED\u0130\u011e\u0130NE Engin YILDIRIM ve Kenan YA\u015eAR’\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
C. Yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde BIRAKILMASINA,<\/p>\n
D. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 20\/11\/2024 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY GEREK\u00c7ES\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvurucu, gerek\u00e7eli kararda beyanlar\u0131na yer verilen tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n huzurda dinlenilmesi i\u00e7in Mahkemenin herhangi bir giri\u015fimde bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, kendisine tan\u0131\u011fa soru sorma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu nedenle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. Mahkememizce ba\u015fvurucunun adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilmedi\u011fine karar verilmi\u015f olup a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan sebeplerle \u00e7o\u011funluk karar\u0131na i\u015ftirak edilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvuruya konu davada tan\u0131k S.A istinabe ile dinlenilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu; tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131ktan yararlanmak amac\u0131yla aleyhinde beyanlarda bulunmu\u015f olabilece\u011fini, mahkeme huzurunda dinlenilmedi\u011fi ve soru sorma hakk\u0131n\u0131n kulland\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
4. Somut olayda Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan tan\u0131k S.A.\u2019n\u0131n huzurda dinlenilmesine ili\u015fkin herhangi bir \u00e7aba g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015ftir. Duru\u015fma tutana\u011f\u0131 ve gerek\u00e7eli kararda da tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n Mahkemece duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r edilememesinin veya ayn\u0131 anda g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcl\u00fc ve sesli ileti\u015fim tekni\u011finin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle dinlenilmemesinin hangi ge\u00e7erli nedene dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir a\u00e7\u0131klamaya yer verilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Yarg\u0131tay uygulamas\u0131na g\u00f6re ki\u015filerin Bank Asya nezdindeki mutat bankac\u0131l\u0131k i\u015flemleri \u00f6rg\u00fctsel faaliyet veya \u00f6rg\u00fcte yard\u0131m olarak kabul edilmemektedir [bir\u00e7ok karar aras\u0131ndan bkz. (kapat\u0131lan) Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesinin 5\/3\/2019 tarihli ve E.2018\/6408, K.2019\/1447; 2\/3\/2021 tarihli ve E.2019\/5505, K.2021\/1793 say\u0131l\u0131 kararlar\u0131]. Benzer \u015fekilde ki\u015filerin \u00f6rg\u00fctle irtibatl\u0131 kurumlarda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n da ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyeli\u011fi su\u00e7u a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan tek ba\u015f\u0131na yeterli delil olarak kabul edilmedi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr [(kapat\u0131lan) Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesinin 2\/3\/2021 tarihli ve E.2019\/5505, K.2021\/1793 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131]. Bununla birlikte bu ki\u015filerin \u00f6rg\u00fct liderinin talimat\u0131 \u00fczerine \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn amac\u0131na hizmet eden ve Bankan\u0131n yarar\u0131na yap\u0131lan \u00f6deme ve sair i\u015flemlerin \u00f6rg\u00fcte \u00fcye olma su\u00e7u bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00f6rg\u00fctsel faaliyet, tek ba\u015f\u0131na ise \u00f6rg\u00fcte yard\u0131m etmek olarak kabul edilebilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir [(kapat\u0131lan) Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesinin 15\/1\/2019 tarihli ve E.2018\/4959, K.2019\/145 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131].<\/p>\n
6. Somut olayda Mahkemece, ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6rg\u00fct liderinin ve y\u00f6neticilerinin Bank Asya\u2019ya destek olunmas\u0131 \u015feklindeki talimat\u0131 sonras\u0131ndaki bankac\u0131l\u0131k i\u015flemlerinin ola\u011fan d\u0131\u015f\u0131 bir hesap hareketlili\u011fi niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihad\u0131nda belirlenen ilkeler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ortaya konulmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kanun yollar\u0131 a\u015famalar\u0131nda da belirtilen hususlar\u0131n de\u011ferlendirildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin herhangi bir ifadeye yer verilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Mahkemece, gerek\u00e7eli kararda -di\u011ferlerinin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra- tan\u0131k S.A.\u2019n\u0131n beyanlar\u0131na istinaden mahk\u00fbmiyet sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Gerek\u00e7eli karar i\u00e7eri\u011fi g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda tan\u0131k S.A.\u2019n\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7unu i\u015fledi\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki kanaatin olu\u015fmas\u0131 hususunda dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015fmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmayan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n anlat\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131na g\u00f6t\u00fcren tek olmasa da belirleyici nitelikte delil oldu\u011funun kabul edilmesi gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
8. Yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde ba\u015fvurucuya olaylar\u0131 kendi bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131na g\u00f6re anlatma ve delillerini sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dosyada tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131 destekleyen ba\u015fka deliller de bulunmaktad\u0131r. Ancak Mahkemenin yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresi d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucunun da ona soru sormas\u0131na imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayacak \u015fekilde SEGB\u0130S gibi vas\u0131talarla neden dinlemedi\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir bilgi ve belgeye ula\u015f\u0131lamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nan beyan\u0131nda, ba\u015fvurucunun haz\u0131r bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu s\u0131rada verilen cevaplar hakk\u0131nda ki\u015fisel izlenim edinme f\u0131rsat\u0131 elde edemedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bu y\u00fczden tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n tepkileri konusunda Mahkemenin dikkatini \u00e7ekememi\u015f, b\u00f6ylelikle tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenilirli\u011fi test edilememi\u015ftir. Mahkeme de tan\u0131k beyanda bulunurken 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\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n beyanlar\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.<\/p>\n
9. Sonu\u00e7 olarak g\u00fcvenilirli\u011fi ve do\u011frulu\u011fu test edilmemi\u015f tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde savunman\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 zorluklar\u0131 telafi edecek kar\u015f\u0131 dengeleyici g\u00fcvencelerin sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n duru\u015fmada veya SEGB\u0130S yoluyla dinlenmemesinin bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetini zedeledi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
10. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucunun 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\u011fi kanaati ile \u00e7o\u011funluk karar\u0131na i\u015ftirak edilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 20\/11\/2024 tarihli ve 2022\/21958 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 S. D. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/21958) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 20\/11\/2024 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : Burak G\u00dcNG\u00d6R Ba\u015fvurucu : Vekili : Av. Mehmed Akif KAV\u00c7AKAR \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru; beyanlar\u0131 belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n, san\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan duru\u015fmada sorgulanmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n verilmemesi nedeniyle tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Antalya Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesiyle olay tarihinde \u00f6\u011fretmen olan ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Soru\u015fturma neticesinde Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015ftir. \u0130ddianamede ba\u015fvurucunun; \u00f6rg\u00fctle iltisakl\u0131 e\u011fitim kurumunda \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131, Bank Asya hesab\u0131nda \u015f\u00fcpheli para hareketlili\u011fi bulundu\u011fu, \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn yay\u0131n organlar\u0131na abonelikleri oldu\u011fu, \u00f6rg\u00fct toplant\u0131lar\u0131na kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve sohbet hocal\u0131\u011f\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki tan\u0131k ifadesine istinaden at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011fi iddia edilmi\u015ftir. 4. \u0130ddianamenin kabul\u00fc ile a\u00e7\u0131lan dava, Antalya 10. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince (Mahkeme) g\u00f6r\u00fclmeye ba\u015flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131lamada duru\u015fma haz\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flemleri yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tensip Tutana\u011f\u0131’nda di\u011fer hususlar\u0131n yan\u0131nda tan\u0131klardan S.A.n\u0131n istinabe yoluyla dinlenilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n bilgi ve g\u00f6rg\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn tespiti i\u00e7in yaz\u0131lan istinabe yaz\u0131s\u0131na ikmalen cevap …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35661","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n