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
K. T. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/29783)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 19\/11\/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
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
Muhammed Nuri \u00d6ZG\u00dcR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/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. \u0130stanbul Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesiyle soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Soru\u015fturma neticesinde Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015f; iddianamede \u00f6zetle Bylock tespiti, tan\u0131klar U.S., M.G., \u0130.C., R.M., C.U., H.E., A.A., A.C., gizli tan\u0131k Defne’nin ifadeleri, H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Y\u00fcksek Kurulu (HSK) 2. Dairesi ve HSK Genel Kurulunun g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131rma ve ihra\u00e7 kararlar\u0131na dayanarak ba\u015fvurucunun at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. \u0130stanbul 28. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) iddianameyi kabul ederek yarg\u0131lamaya ba\u015flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme duru\u015fma haz\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flemleri kapsam\u0131nda di\u011ferlerinin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra tan\u0131klar M.G., C.U., R.M. ve A.A.n\u0131n istinabe yoluyla beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Yarg\u0131lama be\u015f celsede bitirilmi\u015ftir. Birinci celseden \u00f6nce tan\u0131klar M.G. ve A.A.n\u0131n bilgi ve g\u00f6rg\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn tespiti i\u00e7in yaz\u0131lan istinabe m\u00fczekkerelerine ikmalen cevap verilmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131k M.G. 2010-2011 y\u0131llar\u0131nda \u00f6rg\u00fcte mensup h\u00e2kim ve savc\u0131lar\u0131n yabanc\u0131 dil e\u011fitimi almas\u0131 ve yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda akademik \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar y\u00fcr\u00fctmesi amac\u0131yla olu\u015fturulan Yabanc\u0131 Dil Biriminde yer alan \u00fc\u00e7 ki\u015fiden birinin ba\u015fvurucu oldu\u011funu, Tan\u0131k A.A. 1999 y\u0131l\u0131nda ayn\u0131 yurtta kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucunun bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde kendisini \u00f6rg\u00fcte kat\u0131lmaya ikna etmek i\u00e7in \u00e7abalad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu; m\u00fcdafiinin de haz\u0131r bulundu\u011fu birinci celsede al\u0131nan savunmas\u0131nda \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7u i\u015flemedi\u011fini savunmu\u015ftur. Mahkeme bu celsede okunan belgelere ve tan\u0131k ifadelerine kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucuya diyeceklerini sormu\u015f; ba\u015fvurucu, aleyhine hususlar\u0131 kabul etmedi\u011fini beyan etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme di\u011ferlerinin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra tan\u0131klar R.M., U.S. ve \u0130.C.nin beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. \u0130kinci celsede an\u0131lan tan\u0131klar\u0131n bilgi ve g\u00f6rg\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn tespiti i\u00e7in yaz\u0131lan istinabe m\u00fczekkerelerine ikmalen cevap verilmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131k R.M. ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn y\u00f6nlendirmesi ile adli ate\u015fe olarak d\u00f6rt y\u0131l yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, tan\u0131k U.S. \u0130stanbul’da \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 yere atanan ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6rg\u00fct \u00fcyesi oldu\u011funa y\u00f6nelik s\u00f6ylentiler duydu\u011funu, ba\u015fkaca bilgisinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131k \u0130.C. ba\u015fvurucunun HSK taraf\u0131ndan yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 program\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmesi nedeniyle \u00f6rg\u00fctle ili\u015fkisi oldu\u011fu kanaatine vard\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak kesin bir bilgisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131k ifadeleri duru\u015fmada okunmu\u015f; ba\u015fvurucu, tan\u0131k \u0130.C.nin beyanlar\u0131na kat\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, tan\u0131k ile mahkemede y\u00fczle\u015fmek istedi\u011fini beyan etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafiine tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 sunmak i\u00e7in s\u00fcre verilmesine karar vererek duru\u015fmay\u0131 ertelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Duru\u015fman\u0131n \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ve d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc celselerinde yarg\u0131lamaya ili\u015fkin i\u015flemler yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Be\u015finci celseden \u00f6nce iddia makam\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 m\u00fctalaas\u0131n\u0131 Mahkemeye sunmu\u015ftur. Be\u015finci celsede ba\u015fvurucu, esas hakk\u0131ndaki m\u00fctalaaya kar\u015f\u0131 \u00f6nceki savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 tekrarlayarak isnat edilen su\u00e7u ink\u00e2r etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan 7 y\u0131l 6 ay hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015f; mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc ile ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131na dayanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu; istinaf ve temyiz dilek\u00e7elerinde di\u011fer nedenlerle birlikte tan\u0131klar\u0131n Mahkeme huzurunda dinlenmemesi nedeniyle tan\u0131klar\u0131 sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. H\u00fck\u00fcm, kanun yolu denetiminden ge\u00e7erek 15\/3\/2021 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu 3\/6\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
11. Komisyon; ba\u015fvurucunun adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne, hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa, an\u0131lan hakka ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucu; beyanlar\u0131 h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan tan\u0131klar\u0131n huzurda dinlenilmesi i\u00e7in Mahkemenin herhangi bir giri\u015fimde bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendisine tan\u0131klara soru sorma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu suretle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
13. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; duru\u015fmada okunan tan\u0131k ifadelerine kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucuya itiraz ve savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131, tan\u0131klar\u0131n dinlendi\u011fi talimat duru\u015fmas\u0131na ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafiinin kat\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 engelleyen bir husus olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin maddi olay ve olgular\u0131n kan\u0131tlanmas\u0131 ve delillerin de\u011ferlendirmesi kapsam\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 bildirilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yeti adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvencelerinden biri olan tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. 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
16. 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 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
17. 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 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\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). 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 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\u0131 kendi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan anlatma ve delillerini sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131d\u0131r (Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, \u00a7 40).<\/p>\n
18. Somut olayda duru\u015fman\u0131n ilk celsesinde tan\u0131klar M.G. ve A.A.n\u0131n talimat mahkemesinde verdi\u011fi beyanlar okunmu\u015f; ba\u015fvurucu bu beyanlar\u0131 kabul etmedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Duru\u015fman\u0131n ikinci celsesinde tan\u0131klar R.M., U.S. ve \u0130.C.nin talimat mahkemesinde verdi\u011fi beyanlar okunmu\u015f ba\u015fvurucu, tan\u0131k \u0130.C.nin beyan\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmedi\u011fini, bu tan\u0131k ile mahkemede y\u00fczle\u015fmek istedi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7 7). Ba\u015fvurucunun bu talebi konusunda olumlu veya olumsuz bir karar verilmemi\u015f, talimat yoluyla dinlenmesine karar verilen tan\u0131klar\u0131n hi\u00e7birinin huzurda dinlenmesine ili\u015fkin bir \u00e7aba g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7eli kararda da tan\u0131klar\u0131n mahkemede haz\u0131r edilmemesinin veya ayn\u0131 anda g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcl\u00fc ve sesli ileti\u015fim tekni\u011finin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle dinlenilmemesinin hangi ge\u00e7erli nedene dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir a\u00e7\u0131klamaya yer verilmemi\u015ftir. Ancak tan\u0131klar\u0131n huzurda dinlenmemesi i\u00e7in ge\u00e7erli bir nedenin ortaya konulmam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011finin kabul edilmesi i\u00e7in yeterli de\u011fildir. Bunun d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda h\u00fckm\u00fcn tek ba\u015f\u0131na veya belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde ba\u015fvurucunun sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tan\u0131klar taraf\u0131ndan verilen ifadeye dayal\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, b\u00f6yle ise savunmaya kar\u015f\u0131 dengeleyici g\u00fcvenceler sa\u011flan\u0131p sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
19. Gerek\u00e7eli kararda Mahkeme, yarg\u0131lamada istinabe yoluyla dinlenen tan\u0131klar\u0131n anlat\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131 dikkate alarak ba\u015fvurucunun FET\u00d6\/PDY’ye \u00fcye olma boyutunda i\u015ftirak ve bilin\u00e7 iradesiyle hareket etti\u011fini de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir. Mahkemenin salt tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131na dayanarak mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 vermesi kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda bilgi ve g\u00f6rg\u00fcleri istinabe yoluyla tespit edilen tan\u0131klar\u0131n anlat\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n mahkumiyet karar\u0131nda tek delil oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ancak bu tan\u0131klar\u0131n sorgulanmas\u0131 imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmamas\u0131 nedeniyle tan\u0131k anlat\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenilirli\u011fi test edilememi\u015f, savunman\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 zorluklar\u0131n ve maruz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 olumsuzlu\u011fun telafi edilmesi amac\u0131yla kar\u015f\u0131 dengeleyici g\u00fcvenceler de sa\u011flanmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda beyanlar\u0131 h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan tan\u0131klar\u0131n hi\u00e7birinin duru\u015fmada dinlenmemesi ve telafi edici g\u00fcvencelerin sa\u011flanmamas\u0131 bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetini zedelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20. 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
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN bu sonuca kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
21. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ile 1.000.000 TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
22. 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
23. Belirli bir davaya ili\u015fkin olarak delilleri de\u011ferlendirme ve g\u00f6sterilen delilin davayla ilgili olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verme yetkisi kural olarak yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 y\u00fcr\u00fcten derece mahkemelerine aittir (Orhan K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 [GK], B. No: 2014\/4704, 1\/2\/2018, \u00a7 44). Bu ba\u011flamda somut olayda su\u00e7un s\u00fcbutu konusunda 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 mahkemenin mevcut belgelerle birlikte delillerin takdir bi\u00e7imine g\u00f6re benzer veya farkl\u0131 bir sonuca varmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
24. \u00d6te yandan ihlalin tespiti ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA 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\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN’\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere \u0130stanbul 28. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (E.2017\/136, K.2018\/115) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun manevi tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 19\/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; 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\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
2. 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., B. No: 2013\/560, 16\/4\/2015, \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, B. No: 2019\/30221, 28\/12\/2021, \u00a7 35).<\/p>\n
3. Somut olayda duru\u015fman\u0131n ilk celsesinde tan\u0131klar M.G. ve A.A.n\u0131n talimat mahkemesinde verdi\u011fi beyanlar okunmu\u015f; ba\u015fvurucu bu beyanlar\u0131 kabul etmedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Duru\u015fman\u0131n ikinci celsesinde tan\u0131klar R.M., U.S. ve \u0130.C.nin talimat mahkemesinde verdi\u011fi beyanlar okunmu\u015f ba\u015fvurucu, tan\u0131k \u0130.C.nin beyan\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmedi\u011fini bildirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Mahkeme, yarg\u0131lamada istinabe yoluyla dinlenen tan\u0131klar\u0131n anlat\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131 dikkate alarak ba\u015fvurucunun FET\u00d6\/PDY’ye \u00fcye olma boyutunda i\u015ftirak ve bilin\u00e7 iradesiyle hareket etti\u011fini de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Tan\u0131klar\u0131n duru\u015fmada dinlenmemesi hususunda ge\u00e7erli bir neden g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015f olmas\u0131 adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131labilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan tek ba\u015f\u0131na yeterli de\u011fildir. Bu nedenle tan\u0131klar\u0131n duru\u015fmada dinlenmemi\u015f ve ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan sorgulanmam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n genel olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetini zedeleyip zedelemedi\u011fi de belirlenmelidir. Bu ba\u011flamda mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn tek veya belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tan\u0131klar taraf\u0131ndan verilen ifadelere dayal\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131maktad\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca h\u00fckm\u00fcn tek veya belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir tan\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan verilen ifadeye dayanmas\u0131 durumunda savunma taraf\u0131na dengeleyici g\u00fcvenceler sa\u011flayan bir usul\u00fcn takip edilip edilmedi\u011fi, kar\u015f\u0131 dengeleyici imk\u00e2nlar\u0131n tan\u0131n\u0131p tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilmelidir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Onur Urbay, B. No: 2014\/6222, 6\/3\/2019, \u00a7 40).<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u201cYap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda, \u2026yine san\u0131k K.T. hakk\u0131ndaki yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda dinlenen tan\u0131klar\u0131n ifadelerinde yer alan “2010 ya da 2011 y\u0131llar\u0131nda \u00f6rg\u00fcte mensup hakim savc\u0131lar\u0131n olu\u015fturmu\u015f oldu\u011fu yabanc\u0131 dil birimi ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda bir birim vard\u0131, bu birim \u00f6rg\u00fcte mensup hakim savc\u0131lar\u0131n yabanc\u0131 dil e\u011fitimi almas\u0131, yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda y\u00fcksek lisans doktora yapmas\u0131 konular\u0131nda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcrd\u00fc, hat\u0131rlad\u0131\u011f\u0131m karar\u0131yla bu yabanc\u0131 dil biriminde 2011 y\u0131l\u0131nda K. T., F.A. ve G.S. isimli \u015fah\u0131slar bulunuyordu..”, “Kendisi adli ate\u015fe olarak 4 y\u0131l yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kendisi cemaatin y\u00f6nlendirmesiyle bu g\u00f6revi alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.”, “K. T. benim yurtta kald\u0131\u011f\u0131m 2 sene boyunca beni \u00f6rg\u00fcte kazand\u0131rabilmek i\u00e7in ilgilendi. Beni bir keresinde eve davet etti. Birlikte yemek yedik. Beni evlere \u00e7\u0131kmak konusunda davet etti ancak ben ilkeleri bana ters oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in kabul etmedim.” \u015feklindeki san\u0131k K. T.’nin ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc ile ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131na dair beyanlar birlikte de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015f, san\u0131klar\u0131n FET\u00d6\/PDY silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn amac\u0131n\u0131, faaliyet ve eylemlerini benimsediklerinin, FET\u00d6\/PDY silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn niteli\u011fini \u00f6rg\u00fct \u00fcyesi olarak bildiklerinin ve \u00f6rg\u00fcte \u00fcyelik boyutunda i\u015ftirak ve bilin\u00e7 iradesiyle hareket ederek kast\u0131n\u0131 s\u00fcrd\u00fcrd\u00fcklerinin kabul\u00fc gerekmi\u015f ve Mahkememizce san\u0131klar\u0131n silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmalar\u0131 yoluna gidilmi\u015ftir.\u201d<\/p>\n
7. G\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fczere ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda verilen mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131n\u0131n tek bir beyan veya delile dayal\u0131 oldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenemez. \u00d6te yandan tan\u0131klar\u0131n her birinin beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n farkl\u0131 olgulara ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu da dikkatten ka\u00e7mamal\u0131d\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucunun istinabe yoluyla tan\u0131k dinlenmesine itiraz\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi bu beyanlar\u0131 kabul etmemek d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bir itiraz\u0131 da bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Bir yarg\u0131lamada hangi delil veya hangi tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131na \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fck verilece\u011fi, delilleri takdir ve de\u011ferlendirme ile yetkili olan ilk derece mahkemelerine aittir. Anayasa Mahkemesi keyfilik ve bariz takdir hatas\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda delilleri de\u011ferlendirme yetkisine haiz de\u011fildir. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131 ile mahkemenin gerek\u00e7esi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda tan\u0131klar\u0131n duru\u015fmada dinlenmemesinin yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetini zedeledi\u011fi de s\u00f6ylenemez.<\/p>\n
9. A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle somut olay y\u00f6n\u00fcnden, tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilmedi\u011fi kanaatine vard\u0131\u011f\u0131mdan, \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fun aksi y\u00f6ndeki karar\u0131na kat\u0131lm\u0131yorum.<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 19\/11\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/29783 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 K. T. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/29783) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 19\/11\/2024 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \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 : Muhammed Nuri \u00d6ZG\u00dcR Ba\u015fvurucu : \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. \u0130stanbul Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesiyle soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Soru\u015fturma neticesinde Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015f; iddianamede \u00f6zetle Bylock tespiti, tan\u0131klar U.S., M.G., \u0130.C., R.M., C.U., H.E., A.A., A.C., gizli tan\u0131k Defne’nin ifadeleri, H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Y\u00fcksek Kurulu (HSK) 2. Dairesi ve HSK Genel Kurulunun g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131rma ve ihra\u00e7 kararlar\u0131na dayanarak ba\u015fvurucunun at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir. 4. \u0130stanbul 28. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) iddianameyi kabul ederek yarg\u0131lamaya ba\u015flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme duru\u015fma haz\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flemleri kapsam\u0131nda di\u011ferlerinin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra tan\u0131klar M.G., C.U., R.M. ve A.A.n\u0131n istinabe yoluyla beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. 5. Yarg\u0131lama be\u015f celsede bitirilmi\u015ftir. Birinci celseden \u00f6nce tan\u0131klar M.G. ve …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36479","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n