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
H\u00dcSN\u00dc E\u015e\u0130N BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/78623)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/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
Yusuf Enes KAYA<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
H\u00fcsn\u00fc E\u015e\u0130N<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Eda KAM\u0130LO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; haks\u0131z tutukluluk nedeniyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcresinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesinden dolay\u0131 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n haks\u0131z tutuklamadan kaynakl\u0131 olarak herhangi bir tazminat elde edilememesi nedeniyle de ki\u015fi h\u00fcrriyeti ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru 5\/8\/2022 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR <\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu, hakk\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen soru\u015fturma kapsam\u0131nda zincirleme suretiyle geceleyin h\u0131rs\u0131zl\u0131k, zarar vermek ve resm\u00ee belgede sahtecilik su\u00e7lamas\u0131 ile 6\/6\/2014 tarihinde tutuklanm\u0131\u015f, 2\/4\/2015 tarihinde tahliye edilmi\u015ftir. Yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda 18\/7\/2016 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun beraatine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Beraat karar\u0131nda karar\u0131n tebli\u011finden itibaren 3 ay ve her h\u00e2lde karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fme tarihini izleyen 1 y\u0131l i\u00e7inde oturdu\u011fu yer a\u011f\u0131r ceza mahkemesinde ve e\u011fer o yer a\u011f\u0131r ceza mahkemesi tazminat konusu i\u015flemle ilgili ise ve ayn\u0131 yerde ba\u015fka bir a\u011f\u0131r ceza dairesi yoksa en yak\u0131n a\u011f\u0131r ceza mahkemesinde devletten tazminat isteyebilecekleri bildirilmi\u015f, karar kesinle\u015fti\u011finde karar\u0131n bu y\u00f6nden san\u0131klara tebli\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir. Beraat karar\u0131 temyizde onanarak 2\/2\/2021 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Kesinle\u015fmi\u015f beraat karar\u0131 kesinle\u015fme \u015ferhleri ile birlikte ba\u015fvurucuya 12\/3\/2021 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu 1\/2\/2022 tarihinde beraat etti\u011fi davada 6\/6\/2014-2\/4\/2015 tarihleri aras\u0131nda 301 g\u00fcn tutuklu kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, haks\u0131z olarak h\u00fcrriyetinden yoksun kalmas\u0131 sebebiyle 50.000 TL maddi ve 50.000 TL manevi tazminat olmak \u00fczere toplam 100.000 TL tazminat\u0131n tutuklanma tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faiziyle birlikte \u00f6denmesi talebiyle tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dava dilek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucu; kesinle\u015fen karar\u0131n sadece kendisine tebli\u011f edildi\u011fini, bu durum nedeniyle dava 3 ayl\u0131k s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcnse de vekiline tebli\u011f yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 nedeniyle kendisine yap\u0131lan tebli\u011fin usuls\u00fcz oldu\u011funu, bu nedenle \u00fc\u00e7 ayl\u0131k de\u011fil bir y\u0131ll\u0131k dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
7. Tazminat talebini inceleyen \u0130zmir 22. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi kesinle\u015fmi\u015f karar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu vekiline tebli\u011f edilmedi\u011fini, sadece ba\u015fvurucuya yap\u0131lan tebligat\u0131n 11\/2\/1959 tarihli ve 7201 say\u0131l\u0131 Tebligat Kanunu\u2019nun 11. maddesine g\u00f6re ge\u00e7erli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davan\u0131n hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme ba\u015fvurucuya 40.000 TL manevi, 27.848,52 maddi tazminat \u00f6denmesine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Daval\u0131 Maliye Hazinesi taraf\u0131ndan istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurulmu\u015ftur. \u0130zmir B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 14. Ceza Dairesi 1\/7\/2022 tarihinde davan\u0131n s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddine karar verilmesi \u015feklinde d\u00fczeltilerek istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun esastan reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n dayana\u011f\u0131 olan ve yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda beraat\u0131na karar verilen, davac\u0131n\u0131n toplam 300 g\u00fcn tutuklu kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 olaya ili\u015fkin Kar\u015f\u0131yaka 1.A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin \u2026 karar\u0131nda CMK’n\u0131n 141 ve 142.maddelerine g\u00f6retazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7ma hakk\u0131 bulundu\u011funun usul\u00fcne uygun olarak bildirildi\u011fi, kesinle\u015fmi\u015f beraat karar\u0131n\u0131n da kesinle\u015fme \u015ferhleri ile birlikte san\u0131\u011fa\/davac\u0131ya usul\u00fcne uygun olarak 12\/3\/2021 tarihinde tebli\u011f edildi\u011fi hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrelerin davac\u0131n\u0131n\/san\u0131\u011f\u0131n m\u00fcdafisine de\u011fil bizzat kendisine tebli\u011fi ile ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131, y\u00fcksek Yarg\u0131tay 12. Ceza Dairesinin 8\/1\/2018 tarihli, 2017\/7863 esas ve 2018\/31 karar say\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7tihad\u0131 ile benzer nitelikteki i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131n\u0131n da bu y\u00f6nde oldu\u011fu nazara al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 CMK’n\u0131n 142\/1. maddesinin \u2026 h\u00fckm\u00fc gere\u011fince 3 ayl\u0131k hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrenin ge\u00e7mesinden sonra 1\/2\/2022 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddine karar verilmesi gerekirken, yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131 [d\u0131r].”<\/p>\n
9. Bu karar ba\u015fvurucuya tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 5\/8\/2022 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
A. \u0130lgili Mevzuat<\/p>\n
10. 4\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun “Tazminat istemi” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 141. maddesinin (1) ve (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“(1)Su\u00e7 soru\u015fturmas\u0131 veya kovu\u015fturmas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda;<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
e) Kanuna uygun olarak yakaland\u0131ktan veya tutukland\u0131ktan sonra haklar\u0131nda kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na veya beraatlerine karar verilen,<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
Ki\u015filer, madd\u00ee ve manev\u00ee her t\u00fcrl\u00fc zararlar\u0131n\u0131, Devletten isteyebilirler.<\/p>\n
\u00a0(2) Birinci f\u0131kran\u0131n (e), (f) ve (l) bentlerinde belirtilen kararlar\u0131 veren merciler, ilgiliye tazminat haklar\u0131 bulundu\u011funu bildirirler ve bu husus verilen karara ge\u00e7irilir.”<\/p>\n
11. 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Tazminat isteminin ko\u015fullar\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 142. maddesinin (1) ve (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kralar\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“(1) Karar veya h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin kesinle\u015fti\u011finin ilgilisine tebli\u011finden itibaren \u00fc\u00e7 ay ve her h\u00e2lde karar veya h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin kesinle\u015fme tarihini izleyen bir y\u0131l i\u00e7inde tazminat isteminde bulunulabilir.<\/p>\n
\u00a0(2) \u0130stem, zarara u\u011frayan\u0131n oturdu\u011fu yer a\u011f\u0131r ceza mahkemesinde ve e\u011fer o yer a\u011f\u0131r ceza mahkemesi tazminat konusu i\u015flemle ili\u015fkili ise ve ayn\u0131 yerde ba\u015fka bir a\u011f\u0131r ceza dairesi yoksa, en yak\u0131n yer a\u011f\u0131r ceza mahkemesinde karara ba\u011flan\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
12. 7201 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un “Vekile ve kanuni m\u00fcmessile tebligat” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 11. maddesininbirinci f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Vekil vas\u0131tas\u0131yla takip edilen i\u015flerde tebligat vekile yap\u0131l\u0131r. Vekil birden \u00e7ok ise bunlardan birine tebligat yap\u0131lmas\u0131 yeterlidir. E\u011fer tebligat birden fazla vekile yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ise, bunlardan ilkine yap\u0131lan tebli\u011f tarihi as\u0131l tebli\u011f tarihi say\u0131l\u0131r. Ancak, Ceza Muhakemeleri Usulu Kanununun, kararlar\u0131n san\u0131klara tebli\u011f edilmelerine ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmleri sakl\u0131d\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
B. Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131<\/p>\n
13. Yarg\u0131tay 12. Ceza Dairesinin 18\/1\/2016 tarihli ve E.2015\/9551, K.2016\/527 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
” Tazminat talebinin dayana\u011f\u0131 olan Erzurum 1. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin \u2026 say\u0131l\u0131 ceza dava dosyas\u0131nda, davac\u0131 (san\u0131k) hakk\u0131nda \u2026 verilen beraat h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn 29\/11\/2013 tarihinde kesinle\u015fti\u011fi ve beraat h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn kesinle\u015fme \u015ferhi ile 7\/1\/2014 tarihinde davac\u0131ya tebli\u011f edildi\u011fi buna ra\u011fmen, tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n 3 ayl\u0131k hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre ge\u00e7tikten sonra 14\/4\/2014 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011funun anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, s\u00fcresinde a\u00e7\u0131lmayan tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n reddi yerine, yarg\u0131lamaya devamla davac\u0131 lehine tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesi, isabetsiz[dir].”<\/p>\n
14. Yarg\u0131tay 12. Ceza Dairesinin 8\/5\/2017 tarihli ve 2016\/615, K.2017\/3663 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n dayana\u011f\u0131 olu\u015fturan Adana 12. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi’nin \u2026 say\u0131l\u0131 dava dosyas\u0131nda san\u0131k olan davac\u0131n\u0131n zorunlu m\u00fcdafice temsil edildi\u011fi, dava sonunda verilen beraat karar\u0131na ili\u015fkin kesinle\u015fme \u015ferhinin, karar kesinle\u015fti\u011finde g\u00f6revi sona erendavac\u0131n\u0131n (san\u0131\u011f\u0131n) zorunlu m\u00fcdafiine 25\/7\/2013 tarihinde tebli\u011f edildi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esi ile beraat karar\u0131na ili\u015fkin kesinle\u015fme \u015ferhinin davac\u0131ya tebli\u011f edilmedi\u011fi bu sebeple davan\u0131n 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 CMK’nun 142\/1 maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen 1 y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcrede a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6zeltilmeden \u2026 karar verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 \u2026gerek\u00e7esi itibariyle yanl\u0131\u015f, sonucu itibariyle do\u011fru oldu\u011fundan bu husus bozma nedeni yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
15. Yarg\u0131tay 12. Ceza Dairesinin 23\/10\/2017 tarihli ve E.2016\/10707, K.2017\/7837 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Somut olayda tazminat talebinin dayana\u011f\u0131 olan Erzurum 4. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin \u2026 say\u0131l\u0131 beraat h\u00fckm\u00fcnde davac\u0131lara tazminat talep etme hakk\u0131 hat\u0131rlat\u0131lmakla birlikte, ba\u015fvuru merci, \u015fekli ve s\u00fcresinin g\u00f6sterilmemesi kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, usul\u00fcne uygun olarak yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bir tebli\u011fden s\u00f6z edilemeyece\u011fi, bu kapsamda dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan CMK’n\u0131n 142\/1 maddesinde belirtilen 1 y\u0131l\u0131k s\u00fcrenin dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi g\u00f6zetilmeyerek ayn\u0131 maddede belirtilen 3 ayl\u0131k hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrede davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esi ile reddine karar verilmesi kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131[d\u0131r].”<\/p>\n
16. Yarg\u0131tay 12. Ceza Dairesinin 8\/1\/2018 tarihli ve E.2017\/7863, K.2018\/31 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Davac\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden beraatla sonu\u00e7lanan tazminat davas\u0131na esas \u0130zmir 7. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin \u2026 say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131n\u0131n 2\/2\/2015 tarihinde kesinle\u015fti\u011fi, ancak kesinle\u015fmi\u015f karar\u0131n ilgisi olan davac\u0131ya bizzat tebli\u011f edildi\u011fine dair dosya kapsam\u0131 itibariyle herhangi bir belgeye rastlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, kald\u0131 ki h\u00fck\u00fcmde, tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n ne kadarl\u0131k s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde, nereye ve ne \u015fekilde a\u00e7\u0131labilece\u011finin g\u00f6sterilmemesi kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, tebligat\u0131n bizzat davac\u0131ya yap\u0131lmas\u0131 halinde dahi dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ayn\u0131 maddede belirtilen 1 y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcrenin dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekece\u011fi, bu kapsamda, davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilerek, davac\u0131n\u0131n tazminat istemi ile ilgili CMK’n\u0131n 141. maddesinde belirtilen durumlar\u0131n olu\u015fup olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususu a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131\u011fa kavu\u015fturularak, sonucuna g\u00f6re h\u00fck\u00fcm tesis edilmesi gerekti\u011fi g\u00f6zetilmeden, davan\u0131n reddine dair yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisi kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131[d\u0131r].”<\/p>\n
17. Yarg\u0131tay 12. Ceza Dairesinin 4\/2\/2019 tarihli ve E.2019\/301, K.2019\/1293 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Tazminat talebinin dayana\u011f\u0131 olan Adana 6. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin \u2026 say\u0131l\u0131 ceza dava dosyas\u0131nda davac\u0131 hakk\u0131ndaki beraate ili\u015fkin h\u00fckm\u00fcn 4\/2\/2015 tarihinde kesinle\u015fti\u011fi, kesinle\u015fmi\u015f karar\u0131n 20\/2\/2015 tarihinde davac\u0131ya tebli\u011f edilmesine kar\u015f\u0131n 3 ayl\u0131k hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcreden sonra 4\/8\/2015 tarihinde tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011funun anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, s\u00fcresinde a\u00e7\u0131lmayan davan\u0131n reddi yerine, yarg\u0131lamaya devamla davac\u0131 lehine tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesi kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131[d\u0131r].”<\/p>\n
18. Yarg\u0131tay 12. Ceza Dairesinin 22\/3\/2021 tarihli ve E.2019\/4230, K.2021\/2897 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Tazminat talebinin dayana\u011f\u0131 olan \u015eanl\u0131urfa Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u2026 say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131 incelendi\u011finde davac\u0131 hakk\u0131nda \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 kasten \u00f6ld\u00fcrme su\u00e7undan 16\/1\/2015 tarihinde kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair karar verildi\u011fi, karar\u0131n davac\u0131 vekiline 4\/2\/2015 tarihinde tebli\u011fi edildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmekle, kesinle\u015fmi\u015f karar\u0131n davac\u0131 asile tebli\u011f edilmedi\u011fi dikkate al\u0131narak, davan\u0131n 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 CMK’n\u0131n 142\/1. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen bir y\u0131ll\u0131k hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde 18\/1\/2016 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6zetilerek esas hakk\u0131nda karar verilmesi gerekirken, yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde \u00fc\u00e7 ayl\u0131k s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131[d\u0131r].”<\/p>\n
19. Yarg\u0131tay 12. Ceza Dairesinin 17\/10\/2022 tarihli veE.2022\/4514, K.2022\/6809 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanununun 142\/1. maddesine g\u00f6re, koruma tedbirleri nedeniyle tazminat taleplerinin karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fti\u011finin ilgilisine tebli\u011finden itibaren \u00fc\u00e7 ay ve her halde karar veya h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin kesinle\u015fme tarihini izleyen bir y\u0131l i\u00e7inde dava konusu edilebilece\u011fi, tazminat talebinin dayana\u011f\u0131 olan Antalya 1. Ceza Mahkemesinin \u2026 say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131 UYAP \u00fczerinden incelendi\u011finde kesinle\u015fme \u015ferhli beraat karar\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131 vekiline tebli\u011f edildi\u011fi, kesinle\u015fme \u015ferhli beraat karar\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131 asile tebli\u011f edilmedi\u011fi dikkate al\u0131narak, davan\u0131n 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 CMK’n\u0131n 142\/1. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen bir y\u0131ll\u0131k hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmakla tebli\u011fnamedeki bozma isteyen g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe i\u015ftirak edilmemi\u015ftir.”<\/p>\n
20. Yarg\u0131tay 12. Ceza Dairesinin 6\/2\/2023 tarihli ve E.2021\/6865, K.2023\/260 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Tazminata esas ceza davas\u0131ndaki beraat h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn 20\/12\/2016 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmesi ve kesinle\u015fme \u015ferhli gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131n davac\u0131ya 26\/12\/2016 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmesinin ard\u0131ndan 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 142. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen 3 ayl\u0131k hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre ge\u00e7tikten sonra 2\/6\/2017 tarihinde dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin ge\u00e7ti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesinde isabetsizlik g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.”<\/p>\n
21. Yarg\u0131tay 12. Ceza Dairesinin 22\/5\/2023 tarihli ve E.2021\/8160, K.2023\/1764 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Somut olayda; kesinle\u015fme \u015ferhini i\u00e7eren gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131n 19\/1\/2018 tarihinde davac\u0131n\u0131n MERN\u0130S adresine Tebligat Kanun’un 21. maddesi gere\u011fince usul\u00fcne uygun tebli\u011f edildi\u011fi, Kanunda belirtilen \u00fc\u00e7 ayl\u0131k s\u00fcrenin ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131 i\u00e7in karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fti\u011finin ilgilisine tebli\u011finin arand\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu suretle kesinle\u015fme \u015ferhini i\u00e7eren beraat h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn davac\u0131 asile tebli\u011f edildi\u011fi, h\u00fck\u00fcm i\u00e7eri\u011finde ve kesinle\u015fme \u015ferhli tebli\u011f evrak\u0131nda, CMK’n\u0131n 141\/2 ve CMK’n\u0131n 232\/6. maddelerinde belirtildi\u011fi \u015fekilde ilgiliye ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 olarak tazminat hakk\u0131 bulundu\u011funun, ba\u015fvuru mercii ve s\u00fcresinin hat\u0131rlat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n 3 ayl\u0131k s\u00fcre ge\u00e7tikten sonra 23\/10\/2018 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmakla, ilk derece mahkemesince davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyleverilen davan\u0131n reddi karar\u0131na ili\u015fkin davac\u0131 vekilinin istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkmesince esastan reddedilmesinde hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.”<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
22. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 30\/10\/2024 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. Mahkemeye Eri\u015fim Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvurucununiddialar\u0131<\/p>\n
23. Ba\u015fvurucu; Anayasa\u2019da haks\u0131z \u015fekilde tutuklu kalan ki\u015filerin u\u011frad\u0131klar\u0131 zararlar\u0131n tazmin edilece\u011finin belirtildi\u011fini ve herhangi bir hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fini, buna ra\u011fmen a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcresinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedildi\u011fini, kesinle\u015fen beraat karar\u0131n\u0131n sadece kendisine tebli\u011f edildi\u011fini, vekiline tebli\u011f yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, vekil ile temsil edilen i\u015flerde vekile tebli\u011f yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n gerekti\u011fini, kendisine yap\u0131lan tebligat\u0131n da bilinen son adresine yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011funu, usuls\u00fcz tebligata dayal\u0131 olarak s\u00fcrenin hesaplanmas\u0131n\u0131n bariz takdir hatas\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011fini belirterek ki\u015fi h\u00fcrriyeti ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131n\u0131n ve hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
2. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
24. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olaylar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan hukuki nitelendirmesi ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olmay\u0131p olay ve olgular\u0131n hukuki tavsifini kendisi takdir eder. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131n\u0131n davan\u0131n hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir \u015fekilde s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 reddine karar verilmesi hususuna dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun iddias\u0131 uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131n mahkemece incelenmemesine y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011fundan, iddialar\u0131n adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
25. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n en temel unsurlar\u0131ndan biri olan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcne ta\u015f\u0131yabilmek ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n etkili bir \u015fekilde karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilmek anlam\u0131na gelir. Ki\u015finin mahkemeye ba\u015fvurmas\u0131n\u0131 engelleyen veya mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 anlams\u0131z h\u00e2le getiren, bir ba\u015fka ifadeyle mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde etkisizle\u015ftiren s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilir (\u00d6zkan \u015een, B. No: 2012\/791, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
26. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, mahkemeye ba\u015fvuru konusunda etkili bir sistemin var olmas\u0131n\u0131 ve dava a\u00e7mak isteyen ki\u015filerin mahkemeye ula\u015fmada a\u00e7\u0131k, pratik ve yeterli f\u0131rsatlara sahip olmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir. \u00d6zellikle hukuki ya da uygulamadaki belirsizlikler ki\u015filerin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilir (Aktif Elektrik M\u00fch. \u0130n\u015f. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2012\/855, 26\/6\/2014, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
27. Dava a\u00e7may\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z k\u0131lacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde k\u0131sa olmad\u0131k\u00e7a dava a\u00e7ma ya da kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvuru i\u00e7in belli s\u00fcrelerin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesi, hukuki belirlilik ilkesinin bir gere\u011fidir ve tek ba\u015f\u0131na bu durum mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olu\u015fturmaz (Remzi Durmaz, B. No: 2013\/1718, 2\/10\/2013, \u00a7 27). Bu nedenle mahkemelerin usul kurallar\u0131n\u0131 uygularken yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetine zarar getirecek \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kat\u0131 \u015fekilcilikten ka\u00e7\u0131nmalar\u0131 gerekti\u011fi gibi kanunla \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f usul \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kalkmas\u0131na neden olacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 esneklikten de ka\u00e7\u0131nmalar\u0131 gerekir (Kamil Ko\u00e7, B. No: 2012\/660, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 65). Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, kural olarak mutlak bir hak olmay\u0131p s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131labilen bir hakt\u0131r. Bununla birlikte s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rman\u0131n kanuna dayanmas\u0131, me\u015fru amac\u0131n\u0131n bulunmas\u0131 ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmas\u0131 gerekir (Serkan Acar, B. No: 2013\/1613, 2\/10\/2013, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
28. 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 141. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (e) bendinde su\u00e7 soru\u015fturmas\u0131 veya kovu\u015fturmas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda; kanuna uygun olarak yakaland\u0131ktan veya tutukland\u0131ktan sonra haklar\u0131nda kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na veya beraatlerine karar verilen ki\u015filerin maddi ve manevi her t\u00fcrl\u00fc zararlar\u0131n\u0131, tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7mak suretiyle devletten isteyebilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 142. maddesinde ise bu davalar\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fclmesine ili\u015fkin esaslar d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re ki\u015filer, karar veya h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin kesinle\u015fti\u011finin ilgilisine tebli\u011finden itibaren \u00fc\u00e7 ay ve her h\u00e2lde karar ya da h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin kesinle\u015fme tarihini izleyen 1 y\u0131l i\u00e7inde tazminat isteminde bulunulabilirler.<\/p>\n
29. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu, beraatle sonu\u00e7lanan davada haks\u0131z tutuklu kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nem i\u00e7in tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130lk derece mahkemesi beraat karar\u0131n\u0131n, vekili oldu\u011fu h\u00e2lde ba\u015fvurucuya tebli\u011f edildi\u011fini, vekil ile takip edilen i\u015flerde vekile tebligat yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, vekile yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bir tebligat bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan usul\u00fcne uygun bir tebligattan s\u00f6z edilemeyece\u011fini, dolay\u0131s\u0131yladavan\u0131n 1 y\u0131ll\u0131k yasal s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.B\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi ise kesinle\u015fmi\u015f beraat karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fme \u015ferhleri ile birlikte ba\u015fvurucuya usul\u00fcne uygun olarak tebli\u011f edildi\u011fini, hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrelerin davac\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcdafiine de\u011fil bizzat kendisine tebli\u011fi ile ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu hususun Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131 ile de tespit edildi\u011fini belirterek davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
30. Ba\u015fvurucu 7201say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 11. maddesine dayanarakvekil vas\u0131tas\u0131yla takip edilen i\u015flerde tebligat\u0131n vekile yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f isede ayn\u0131 maddede Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun kararlar\u0131n san\u0131klara tebli\u011f edilmelerine ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin sakl\u0131 oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
31. 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 142. maddenin gerek\u00e7esinde tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n ilgili ki\u015fi hakk\u0131ndaki karar\u0131n veya h\u00fckm\u00fcn kesinle\u015fmesiyle olanakl\u0131 h\u00e2le gelece\u011fi, kesinle\u015fme, ilgilisine veya varsa vekiline tebli\u011f edildi\u011finde, tebell\u00fc\u011fden itibaren \u00fc\u00e7 ay i\u00e7inde dava a\u00e7\u0131labilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu gerek\u00e7eden tebligat\u0131n mutlaka vekile yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir zorunluluk bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131nda da \u00fc\u00e7 ayl\u0131k dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin beraat h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn kesinle\u015fme \u015ferhiyle birlikte davac\u0131ya tebli\u011finden itibaren ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131, hatta davac\u0131ya tebli\u011f yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131nda 1 y\u0131ll\u0131k dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin ge\u00e7erli olaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 13, 14, 17-21). Ba\u015fvurucu; bireysel ba\u015fvuru dilek\u00e7esinde, tebligat\u0131n bilinen son adresine yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in usuls\u00fcz oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f ise de tazminat davas\u0131 s\u00fcrecinde bu y\u00f6nde bir iddiada bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00d6yle ki dava dilek\u00e7esinde kendisine yap\u0131lan tebligat nedeniyle hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrenin doldu\u011fu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclse de m\u00fcdafiine tebli\u011f yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in bu tebligat\u0131n ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011funu ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
32. \u00d6te yandan Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131nda beraat h\u00fckm\u00fcnde davac\u0131lara tazminat talep etme hakk\u0131n\u0131n hat\u0131rlat\u0131lmamas\u0131, ba\u015fvuru mercii, \u015fekli ve s\u00fcresinin g\u00f6sterilmemesi durumunda usul\u00fcne uygun olarak yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bir tebli\u011fden s\u00f6z edilemeyece\u011fi, bu durumda 1 y\u0131ll\u0131k dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin uygulanaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 15, 16). Ancak somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun bu \u015fekilde bir tebli\u011f yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin iddias\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Kald\u0131 ki beraat karar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucuya tazminat talep etme hakk\u0131 oldu\u011fu hat\u0131rlat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f; ba\u015fvuru mercii, \u015fekli ve s\u00fcresi g\u00f6sterilmi\u015ftir. Bu durumda dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131yla da uyumlu olarak beraat karar\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya tebli\u011f edilmesinden itibaren \u00fc\u00e7 ay olarak belirlenmesinin dava a\u00e7may\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z k\u0131lacak nitelikte a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 \u015fekilci bir yakla\u015f\u0131mdan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131, belirtilen kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine \u00f6nceden \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmeyecek \u015fekilde ola\u011fan\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bir anlam verilmek suretiyle bu sonuca ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenemeyecektir.<\/p>\n
33. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Ki\u015fi H\u00fcrriyeti ve G\u00fcvenli\u011fi Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130ddialar\u0131<\/p>\n
34. Ba\u015fvurucu; beraat etti\u011fi davada hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak 301 g\u00fcn tutuklu kalmas\u0131nara\u011fmen tazminat elde edemedi\u011fini belirterek ki\u015fi h\u00fcrriyeti ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131n\u0131n, maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n korunmas\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
2. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
35. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131 ki\u015fi h\u00fcrriyeti ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
36. Bireysel ba\u015fvuru yolunun ikincil niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi Anayasa Mahkemesine ba\u015fvuruda bulunabilmek i\u00e7in \u00f6ncelikle ola\u011fan kanun yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmesi zorunludur. Ba\u015fvurucunun bireysel ba\u015fvuru konusu \u015fik\u00e2yetini \u00f6ncelikle ve s\u00fcresinde yetkili idari ve yarg\u0131sal mercilere usul\u00fcne uygun olarak iletmesi, bu konuda sahip oldu\u011fu bilgi ve delilleri zaman\u0131nda bu makamlara sunmas\u0131 ve bu s\u00fcre\u00e7te dava ve ba\u015fvurusunu takip etmek i\u00e7in gerekli \u00f6zeni g\u00f6stermi\u015f olmas\u0131 gerekir (\u0130smail Bu\u011fra \u0130\u015flek, B. No: 2013\/1177, 26\/3\/2013, \u00a7 17).<\/p>\n
37. 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 141. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (e) bendinde, kanuna uygun olarak yakaland\u0131ktan veya tutukland\u0131ktan sonra haklar\u0131nda kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na veya beraatlerine karar verilen ki\u015filere tazminat talebinde bulunabilme imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmaktad\u0131r. Bu yol, Anayasa Mahkemesince haks\u0131z veya hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 tutuklama \u015fik\u00e2yetleri bak\u0131m\u0131ndan etkili bir ba\u015fvuru yolu olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir (Kamil Erdo\u011fan, B. No: 2017\/4023, 19\/4\/2018, \u00a7 40). Bu nedenle haks\u0131z tutuklama nedeniyle tazminat elde edilememesine ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetin esastan incelenebilmesi i\u00e7in bu tazminat yolunun usul\u00fcne uygun bir \u015fekilde t\u00fcketilmesi gerekir. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun bu kapsamda a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddedildi\u011fi ve yarg\u0131 mercilerinin bu yorumunun Anayasa Mahkemesince mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal eder nitelikte g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun hukuk sisteminde d\u00fczenlenen ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131 usul\u00fcnce t\u00fcketmedi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
38. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VI. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Ki\u015fi h\u00fcrriyeti ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde BIRAKILMASINA 30\/10\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 30\/10\/2024 tarihli ve 2022\/78623 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 H\u00dcSN\u00dc E\u015e\u0130N BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/78623) \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM 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 : Yusuf Enes KAYA Ba\u015fvurucu : H\u00fcsn\u00fc E\u015e\u0130N Vekili : Av. Eda KAM\u0130LO\u011eLU \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru; haks\u0131z tutukluluk nedeniyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcresinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesinden dolay\u0131 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n haks\u0131z tutuklamadan kaynakl\u0131 olarak herhangi bir tazminat elde edilememesi nedeniyle de ki\u015fi h\u00fcrriyeti ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 5\/8\/2022 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 3. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir: 4. Ba\u015fvurucu, hakk\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen soru\u015fturma kapsam\u0131nda zincirleme suretiyle geceleyin h\u0131rs\u0131zl\u0131k, zarar vermek ve resm\u00ee belgede sahtecilik su\u00e7lamas\u0131 ile 6\/6\/2014 tarihinde tutuklanm\u0131\u015f, 2\/4\/2015 tarihinde tahliye edilmi\u015ftir. Yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda 18\/7\/2016 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun beraatine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Beraat karar\u0131nda karar\u0131n tebli\u011finden itibaren 3 ay ve her h\u00e2lde karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fme tarihini izleyen 1 y\u0131l i\u00e7inde oturdu\u011fu yer a\u011f\u0131r ceza mahkemesinde ve e\u011fer o yer a\u011f\u0131r ceza mahkemesi tazminat konusu i\u015flemle ilgili …<\/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-25889","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n