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
\u0130ZGE HAKAN G\u00dcNAL BA\u015eVURUSU (2)<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2018\/25425)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 27\/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
Ali KOZAN<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u0130zge Hakan G\u00dcNAL<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Murat Fatih \u00dcLK\u00dc<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, bir grup akademisyen taraf\u0131ndan yay\u0131mlanan bir bildiriye imza atan ba\u015fvurucunun soru\u015fturma devam ederken g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, Dokuz Eyl\u00fcl \u00dcniversitesi T\u0131p Fak\u00fcltesi Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Ana Dilim Dal\u0131nda profes\u00f6r doktor unvan\u0131yla \u00f6\u011fretim \u00fcyesi olarak g\u00f6rev yapmakta iken kamuoyunda “Bar\u0131\u015f \u0130\u00e7in Akademisyenler Bildirisi” olarak bilinen 11\/1\/2016 tarihli bildiriye imza att\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle 15\/1\/2016 tarihinde hakk\u0131nda disiplin soru\u015fturmas\u0131 ve ayr\u0131ca ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc propagandas\u0131 yapma su\u00e7undan da ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131 ba\u015flat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Dokuz Eyl\u00fcl \u00dcniversitesi Rekt\u00f6rl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki an\u0131lan ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131 gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek 22\/7\/2016 tarihli ve 667 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc H\u00e2l Kapsam\u0131nda Al\u0131nan Tedbirlere \u0130li\u015fkin Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin (667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) 4. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca ba\u015fvurucunun iki ay s\u00fcreyle g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na 23\/6\/2017 tarihinde karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan idari i\u015fleme kar\u015f\u0131 26\/7\/2017 tarihinde \u0130zmir 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) idari i\u015flemin iptali ve yoksun kal\u0131nan parasal haklar\u0131n iadesi talepli dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkemece 29\/12\/2017 tarihinde davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131rma i\u015fleminin g\u00f6revi ba\u015f\u0131nda kalmas\u0131nda sak\u0131nca g\u00f6r\u00fclen devlet memuru bak\u0131m\u0131ndan uygulanan bir ihtiyati tedbir mahiyetinde oldu\u011funa i\u015faret edilmi\u015ftir. 14\/7\/1965 tarihli ve 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Devlet Memurlar\u0131 Kanunu’nun 137., 138. ve 140. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca soru\u015fturman\u0131n selameti a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir durum bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 13\/3\/2018 tarihinde \u0130zmir B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 5. \u0130dari Dava Dairesine (B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi) istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde; hakk\u0131ndaki tek su\u00e7laman\u0131n bir bildiriye imza atmak oldu\u011funu disiplin soru\u015fturmas\u0131nda delilleri karartmas\u0131n\u0131n at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7un mahiyeti gere\u011fi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131rma karar\u0131n\u0131n mant\u0131ksal bir temelinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
6. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 26\/6\/2018 tarihinde Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n usul ve yasaya uygun oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu nihai karar\u0131 25\/7\/2018 tarihinde tebell\u00fc\u011f ettikten sonra 17\/8\/2018 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu 8\/7\/2018 tarihli ve 30472 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanarak y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren 701 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Baz\u0131 Tedbirler Al\u0131nmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin (701 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) ekli listesine g\u00f6re kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun idari yarg\u0131da a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 iptal davas\u0131 23\/12\/2022 tarihinde reddedilmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan karara ili\u015fkin istinaf incelemesi devam etmektedir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu; hakk\u0131ndaki disiplin soru\u015fturmas\u0131n\u0131n en fazla uyar\u0131 cezas\u0131yla sonu\u00e7lanabilecek mahiyette iken g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131rma tedbiriyle mesle\u011fini icra etmekten al\u0131konulmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucu ayr\u0131ca an\u0131lan karar nedeniyle parasal haklar\u0131ndan yoksun kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendisinin bir bilim insan\u0131 oldu\u011funu ve bilimsel faaliyette bulunma hakk\u0131n\u0131n da k\u0131s\u0131tlanm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011funu ifade etmektedir.<\/p>\n
10. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131rma tedbirinin 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 137. maddesine dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun imza att\u0131\u011f\u0131 bildirinin i\u00e7eri\u011fi ve yay\u0131mland\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nem itibar\u0131yla PKK ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcye ve sempatizanlar\u0131na ili\u015fkin pozitif etki yaratabilecek nitelik ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131na i\u015faret edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131rma i\u015fleminin iki ay s\u00fcreyle uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucunun tedbirin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131ndan mesleki ve sosyal anlamda ne \u015fekilde etkilendi\u011fini somut \u015fekilde ortaya koymad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda; bildiriye imza att\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihten itibaren bir bu\u00e7uk y\u0131l boyunca ifadesinin dahi al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, buna ra\u011fmen soru\u015fturma s\u00fcresince delilleri karartabilece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n makul, hukuksal bir dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu an\u0131lan karar dolay\u0131s\u0131yla emeklili\u011fe zorland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu durumun a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a \u00f6zel hayat\u0131na bir m\u00fcdahale ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ayr\u0131ca parasal haklar\u0131ndan da yoksun kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
12. Anayasa Mahkemesi, \u00f6nceki bir\u00e7ok karar\u0131nda, \u00f6zel hayata ili\u015fkin herhangi bir nedene dayan\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n mesleki hayata y\u00f6nelen m\u00fcdahalelerin \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilebilmesi i\u00e7in gerekli olan \u015fartlar\u0131n neler oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin detayl\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmelerde bulunmu\u015ftur (Tamer Mahmuto\u011flu, \u00a7\u00a7 84-90; C.A. (3) [GK], B. No: 2018\/10286, 2\/7\/2020, \u00a7\u00a7 97-101; Ayla Demir \u0130\u015fat [GK], B. No: 2018\/24245, 8\/10\/2020, \u00a7\u00a7 106-110). Ba\u015fvurucunun g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n tek ba\u015f\u0131na \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n uygulanabilirli\u011fini sa\u011flamamakla birlikte s\u00f6z konusu i\u015flemin ba\u015fvurucunun mesleki faaliyetlerine, akademik itibar\u0131na ve ili\u015fkilerine olumsuz \u015fekilde etki etti\u011fi, bu etkinin ciddi oldu\u011fu ve belirli bir a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131k d\u00fczeyine ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finden ba\u015fvuru, \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden uygulanabilir bulunmu\u015f ve bu kapsamda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. 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 \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
14. Y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen disiplin soru\u015fturmas\u0131 nedeniyle g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale olu\u015fturdu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 137. maddesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclen s\u00f6z konusu m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131 bulundu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen disiplin soru\u015fturmas\u0131 nedeniyle ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen m\u00fcdahalenin kamu d\u00fczeninin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 me\u015fru amac\u0131na y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011fu kanaatine var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu belirlemelerin ard\u0131ndan m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine uygunluk ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flay\u0131p sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
15. Anayasa Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131na g\u00f6re demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gerekleri kavram\u0131 \u00f6ncelikle ilgili hak y\u00f6n\u00fcnden getirilen s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar\u0131n zorunlu ya da istisnai tedbir niteli\u011finde olmas\u0131n\u0131, ba\u015fvurulabilecek en son \u00e7are ya da al\u0131nabilecek en son \u00f6nlem olarak kendisini g\u00f6stermesini gerektirmektedir. Demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerinden olma, bir s\u0131n\u0131rlaman\u0131n demokratik bir toplumda zorlay\u0131c\u0131 bir toplumsal ihtiyac\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 amac\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olmas\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmektedir (AYM, E.2016\/179, K.2017\/176, 28\/12\/2017; Haluk \u00d6ktem, \u00a7 49; Erhun \u00d6ks\u00fcz, \u00a7 53; G.G., \u00a7 56; Ata T\u00fcrkeri, B. No: 2013\/6057, 16\/12\/2015, \u00a7 44; Salim Onur \u015eakar, B. No: 2015\/2711, 21\/9\/2017, \u00a7 35).<\/p>\n
16. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinde demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gerekleri ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck kriterleri iki ayr\u0131 \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct olarak d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f olmakla birlikte bu iki \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct aras\u0131nda ayr\u0131lmaz bir ili\u015fki vard\u0131r. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesinin amac\u0131 temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin gere\u011finden fazla s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesidir. Anayasa Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131 uyar\u0131nca \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi, s\u0131n\u0131rlama i\u00e7in kullan\u0131lan arac\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rlama amac\u0131n\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye uygun olmas\u0131n\u0131 ifade eden elveri\u015flilik, s\u0131n\u0131rlay\u0131c\u0131 \u00f6nlemin s\u0131n\u0131rlama amac\u0131na ula\u015fmak bak\u0131m\u0131ndan zorunlu olmas\u0131na i\u015faret eden gereklilik ve ara\u00e7la amac\u0131n orant\u0131s\u0131z bir \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fc i\u00e7inde bulunmamas\u0131 ile s\u0131n\u0131rlaman\u0131n \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz bir y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck getirmemesi anlam\u0131na gelen orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k unsurlar\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7ermektedir (Ferhat \u00dcst\u00fcnda\u011f, B. No: 2014\/15428, 17\/7\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 45, 48; B\u00fclent Polat, \u00a7 106; Tevfik T\u00fcrkmen [GK], B. No: 2013\/9704, 3\/3\/2016 \u00a7 70; B\u00fclent Kaya, [GK], B. No: 2013\/2941, 11\/5\/2016, \u00a7 82).<\/p>\n
17. Ki\u015finin kamu g\u00f6revlisi olmas\u0131, kendisine sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 birtak\u0131m ayr\u0131cal\u0131klar ve avantajlar\u0131n yan\u0131nda birtak\u0131m k\u00fclfet ve sorumluluklara katlanmay\u0131 ve di\u011fer ki\u015filerin tabi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 birtak\u0131m s\u0131n\u0131rlamalara tabi olmay\u0131 gerektirmektedir. Ki\u015fi, kamu g\u00f6revine kendi iste\u011fi ile girmekle bu stat\u00fcn\u00fcn gerektirdi\u011fi ayr\u0131cal\u0131klardan yararlanmay\u0131 ve k\u00fclfetlere katlanmay\u0131 kabul etmi\u015f say\u0131lmakta olup kamu hizmetinin kendine has \u00f6zellikleri, bu avantaj ve s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar\u0131 zorunlu k\u0131lmaktad\u0131r (\u0130hsan Asutay, B. No: 2012\/606, 20\/2\/2014, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
18. Bununla beraber kamu hizmetlerinin s\u00fcreklili\u011fi ve d\u00fczenlili\u011fi ilkesi ile kamu g\u00f6revlilerinin \u00f6zel hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 haklar\u0131 aras\u0131nda adil bir dengenin g\u00f6zetilmesi gerekir. Ayr\u0131ca \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik bir toplumda gerekli olma ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkelerine uygun oldu\u011fu konusunda idari ve yarg\u0131sal makamlar taraf\u0131ndan olu\u015fturulan gerek\u00e7elerin ikna edici nitelikte ilgili ve yeterli olmas\u0131 gerekir (benzer y\u00f6ndeki de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. Ata T\u00fcrkeri, B. No: 2013\/6057, 16\/12\/2015, \u00a7\u00a7 45, 47; Murat Deniz, B. No: 2014\/5318, 21\/9\/2016, \u00a7 66). Yine s\u00f6z konusu tedbirlerin yarg\u0131sal denetiminin usule ili\u015fkin gereklilikler yerine getirilerek etkili bir \u015fekilde ve makul bir s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde tamamlanmas\u0131 \u00f6nemlidir.<\/p>\n
19. Somut olayda Bar\u0131\u015f \u0130\u00e7in Akademisyenler Bildirisinin imzac\u0131lar\u0131 aras\u0131nda yer almas\u0131 nedeniyle y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen disiplin soru\u015fturmas\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesi, Z\u00fcbeyde F\u00fcsun \u00dcstel ve di\u011ferleri [GK] (B. No: 2018\/17635, 26\/7\/2019) ba\u015fvurusunda bahse konu bildirinin imzac\u0131s\u0131 bir k\u0131s\u0131m akademisyen hakk\u0131nda ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc propagandas\u0131 yapma su\u00e7undan uygulanan adli ceza \u015feklindeki m\u00fcdahaleleri incelemi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan kararda; s\u00f6z konusu bildiride sert s\u00f6zlere ve a\u011f\u0131r ithamlara yer verilmekle birlikte genel olarak kamu g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc kullananlara hukuk i\u00e7inde kalmalar\u0131 ve meseleleri \u015fiddeti d\u0131\u015flayan y\u00f6ntemlerle \u00e7\u00f6zmeleri \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131s\u0131nda bulunuldu\u011fu, bildiride yer alan d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerin ho\u015fg\u00f6r\u00fcyle kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7o\u011fulcu demokratik d\u00fczenin gereklerinden oldu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Bunun yan\u0131nda kararda; akademisyenlerin a\u00e7\u0131klad\u0131klar\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerin kendi ara\u015ft\u0131rma, mesleki uzmanl\u0131k ve yeterlilik alanlar\u0131na ili\u015fkin olmasa, tart\u0131\u015fmal\u0131 olsa veya ra\u011fbet g\u00f6rmese dahi ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn s\u0131k\u0131 korumas\u0131 alt\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Z\u00fcbeyde F\u00fcsun \u00dcstel ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7\u00a7 9-13, 99-111).<\/p>\n
20. Somut ba\u015fvuruya konu m\u00fcdahaleyi ise klasik ceza hukuku yapt\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 de\u011fil ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda tesis edilen g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131rma \u015feklindeki idari i\u015flem olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun kamu g\u00f6revine m\u00fcdahale olu\u015fturan idari i\u015flemin Anayasa Mahkemesinin kamu g\u00f6revlilerinin tabi oldu\u011fu stat\u00fc hukuku kapsam\u0131nda ortaya koydu\u011fu ve ilgili makamlarca uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 bekledi\u011fi ilkeler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
21. Somut olayda g\u00fcvenlik g\u00fc\u00e7lerince ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen geni\u015f kapsaml\u0131 bir operasyon s\u0131ras\u0131nda yay\u0131mlanan ve kamuoyunda sert tepkilere neden olan bir bildiriye destek verdi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda disiplin soru\u015fturmas\u0131 ba\u015flat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve sonras\u0131nda g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131rma karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir. Soru\u015fturman\u0131n selameti i\u00e7in gerekli tedbirleri almak hususunda ilgili mevzuat \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde idarenin takdir yetkisinin oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. \u0130darenin bu yetkisini kamu yarar\u0131 ve hizmet gereklerine uygun olarak kullan\u0131p kullanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde yarg\u0131sal denetime tabi oldu\u011funa ise ku\u015fku yoktur. Bunun yan\u0131nda takdir yetkisinin kullan\u0131m\u0131nda kamusal yarar ile ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6zel hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131ndan yararlanmas\u0131ndaki bireysel yarar aras\u0131nda adil bir dengenin g\u00f6zetilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
22. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda disiplin soru\u015fturmas\u0131 devam ederken ba\u015fvurucunun g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Bununla beraber \u00dcniversite taraf\u0131ndan idari soru\u015fturma kapsam\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n neden gerekli oldu\u011fu hususu ortaya koyulmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131 mercileri kararlar\u0131nda da ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan disiplin soru\u015fturmas\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011fl\u0131kl\u0131 \u015fekilde y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclebilmesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131rma i\u015fleminin kamu yarar\u0131 ve hizmet gereklerine uygun oldu\u011fu \u015feklinde genel ve soyut bir gerek\u00e7eye yer verilmekle yetinilmi\u015ftir. Kararlarda ba\u015fvurucunun mesleki \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n akamete u\u011framas\u0131 ve akademik itibar\u0131n\u0131n zarar g\u00f6rmesi gibi \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki iddialar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir de\u011ferlendirme de yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu do\u011frultuda ba\u015fvuruya konu olan iptal i\u015fleminin somut olay ve olgulara dayand\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve m\u00fcdahalenin gereklili\u011finin yeterince tart\u0131\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir (benzer de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. \u00d6zgen Yal\u00e7\u0131n, B.No:2019\/16849, 18\/10\/2023).<\/p>\n
23. S\u00f6z konusu m\u00fcdahalenin ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6zel hayat\u0131nda do\u011furabilece\u011fi olumsuz etkiler de g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde idari ve yarg\u0131sal organlar taraf\u0131ndan konunun t\u00fcm y\u00f6nleriyle ele al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve m\u00fcdahalenin zorunlu bir toplumsal ihtiyac\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda ikna edici nitelikte ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7elerin ortaya koyuldu\u011funu s\u00f6ylemek g\u00fc\u00e7t\u00fcr. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla somut olaydaki m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine uygunluk \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
24. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti, yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131, miktar belirtmeksizin tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
26. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu kapsamda karar\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flatmak ve Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gideren, ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun yeni bir karar vermektir (6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 50. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen bireysel ba\u015fvuruya \u00f6zg\u00fc yeniden yarg\u0131lama kurumunun \u00f6zelliklerine ili\u015fkin kapsaml\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamalar i\u00e7in bkz. 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
27. \u00d6te yandan ihlalin niteli\u011fi dikkate al\u0131narak ba\u015fvurucuya 30.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 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 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR’\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
C. \u00d6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin \u0130zmir 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2017\/1254, K.2017\/2316) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucuya net 30.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 294,70 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.294,70 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \u00d6demelerin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 27\/11\/2024 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu, disiplin soru\u015fturmas\u0131 devam ederken g\u00f6revinden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f, Say\u0131n Mahkemece \u00e7o\u011funluk taraf\u0131ndan Ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 20. maddesindeki \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. A\u015fa\u011f\u0131da belirtti\u011fimiz gerek\u00e7elerle \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lm\u0131yorum.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda, \u00dcniversitede profes\u00f6r unvan\u0131 ile g\u00f6rev yapmakta iken kamuoyunda \u201cBar\u0131\u015f \u0130\u00e7in Akademisyenler Bildirisi\u201d olarak bilinen 11.01.2016 tarihli bildiriye imza att\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esi ile 15.01.2016 tarihinde hakk\u0131nda disiplin soru\u015fturmas\u0131 ba\u015flam\u0131\u015f ve yine ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc propagandas\u0131 yapma su\u00e7undan da ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131 ba\u015flat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00dcniversite Rekt\u00f6rl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan 667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK\u2019n\u0131n 4. maddesinin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca iki ay s\u00fcre ile g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 idare mahkemesinde a\u00e7\u0131lan davada Mahkeme, 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunu8n 137.,138. ve 140. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca soru\u015fturman\u0131n selameti a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan memurun g\u00f6revinden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131labilece\u011fi belirtilerek reddedilmi\u015f, bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan istinaf talebi B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesince esastan reddedilerek kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu daha sonra 701 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK\u2019n\u0131n ekli listesine g\u00f6re kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan dava reddedilmi\u015f olup, istinaf incelemesi devam etmektedir.<\/p>\n
667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK\u2019n\u0131n 4. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctlerine veya Milli G\u00fcvenlik Kurulunca Devletin milli g\u00fcvenli\u011fine kar\u015f\u0131 faaliyette bulundu\u011funa karar verilen yap\u0131, olu\u015fum veya gruplara \u00fcyeli\u011fi, mensubiyeti veya iltisak\u0131 yahut bunlarla irtibat\u0131 oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilen kamu g\u00f6revlilerinin ayn\u0131 maddede belirtilen usuller \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Devlet Memurlar\u0131 Kanununun 137. maddesine g\u00f6re \u201cG\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131rma, Devlet kamu hizmetlerinin gerektirdi\u011fi hallerde, g\u00f6revi ba\u015f\u0131nda kalmas\u0131nda sak\u0131nca g\u00f6r\u00fclecek Devlet memurlar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda al\u0131nan ihtiyati bir tedbirdir. G\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131rma tedbiri, soru\u015fturman\u0131n herhangi bir safhas\u0131nda da al\u0131nabilir\u201d. Yine ayn\u0131 Kanunun 140. maddesinde, \u201cHaklar\u0131nda mahkemelerce cezai kovu\u015fturma yap\u0131lan Devlet memurlar\u0131 da 138 inci maddedeki yetkililer taraf\u0131ndan g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131labilirler\u201d d\u00fczenlemesi yer almaktad\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re, Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda hem disiplin soru\u015fturmas\u0131 hem de ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 nazara al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun 137. ve 140. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131rma tedbirinin uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131n kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fc gerekir.<\/p>\n
G\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131rma sadece delillerin toplanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in de\u011fil, soru\u015fturman\u0131n niteli\u011fine g\u00f6re, \u00dcniversite b\u00fcnyesinde g\u00fcvenlik ihlaline sebebiyet verilmemesi, e\u011fitim-\u00f6\u011fretim faaliyetinin aksamamas\u0131 gibi nedenlerle de uygulanan bir tedbirdir. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda disiplin soru\u015fturmas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131na sebebiyet veren bildiriyi destekleyen \u00f6\u011frenciler ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar oldu\u011fu gibi aksi y\u00f6nde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fte olan \u00f6\u011frenciler ve akademisyenler de mevcuttur. Bu nedenle \u00dcniversite b\u00fcnyesinde g\u00fcvenlik a\u00e7\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015fmamas\u0131, \u00f6\u011frenciler ile \u00f6\u011fretim \u00fcyesi olan Ba\u015fvurucu aras\u0131nda tart\u0131\u015fma ya\u015fanmamas\u0131 gibi nedenlerle \u00dcniversite Rekt\u00f6rl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131rma tedbirine ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 zorunlu bir toplumsal ihtiyac\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131layan ve me\u015fru amac\u0131 olan bir uygulamad\u0131r. Yine g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131rma tedbirinin iki ay s\u00fcreli oldu\u011fu nazara al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6zel hayat\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 oldu\u011fu, a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklemedi\u011fi ve bu ba\u011flamda kamunun menfaati ile ba\u015fvurucunun ki\u015fisel menfaati aras\u0131nda adil denge kurulmu\u015f oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fc gerekir.<\/p>\n
Anayasa Mahkemesinin yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131nda belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere, delillerin de\u011ferlendirilmesi ve hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincilli\u011fi ilkesi yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 yapan derece mahkemelerinin g\u00f6revidir. Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi ise, derece mahkemelerinin yorumlar\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a keyfi veya bariz takdir hatas\u0131 i\u00e7erecek nitelikte olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 incelemektir. G\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131rma i\u015fleminin iptaline ili\u015fkin davada mahkeme s\u00f6z konusu kanun maddelerini somut olay a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan de\u011ferlendirmi\u015f, karar\u0131n\u0131 gerek\u00e7elendirmi\u015f ve h\u00fck\u00fcm kurmu\u015ftur. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi de usul ve yasaya uygun olan yerel mahkeme karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Mahkemenin gerek\u00e7esi incelendi\u011finde yukar\u0131da yer verilen hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131nda bariz takdir hatas\u0131 veya a\u00e7\u0131k bir keyfilik mevcut de\u011fildir. Bu nedenle de \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurunun konusu, y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen disiplin soru\u015fturmas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda uygulanan g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131rma tedbirine ili\u015fkin olup, Ba\u015fvurucunun 701 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK ile kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u015fbu ba\u015fvurunun konusu de\u011fildir. Hal b\u00f6yle olunca 667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK ya da 701 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK h\u00fck\u00fcmleri \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ayr\u0131 bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Yukar\u0131da belirtilen nedenlerle, Ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi \u015feklindeki \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lm\u0131yorum.<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 27\/11\/2024 tarihli ve 2018\/25425 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 \u0130ZGE HAKAN G\u00dcNAL BA\u015eVURUSU (2) (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2018\/25425) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 27\/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 : Ali KOZAN Ba\u015fvurucu : \u0130zge Hakan G\u00dcNAL Vekili : Av. Murat Fatih \u00dcLK\u00dc \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, bir grup akademisyen taraf\u0131ndan yay\u0131mlanan bir bildiriye imza atan ba\u015fvurucunun soru\u015fturma devam ederken g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, Dokuz Eyl\u00fcl \u00dcniversitesi T\u0131p Fak\u00fcltesi Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Ana Dilim Dal\u0131nda profes\u00f6r doktor unvan\u0131yla \u00f6\u011fretim \u00fcyesi olarak g\u00f6rev yapmakta iken kamuoyunda “Bar\u0131\u015f \u0130\u00e7in Akademisyenler Bildirisi” olarak bilinen 11\/1\/2016 tarihli bildiriye imza att\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle 15\/1\/2016 tarihinde hakk\u0131nda disiplin soru\u015fturmas\u0131 ve ayr\u0131ca ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc propagandas\u0131 yapma su\u00e7undan da ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131 ba\u015flat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Dokuz Eyl\u00fcl \u00dcniversitesi Rekt\u00f6rl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki an\u0131lan ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131 gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek 22\/7\/2016 tarihli ve 667 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc H\u00e2l Kapsam\u0131nda Al\u0131nan Tedbirlere \u0130li\u015fkin Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin (667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) 4. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca ba\u015fvurucunun iki ay s\u00fcreyle g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na 23\/6\/2017 tarihinde karar verilmi\u015ftir. 4. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan idari i\u015fleme kar\u015f\u0131 26\/7\/2017 tarihinde \u0130zmir 2. …<\/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-30455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n