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
M. B. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/39725)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 11\/12\/2024<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/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
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Murat BA\u015ePINAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekilleri<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1. Av. Suat ARMER<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
2. Av. Vedat YAL\u00c7IN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, kasten \u00f6ld\u00fcrme su\u00e7undan verilen mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan temyiz ba\u015fvurusunda duru\u015fmal\u0131 inceleme talebinin de\u011ferlendirilmemesi nedeniyle s\u00f6zl\u00fc yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru 15\/12\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
6. Gaziantep Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 7\/6\/2013 tarihli iddianamesinin kabul\u00fc ile ba\u015fvurucu ile baz\u0131 \u015f\u00fcpheliler hakk\u0131nda kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Gaziantep 3. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince (Mahkeme) g\u00f6r\u00fclen yarg\u0131lamada 10 celse yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve2\/10\/2014 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun kasten \u00f6ld\u00fcrmeye yard\u0131m etme su\u00e7undan be\u015f kez 20 y\u0131l hapis cezas\u0131 ve kasten yaralamaya yard\u0131m su\u00e7undan da 1 y\u0131l 8 ay hapis cezas\u0131yla cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 temyiz kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Temyiz ba\u015fvurusunu Yarg\u0131tay 1. Ceza Dairesi (Daire) 28\/3\/2018 tarihinde incelemi\u015f ve ba\u015fvurucuyla di\u011fer t\u00fcm san\u0131klar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden verilen h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin bozulmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Bozma sonras\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama ise \u00fc\u00e7 celse yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve 23\/11\/2018 tarihli celsede ba\u015fvurucunun bu kez kasten \u00f6ld\u00fcrmeye yard\u0131m etme su\u00e7undan be\u015f kez 15 y\u0131l hapis cezas\u0131yla cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiinin y\u00fcz\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 verilen h\u00fck\u00fcmlere y\u00f6nelik ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafii 26\/11\/2018 tarihinde kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmak \u00fczere s\u00fcre tutum dilek\u00e7esi vermi\u015f ve gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini talep etmi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131n tebli\u011f edilmesi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafiince 8\/2\/2019 tarihinde gerek\u00e7eli temyiz dilek\u00e7esi Mahkemeye sunulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
10. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fcdafii 4\/7\/2019 tarihinde Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sisteminden (UYAP) g\u00f6nderdi\u011fi ve yine UYAP’a kayd\u0131 yap\u0131lan ek temyiz dilek\u00e7esiyle temyiz incelemesinde duru\u015fmal\u0131 inceleme talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
11. Dairece temyiz incelemesi 15\/9\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda verilen mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fck\u00fcmleri onanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dairece yap\u0131lan temyiz incelemesinin bireysel ba\u015fvurusu bulunmayan di\u011fer bir san\u0131k M.D. y\u00f6n\u00fcnden duru\u015fmal\u0131, di\u011fer san\u0131klar ve ba\u015fvurucu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise duru\u015fmas\u0131z olarak dosya \u00fczerinden inceleme sonucu yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Toplanan deliller karar yerinde incelenip, san\u0131k [A.\u00c7.nin] maktuller [A.D.], [M.K.D.], [H.\u015e.D.], [E.S.] ve [Z.E.\u00d6.y\u00fc] kasten \u00f6ld\u00fcrme ve san\u0131klar [M.D.], [M.N.\u00c7] ve Merve Berrin [Bostan’\u0131n] maktuller [A.D.], [M.K.D], [H.\u015e.D], [E.S.] ve [Z.E.\u00d6.y\u00fc] kasten \u00f6ld\u00fcrmeye yard\u0131m etme su\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcbutu kabul, olu\u015fa ve soru\u015fturma sonu\u00e7lar\u0131na uygun \u015fekilde su\u00e7lar\u0131n niteli\u011fi tayin edilmi\u015f, cezalar\u0131 azalt\u0131c\u0131 bir sebep bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdir k\u0131l\u0131nm\u0131\u015f, savunmalar\u0131 inand\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 gerek\u00e7elerle reddedilmi\u015f, incelenen dosyaya g\u00f6re bozmaya uyularak verilen h\u00fck\u00fcmlerde d\u00fczeltme nedenleri d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bir isabetsizlik g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011finden, san\u0131k Merve Berrin Bostan m\u00fcdafiinin s\u00fcbuta ve haks\u0131z tahrike, san\u0131k [M.D.] m\u00fcdafiinin temyiz dilek\u00e7esindeki ve duru\u015fmal\u0131 incelemedeki san\u0131k [M.nin] i\u015ftirak iradesi g\u00f6stermedi\u011fine y\u00f6nelen ve yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmeyen sair temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n reddiyle, <\/p>\n
A) San\u0131klar [A.\u00c7.] ve Merve Berrin Bostan hakk\u0131nda kurulan mahkumiyet h\u00fck\u00fcmleri bak\u0131m\u0131ndan;<\/p>\n
San\u0131k [A.\u00c7.] hakk\u0131nda maktullere kar\u015f\u0131 kasten \u00f6ld\u00fcrme ve San\u0131k Merve Berrin Bostan hakk\u0131nda maktullere kar\u015f\u0131 kasten \u00f6ld\u00fcrmeye yard\u0131m etme su\u00e7lar\u0131ndan kurulan re’sen de temyize tabi olan mahkumiyet h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin tebli\u011fnamedeki d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceye uygun olarak ONANMASINA,<\/p>\n
…,15\/09\/2020 g\u00fcn\u00fcnde oy birli\u011fi ile karar verildi.<\/p>\n
15\/09\/2020 g\u00fcn\u00fcnde verilen i\u015f bu karar Yarg\u0131tay Cumhuriyet Savc\u0131s\u0131 [S.K.n\u0131n] huzurunda ve duru\u015fmada savunmas\u0131n\u0131 yapm\u0131\u015f bulunan san\u0131k [M.D.] m\u00fcdafii Avukat [B.D.nin] yoklu\u011funda 24\/09\/2020 g\u00fcn\u00fcnde usulen ve a\u00e7\u0131k olarak anlat\u0131ld\u0131.”<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucu 17\/11\/2020 tarihinde nihai karar\u0131 UYAP’tan \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 15\/12\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
13. Bireysel ba\u015fvuru Komisyon a\u015famas\u0131nda incelenirken 28\/9\/2022 tarihindeki yaz\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucu ve\/veya m\u00fcdafii taraf\u0131ndan temyiz isteminin duru\u015fmal\u0131 yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n talep edilip edilmedi\u011fi, duru\u015fma a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda duru\u015fma g\u00fcn ve saatini bildirir tebligat\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu ve\/veya m\u00fcdafiine tebli\u011f edilip edilmedi\u011fi, edilmi\u015fse tebligat par\u00e7as\u0131n\u0131n bir suretinin g\u00f6nderilmesi Daireden istenilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. Daire an\u0131lan yaz\u0131ya 6\/10\/2022 tarihli verdi\u011fi cevapta ba\u015fvurucu ya da m\u00fcdafii taraf\u0131ndan temyiz isteminin duru\u015fmal\u0131 yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n talep edilmedi\u011fi, duru\u015fman\u0131n yaln\u0131zca san\u0131k M.D. y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle de ba\u015fvurucu veya m\u00fcdafiine duru\u015fma tebligat\u0131 g\u00f6nderilmedi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
15. 4\/4\/1929 tarihli ve m\u00fclga 1412 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemeleri Usul\u00fc Kanunu’nun “A\u011f\u0131r ceza h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin tetkikinde duru\u015fma” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 318. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“A\u011f\u0131r cezaya m\u00fctaallik h\u00fck\u00fcmlerde Temyiz Mahkemesi tetkikat\u0131n\u0131 maznunun temyiz istidas\u0131ndaki talebi \u00fczerine veya dilerse resen duru\u015fma icras\u0131 suretiyle yapar. Duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fcnden maznuna veya talebi \u00fczerine m\u00fcdafiine haber verilir. Maznun duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r olabilece\u011fi gibi kendisini vekaletnameyi haiz bir m\u00fcdafi ile de temsil ettirebilir.”<\/p>\n
16. 4\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun “Duru\u015fmal\u0131 inceleme” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 299. maddesinin (1) ve (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kralar\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201c(1) On y\u0131l veya daha fazla hapis cezas\u0131na ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmlerde, Yarg\u0131tay, incelemelerini uygun g\u00f6rmesi halinde duru\u015fma yoluyla yapabilir. Duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fcnden san\u0131\u011fa, kat\u0131lana, m\u00fcdafi ve vekile haber verilir. San\u0131k, duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r bulunabilece\u011fi gibi, kendisini bir m\u00fcdafi ile de temsil ettirebilir.<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201c(2) San\u0131k, tutuklu ise duru\u015fmaya kat\u0131lmak isteminde bulunamaz.<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
17. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 11\/12\/2024 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130ddialar\u0131 ve Bakanl\u0131k G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu; kasten \u00f6ld\u00fcrme su\u00e7undan verilen mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan temyiz ba\u015fvurusunda duru\u015fmal\u0131 inceleme talebinin de\u011ferlendirilmedi\u011fini, temyiz incelemesinin di\u011fer bir san\u0131k y\u00f6n\u00fcnden duru\u015fmal\u0131 yap\u0131lmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n kendilerine duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fcn bildirilmedi\u011fini, s\u00f6zl\u00fc savunma ve duru\u015fma taleplerinin de\u011ferlendirilmemesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
19. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; ba\u015fvuruda \u00f6ncelikle 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu Ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun ve \u0130\u00e7t\u00fcz\u00fck’te belirtilen kabul edilebilirlik \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lan\u0131p kar\u015f\u0131lanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi, \u015fik\u00e2yetin esas\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak da adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi konusunda yap\u0131lacak incelemede Anayasa ve mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri do\u011frultusunda somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvurucu vekili, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
B. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
21. Anayasa’n\u0131n \u201cHak arama h\u00fcrriyeti\u201d kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201cHerkes, me\u015fru vas\u0131ta ve yollardan faydalanmak suretiyle yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddia ve savunma ile adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na sahiptir.\u201d<\/p>\n
22. 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\u0131, temyize ili\u015fkin beyanlar\u0131n\u0131 ve savunmas\u0131n\u0131 duru\u015fma s\u0131ras\u0131nda dile getirme imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n kendisine tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fundan ba\u015fvuru adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki s\u00f6zl\u00fc yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmi\u015ftir (Talet \u015eanl\u0131 [GK], B. No: 2017\/20526, 17\/1\/2023, \u00a7 44).<\/p>\n
1. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
23. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011finden s\u00f6zl\u00fc yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
2. Esas Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
24. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n temel unsurlar\u0131ndan biri de yarg\u0131laman\u0131n kamuya a\u00e7\u0131k olarak duru\u015fmal\u0131 yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ilkesidir. Bunun yan\u0131nda Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 141. maddesinde de yarg\u0131laman\u0131n kamuya a\u00e7\u0131k olarak duru\u015fmal\u0131 yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ilkesi a\u00e7\u0131k olarak belirtilmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucu; yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davan\u0131n dinlenmesi hakk\u0131na, bu ba\u011flamda di\u011fer hususlar\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra savunma yapma, aleyhindeki ifadeleri dinleme, tan\u0131klar\u0131 sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2nlar\u0131na sahip olmal\u0131d\u0131r (Muhsin H\u00fck\u00fcmdar, B. No: 2016\/15853, 7\/11\/2019, \u00a7 37).<\/p>\n
25. Bununla birlikte duru\u015fma yapma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, mutlak bir y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck de\u011fildir. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin su\u00e7 isnad\u0131na ili\u015fkin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klara dair boyutu geleneksel ceza hukuku kategorilerine d\u00e2hil olmayan idari yapt\u0131r\u0131ma veya vergi cezalar\u0131na ili\u015fkin davalar\u0131 da kapsayacak \u015fekilde otonom bir bi\u00e7imde yorumlanmaktad\u0131r. Bu sebeple a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131klar\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 nitelikte olan su\u00e7 isnad\u0131na ili\u015fkin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k kategorileri mevcuttur. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenceleri, ceza hukukunun \u00e7ekirde\u011fini olu\u015fturan konularda daha kat\u0131 bir bi\u00e7imde uygulanmas\u0131 gerekmekte iken bu kategoriye girmeyen ve gerek korudu\u011fu hukuki menfaat gerekse de \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc yapt\u0131r\u0131m itibar\u0131yla daha hafif nitelikteki dava kategorilerine mutlak surette en kat\u0131 h\u00e2liyle uygulanmaz. Bu sebeple ceza alan\u0131ndaki her davada duru\u015fma yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n gerekli olmayabilece\u011fi kabul edilmelidir (Muhsin H\u00fck\u00fcmdar, \u00a7 38)<\/p>\n
26. Anayasa Mahkemesi Talet \u015eanl\u0131 karar\u0131nda s\u00f6zl\u00fc yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n kapsam\u0131n\u0131 ve genel ilkelerini belirlemi\u015ftir (Talet \u015eanl\u0131 [GK], B. No: 2017\/20526, 17\/1\/2023, \u00a7\u00a7 50-56). S\u00f6zl\u00fc yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 hem savunma hakk\u0131n\u0131n etkin bir \u015fekilde kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamakta hem de silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerine i\u015flerlik kazand\u0131rmaktad\u0131r. An\u0131lan hak, sadece duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r bulunmay\u0131 de\u011fil duru\u015fma s\u00fcrecini dinlemeyi, takip etmeyi, iddia\/savunmalar\u0131 destekleyecek olgu ve delilleri ileri s\u00fcrmeyi de i\u00e7erir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r bulunma hakk\u0131n\u0131n taraflar\u0131n yarg\u0131lamaya etkili kat\u0131lmalar\u0131 ile do\u011frudan ili\u015fkisi vard\u0131r. B\u00f6ylelikle taraflar g\u00f6sterdikleri kan\u0131tlardan ve sunduklar\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerden bilgi sahibi olmakta ve bunlarla ilgili g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerini bildirebilme imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131 elde etmektedir (Talet \u015eanl\u0131, \u00a7 50). \u00d6te yandan ilk derece mahkemeleri \u00f6n\u00fcnde duru\u015fmal\u0131 yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131l\u0131p karar verildikten sonra kanun yolu incelemesinin duru\u015fmas\u0131z yap\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde do\u011frudan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 ihlal edilmi\u015f olmaz (Nevruz Bozkurt, B. No: 2013\/664, 17\/9\/2013, \u00a7 32; Feyyaz Bayram, B. No: 2014\/7822, 16\/11\/2016, \u00a7 84-86). Adil yarg\u0131lama hakk\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer g\u00fcvencelerine uyulmak kayd\u0131yla usul ekonomisi ve i\u015f y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn azalt\u0131lmas\u0131 gibi ama\u00e7larla baz\u0131 yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131n duru\u015fmadan istisna tutulmas\u0131 ve duru\u015fma yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131n tek ba\u015f\u0131na ihlale yol a\u00e7mayaca\u011f\u0131 da kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Anayasa Mahkemesi nihai olarak duru\u015fma yap\u0131lmamas\u0131n\u0131n bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetini zedeleyip zedelemedi\u011fini g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulunduracakt\u0131r (benzer y\u00f6ndeki kararlar i\u00e7in bkz. Adnan Alt\u0131n, B. No: 2013\/9748, 7\/1\/2016; Mustafa Do\u011fan, B. No: 2014\/1836, 28\/9\/2016; Peyote M\u00fczik Film Org. Tur. G\u0131da San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2013\/9345, 7\/7\/2015; Fatih Birol ve Remziye Birol, B. No: 2013\/19, 7\/3\/2014; Talet \u015eanl\u0131, \u00a7\u00a7 50, 52).<\/p>\n
27. Temyiz talebinin duru\u015fmal\u0131 incelenmesi 1412 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 318. maddesinde “A\u011f\u0131r cezaya m\u00fctaallik h\u00fck\u00fcmlerde Temyiz Mahkemesi tetkikat\u0131n\u0131 maznunun temyiz istidas\u0131ndaki talebi \u00fczerine veya dilerse resen duru\u015fma icras\u0131 suretiyle yapar. Duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fcnden maznuna veya talebi \u00fczerine m\u00fcdafiine haber verilir. Maznun duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r olabilece\u011fi gibi kendisini vekaletnameyi haiz bir m\u00fcdafi ile de temsil ettirebilir” \u015feklinde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 299. maddesinde ise on y\u0131l veya daha fazla hapis cezas\u0131na ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmlerde, Yarg\u0131tay’\u0131n uygun g\u00f6rmesi halinde incelemelerini duru\u015fma yoluyla yapabilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 15-16). \u0130stinaf mahkemelerinin faaliyete ge\u00e7melerinden \u00f6nceki bir tarih olan 2\/10\/2014 tarihinde ilk mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn kurulmu\u015f olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, temyize ili\u015fkin usul h\u00fck\u00fcmleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 23\/3\/2005 tarihli ve 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun 8. maddesi uyar\u0131nca 1412 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re temyiz incelemesi yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Her iki Kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re de temyiz incelemesinde di\u011fer ko\u015fullar mevcut olsa bile duru\u015fmal\u0131 inceleme yapma yetkisinin Yarg\u0131tay Dairesinin takdirinde oldu\u011fu da a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
28. Somut olayda, ba\u015fvurucu yasal s\u00fcresi i\u00e7erisinde temyiz kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmak \u00fczere s\u00fcre tutum dilek\u00e7esi vermi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131n tebli\u011fi sonras\u0131nda da gerek\u00e7eli temyiz dilek\u00e7esini ibraz etmi\u015ftir. Dosya incelenmek \u00fczere Yarg\u0131taya g\u00f6nderildikten sonra ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafi 4\/7\/2019 tarihinde UYAP’tan g\u00f6nderdi\u011fi ek temyiz dilek\u00e7esiyle duru\u015fmal\u0131 inceleme talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur (bkz. \u00a7 10). Temyiz incelemesi yapan Daire an\u0131lan dilek\u00e7eyi de\u011ferlendirmeden, ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafiinin verdi\u011fi s\u00fcre tutum ve gerek\u00e7eli temyiz dilek\u00e7elerine g\u00f6re incelemesini ba\u015fvurucu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden duru\u015fmas\u0131z ve dosya \u00fczerinden tamamlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Hatta birden fazla san\u0131k bulunan dosyada ba\u015fka bir san\u0131k y\u00f6n\u00fcnden temyiz duru\u015fmas\u0131 yap\u0131lmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n, ba\u015fvurucuya belirtilen duru\u015fmaya ili\u015fkin herhangi bir tebligat ya da bildirim yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 Dairece ifade edilmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7 14).<\/p>\n
29. Ba\u015fvurucu, ilk derece Mahkemesinde duru\u015fmal\u0131 olarak yarg\u0131lanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131tay bozma karar\u0131 \u00f6ncesi ve sonras\u0131ndaki bu a\u015famalarda yap\u0131lan toplam on \u00fc\u00e7 celsede ba\u015fvurucu s\u00f6z konusu iddialar\u0131n\u0131 dile getirebilecek bir\u00e7ok f\u0131rsat yakalam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvuru formunda, temyiz a\u015famas\u0131nda da duru\u015fma a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektiren hangi yeni veya de\u011fi\u015fen ko\u015fullar\u0131n bulundu\u011fu veya hangi gerek\u00e7elerle yeniden duru\u015fma a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi konusunda bir a\u00e7\u0131klama yapmam\u0131\u015f, genel itibar\u0131yla \u00f6nceki savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 tekrar etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun kendisine iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 olarak sunma ve aleyhindeki delillere itiraz etme imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ya da zorla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair bir iddias\u0131 da bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bu durumda temyiz mercii, her ne kadar duru\u015fmal\u0131 inceleme talebini de\u011ferlendirmemi\u015fse de bunun tek ba\u015f\u0131na ve otomatik olarak adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etmeyece\u011fi, bunun i\u00e7in yarg\u0131laman\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fcn adilli\u011finin zedelenip zedelenmedi\u011fine bak\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 (bkz. \u00a7 26) a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
30. Bu kapsamda hakk\u0131ndaki ceza miktar\u0131 itibar\u0131yla duru\u015fma a\u00e7\u0131lma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulunan ba\u015fvurucu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lan temyiz incelemesinde duru\u015fmal\u0131 inceleme yap\u0131p yapmamak hususunda takdir hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fundan hi\u00e7bir \u015f\u00fcphe bulunmayan Dairece dosya \u00fczerinden yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucu dosya, ba\u015fvurucu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden karara ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun temyiz a\u015famas\u0131nda duru\u015fma a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n hangi gerek\u00e7elerle zorunluluk olu\u015fturdu\u011fu, iddialar\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrme ve savunma yapma noktas\u0131nda yarg\u0131lamada ne \u015fekilde dezavantajl\u0131 duruma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc konusunda yeterli bir a\u00e7\u0131klama da yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, bu durumun tek ba\u015f\u0131na -somut olay\u0131n \u00f6zel ko\u015fullar\u0131nda- bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetini zedelemedi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
31. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki s\u00f6zl\u00fc yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilmedi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VI. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. S\u00f6zl\u00fc yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki s\u00f6zl\u00fc yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LMED\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde BIRAKILMASINA 11\/12\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 11\/12\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/39725 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 M. B. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/39725) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 11\/12\/2024 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Murat BA\u015ePINAR Ba\u015fvurucu : Vekilleri : 1. Av. Suat ARMER \u00a0 \u00a0 2. Av. Vedat YAL\u00c7IN \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, kasten \u00f6ld\u00fcrme su\u00e7undan verilen mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan temyiz ba\u015fvurusunda duru\u015fmal\u0131 inceleme talebinin de\u011ferlendirilmemesi nedeniyle s\u00f6zl\u00fc yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 15\/12\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. 4. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 5. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir: 6. Gaziantep Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 7\/6\/2013 tarihli iddianamesinin kabul\u00fc ile ba\u015fvurucu ile baz\u0131 \u015f\u00fcpheliler hakk\u0131nda kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Gaziantep 3. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince (Mahkeme) g\u00f6r\u00fclen yarg\u0131lamada 10 celse yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve2\/10\/2014 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun kasten \u00f6ld\u00fcrmeye yard\u0131m etme su\u00e7undan be\u015f kez 20 y\u0131l hapis cezas\u0131 ve kasten yaralamaya yard\u0131m su\u00e7undan da 1 y\u0131l 8 ay …<\/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-33208","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n