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
A.\u00a0Y. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/8087)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 22\/1\/2025<\/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
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/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
Mehmet AKTEPE<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Abdullatif SERT<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, ByLock deliline ili\u015fkin veriler \u00fczerinde bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, Ceza ve Tevkifevleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde genel m\u00fcd\u00fcr yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 olarak g\u00f6rev yapmakta iken H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Kurulunun 27\/9\/2016 tarihli kararnamesi ile Yarg\u0131tay tetkik h\u00e2kimi olarak atanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Sonras\u0131nda H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Kurulunun 15\/11\/2016 tarihli karar\u0131yla da meslekten \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nca (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131na (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcye olma su\u00e7unu i\u015fledi\u011fi \u015f\u00fcphesiyle soru\u015fturma ba\u015flat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Soru\u015fturma a\u015famas\u0131nda Ka\u00e7ak\u00e7\u0131l\u0131k ve Organize Su\u00e7larla M\u00fccadele Daire Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nca Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011fa g\u00f6nderilen 22\/5\/2017 tarihli yaz\u0131 ekinde yer alan tutanakta, ba\u015fvurucunun ByLock abone listesinin 118.719. s\u0131ras\u0131nda oldu\u011fu, tespit edilen GSM aboneli\u011finin 532…36 ve tespit edilen cihaza ait IMEI numaras\u0131n\u0131n 35…60 oldu\u011fu, ByLock tespit edilen ilk tarihin de 30\/11\/2014 oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Soru\u015fturma sonucunda Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle 21\/7\/2017 tarihli iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015ftir. \u0130ddianamede \u00f6zetle ba\u015fvurucunun kendi ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 cep telefonu hatt\u0131ndan ByLock program\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve aleyhinde tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131 bulundu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
4. \u0130ddianamenin kabul\u00fc ile a\u00e7\u0131lan dava, Ankara 21. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) g\u00f6r\u00fclmeye ba\u015flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131lamada 7\/8\/2017 tarihinde duru\u015fma haz\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flemleri yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tensip Tutana\u011f\u0131’nda -di\u011ferlerinin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra- ba\u015fvurucunun kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 532…36 numaral\u0131 telefon hatt\u0131na ait 1\/1\/2014-28\/10\/2016 tarihleri aras\u0131ndaki internet trafik bilgilerinin incelenerek ByLock IP numaralar\u0131ndan herhangi birinin bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve ayn\u0131 tarihler aras\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucuya ait HTS kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n Bilgi Teknolojileri ve \u0130leti\u015fim Kurumu Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan (BTK) sorulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca Emniyet Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131larak ba\u015fvurucunun ByLock program\u0131 kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, hangi tarihler aras\u0131nda bu sistemi kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131, an\u0131lan programa telefon hatt\u0131 \u00fczerinden mi yoksa kablosuz a\u011f \u00fczerinden mi giri\u015f yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu sistem \u00fczerinden g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcp g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmedi\u011fi ve mesajla\u015f\u0131p mesajla\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bunlar\u0131 yapm\u0131\u015f ise hangi tarihler aras\u0131nda yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, ayr\u0131ca varsa konu\u015fma ya da mesaj i\u00e7eriklerinin tespit edilmesinin istenmesine ve duru\u015fman\u0131n 26\/10\/2017 tarihinde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, duru\u015fman\u0131n ilk celsesinde m\u00fcdafiinin de haz\u0131r bulunmas\u0131yla savunma yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tan\u0131k K.Y.nin beyanlar\u0131 8\/1\/2018 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafiinin de kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131yla istinabe mahkemesi olan Banaz Asliye Ceza Mahkemesinde al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafiine tan\u0131\u011fa soru sorma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n al\u0131nan beyan\u0131 ikinci celsede ba\u015fvurucuya okunmu\u015ftur. Tan\u0131k K.Y. beyan\u0131nda \u00f6zetle daha \u00f6ncesinde ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k g\u00f6revi yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucu ile tan\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011funu, infaz koruma memuru al\u0131mlar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun baz\u0131 ki\u015filere referans olmak amac\u0131yla kendisini arad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, referanslar\u0131n aranma bi\u00e7imi itibar\u0131yla FET\u00d6\/PDY’ye y\u00f6nelik referans olma y\u00f6n\u00fcnde kendisinde kan\u0131 olu\u015ftu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Ancak ba\u015fvurucunun bizzat FET\u00d6\/PDY’ye ba\u011fl\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair bilgisinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, somut olarak ba\u015fvurucunun kendisine do\u011frudan “bu bizim adam” \u015feklinde bir telkini olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bildirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc celsede tan\u0131k \u015e.M.\u00c7. Ses ve G\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc Bili\u015fim Sistemi (SEGB\u0130S) vas\u0131tas\u0131yla Mahkemece dinlenmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131k \u00f6zetle Mill\u00ee E\u011fitim Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 okulda \u00f6\u011fretmen olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131rken Samsun’da \u00f6\u011fretmenlik yapan D.K.n\u0131n kendisini Denetimli Serbestlik M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ge\u00e7mesi konusunda y\u00f6nlendirdi\u011fini, bu ki\u015finin “Sen m\u00fclakata gideceksin, i\u015fini ayarlad\u0131k.” dedi\u011fini, daha sonra ba\u015fvurucu ile m\u00fclakat yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fclakat\u0131n\u0131n olumlu sonu\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) atamas\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, Bakanl\u0131\u011fa ge\u00e7i\u015finin kendisinin bu yap\u0131yla irtibat\u0131 bulunmas\u0131 nedeniyle olabilece\u011fini, ba\u015fvurucu ile ilgili olarak bilgiye ve g\u00f6rg\u00fcye dayal\u0131 bir bilgisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. D\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc celsede tan\u0131k M.\u00dc. SEGB\u0130S vas\u0131tas\u0131yla Mahkemece dinlenmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131k \u00f6zetle \u0130stanbul E\u011fitim Merkezinde 2010 y\u0131l\u0131ndan 2014 y\u0131l\u0131 Ocak ay\u0131 sonuna kadar \u00f6\u011fretim g\u00f6revlisi olarak g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ba\u015fkan yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 h\u00e2kim C.G.nin \u00f6zellikle tayinleri \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131rken “Ali’ye s\u00f6yl\u00fcyoruz, Ali’ye ediyoruz.” dedi\u011fini, o d\u00f6nem personelden sorumlu genel m\u00fcd\u00fcr yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu oldu\u011funu, Ceza Tevkif Evleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tayinlerin \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lmas\u0131, i\u015fe al\u0131nan personele m\u00fclakatlar\u0131nda yard\u0131mc\u0131 olunmas\u0131 gibi bir\u00e7ok i\u015flemde ba\u015fvurucunun isminin ge\u00e7ti\u011fini, tayin ve atamayla ilgili i\u015flerin ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinden y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc C.G.nin kendisine bizzat s\u00f6yledi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Bunlara ek olarak tan\u0131k M.\u00dc. 2010-2012 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki d\u00f6nemde sohbetlere kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, sohbetlerin birinde sohbet veren ki\u015finin \u015fube m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc olarak atanma talebi olan H.T. diye birinin ismini ba\u015fkan yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131na iletmesini istedi\u011fini, bu iste\u011fi C.G.ye iletti\u011fini, C.G.nin de “Ali’ye s\u00f6yleriz, halleder.” dedi\u011fini, bir hafta on g\u00fcn sonra da o ki\u015finin tayininin \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 Anayasal D\u00fczene Kar\u015f\u0131 \u0130\u015flenen Su\u00e7lar Soru\u015fturma B\u00fcrosu ile yap\u0131lan yaz\u0131\u015fma sonucunda Mahkemeye g\u00f6nderilen 5\/11\/2018 tarihli tutanakta ba\u015fvurucunun532…36No.lu GSM hatt\u0131 \u00fczerinden 353…60 IMEI No.lu cep telefonu ile 30\/11\/2014 tarihinden itibaren ByLock sistemini kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131, ByLock \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm i\u00e7eri\u011finin hen\u00fcz bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. BTK’ dan temin edilen CGNAT kay\u0131tlar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 0532…36 numaral\u0131 GSM hatt\u0131n\u0131n 35…01 IMEI numaral\u0131 cep telefonuna tak\u0131larak kullan\u0131lmak suretiyle 30\/11\/2014-6\/3\/2015 tarihleri aras\u0131ndaki d\u00f6nemde ByLock program\u0131na internet eri\u015fiminde kullan\u0131lan IP numaralar\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131 sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edildi\u011fi bildirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucuya ait cep telefonunun Siber Su\u00e7larla M\u00fccadele Daire Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nca al\u0131nan imaj\u0131 \u00fczerinde Mahkemece yapt\u0131r\u0131lan bilirki\u015fi incelemesi sonucu tanzim edilen raporda; ByLock veri taban\u0131nda g\u00f6z\u00fcken IMEI numaras\u0131 ile incelenen cep telefonu IMEI numaras\u0131n\u0131n e\u015fle\u015fti\u011fi, cep telefonu imaj\u0131 i\u00e7eri\u011finde yer alan sistem dosyalar\u0131 incelendi\u011finde telefonun 28\/12\/2015 tarihinde fabrika ayarlar\u0131na d\u00f6nd\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, i\u015fletim sisteminin tekrar y\u00fcklendi\u011fi, eski i\u015fletim sisteminde y\u00fckl\u00fc olan verilerin kal\u0131c\u0131 olarak silinmi\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle eski i\u015fletim sistemine ait olan verilerin tespit edilemedi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Duru\u015fman\u0131n be\u015finci celsesinde Mahkeme, HTS kay\u0131tlar\u0131 ile dijital materyallere y\u00f6nelik \u00e7eli\u015fkilerin giderilmesi amac\u0131yla mukayese yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki bilirki\u015fi incelemesine ili\u015fkin t\u00fcm ara kararlar\u0131ndan karara etkisinin bulunmayaca\u011f\u0131 kanaatiyle vazge\u00e7mi\u015ftir. Ayn\u0131 celsede Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k makam\u0131nca esas hakk\u0131nda m\u00fctalaa sunulmu\u015f, ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fctalaaya kar\u015f\u0131 savunma yapmak i\u00e7in s\u00fcre talep etmesi \u00fczerine Mahkemece bu talep kabul edilerek duru\u015fmaya ara verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucu, alt\u0131nc\u0131 ve son celsede esas hakk\u0131ndaki m\u00fctalaaya kar\u015f\u0131 savunma yaparak su\u00e7lamay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. Mahkemece ba\u015fvurucunun at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7tan on y\u0131l hapis cezas\u0131yla cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Kararda; K.Y., \u015e.M.\u00c7. ve M.\u00dc. isimli tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131 ile ba\u015fvurucunun ByLock program\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin Mahkemece yap\u0131lan tespit delil olarak h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
13. Gerek\u00e7eli kararda Mahkeme, BTK’dan gelen CD’deki ileti\u015fimin tespitine ve internet eri\u015fimine ili\u015fkin kay\u0131tlar\u0131 inceleyerek ba\u015fvurucunun kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 telefon ile ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 532…36 No.lu GSM hatt\u0131 \u00fczerinden 30\/11\/2014 ile 6\/3\/2015 tarihleri aras\u0131nda ByLock hedef IP’lerine farkl\u0131 tarihlerde ve farkl\u0131 saatlerde ba\u011flant\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine vard\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca Mahkeme CGNAT ve HTS kay\u0131tlar\u0131 \u00fczerinde de inceleme yaparak ba\u015fvurucunun telefon g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeleri s\u0131ras\u0131nda al\u0131nan baz bilgilerinin CGNAT baz verileri ile uyumlu oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin tespitte bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
14. Gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“San\u0131\u011f\u0131n 532 .. 36 Nolu GSM hatt\u0131n\u0131n kendisi ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 oldu\u011fu ve kendisi taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin savunmas\u0131, ilgili GSM operat\u00f6r\u00fcnden bu hatt\u0131n san\u0131\u011f\u0131n ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin olarak getirtilen abonelik belgeleri, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n su\u00e7 delilini gizlemek amac\u0131yla [ByLock] program\u0131n\u0131 y\u00fckledi\u011fi telefonu fabrika ayarlar\u0131na d\u00f6nd\u00fcrmek suretiyle [ByLock] program\u0131n\u0131 silmesine ra\u011fmen Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nca g\u00f6nderilen belgelere g\u00f6re bu GSM hatt\u0131 ile Bylock sistemini kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve Bilgi Teknolojileri ve \u0130leti\u015fim Kurumu Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan g\u00f6nderilen HIS (CGNAT) kay\u0131tlar\u0131na g\u00f6re de ayn\u0131 hatla Bylock sistemi hedef IP’lerine ba\u011flant\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin tespitler, CGNAT kay\u0131tlar\u0131 HTS kay\u0131tlar\u0131 aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen uyum g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda san\u0131\u011f\u0131n FET\u00d6\/PDY silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc mensuplar\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131na sunulan Bylock program\u0131n\u0131 kullanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin tespitler ile tan\u0131klar [K.Y.], [M.\u00dc.] ve [\u015e.M.\u00c7.nin] a\u015famalardaki beyanlar\u0131 ile t\u00fcm dosya kapsam\u0131 bir b\u00fct\u00fcn halinde de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde , san\u0131\u011f\u0131n aksi y\u00f6ndeki savunmalar\u0131na itibar edilmemi\u015f ve san\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00f6rg\u00fct ile hiyerar\u015fik ili\u015fki i\u00e7erisine girip \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn yap\u0131lanmas\u0131yla iradi bir \u015fekilde organik bir ba\u011f olu\u015fturmak suretiyle FET\u00d6\/PDY silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7unu i\u015fledi\u011fi kanaatine var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.” <\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvurucu, istinaf ve gerek\u00e7eli temyiz dilek\u00e7elerinde -di\u011ferlerinin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra- yarg\u0131lama kapsam\u0131nda ByLock deliline ili\u015fkin veriler \u00fczerinde bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinin reddedildi\u011fini ve su\u00e7 te\u015fkil etmeyen eylemleri nedeniyle pe\u015finen su\u00e7lu kabul edilerek ByLock kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespitiyle karar verildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. H\u00fck\u00fcm, kanun yolu denetiminden ge\u00e7erek kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. Ba\u015fvuru 22\/2\/2021 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyon, adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 ve haberle\u015fme h\u00fcrriyeti d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa, an\u0131lan haklara ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131lama kapsam\u0131nda ByLock deliline ili\u015fkin veriler \u00fczerinde bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinin reddedildi\u011fini beyan ederek silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
18. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; yarg\u0131lama kapsam\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucuya iddianamede yer alan su\u00e7laman\u0131n dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturan eylemler ve deliller ile su\u00e7laman\u0131n hukuki nitelendirilmesinin anlat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, kanundan kaynakl\u0131 temel haklar\u0131n\u0131n hat\u0131rlat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. At\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7laman\u0131n hukuki niteli\u011fi, iddianameye konu eylemler ve dosyada bulunan deliller hakk\u0131nda bilgi sahibi olan ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda lehine olan hususlar\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrebildi\u011fi, aleyhine olan delillere kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kabildi\u011fi ve yarg\u0131lamaya konu olaya ili\u015fkin kendi anlat\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 mahkemeye sunabildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131 adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkeleri \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
21. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
22. Anayasa Mahkemesi Esra Sara\u00e7 Arslan ([GK], B.No:2019\/10514, 28\/12\/2022) ba\u015fvurusunda ByLock deliline ili\u015fkin veriler \u00fczerinde bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan ba\u015fvuruda ilk derece mahkemesi, ba\u015fvurucunun ByLock kay\u0131tlar\u0131 \u00fczerinde bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebini reddetmi\u015f ve ByLock sorgu sonucu raporu ile CGNAT kay\u0131tlar\u0131na istinaden ba\u015fvurucunun ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funu kabul ederek mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tay, ba\u015fvurucunun sulh ceza h\u00e2kimli\u011finde verdi\u011fi ve ByLock program\u0131n\u0131 merak\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 indirdi\u011fi ancak kullanmadan sildi\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki beyan\u0131na dayanarak ByLock tespit ve de\u011ferlendirme tutana\u011f\u0131 getirilmeden karar verilmesinin sonuca etkili olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f ve h\u00fckm\u00fc onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. An\u0131lan kararda Anayasa Mahkemesi, yarg\u0131 merciinin mahk\u00fbmiyete gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi olgular\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden sadece Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan dosyaya sunulan sorgu sonucu raporunu ve CGNAT kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131 dikkate almas\u0131n\u0131n, tutuklu yarg\u0131lanan ba\u015fvurucunun bu tutanak ve kay\u0131tlar\u0131n do\u011frulu\u011funun ve g\u00fcvenilirli\u011finin s\u0131nanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in talep etti\u011fi bilirki\u015fi incelemesinin yeterli bir inceleme\/de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmadan reddedilmesinin ba\u015fvurucuyu iddia makam\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda usule ili\u015fkin imk\u00e2nlardan yararlanma noktas\u0131nda \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde dezavantajl\u0131 konuma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc tespit etmi\u015f ve adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir (Esra Sara\u00e7 Arslan \u00a7\u00a7 55-60).<\/p>\n
23. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyeli\u011fi su\u00e7undan mahk\u00fbm olmas\u0131nda dayan\u0131lan deliller CGNAT ve HTS verileri kapsam\u0131nda ByLock program\u0131 kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 olmas\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine beyanda bulunan tan\u0131klar\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r. Tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n kapsam\u0131 g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyeli\u011fi su\u00e7undan mahk\u00fbm edilmesinde dayan\u0131lan -tek olmasa da- belirleyici delilin ByLock kullan\u0131m\u0131 iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkin veriler oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan yukar\u0131da an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
24. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU ve \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvuruda silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verildi\u011finden ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7 ve uygun g\u00f6r\u00fclen giderim g\u00f6zetilerek yarg\u0131laman\u0131n sonucu itibar\u0131yla adil olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve haberle\u015fme \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ili\u015fkin di\u011fer \u015fik\u00e2yetler hakk\u0131nda kabul edilebilirlik ve esas y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ayr\u0131ca bir inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
26. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
27. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu kapsamda karar\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flatmak ve Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gideren, ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun yeni bir karar vermektir (Mehmet Do\u011fan, 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), B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM <\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU ve \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR’\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
C. Di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n \u0130NCELENMES\u0130NE GEREK OLMADI\u011eINA,<\/p>\n
D. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Ankara 21. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (E.2017\/263, K.2018\/237) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 487,60 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.487,60 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\u0130ZUYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 22\/1\/2025 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu, karar sonucunu de\u011fi\u015ftirebilecek nitelikteki esasl\u0131 bir iddian\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015f, Say\u0131n Mahkemece yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmede \u00e7o\u011funluk taraf\u0131ndan, ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasan\u0131n 36. maddesinde yer alan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi kabul edilmi\u015ftir. A\u015fa\u011f\u0131da belirtti\u011fimiz nedenlerle \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lm\u0131yoruz. \u015e\u00f6yle ki;<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu, Ceza ve Tevkifevleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc\u2019nde genel m\u00fcd\u00fcr yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 olarak g\u00f6rev yapmakta iken Hakimler ve Savc\u0131lar Kurulu\u2019nun 27.09.2016 tarihli kararnamesi ile Yarg\u0131tay tetkik h\u00e2kimi olarak atanm\u0131\u015f, daha sonra HSK\u2019n\u0131n 15.11.2016 tarihli karar\u0131 ile meslekten \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda FET\u00d6\/PDY \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan soru\u015fturma ba\u015flat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve 21.07.2017 tarihli iddianame d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f, iddianamenin a\u011f\u0131r ceza mahkemesince kabul\u00fc ile dava g\u00f6r\u00fclmeye ba\u015flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu ilk celsede m\u00fcdafinin bulunmas\u0131 ile savunma yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafinin de kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 ile tan\u0131k K.Y.\u2019nin istinabe yoluyla beyan\u0131 al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f, m\u00fcdafinin tan\u0131\u011fa soru sorma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc celsede tan\u0131k \u015e.M.\u00c7, SEGB\u0130S vas\u0131tas\u0131 ile dinlenmi\u015f, d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc celsede ise tan\u0131k M.\u00dc. SEGB\u0130S vas\u0131tas\u0131 ile dinlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun atama ve tayin i\u015flerinde rol oynad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ortaya konulmu\u015ftur. Tan\u0131k \u015e.M.\u00c7., MEB\u2019e ba\u011fl\u0131 okulda \u00f6\u011fretmen olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131rken \u00f6\u011fretmenlik yapan D.K. isimli \u015fahs\u0131n kendisinin denetimli serbestlik m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ge\u00e7mesi konusunda y\u00f6nlendirme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, kendisine \u201cm\u00fclakata gideceksin, i\u015fini ayarlad\u0131k\u201d dedi\u011fini, Bakanl\u0131\u011fa ge\u00e7i\u015finin kendisinin bu yap\u0131 ile irtibat\u0131 bulunmas\u0131 nedeni ile olabilece\u011fini, m\u00fclakat\u0131n olumlu sonu\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ba\u015fvurucu ile ilgili olarak g\u00f6rg\u00fc ve bilgisinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131k K.Y., ba\u015fvurucunun infaz koruma memurlar\u0131 al\u0131mlar\u0131nda baz\u0131 ki\u015filere referans olma amac\u0131 ile kendisini arad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, referanslar\u0131n aranma bi\u00e7imi itibari ile FET\u00d6\/PDY\u2019ye y\u00f6nelik referans olma y\u00f6n\u00fcnde kendisinde kan\u0131 olu\u015ftu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Tan\u0131k M.\u00dc. ise, \u0130stanbul E\u011fitim Merkezi\u2019nde 2010-2014 Ocak aras\u0131nda g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ba\u015fkan yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 C.G.\u2019nin tayinleri \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131rken \u201cAli\u2019ye s\u00f6yl\u00fcyoruz, Ali\u2019ye ediyoruz\u201d dedi\u011fini, 2010-2012 tarihleri aras\u0131nda sohbetlere kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, sohbetlerin birinde sohbet veren ki\u015finin H.T. isimli birinin ismini ba\u015fkan yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131na iletmesini istedi\u011fini, bu iste\u011fi C.G.\u2019ye iletti\u011fini onun da \u201cAli\u2019ye s\u00f6yleriz halleder\u201d dedi\u011fini, bir hafta on g\u00fcn sonra o ki\u015finin tayininin \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece BTK\u2019ya m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131larak CGNAT kay\u0131tlar\u0131 sorulmu\u015f, BTK taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 telefonun IMEI numaras\u0131na ili\u015fkin 30.11.2014 il\u00e2 6.3.2015 tarihleri aras\u0131nda bylock sunucular\u0131na ba\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131, cep telefonu imaj i\u00e7eri\u011fi incelendi\u011finde telefonun 28.12.2015 tarihinde fabrika ayarlar\u0131na d\u00f6nd\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, i\u015fletim sisteminin tekrardan y\u00fcklenmesi nedeniyle eski verilere ula\u015f\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Mahkemece ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olmak su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme gerek\u00e7esinde san\u0131\u011fa ait GSM hatt\u0131n\u0131n bylock serverlerine ait IP adreslerine ba\u011flant\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, ayr\u0131ca san\u0131\u011f\u0131n su\u00e7 delilini gizlemek amac\u0131 ile telefonu fabrika ayarlar\u0131na d\u00f6nd\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, san\u0131k aleyhinde tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131 oldu\u011fu ve san\u0131\u011f\u0131n savunmas\u0131na itibar edilmedi\u011fi, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn hiyerar\u015fik yap\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7inde organik bir ba\u011f olu\u015fturdu\u011fu ve \u00f6rg\u00fct \u00fcyeli\u011fi su\u00e7unu i\u015fledi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf talebi B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince reddedilmi\u015f, temyiz istemi de Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan reddedilerek h\u00fck\u00fcm onanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu gerek soru\u015fturma gerekse kovu\u015fturma s\u00fcre\u00e7lerinde m\u00fcdafi yard\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlanm\u0131\u015f, iddianameye konu eylemler ve dosya kapsam\u0131 hakk\u0131nda bilgi verilmi\u015f ve savunmas\u0131 al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dosya kapsam\u0131nda tan\u0131k ifadeleri al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f, ba\u015fvurucuya tan\u0131k beyan\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 savunma imkan\u0131 tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. BTK\u2019 ya yaz\u0131lan m\u00fczekkere ile bylock program\u0131n\u0131 kullan\u0131p kullanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sorulmu\u015f ve bylock sunucusuna ba\u011flant\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Yine ba\u015fvurucunun kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 telefonun fabrika ayarlar\u0131na d\u00f6nd\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve verilerin kal\u0131c\u0131 olarak silindi\u011fi belirlenmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131lamada ba\u015fvurucuya esas hakk\u0131nda m\u00fctalaaya savunma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f ve ba\u015fvurucunun savunmas\u0131 sonras\u0131nda h\u00fck\u00fcm verilmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 yapan A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi t\u00fcm dosya kapsam\u0131n\u0131 nazara alarak, hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131 nas\u0131l uygulad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve yorumlad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ayr\u0131ca takdir yetkisini gerek\u00e7elendirerek h\u00fck\u00fcm kurmu\u015ftur. Yerel Mahkemenin karar\u0131 istinaf ve temyiz kanun yollar\u0131ndan ge\u00e7erek kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re, ba\u015fvurucunun bireysel ba\u015fvurusunda yer alan iddialar\u0131 kanun yolu \u015fik\u00e2yeti niteli\u011fini haiz olup, bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bu hususlar\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
Anayasa Mahkemesi, Ayd\u0131n Yavuz ve Di\u011ferleri ba\u015fvurusunda (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2016\/22169, Karar Tarihi: 20\/6\/2017, R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 30\/6\/2017-30110) darbe te\u015febb\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn arkas\u0131ndaki yap\u0131lanmaya ili\u015fkin olarak FET\u00d6\/PDY \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn \u00f6zellikleri hakk\u0131nda kapsaml\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamalara yer vermi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu kararda, yetkili makamlarca ve soru\u015fturma mercilerince 15 Temmuz darbe te\u015febb\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn faili oldu\u011fu belirtilen FET\u00d6\/PDY’ye ili\u015fkin olarak \u00f6zellikle son y\u0131llarda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen soru\u015fturma ve kovu\u015fturmalarda bu yap\u0131lanman\u0131n \u00f6zelliklerine ve faaliyetlerine ili\u015fkin bir\u00e7ok tespit ve de\u011ferlendirmeye yer verilerek, \u00f6zetle; FET\u00d6\/PDY’nin y\u00f6neticileri ve \u00fcyelerinin, faaliyetlerini gizlilik esas\u0131yla y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve gizlili\u011fi sa\u011flayacak haberle\u015fme y\u00f6ntemleri kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131, gizlilik anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131, devlet y\u00f6netimi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00f6nemli g\u00f6r\u00fclen TSK, yarg\u0131, emniyet ve m\u00fclki idare birimlerinde ayr\u0131 bir titizlikle uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131, FET\u00d6\/PDY’nin ger\u00e7ek amac\u0131n\u0131n devleti ele ge\u00e7irmek oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Yine Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin 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. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyeli\u011finin s\u00fcbut buldu\u011funu kabul eden yerel mahkeme somut olay ba\u011flam\u0131nda bylock delilini ve tan\u0131k ifadelerini de\u011ferlendirmi\u015f, karar\u0131n\u0131 gerek\u00e7elendirmi\u015f ve h\u00fck\u00fcm kurmu\u015ftur. Yerel mahkeme gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131nda bylock delilleri yan\u0131nda tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131 da nazara ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f olup, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fc kurarken tek ve belirleyici delil olarak bylock deliline dayanmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yerel mahkemenin karar\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli olup, hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131nda bariz takdir hatas\u0131 veya a\u00e7\u0131k bir keyfilik de mevcut de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
Bu nedenlerle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lm\u0131yoruz.<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 22\/1\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/8087 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 A.\u00a0Y. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/8087) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 22\/1\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : Mehmet AKTEPE Ba\u015fvurucu : Vekili : Av. Abdullatif SERT \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, ByLock deliline ili\u015fkin veriler \u00fczerinde bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, Ceza ve Tevkifevleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde genel m\u00fcd\u00fcr yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 olarak g\u00f6rev yapmakta iken H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Kurulunun 27\/9\/2016 tarihli kararnamesi ile Yarg\u0131tay tetkik h\u00e2kimi olarak atanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Sonras\u0131nda H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Kurulunun 15\/11\/2016 tarihli karar\u0131yla da meslekten \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nca (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131na (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcye olma su\u00e7unu i\u015fledi\u011fi \u015f\u00fcphesiyle soru\u015fturma ba\u015flat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Soru\u015fturma a\u015famas\u0131nda Ka\u00e7ak\u00e7\u0131l\u0131k ve Organize Su\u00e7larla M\u00fccadele Daire Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nca Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011fa g\u00f6nderilen 22\/5\/2017 tarihli yaz\u0131 ekinde yer alan tutanakta, ba\u015fvurucunun ByLock abone listesinin 118.719. s\u0131ras\u0131nda oldu\u011fu, tespit edilen GSM aboneli\u011finin 532…36 ve tespit edilen cihaza ait IMEI numaras\u0131n\u0131n 35…60 oldu\u011fu, ByLock tespit edilen ilk tarihin de 30\/11\/2014 oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Soru\u015fturma sonucunda Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-73453","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n