T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
S. \u00c7. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/18873)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 14\/1\/2025<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Muhammed Cemil KANDEM\u0130R<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Gamze \u00c7EL\u0130KKOL<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; pasaportu \u00fczerindeki yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 \u015ferhi nedeniyle seyahat h\u00fcrriyetinin, s\u00f6z konusu \u015ferhin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun reddedilmesi i\u015fleminin iptali davas\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131na etkili iddialar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, h\u00e2kim olarak g\u00f6rev yapmaktayken H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Y\u00fcksek Kurulu (H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Kurulu\/HSK) Genel Kurulunun 24\/8\/2016 tarihli karar\u0131 ile 23\/7\/2016 tarihli ve 29779 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan 22\/7\/2016 tarihli ve 667 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Al\u0131nan Tedbirlere \u0130li\u015fkin Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin 3. maddesine dayan\u0131larak meslekten \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun yeniden inceleme talebi ise HSK Genel Kurulunun 29\/11\/2016 tarihli karar\u0131 ile reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. HSK taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun isminin bildirilmesi \u00fczerine pasaportu \u00fczerine \u015ferh veri giri\u015fi yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda anayasal d\u00fczeni ortadan kald\u0131rmaya te\u015febb\u00fcsetme ve silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7lamalar\u0131yla y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen soru\u015fturma sonucu kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair karar verilmi\u015ftir. Bunun \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu 24\/1\/2020 ve 24\/2\/2020 tarihli dilek\u00e7eleriyle pasaportu \u00fczerindeki \u015ferhin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir. Bu ba\u015fvurular, Ankara Valili\u011fi \u0130l N\u00fcfus ve Vatanda\u015fl\u0131k \u0130\u015fleri M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 28\/2\/2020 tarihli i\u015flemiyle reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu, bu i\u015flemin iptali talebiyle dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ankara 3. \u0130dare Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“…mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin birlikte de\u011ferlendirilmesinden, mill\u00ee g\u00fcvenli\u011fe tehdit olu\u015fturdu\u011fu tespit edilen yap\u0131, olu\u015fum veya gruplara ya da ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctlerine \u00fcyeli\u011fi veya iltisak\u0131 ya da bunlarla irtibat\u0131 nedeniyle haklar\u0131nda idari i\u015flem tesis edilenler, ayn\u0131 gerek\u00e7eyle haklar\u0131nda su\u00e7 soru\u015fturmas\u0131 veya kovu\u015fturmas\u0131 y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclenler ya da haklar\u0131nda mahkemelerce yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 konulmu\u015f olanlar ile \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kmalar\u0131n\u0131n genel g\u00fcvenlik bak\u0131m\u0131ndan mahzur bulunanlar hakk\u0131nda pasaport verilmemesi i\u00e7in \u015ferh kayd\u0131 konulabilece\u011fi ve haklar\u0131nda ayn\u0131 nedenlerden dolay\u0131 devam etmekte olan herhangi bir idari veya adli soru\u015fturma olmayanlara ba\u015fvurmalar\u0131 h\u00e2linde kolluk birimlerince yap\u0131lacak ara\u015ft\u0131rma sonucuna g\u00f6re pasaport verilip verilmeyece\u011fi konusunda idareye takdir hakk\u0131 tan\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olup idareye tan\u0131nan bu takdir hakk\u0131n\u0131n da Kanunda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen usul ve kurallar \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bak\u0131lan davada, mahkememizin 18\/9\/2020 tarihli ara karar\u0131 ile H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Kurulu’ndan, “davac\u0131 hakk\u0131nda devam eden idari soru\u015fturma olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n” sorulmas\u0131 \u00fczerine H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Kurulu Genel Sekreterli\u011fince g\u00f6nderilen ve 2\/11\/2020 tarihinde mahkememiz kay\u0131tlar\u0131na giren cevabi yaz\u0131da davac\u0131 hakk\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen soru\u015fturman\u0131n Disiplin B\u00fcrosuna g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi ve h\u00e2len derdest oldu\u011fu bildirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Bu durumda, hakk\u0131nda FET\u00d6\/PDY silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7lamas\u0131ylaH\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Kurulu b\u00fcnyesinde devam eden idari soru\u015fturma bulunan davac\u0131n\u0131n yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 \u015ferhinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 istemiyle yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurusunun reddedilmesine y\u00f6nelik dava konusu i\u015flemde hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.”<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 10. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai karar\u0131 13\/4\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 20\/4\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. \u00d6te yandan ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda anayasal d\u00fczeni ortadan kald\u0131rmaya te\u015febb\u00fcs etme ve silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7lamalar\u0131yla Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nca y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen soru\u015fturmada kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeterli \u015f\u00fcphe olu\u015fturacak nitelikte ve yeterlilikte delil elde edilemedi\u011finden m\u00fcsnet su\u00e7lardan dolay\u0131 ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na 29\/4\/2019 tarihinde karar verilmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu kararda ayr\u0131ca, pasaport \u00fczerindeki yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 yasa\u011f\u0131 \u015ferhlerinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in ilgili yerlere yaz\u0131 yaz\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Karara 20\/6\/2019 tarihinde kesinle\u015fme \u015ferhi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi kay\u0131tlar\u0131ndan g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
9. \u00d6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucunun adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
A. Seyahat H\u00fcrriyetinin \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu; yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kma h\u00fcrriyetinin ancak su\u00e7 soru\u015fturmas\u0131 yahut kovu\u015fturmas\u0131 sebebiyle h\u00e2kim karar\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131labilece\u011fini belirterek yerle\u015fme ve seyahat h\u00fcrriyetinin ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
11. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; ba\u015fvurucunun yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 1\/8\/2022 tarihinde kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu hususun ba\u015fvurucunun ma\u011fdur s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131n bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 incelenirken de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda ba\u015fvuru formundaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 tekrarlamakla birlikte pasaportundaki tahdidin kald\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n ya\u015fanan ma\u011fduriyeti yok etmedi\u011fini, ma\u011fdur s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011funu vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
12. Pasaporta yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f \u015ferhi konulmas\u0131 \u015feklindeki idari i\u015flemlerin esas olarak yerle\u015fme ve seyahat h\u00fcrriyeti kapsam\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Bununla birlikte Anayasa Mahkemesi, seyahat h\u00fcrriyeti ba\u011flam\u0131nda yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131 engelleyen tedbirlere ili\u015fkin yap\u0131lan bireysel ba\u015fvurular\u0131n, \u00f6zellikle ki\u015finin gitmek istedi\u011fi \u00fclke ile g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc ki\u015fisel, ailevi, ekonomik ve mesleki ba\u011flar\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu durumlarda \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilebilece\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir. Ancak bu \u015fekilde inceleme yap\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in bireysel ba\u015fvuru formunda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u015fik\u00e2yet edilen tedbirin \u00f6zel hayat ve aile hayatlar\u0131 \u00fczerindeki olumsuz sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 somut verilere dayal\u0131 olarak uygun \u015fekilde ortaya koymalar\u0131 gerekmektedir (Onur Can Ta\u015ftan [GK], B. No: 2018\/32475, 27\/10\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 47-50; Ya\u011fmur Er\u015fan [GK], B. No: 2018\/36451, 27\/10\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 47-50; \u015eeng\u00fcl T\u00fckel [2. B.], B. No: 2018\/12456, 12\/1\/2022, \u00a7\u00a7 40, 41). Ba\u015fvurucu; yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131yla olan ba\u011flar\u0131ndan ve yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak ki\u015fisel, ailevi, ekonomik veya mesleki ba\u011flamda herhangi bir olay veya olgudan bahsetmemi\u015ftir. Bu durumda ba\u015fvurucu gitmek istedi\u011fi \u00fclke ile g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc mesleki ba\u011flar\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011funu ya da yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015fisel, ailevi, ekonomik veya mesleki ba\u011flamda ilgisini ortaya koyamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvurunun \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenebilir nitelikte olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmakla, pasaporta \u015ferh konulmas\u0131na dair \u015fik\u00e2yetin seyahat h\u00fcrriyeti kapsam\u0131nda incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. Anayasa’n\u0131n 148. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131 ile 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 45. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re Anayasa Mahkemesine yap\u0131lan bir bireysel ba\u015fvurunun esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenebilmesi i\u00e7in kamu g\u00fcc\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan m\u00fcdahale edildi\u011fi iddia edilen hakk\u0131n Anayasa’da g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) ve T\u00fcrkiye’nin taraf oldu\u011fu ek protokollerin kapsam\u0131na da girmesi gerekir. Bir ba\u015fka ifadeyle Anayasa ve S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin ortak koruma alan\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan bir hak ihlali iddias\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7eren ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir (Onurhan Solmaz [1. B.], B. No: 2012\/1049, 26\/3\/2013, \u00a7 18).<\/p>\n
14. Anayasa’n\u0131n 23. maddesinde yer alan yerle\u015fme ve seyahat h\u00fcrriyeti, S\u00f6zle\u015fme ile S\u00f6zle\u015fme’ye Ek Birinci Protokol’de Tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f Bulunan Haklardan ve \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerden Ba\u015fka Haklar ve \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckler Tan\u0131yan 4 Numaral\u0131 Protokol’\u00fcn 2. maddesinde ve Serbest dola\u015f\u0131m \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kenar ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 alt\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. S\u00f6zle\u015fme’ye ek 4 Numaral\u0131 Protokol’e \u00fclkemiz taraf de\u011fildir. Bu nedenle an\u0131lan Protokol kapsam\u0131nda kalan ve Anayasa’n\u0131n 23. maddesinde yer alan yerle\u015fme ve seyahat h\u00fcrriyetine y\u00f6nelik \u015fik\u00e2yetle ilgili olarak bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunulamaz (Sebahat Tuncel [1. B.], B. No: 2012\/1051, 20\/2\/2014, \u00a7 53).<\/p>\n
16. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n, di\u011fer kabul edilebilirlik \u015fartlar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmeksizin konu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetkisizlik nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Gerek\u00e7eli Karar Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia <\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvurucu; Cumhuriyet savc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nca devam eden ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131 neticesinde hakk\u0131nda takipsizlik karar\u0131 verildi\u011fini ve yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde ilgili idari birimlere yaz\u0131 yaz\u0131lmas\u0131 hususunda h\u00fck\u00fcm kuruldu\u011funu, benzer uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klarda farkl\u0131 kararlar verilmesinin mahkemece de\u011ferlendirilmedi\u011fini belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
18. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun isminin HSK taraf\u0131ndan bildirilmesi \u00fczerine pasaportuna yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 \u015ferhi konuldu\u011fu, s\u00f6z konusu \u015ferhin kald\u0131r\u0131lmamas\u0131 \u00fczerine a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n HSK taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015flat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan hakk\u0131ndaki idari soru\u015fturman\u0131n devam etti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131narak ba\u015fvurunun gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 g\u00fcvencesini de kapsamaktad\u0131r (daha geni\u015f de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. Abdullah Top\u00e7u [1. B.], B. No: 2014\/8868, 19\/4\/2017, \u00a7 75). Nitekim Anayasa’n\u0131n 141. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131nda “B\u00fct\u00fcn mahkemelerin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc kararlar\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli olarak yaz\u0131l\u0131r.” denilerek mahkemelere kararlar\u0131n\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli yazma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc y\u00fcklenmi\u015ftir. Mahkemelerin an\u0131lan y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, yarg\u0131lamada ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen her t\u00fcrl\u00fc iddia ve savunmaya karar gerek\u00e7esinde ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 yan\u0131t vermesi gerekti\u011fi \u015feklinde anla\u015f\u0131lamaz. Ancak mahkemeler, kendilerine sunulan t\u00fcm iddialara yan\u0131t vermek zorunda de\u011filse de (Yasemin Ek\u015fi [1. B.], B. No: 2013\/5486, 4\/12\/2013, \u00a7 56) mahkemelerin davan\u0131n esas sorunlar\u0131n\u0131 inceledikleri gerek\u00e7eli karardan anla\u015f\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bir kararda tam olarak hangi unsurlar\u0131n bulunmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi davan\u0131n niteli\u011fine ve \u015fartlar\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. Muhakeme s\u0131ras\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k ve somut bir bi\u00e7imde \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclen iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili, ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle davan\u0131n sonucunu de\u011fi\u015ftirebilecek nitelikte olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde davayla do\u011frudan ilgili olan bu hususlara mahkemelerce makul bir gerek\u00e7e ile yan\u0131t verilmesi gerekir (Sencer Ba\u015fat ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2013\/7800, 18\/6\/2014, \u00a7 35). Aksi bir tutumla mahkemenin davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili oldu\u011funu kabul etti\u011fi bir husus hakk\u0131nda ilgili ve yeterli bir yan\u0131t vermemesi veya yan\u0131t vermeyi gerektiren usul veya esasa dair iddialar\u0131 cevaps\u0131z b\u0131rakmas\u0131 hak ihlaline neden olabilecektir (Sencer Ba\u015fat ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 39).<\/p>\n
20. Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda idari soru\u015fturma bulunmas\u0131n\u0131 yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 \u015ferhinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurusunun reddedilmesi i\u00e7in yeterli bir neden olarak g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda yap\u0131lan adli soru\u015fturma neticesinde verilen kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 karar\u0131nda yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 \u015ferhlerinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n mahkemece de\u011ferlendirilmedi\u011fi iddialar\u0131n\u0131n esasa etkili olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, verilen kararda h\u00fckme ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeterli gerek\u00e7e bulundu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM ve Kenan YA\u015eAR bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Adli yard\u0131m talebinin KABUL\u00dcNE,<\/p>\n
B. 1. Seyahat h\u00fcrriyetinin ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n konu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetkisizlik nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
2. Gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA Engin YILDIRIM ve Kenan YA\u015eAR’\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
C. 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 339. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca tahsil edilmesi ma\u011fduriyetine neden olaca\u011f\u0131ndan adli yard\u0131m talebi kabul edilen ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131lama giderlerini \u00f6demekten TAMAMEN MUAF TUTULMASINA 14\/1\/2025 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY GEREK\u00c7ES\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, pasaportu \u00fczerindeki yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 \u015ferhinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 istemiyle yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun reddedilmesi i\u015fleminin iptali davas\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131na etkili iddialar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, h\u00e2kim olarak g\u00f6rev yaparken H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Kurulu (HSK) karar\u0131yla 667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK kapsam\u0131nda meslekten \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve yeniden inceleme talebi reddedilmi\u015ftir. HSK\u2019n\u0131n bildirimi \u00fczerine pasaportuna \u015ferh konulmu\u015f, ancak anayasal d\u00fczeni ortadan kald\u0131rmaya te\u015febb\u00fcs ve silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyeli\u011fi su\u00e7lamalar\u0131ndan soru\u015fturma sonucunda kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Pasaportun \u00fczerindeki \u015ferhin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talepleri Ankara Valili\u011fi taraf\u0131ndan reddedilmi\u015f, a\u00e7\u0131lan dava ise Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan, hakk\u0131nda HSK\u2019da devam eden soru\u015fturma gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek reddedilmi\u015ftir. \u0130stinaf ba\u015fvurusu da reddedilen ba\u015fvurucu, bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
3. Mahkememiz \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fu ba\u015fvurucunun gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar vermi\u015f olup \u00e7o\u011funluk karar\u0131na a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan sebeplerle i\u015ftirak edilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Anayasa’n\u0131n 141. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131nda da \u201cB\u00fct\u00fcn mahkemelerin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc kararlar\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli olarak yaz\u0131l\u0131r.\u201d denilerek mahkemelere kararlar\u0131n\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli yazma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc y\u00fcklenmi\u015ftir. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ilkesi gere\u011fi an\u0131lan Anayasa kural\u0131 da gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesinde g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmal\u0131d\u0131r (Abdullah Top\u00e7u, B. No: 2014\/8868, 19\/4\/2017, \u00a7 76).<\/p>\n
5. Gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131, ki\u015filerin adil bir \u015fekilde yarg\u0131lanmalar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamay\u0131 ve denetlemeyi ama\u00e7lamaktad\u0131r. Bu hak, taraflar\u0131n muhakeme s\u0131ras\u0131nda ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fckleri iddialar\u0131n\u0131n kurallara uygun bi\u00e7imde incelenip incelenmedi\u011fini bilmeleri ve demokratik bir toplumda kendi adlar\u0131na verilen yarg\u0131 kararlar\u0131n\u0131n sebeplerini toplumun \u00f6\u011frenmesinin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in de gereklidir (Sencer Ba\u015fat ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2013\/7800, 18\/6\/2014, \u00a7\u00a7 31, 34).<\/p>\n
6. Bununla birlikte mahkemelerin an\u0131lan y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, yarg\u0131lamada ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen her t\u00fcrl\u00fc iddia ve savunmaya karar gerek\u00e7esinde ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde yan\u0131t verilmesi gerekti\u011fi \u015feklinde anla\u015f\u0131lamaz. Ancak derece mahkemeleri, kendilerine sunulan t\u00fcm iddialara yan\u0131t vermek zorunda de\u011filse de (Yasemin Ek\u015fi, B. No: 2013\/5486, 4\/12\/2013, \u00a7 56) davan\u0131n esas sorunlar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmi\u015f oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7eli karardan anla\u015f\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7. Makul gerek\u00e7e; davaya konu olay ve olgular\u0131n mahkemece nas\u0131l nitelendirildi\u011fini, kurulan h\u00fckm\u00fcn hangi nedenlere ve hukuksal d\u00fczenlemelere dayand\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ortaya koyacak, olay ve olgular ile h\u00fck\u00fcm aras\u0131ndaki ba\u011flant\u0131y\u0131 g\u00f6sterecek nitelikte olmal\u0131d\u0131r (\u0130brahim Ata\u015f, B. No: 2013\/1235, 18\/6\/2013, \u00a7 24). Aksi bir tutumla mahkemenin davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili oldu\u011funu kabul etti\u011fi bir husus hakk\u0131nda ilgili ve yeterli bir yan\u0131t vermemesi veya yan\u0131t verilmesini gerektiren usul ya da esasa dair iddialar\u0131n cevaps\u0131z b\u0131rak\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 hak ihlaline neden olabilecektir (Sencer Ba\u015fat ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 39).<\/p>\n
8. Nitekim Anayasa Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan \u0130nan \u00d6zdemir Ta\u015ftan karar\u0131nda (B. No: 2018\/34137, 25\/5\/2022) pasaportu iptal edilen ba\u015fvurucunun, hangi eylemleri ya da ili\u015fkileri nedeniyle yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n engellendi\u011finin yetersiz inceleme ve gerek\u00e7e nedeniyle belirsizli\u011fini korudu\u011fu vurgulanarak gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun, HSK taraf\u0131ndan meslekten \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fi ve yine HSK’n\u0131n bildirmesi \u00fczerine pasaportuna yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 \u015ferhi konuldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu; hakk\u0131nda yap\u0131lan soru\u015fturmada kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7maya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve pasaportundaki tahdidin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fini, bu karara ra\u011fmen pasaportunda yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurunun reddedilmesinin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu iddialar\u0131yla dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvuru s\u00f6z konusu iddialar\u0131n\u0131 mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcnde de dile getirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131na (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcye olma su\u00e7lamas\u0131yla H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Kurulu b\u00fcnyesinde devam eden idari soru\u015fturma bulundu\u011fundan yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 \u015ferhinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmamas\u0131nda hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k g\u00f6rmemi\u015ftir. Mahkeme karar\u0131nda, hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma mill\u00ee g\u00fcvenli\u011fe tehdit olu\u015fturdu\u011fu tespit edilen yap\u0131, olu\u015fum veya gruplara ya da ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctlerine \u00fcyeli\u011fi veya iltisak\u0131 ya da bunlarla irtibat\u0131 nedeniyle haklar\u0131nda herhangi bir idari veya adli soru\u015fturma olmayanlara ba\u015fvurmalar\u0131 h\u00e2linde kolluk birimlerince yap\u0131lacak ara\u015ft\u0131rma sonucuna g\u00f6re pasaport verilip verilmeyece\u011fi konusunda idareye takdir hakk\u0131 tan\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Kararda, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda FET\u00d6\/PDY’ye \u00fcye olma su\u00e7lamas\u0131yla HSK b\u00fcnyesinde devam eden idari soru\u015fturma bulundu\u011fu belirtilerek davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucunun hakk\u0131nda anayasal d\u00fczeni ortadan kald\u0131rmaya te\u015febb\u00fcs etme ve silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7lamalar\u0131yla yap\u0131lan soru\u015fturmada verilen kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131 yarg\u0131lama mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde sunmas\u0131na ve s\u00f6z konusu kararda yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 \u015ferhlerinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011finin belirtilmesine ra\u011fmen bu konuda yarg\u0131lama mercilerince de\u011ferlendirmede bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Mahkeme karar\u0131nda hakk\u0131nda idari soru\u015fturma bulunan ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda pasaport verilmesine ili\u015fkin olarak idarenin takdir yetkisi bulundu\u011fu tespiti yap\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/p>\n
12. Sonu\u00e7 olarak mahkemelerinin kararlar\u0131nda konu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in esasl\u0131 nitelikteki iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n yarg\u0131lama mercilerince yeterli bir gerek\u00e7eyle kar\u015f\u0131lanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Bu sebeple yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcreci bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucunun gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
13. A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine kanaati ile \u00e7o\u011funluk karar\u0131na i\u015ftirak edilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 14\/1\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/18873 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 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR S. \u00c7. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/18873) Karar Tarihi: 14\/1\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Muhammed Cemil KANDEM\u0130R Ba\u015fvurucu : Vekili : Av. Gamze \u00c7EL\u0130KKOL I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru; pasaportu \u00fczerindeki yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 \u015ferhi nedeniyle seyahat h\u00fcrriyetinin, s\u00f6z konusu \u015ferhin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun reddedilmesi i\u015fleminin iptali davas\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131na etkili iddialar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, h\u00e2kim olarak g\u00f6rev yapmaktayken H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Y\u00fcksek Kurulu (H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Kurulu\/HSK) Genel Kurulunun 24\/8\/2016 tarihli karar\u0131 ile 23\/7\/2016 tarihli ve 29779 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan 22\/7\/2016 tarihli ve 667 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Al\u0131nan Tedbirlere \u0130li\u015fkin Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin 3. maddesine dayan\u0131larak meslekten \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun yeniden inceleme talebi ise HSK Genel Kurulunun 29\/11\/2016 tarihli karar\u0131 ile reddedilmi\u015ftir. 3. HSK taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun isminin bildirilmesi \u00fczerine pasaportu \u00fczerine \u015ferh veri giri\u015fi yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda anayasal d\u00fczeni ortadan kald\u0131rmaya te\u015febb\u00fcsetme ve silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7lamalar\u0131yla y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen soru\u015fturma sonucu kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair karar verilmi\u015ftir. Bunun \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu 24\/1\/2020 ve 24\/2\/2020 tarihli dilek\u00e7eleriyle pasaportu \u00fczerindeki \u015ferhin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir. Bu ba\u015fvurular, Ankara Valili\u011fi …<\/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-107298","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n