T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
HAKAN ARSLAN BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/14868)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 15\/4\/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
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Mutlu ALAF<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hakan ARSLAN<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Ahmet G\u00dcNEY<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, kamu g\u00f6revlisinin a\u00e7\u0131kta kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin olarak fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccretinin yasal faiziyle \u00f6denmesi ve kendisine topluca \u00f6demesi yap\u0131lan maa\u015f as\u0131llar\u0131na i\u015fleyecek yasal faizlerinin \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi talebiyle a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, Aksaray \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde polis memuru olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktayken 1\/9\/2016 tarihli ve 29818 m\u00fckerrer say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan 15\/8\/2016 tarihli ve 672 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Kamu Personeline \u0130li\u015fkin Al\u0131nan Tedbirlere Dair Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname uyar\u0131nca 1\/9\/2016 tarihinde kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu, g\u00f6reve iade edilmesi talebiyle Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal \u0130\u015flemleri \u0130nceleme Komisyonuna (OHAL Komisyonu) yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerine 15\/5\/2019 tarihinde kamu g\u00f6revine iade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucuya a\u00e7\u0131kta ge\u00e7irdi\u011fi s\u00fcrelere ili\u015fkin olarak maa\u015f \u00f6demesi 18\/6\/2019 tarihinde 139.205,99 TL olarak yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu 27\/2\/2020 tarihinde idareye ba\u015fvuruda bulunarak maa\u015flar\u0131na i\u015fleyecek yasal faizin ve \u00f6denmeyen fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccretinin yasal faiziyle \u00f6denmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. \u0130dare bu talebi 12\/3\/2020 tarihinde fiili olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmayan personele fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti \u00f6denemeyece\u011fi, yasal faiz ile ilgili olarak ise b\u00fct\u00e7e sisteminde faize ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcm olmamas\u0131 nedeniyle yarg\u0131 karar\u0131 olmadan faiz \u00f6denemeyece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu, i\u015flemin iptali ve mali haklar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi talebiyle 16\/6\/2020 tarihinde Aksaray \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkemetek h\u00e2kimli olarak 25\/2\/2021 tarihinde i\u015flemin iptaline ve talep edilen alacaklar\u0131n \u00f6denmesine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. \u0130dare, mahkemenin bu karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur. \u0130stinaf ba\u015fvurusunu inceleyen Konya B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 1. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi (Daire) 23\/12\/2021 tarihinde istinaf ba\u015fvurusunu kabul etmi\u015f ve davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Daire karar\u0131nda, ba\u015fvurucunun kendisine \u00f6deme yap\u0131lan 18\/6\/2019 tarihinde uygulamadan haberdar oldu\u011fu, bu tarihten itibaren altm\u0131\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 veya idareye ba\u015fvuru yap\u0131larak tesis edilecek i\u015fleme g\u00f6re dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekirken 27\/2\/2020 tarihli ba\u015fvurunun reddi \u00fczerine dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esine dayanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 20\/1\/2022 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 3\/2\/2022 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu; idari dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin iki ay oldu\u011funu, coronavir\u00fcs tedbirleri kapsam\u0131nda s\u00fcrelerin 15\/6\/2020 tarihine kadar durdu\u011funu, idarenin ret cevab\u0131ndan sonra davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00f6deme yap\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra kendisine herhangi bir bilgilendirme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucu ayr\u0131ca kendisi ile ayn\u0131 d\u00f6nemde kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131l\u0131p ayn\u0131 tarihte g\u00f6revine iade edilerek idareye ba\u015fvuru yapan e\u015finin mali taleplerinin ise Daire taraf\u0131ndan kabul edildi\u011fini belirterek e\u015fitlik ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; e\u015fitlik ilkesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden s\u00f6z konusu ihlal iddias\u0131n\u0131n hangi temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe y\u00f6nelik olarak ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011finin belirtilmedi\u011fini, mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131n\u0131n mevzuat\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131 ve kanun yolunda g\u00f6zetilmesi gereken hususlara y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011funu beyan etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru formundaki \u015fik\u00e2yetlerini yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. 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 (Tahir Canan [1. B.], B. No: 2012\/969, 18\/9\/2013, \u00a7 16). Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
14. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olay ve olgular\u0131 somut ba\u015fvuru ile benzer nitelikte olan Osman V\u0131r\u0131t ([1. B.], B. No: 2020\/13947, 8\/2\/2024) karar\u0131nda uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Anayasa Mahkemesi an\u0131lan karar\u0131nda \u00f6zetle kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve yeniden g\u00f6reve ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihler aras\u0131nda kalan d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin maa\u015f, d\u00f6ner sermaye performans \u00fccreti ve ders \u00fccretinin yasal faiziyle birlikte \u00f6denmesini talep eden ba\u015fvurucu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden, ortada yaln\u0131zca maa\u015f \u00f6demesine y\u00f6nelik fiilen yap\u0131lan bir \u00f6deme d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun di\u011fer taleplerinin kabul\u00fcne ya da reddine ili\u015fkin bir idari i\u015flem bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde sadece maa\u015f tutar\u0131na ili\u015fkin olan \u00f6deme \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucunun di\u011fer mali hak taleplerinin reddedildi\u011fini \u00f6\u011frendi\u011finin kabul edilerek davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesinin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte bu yorumun ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik kat\u0131 bir yorum ve ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde a\u011f\u0131r bir k\u00fclfete sebep oldu\u011fu, bu suretle ba\u015fvurucunun katlanmak zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 k\u00fclfetin hedeflenen me\u015fru ama\u00e7larla kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda orant\u0131s\u0131z oldu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Bu itibarla ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
15. Somut olayda, ba\u015fvurucunun g\u00f6reve iade edilmesinden sonra a\u00e7\u0131kta kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin olarak ba\u015fvurucuya maa\u015f \u00f6demesi yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ancak bu \u00f6demeye yasal faizlerin ve fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccretlerinin de d\u00e2hil olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucuya bir bilgi verilmemi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte yap\u0131lan bu \u00f6demenin di\u011fer mali haklar\u0131n daha sonra \u00f6denece\u011fine ya da \u00f6denmeyece\u011fine ili\u015fkin kesin bir bilgiyi kendili\u011finden ihtiva etti\u011fi sonucu \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lamaz. Bu durumda eldeki ba\u015fvuruda da an\u0131lan karardan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektirir bir husus bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
16. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ile 100.000 TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen anayasal hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar ve zorunluluk bulunmaktad\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n 148. ve 153. maddeleri ile 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. ve 66. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flat\u0131p Anayasa Mahkemesinin ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere ve gerek\u00e7elere uygun bi\u00e7imde y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclecek yarg\u0131lama sonunda hak ihlalinin nedenlerini gidererek yeni bir karar vermektir (yeniden yarg\u0131lama konusunda bkz. Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2), B. No: 2016\/12506, 7\/11\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 53-60, 66; Kadri Enis Berbero\u011flu (3) [GK], B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n
19. \u00d6te yandan hak ihlali karar\u0131ndan Anayasa Mahkemesinin davan\u0131n sonucuyla ilgili olarak bir tutum sergiledi\u011fi sonucu \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmamal\u0131d\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesince verilen hak ihlali karar\u0131 uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sonu\u00e7lar\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olup davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, reddine ya da beraate veya mahk\u00fbmiyete karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi anlam\u0131na gelmemektedir. Kural olarak, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n her a\u015famas\u0131nda oldu\u011fu gibi ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 gidermek \u00fczere yeniden yap\u0131lacak yarg\u0131lama sonunda da delillerin dava ile ili\u015fkisini kurma ve bunlar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirip sonu\u00e7 \u00e7\u0131karma yetkisi ilgili mahkemelere aittir.<\/p>\n
20. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Konya B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 1. \u0130dari Dava Dairesine (E.2021\/898, K.2021\/2186) iletilmek \u00fczere Aksaray \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2020\/448, K.2021\/140) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 664,10 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.664,10 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \u00d6demelerin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 15\/4\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 15\/4\/2025 tarihli ve 2022\/14868 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 HAKAN ARSLAN BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/14868) Karar Tarihi: 15\/4\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Mutlu ALAF Ba\u015fvurucu : Hakan ARSLAN Vekili : Av. Ahmet G\u00dcNEY I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, kamu g\u00f6revlisinin a\u00e7\u0131kta kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin olarak fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccretinin yasal faiziyle \u00f6denmesi ve kendisine topluca \u00f6demesi yap\u0131lan maa\u015f as\u0131llar\u0131na i\u015fleyecek yasal faizlerinin \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi talebiyle a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, Aksaray \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde polis memuru olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktayken 1\/9\/2016 tarihli ve 29818 m\u00fckerrer say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan 15\/8\/2016 tarihli ve 672 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Kamu Personeline \u0130li\u015fkin Al\u0131nan Tedbirlere Dair Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname uyar\u0131nca 1\/9\/2016 tarihinde kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu, g\u00f6reve iade edilmesi talebiyle Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal \u0130\u015flemleri \u0130nceleme Komisyonuna (OHAL Komisyonu) yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerine 15\/5\/2019 tarihinde kamu g\u00f6revine iade edilmi\u015ftir. 4. Ba\u015fvurucuya a\u00e7\u0131kta ge\u00e7irdi\u011fi s\u00fcrelere ili\u015fkin olarak maa\u015f \u00f6demesi 18\/6\/2019 tarihinde 139.205,99 TL olarak yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu 27\/2\/2020 tarihinde idareye ba\u015fvuruda bulunarak maa\u015flar\u0131na i\u015fleyecek yasal faizin ve \u00f6denmeyen fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccretinin yasal faiziyle \u00f6denmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. 5. \u0130dare bu talebi 12\/3\/2020 tarihinde fiili olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmayan personele …<\/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-107300","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n