T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
H.\u00d6. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/103754)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 27\/5\/2025<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hikmet Murat AKKAYA<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Muhammed K\u00fcr\u015fad T\u00dcRKSOY<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan verilen mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fc nedeniyle su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesinin ve di\u011fer anayasal haklar\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Tokat Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131na (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan hakk\u0131nda adli i\u015flem yap\u0131lan Y.R.nin “…2011 y\u0131l\u0131nda Tokat iline Ba\u015fkomiser r\u00fctbesindeyken tayinin \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131, burada cemaat toplant\u0131lar\u0131na devam etti\u011fini, bu toplant\u0131larda burs ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda para topland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendisinin de verdi\u011fini, bu toplant\u0131lara…, 2014 y\u0131l\u0131nda tayini \u00e7\u0131kan Lojistikte g\u00f6revli H. \u00d6. isimli emniyet amiri,….kat\u0131l\u0131yordu,…” \u015feklinde beyanda bulunmas\u0131 \u00fczerine Antalya \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc nezdinde 4. s\u0131n\u0131f emniyet m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc olan ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda Antalya Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nca FET\u00d6\/PDY \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesiyle soru\u015fturma ba\u015flat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Soru\u015fturma neticesinde Antalya Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle 23\/11\/2017 tarihli iddianame d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. \u0130ddianamede, kendi soru\u015fturmas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k m\u00fcessessinden faydalanmak isteyen Y.R. adl\u0131 \u015fahs\u0131n beyan\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucu ile ilgili olarak Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bir soru\u015fturma kapsam\u0131nda Garson kod adl\u0131 gizli tan\u0131ktan elde edilen micro SD karttaki bilgilere yer verilmi\u015ftir. Bu kapsamda Emniyet Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc Ka\u00e7ak\u00e7\u0131l\u0131k ve Organize Su\u00e7larla M\u00fccadele Daire Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen veri inceleme raporunun dosya aras\u0131nda bulundu\u011fu iddianamede belirtilmi\u015ftir. 28\/11\/2017 tarihinde iddianamenin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Tan\u0131k Y.R. istinabe yoluyla 20\/12\/2017 tarihinde dinlenilmi\u015ftir. Bu kapsamdaki ifadesi \u015fu \u015fekildedir:<\/p>\n
“Benim hakk\u0131mda halen ayn\u0131 su\u00e7tan soru\u015fturma devam etmektedir. Daha \u00f6nce verdi\u011fim ifade do\u011frudur, aynen ge\u00e7erlidir. Ayn\u0131 zamanda yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131m te\u015fhis de do\u011frudur ve ge\u00e7erlidir. San\u0131k H. \u00d6.’\u0131 tan\u0131r\u0131m, san\u0131k 2014 y\u0131l\u0131nda tayini \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131 nedeniyle Tokat ilinden ayr\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r; ancak \u00f6ncesinde 2012-2013 y\u0131llar\u0131nda birka\u00e7 kez sohbet toplant\u0131lar\u0131nda g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcm, kendisi emniyet amiriydi, benim meslekta\u015f\u0131md\u0131. Ben San\u0131k Hasan H\u00fcseyin’in toplant\u0131larda para verdi\u011fini g\u00f6rmedim. San\u0131kla ilgili bildi\u011fim ba\u015fkaca bir husus yoktur,…”<\/p>\n
5. Yap\u0131lan duru\u015fmada ba\u015fvurucunun savunmas\u0131 al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Cumhuriyet savc\u0131s\u0131 esas hakk\u0131ndaki m\u00fctalaas\u0131n\u0131 sunmu\u015f ve ba\u015fvurucunun cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir. Duru\u015fma sonunda Antalya 2. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda 1\/3\/2018 tarihinde beraat karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir. Beraat karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fka bir mahkemede ayn\u0131 su\u00e7 kapsam\u0131nda yarg\u0131lanan tan\u0131k Y.R.nin beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n soyut oldu\u011fu ve ba\u015fkaca delillerle desteklenmeyen veri inceleme raporu d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, ba\u015fvurucunun FET\u00d6\/PDY’nin hiyerar\u015fik yap\u0131s\u0131na d\u00e2hil oldu\u011funa y\u00f6nelik dosya i\u00e7erisine yans\u0131m\u0131\u015f herhangi bir delil bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. H\u00fckme kar\u015f\u0131 Cumhuriyet savc\u0131s\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurulmu\u015ftur. Bu kapsamda dosyada yer alan tan\u0131k beyan\u0131 ile veri inceleme raporunun dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 suretiyle san\u0131\u011f\u0131n cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. \u0130stinaf dilek\u00e7esi ba\u015fvurucuya 4\/4\/2018 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Antalya B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 2. Ceza Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan 17\/12\/2018 tarihinde davan\u0131n yeniden g\u00f6r\u00fclmesine ve duru\u015fma yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Tensip Tutana\u011f\u0131nda, san\u0131\u011fa ait cep telefonunun 2013-2016 y\u0131llar\u0131na ait HTS d\u00f6k\u00fcmlerinin istenilmesine ve HTS d\u00f6k\u00fcmleri geldi\u011finde duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fc beklenmeksizin HTS analiz raporu ald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in ter\u00f6rle m\u00fccadele \u015fube m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne (TEM) g\u00f6nderilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Yap\u0131lan duru\u015fmada ba\u015fvurucunun savunmas\u0131 al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. HTS kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n gelmesinden sonra bilgilerin liste h\u00e2linde olmas\u0131 g\u00f6zetilerek bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131nmas\u0131na gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi duru\u015fma tutana\u011f\u0131ndan anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Duru\u015fma sonunda beraat karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na, ba\u015fvurucunun \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7 kapsam\u0131nda 6 y\u0131l 10 ay 15 g\u00fcn hapis cezas\u0131yla mahk\u00fbmiyetine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Bu kapsamda gerek\u00e7eli kararda ba\u015fvurucu gibi \u00fcst d\u00fczey polis memuru olan Y.R.nin foto\u011fraf \u00fczerinden yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 te\u015fhis ve bu ki\u015finin kolluktaki ifadesi ile ilk derece mahkemesince talimat yoluyla al\u0131nan beyan\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun Tokat’da g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nemde FET\u00d6\/PDY’nin sohbet toplant\u0131s\u0131 ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirdi\u011fi \u00f6rg\u00fctsel toplant\u0131lara kat\u0131lmas\u0131na dayan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve b\u00f6ylelikle ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn hiyerar\u015fik yap\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7inde bulundu\u011fu kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen emniyet mahrem yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 soru\u015fturmas\u0131nda ele ge\u00e7irilen micro SD kart i\u00e7eri\u011findeki bilgilere istinaden haz\u0131rlanan veri inceleme raporu da g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu noktada ba\u015fvurucunun FET\u00d6 mensubiyeti olan, sadakati ve ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 olan ancak baz\u0131 konularda sorgulayan veya zaaf\u0131 olan ki\u015fileri ifade eden B4 koduyla kodlanmas\u0131; bu kapsamda \u0130zmir b\u00fcy\u00fck b\u00f6lge alt\u0131nda, Antalya k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck b\u00f6lgesine ba\u011fl\u0131 Antalya merkezinde tan\u0131mlanmas\u0131 ile tayin oldu\u011fu Antalya’da da faaliyetlerini s\u00fcrd\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc yorumu yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. H\u00fck\u00fcm, temyiz denetiminden ge\u00e7erek 27\/9\/2022 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu vekili nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 10\/11\/2022 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 7\/12\/2022 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. Di\u011fer taraftan ba\u015fvurucu da nihai karar\u0131, yakalanmayla birlikte 16\/11\/2022 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fini belirtmi\u015f ve 13\/12\/2022 tarihinde 2022\/106475 No.lu ba\u015fvuru ile bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurular\u0131n kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLERD\u0130RME<\/p>\n
12. Ki\u015fi ve konu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden hukuki irtibat nedeniyle 2022\/106475 numaral\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvurunun, mevcut 2022\/103754 numaral\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvuru dosyas\u0131 ile birle\u015ftirilmesine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
A. Ki\u015fi H\u00fcrriyeti ve G\u00fcvenli\u011fi Hakk\u0131 ile Toplant\u0131 ve G\u00f6steri Y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc D\u00fczenleme Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddialar<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucu; alt\u0131 g\u00fcn s\u00fcreyle g\u00f6zalt\u0131na kalmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirecek bir durumun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ayr\u0131ca tan\u0131k Y.R.nin ifade etti\u011fi \u015fekliyle mahrem boyutu olmayan din\u00ee i\u00e7erikli ve bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l bir toplant\u0131ya kat\u0131lman\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131nda dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc d\u00fczenleme hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurucu vekili, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 10\/11\/2022 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 7\/12\/2022 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. Di\u011fer taraftan ba\u015fvurucu da nihai karar\u0131, yakalanmayla 16\/11\/2022 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fini belirtmi\u015f ve 13\/12\/2022 tarihinde 2022\/106475 No.lu ba\u015fvuru ile bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
15. 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun\u2019un 47. maddesinin (5) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 ile Anayasa Mahkemesi \u0130\u00e7t\u00fcz\u00fc\u011f\u00fc’n\u00fcn 64. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca bireysel ba\u015fvurular\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketildi\u011fi tarihten, ba\u015fvuru yolu \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f ise ihlalin \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi tarihten itibaren otuz g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekmektedir (Yasin Yaman, B. No: 2012\/1075, 12\/2\/2013, \u00a7\u00a7 18, 19). Bireysel ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ko\u015fullar\u0131ndan olan ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcresine riayet edilmesi \u015fart\u0131, bireysel ba\u015fvuru incelemesinin her a\u015famas\u0131nda resen nazara al\u0131nmas\u0131 gereken bir ba\u015fvuru ko\u015fuludur (Taner Kurban, B. No: 2013\/1582, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 19). Bireysel ba\u015fvuru i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen otuz g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcre ge\u00e7tikten sonra yap\u0131lan eksiklik giderimlerinde daha \u00f6nce \u00f6z olarak dahi ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmemi\u015f hak ihlaline dair yeni iddialarda bulunulmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir (Ferhat Yildeniz, B. No: 2017\/20129, 15\/12\/2020, \u00a7 29).<\/p>\n
16. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu 13\/12\/2022 tarihli ve 2022\/106475 No.lu ba\u015fvuru ile an\u0131lan haklar\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte ilk sunulan bireysel ba\u015fvuru formunda \u00f6z itibariyle dahi olsa ki\u015fi h\u00fcrriyeti ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131 ile toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc d\u00fczenleme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin s\u00f6z konusu iddialar ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmemi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla s\u00f6z konusu \u015fik\u00e2yetin nihai karar\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenilme tarihi de dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda s\u00fcresinde ba\u015fvuruya konu edilmedi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Aksinin kabul\u00fc h\u00e2linde Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan veya ek beyanlar\u0131 i\u00e7erir dilek\u00e7elerle farkl\u0131 ve ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n her zaman dile getirilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olacakt\u0131r. Bu da bireysel ba\u015fvuru i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen otuz g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcre kural\u0131n\u0131 anlams\u0131z h\u00e2le getirecektir (benzer y\u00f6ndeki karar i\u00e7in bkz. \u00dcm\u00fct Demir, B. No: 2012\/1000, 18\/9\/2014, \u00a7 31; Sinan O\u011fan, B. No: 2017\/32685, 2\/6\/2020, \u00a7 29; Ferhat Yildeniz, \u00a7 33).<\/p>\n
17. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer kabul edilebilirlik ko\u015fullar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmeksizin s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Su\u00e7ta ve Cezada Kanunilik \u0130lkesinin \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu; istinaf ilam\u0131nda \u00f6rg\u00fctsel bir eylemi oldu\u011funa dair bilgisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirten tan\u0131k beyan\u0131na ve SD karttaki kodlamaya at\u0131f yapmaktan ibaret bir gerek\u00e7e olu\u015fturuldu\u011funu, toplan\u0131lan delillerden ba\u015fka yeni bir delil olmamas\u0131na ra\u011fmen mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 verilmesinin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, dosyadaki delillerle ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc su\u00e7unun olu\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, su\u00e7un manevi unsurunun dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kald\u0131 ki 26\/9\/2004 tarihli ve 5237 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Ceza Kanunu’nun 30. maddesindeki hata h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin neden uygulanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmedi\u011fini, 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; derece mahkemesinin dava konusu maddi olay ve olgular\u0131, delilleri de\u011ferlendirmesini, hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131 ve uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kla ilgili vard\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucu ve kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdir yetkisinin sebeplerini gerek\u00e7elendirdi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131n\u0131n kanun yolu \u015fik\u00e2yeti niteli\u011finde olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ncelikle de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 38. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
”Kimse, i\u015flendi\u011fi zaman y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan kanunun su\u00e7 saymad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir fiilden dolay\u0131 cezaland\u0131r\u0131lamaz; kimseye su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011fi zaman kanunda o su\u00e7 i\u00e7in konulmu\u015f olan cezadan daha a\u011f\u0131r bir ceza verilemez.”<\/p>\n
21. 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 \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesi kapsam\u0131nda incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
22. 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 su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir. <\/p>\n
23. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n \u201cSu\u00e7 ve cezalara ili\u015fkin esaslar\u201d kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 38. maddesinin birinci maddesinde yer alan su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesi uyar\u0131nca hangi fiillerin yasakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve bu yasak fiillere verilecek cezalar\u0131n hi\u00e7bir ku\u015fkuya yer b\u0131rakmayacak bi\u00e7imde kanunda g\u00f6sterilmesi, kural\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k, anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r ve s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n belli olmas\u0131 gerekmektedir (bkz. AYM, E.2019\/9, K.2019\/27, 11\/4\/2019, \u00a7 13). Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 38. maddesine ko\u015fut olarak 5237 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 2. maddesinde de d\u00fczenlenen ilke, yasaklanan eylemlerin ve bu yasak eylemlere verilecek cezalar\u0131n hi\u00e7bir ku\u015fkuya yer b\u0131rakmayacak bi\u00e7imde kanunda g\u00f6sterilmesini, kural\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k, anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r ve s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n belli olmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirmektedir.<\/p>\n
24. Bununla birlikte ne kadar a\u00e7\u0131k ve anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r \u015fekilde d\u00fczenlenirse d\u00fczenlensin su\u00e7 ve ceza \u00f6ng\u00f6ren kurallar i\u00e7in yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131n\u0131n yorumuna ihtiya\u00e7 duyulabilir. Ancak yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131nca yap\u0131lacak yorumun kural\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcyle \u00e7eli\u015fmemesi ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir olmas\u0131 gerekir. (Mehmet Emin Karamehmet ve di\u011ferleri [2.B.], B. No: 2017\/4902, 28\/1\/2020, \u00a7 47). Bu nedenle, su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesinin denetlenmesinde normun mevcut deliller \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde somut olaya uygulan\u0131\u015f bi\u00e7iminin yasal d\u00fczenlemeyle ba\u011fda\u015fmaz ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemez bir sonuca yol a\u00e7\u0131p a\u00e7mad\u0131\u011f\u0131 incelenmelidir (Bilal Celalettin \u015ea\u015fmaz [1. B.], B. No: 2019\/20791, 18\/10\/2022, \u00a7 62).<\/p>\n
25. Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00f6n\u00fcne gelen bir\u00e7ok ba\u015fvuruda FET\u00d6\/PDY’ye \u00fcyelik su\u00e7u ba\u011flam\u0131nda su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesinin kapsam ve i\u00e7eri\u011fini incelemi\u015f, ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmelerde bulunmu\u015ftur (bkz. Hasan Sar\u0131c\u0131 [GK], B. No: 2018\/37695, 9\/10\/2024, \u00a7\u00a7 26-52; Bilal Celalettin \u015ea\u015fmaz, \u00a7\u00a7 44-64; Yahya Turgut [GK], B. No: 2021\/43694, 9\/10\/2024, \u00a7\u00a7 44-58).<\/p>\n
26. Su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesine y\u00f6nelik \u015fikayetleri kapsayan ba\u015fvurularda \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmesi gereken \u00f6ncelikli meselenin, ba\u015fvurucunun FET\u00d6\/PDY’ye \u00fcye olma su\u00e7unda delil olarak kabul edilen fiilleri i\u015fledi\u011fi s\u0131rada cezai y\u00f6nden bir sorumluluk alt\u0131na sokulabilece\u011fini makul olarak \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi gerekti\u011fini vurgulayan Anayasa Mahkemesi, ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn ter\u00f6r niteli\u011fini ve ama\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 bildi\u011fi, \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn bir par\u00e7as\u0131 olmay\u0131 istedi\u011fi, \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn hayatta kalmas\u0131na, ama\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesine devaml\u0131 bir irade ile katk\u0131 sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ortaya konuldu\u011fu takdirde s\u00f6z konusu fiillerden dolay\u0131 cezai y\u00f6nden bir sorumluluk alt\u0131na sokulabilece\u011fini kabul etmi\u015ftir (Bilal Celalettin \u015ea\u015fmaz, \u00a7 40; Hasan Sar\u0131c\u0131, \u00a7 33).<\/p>\n
27. Ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7una ba\u011flanan a\u011f\u0131r cezai yapt\u0131r\u0131mlar g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde -\u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn nihai amac\u0131n\u0131n herkes\u00e7e bilindi\u011finin kabul edilebilece\u011fi kesin bir tarihin verilmesi yoluna gidilmemi\u015f olmakla birlikte- \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn nihai amac\u0131n\u0131n herkes\u00e7e bilinir h\u00e2le geldi\u011fi olaylardan (Bilal Celalettin \u015ea\u015fmaz, \u00a7 11) \u00f6nce yasal zeminde faaliyet g\u00f6steren bir sivil toplum \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne ba\u011fl\u0131 oldu\u011fu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesi ile hareket ederek hataya d\u00fc\u015fenler ile FET\u00d6\/PDY’nin ama\u00e7 ve y\u00f6ntemlerini bilen \u00f6rg\u00fct mensuplar\u0131n\u0131n birbirlerinden dikkatli \u015fekilde ayr\u0131lmas\u0131 yoluna gidilmi\u015ftir (Yahya Turgut, \u00a7 53; Bilal Celalettin \u015ea\u015fmaz, \u00a7 54; Hasan Sar\u0131c\u0131, \u00a7 36).<\/p>\n
28. Di\u011fer taraftan Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn nihai amac\u0131n\u0131n herkes\u00e7e bilinir h\u00e2le geldi\u011fi olaylardan sonra dahi ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc hiyerar\u015fisi i\u00e7erisinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011fi tespit edilen \u00f6rg\u00fctsel faaliyetlerin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ortaya konulmas\u0131 suretiyle \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn nihai amac\u0131n\u0131n bilindi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lan durumlarda Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 38. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesinin ihlal edilmedi\u011fine de karar vermi\u015ftir (Yahya Turgut, \u00a7\u00a7 57-59).<\/p>\n
29. Somut olayda B\u00f6lge Adiye Mahkemesinin temyiz denetiminden ge\u00e7erek onanan gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131na g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyeli\u011fi su\u00e7undan mahk\u00fbm olmas\u0131nda dayan\u0131lan deliller, tan\u0131k Y.R.n\u0131n beyanlar\u0131 ve Garson adl\u0131 gizli tan\u0131ktan elde edilen SD karttaki verilerdir. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi, SD karttaki verilere dayanarak ba\u015fvurucunun FET\u00d6\/PDY hiyerar\u015fisi i\u00e7inde konumunu s\u00fcrd\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
30. Yarg\u0131tay uygulamas\u0131na g\u00f6re 2013 y\u0131l\u0131 \u00f6ncesine ait olan ve bu tarihten sonra devam etmeyen, gizlilik ve himmet vermek\/toplamak gibi \u00f6rg\u00fctsel \u00f6zellik ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 da belirlenemeyen din\u00ee sohbetlere kat\u0131lmaktan ibaret eylemlere istinaden mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 verilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir [bir\u00e7ok karar aras\u0131ndan bkz. (kapat\u0131lan) Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesinin 10\/2\/2021 tarihli ve E.2019\/10348, K.2021\/972; 10\/5\/2018 tarihli ve E.2017\/4179, K.2018\/1541 say\u0131l\u0131 kararlar\u0131; hata h\u00fck\u00fcmleri uygulanarak ceza verilmesine yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair kurulan h\u00fck\u00fcmde, beraat y\u00f6n\u00fcnde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle verilen bir bozma karar\u0131 i\u00e7in bkz. Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesinin 21\/1\/2025 tarihli ve E.2023\/24901, K.2025\/1910 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131]. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6rg\u00fcte \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131nda delil olarak kullan\u0131lan sohbetlere kat\u0131lma eyleminin \u00f6rg\u00fctsel alanda oldu\u011funun kabul edilmesi i\u00e7in Yarg\u0131tay, kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 sohbetlerin \u00f6rg\u00fctsel \u00f6zellik ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesini beklemektedir (Bilal Celalettin \u015ea\u015fmaz, \u00a7 20; Hasan Sar\u0131c\u0131, \u00a7 37).<\/p>\n
31. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fcne esas ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 tan\u0131k Y.R.nin ifadesinde, ba\u015fvurucuyu 2012-2013 y\u0131llar\u0131nda birka\u00e7 kez sohbet toplant\u0131lar\u0131nda g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, ba\u015fvurucunun toplant\u0131larda para verdi\u011fini g\u00f6rmedi\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki beyanlar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda toplant\u0131lar\u0131n \u00f6rg\u00fctsel niteli\u011fine ve Yarg\u0131tayca kritik oldu\u011fu belirtilen tarihlerden sonra devam edip etmedi\u011fine ili\u015fkin herhangi bir a\u00e7\u0131klamaya yer verilmedi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
32. Yarg\u0131tay uygulamas\u0131nda ise san\u0131klar\u0131n Garson kod adl\u0131 gizli tan\u0131ktan ele ge\u00e7irilen SD kart i\u00e7inde “B4” olarak kodlanmas\u0131 mahk\u00fbmiyet i\u00e7in yeterli olmay\u0131p bunun i\u00e7in destekleyici bir ifade, beyan yahut ba\u015fkaca bilgi ve belge bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekmektedir (bir\u00e7ok karar aras\u0131ndan bkz. Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesinin 15\/1\/2025 tarihli ve E.2023\/26776, K.2025\/1399 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131; ayr\u0131ca bkz. Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesinin 4\/2\/2025 tarihli ve E.2022\/11020, K.2025\/2707 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131.)<\/p>\n
33. Somut olayda B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan tan\u0131k Y.R.n\u0131n beyanlar\u0131nda bahsedilen sohbet toplant\u0131lar\u0131na kat\u0131lma eyleminin -ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011fi tarih dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda- neden \u00f6rg\u00fctsel nitelikte bir faaliyet olarak kabul edildi\u011fine dair herhangi bir izahat yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmal\u0131d\u0131r. Ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle sohbet ad\u0131 alt\u0131ndaki toplant\u0131lara kat\u0131lmas\u0131 \u015feklinde mahk\u00fbmiyetinde delil olarak kullan\u0131lan fiillerinin kendisini cezai y\u00f6nden sorumluluk alt\u0131na sokaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 makul olarak \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilece\u011fi somut olayda g\u00f6sterilememi\u015ftir. SD karttan elde edilen verilerle ilgili olarak yeteri kadar ara\u015ft\u0131rma da yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Sonu\u00e7 olarak ba\u015fvurucunun bu \u015fekilde ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan mahk\u00fbm edilmesi an\u0131lan su\u00e7un ba\u015fvurucunun aleyhine \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemez bi\u00e7imde geni\u015fletici bir yoruma tabi tutulmas\u0131 ile m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmu\u015ftur. Ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan bu sonu\u00e7, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 38. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 ile ba\u011fda\u015fmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
34. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan mahk\u00fbmiyeti nedeniyle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 38. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
35. Ba\u015fvurucu, silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyesi oldu\u011funa dair kabul\u00fcn hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 delillere dayan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve masumiyet karinesinin ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrmektedir. Ba\u015fvurucu, dijital verileri Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131na teslim eden Garson kod adl\u0131 gizli tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n duru\u015fmada dinlenilmemesinden yak\u0131nm\u0131\u015f; savunma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini de ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Di\u011fer taraftan ba\u015fvurucu, soru\u015fturma evresinde gerek\u00e7e belirtmeksizin dosya hakk\u0131nda gizlilik karar\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 \u015fik\u00e2yet etmektedir. Ayr\u0131ca iddianamede kendisi hakk\u0131ndaki deliller y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ki\u015fiye \u00f6zg\u00fc bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, matbu i\u00e7eriklerle d\u00fczenlenen iddianame \u00fczerine yarg\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, savunma hakk\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131s\u0131tland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Son olarak davan\u0131n yeniden g\u00f6r\u00fclmesi s\u0131ras\u0131nda GSM numaras\u0131 hakk\u0131nda 2013-2016 y\u0131llar\u0131na ait HTS d\u00f6k\u00fcmlerinin istenmesine karar verildi\u011fini, bu deliller \u00fczerinden inceleme yap\u0131larak mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 verildi\u011fini belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
36. Ba\u015fvuruda su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verildi\u011finden adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n birtak\u0131m g\u00fcvencelerine ili\u015fkin ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen \u015fik\u00e2yetler hakk\u0131nda kabul edilebilirlik ve esas y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ayr\u0131ca bir inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
37. Ba\u015fvurucu, ilk ba\u015fvurusunda ihlalin tespiti ile yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Sonraki ba\u015fvurusunda ise ayr\u0131ca maddi ve manevi tazminat istemi yer almaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
38. 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
39. \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
40. Ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcresinden sonra istenilen tazminat taleplerinin de\u011ferlendirilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin reddedilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurular\u0131n B\u0130RLE\u015eT\u0130R\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
B. 1. Ki\u015fi h\u00fcrriyeti ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131 ile toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc d\u00fczenleme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
C. Anayasa’n\u0131n 38. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesinin \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u0130NCELEME YAPILMASINA GEREK OLMADI\u011eINA,<\/p>\n
E. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesinin ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Antalya 2. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (E.2017\/254, K.2018\/89) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. Tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. 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
H. \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
\u0130. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 27\/5\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 27\/5\/2025 tarihli ve 2022\/103754 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 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR H.\u00d6. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/103754) Karar Tarihi: 27\/5\/2025 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN Muhterem \u0130NCE Raport\u00f6r : Hikmet Murat AKKAYA Ba\u015fvurucu : Vekili : Av. Muhammed K\u00fcr\u015fad T\u00dcRKSOY I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan verilen mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fc nedeniyle su\u00e7ta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesinin ve di\u011fer anayasal haklar\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Tokat Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131na (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan hakk\u0131nda adli i\u015flem yap\u0131lan Y.R.nin “…2011 y\u0131l\u0131nda Tokat iline Ba\u015fkomiser r\u00fctbesindeyken tayinin \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131, burada cemaat toplant\u0131lar\u0131na devam etti\u011fini, bu toplant\u0131larda burs ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda para topland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendisinin de verdi\u011fini, bu toplant\u0131lara…, 2014 y\u0131l\u0131nda tayini \u00e7\u0131kan Lojistikte g\u00f6revli H. \u00d6. isimli emniyet amiri,….kat\u0131l\u0131yordu,…” \u015feklinde beyanda bulunmas\u0131 \u00fczerine Antalya \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc nezdinde 4. s\u0131n\u0131f emniyet m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc olan ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda Antalya Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nca FET\u00d6\/PDY \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesiyle soru\u015fturma ba\u015flat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Soru\u015fturma neticesinde Antalya Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle 23\/11\/2017 tarihli iddianame d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. \u0130ddianamede, kendi soru\u015fturmas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda etkin pi\u015fmanl\u0131k m\u00fcessessinden faydalanmak isteyen Y.R. adl\u0131 \u015fahs\u0131n beyan\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucu ile ilgili olarak Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bir soru\u015fturma kapsam\u0131nda Garson kod adl\u0131 …<\/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-142448","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n