T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
M\u00dcSL\u00dcM G\u00dcNE\u015e BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/33789)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 17\/9\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 31\/12\/2024 – 32769<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Y\u00fcksel G\u00dcNARSLAN<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
M\u00fcsl\u00fcm G\u00dcNE\u015e<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Ay\u015feg\u00fcl \u00d6ZCAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; haks\u0131z tutuklama ve tutuklaman\u0131n makul s\u00fcreyi a\u015fmas\u0131 nedeniyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tazminat davas\u0131nda, davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili iddian\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru 4\/6\/2021 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR <\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvuru formlar\u0131 ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ve Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi (UYAP) arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla eri\u015filen bilgi ve belgeler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
5. Zonguldak Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) taraf\u0131ndan ma\u011fdur O.K.n\u0131n \u015fik\u00e2yeti \u00fczerine ba\u015flat\u0131lan bir soru\u015fturma kapsam\u0131nda 8\/6\/2017 tarihinde g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nan ba\u015fvurucu, ayn\u0131 tarihte birden fazla ki\u015fi ile birlikte silahla ya\u011fma su\u00e7undan tutuklanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. Ma\u011fdur O.K., Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131kta verdi\u011fi 25\/7\/2017 tarihli ifadesinde kollukta dile getirdi\u011fi \u015fik\u00e2yetinden vazge\u00e7ti\u011fini beyan etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucu ve di\u011fer \u015f\u00fcphelilerin birden fazla ki\u015fi ile birlikte silahla ya\u011fma ve hakaret su\u00e7lar\u0131ndan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmalar\u0131 talebiyle haklar\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen iddianamenin kabul\u00fcyle a\u00e7\u0131lan kamu davas\u0131, Zonguldak 1. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmeye ba\u015flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Zonguldak 1. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince 31\/1\/2018 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucuya isnat edilen nitelikli ya\u011fma eylemini tehdit ve kasten yaralama olarak nitelemek suretiyle ba\u015fvurucunun tehdit su\u00e7undan beraatine, kasten yaralama ve hakaret su\u00e7lar\u0131ndan ise \u015fik\u00e2yetten vazge\u00e7ilmesi nedeniyle kamu davas\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan h\u00fck\u00fcmle birlikte ba\u015fvurucunun tahliyesine de karar verilmi\u015ftir. Aleyhe istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurulmayan h\u00fck\u00fcm 8\/2\/2018 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, haks\u0131z olarak tutukland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve aylarca \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden mahrum b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, hakk\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 neticesinde isnat edilen su\u00e7tan beraat etti\u011fini belirterek 4\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun 141. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (e) bendi uyar\u0131nca tazminat istemiyle Hazine aleyhine dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f; 20.000 TL maddi ve 50.000 TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
10. Bart\u0131n A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebini 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 144. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (c) bendi uyar\u0131nca 12\/11\/2020 tarihinde reddetmi\u015ftir. Mahkemenin gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“A\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n CMK’n\u0131n 141-144. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca koruma tedbirleri nedeniyle maddi ve manevi tazminat davas\u0131 oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. <\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131n\u0131n san\u0131k olarak yarg\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 dosya olan Zonguldak 1.A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin 2017\/362 Esas, 2018\/49 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda ya\u011fma su\u00e7u hakk\u0131ndaki iddia ile ilgili mahkeme, eylemlerin ya\u011fma de\u011fil TCK 106\/2-a-c kapsam\u0131nda tehdit ve yaralama su\u00e7unu olu\u015fturabilece\u011fi ve tehdit su\u00e7unun da dosya kapsam\u0131 itibariyle delil yetersizli\u011finden s\u00fcbuta varmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatiyle san\u0131k hakk\u0131nda beraat karar\u0131 vermi\u015f, yaralama su\u00e7u i\u00e7in ise ma\u011fdurun \u015fikayetten vazge\u00e7mesi nedeniyle d\u00fc\u015fme karar\u0131 vermi\u015f, yine hakaret su\u00e7u i\u00e7in de \u015fikayet yoklu\u011fu nedeniyle d\u00fc\u015fme karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
CMK’n\u0131n 144. Maddesinde: ‘Kanuna uygun olarak yakalanan veya tutuklanan ki\u015filerden a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da belirtilenler tazminat isteyemezler: <\/p>\n
c) Genel veya \u00f6zel af, \u015fik\u00e2yetten vazge\u00e7me, uzla\u015fma gibi nedenlerle hakk\u0131nda kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na veya davan\u0131n d\u00fc\u015fmesine karar verilen veya kamu davas\u0131 ge\u00e7ici olarak durdurulan veya kamu davas\u0131 ertelenen veya d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclenler’ \u015feklinde d\u00fczenleme vard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Yine bu konuda emsal al\u0131nabilecek iki Yarg\u0131tay 12. Ceza Dairesi’nin karar\u0131ndan bahsetmek gerekir:<\/p>\n
*2017\/9368 E.-2018\/1711 K.: ‘Tazminat talebinin dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturan \u0130stanbul Anadolu 7. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin 26\/12\/2013 tarih, 2011\/227\u20132013\/342 say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n ya\u011fma su\u00e7undan tutukland\u0131\u011f\u0131, yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda eyleminin yaralama su\u00e7u kapsam\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile \u015fikayet yoklu\u011fundan d\u00fc\u015fme karar\u0131 verildi\u011finin anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 144\/1-c maddesi gere\u011fince davac\u0131n\u0131n tutukland\u0131\u011f\u0131 su\u00e7tan beraat etmemesi sebebiyle, davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi g\u00f6zetilmeyerek yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisi, Kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131 olup, daval\u0131 vekilinin temyiz itirazlar\u0131 bu itibarla yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden h\u00fckm\u00fcn bu sebepten dolay\u0131 5320 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun 8. maddesi uyar\u0131nca halen uygulanmakta olan 1412 say\u0131l\u0131 CMUK’un 321. maddesi gere\u011fince isteme ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak BOZULMASINA’…<\/p>\n
*2017\/5617 E.-2018\/1019 K.: ‘Davac\u0131lar\u0131n tazminat taleplerinin reddine ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcm, davac\u0131lar vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmekle, dosya incelenerek gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc; Gerek\u00e7eli karar ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ‘koruma tedbirleri nedeniyle tazminat’ yerine ‘tazminat’ ibaresine yer verilmesi, mahallinde d\u00fczeltilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn yaz\u0131m yanl\u0131\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131, olarak kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturan ceza dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesinde; davac\u0131lar\u0131n \u00fczerlerine at\u0131l\u0131 ve tutuklanmalar\u0131na neden olan ‘cinsel istismar’ su\u00e7una dair \u015fikayet yoklu\u011fu nedeniyle d\u00fc\u015fme karar\u0131, ‘ki\u015fiyi h\u00fcrriyetinden yoksun k\u0131lma’ su\u00e7undan beraat karar\u0131 verilmi\u015f ise de tutukland\u0131klar\u0131 bir k\u0131s\u0131m su\u00e7lardan haklar\u0131nda d\u00fc\u015fme karar\u0131 verilen davac\u0131lar\u0131n tazminat haklar\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirlenerek davan\u0131n CMK\u2019n\u0131n 144\/1-c. maddesi gere\u011fince reddine karar verilmesinde herhangi bir isabetsizlik bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda tebli\u011fnamedeki bozma isteyen g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe i\u015ftirak edilmemi\u015ftir. Davan\u0131n tamamen reddedilmesi kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, kendisini vekil ile temsil ettiren daval\u0131 hazine yarar\u0131na vekalet \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi gerekti\u011finin g\u00f6zetilmemesi, temyiz edenin s\u0131fat\u0131na g\u00f6re bozma nedeni yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yap\u0131lan incelemeye, toplan\u0131p karar yerinde g\u00f6sterilen delillere, mahkemenin kovu\u015fturma sonu\u00e7lar\u0131na uygun olarak olu\u015fan kanaat ve takdirine, incelenen dosya kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re, mahkemece davac\u0131lar\u0131n lehine tazminat isteme \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7eleri g\u00f6sterilerek davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesinde usul ve kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131 y\u00f6n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, davac\u0131lar vekilinin t\u00fcm temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n reddiyle h\u00fckm\u00fcn, isteme ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak,\u00a0 ONANMASINA’ (…)<\/p>\n
5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 144\/1-c maddesi ve yukar\u0131da al\u0131nt\u0131 yap\u0131lan Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda tehdit su\u00e7undan dosyam\u0131z davac\u0131s\u0131 hakk\u0131nda beraat karar\u0131 verilmi\u015f ise de tutuklanmaya sebep olan eylemler b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcne ait di\u011fer bir k\u0131s\u0131m su\u00e7lardan hakk\u0131nda d\u00fc\u015fme karar\u0131 verilen davac\u0131n\u0131n tazminat hakk\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesi ile davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f, ‘davan\u0131n ancak tamamen\/t\u00fcmden reddi halinde hazine yarar\u0131na maktu vekalet \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilebilir’ kural\u0131 gere\u011fi de aleyhine vekalet \u00fccreti karar\u0131 da verilerek a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki gibi h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmu\u015ftur.”<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu, bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 dava dilek\u00e7esi i\u00e7eri\u011fini tekrar etmek suretiyle istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
12. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 29\/4\/2021 tarihinde istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun esastan reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan karar\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Vicdani kan\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015ftu\u011fu tutanaklar, belgeler ve gerek\u00e7e i\u00e7eri\u011fine g\u00f6re kararda usule ve esasa ili\u015fkin herhangi bir hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, delillerde ve i\u015flemlerde herhangi bir eksiklik olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, karar yerinde g\u00f6sterilen deliller uyar\u0131nca olu\u015fan kanaat ve takdirin dosya kapsam\u0131na uygun bulundu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, davac\u0131 vekilinin ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc nedenler yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmeyerek \u0130ST\u0130NAF BA\u015eVURUSUNUN ESASTAN REDD\u0130NE, karar verildi.”<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 7\/5\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 4\/6\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
14. 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un “Tazminat istemi” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 141. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“(1) Su\u00e7 soru\u015fturmas\u0131 veya kovu\u015fturmas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda; <\/p>\n
a) Kanunlarda belirtilen ko\u015fullar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda yakalanan, tutuklanan veya tutuklulu\u011funun devam\u0131na karar verilen,<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
e) Kanuna uygun olarak yakaland\u0131ktan veya tutukland\u0131ktan sonra haklar\u0131nda kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na veya beraatlerine karar verilen,<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
Ki\u015filer, madd\u00ee ve manev\u00ee her t\u00fcrl\u00fc zararlar\u0131n\u0131, Devletten isteyebilirler.<\/p>\n
…”<\/p>\n
15. 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Tazminat isteyemeyecek ki\u015filer” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 144. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“(1) Kanuna uygun olarak yakalanan veya tutuklanan ki\u015filerden a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da belirtilenler tazminat isteyemezler:<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
c) Genel veya \u00f6zel af, \u015fik\u00e2yetten vazge\u00e7me, uzla\u015fma gibi nedenlerle hakk\u0131nda kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na veya davan\u0131n d\u00fc\u015fmesine karar verilen veya kamu davas\u0131 ge\u00e7ici olarak durdurulan veya kamu davas\u0131 ertelenen veya d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclenler.<\/p>\n
…”<\/p>\n
16. Yarg\u0131tay 12. Ceza Dairesinin 25\/10\/2022 tarihli ve E.2021\/5190, K.2022\/7407 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u201c… 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 CMK\u2019n\u0131n 144\/1-c maddesinde genel veya \u00f6zel af, \u015fik\u00e2yetten vazge\u00e7me, uzla\u015fma gibi nedenlerle hakk\u0131nda kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na veya davan\u0131n d\u00fc\u015fmesine karar verilen veya kamu davas\u0131 ge\u00e7ici olarak durdurulan veya kamu davas\u0131 ertelenen veya d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclen ki\u015filerin tazminat isteyemeyece\u011finin belirtildi\u011fi, tazminat istemeyecek hallerin belirlenmesine ili\u015fkin nedenlerin niteli\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, bu hallerin, su\u00e7un i\u015flenmesi sonras\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fen taraf iradelerine ya da devletin tasarruflar\u0131na dayal\u0131 olarak, san\u0131\u011fa ceza verilmemesini \u00f6ng\u00f6ren kurumlar oldu\u011fu, belirtilen maddede, zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle davan\u0131n d\u00fc\u015fmesine karar verilmesi halinde, tazminat istenemeyece\u011fine dair a\u00e7\u0131k bir d\u00fczenleme bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi CMK\u2019n\u0131n 144\/1. maddesinde kanuna uygun olarak yakalanan veya tutuklanan ki\u015filerden b-c-d-e bentlerinde belirtilenlerin tazminat isteyemeyeceklerinin h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131, s\u00f6z konusu maddenin yaln\u0131z kanuna uygun olarak yakalanan veya tutuklanan ki\u015filer hakk\u0131nda uygulanabilece\u011fi, CMK\u2019n\u0131n 141\/1-j maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen el koyma nedeniyle tazminat isteyebilecek ki\u015fileri kapsamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde CMK\u2019n\u0131n 141\/1-j maddesindeki tazminat isteme ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015fup olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131larak sonucuna g\u00f6re karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi g\u00f6zetilmeden, yaz\u0131l\u0131 gerek\u00e7eyle davan\u0131n reddine dair yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisi, Kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131[d\u0131r]…\u201d <\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
17. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 17\/9\/2024 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130ddialar\u0131 ve Bakanl\u0131k G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu; haks\u0131z olarak tutuklanmas\u0131 sonras\u0131nda yarg\u0131laman\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede neticelenmemesi nedeniyle uzun s\u00fcre \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden mahrum kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, a\u00e7\u0131lan kamu davas\u0131 neticesinde hakk\u0131nda beraat karar\u0131 verildi\u011fini, haks\u0131z tutuklama nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 maddi ve manevi zararlar\u0131n tazmini nedeniyle a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n reddedildi\u011fini belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 ile ki\u015fi \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
19. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, ba\u015fvurucunun ki\u015fi \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lacak incelemede Anayasa’n\u0131n 19. maddesi ile ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ve Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 ile somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131narak de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda ba\u015fvuru formundaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 tekrarlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
B. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
21. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n \u201cHak arama h\u00fcrriyeti\u201d kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u201cHerkes, me\u015fru vas\u0131ta ve yollardan faydalanmak suretiyle yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddia ve savunma ile adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na sahiptir.\u201d<\/p>\n
22. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olaylar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan hukuki nitelendirmesi ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olmay\u0131p olay ve olgular\u0131n hukuki tavsifini kendisi takdir eder (Tahir Canan, B. No: 2012\/969, 18\/9\/2013, \u00a7 16). Ba\u015fvuru formu bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak incelendi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucunun temel iddias\u0131n\u0131n haks\u0131z olarak tutuklanmas\u0131na ve uzun s\u00fcre tutuklu yarg\u0131lanmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen maddi ve manevi zararlar\u0131n\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n reddine ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bu kapsamda ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131n\u0131n adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
1. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
23. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
2. Esas Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
a. Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
24. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 maddi adaleti de\u011fil \u015fekl\u00ee adaleti temin etmeye y\u00f6nelik g\u00fcvenceler i\u00e7ermektedir. Bu bak\u0131mdan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 davan\u0131n taraflardan biri lehine sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131n\u0131 garanti etmemektedir. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 temel olarak yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinin ve usul\u00fcn\u00fcn hakkaniyete uygun \u015fekilde y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesini teminat alt\u0131na almaktad\u0131r (M.B. [GK], B. No: 2018\/37392, 23\/7\/2020, \u00a7 80).<\/p>\n
25. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda herkesin yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131na davac\u0131 ve daval\u0131 olarak ba\u015fvurabilme ve bunun do\u011fal sonucu olarak da iddia, savunma ve adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. An\u0131lan maddeyle g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc -kendisi bir temel hak niteli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6tesinde- di\u011fer temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerden gereken \u015fekilde yararlan\u0131lmay\u0131 ve bunlar\u0131n korunmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan en etkili g\u00fcvencelerden biridir. Bu ba\u011flamda Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn mahkemelerin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc kararlar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7eli olarak yaz\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 ifade eden 141. maddesinin de hak arama h\u00fcrriyetinin kapsam\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesinde g\u00f6zetilmesi gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r (Vedat Benli, B. No: 2013\/307, 16\/5\/2013, \u00a7 30).<\/p>\n
26. An\u0131lan kurallar uyar\u0131nca ilke olarak mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7eli olmas\u0131 adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n bir gere\u011fidir. Derece mahkemeleri dava konusu maddi olay ve olgular\u0131n kan\u0131tlanmas\u0131n\u0131, delillerin de\u011ferlendirilmesini, hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131 ve uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kla ilgili vard\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucu, sonuca varmada kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdir yetkisinin sebeplerini yeterli bir \u015fekilde gerek\u00e7elendirmek zorundad\u0131r. Bu gerek\u00e7elerin olu\u015fturulmas\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k bir keyf\u00eelik g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn olmamas\u0131 ve yeterli bir bi\u00e7imde gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilmesi h\u00e2linde adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinden s\u00f6z edilemez (baz\u0131 farkl\u0131l\u0131klarla birlikte bkz. \u0130brahim Ata\u015f, B. No: 2013\/1235, 13\/6\/2013, \u00a7 23).<\/p>\n
27. Kararlar\u0131n gerek\u00e7eli olmas\u0131, davan\u0131n taraflar\u0131n\u0131n mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6\u011frenerek mahkemelere ve genel olarak yarg\u0131ya g\u00fcven duymalar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi taraflar\u0131n kanun yoluna etkili ba\u015fvuru yapmalar\u0131n\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn h\u00e2le getiren en \u00f6nemli fakt\u00f6rlerdendir. Gerek\u00e7esi bilinmeyen bir karara kar\u015f\u0131 gidilecek kanun yolunun etkin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmayaca\u011f\u0131 gibi bahsedilen kanun yolunda yap\u0131lacak incelemenin de etkin olmas\u0131 beklenemez (Vesim Parlak, B. No: 2012\/1034, 20\/3\/2014, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
b. \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/p>\n
28. Somut olayda Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun tutuklanmas\u0131na neden olan eylemler b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcne d\u00e2hil olan kasten yaralama su\u00e7u y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonucunda d\u00fc\u015fme karar\u0131 verildi\u011fini tespit etmi\u015f ve 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 144. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (c) bendi ile konuya ili\u015fkin Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihad\u0131 gere\u011fince hakk\u0131nda d\u00fc\u015fme karar\u0131 verilen ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat hakk\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
29. \u015e\u00fcpheli veya san\u0131\u011f\u0131n tutuklanmas\u0131na neden olan eyleme ili\u015fkin hukuki nitelendirmenin yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde de\u011fi\u015fmesi, bu kapsamda somut olayda oldu\u011fu gibi tek bir su\u00e7 olarak nitelendirilen eylemlerin birden fazla su\u00e7a v\u00fccut verdi\u011finin kabul\u00fc m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihad\u0131na g\u00f6re bu gibi durumlarda de\u011fi\u015fen hukuki nitelendirme neticesinde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilen su\u00e7 veya su\u00e7lardan baz\u0131lar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden d\u00fc\u015fme karar\u0131 verilmesi durumunda \u015f\u00fcpheli\/san\u0131\u011f\u0131n hukuka uygun yakalama veya tutuklamaya ili\u015fkin olarak tazminat isteme hakk\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r (bkz. \u00a7 10).<\/p>\n
30. Bununla beraber 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un koruma tedbirleri nedeniyle tazminat a\u00e7amayacak ki\u015fileri d\u00fczenleyen 144. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (c) bendi kanuna uygun olarak yakalanan ve tutuklananlar a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ge\u00e7erlidir (benzer de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. Eyy\u00fcp G\u00fcne\u015f [GK], B. No: 2017\/28308, 21\/10\/2021, \u00a7 91; A.A., B. No: 2022\/30644, 5\/6\/2024, \u00a7 13). Yukar\u0131da yer verilen Yarg\u0131tay karar\u0131na g\u00f6re bu madde yaln\u0131z kanuna uygun olarak yakalanan veya tutuklanan ki\u015filer hakk\u0131nda uygulanabilir (bkz. \u00a7 16). Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak yakaland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 veya tutukland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia eden ki\u015filer a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131 veya kovu\u015fturmas\u0131 neticesinde kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, beraat veya d\u00fc\u015fme karar\u0131 verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 tazminat talep etme hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden belirleyici de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
31. Bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda tutuklama tedbirine ili\u015fkin tazminat davas\u0131nda 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 144. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (c) bendinin uygulanabilmesi ancak davac\u0131n\u0131n tutuklaman\u0131n hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin bir iddias\u0131n\u0131n bulunmamas\u0131 veya bu y\u00f6ndeki iddia \u00fczerine yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirme neticesinde tutuklaman\u0131n kanuna uygun oldu\u011funun tespit edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
32. Dava dilek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucu, haks\u0131z olarak tutukland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve uzun s\u00fcre haks\u0131z \u015fekilde \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden mahrum b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun bu iddias\u0131n\u0131n davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili olabilecek esasl\u0131 bir iddia oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Ancak Mahkeme, tutuklulu\u011fun hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin iddia y\u00f6n\u00fcnden herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmadan tutuklama karar\u0131na esas al\u0131nan eylemlerden biri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden d\u00fc\u015fme karar\u0131 verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla davan\u0131n reddine ili\u015fkin gerek\u00e7eli kararda, davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili olabilecek esasl\u0131 iddialar hakk\u0131nda ayr\u0131 ve a\u00e7\u0131k bir yan\u0131t verilmedi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
33. Kural olarak ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131nda esasa ili\u015fkin hususlarda yeterli gerek\u00e7e bulunmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde kanun yolu merciince bu karara at\u0131f yap\u0131larak de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 makul g\u00f6r\u00fclebilir. \u0130lk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131nda gerek\u00e7e bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2llerde ise ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc esasl\u0131 itirazlar\u0131n istinaf mercii taraf\u0131ndan gerek\u00e7eli bir \u015fekilde kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 beklenir. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun temel iddialar\u0131n\u0131n Mahkemece kararda tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmamas\u0131na ve gerek\u00e7e olu\u015fturulmamas\u0131na ra\u011fmen ba\u015fvurucunun ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc esasl\u0131 iddialar\u0131n B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131lanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
34. Sonu\u00e7 olarak kanuna uygun olarak yakalanan veya tutuklanan ki\u015filerin belli ko\u015fullarda tazminat isteyemeyeceklerine ili\u015fkin bir d\u00fczenlemeye istinaden davan\u0131n reddine karar verilirken haks\u0131z olarak tutukland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcren ba\u015fvurucunun tutuklulu\u011funun kanuna uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair bir de\u011ferlendirmenin Mahkeme ve B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi gerek\u00e7elerinde yer almad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Derece mahkemeleri, ba\u015fvurucunun tutuklulu\u011funun kanuna uygun oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki kanaate ne \u015fekilde ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ortaya koymam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle ba\u015fvurucunun haks\u0131z olarak tutukland\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131 yeterli bir \u015fekilde a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131\u011fa kavu\u015fturulmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu nedenle yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcreci bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucunun gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
35. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
36. \u00d6te yandan yukar\u0131da ula\u015f\u0131lan sonuca ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ba\u015fvurucunun ki\u015fi \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131 ile adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki di\u011fer g\u00fcvencelerin ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesi gerekli g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
VI. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
37. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ile maddi ve manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
38. 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 (6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 50. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen bireysel ba\u015fvuruya \u00f6zg\u00fc yeniden yarg\u0131lama kurumunun \u00f6zelliklerine ili\u015fkin kapsaml\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamalar i\u00e7in 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. Ba\u015fvurucu maddi zarara ili\u015fkin olarak bilgi\/belge sunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan maddi tazminat talebinin; ihlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan da manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VII. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Bart\u0131n A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (E.2019\/361, K.2020\/279) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 487,60 TL har\u00e7 ve 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 19.287,60 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \u00d6demenin 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 17\/9\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 17\/9\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/33789 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 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 M\u00dcSL\u00dcM G\u00dcNE\u015e BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/33789) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 17\/9\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 31\/12\/2024 – 32769 \u00a0 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u00a0 \u00a0 Muhterem \u0130NCE \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Y\u00fcksel G\u00dcNARSLAN Ba\u015fvurucu : M\u00fcsl\u00fcm G\u00dcNE\u015e Vekili : Av. Ay\u015feg\u00fcl \u00d6ZCAN \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru; haks\u0131z tutuklama ve tutuklaman\u0131n makul s\u00fcreyi a\u015fmas\u0131 nedeniyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tazminat davas\u0131nda, davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili iddian\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 4\/6\/2021 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmu\u015ftur. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 4. Ba\u015fvuru formlar\u0131 ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ve Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi (UYAP) arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla eri\u015filen bilgi ve belgeler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir: 5. Zonguldak Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) taraf\u0131ndan ma\u011fdur O.K.n\u0131n \u015fik\u00e2yeti \u00fczerine ba\u015flat\u0131lan bir soru\u015fturma kapsam\u0131nda 8\/6\/2017 tarihinde g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nan ba\u015fvurucu, ayn\u0131 tarihte birden fazla ki\u015fi ile birlikte silahla ya\u011fma su\u00e7undan tutuklanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 6. Ma\u011fdur O.K., Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131kta verdi\u011fi …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,535],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n