T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
S.D. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/31969)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 24\/10\/2024<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
G\u0130ZL\u0130L\u0130K TALEB\u0130 KABUL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Mehmet Yavuz YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
S.D.<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Vedat \u00d6ZKAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Tazminat Komisyonu taraf\u0131ndan h\u00fckmedilen tazminat\u0131n yetersiz olmas\u0131 nedeniyle makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ve vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmemesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, hakk\u0131nda silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan yap\u0131lan soru\u015fturmada 21\/9\/2006 tarihinde g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Adana Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 31\/10\/2006 tarihli iddianamesiyle at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7tan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 istemiyle Adana 3. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda 17\/4\/2017 tarihli kararla ba\u015fvurucunun beraatine h\u00fckmolunmu\u015f, yap\u0131lan istinaf ba\u015fvurusu ise Gaziantep B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 3. Ceza Dairesinin 14\/6\/2017 tarihli karar\u0131yla reddedilmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n temyizi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesi 29\/11\/2018 tarihli kararla Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu, kamu davas\u0131nda yarg\u0131laman\u0131n makul s\u00fcreyi a\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131yla 9\/11\/2015 tarihinde Anayasa Mahkemesine ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvuru 2015\/1784 bireysel ba\u015fvuru numaras\u0131na kaydedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Anayasa Mahkemesi 26\/12\/2018 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun 9\/1\/2013 tarihli ve 6384 say\u0131l\u0131 Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesine Yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Baz\u0131 Ba\u015fvurular\u0131n Tazminat \u00d6denmek Suretiyle \u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne Dair Kanun’la kurulan \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Tazminat Komisyonuna (Tazminat Komisyonu) ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 gerekti\u011finden ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Bunun \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin hak etti\u011fi tazminat\u0131n \u00f6denmesi ayr\u0131ca taraf\u0131na lehe vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi istemiyle 8\/2\/2019 tarihinde Tazminat Komisyonuna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
7. Tazminat Komisyonu 30\/4\/2020 tarihli karar\u0131yla makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine, Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi (A\u0130HM) ve Anayasa Mahkemesinin uzun yarg\u0131lama konusundaki yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131narak hakkaniyet \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcnde ve takdiren ba\u015fvurucu i\u00e7in 7.500 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Tazminat Komisyonu karar gerek\u00e7esinde; ba\u015fvuruya konu yarg\u0131laman\u0131n on san\u0131kl\u0131 oldu\u011funu, \u00fc\u00e7 dereceli olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclen yarg\u0131laman\u0131n 12 y\u0131l 29 g\u00fcn s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu, karara kar\u015f\u0131 Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 11. \u0130dari Dava Dairesine (B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi) itirazda bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu itiraz dilek\u00e7esinde, Tazminat Komisyonunca takdir edilen tazminat tutar\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa Mahkemesine yap\u0131lan emsal ba\u015fvurular y\u00f6n\u00fcnden h\u00fckmedilen tazminat miktar\u0131yla k\u0131yasland\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00e7ok d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck oldu\u011funu iddia etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu ayr\u0131ca yarg\u0131lama gideri ile vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti takdir edilmemi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n usul ve kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
9. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 10\/9\/2020 tarihli kararla ba\u015fvurucunun itiraz\u0131n\u0131n reddine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde, \u00f6denmesine karar verilen tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n davan\u0131n konusu, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n niteli\u011fi ve \u015fik\u00e2yete konu edilen yarg\u0131laman\u0131n s\u00fcresi g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmak suretiyle makul s\u00fcrenin a\u015f\u0131m\u0131yla orant\u0131l\u0131 olarak belirlendi\u011fi ve bu nedenle hakkaniyete, Anayasa Mahkemesi ile A\u0130HM i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131na uygun oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi ayr\u0131ca 6384 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da, yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurularda vekil ile temsil olunmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde ba\u015fvuranlar lehine vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti takdir edilece\u011fi yolunda bir kural\u0131n yer almad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade ederek Tazminat Komisyonu karar\u0131n\u0131 bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle de hukuka uygun bulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
10. Nihai karar 23\/9\/2020 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucu vekiline tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu 1\/10\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
12. \u00d6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucunun adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
A. Lehe Vek\u00e2let \u00dccretine H\u00fckmedilmemesi Nedeniyle Adil Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucu, Tazminat Komisyonu taraf\u0131ndan lehine vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmemesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
14. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olay ve olgular\u0131 somut ba\u015fvuru ile benzer iddialar\u0131 Ahmet Do\u011fan (B. No: 2014\/11359, 16\/9\/2015) karar\u0131nda incelemi\u015f ve uygulanacak ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan kararda ba\u015fvurucu, Tazminat Komisyonuna yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru nedeniyle lehe avukatl\u0131k \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi gerekti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrmekte ise de 6384 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun yaln\u0131zca makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 ile mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131n icra edilmemesi iddialar\u0131yla A\u0130HM’e yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurular\u0131 incelemek \u00fczere idari bir kurul olan Tazminat Komisyonun kurulmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6rmektedir. An\u0131lan Kanun gere\u011fi ba\u015fvurular\u0131n incelenmesinde ba\u015fvurucular d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kar\u015f\u0131 taraf veya daval\u0131 s\u0131fat\u0131yla hi\u00e7bir kurum veya ki\u015finin yer almad\u0131\u011f\u0131, Tazminat Komisyonu ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131n\u0131 hakl\u0131 g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc takdirde ancak Kanun’da \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen \u015fekilde tazminata h\u00fckmedebilece\u011fi, bunun d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmetme yetkisinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Somut ba\u015fvuruda, an\u0131lan kararlarda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
15. 6384 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun uyar\u0131nca olu\u015fturulacak Tazminat Komisyonunun verdi\u011fi kararlar\u0131n \u201ckesin h\u00fck\u00fcm\u201d niteli\u011fini ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131, yarg\u0131 fonksiyonu kapsam\u0131nda olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurular\u0131 inceleme s\u00fcreci ve uygulayaca\u011f\u0131 usul\u00fcn idari nitelikte oldu\u011fu, kararlar\u0131n\u0131n idari yarg\u0131 denetimine tabi oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Tazminat Komisyonunun, yarg\u0131sal faaliyet y\u00fcr\u00fcten bir makam veya merci olmay\u0131p Bakanl\u0131k b\u00fcnyesinde kurulan ve sekretaryas\u0131n\u0131 Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bir idari kurul oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
16. 19\/3\/1969 tarihli ve 1136 say\u0131l\u0131 Avukatl\u0131k Kanunu’nun 164. maddesine g\u00f6re avukatl\u0131k \u00fccreti hukuki yard\u0131m kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6denen mebla\u011f\u0131 ifade etmektedir. Ayn\u0131 Kanun’un 169. maddesinde ise yarg\u0131 mercilerince kar\u015f\u0131 tarafa y\u00fckletilecek avukatl\u0131k \u00fccretinin miktar\u0131n\u0131n nas\u0131l hesaplanaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015f olup h\u00fck\u00fcmde \u201cyarg\u0131 mercilerinden\u201d bahsedildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Avukatl\u0131k \u00fccretinin miktarlar\u0131 da Avukatl\u0131k Asgari \u00dccret Tarifesi’nde belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda ba\u015fvurucunun Tazminat Komisyonuna yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerine makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilerek 6384 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun gere\u011fi ba\u015fvurucuya yaln\u0131zca tazminat \u00f6denmesine karar verildi\u011fi, an\u0131lan Kanun ve Komisyonun yetkisi gere\u011fi ba\u015fvurucu lehine vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine karar verilmemesinin ba\u015fvurucunun adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na bir m\u00fcdahale olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilmi\u015f; ba\u015fvurucunun Komisyon taraf\u0131ndan h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nan tazminat\u0131n \u00f6denmedi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik herhangi bir iddias\u0131n\u0131n da bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmemesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik a\u00e7\u0131k ve g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcr bir ihlal saptanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131 \u0130le Ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 Olarak Etkili Ba\u015fvuru Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucu, Tazminat Komisyonunca takdir edilen tazminat tutar\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa Mahkemesine yap\u0131lan emsal ba\u015fvurular y\u00f6n\u00fcnden h\u00fckmedilen tazminat miktar\u0131yla k\u0131yasland\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00e7ok d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
20. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, Tazminat Komisyonunun m\u00fcracaata konu dosyadaki bilgi ve belgeleri A\u0130HM ve Anayasa Mahkemesinin makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131n\u0131 da dikkate alarak karar verdi\u011fi belirtilmektedir. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde ayr\u0131ca; ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131ndaki san\u0131k say\u0131s\u0131, olay\u0131n karma\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131, olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzamas\u0131nda m\u00fcracaat edene y\u00fcklenilebilecek herhangi bir kas\u0131t veya kusurun bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve davan\u0131n m\u00fcracaat edenler a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6nemin birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011fi, Tazminat Komisyonu karar\u0131n\u0131n itirazen incelenmesi sonucunda B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan da hukuka uygun bulundu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
21. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/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. Somut olayda temel mesele ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede tamamlanmamas\u0131 oldu\u011fundan ba\u015fvuruya konu \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
23. Anayasa Mahkemesinin bir ihlal iddias\u0131n\u0131n giderilmesi i\u00e7in etkili olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcp t\u00fcketilmesi gerekti\u011fini belirtti\u011fi bir ba\u015fvuru yoluna ba\u015fvurulduktan sonra yap\u0131lacak bireysel ba\u015fvurularda ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n yine ilk ba\u015fvuruda ihlal edildi\u011fi ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen hak y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenebilece\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
24. 6384 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ge\u00e7ici 2. maddesi ile “Anayasa Mahkemesinde bulunan baz\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvurular hakk\u0131nda Komisyona m\u00fcracaat” d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan h\u00fck\u00fcmde ge\u00e7ici 2. maddenin y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girdi\u011fi 31\/7\/2018 tarihi itibar\u0131yla Anayasa Mahkemesinde derdest olan bireysel ba\u015fvurular\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle verilen kabul edilemezlik karar\u0131n\u0131n tebli\u011finden itibaren \u00fc\u00e7 ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lacak m\u00fcracaat \u00fczerine Tazminat Komisyonu taraf\u0131ndan incelenebilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu d\u00fczenlemeden sonra Anayasa Mahkemesi, Tazminat Komisyonuna ba\u015fvurunun ilk bak\u0131\u015fta ba\u015far\u0131 \u015fans\u0131 sunma ve yeterli giderim sa\u011flama kapasitesi oldu\u011funu kabul ederek ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemezlik kararlar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir (bkz. Ferat Y\u00fcksel, B. No:2014\/13828, 12\/9\/2018).<\/p>\n
25. Bu sebeple Anayasa Mahkemesinin Tazminat Komisyonunu etkili g\u00f6r\u00fcp bu yolun t\u00fcketilmesi gerekti\u011fini belirtti\u011fi ilk ba\u015fvuru ba\u015fvurucunun makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fundan Tazminat Komisyonuna yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvuruda s\u00f6z konusu ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmemesine\/giderilememesine dair eldeki -ikinci- ba\u015fvuruda ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen iddialar\u0131n da makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
26. Buna g\u00f6re makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 ihlali iddias\u0131yla 31\/7\/2018 tarihine kadar Anayasa Mahkemesine yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurular y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bir kanun yolu olu\u015fturulmu\u015f olup eldeki ba\u015fvuruda inceleme, s\u00f6z konusu kanun yolundan ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck hesaplanmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik Tazminat Komisyonu karar\u0131 ve bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 itiraz\u0131 inceleyen B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131na ili\u015fkin olacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
27. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir nedeninin de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
28. Etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131; anayasal bir hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcren herkese hakk\u0131n niteli\u011fine uygun olarak iddialar\u0131n\u0131 inceletebilece\u011fi makul, eri\u015filebilir, ihlalin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesini veya s\u00fcrmesini engellemeye ya da sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131rmaya (yeterli giderim sa\u011flama) elveri\u015fli idari ve yarg\u0131sal yollara ba\u015fvuruda bulunabilme imk\u00e2n\u0131 sa\u011flanmas\u0131 olarak tan\u0131mlanabilir (Y.T. [GK], B. No: 2016\/22418, 30\/5\/2019, \u00a7 47; Murat Hali\u00e7, B. No: 2017\/24356, 8\/7\/2020, \u00a7 44).<\/p>\n
29. \u00d6te yandan \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesine imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayan ve gerekti\u011finde uygun bir telafi y\u00f6ntemi sunan etkili hukuk yollar\u0131n\u0131n olmas\u0131 ilgililere etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131n bir gere\u011fidir. Buna g\u00f6re ki\u015filerin ma\u011fduriyetlerinin giderilmesi amac\u0131yla \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen yarg\u0131 yollar\u0131n\u0131n mevzuatta yer almas\u0131 yaln\u0131z ba\u015f\u0131na yeterli olmay\u0131p bu yolun ayn\u0131 zamanda pratikte de ba\u015far\u0131 \u015fans\u0131 sunmas\u0131 gerekir. S\u00f6z konusu yola ba\u015fvurulabilmesi i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ko\u015fullar somut olaylara tatbik edilirken dayanak i\u015flem, eylem ya da ihmallerden kaynaklanan savunulabilir nitelikteki iddialar\u0131n bu do\u011frultuda geni\u015f \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirilmesi, ko\u015fullar\u0131n olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 durumunda ise bu durumun yarg\u0131 makamlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7elerle a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 gerekir (\u0130lhan G\u00f6khan, B. No: 2017\/27957, 9\/9\/2020, \u00a7\u00a7 47, 49).<\/p>\n
30. Medeni hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerle ilgili uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klara ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131laman\u0131n s\u00fcresi tespit edilirken s\u00fcrenin ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihi olarak davan\u0131n ikame edildi\u011fi tarih; s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarih olarak -\u00e7o\u011fu zaman icra a\u015famas\u0131n\u0131 da kapsayacak \u015fekilde- yarg\u0131laman\u0131n sona erdi\u011fi tarih, yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 devam eden davalar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise Anayasa Mahkemesinin makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetle ilgili karar\u0131n\u0131 verdi\u011fi tarih esas al\u0131n\u0131r (G\u00fcher Ergun ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2012\/13, 2\/7\/2013, \u00a7\u00a7 50, 52). Medeni hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerle ilgili uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klara ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcresinin makul olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilirken yarg\u0131laman\u0131n karma\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ka\u00e7 dereceli oldu\u011fu, taraflar\u0131n ve ilgili makamlar\u0131n yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecindeki tutumu ve ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131laman\u0131n s\u00fcratle sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131ndaki menfaatinin niteli\u011fi gibi hususlar dikkate al\u0131n\u0131r (G\u00fcher Ergun ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7\u00a7 41, 45).<\/p>\n
31. Somut olayda, ba\u015fvurucunun 21\/9\/2006 tarihinde g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131yla ba\u015flayan s\u00fcrecin nihai karar tarihi itibar\u0131yla toplam yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcresinin 12 y\u0131l s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Buna g\u00f6re yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcresinin makul olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna varmak gerekir ki bu husus Tazminat Komisyonunca da kabul edilmektedir. Ba\u015fvuruya konu mesele, yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcresine g\u00f6re belirlenen tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n an\u0131lan ilkeler ve Anayasa Mahkemesinin benzer ba\u015fvurularda verdi\u011fi kararlara g\u00f6re yeterli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile ilgilidir.<\/p>\n
32. Buna g\u00f6re Tazminat Komisyonu taraf\u0131ndan 12 y\u0131l\u0131 a\u015fk\u0131n yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcresine ili\u015fkin olarak belirlenen tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n makul s\u00fcrenin a\u015f\u0131m\u0131yla orant\u0131l\u0131 olarak belirlenmedi\u011fi, tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n yetersiz oldu\u011fu, Anayasa Mahkemesi ve A\u0130HM i\u00e7tihad\u0131na uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (bkz. Haluk Ercan ve M\u00fcrsel \u00dcnl\u00fc, B. No: 2020\/6129, 17\/6\/2020. Burhan \u00c7i\u00e7ek, B. No: 2019\/18325, 21\/7\/2020).<\/p>\n
33. Bu h\u00e2liyle makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin ihlalin giderilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan teorik d\u00fczeyde etkili oldu\u011fu saptanan Tazminat Komisyonu, \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir olmayan bu yorumu sebebiyle somut olayda ba\u015far\u0131 \u015fans\u0131 sunma potansiyelini yitirmi\u015ftir. Bu ihlalin giderilmesi i\u00e7in ihdas edilen ba\u015fvuru yolu olan Tazminat Komisyonunca h\u00fckmedilen tazminat\u0131n yetersiz olmas\u0131 suretiyle makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
34. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak 40. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
C. Bireysel Ba\u015fvuru A\u015famas\u0131nda Ge\u00e7en S\u00fcrenin Makul S\u00fcre Hesaplamas\u0131nda Dikkate Al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
35. Ba\u015fvurucu Tazminat Komisyonunca takdir edilen tazminat tutar\u0131 hesaplan\u0131rken Anayasa Mahkemesinde bireysel ba\u015fvuru a\u015famas\u0131nda ge\u00e7en s\u00fcrenin tazminat hesab\u0131na d\u00e2hil edilmedi\u011fini ve bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle de tazminat tutar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7ok d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
36. Anayasa’n\u0131n 148. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n son c\u00fcmlesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Ba\u015fvuruda bulunabilmek i\u00e7in ola\u011fan kanun yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 \u015fartt\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
37. 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un “Bireysel ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 45. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“\u0130hlale neden oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen i\u015flem, eylem ya da ihmal i\u00e7in kanunda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f idari ve yarg\u0131sal ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131n bireysel ba\u015fvuru yap\u0131lmadan \u00f6nce t\u00fcketilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 gerekir.”<\/p>\n
38. An\u0131lan Anayasa ve Kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re bireysel ba\u015fvuru yoluyla Anayasa Mahkemesine ba\u015fvurabilmek i\u00e7in ola\u011fan kanun yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 gerekir. Temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere sayg\u0131, devletin t\u00fcm organlar\u0131n\u0131n anayasal \u00f6devi olup bu \u00f6devin ihmal edilmesi nedeniyle ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan hak ihlallerinin d\u00fczeltilmesi idari ve yarg\u0131sal makamlar\u0131n g\u00f6revidir. Bu nedenle temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n \u00f6ncelikle yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmesi, bu makamlar taraf\u0131ndan de\u011ferlendirilmesi ve bir \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme kavu\u015fturulmas\u0131 esast\u0131r (Ay\u015fe Z\u0131raman ve Cennet Ye\u015filyurt, B. No: 2012\/403, 26\/3\/2013, \u00a7 16).<\/p>\n
39. Ba\u015fvurucunun makul s\u00fcrenin hesab\u0131nda Anayasa Mahkemesinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda ge\u00e7en s\u00fcrenin dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik iddias\u0131n\u0131 ilk kez bireysel ba\u015fvuru formunda ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Buna g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun yukar\u0131da belirtilen \u015fik\u00e2yetlerini B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesinde dile getirmeyip do\u011frudan bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulundu\u011fu, b\u00f6ylece bireysel ba\u015fvuru yolunu usul\u00fcnce t\u00fcketmedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
40. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer kabul edilebilirlik \u015fartlar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmeksizin ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
41. Ba\u015fvurucu; 50.000 TL manevi, 50.000 TL maddi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. \u0130ncelenen ba\u015fvuruda yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinin uzun s\u00fcrmesi ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etmi\u015ftir. Uzun s\u00fcren yarg\u0131lamaya kar\u015f\u0131n Tazminat Komisyonu yeterli tazminat miktar\u0131na h\u00fckmetmemi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla somut ba\u015fvuruda ihlalin Tazminat Komisyonu karar\u0131ndan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
42. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n 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 B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flatmak ve Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gideren, ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun yeni bir karar vermektir (Mehmet Do\u011fan [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
43. \u0130hlalin 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 tazminat taleplerinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Adli yard\u0131m talebinin KABUL\u00dcNE,<\/p>\n
B. Kamuya a\u00e7\u0131k belgelerde ba\u015fvurucunun kimli\u011finin gizli tutulmas\u0131 talebinin KABUL\u00dcNE,<\/p>\n
C. 1. Vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmemesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
3. Bireysel ba\u015fvuru a\u015famas\u0131nda ge\u00e7en s\u00fcrenin makul s\u00fcre hesaplamas\u0131nda dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
D. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 11. \u0130dari Dava Dairesine (E.2020\/296, K. 2020\/2437) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
H. \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
\u0130. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Tazminat Komisyonu Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Karar No: 2020\/1205) ve Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 24\/10\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 24\/10\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/31969 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 S.D. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/31969) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 24\/10\/2024 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 G\u0130ZL\u0130L\u0130K TALEB\u0130 KABUL \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : Mehmet Yavuz YA\u015eAR Ba\u015fvurucu : S.D. Vekili : Av. Vedat \u00d6ZKAN \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Tazminat Komisyonu taraf\u0131ndan h\u00fckmedilen tazminat\u0131n yetersiz olmas\u0131 nedeniyle makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ve vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmemesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, hakk\u0131nda silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan yap\u0131lan soru\u015fturmada 21\/9\/2006 tarihinde g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Adana Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 31\/10\/2006 tarihli iddianamesiyle at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7tan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 istemiyle Adana 3. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda 17\/4\/2017 tarihli kararla ba\u015fvurucunun beraatine h\u00fckmolunmu\u015f, yap\u0131lan istinaf ba\u015fvurusu ise Gaziantep B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 3. Ceza Dairesinin 14\/6\/2017 tarihli karar\u0131yla reddedilmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n temyizi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesi 29\/11\/2018 tarihli kararla Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 4. Ba\u015fvurucu, kamu davas\u0131nda yarg\u0131laman\u0131n makul s\u00fcreyi a\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131yla 9\/11\/2015 tarihinde Anayasa Mahkemesine ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvuru 2015\/1784 bireysel ba\u015fvuru numaras\u0131na kaydedilmi\u015ftir. 5. Anayasa Mahkemesi 26\/12\/2018 tarihinde …<\/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-24169","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n