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
MUSA POLAT BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/2290)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 27\/11\/2024<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/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
Ay\u015fenur TUNCER<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Musa POLAT<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Gamze ERK KAHRAMAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, mavi kart sahibi ba\u015fvurucunun \u00fclkeye al\u0131nmamas\u0131 nedeniyle \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 26\/8\/2009 tarihli karar\u0131 ile ba\u015fvurucunun T\u00fcrk vatanda\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131na izin verilmi\u015f; ba\u015fvurucu, \u00e7\u0131kma belgesini ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 21\/6\/2010 tarihinde T\u00fcrk vatanda\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kaybetmi\u015ftir. 29\/5\/2009 tarihli ve 5901 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Vatanda\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kanunu\u2019nun 28. maddesi gere\u011fince mavi kart sahibi olan ba\u015fvurucu, Almanya vatanda\u015f\u0131d\u0131r ve Almanya’da ya\u015famaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu 31\/7\/2018 tarihinde T\u00fcrkiye’ye giri\u015f yapmak \u00fczere havaliman\u0131na gelmi\u015ftir. Havaliman\u0131 Kabul Edilemez Yolcular ve S\u0131n\u0131rd\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u0130\u015flemleri B\u00fcro Amirli\u011finde (B\u00fcro Amirli\u011fi) g\u00f6revli Risk Analiz Birimlerince ba\u015fvurucunun kamu d\u00fczeni ve kamu g\u00fcvenli\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan tehdit olu\u015fturaca\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Bu de\u011ferlendirme neticesinde \u00c7-138 (\u0130NAD-kabul edilmeyen yolcu) ile \u00c7-141 (T\u00fcrkiye’ye giri\u015fi bakanl\u0131k iznine tabi olan yabanc\u0131 ki\u015filer) tahdit kodu uygulanarak ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda T\u00fcrkiye’ye giri\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu; hakk\u0131nda tesis edilen, \u00fclkeye giri\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 i\u015fleminin iptali i\u00e7in \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 G\u00f6\u00e7 \u0130daresi Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (\u0130dare) aleyhinde idari yarg\u0131da dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, dava dilek\u00e7esinde davaya konu idari i\u015flemin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu ve gerek\u00e7esinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f; T\u00fcrkiye’de annesi, babas\u0131, karde\u015fleri ve akrabalar\u0131n\u0131n ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u0131kl\u0131kla T\u00fcrkiye’ye gelip gitti\u011fini 31\/7\/2018 tarihinde T\u00fcrkiye’ye gelme sebebinin day\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n cenaze t\u00f6renine kat\u0131lmak oldu\u011funu ifade etmi\u015ftir. Sonu\u00e7 olarak su\u00e7 te\u015fkil eden bir eylemi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, hakk\u0131nda idari veya adli bir soru\u015fturma bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vurgulayan ba\u015fvurucu, bu nedenlerle kamu d\u00fczeni veya kamu g\u00fcvenli\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan risk olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek an\u0131lan idari i\u015flemin iptalini talep etmi\u015ftir. Ankara 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) 25\/10\/2019 tarihinde ba\u015fvuruya konu idari i\u015flemin iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda B\u00fcro Amirli\u011finde g\u00f6revli Risk Analiz Birimleri taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan profil \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 sonucunda ba\u015fvurucuya ait oldu\u011fu belirtilen sosyal medya hesaplar\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan baz\u0131 payla\u015f\u0131mlar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctleriyle ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n olabilece\u011fini g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015fse de an\u0131lan sosyal medya hesab\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya ait olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve bu payla\u015f\u0131mlara dair somut ve her t\u00fcrl\u00fc \u015f\u00fcpheden uzak bilgi ve belgeye yer verilmedi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bunun yan\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun T\u00fcrkiye i\u00e7in nas\u0131l bir g\u00fcvenlik tehdidi olu\u015fturdu\u011funa dair somut herhangi bir tespit veya genel g\u00fcvenli\u011fi tehdit etti\u011fine dair herhangi bir bilgi ve belge bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi profil de\u011ferlendirmesinin nas\u0131l yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na, kimlerle ne t\u00fcr irtibat\u0131 oldu\u011funa, ne gibi bir faaliyete kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bilgi ve belge de sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. Sonu\u00e7 olarak ba\u015fvurucunun vatanda\u015fl\u0131ktan izinle \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00f6nceden T\u00fcrkiye Cumhuriyeti vatanda\u015f\u0131 oldu\u011fu, T\u00fcrkiye ile maddi ve manevi ba\u011flar\u0131n\u0131n devam etti\u011fi belirtilerek somut bir gerek\u00e7eye dayanmaks\u0131z\u0131n tesis edilen i\u015flemin iptal edilmesi gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Kararda yer alan az\u0131nl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde ba\u015fvuruya konu i\u015flemin kamu g\u00fcvenli\u011finin korunmas\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda ve devletin h\u00fck\u00fcmranl\u0131k yetkisi d\u00e2hilinde tesis edildi\u011fi, dava konusu i\u015flemde ulusal ve uluslararas\u0131 metinlere ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine var\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc bildirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Daval\u0131 \u0130dare, istinaf talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 10. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi (B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi) 4\/11\/2020 tarihinde \u0130darenin istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun kabul\u00fcne kesin olarak karar vermi\u015f; karar gerek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda iki polis memuru taraf\u0131ndan 1\/8\/2018 tarihinde d\u00fczenlenen tutanak ile yap\u0131lan risk analizi sonucunda ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctleriyle ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131 olabilece\u011fini de\u011ferlendirdi\u011finden devletin h\u00fck\u00fcmranl\u0131k yetkisi d\u00e2hilinde tesis edilen i\u015flemde ulusal ve uluslararas\u0131 mevzuata ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna vard\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 22\/12\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 18\/1\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
10. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu; hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 herhangi bir eylemi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ret karar\u0131na dayanak yap\u0131lan ve “gizli” ibareli olan belgelerin kendisine tebli\u011f edilmedi\u011fini, sosyal medya hesab\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, payla\u015f\u0131mlar\u0131 kendisinin yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n somut delillerle ortaya konulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca T\u00fcrkiye’ye geli\u015f amac\u0131n\u0131n day\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n vefat\u0131 nedeniyle defin i\u015flemlerinde haz\u0131r bulunmak oldu\u011funu, T\u00fcrkiye’de ya\u015fayan annesi, babas\u0131 ve karde\u015fleri ile ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131n devam etmesi nedeniyle s\u0131kl\u0131kla T\u00fcrkiye’ye geldi\u011fini ifade ederek an\u0131lan tarihte \u00fclkeye al\u0131nmamas\u0131 nedeniyle masumiyet karinesinin, adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n, seyahat h\u00fcrriyetinin, \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
12. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi konusunda inceleme yap\u0131l\u0131rken yer verilen Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ile somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n da de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda ba\u015fvuru formundaki ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131 tekrar etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. Anayasa Mahkemesi, seyahat \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u011flam\u0131nda yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131 ve yurda giri\u015fi engelleyen tedbirlere ili\u015fkin yap\u0131lan bireysel ba\u015fvurular\u0131n -\u00f6zellikle ki\u015finin gitmek istedi\u011fi \u00fclke ile g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc ki\u015fisel, ailevi, ekonomik ve mesleki ba\u011flar\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu durumlarda- \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilebilece\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir. Ancak bu \u015fekilde inceleme yap\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in bireysel ba\u015fvuru formunda ba\u015fvurucu, \u015fik\u00e2yet etti\u011fi tedbirin \u00f6zel ve aile hayat\u0131 \u00fczerindeki olumsuz sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 somut verilere dayanarak uygun \u015fekilde ortaya koymal\u0131d\u0131r (Onur Can Ta\u015ftan [GK], B. No: 2018\/32475, 27\/10\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 47-50; Ya\u011fmur Er\u015fan [GK], B. No: 2018\/36451, 27\/10\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 47-50; \u015eeng\u00fcl T\u00fckel, B. No: 2018\/12456, 12\/1\/2022, \u00a7\u00a7 40, 41; Nevin Padem, B. No: 2018\/32822, 26\/5\/2022, \u00a7 22). Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda uygulanan T\u00fcrkiye’ye giri\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan da \u00f6ncelikle an\u0131lan ilke kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. Bu ba\u011flamda somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu; ailesinin T\u00fcrkiye’de ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendisinin de ekonomik sebepler nedeniyle T\u00fcrk vatanda\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak \u00fclkesiyle ve ailesiyle ba\u011flar\u0131n\u0131 koparmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, anne ve babas\u0131n\u0131n hasta ve ya\u015fl\u0131 olmas\u0131 nedeniyle bak\u0131ma muhta\u00e7 oldu\u011funu, T\u00fcrkiye’de vefat eden yak\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n cenazelerine de kat\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6ylelikle ba\u015fvurucunun T\u00fcrkiye ile \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda g\u00f6zetilmesi gereken g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc ba\u011flar\u0131 oldu\u011funa dair a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131 bulundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bununla birlikte ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki T\u00fcrkiye’ye giri\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6zel hayat\u0131n\u0131 nas\u0131l ve neden etkiledi\u011fine dair yeterli d\u00fczeyde a\u00e7\u0131klama yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc iddialar\u0131n mahiyeti gere\u011fi ba\u015fvurunun \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir (Peri K\u0131r\u0131k, B. No: 2015\/19795, 9\/1\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 32-36; Narg\u0131za Gulamova, B. No: 2020\/33373, 30\/3\/2023, \u00a7\u00a7 19, 20).<\/p>\n
15. 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 \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
16. Hakk\u0131ndaki yurda giri\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 tahdit karar\u0131 nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin kanunili\u011fi, me\u015fru amac\u0131, demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine uygunlu\u011fu ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn denetiminde g\u00f6zetilmesi gereken genel ilkeler Anayasa Mahkemesince bir\u00e7ok kararda ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 olarak a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (benzer y\u00f6ndeki kararlar i\u00e7in bkz. Gulnura Toktomambetova, B. No: 2018\/29906, 15\/3\/2022, \u00a7\u00a7 62, 63; Demet Hussen Najem, B. No: 2019\/438, 27\/7\/2022, \u00a7\u00a7 41, 42; A.A.A., B. No: 2018\/36516, 15\/3\/2022, \u00a7\u00a7 48-53).<\/p>\n
17. Anayasa Mahkemesi yurda giri\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 tahdit karar\u0131 nedeniyle aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninde gerekli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin kriterleri A.G. (B. No: 2018\/6143, 16\/12\/2020) ve A.A.A. karar\u0131nda belirlemi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re devletin egemenli\u011finden kaynaklanan yabanc\u0131lar\u0131n \u00fclkeye giri\u015fi ve ikametini denetleme yetkisi bu konuyla ilgili konulmu\u015f kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 davrananlara cayd\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 yapt\u0131r\u0131mlar kapsam\u0131nda kamu d\u00fczeni ve mill\u00ee g\u00fcvenlik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tehlikeli oldu\u011fu tespit edilen yabanc\u0131lar\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 edilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Bununla birlikte s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 edilen yabanc\u0131n\u0131n \u00fclkede g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc ailevi ba\u011flara sahip oldu\u011fu durumlarda aile hayat\u0131 ile s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 veya \u00fclkeye giri\u015fin yasaklanmas\u0131 karar\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda g\u00f6zetilen kamusal menfaat aras\u0131nda adil bir denge kurulmas\u0131 gerekmektedir. Bir yabanc\u0131n\u0131n ter\u00f6rist faaliyetlerle ilgili olarak ve mill\u00ee g\u00fcvenli\u011fin korunmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla s\u0131n\u0131r d\u0131\u015f\u0131 edilmesinde veya \u00fclkeye giri\u015finin yasaklanmas\u0131nda kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n mutlaka somut olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131 i\u00e7inde ki\u015finin mill\u00ee g\u00fcvenli\u011fi tehlikeye atacak nitelikteki faaliyetlerde bulundu\u011funa dair yeterli ve ciddi bilgileri yarg\u0131 mercilerine sunmas\u0131 gerekir. Yarg\u0131 makamlar\u0131n\u0131n temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin keyf\u00eeli\u011fe kar\u015f\u0131 ger\u00e7ekten ve etkili \u015fekilde korunmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flama g\u00f6revleri gere\u011fi kamu makamlar\u0131nca m\u00fcdahale ile ilgili olarak ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen sebepleri inceleyerek konuyla ilgili beyanlar\u0131n neden kabul edildi\u011fi veya reddedildi\u011fine dair gerek\u00e7elerini kararlar\u0131nda g\u00f6stermeleri zorunludur (A.G., \u00a7\u00a7 50-54; A.A.A., \u00a7\u00a7 50-57).<\/p>\n
18. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun hakk\u0131ndaki yurda giri\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 tahdit karar\u0131na ili\u015fkin uygulama nedeniyle aile hayat\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin 4\/4\/2013 tarihli ve 6458 say\u0131l\u0131 Yabanc\u0131lar ve Uluslararas\u0131 Koruma Kanunu h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. D\u00fczenlemenin kanunilik \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve mill\u00ee g\u00fcvenli\u011fin sa\u011flanmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik me\u015fru amac\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu belirlemenin ard\u0131ndan m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden inceleme yap\u0131lacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
19. Yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki tahdit kayd\u0131na y\u00f6nelik idari i\u015flemin Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan iptaline karar verildi\u011fi (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 5, 6) ancak an\u0131lan karar\u0131n B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesince kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Mahkeme karar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun kamu d\u00fczeni ve kamu g\u00fcvenli\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan nas\u0131l ve ne \u015fekilde tehdit olu\u015fturaca\u011f\u0131 hususunda idarenin somut gerek\u00e7e ortaya koymad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespiti yap\u0131lmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesince ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda polis taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen tutanak ile yap\u0131lan risk analizi yeterli kabul edilmi\u015ftir ancak ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6rle ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 sosyal medya payla\u015f\u0131mlar\u0131 bulundu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki istihbari bilginin do\u011frulu\u011funun belirlenmesine y\u00f6nelik bir ara\u015ft\u0131rma veya de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
20. Bunun yan\u0131 s\u0131ra ba\u015fvurucu; daha \u00f6nce T\u00fcrk vatanda\u015f\u0131 oldu\u011funu, ekonomik sebeplerle vatanda\u015fl\u0131ktan izinle \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, T\u00fcrkiye’de annesi, babas\u0131 ve di\u011fer karde\u015fleri ile akrabalar\u0131n\u0131n ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u0131kl\u0131kla T\u00fcrkiye’ye gelip gitti\u011fini, somut olaya konu olan tarihte T\u00fcrkiye’ye gelme sebebinin ise day\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n cenaze t\u00f6renine kat\u0131lmak oldu\u011funu belirtmesine ra\u011fmen B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131nda i\u015flemin ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6zel ve aile hayat\u0131 \u00fczerinde do\u011furaca\u011f\u0131 etkiler bak\u0131m\u0131ndan bir inceleme ve dengeleme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00f6z edilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
21. Bu itibarla somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc esasl\u0131 itirazlar\u0131n ve mahkeme karar\u0131nda belirtilen hususlar\u0131n B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan de\u011ferlendirilmedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunun yan\u0131nda yurda giri\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 tahdit karar\u0131 ile ilgili idari ve yarg\u0131sal kararda yer verilen gerek\u00e7elerin \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda ilgili ve yeterli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, kamu d\u00fczeni ve g\u00fcvenli\u011finin korunmas\u0131 hususundaki kamusal menfaat ile ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 aras\u0131nda bir dengeleme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi kararlarda yer verilen unsurlar\u0131n bu dengelemeye imk\u00e2n verecek kadar ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 ve a\u00e7\u0131k olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
22. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
23. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespitine, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesine ve 50.000 TL manevi tazminata karar verilmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
24. 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 (30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda 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
25. \u00d6te yandan 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 manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. \u00d6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 10. \u0130dari Dava Dairesine (E.2020\/430, K.2020\/2043) iletilmek \u00fczere Ankara 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2019\/935, K.2019\/1960) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 487,60 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.487,60 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \u00d6demelerin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in YASAL FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 27\/11\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 27\/11\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/2290 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 MUSA POLAT BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/2290) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 27\/11\/2024 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \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 : Ay\u015fenur TUNCER Ba\u015fvurucu : Musa POLAT Vekili : Av. Gamze ERK KAHRAMAN \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, mavi kart sahibi ba\u015fvurucunun \u00fclkeye al\u0131nmamas\u0131 nedeniyle \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 26\/8\/2009 tarihli karar\u0131 ile ba\u015fvurucunun T\u00fcrk vatanda\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131na izin verilmi\u015f; ba\u015fvurucu, \u00e7\u0131kma belgesini ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 21\/6\/2010 tarihinde T\u00fcrk vatanda\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kaybetmi\u015ftir. 29\/5\/2009 tarihli ve 5901 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Vatanda\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kanunu\u2019nun 28. maddesi gere\u011fince mavi kart sahibi olan ba\u015fvurucu, Almanya vatanda\u015f\u0131d\u0131r ve Almanya’da ya\u015famaktad\u0131r. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu 31\/7\/2018 tarihinde T\u00fcrkiye’ye giri\u015f yapmak \u00fczere havaliman\u0131na gelmi\u015ftir. Havaliman\u0131 Kabul Edilemez Yolcular ve S\u0131n\u0131rd\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u0130\u015flemleri B\u00fcro Amirli\u011finde (B\u00fcro Amirli\u011fi) g\u00f6revli Risk Analiz Birimlerince ba\u015fvurucunun kamu d\u00fczeni ve kamu g\u00fcvenli\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan tehdit olu\u015fturaca\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Bu de\u011ferlendirme neticesinde \u00c7-138 (\u0130NAD-kabul edilmeyen yolcu) ile \u00c7-141 (T\u00fcrkiye’ye giri\u015fi bakanl\u0131k iznine tabi olan yabanc\u0131 ki\u015filer) tahdit kodu uygulanarak ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda T\u00fcrkiye’ye giri\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir. 4. Ba\u015fvurucu; hakk\u0131nda tesis edilen, \u00fclkeye giri\u015f yasa\u011f\u0131 i\u015fleminin iptali i\u00e7in …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30459","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n