T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
GENEL KURUL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
ABDULLAH ZEYDAN BA\u015eVURUSU (3)<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/34861)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 4\/7\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 12\/3\/2025 – 32839<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
GENEL KURUL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Kadir \u00d6ZKAYA<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkanvekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkanvekili<\/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
Recai AKYEL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Ekin \u00c7ANKAL<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Abdullah ZEYDAN<\/p>\n
Vekilleri<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. F\u0131rat EP\u00d6ZDEM\u0130R<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Av. Ramazan DEM\u0130R<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, bir gazeteci hakk\u0131nda kullan\u0131lan ifadelerden dolay\u0131 aleyhe manevi tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesi nedeniyle ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru 28\/10\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvuru, ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinin idari y\u00f6nden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n incelemesinden sonra Komisyona sunulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
3. Komisyonca ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6l\u00fcm Ba\u015fkan\u0131 ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin birlikte yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. 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.<\/p>\n
5. Birinci B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurunun Genel Kurula sevkine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, mimar olup ayn\u0131 zamanda Halklar\u0131n Demokratik Partisi 26. d\u00f6nem Hakk\u00e2ri milletvekilidir. Ba\u015fvurucu 7\/4\/2016-8\/4\/2016 tarihlerinde Star TV Ana Haber program\u0131nda yay\u0131mlanan ve Hakk\u00e2ri’nin Y\u00fcksekova il\u00e7esinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen operasyonlara ili\u015fkin “Y\u00fcksekova \u00d6zel” haberiyle ilgili olarak T\u00fcrkiye B\u00fcy\u00fck Millet Meclisi’nde (TBMM\/Meclis) soru \u00f6nergesi vermi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu soru \u00f6nergesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“6 Nisan 2016 g\u00fcn\u00fc Star haber genel yay\u0131n y\u00f6netmeni [N.\u00c7.] soka\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kma yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu Hakkari’nin Y\u00fcksekova il\u00e7esinde operasyonlardan g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcler almak i\u00e7in gitmi\u015ftir. G\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcler alan ve 7-8 Nisan 2016 g\u00fcnlerinde Star TV ana haber b\u00fclteninde servis eden [N.\u00c7.ye] \u00e7ok say\u0131da J\u00d6H ve P\u00d6H timlerinin e\u015flik etti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcyor. \u0130ddia edilene g\u00f6re \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma s\u00fcs\u00fc verilen bir yerde, \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma ya\u015fan\u0131yormu\u015f gibi g\u00fcvenlik g\u00fc\u00e7leri hareket etmekte ve ad\u0131 ge\u00e7en gazeteci de bunu \u00e7ekerek haber yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Operasyon s\u00fcs\u00fc verilen yerde T\u00fcrkiye halklar\u0131 kan\u0131 \u00fczerinde reyting oranlar\u0131n\u0131 y\u00fckseltmek i\u00e7in bir evde bomba patlat\u0131larak yerle bir edildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fclerde de yans\u0131maktad\u0131r. Dahas\u0131 hi\u00e7bir milletvekili, STK temsilcisi, kanaat \u00f6nderi ve se\u00e7ilmi\u015fe izin verilmemi\u015fken, baz\u0131 medya gruplar\u0131yla spikerlere ayr\u0131cal\u0131k tan\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilebilir hi\u00e7bir taraf\u0131 yoktur. Yerel medyan\u0131n sans\u00fcr edildi\u011fi, ulusal \u00e7apta yay\u0131n yapan muhalif kanallar\u0131n T\u00fcrksat uydusundan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, be\u011fenilmeyen programlar\u0131n ekranlardan kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir d\u00f6nemde Star, Show Tv ve A Haber kanal\u0131na tan\u0131nan bu ayr\u0131cal\u0131\u011f\u0131n toplumsal kutupla\u015ft\u0131rmay\u0131 derinle\u015ftirme, yanl\u0131\u015f bilgi ve beyan\u0131 servis etme \u00fczerine kuruldu\u011fu hissiyat\u0131 g\u00fc\u00e7lenmi\u015ftir. Bir gazeteci, \u015fiddeti \u00f6zendirici, insani de\u011ferleri incitici, sava\u015f k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131na ara\u00e7 olmamal\u0131; aksine bar\u0131\u015f\u0131, uluslar\u0131n ve halklar\u0131n karde\u015fli\u011fini, e\u015fitli\u011fini savunmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bizler i\u00e7inde bulundu\u011fumuz karanl\u0131k g\u00fcnlerin hep birlikte dayan\u0131\u015fma i\u00e7inde atlatmam\u0131z gerekti\u011fine inanlar olarak, toplumsal ahlak, vicdan ve eti\u011fin hi\u00e7e say\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, bas\u0131n \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn baz\u0131 gruplara ayr\u0131cal\u0131k tan\u0131narak sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, yerel medyan\u0131n tehdit edilerek susturulmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu durumlardan ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine inan\u0131yoruz.”<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu soru \u00f6nergesiyle ilgili olarak Twitter hesab\u0131ndan “Y\u00fcksekova halk\u0131n\u0131n evini show i\u00e7in bombalatan [N.\u00c7.] ve \u00e7amur medyas\u0131n\u0131 bakana sorduk, verebilecek cevab\u0131 var m\u0131” \u015feklinde bir payla\u015f\u0131m yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, bunlara ilaveten bir internet haber sitesine de konuyla ilgili a\u00e7\u0131klamalarda bulunmu\u015ftur. Bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalarda ba\u015fvurucu, genel olarak “STK’ler ve milletvekillerinin Gever’e giri\u015fine izin verilmezken [N.\u00c7.] ve benzer muhabirlere ‘sava\u015f k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131’ yapmak ad\u0131na izin verildi\u011fi”, “bu tarz haberler sava\u015fa hizmet etmekte ve halklar aras\u0131nda u\u00e7urumu derinle\u015ftirmektedir”, “g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fclerin kurmaca oldu\u011funu bir \u00e7ocuk bile fark eder. Askerler \u00e7elik kalkanlarla giderken [N.\u00c7.] ise \u00e7ok rahat bir \u015fekilde iddia edilen ‘\u00e7at\u0131\u015fma’ b\u00f6lgesine giriyor. Bu a\u00e7\u0131k bir \u015fekilde kurmaca. Operasyonlar\u0131 bitti\u011fi bir yerde e\u011fer yeniden yap\u0131l\u0131p halk\u0131n mal\u0131na m\u00fclk\u00fcne zarar veriliyorsa bu bir su\u00e7tur”, “Gever’de reyting u\u011fruna film \u00e7ekildi\u011fi”, “[N.\u00c7.] bu imkanlar\u0131 nereden al\u0131yor?”, “Muhalif gazetecilerin bir ad\u0131m atmas\u0131na dahi izin verilmezken, milletvekillerine, demokratik kitle \u00f6rg\u00fctlerine izin verilmezken reyting u\u011fruna halk\u0131n evlerini yak\u0131p y\u0131kanlara neden izin veriliyor? Ya da ne saklan\u0131l\u0131yor? Ama [N.\u00c7.] ad\u0131nda bir gazeteci ve yanda\u015f medyan\u0131n birka\u00e7 gazetecisi farkl\u0131 ve \u00f6zel bir muameleyle al\u0131n\u0131yor. Z\u0131rhl\u0131 ara\u00e7larla istedikleri yere gidebiliyor kurgu filmlerini \u00e7ekebiliyorlar. Bizim bildi\u011fimiz gazetecilik mevcut yerde il\u00e7ede sadece reyting u\u011fruna belgesel \u00e7ekmek de\u011fildir. Sanki \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma ya\u015fan\u0131yormu\u015f gibi burada olaylar\u0131 manipule ederek, reyting yapmak ve farkl\u0131 alg\u0131lar yaratmak ad\u0131na yeniden patlat\u0131lmak da gazetecilik de\u011fildir. Sanki film seti. Zaten bu halk ac\u0131lar ya\u015f\u0131yor bir de halk\u0131n g\u00f6z\u00fc \u00f6n\u00fcnde evlerini y\u0131karak yaralar\u0131 daha da derinle\u015ftirmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131l\u0131yor. Bu haberleri yapanlar \u0131rk\u00e7\u0131l\u0131kta zirve yapm\u0131\u015flard\u0131r.” \u015feklinde ifadeler kullanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
10. Soru \u00f6nergesinde ismi an\u0131lan N.\u00c7. (davac\u0131) ba\u015fvurucunun s\u00f6z ve iddialar\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015filik haklar\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131 olu\u015fturdu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek 50.000 TL manevi tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Davac\u0131, can g\u00fcvenli\u011fini tehlikeye atarak Star Ana Haber program\u0131nda yay\u0131mlanmak \u00fczere Y\u00fcksekova’dan \u00f6zel bir haber haz\u0131rlad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, haberde \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma i\u00e7inde olan g\u00fcvenlik g\u00fc\u00e7lerine ve b\u00f6lgede ya\u015fanan ter\u00f6re yer verdi\u011fini, haberin amac\u0131n\u0131n b\u00f6lgede ya\u015fanan ter\u00f6r olaylar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda halk\u0131 bilgilendirmek oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Davac\u0131ya g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucu; Twitter payla\u015f\u0131m\u0131, Meclisteki soru \u00f6nergesi ve internet haber sitesinde yay\u0131mlanan a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131yla kendisini hedef g\u00f6stermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. \u0130lk derece mahkemesi davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Mahkeme; gerek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucunun soru \u00f6nergesindeki d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131n\u0131n Meclis \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda oldu\u011funu, Twitter’daki payla\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ise genel nitelikte olup davac\u0131y\u0131 hedef ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine var\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, de\u011fer yarg\u0131s\u0131 te\u015fkil eden ifadelerin ele\u015ftiri s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7inde kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir. Davac\u0131n\u0131n karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf yoluna ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 \u00fczerine B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan manevi tazminat isteminin k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, ba\u015fvurucunun 10.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6demesine miktar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kesin olmak \u00fczere karar verilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi gerek\u00e7esinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Somut olayda, daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a s\u00f6z konusu \u00f6nergenin h\u00fckumetin yanl\u0131\u015f uygulama ve politikalar\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131\u011fa kavu\u015fturma amac\u0131yla verildi\u011fi belirtilse de, soru \u00f6nergesiyle davac\u0131n\u0131n ‘reyting u\u011fruna insanlar\u0131n evlerini bombalamakla ve asker ve polisi bu ama\u00e7la \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma yap\u0131l\u0131yormu\u015f gibi g\u00f6stermek ad\u0131na kullanmakla su\u00e7lad\u0131\u011f\u0131, yap\u0131lan haberin yalan oldu\u011fu, \u015fiddeti \u00f6zendirici, insani de\u011ferleri k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131 ve sava\u015f k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu beyan edilerek’ davac\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcm toplumu reyting u\u011fruna kand\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n iddia edildi\u011fi, daval\u0131n\u0131n ‘www.ozgurguntv.com.tr’ sitesinde yay\u0131nlanan bas\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131nda da davac\u0131 hakk\u0131nda ‘provokat\u00f6r, sava\u015f k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131s\u0131, yalan haber yapan, olaylar\u0131 maniple eden, reyting u\u011fruna evleri patlatan, insani de\u011ferlere \u00f6nem vermeyen, \u0131rk\u00e7\u0131 vb.’ ifadeler kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, yine daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ‘@AbdullahZeydan’ twitter hesab\u0131ndan ‘Y\u00fcksekova halk\u0131n\u0131n evini \u015fov i\u00e7in bombalatan [N.\u00c7.] ve \u00e7amur medyas\u0131n\u0131 Bakan’a sorduk verebilecek cevab\u0131 var m\u0131?’ \u015feklinde payla\u015f\u0131mda bulunuldu\u011fu, bu ifadelerin davac\u0131n\u0131n yasama dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131 ve daval\u0131n\u0131n gazeteci s\u0131fat\u0131yla katlanmas\u0131 gereken a\u011f\u0131r ele\u015ftiri niteli\u011fini a\u015fan, olgu isnad\u0131na varan mahiyette olduklar\u0131, ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ya da ele\u015ftiri s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n i\u00e7erisinde de\u011ferlendirilemeyecekleri ve davac\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015filik haklar\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131 te\u015fkil ettikleri, bu durum kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda sarf edilen haks\u0131z eylem niteli\u011findeki bu s\u00f6zler nedeniyle davac\u0131 yarar\u0131na manevi tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesi gerekti\u011fi, ilk derece mahkemesinin aksine gerek\u00e7eyle vermi\u015f oldu\u011fu ret karar\u0131n\u0131n yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
12. 22\/11\/2001 tarihli ve 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun “\u0130lke” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 24. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u201cHukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak ki\u015filik hakk\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131lan kimse, h\u00e2kimden, sald\u0131r\u0131da bulunanlara kar\u015f\u0131 korunmas\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilir.<\/p>\n
Ki\u015filik hakk\u0131 zedelenen kimsenin r\u0131zas\u0131, daha \u00fcst\u00fcn nitelikte \u00f6zel veya kamusal yarar ya da kanunun verdi\u011fi yetkinin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 sebeplerinden biriyle hakl\u0131 k\u0131l\u0131nmad\u0131k\u00e7a, ki\u015filik haklar\u0131na yap\u0131lan her sald\u0131r\u0131 hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r.\u201d<\/p>\n
13. 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Davalar” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 25. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Davac\u0131n\u0131n, madd\u00ee ve manev\u00ee tazminat…istemde bulunma hakk\u0131 sakl\u0131d\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
14. 11\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu’nun “Sorumluluk” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 49. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u201cKusurlu ve hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir fiille ba\u015fkas\u0131na zarar veren, bu zarar\u0131 gidermekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
Zarar verici fiili yasaklayan bir hukuk kural\u0131 bulunmasa bile, ahlaka ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir fiille ba\u015fkas\u0131na kasten zarar veren de, bu zarar\u0131 gidermekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr.\u201d<\/p>\n
15. 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Ki\u015filik hakk\u0131n\u0131n zedelenmesi” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 58. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Ki\u015filik hakk\u0131n\u0131n zedelenmesinden zarar g\u00f6ren, u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 manevi zarara kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k manevi tazminat ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda bir miktar para \u00f6denmesini isteyebilir.”<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
16. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 4\/7\/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
17. Ba\u015fvurucu; davac\u0131n\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 haberle ilgili olarak Meclisteki soru \u00f6nergesinin, buna dair Twitter payla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 ile \u00d6zg\u00fcr G\u00fcn TV’ye verdi\u011fi r\u00f6portaj\u0131n milletvekili olarak yasama sorumsuzlu\u011fu kapsam\u0131nda oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucu, haberin ge\u00e7ti\u011fi Hakk\u00e2ri’den milletvekili se\u00e7ildi\u011finin alt\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7izerek haberde kamunun bilgisine sunulan olaylar\u0131n sanal olup ger\u00e7ekte ya\u015fananlar\u0131 yans\u0131tmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, soru \u00f6nergesinde de bunu ifade eden beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011funu, hakaret kast\u0131n\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucuya g\u00f6re davac\u0131n\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 haber bas\u0131n etik ilkelerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olup davac\u0131 sorumlu bir gazeteci olarak hareket etmemi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu; ifadelerinin de\u011fer yarg\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011fini, bir milletvekili olarak ifadelerinden dolay\u0131 aleyhine manevi tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesinin ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ihlal etti\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
18. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, Anayasa Mahkemesinin i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 dikkate al\u0131narak somut olayda \u00e7at\u0131\u015fan ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ile \u015feref ve itibar\u0131n korunmas\u0131 hakk\u0131 aras\u0131nda yarg\u0131 mercileri taraf\u0131ndan adil bir denge kurulup kurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve bu dengeleme yap\u0131l\u0131rken ba\u015fvuruya konu ifadelerin ele\u015ftiri s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131 a\u015farak ki\u015filik haklar\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131 niteli\u011finde oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131n\u0131n takdirlerinin ilgili ve yeterli \u015fekilde gerek\u00e7elendirip gerek\u00e7elendirmedi\u011finin de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 cevab\u0131nda ba\u015fvuru formundaki beyanlar\u0131n\u0131 tekrarlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
B. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
19. 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 olayla ilgili olarak Anayasa Mahkemesi, ba\u015fvurunun Anayasa’n\u0131n 26. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kapsam\u0131nda incelenmesi gerekti\u011fini de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n \u201cD\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceyi a\u00e7\u0131klama ve yayma h\u00fcrriyeti\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 26. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Herkes, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce ve kanaatlerini s\u00f6z, yaz\u0131, resim veya ba\u015fka yollarla tek ba\u015f\u0131na veya toplu olarak a\u00e7\u0131klama ve yayma hakk\u0131na sahiptir. Bu h\u00fcrriyet resmi makamlar\u0131n m\u00fcdahalesi olmaks\u0131z\u0131n haber veya fikir almak ya da vermek serbestli\u011fini de kapsar…<\/p>\n
Bu h\u00fcrriyetlerin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131, … ba\u015fkalar\u0131n\u0131n \u015f\u00f6hret veya haklar\u0131n\u0131n,… veya yarg\u0131lama g\u00f6revinin gere\u011fine uygun olarak yerine getirilmesi ama\u00e7lar\u0131yla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir…”<\/p>\n
1. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
21. 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 ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
2. Esas Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
i. M\u00fcdahalenin Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
22. Ba\u015fvurucunun Meclisteki soru \u00f6nergesinde, buna dair Twitter payla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 ile r\u00f6portaj\u0131nda kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifadeler sebebiyle manevi tazminat \u00f6demesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu mahkeme karar\u0131 ile ba\u015fvurucunun ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne m\u00fcdahalede bulunulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
ii. M\u00fcdahalenin \u0130hlal Olu\u015fturup Olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
23. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetler, … yaln\u0131zca Anayasan\u0131n ilgili maddelerinde belirtilen sebeplere ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ve ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir. Bu s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar, … demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin … gereklerine ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamaz.\u201d<\/p>\n
24. Yukar\u0131da an\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinde belirtilen ko\u015fullar\u0131 yerine getirmedi\u011fi m\u00fcddet\u00e7e Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 26. maddesinin ihlalini te\u015fkil edecektir. Bu sebeple s\u0131n\u0131rlaman\u0131n Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f olan kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 26. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda belirtilen hakl\u0131 sebeplerden bir veya daha fazlas\u0131na dayanma, demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmama ko\u015fullar\u0131na uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
\u00a0(1) Kanunilik<\/p>\n
25. Yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmeler neticesinde 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 49. maddesinin kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlama \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
(2) Me\u015fru Ama\u00e7<\/p>\n
26. Ba\u015fvurucunun davac\u0131ya manevi tazminat \u00f6demesine karar verilmesinin ba\u015fkalar\u0131n\u0131n \u015f\u00f6hret veya haklar\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik \u00f6nlemlerin bir par\u00e7as\u0131 oldu\u011fu ve me\u015fru bir ama\u00e7 ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u00a0(3) Demokratik Toplum D\u00fczeninin Gereklerine Uygunluk<\/p>\n
\u00a0(a) Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
27. \u0130fade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ki\u015finin haber ve bilgilere, ba\u015fkalar\u0131n\u0131n fikirlerine serbest\u00e7e ula\u015fabilmesi, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce ve kanaatlerinden dolay\u0131 k\u0131nanmamas\u0131, bunlar\u0131 tek ba\u015f\u0131na veya ba\u015fkalar\u0131yla birlikte \u00e7e\u015fitli yollarla serbest\u00e7e ifade edebilmesi, anlatabilmesi, savunabilmesi, ba\u015fkalar\u0131na aktarabilmesi ve yayabilmesi anlam\u0131na gelir. Anayasa Mahkemesi daha \u00f6nce pek \u00e7ok karar\u0131nda ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn demokrasinin i\u015fleyi\u015fi i\u00e7in ya\u015famsal \u00f6nemde oldu\u011funu a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Bekir Co\u015fkun [GK], B. No: 2014\/12151, 4\/6\/2015, \u00a7\u00a7 33-35; Mehmet Ali Ayd\u0131n [GK], B. No: 2013\/9343, 4\/6\/2015, \u00a7\u00a7 42, 43; Tansel \u00c7\u00f6la\u015fan, B. No: 2014\/6128, 7\/7\/2015, \u00a7\u00a7 35-38).<\/p>\n
28. Demokrasiyle yak\u0131n ili\u015fkisi nedeniyle ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne y\u00f6nelik bir m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine uygun kabul edilebilmesi i\u00e7in zorunlu bir toplumsal ihtiyac\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lamas\u0131 ve orant\u0131l\u0131 bir m\u00fcdahale olmas\u0131 gerekir (Bekir Co\u015fkun, \u00a7\u00a7 53-55; Mehmet Ali Ayd\u0131n, \u00a7\u00a7 70-72; AYM, E.2007\/4, K.2007\/81, 18\/10\/2007). M\u00fcdahaleyi olu\u015fturan tedbirin zorunlu bir toplumsal ihtiyac\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilebilmesi i\u00e7in tedbir, amaca ula\u015fmaya elveri\u015fli olmal\u0131, ba\u015fvurulabilecek en son \u00e7are ve al\u0131nabilecek en hafif \u00f6nlem olarak kendisini g\u00f6stermelidir (baz\u0131 farkl\u0131l\u0131klarla birlikte bkz. Bekir Co\u015fkun, \u00a7 51; Mehmet Ali Ayd\u0131n, \u00a7 68; Tansel \u00c7\u00f6la\u015fan, \u00a7 51).<\/p>\n
29. Somut olayda Anayasa’n\u0131n 26. maddesinde korunan ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne yap\u0131lan bir m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine uygun kabul edilebilmesi i\u00e7in ilk a\u015famada, milletvekili olan ba\u015fvurucunun ifadelerinin gazeteci davac\u0131n\u0131n \u015feref ve itibar\u0131na haks\u0131z bir sald\u0131r\u0131 te\u015fkil edip etmedi\u011fi, milletvekilinin ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik bir toplumda zorunlu bir ihtiyaca cevap verip vermedi\u011fi \u00fczerinde durulmal\u0131d\u0131r. (di\u011ferleri aras\u0131ndan bkz. Kemal K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7daro\u011flu, B. No: 2014\/1577, 25\/10\/2017, \u00a7 58; Bekir Co\u015fkun, \u00a7 56; Z\u00fcbeyde F\u00fcsun \u00dcstel ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2018\/17635, 26\/7\/2019, \u00a7 120). Eldeki ba\u015fvuruya benzer davalarda mahkemelerin taraflardan birinin ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ile di\u011ferinin \u015feref ve itibar\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 hakk\u0131 aras\u0131nda adil bir denge sa\u011flamas\u0131 hayati \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131maktad\u0131r. O h\u00e2lde \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmesi gereken esas mesele somut olayda yarg\u0131 mercilerinin ba\u015fvurucunun ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ile davac\u0131n\u0131n \u015feref ve itibar\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 hakk\u0131 aras\u0131nda adil bir denge kurup kurmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131n\u0131n bu s\u00f6zlerin muhatab\u0131 olan ki\u015finin \u015feref ve itibar\u0131n\u0131 zedeledi\u011fini ikna edici bir bi\u00e7imde ortaya koyup koymad\u0131\u011f\u0131 olacakt\u0131r (bu konuda genel ilkeler i\u00e7in bkz. \u0130lhan Cihaner (2), B. No: 2013\/5574, 30\/6\/2014, \u00a7\u00a7 65-73). \u00c7at\u0131\u015fan bu iki de\u011fer aras\u0131nda dengeleme yap\u0131l\u0131rken kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctler genel olarak \u015funlard\u0131r:<\/p>\n
i. \u0130fadelerin kim taraf\u0131ndan dile getirildi\u011fi (Nihat Zeybekci, B. No: 2015\/5633, 8\/5\/2019, \u00a7 29; Kemal K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7daro\u011flu, \u00a7 59).<\/p>\n
ii. Hedef al\u0131nan ki\u015finin kim oldu\u011fu, \u00fcnl\u00fcl\u00fck d\u00fczeyi ve \u00f6nceki davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131 yan\u0131nda katlanmas\u0131 gereken ele\u015ftirinin s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n sade bir vatanda\u015fa g\u00f6re daha geni\u015f olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 (hedef al\u0131nan ki\u015finin kamusal yetki kullanan bir g\u00f6revli olmas\u0131 nedeniyle yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmelerin bulundu\u011fu kararlar i\u00e7in bkz. Ali Suat Ertosun (7), B. No: 2014\/1416, 15\/10\/2015, \u00a7 36; Z\u00fcbeyde F\u00fcsun \u00dcstel ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7\u00a7 128, 129; Nilg\u00fcn Halloran, B. No: 2012\/1184, 16\/7\/2014, \u00a7 45; \u0130lhan Cihaner (2), \u00a7 82; Kadir Sa\u011fd\u0131\u00e7 [GK], B. No: 2013\/6617, 8\/4\/2015, \u00a7\u00a7 60-66; hedef al\u0131nan ki\u015finin siyaset\u00e7i olmas\u0131 nedeniyle yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmelerin bulundu\u011fu kararlar i\u00e7in bkz. Bekir Co\u015fkun, \u00a7\u00a7 66, 67; Erg\u00fcn Poyraz (2) [GK], B. No: 2013\/8503, 27\/10\/2015, \u00a7 56; Kemal K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7daro\u011flu, \u00a7\u00a7 59- 61).<\/p>\n
iii. \u0130fadelerin genel yarara ili\u015fkin bir tart\u0131\u015fmaya katk\u0131 sa\u011flay\u0131p sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, kamuoyu ile di\u011fer ki\u015filerin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda sahip olduklar\u0131 haklar\u0131n a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bekir Co\u015fkun, \u00a7 69; \u00c7etin Do\u011fan (2) [GK], B. No: 2014\/3494, 27\/2\/2019, \u00a7 62; Erg\u00fcn Poyraz (2), \u00a7 56; Kadir Sa\u011fd\u0131\u00e7, \u00a7\u00a7 60-66; \u0130lhan Cihaner (2), \u00a7\u00a7 66-73; Nihat Zeybekci, \u00a7 32).<\/p>\n
iv. Kamuyu bilgilendirme de\u011feri, toplumsal ilginin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve konunun g\u00fcncel olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Seray \u015eahiner \u00d6zkan, B. No: 2016\/6439, 9\/6\/2021, \u00a7 44; \u0130brahim Okur (2), B. No: 2018\/12363, 26\/5\/2021, \u00a7 28).<\/p>\n
v. \u015eik\u00e2yet\u00e7inin kendisine y\u00f6neltilen ifadelere cevap verme olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Temel Co\u015fkun, B. No: 2017\/1632, 29\/1\/2020, \u00a7 33; \u015eaban Sevin\u00e7 (2), B. No: 2016\/36777, 26\/5\/2021, \u00a7 42; Nihat Zeybekci, \u00a7 39).<\/p>\n
vi. \u0130fadelerin hedef al\u0131nan ki\u015finin hayat\u0131 \u00fczerindeki etkisi (Ali Suat Ertosun (2), B. No: 2013\/1592, 20\/5\/2015, \u00a7 33; H\u00fcseyin Kocab\u0131y\u0131k, B. No: 2020\/15593, 22\/11\/2022, \u00a7 24).<\/p>\n
vii. Yapt\u0131r\u0131ma konu edilen ifadelerin kullan\u0131ld\u0131klar\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131ndan kopart\u0131l\u0131p kopart\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Nilg\u00fcn Halloran, \u00a7 52; Bekir Co\u015fkun, \u00a7\u00a7 62, 63; \u00d6nder Bal\u0131k\u00e7\u0131, B. No: 2014\/6009, 15\/2\/2017, \u00a7 45, Nihat Zeybekci, \u00a7 36).<\/p>\n
viii. Ba\u015fvurucunun yapt\u0131r\u0131ma maruz kalma endi\u015fesinin ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde cayd\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 etki yarat\u0131p yaratmayaca\u011f\u0131 (benzer y\u00f6ndeki de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. Erg\u00fcn Poyraz (2), \u00a7 79; Kemal K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7daro\u011flu ve Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, B. No: 2014\/12482, 8\/5\/2019, \u00a7 46).<\/p>\n
ix. Dava konusu s\u00f6ylemlerin maddi vak\u0131alar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 veya de\u011fer yarg\u0131s\u0131 olarak nitelendirilip nitelendirilemeyece\u011fi (Durmu\u015f Fikri Sa\u011flar (2) [GK], B. No: 2017\/29735, 17\/3\/2021, \u00a7 50; Deniz Karadeniz ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2014\/18001, 6\/2\/2020, \u00a7\u00a7 48, 49).<\/p>\n
30. Yarg\u0131 mercilerinin s\u00f6z konusu dengelemeyi yaparken sahip olduklar\u0131 takdir yetkisi Anayasa Mahkemesinin denetimindedir (Kemal K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7daro\u011flu, B. No: 2014\/1577, 25\/10\/2017, \u00a7 57). Anayasa Mahkemesi bu denetimi yerine getirirken yarg\u0131 mercilerinin yerini almaks\u0131z\u0131n, onlar\u0131n takdir yetkilerini kullanarak verdikleri kararlar\u0131n Anayasa’n\u0131n 26. maddesine uygunlu\u011funu denetler. S\u00f6z konusu denetimi ise esas itibar\u0131yla m\u00fcdahaleye neden olan kamu otoritelerinin veya mahkemelerin gerek\u00e7elerine bakarak yapar.<\/p>\n
31. Anayasa Mahkemesi, \u00e7ok say\u0131daki karar\u0131nda ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne gerek\u00e7esiz olarak veya Anayasa Mahkemesince ortaya konulan kriterleri kar\u015f\u0131lamayan bir gerek\u00e7e ile yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalelerin Anayasa’n\u0131n 26. maddesini ihlal edece\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. \u0130fade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne yap\u0131lan bir m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine uygun kabul edilebilmesi i\u00e7in kamu makamlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ortaya konulan gerek\u00e7eler ilgili ve yeterli olmal\u0131d\u0131r (di\u011ferleri aras\u0131ndan bkz. Kemal K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7daro\u011flu, \u00a7 58; Bekir Co\u015fkun, \u00a7 56; Tansel \u00c7\u00f6la\u015fan, \u00a7 56).<\/p>\n
\u00a0(b) \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131 <\/p>\n
32. \u00d6ncelikle ba\u015fvurucunun soru \u00f6nergesinde \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc bir ki\u015finin \u015feref ve itibar\u0131na sald\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131yla hakk\u0131nda manevi tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6n\u00fcnde hukuki bir engel bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n alt\u0131 \u00e7izilmelidir. Zira Anayasa’n\u0131n 83. maddesinde h\u00fckme ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015f olan yasama dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 mutlak bir g\u00fcvence olmay\u0131p milletvekilinin parlamentodaki fiziki kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z k\u0131lacak zamans\u0131z ceza hukuku tasarrufundan ge\u00e7ici olarak koruma sa\u011flamaktad\u0131r. Yasama dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 bir kavram olan yasama sorumsuzlu\u011funun as\u0131l amac\u0131 ise Anayasa Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan daha \u00f6nce de vurguland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere TBMM \u00fcyelerinin Meclis \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131nda g\u00f6revlerini yaparken s\u00f6yleyecekleri s\u00f6z ve d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerinden ve belirtecekleri oylar\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 “herhangi bir soru\u015fturmaya u\u011framalar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nlemek”tir (AYM, E.1994\/16, K.1994\/35, 21\/3\/1994; AYM, E.1994\/7, K.1994\/26, 21\/3\/1994). \u015eu h\u00e2lde yasama sorumsuzlu\u011funun \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011fu bir zeminde ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen ve ba\u015fkalar\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015filik haklar\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131 niteli\u011fi bulunan ya da bulundu\u011fu iddia edilen s\u00f6zler nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucuya kar\u015f\u0131 hukuk davas\u0131 yoluyla tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131labilece\u011fini kabul etmek gerekir (Kemal K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7daro\u011flu, B. No: 2014\/1577, 25\/10\/2017, \u00a7 66). Di\u011fer bir s\u00f6ylemle yasama sorumsuzlu\u011fu hukuki sorumluluk bak\u0131m\u0131ndan mutlakl\u0131k arz etmez.<\/p>\n
33. Somut olayda ihtilaf\u0131n oda\u011f\u0131nda muhalefet partisinden Hakk\u00e2ri milletvekili olan ba\u015fvurucuya ait \u00fc\u00e7 farkl\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131 bulunmaktad\u0131r. Soru \u00f6nergesi, Twitter payla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 ve \u00d6zg\u00fcr G\u00fcn TV’ye verdi\u011fi r\u00f6portajda ba\u015fvurucunun ifadelerinin kapsam\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fmekle birlikte konusunun esasen ayn\u0131 oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Davac\u0131 gazeteci taraf\u0131ndan ana haber program\u0131nda yay\u0131mlanmak \u00fczere Y\u00fcksekova’da yap\u0131lan haberlerin sorumlu bir gazetecilik anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n gerektirdi\u011fi ilkeler g\u00f6zetilerek, g\u00fcvenilir bilgiler sunacak bi\u00e7imde, iyi niyetle haz\u0131rlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucunun ifadelerindeki ana fikri olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
34. Ula\u015ft\u0131rma Haberle\u015fme ve Denizcilik Bakan\u0131’na y\u00f6neltti\u011fi soru \u00f6nergesinden anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere ba\u015fvurucu, davac\u0131n\u0131n soka\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kma yasa\u011f\u0131 bulunan bir ilde \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma i\u00e7inden yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etti\u011fi haberin ger\u00e7e\u011fi yans\u0131tmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yerel bas\u0131n\u0131n ve muhalif kanallar\u0131n sans\u00fcrlendi\u011fi, mezk\u00fbr ilde haber yapmalar\u0131na izin verilmedi\u011fi bir d\u00f6nemde ana ak\u0131m medyan\u0131n kendilerine tan\u0131nan ayr\u0131cal\u0131ktan faydalanarak toplumdaki kutupla\u015ft\u0131rmay\u0131 k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rtan haberler yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrmektedir. Soru \u00f6nergesi parlamenter sistemde Meclisin Bakanlar Kurulundan bilgi almas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan bir denetim yolu olarak \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Soru \u00f6nergesinin muhatab\u0131 \u00f6ncelikle ba\u015fbakan olup ayn\u0131 zamanda g\u00f6rev alanlar\u0131ndaki konulara ili\u015fkin olarak ilgili bakan da sorunun muhatab\u0131d\u0131r. TBMM \u0130\u00e7t\u00fcz\u00fc\u011f\u00fc’ne g\u00f6re soru \u00f6nergesinin a\u00e7\u0131k ve belli bir konuda olmas\u0131, kaba, yaralay\u0131c\u0131 s\u00f6zler i\u00e7ermemesi esast\u0131r. Davac\u0131 ise somut olayda s\u00f6z konusu soru \u00f6nergesiyle kendisinin a\u00e7\u0131k bir hedef h\u00e2line getirildi\u011fini iddia etmektedir.<\/p>\n
35. Oysa ba\u015fvurucu s\u00f6z konusu \u00f6nergede, mezk\u00fbr haberde jandarma ve polis harek\u00e2t timlerinin e\u015flik etti\u011fi davac\u0131n\u0131n iddia edilen \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma i\u00e7inde rahat\u00e7a haber yapmas\u0131n\u0131n hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, haberin toplumsal ilgiyi \u00e7ekme ve reyting kayg\u0131s\u0131 ile yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vurgulamaktad\u0131r. Soru \u00f6nergesindeki ifadeler incelendi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucunun “\u0130ddia edilene g\u00f6re \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma s\u00fcs\u00fc verilen bir yerde, \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma ya\u015fan\u0131yormu\u015f gibi g\u00fcvenlik g\u00fc\u00e7leri hareket etmekte ve ad\u0131 ge\u00e7en gazeteci de bunu \u00e7ekerek haber yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Operasyon s\u00fcs\u00fc verilen yerde T\u00fcrkiye halklar\u0131 kan\u0131 \u00fczerinde reyting oranlar\u0131n\u0131 y\u00fckseltmek i\u00e7in bir evde bomba patlat\u0131larak yerle bir edildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fclerde de yans\u0131maktad\u0131r. Dahas\u0131 hi\u00e7bir milletvekili, STK temsilcisi, kanaat \u00f6nderi ve se\u00e7ilmi\u015fe izin verilmemi\u015fken, baz\u0131 medya gruplar\u0131yla spikerlere ayr\u0131cal\u0131k tan\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilebilir hi\u00e7bir taraf\u0131 yoktur.” \u015feklindeki ifadesiyle -kendi bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131na g\u00f6re- haberin ger\u00e7ekleri yans\u0131tmay\u0131p bir tiyatrodan ibaret oldu\u011funu \u00f6n plana \u00e7\u0131kard\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Ba\u015fvurucuya g\u00f6re haberde g\u00f6sterilen olaylar sahtedir. Ba\u015fvurucunun davac\u0131n\u0131n sahte haber yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131na dayanak olarak ise o tarihte haber yap\u0131lan b\u00f6lgede soka\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kma yasa\u011f\u0131 bulunmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen davac\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenlik g\u00fc\u00e7leri e\u015fli\u011finde rahat\u00e7a hareket ediyor olu\u015funu g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi, bu suretle ger\u00e7e\u011fin tek cepheden \u00e7arp\u0131t\u0131larak kamunun bilgisine verildi\u011fi iddias\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
36. Bahsi ge\u00e7en soru \u00f6nergesindeki d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerini desteklemek amac\u0131yla payla\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 twitte ise ba\u015fvurucu, davac\u0131n\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 haberde il\u00e7edeki halk\u0131n evinin sanki bombalan\u0131yormu\u015f gibi g\u00f6sterildi\u011fini oysa ger\u00e7e\u011fin b\u00f6yle olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir. Bu noktada toplumun tamam\u0131n\u0131 ilgilendiren ve kamusal bir tart\u0131\u015fmaya katk\u0131 sundu\u011fu konusunda \u015f\u00fcphe bulunmayan konularda olu\u015fan rahats\u0131zl\u0131klar\u0131n y\u00fcksek sesle dillendirilmesinin ancak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerin herhangi bir engelle kar\u015f\u0131la\u015fmadan a\u00e7\u0131klanabildi\u011fi demokratik rejimlerde m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fu unutulmamal\u0131d\u0131r (Deniz Karadeniz ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2014\/18001, 6\/2\/2020, \u00a7 129). Nitekim uzun y\u0131llar s\u00fcren ter\u00f6r olaylar\u0131 hi\u00e7 \u015f\u00fcphesiz toplumsal ilginin oldu\u011fu, kamuyu yak\u0131ndan ilgilendiren ve g\u00fcncelli\u011fini koruyan bir meseledir. Bu ba\u011flamda muhalefet partisinden bir milletvekilinin Hakk\u00e2ri’de ya\u015fananlar\u0131n do\u011fru bir \u015fekilde kamuyla payla\u015f\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki ele\u015ftirilerinin tart\u0131\u015fmaya a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131nda kamu yarar\u0131 oldu\u011fu kabul edilmelidir.<\/p>\n
37. Somut olayda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k, muhalefet partisinden milletvekili olan bir siyaset\u00e7i ile davac\u0131 gazeteci aras\u0131nda ise de ba\u015fvurucunun a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcne bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n kayna\u011f\u0131ndaki s\u00f6ylemlerin aslen siyasi iktidara y\u00f6neltilmi\u015f ele\u015ftiriler oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmelidir. Ba\u015fvurucunun muhalefet partisi milletvekili olarak h\u00fck\u00fbmete ele\u015ftirileri siyasi ifade niteli\u011findedir. \u0130fade t\u00fcrleri bak\u0131m\u0131ndan baz\u0131 ifadelerin di\u011ferlerine g\u00f6re daha fazla korundu\u011fu ve bu do\u011frultuda en geni\u015f korumadan siyasi ifadelerin yararland\u0131\u011f\u0131 hat\u0131rlanmal\u0131d\u0131r (Fatih Ta\u015f [GK], B. No: 2013\/1461, 12\/11\/2014, \u00a7 98; Erg\u00fcn Poyraz (2), \u00a7 58). Ger\u00e7ekten de siyasi tart\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n serbestli\u011fi demokratik toplum idealinin merkezinde yer alan bir ilke olup se\u00e7menlerini temsil eden, onlar\u0131n taleplerini, endi\u015felerini ve d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerini politik alana aktaran ve \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131n\u0131 savunan se\u00e7ilmi\u015f kimseler i\u00e7in ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn \u00f6zellikle de\u011ferli oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu sebeple m\u00fcdahale e\u011fer bir siyaset\u00e7inin ve \u00f6zellikle muhalefet partisinin bir \u00fcyesinin ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne y\u00f6nelik ise \u00e7at\u0131\u015fan de\u011ferler aras\u0131nda adil denge g\u00f6zetilip g\u00f6zetilmedi\u011fi \u00e7ok daha s\u0131k\u0131 bir denetimden ge\u00e7irilmelidir (Bilal U\u00e7ar, B. No: 2019\/10122, 21\/9\/2022, \u00a7 19).<\/p>\n
38. Kullan\u0131lan dil ve \u00fcslup muhatab\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan rahats\u0131z edici olsa dahi -Anayasa Mahkemesinin pek \u00e7ok karar\u0131nda benimsedi\u011fi \u00fczere- demokratik bir toplumun zorunlu temellerinden olan, toplumun ilerlemesi ve bireyin \u00f6zg\u00fcveni i\u00e7in gerekli olan temel \u015fartlardan birini te\u015fkil eden ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc sadece kabul g\u00f6ren veya zarars\u0131z yahut kay\u0131ts\u0131zl\u0131k i\u00e7eren bilgiler ya da fikirler i\u00e7in de\u011fil ayn\u0131 zamanda k\u0131r\u0131c\u0131, \u015fok edici veya rahats\u0131z edici olanlar i\u00e7in de ge\u00e7erlidir (Emin Ayd\u0131n (2), B. No: 2013\/3178, 25\/6\/2015, \u00a7 35; Bekir Co\u015fkun, \u00a7 52). Anayasa Mahkemesi yine pek \u00e7ok karar\u0131nda ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bir dereceye kadar abart\u0131ya hatta k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rtmaya izin verecek \u015fekilde geni\u015f yorumlanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini kabul etmi\u015ftir (Ali Suat Ertosun, B. No: 2013\/1047, 15\/4\/2015, \u00a7 66; Z\u00fcbeyde F\u00fcsun \u00dcstel ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 102).<\/p>\n
39. \u00dcstelik ba\u015fvurucunun bizzat davac\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015fili\u011fini hedef ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemek somut olayda m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Davac\u0131n\u0131n uzun y\u0131llard\u0131r ana haber b\u00fcltenlerinde sunuculuk yapan, \u00fclke \u00e7ap\u0131nda tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f bir gazeteci olarak yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 haberlere y\u00f6neltilen ele\u015ftirilere \u015f\u00fcphesiz s\u0131radan bir insana k\u0131yasla \u00e7ok daha ho\u015fg\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fc olmas\u0131 gerekir. Nitekim davac\u0131, bir gazeteci olarak ba\u015fvurucuya cevap verme imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131 ve bu cevab\u0131 geni\u015f kitlelerin dikkatine sunacak ara\u00e7lar\u0131 da haizdir. Kald\u0131 ki ki\u015filik haklar\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131 te\u015fkil etti\u011fi \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclen ifadelerin davac\u0131n\u0131n itibar\u0131 \u00fczerinde yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddia edilen olumsuz etki de somut olarak ortaya konulamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (H\u00fcseyin Kocab\u0131y\u0131k, \u00a7 24).<\/p>\n
40. Yukar\u0131daki a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin gerek\u00e7esi incelendi\u011finde katlanmas\u0131 gereken a\u011f\u0131r ele\u015ftiri niteli\u011fini a\u015fan, olgu isnad\u0131na varan mahiyette oldu\u011fu, ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ya da ele\u015ftiri s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n i\u00e7inde de\u011ferlendirilemeyece\u011fi ve davac\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015filik haklar\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131 te\u015fkil etti\u011fi, bu durum kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda sarf edilen haks\u0131z eylem niteli\u011findeki bu s\u00f6zler nedeniyle davac\u0131 yarar\u0131na manevi tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesi gerekti\u011fi kanaatine vard\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Gerek\u00e7eli kararda ba\u015fvurucunun muhalefet partisinden siyaset\u00e7i, davac\u0131n\u0131n ise \u00fclke \u00e7ap\u0131nda tan\u0131nan bir gazeteci oldu\u011fu, ba\u015fvurucunun siyasi iktidar\u0131n yanl\u0131\u015f politikalar\u0131n\u0131 ele\u015ftirmek amac\u0131yla soru \u00f6nergesini ortaya koydu\u011fu ve di\u011fer payla\u015f\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n ise soru \u00f6nergesinin i\u00e7eri\u011fini tekrarlamaktan ibaret oldu\u011fu dikkate al\u0131nmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Hatta B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131nda, ba\u015fvurucunun davac\u0131 i\u00e7in sarf etmedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lan “provokat\u00f6r” ifadesini de davac\u0131ya y\u00f6neltti\u011fi kabul edilmi\u015ftir. H\u00e2lbuki mahkemelerin a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 yorum yaparak ihtilafl\u0131 ifadelere ba\u015fvurucunun verdi\u011fi anlamlar\u0131n \u00f6tesinde anlamlar y\u00fcklemeleri, demokratik bir toplumda kamuyu bilgilendirme ve ele\u015ftiri ortam\u0131na zarar verme ve ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fczerinde cayd\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 etki do\u011furma riski ta\u015f\u0131r (\u00d6nder Bal\u0131k\u00e7\u0131, \u00a7 50). Yine ba\u015fvurucunun muhalefet partisi milletvekili olarak siyasi fikirlerini ortaya koydu\u011fu, ba\u015fvurucunun ele\u015ftirilerinin oda\u011f\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n de\u011fil iktidar\u0131n bulundu\u011fu, siyasi fikirlerin ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u011flam\u0131nda en geni\u015f korumadan faydalanaca\u011f\u0131, bu sebeple ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne m\u00fcdahale edilirken m\u00fcdahalenin ilgili ve yeterli \u015fekilde gerek\u00e7elendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Sonu\u00e7 olarak ba\u015fvurucunun ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ile davac\u0131n\u0131n \u015feref ve itibar\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 hakk\u0131 aras\u0131nda adil bir denge kuruldu\u011fundan bahsedilemeyece\u011fi, \u015feref ve itibar\u0131n korunmas\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n somut olayda ifade \u00f6z\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne \u00fcst\u00fcn geldi\u011finin ortaya konulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
41. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 26. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
Kadir \u00d6ZKAYA, Recai AKYEL, \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN, Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L ve \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR bu sonuca kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
VI. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
42. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti, yeniden yarg\u0131lama, miktar g\u00f6stermeksizin maddi ve manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
43. 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 mahkemece 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
44. Eski h\u00e2le getirme kural\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucuya manevi zararlar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda net 30.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VII. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. \u0130fade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 26. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE Kadir \u00d6ZKAYA, Recai AKYEL, \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN, Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L ve \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR’\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 4. Hukuk Dairesine (E. 2018\/1845, K. 2020\/658) g\u00f6nderilmek \u00fczere \u0130stanbul 18. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesine (E. 2016\/218, K. 2018\/303) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucuya net 30.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE, tazminata ili\u015fkin di\u011fer taleplerin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 19.246,90 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 4\/7\/2024 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, bir siyaset\u00e7inin bir gazeteci hakk\u0131nda kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifadeler nedeniyle aleyhine manevi tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesinin ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ihlal etti\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Mahkememiz \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011funca, aleyhine manevi tazminata h\u00fckmedilen ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 26. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmi\u015ftir. A\u015fa\u011f\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne i\u015ftirak etmek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Dosyaya ili\u015fkin bilgi ve belgelere g\u00f6re \u015fikayet\u00e7i N.\u00c7. 2016 y\u0131l\u0131n\u0131n 7 ve 8 Nisan tarihlerinde sunuculu\u011funu yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ulusal \u00f6l\u00e7ekte yay\u0131n yapan bir televizyon kanal\u0131 ana haber program\u0131nda Hakk\u00e2ri’nin Y\u00fcksekova il\u00e7esinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen g\u00fcvenlik operasyonlar\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak “Y\u00fcksekova \u00d6zel” isimli bir haber yay\u0131mlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. O tarihlerde Halklar\u0131n Demokratik Partisi 26. d\u00f6nem Hakk\u00e2ri milletvekili olan ba\u015fvurucu s\u00f6z konusu habere ili\u015fkin olarak \u00f6nce TBMM\u2019de bir soru \u00f6nergesi vermi\u015f, ard\u0131ndan soru \u00f6nergesiyle ilgili olarak sosyal medya hesab\u0131ndan bir payla\u015f\u0131m yapm\u0131\u015f ve ilave olarak bir internet haber sitesine konuyla ilgili baz\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamalarda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu T\u00fcrkiye B\u00fcy\u00fck Millet Meclisi’nde verdi\u011fi soru \u00f6nergesinde; N.\u00c7.nin \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma s\u00fcs\u00fc verilen bir yerde, \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma ya\u015fan\u0131yormu\u015f gibi haber yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n iddia edildi\u011fi, operasyon s\u00fcs\u00fc verilen yerde T\u00fcrkiye halklar\u0131 kan\u0131 \u00fczerinde reyting oranlar\u0131n\u0131 y\u00fckseltmek i\u00e7in bir evde bomba dahi patlat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f, bir gazetecinin \u015fiddeti \u00f6zendirici, insani de\u011ferleri incitici, sava\u015f k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131na ara\u00e7 olmamas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. \u00d6nergede ayr\u0131ca muhalif yay\u0131n yapan bas\u0131n kurulu\u015flar\u0131na bask\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, baz\u0131 haber programlar\u0131na ise ayr\u0131cal\u0131k tan\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131, bunun toplumsal kutupla\u015fmay\u0131 derinle\u015ftirece\u011fi, kamuoyuna yanl\u0131\u015f bilgi servis edildi\u011fi ele\u015ftirilerinde de bulunulmu\u015ftur (kararda bkz. \u00a7 7). Sosyal medya hesab\u0131ndan yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 payla\u015f\u0131mda ise ba\u015fvurucu N.\u00c7.yi \u015fov i\u00e7in halk\u0131n evini bombalatan birisi olarak nitelendirmi\u015ftir (kararda bkz. \u00a7 8). Son olarak haber sitesine yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lamada ba\u015fvurucu; N.\u00c7.nin sava\u015f k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu tarz haberlerin sava\u015fa hizmet etti\u011fi, haberdeki g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fclerin kurmaca oldu\u011funun \u00e7ok bariz oldu\u011fu, N.\u00c7.nin bu \u015fekilde kurmaca haber yapma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131 nereden ald\u0131\u011f\u0131, b\u00f6lgeye giri\u015f i\u00e7in kimseye izin verilmezken reyting u\u011fruna halk\u0131n evlerini yak\u0131p y\u0131kanlara nas\u0131l izin verildi\u011fi, bu haberleri yapanlar\u0131n \u0131rk\u00e7\u0131l\u0131kta zirve yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifadelerini kullanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucunun ifadelerinde hedef ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 N.\u00c7. \u015feref ve itibar\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131da bulunuldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle ba\u015fvurucuya kar\u015f\u0131 tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dava dilek\u00e7esinde N.\u00c7., can g\u00fcvenli\u011fini tehlikeye atarak sunuculu\u011funu yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ana haber program\u0131nda yay\u0131mlanmak \u00fczere Y\u00fcksekova’dan \u00f6zel bir haber haz\u0131rlad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, haberde \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma i\u00e7inde olan g\u00fcvenlik g\u00fc\u00e7lerine ve b\u00f6lgede ya\u015fanan ter\u00f6re yer verdi\u011fini, haberin amac\u0131n\u0131n b\u00f6lgede ya\u015fanan ter\u00f6r olaylar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda halk\u0131 bilgilendirmek oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Davas\u0131nda N.\u00c7., ba\u015fvurucunun sosyal medya payla\u015f\u0131m\u0131nda, internet haber sitesinde yay\u0131mlanan a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131nda ve TBMM’ye sunulan soru \u00f6nergesi i\u00e7eri\u011finde yer alan as\u0131ls\u0131z iddialar\u0131n\u0131 \u0131srarla s\u00fcrd\u00fcrmek suretiyle kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 hakaret i\u00e7erikli ifade ve beyanlarla, \u015feref ve haysiyetini ve toplum nezdinde olu\u015fturdu\u011fu itibar\u0131n\u0131 zedeledi\u011fini, bu suretle kendisini hedef g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
7. \u0130lk derece mahkemesinde reddedilen dava istinaf edilmi\u015f, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar vermi\u015ftir. \u0130stinaf karar\u0131nda; ba\u015fvurucunun soru \u00f6nergesinde dile getirdi\u011fi hususlar\u0131n salt siyasi ele\u015ftiri kapsam\u0131nda olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00f6nergede N.\u00c7.nin reyting u\u011fruna insanlar\u0131n evlerini bombalamakla, kurmaca haber yapmakla itham edildi\u011fini, haberin sava\u015f k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131na hizmet etti\u011fi ve davac\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcm toplumu reyting u\u011fruna kand\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ileri s\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc tespitinde bulunulmu\u015ftur. Kararda, ba\u015fvurucunun haber sitesine yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131nda da davac\u0131 hakk\u0131nda provokat\u00f6r, sava\u015f k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131s\u0131, yalan haber yapan, olaylar\u0131 maniple eden, reyting u\u011fruna evleri patlatan, \u015fov i\u00e7in ev bombalatan, insani de\u011ferlere \u00f6nem vermeyen, \u0131rk\u00e7\u0131 gibi nitelemelerle dolu ifadelerin a\u011f\u0131r ele\u015ftiri niteli\u011fini a\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015filik haklar\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131 te\u015fkil etti\u011fi, zira ifadelerin b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcne bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ifadelerin temelinde davac\u0131n\u0131n reyting u\u011fruna kurmaca haber yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir (kararda bkz. \u00a7 11).<\/p>\n
8. Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131na g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin, demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine uygun kabul edilebilmesi i\u00e7in zorunlu bir toplumsal ihtiyac\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lamas\u0131 ve orant\u0131l\u0131 olmas\u0131 gerekir (Bekir Co\u015fkun, \u00a7\u00a7 53-55; Mehmet Ali Ayd\u0131n, \u00a7\u00a7 70-72; AYM, E.2007\/4, K.2007\/81, 18\/10\/2007). Bu kapsamda, ba\u015fvurucunun ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin de demokratik toplumda zorunlu bir toplumsal ihtiyac\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lamas\u0131 ve orant\u0131l\u0131 olmas\u0131 gerekir.<\/p>\n
9. Anayasa’n\u0131n 26. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131na g\u00f6re ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lma nedenlerinden ve bu ba\u011flamda ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc kullananlar\u0131n uymas\u0131 gereken g\u00f6rev ve sorumluluklardan biri de ba\u015fkalar\u0131n\u0131n \u015f\u00f6hret veya haklar\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131d\u0131r. Bireyin \u015feref ve itibar\u0131, ki\u015fisel kimli\u011finin ve manevi b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bir par\u00e7as\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturur ve Anayasa’n\u0131n 17. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n korumas\u0131ndan faydalan\u0131r.<\/p>\n
10. Anayasa Mahkemesine g\u00f6re; Devletin, bireylerin maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ile ilgili pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde \u015feref ve itibar\u0131n korunmas\u0131 hakk\u0131 ile di\u011fer taraf\u0131n Anayasa\u2019da g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olan ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden yararlanma hakk\u0131 aras\u0131nda adil bir denge kurmas\u0131 gerekir. Bu t\u00fcrden ba\u015fvurularda ba\u015fvurunun sonucu, kural olarak ba\u015fvurunun ihtilafl\u0131 s\u00f6zlerin sahibi taraf\u0131ndan Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 26. maddesine dayan\u0131larak yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 ile bu s\u00f6zlere konu olan ki\u015fi taraf\u0131ndan Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131na dayan\u0131larak yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131na g\u00f6re de\u011fi\u015fmez. Aksi h\u00e2lde Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n an\u0131lan maddelerinde korunan haklar\u0131n dengelenmesinde, benzer olaylarda \u00e7eli\u015fkili sonu\u00e7lar ortaya \u00e7\u0131kabilir. Yarg\u0131 mercilerinin bu iki maddede d\u00fczenlenen haklar aras\u0131nda Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinde ve bu maddenin uygulanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihad\u0131nda ortaya konulan kriterlere uygun bir denge kurmalar\u0131 gerekir (Erg\u00fcn Poyraz (2), \u00a7 49).<\/p>\n
11. Anayasa Mahkemesi yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 incelemede yarg\u0131 makamlar\u0131n\u0131n bu iki anayasal g\u00fcvence aras\u0131nda adil bir dengeyi g\u00f6zetilip g\u00f6zetmedi\u011fini de\u011ferlendirmektedir (Nilg\u00fcn Halloran, \u00a7 27; \u0130lhan Cihaner (2), \u00a7 49). Bu, soyut bir de\u011ferlendirme de\u011fildir. \u00c7at\u0131\u015fan haklar aras\u0131nda dengeleme yap\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucunun kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifadelerin t\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn, kamusal tart\u0131\u015fmalara katk\u0131 sunma kapasitesinin, ifadelere y\u00f6nelik k\u0131s\u0131tlamalar\u0131n niteli\u011finin ve kapsam\u0131n\u0131n, ifadelerin kimin taraf\u0131ndan dile getirildi\u011finin, kime y\u00f6neldi\u011finin, taraflar\u0131n konumlar\u0131n\u0131n, ilgili ki\u015filerin \u00f6nceki davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n ve kamuoyu ile di\u011fer ki\u015filerin kullan\u0131lan ifadeler kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda sahip olduklar\u0131 haklar\u0131n a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir (Nilg\u00fcn Halloran, \u00a7 44; Erg\u00fcn Poyraz (2), \u00a7 56; Kadir Sa\u011fd\u0131\u00e7, \u00a7\u00a7 58-66).<\/p>\n
12. \u00c7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde ba\u015fvurucunun \u00fc\u00e7 farkl\u0131 yerde dile getirdi\u011fi ifadelere ili\u015fkin olarak yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmelerde \u015fu hususlar\u0131n \u00f6ne \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir:<\/p>\n
i. Ba\u015fvurucunun ifadelerinin kamuoyunu ter\u00f6r konusunda ilgilendiren kamusal bir tart\u0131\u015fmaya ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu, h\u00fck\u00fbmete y\u00f6nelik dile getirilen ele\u015ftirilerin siyasi ifadeler olmas\u0131 nedeniyle en geni\u015f korumadan yararlanaca\u011f\u0131,<\/p>\n
\u00a0ii. Ba\u015fvurucunun kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifadelerin bizzat davac\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015fili\u011fini hedef almad\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n gazeteci olup kendisine y\u00f6neltilen ele\u015ftirilere daha ho\u015fg\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fc yakla\u015fmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, ayr\u0131ca davac\u0131n\u0131n bu ele\u015ftirilere kar\u015f\u0131 geni\u015f kitlelere duyuracak \u015fekilde cevap verme imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu, dahas\u0131 ki\u015filik haklar\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131 te\u015fkil etti\u011fi \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclen ifadelerin davac\u0131n\u0131n itibar\u0131 \u00fczerinde meydana getirdi\u011fi iddia edilen olumsuz etkinin ne oldu\u011funun somut olarak ortaya konamad\u0131\u011f\u0131,<\/p>\n
\u00a0iii. \u0130stinaf mahkemesi ba\u015fvurucunun kullanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifadeleri davac\u0131ya kar\u015f\u0131 kullanm\u0131\u015f gibi kabul etti\u011fi, bu \u015fekilde istinaf mahkemesinin a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 yorum yaparak ihtilafl\u0131 ifadelere ba\u015fvurucunun verdi\u011fi anlamlar\u0131n \u00f6tesinde anlamlar y\u00fckledi\u011fi, bu durumun demokratik bir toplumda kamuyu bilgilendirme ve ele\u015ftiri ortam\u0131na zarar verme ve ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fczerinde cayd\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 etki do\u011furma riski ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131,<\/p>\n
\u00a0iv. Ba\u015fvurucunun ifadelerinin as\u0131l oda\u011f\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n de\u011fil iktidar\u0131n bulundu\u011funun g\u00f6z ard\u0131 edildi\u011fi, bu suretle ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ile \u015feref ve itibar hakk\u0131 aras\u0131nda adil bir dengeleme yap\u0131lmayarak ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7elendirme yap\u0131lmadan tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesinin ba\u015fvurucunun ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fi.<\/p>\n
13. \u00d6ncelikle belirtmek gerekir ki ba\u015fvurunun konusu; ba\u015fvurucunun h\u00fck\u00fbmete y\u00f6nelik dile getirdi\u011fi ele\u015ftirel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131 de\u011fil, haber programc\u0131s\u0131 N.\u00c7.ye kar\u015f\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ihtilafl\u0131 ifadelerdir. Nitekim ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine h\u00fckmedilen tazminat ve buna dair yarg\u0131 gerek\u00e7esinde de bunun \u00f6zellikle vurguland\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun siyasi ele\u015ftirileriyle ilgili yarg\u0131sal bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Bu durumda eldeki bireysel ba\u015fvuruda yap\u0131lacak incelemede ba\u015fvurucunun h\u00fck\u00fbmete y\u00f6nelik ele\u015ftirel ifadeleri \u00fczerinden ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla siyasi ele\u015ftiri i\u00e7in s\u00f6z konusu olan ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ilkelerinden hareketle de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 isabetli de\u011fildir (karardaki aksi y\u00f6nde de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. \u00a7 37). Somut ba\u015fvuruda \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmesi gereken mesele, ba\u015fvurucunun N.\u00c7.ye kar\u015f\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifadelerin ki\u015filik haklar\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131 niteli\u011finde olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda Anayasa Mahkemesinin \u015feref ve itibar hakk\u0131 ile ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc aras\u0131ndaki adil dengeleme i\u00e7tihad\u0131na uygun \u015fekilde yarg\u0131 makamlar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e ortaya koyup koymad\u0131klar\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvuruya konu olayda oldu\u011fu gibi \u015feref ve itibar hakk\u0131 ile ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc aras\u0131nda adil bir denge kurulmas\u0131 gereken durumlarda Anayasa Mahkemesince yap\u0131lan denetim, derece mahkemelerinin bu konuda sahip olduklar\u0131 takdir aral\u0131\u011f\u0131na do\u011frudan m\u00fcdahil olmadan, s\u00f6z konusu adil dengenin g\u00f6zetildi\u011finin mahkemelerce ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7eyle ortaya konulup konulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131yla s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 bir anayasall\u0131k denetimidir (\u0130lhan Cihaner (2), \u00a7\u00a7 65-73). Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle Anayasa Mahkemesi bireysel ba\u015fvuru incelemelerinde, derece mahkemelerinin \u015feref ve itibar hakk\u0131 ile ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc aras\u0131nda adil bir denge kurmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131rken sahip olduklar\u0131 takdir aral\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131k\u0131p \u00e7\u0131kmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmelidir.<\/p>\n
15. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun davac\u0131 gazeteciye kar\u015f\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifadeler ilk derece mahkemesince ele\u015ftiri s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131 a\u015fmayan boyutta kabul edilirken istinaf mahkemesince a\u011f\u0131r ele\u015ftiri niteli\u011fini a\u015fan, olgu isnad\u0131na varan, ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilemeyecek mahiyette bulunmu\u015ftur. Bu durumda somut olayda anayasall\u0131k de\u011ferlendirmesi kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken, istinaf mahkemesinin olaydaki takdir aral\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u015f\u0131p a\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bu ba\u011flamda ortaya koydu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esinin Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihad\u0131nda ortaya konulan \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctlere g\u00f6re ilgili ve yeterli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirlemekten ibaret olacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
16. Olayda ba\u015fvurucunun davac\u0131n\u0131n ismini a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a zikrederek bir\u00e7ok ifadede bulundu\u011fu, bunlar aras\u0131nda \u201c[N.\u00c7.] ve benzer muhabirlere ‘sava\u015f k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131’ yapmak ad\u0131na izin verildi”, \u201cOperasyon s\u00fcs\u00fc verilen yerde T\u00fcrkiye halklar\u0131 kan\u0131 \u00fczerinde reyting oranlar\u0131n\u0131 y\u00fckseltmek i\u00e7in bir evde bomba patlat\u0131larak yerle bir edildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fclerde\u201d, \u201cBir gazeteci, \u015fiddeti \u00f6zendirici, insani de\u011ferleri incitici, sava\u015f k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131na ara\u00e7 olmamal\u0131”, “Y\u00fcksekova halk\u0131n\u0131n evini show i\u00e7in bombalatan [N.\u00c7.] ve \u00e7amur medyas\u0131n\u0131\u2026”, “Bu haberleri yapanlar \u0131rk\u00e7\u0131l\u0131kta zirve yapm\u0131\u015flard\u0131r” gibi ifadelerin yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Her \u00fc\u00e7 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131na bir b\u00fct\u00fcn h\u00e2linde bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7iye kar\u015f\u0131 ifadelerinin \u00f6z\u00fcnde kurmaca haber yapma, reyting ve \u015fov amac\u0131yla halk\u0131n evini bombalatma, bu nedenle sava\u015f k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 ve \u0131rk\u00e7\u0131 olma ithamlar\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. Somut olayda ihlal sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in bu ifadelerin ki\u015filik haklar\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131 boyutunda oldu\u011funu kabul eden istinaf mahkemesi gerek\u00e7esinin Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctlerine g\u00f6re ilgili ve yeterli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi gerekir. \u0130stinaf mahkemesi ba\u015fvurucunun ifadelerini; davac\u0131n\u0131n gazeteci s\u0131fat\u0131yla katlanmas\u0131 gereken a\u011f\u0131r ele\u015ftiri niteli\u011fini a\u015fan, ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ya da ele\u015ftiri s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n i\u00e7erisinde de\u011ferlendirilemeyecek, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla davac\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015filik haklar\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131 \u015feklinde nitelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
18. \u00c7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne dayal\u0131 kararda ba\u015fvurucunun kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifadelerin do\u011frudan davac\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015fili\u011fini hedef almad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir (kararda bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 34-35). Halbuki \u0130stinaf Mahkemesi davac\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015fili\u011fini hedef alan s\u00f6zlere \u00fc\u00e7 mecrada ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131 belirterek yer vermi\u015ftir. Ger\u00e7ekten de ba\u015fvurucunun her \u00fc\u00e7 ifadesinde de \u00fcstelik \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7inin ad\u0131n\u0131 da zikrederek ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ithamlar\u0131n do\u011frudan N.\u00c7.yi hedef almad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemek zordur. Kararda ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucunun “provokat\u00f6r\u201d ibaresini davac\u0131 i\u00e7in kullanmamas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n \u0130stinaf Mahkemesinin kullan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f gibi bunu gerek\u00e7esinde zikretmesi, olgusal olarak olaya uygun olmayan de\u011ferlendirme kabul edilmi\u015ftir (kararda bkz. \u00a7 40). Oysa ba\u015fvurucunun N.\u00c7.yi sava\u015f k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla su\u00e7lad\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda bir ihtilaf yoktur. \u0130stinaf mahkemesinin gerek\u00e7esine b\u00fct\u00fcn h\u00e2linde bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun ifadelerini karar\u0131na aktar\u0131rken \u00f6zetleme y\u00f6ntemini kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u201cprovokat\u00f6r\u201d kelimesini de sava\u015f k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6z\u00fc ba\u011flam\u0131nda zikretti\u011fi kolayl\u0131kla anla\u015f\u0131labilmektedir. Bu duruma ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fun, istinaf mahkemesinin a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 yorum yaparak ihtilafl\u0131 ifadelere ba\u015fvurucunun verdi\u011fi anlamlar\u0131n \u00f6tesinde anlamlar y\u00fckleyerek demokratik bir toplumda kamuyu bilgilendirme ve ele\u015ftiri ortam\u0131na zarar verme ve ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fczerinde cayd\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 etki do\u011furma riski olu\u015fturdu\u011fu \u015feklindeki de\u011ferlendirmesinin isabetli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatindeyiz.<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7iye y\u00f6nelik kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifadeler nedeniyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tazminat davas\u0131nda B\u00f6lge \u0130stinaf Mahkemesince yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmede; ifadeyi kimin kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ifadelerin kime y\u00f6neldi\u011fi, konunun kamusal bir tart\u0131\u015fmaya ili\u015fkin olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ifadelerin bir b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fck i\u00e7inde ne anlam ifade etti\u011fi, ifadelerin ba\u011flam\u0131n\u0131n ne oldu\u011funun belirlendi\u011fi, bu do\u011frultuda ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ile \u015feref ve itibar hakk\u0131 aras\u0131nda adil bir denge kuruldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla istinaf makam\u0131n\u0131n, ba\u015fvuruya konu ifadelerin ele\u015ftiri s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131 a\u015farak ki\u015filik haklar\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131 niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131rken sahip oldu\u011fu takdir alan\u0131 i\u00e7inde hareket etmedi\u011fi, kullan\u0131lan takdirin ilgili ve yeterli \u015fekilde gerek\u00e7elendirilmedi\u011fi s\u00f6ylenemez. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucunun ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik toplumda zorunlu sosyal bir ihtiyac\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesindeyiz.<\/p>\n
20. \u00d6te yandan m\u00fcdahalenin bir miktar manevi tazminattan ibaret olup ba\u015fvurucu aleyhinde verilmi\u015f bir ceza bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 (ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kapsam\u0131nda olan hususlar\u0131n bir cezaya konu edilebilmesi halinin -tazminata k\u0131yasla- daha s\u0131k\u0131 bir zorunlu toplumsal ihtiya\u00e7 denetimini gerektirdi\u011finden), yarg\u0131 makam\u0131n\u0131n takdir alan\u0131 i\u00e7inde belirledi\u011fi tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuyu katlan\u0131lamaz bir k\u00fclfet alt\u0131na sokmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ger\u00e7ekleri hesaba kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda m\u00fcdahalenin orant\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
21. A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne dayal\u0131 ihlal karar\u0131na kat\u0131lmam\u0131z m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
Kadir \u00d6ZKAYA<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
Recai AKYEL<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu, 26. D\u00f6nem Hakkari milletvekili olup, T\u00fcrkiye B\u00fcy\u00fck Millet Meclisi\u2019ne verdi\u011fi soru \u00f6nergesinde bir gazeteciye g\u00fcvenlik g\u00fc\u00e7lerinin operasyonunu haber yapma hususunda imtiyaz tan\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131, reyting u\u011fruna bir evde bomba patlat\u0131larak haber yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma s\u00fcs\u00fc verildi\u011fi gibi iddialarda bulunmu\u015f, twitter hesab\u0131nda \u201cY\u00fcksekova halk\u0131n\u0131n evini \u015fov i\u00e7in bombalatan (N.\u00c7.) ve \u00e7amur medyas\u0131n\u0131 Bakana sorduk, verebilecek cevab\u0131 var m\u0131?\u201d \u015feklinde payla\u015f\u0131m yapm\u0131\u015f, bir internet sitesine gazeteci hakk\u0131nda soru \u00f6nergesindeki ifadeleri de i\u00e7erecek \u015fekilde daha geni\u015f bir \u00e7er\u00e7evede de a\u00e7\u0131klamalar yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131klamalarda ismi ge\u00e7en gazeteci taraf\u0131ndan manevi tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, yerel mahkeme davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015f, ancak B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi istinaf incelemesinde daval\u0131 (Ba\u015fvurucu) aleyhine miktar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 10.000 TL tazminata h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Anayasa Mahkemesi Genel Kurulunca ba\u015fvuruya ili\u015fkin yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmede \u00e7o\u011funluk taraf\u0131ndan Ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 26. Maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmi\u015ftir. A\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki gerek\u00e7elerle \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lm\u0131yorum. \u015e\u00f6yle ki;<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvuru, Anayasa’n\u0131n 26. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen ifade h\u00fcrriyeti kapsam\u0131nda incelendi\u011finde, s\u00f6z konusu maddede \u201cba\u015fkalar\u0131n\u0131n \u015f\u00f6hret veya haklar\u0131n\u0131n, \u00f6zel ve aile hayatlar\u0131n\u0131n yahut kanunun \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc meslek s\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131\u201d gerek\u00e7eleri ile hakk\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanununun 24. Maddesinde \u201cHukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak ki\u015filik hakk\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131lan kimse, h\u00e2kimden, sald\u0131r\u0131da bulunanlara kar\u015f\u0131 korunmas\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilir\u201d ve ayn\u0131 Kanunun 25.maddesinde ise, \u201cDavac\u0131n\u0131n, madd\u00ee ve manev\u00ee tazminat istemleri ile hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 sald\u0131r\u0131 dolay\u0131s\u0131yla elde edilmi\u015f olan kazanc\u0131n vek\u00e2letsiz i\u015f g\u00f6rme h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re kendisine verilmesine ili\u015fkin istemde bulunma hakk\u0131 sakl\u0131d\u0131r\u201d d\u00fczenlemelerine yer verilmi\u015ftir. Yine T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun 58. maddesine g\u00f6re ise, “Ki\u015filik hakk\u0131n\u0131n zedelenmesinden zarar g\u00f6ren, u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 manevi zarara kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k manevi tazminat ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda bir miktar para \u00f6denmesini isteyebilir”. T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu ve T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun ki\u015filik haklar\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik yukar\u0131da yer verilen d\u00fczenlemeleri Anayasan\u0131n 26. maddesi uyar\u0131nca kanunilik \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131lamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu, ger\u00e7ek d\u0131\u015f\u0131 haber yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc gazeteci hakk\u0131nda, emniyet g\u00fc\u00e7leri ile i\u015fbirli\u011fi yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma varm\u0131\u015f gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcler elde etti\u011fi, haber ve reyting u\u011fruna halk\u0131n evini bombalatt\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi \u00e7ok ciddi ve ger\u00e7ekli\u011fi ispatlanamam\u0131\u015f iddialarda bulunmu\u015ftur. Nitekim B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi, bu ifadelerin davac\u0131n\u0131n bir gazeteci s\u0131fat\u0131 ile katlanmas\u0131 gereken a\u011f\u0131r ele\u015ftiri niteli\u011fini a\u015fan, olgu isnad\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7eren mahiyette olduklar\u0131 ve davac\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015filik hakk\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131 te\u015fkil etti\u011fini kabul ederek manevi tazminata h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Anayasa Mahkemesinin yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131nda belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere, delillerin de\u011ferlendirilmesi ve hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincilli\u011fi ilkesi yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 yapan derece mahkemelerinin g\u00f6revidir. Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi ise, derece mahkemelerinin yorumlar\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a keyfi veya bariz takdir hatas\u0131 i\u00e7erecek nitelikte olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 incelemektir. Tazminata h\u00fckmeden mahkeme s\u00f6z konusu kanun maddelerini somut olay a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan de\u011ferlendirmi\u015f, karar\u0131n\u0131 gerek\u00e7elendirmi\u015f ve h\u00fck\u00fcm kurmu\u015ftur. Tazminata h\u00fckmeden Mahkemenin gerek\u00e7esi incelendi\u011finde yukar\u0131da yer verilen hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131nda bariz takdir hatas\u0131 veya a\u00e7\u0131k bir keyfilik mevcut de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
Somut olayda, Say\u0131n Genel Kurul taraf\u0131ndan, Ba\u015fvurucunun yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar nedeniyle h\u00fcrriyeti ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 veya ba\u015fka bir adl\u00ee ceza ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da nazara al\u0131nmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00e7ok say\u0131daki benzer ba\u015fvurularda adli yarg\u0131 mahkemelerinin kararlar\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendirirken ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne y\u00f6nelik k\u0131s\u0131tlamalar\u0131n niteli\u011fine ve kapsam\u0131na da bakmakta, bireysel ba\u015fvuruya konu olan yarg\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n h\u00fcrriyeti ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 bir ceza veya tazminat \u00f6ng\u00f6rmesi aras\u0131nda \u00f6nemli bir fark bulundu\u011funu belirterek de\u011ferlendirilmenin bu ba\u011flamda yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ifade etmektedir. Nitekim Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin Mustafa Tepeli ba\u015fvurusunda \u00f6nceki i\u00e7tihatlara at\u0131f yap\u0131larak bu husus a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.\u201c..22. Ki\u015finin itibar\u0131na yap\u0131lan sald\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n belli bir a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131k d\u00fczeyine eri\u015fmi\u015f oldu\u011fu h\u00e2llerde Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda m\u00fcndemi\u00e7 negatif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011fe, bireyin maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na etkin bir sayg\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in gerekli pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler eklenir. Pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler, ki\u015filerin birbirleri ile olan ili\u015fkilerini de kapsayacak \u015fekilde ki\u015fisel itibara sayg\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla birtak\u0131m tedbirler al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir (\u0130lhan Cihaner (2), B. No: 2013\/5574, 30\/6\/2014, \u00a7 47; Kadir Sa\u011fd\u0131\u00e7 [GK], B. No: 2013\/6617, 8\/4\/2015, \u00a7 40). 23\u2026.Ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle Anayasa Mahkemesi, devletin maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011fa y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalelere kar\u015f\u0131 etkili mekanizma kurma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn mutlaka ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131 yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerekli k\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na, bireyin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerce \u015feref ve itibar\u0131na m\u00fcdahale edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131yla tazminat davas\u0131 yoluyla da giderim sa\u011flamas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011funa karar vermi\u015ftir (Adnan Oktar (3), \u00a7 35)\u2026\u201d (Mustafa Tepeli [GK], B. No: 2014\/5831, 1\/3\/2017).<\/p>\n
Manev\u00ee tazminat, ki\u015filik haklar\u0131n\u0131n hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 \u015fekilde ihlal edilmesi nedeniyle duyulan \u00fcz\u00fcnt\u00fc ve kederin hafifletilmesine y\u00f6nelik bir \u201cgiderim\u201d olup, ceza hukuku yapt\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 de\u011fildir. \u00c7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde manevi tazminat\u0131n bu i\u015flevi nazara al\u0131nmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu nedenlerle, Ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 26. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fi \u015feklindeki \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lm\u0131yoruz.<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 4\/7\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/34861 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 GENEL KURUL \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 ABDULLAH ZEYDAN BA\u015eVURUSU (3) (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/34861) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 4\/7\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 12\/3\/2025 – 32839 \u00a0 GENEL KURUL \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Kadir \u00d6ZKAYA Ba\u015fkanvekili : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN Ba\u015fkanvekili : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Recai AKYEL \u00a0 \u00a0 Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU \u00a0 \u00a0 Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : Ekin \u00c7ANKAL Ba\u015fvurucu : Abdullah ZEYDAN Vekilleri : Av. F\u0131rat EP\u00d6ZDEM\u0130R \u00a0 \u00a0 Av. Ramazan DEM\u0130R \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru, bir gazeteci hakk\u0131nda kullan\u0131lan ifadelerden dolay\u0131 aleyhe manevi tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesi nedeniyle ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 28\/10\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvuru, ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinin idari y\u00f6nden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n incelemesinden sonra Komisyona sunulmu\u015ftur. 3. Komisyonca ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6l\u00fcm Ba\u015fkan\u0131 ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin birlikte yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. 4. 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. 5. Birinci B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurunun Genel Kurula sevkine karar verilmi\u015ftir. …<\/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-35455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n