T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
F. A. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/40003)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 22\/1\/2025<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Tu\u011fba YILDIZ<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Serhat EREN<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ula\u015famama nedeniyle olu\u015fan zararlar i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddedilmesi nedeniyle makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ve masumiyet karinesinin ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, Diyarbak\u0131r’\u0131n Kulp il\u00e7esi, Yaylak K\u00f6y\u00fc’nde ikamet etmekteyken ter\u00f6r olaylar\u0131 nedeniyle k\u00f6yden g\u00f6\u00e7 etti\u011fini iddia ederek 17\/7\/2004 tarihli ve 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Ter\u00f6r ve Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadeleden Do\u011fan Zararlar\u0131n Kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun kapsam\u0131nda 2004-2008 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda olu\u015fan zararlar\u0131n\u0131n tazmini talebiyle (ba\u015fvurucunun 2004 y\u0131l\u0131 \u00f6ncesi olu\u015fan zararlar\u0131 tazmin edilmi\u015f) Diyarbak\u0131r Valili\u011fi Zarar Tespit Komisyonuna (Komisyon) ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Komisyon, 22\/1\/2014 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun 12\/4\/1991 tarihli ve 3713 say\u0131l\u0131 Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadele Kanunu kapsam\u0131nda ceza ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131na girmedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle talebin reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu, Komisyon karar\u0131n\u0131n iptali talebiyle Diyarbak\u0131r 3. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme 30\/10\/2014 tarihli kararla davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; ba\u015fvurucunun hakk\u0131nda Diyarbak\u0131r 4. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin 28\/2\/2013 tarihli “ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn propagandas\u0131n\u0131 yapmak su\u00e7undan 10 ay hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na” karar\u0131 oldu\u011fu, kanun koyucunun hukuki ve teknik izaha girmeksizin genel olarak ter\u00f6r su\u00e7undan mahk\u00fbm olan ki\u015filer ile 26\/9\/2004 tarihli ve 5237 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Ceza Kanunu’nun baz\u0131 maddelerinden mahk\u00fbm olanlar\u0131, bu kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden faydaland\u0131rmamay\u0131 ama\u00e7lad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Bu nedenle mahk\u00fbmiyet tarihinden \u00f6nceki veya sonraki bir tarihte meydana geldi\u011fine bak\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n zararlar\u0131n salt bu ki\u015filere ait olmas\u0131 sebebiyle kanun d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca ter\u00f6r su\u00e7undan h\u00fck\u00fcm giymi\u015f ki\u015filerin bu \u015fekilde ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn geli\u015fmesine ve b\u00fcy\u00fcmesine sebebiyet verdikleri, u\u011frad\u0131klar\u0131 zararlar ter\u00f6rden kaynaklansa da s\u00f6z konusu ter\u00f6r\u00fcn geli\u015fmesine ve b\u00fcy\u00fcmesine katk\u0131da bulunduklar\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 zikredilen zararlar\u0131n olu\u015fmas\u0131na da kendilerinin sebebiyet verdikleri belirtilmi\u015ftir. Aksi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin maddenin olduk\u00e7a dar yorumlanmas\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelece\u011fi vurgulanarak bu \u015fekilde ter\u00f6r su\u00e7undan mahk\u00fbm olan ki\u015filere devlet taraf\u0131ndan tazminat \u00f6denmesinin kanunun amac\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil etti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Olayda da ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn propagandas\u0131n\u0131 yapmak su\u00e7undan 10 ay hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilen ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r nedeniyle zarara u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurunun yukar\u0131da izah edilen gerek\u00e7eye dayanarak reddine ili\u015fkin i\u015flemde hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucunun temyiz talebi, Dan\u0131\u015ftay Onuncu Dairesinin (Daire) 4\/12\/2019 tarihli karar\u0131yla, karar d\u00fczeltme talebi de ayn\u0131 Dairenin 28\/9\/2020 tarihli karar\u0131yla reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai karar\u0131 15\/11\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 4\/12\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
A. Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n makul s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde tamamlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan \u015fik\u00e2yet etmektedir.<\/p>\n
8. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olay ve olgular\u0131 somut ba\u015fvuru ile benzer nitelikte olan Veysi Ado ([GK], B. No: 2022\/100837, 27\/4\/2023) karar\u0131nda an\u0131lan \u015fik\u00e2yetle ilgili olarak uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede Anayasa Mahkemesi 9\/1\/2013 tarihli ve 6384 say\u0131l\u0131 Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesine Yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Baz\u0131 Ba\u015fvurular\u0131n Tazminat \u00d6denmek Suretiyle \u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne Dair Kanun’un ge\u00e7ici 2. maddesinde 28\/3\/2023 tarihli ve 7445 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 40. maddesi ile yap\u0131lan de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fe g\u00f6re 9\/3\/2023 tarihi (bu tarih d\u00e2hil) itibar\u0131yla derdest olan, yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddialar\u0131yla yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurulara ili\u015fkin olarak Tazminat Komisyonuna ba\u015fvuru yolu t\u00fcketilmeden yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun incelenmesinin bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincil niteli\u011fi ile ba\u011fda\u015fmayaca\u011f\u0131 neticesine varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Somut ba\u015fvuruda da an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Masumiyet Karinesinin \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu, ter\u00f6r propagandas\u0131 su\u00e7unun 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da belirtilen su\u00e7lar aras\u0131nda yer almad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, tazminat alabilme hakk\u0131 oldu\u011funu, mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n hatal\u0131 de\u011ferlendirildi\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca hakk\u0131nda h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fini (HAGB), mahk\u00fbmiyet varm\u0131\u015f gibi de\u011ferlendirmenin do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daha \u00f6nce tazminat alabildi\u011fini belirterek masumiyet karinesinin ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
11. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; Diyarbak\u0131r Valili\u011finden al\u0131nan g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f sunulmu\u015ftur. An\u0131lan yaz\u0131da ba\u015fvurucunun talebinin 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131nda bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan reddedilmesi gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvuru, masumiyet karinesi kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. 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 masumiyet karinesinin ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
14. Masumiyet karinesi, ki\u015finin su\u00e7 i\u015fledi\u011fine dair kesinle\u015fmi\u015f bir yarg\u0131 karar\u0131 olmadan su\u00e7lu olarak kabul edilmemesini g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na almaktad\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca hi\u00e7 kimse, su\u00e7lulu\u011fu h\u00fckmen sabit oluncaya kadar yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131 ve kamu otoriteleri taraf\u0131ndan su\u00e7lu olarak nitelendirilemez ve su\u00e7lu muamelesine tabi tutulamaz (K\u00fcr\u015fat Eyol [2. B.], B. No: 2012\/665, 13\/6\/2013, \u00a7 26). Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n bir unsuru olan masumiyet karinesinin sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00fcvencenin iki y\u00f6n\u00fc bulunmaktad\u0131r. G\u00fcvencenin ilk y\u00f6n\u00fc; ki\u015fi hakk\u0131ndaki ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonu\u00e7lan\u0131ncaya kadar ge\u00e7en, bir ba\u015fka ifadeyle ki\u015finin ceza gerektiren bir su\u00e7la itham edildi\u011fi (su\u00e7 isnad\u0131 alt\u0131nda oldu\u011fu) s\u00fcrece ili\u015fkin olup su\u00e7lu oldu\u011funa dair h\u00fck\u00fcm tesis edilene kadar ki\u015finin su\u00e7lulu\u011fu ve eylemleri hakk\u0131nda erken a\u00e7\u0131klamalarda bulunulmas\u0131n\u0131 yasaklar. G\u00fcvencenin ikinci y\u00f6n\u00fc ise ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonucunda mahk\u00fbmiyet d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bir h\u00fck\u00fcm kuruldu\u011funda devreye girer ve daha sonraki yarg\u0131lamalarda ceza gerektiren su\u00e7la ilgili olarak ki\u015finin masumiyetinden \u015f\u00fcphe duyulmamas\u0131n\u0131, kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n toplum nezdinde ki\u015finin su\u00e7lu oldu\u011fu izlenimini uyand\u0131racak i\u015flem ve uygulamalardan ka\u00e7\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir (Galip \u015eahin [1. B.], B. No: 2015\/6075, 11\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 39, 40).<\/p>\n
15. HAGB, erteleme ve k\u0131sa s\u00fcreli hapis cezas\u0131na se\u00e7enek yapt\u0131r\u0131mlar gibi h\u00fckm\u00fcn ve cezan\u0131n bireyselle\u015ftirilmesi kurumlar\u0131ndan biridir. H\u00e2kim, san\u0131k hakk\u0131nda mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fc kurmakla beraber h\u00fckm\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131klamamakta ve san\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirli bir s\u00fcre denetim alt\u0131nda tutmaktad\u0131r. San\u0131k, denetim s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde kas\u0131tl\u0131 bir su\u00e7 i\u015flemedi\u011fi ve mahkemece \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen denetimli serbestlik tedbirine uygun davrand\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 geri b\u0131rak\u0131lan mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fc ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmaktad\u0131r (Enez Ers\u00f6z [1. B.], B. No: 2018\/19673, 31\/3\/2022, \u00a7 35). H\u00fck\u00fcm, a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde kanun yolu denetimine tabi olaca\u011f\u0131ndan mahkemenin san\u0131\u011f\u0131n su\u00e7lu oldu\u011funa dair s\u00f6z konusu kanaatinin kanun yolu mercilerinde bozulmas\u0131 ve buna ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ki\u015finin isnat edilen su\u00e7tan beraat etmesinin de m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fu unutulmamal\u0131d\u0131r. Bu nedenle denetim s\u00fcrecinde ki\u015finin su\u00e7lulu\u011funun sabit olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla su\u00e7lu say\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131, masum oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r (Enez Ers\u00f6z, \u00a7 36).<\/p>\n
16. Di\u011fer taraftan idari uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne esas te\u015fkil etmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan salt ki\u015finin yarg\u0131lanm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131ndan ve HAGB’ye dair karardan s\u00f6z edilmesi masumiyet karinesinin ihlal edildi\u011finden bahsedebilmek i\u00e7in yeterli de\u011fildir. Bunun i\u00e7in karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinin b\u00fct\u00fcn h\u00e2linde dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 ve nihai karar\u0131n m\u00fcnhas\u0131ran HAGB’ye karar verilen fiillere dayan\u0131p dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesi gerekir (H\u00fcseyin \u015eahin [GK], B. No: 2013\/1728, 12\/11\/2014, \u00a7 40).<\/p>\n
17. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu; ter\u00f6r olaylar\u0131 nedeniyle k\u00f6yden g\u00f6\u00e7 etti\u011fini iddia ederek olu\u015fan zararlar\u0131n\u0131n 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131nda tazmini talebiyle Komisyona ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015f, talebinin reddedilmesi \u00fczerine iptal davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde, Diyarbak\u0131r 4. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin karar\u0131na yer vermi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda “ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn propagandas\u0131n\u0131 yapmak su\u00e7undan 10 ayhapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na” karar verildi\u011fi, hakk\u0131nda HAGB karar\u0131 olsa da ba\u015fvurucunun 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 2. maddesine g\u00f6re kapsam d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifadeleriyle ba\u015fvurucunun \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011fi izleniminin olu\u015fmas\u0131na sebebiyet verilmi\u015f, bu suretle ba\u015fvurucunun masumiyetine g\u00f6lge d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
18. Bu itibarla Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde kullan\u0131lan ifadeler nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun ceza yarg\u0131lanmas\u0131na konu eylemleri i\u015fledi\u011fi ve su\u00e7lu oldu\u011fu inanc\u0131n\u0131n yans\u0131t\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. ve 38. maddelerinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan masumiyet karinesinin ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
19. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. ve 38. maddesinin d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131nda g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan masumiyet karinesinin ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvurucunun ayr\u0131ca m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc g\u00f6r\u00fclmekle birlikte masumiyet karinesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7 g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde bu a\u015famada an\u0131lan ihlal iddias\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
21. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile 40.000 TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
22. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen anayasal hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar ve zorunluluk bulunmaktad\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n 148. ve 153. maddeleri ile 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. ve 66. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flat\u0131p Anayasa Mahkemesinin ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere ve gerek\u00e7elere uygun bi\u00e7imde y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclecek yarg\u0131lama sonunda hak ihlalinin nedenlerini gidererek yeni bir karar vermektir (yeniden yarg\u0131lama konusunda bkz. Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2) [1. B.], 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
23. \u00d6te yandan hak ihlali karar\u0131ndan Anayasa Mahkemesinin davan\u0131n sonucuyla ilgili olarak bir tutum sergiledi\u011fi sonucu \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmamal\u0131d\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesince verilen hak ihlali karar\u0131 uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sonu\u00e7lar\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olup davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, reddine ya da beraate veya mahk\u00fbmiyete karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi anlam\u0131na gelmemektedir. Kural olarak, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n her a\u015famas\u0131nda oldu\u011fu gibi ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 gidermek \u00fczere yeniden yap\u0131lacak yarg\u0131lama sonunda da delillerin dava ile ili\u015fkisini kurma ve bunlar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirip sonu\u00e7 \u00e7\u0131karma yetkisi ilgili mahkemelere aittir.<\/p>\n
24. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. Makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Masumiyet karinesinin ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. ve 38. maddesinin d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131nda g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan masumiyet karinesinin \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Di\u011fer ihlal iddias\u0131n\u0131n \u0130NCELENMES\u0130NE GEREK OLMADI\u011eINA,<\/p>\n
D. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin masumiyet karinesinin ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Diyarbak\u0131r 3. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2014\/507, K.2014\/1044) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.446,90 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. \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
H. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 22\/1\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 22\/1\/2025 tarihli ve 2020\/40003 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 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR F. A. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/40003) Karar Tarihi: 22\/1\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : Tu\u011fba YILDIZ Ba\u015fvurucu : Vekili : Av. Serhat EREN I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ula\u015famama nedeniyle olu\u015fan zararlar i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddedilmesi nedeniyle makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ve masumiyet karinesinin ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, Diyarbak\u0131r’\u0131n Kulp il\u00e7esi, Yaylak K\u00f6y\u00fc’nde ikamet etmekteyken ter\u00f6r olaylar\u0131 nedeniyle k\u00f6yden g\u00f6\u00e7 etti\u011fini iddia ederek 17\/7\/2004 tarihli ve 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Ter\u00f6r ve Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadeleden Do\u011fan Zararlar\u0131n Kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun kapsam\u0131nda 2004-2008 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda olu\u015fan zararlar\u0131n\u0131n tazmini talebiyle (ba\u015fvurucunun 2004 y\u0131l\u0131 \u00f6ncesi olu\u015fan zararlar\u0131 tazmin edilmi\u015f) Diyarbak\u0131r Valili\u011fi Zarar Tespit Komisyonuna (Komisyon) ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Komisyon, 22\/1\/2014 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun 12\/4\/1991 tarihli ve 3713 say\u0131l\u0131 Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadele Kanunu kapsam\u0131nda ceza ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131na girmedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle talebin reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu, Komisyon karar\u0131n\u0131n iptali talebiyle Diyarbak\u0131r 3. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme 30\/10\/2014 tarihli kararla davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; ba\u015fvurucunun hakk\u0131nda Diyarbak\u0131r 4. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin 28\/2\/2013 tarihli “ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn propagandas\u0131n\u0131 yapmak su\u00e7undan 10 ay hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na” karar\u0131 …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131581","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n