T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
MEHMET AL\u0130 G\u00dcL\u015eEN BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/4057)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 10\/12\/2024<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Recai AKYEL<\/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
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u015eehadet \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Mehmet Ali G\u00dcL\u015eEN<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Mehmet B\u0130\u00c7EN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; \u00e7\u00f6p toplama sahas\u0131nda bulunan ve askeriyeye ait olan malzemenin patlamas\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen a\u011f\u0131r yaralanmadan do\u011fan zararlar\u0131n tazmini istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n reddedilmesi nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmamas\u0131 nedeniyle makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucunun ailesi 4\/4\/2010 tarihinde Ergani Belediyesine ait \u00e7\u00f6p toplama sahas\u0131ndaki geri d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcml\u00fc at\u0131klar\u0131 ayr\u0131\u015ft\u0131rmak \u00fczere evlerinin yan\u0131ndaki alana getirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun babas\u0131 C.G. 5\/4\/2010 g\u00fcn\u00fc bu at\u0131klar\u0131n i\u00e7inde bulunan asker\u00ee malzemeleri ay\u0131klarken metal kutu \u015feklindeki el bombas\u0131 f\u00fcnyesini a\u00e7amam\u0131\u015f ve yere atm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu s\u0131rada kendisine yard\u0131m eden ba\u015fvurucunun kutuyu kurcalay\u0131p i\u00e7indeki y\u00fcz\u00fck \u015feklindeki pimi \u00e7ekmesiyle patlama meydana gelmi\u015ftir. Bu patlama sonucu ba\u015fvurucunun sa\u011f elinin ba\u015f ve i\u015faret parmaklar\u0131 kopmu\u015f, y\u00fcz\u00fcnde yaralanma olmu\u015ftur. Ayr\u0131ca bu alanda oyun oynayan M.Y. de patlaman\u0131n etkisiyle yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ergani Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) olaya ili\u015fkin soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Soru\u015fturma dosyas\u0131nda bulunan ve Ergani \u0130l\u00e7e Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce haz\u0131rlanan 6\/4\/2010 tarihli olay yeri inceleme raporunda; olay yerinde MKE (Makine ve Kimya End\u00fcstrisi) ibareli \u00e7ok say\u0131da asker\u00ee m\u00fchimmat kutusu, kullan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f el bombas\u0131 f\u00fcnyeleri, f\u00fcnyelere ait \u00e7ekilmi\u015f pimler, eski asker\u00ee bot ile eski asker\u00ee k\u0131yafetlerin oldu\u011fu ve patlama riski ta\u015f\u0131yan el bombas\u0131 f\u00fcnyelerinin olay yerine gelen bomba imha ekibince kontroll\u00fc \u015fekilde patlat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Soru\u015fturma kapsam\u0131nda, \u00fc\u00e7 ki\u015fiden olu\u015fan bilirki\u015fi heyetinden kusur durumuna ili\u015fkin rapor al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Raporda kazaya sebep olan el bombas\u0131 f\u00fcnyelerinin uygun \u015fekilde imha edilmeden \u00e7\u00f6pe at\u0131lmas\u0131 ve gere\u011fi gibi muhafaza edilmemesinden dolay\u0131 Mill\u00ee Savunma Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n (\u0130dare) hizmet kusuru oldu\u011fu tespiti yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca e\u011fitimli eleman istihdam etmeyen C.G.nin \u00e7ocuk ya\u015ftaki kazal\u0131lar\u0131n i\u015fyerinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131na ve bulunmas\u0131na g\u00f6z yumarak olay\u0131n meydana gelmesinde asli kusurlu oldu\u011fu, kazal\u0131lar\u0131n ise kusurlu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Soru\u015fturmada taraflar\u0131n uzla\u015fmas\u0131 \u00fczerine \u015f\u00fcpheli C.G. hakk\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu ve M.Y.yi taksirle yaralama su\u00e7undan 24\/5\/2012 tarihli kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair karar verilmi\u015ftir. Kararda, olaydaki asker\u00ee m\u00fchimmat ile ilgili asker\u00ee yarg\u0131y\u0131 ilgilendiren bir durumun ve sorumlulu\u011fun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda 7. Kolordu Komutanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Asker\u00ee Savc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n da soru\u015fturma y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. Olaydan sonra ba\u015fvurucu ve ba\u015fvurucuya velayeten yak\u0131nlar\u0131, 17\/12\/2010 tarihinde \u0130dareye m\u00fcracaat ederek olay nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131klar\u0131 maddi ve manevi zararlar\u0131n tazminini talep etmi\u015fse de bu talebe herhangi bir cevap verilmeyerek m\u00fcracaatlar\u0131 z\u0131mnen reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Talebin reddedilmesi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu ve ba\u015fvurucuya velayeten yak\u0131nlar\u0131, u\u011frad\u0131klar\u0131 maddi ve manevi zararlar\u0131n tazmini i\u00e7in Diyarbak\u0131r 3. \u0130dare Mahkemesi (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) nezdinde tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f; 28\/3\/2011 tarihli dava dilek\u00e7esinde yaralanman\u0131n askeriyeye ait el bombas\u0131 f\u00fcnyelerinin patlamas\u0131 sonucu meydana geldi\u011fini, f\u00fcnyelerin etkisiz h\u00e2le getirilmeksizin \u00e7\u00f6pl\u00fc\u011fe b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle daval\u0131 \u0130darenin kusurlu oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Daval\u0131 \u0130dare savunmas\u0131nda olay akabinde 7. Kolordu Komutanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Asker\u00ee Savc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nca Ergani M\u00fchimmat B\u00f6l\u00fck Komutanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda yap\u0131lan ara\u015ft\u0131rma ve say\u0131mda el bombas\u0131 f\u00fcnyelerinin eksik olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edildi\u011fini, ilgili mevzuat gere\u011fi \u0130darenin patlamaya haz\u0131r el bombas\u0131 f\u00fcnyelerini mesk\u00fbn mahaldeki \u00e7\u00f6pl\u00fc\u011fe atmas\u0131 gibi bir prosed\u00fcr\u00fcn mevcut olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, meydana gelen patlamayla hizmet i\u015fleyi\u015fi aras\u0131nda illiyet ba\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle \u0130dareye ait asker\u00ee m\u00fchimmat\u0131n patlamaya neden oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131n\u0131n dayanaks\u0131z oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
8. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 7\/12\/2011 tarihinde davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. \u0130dare Mahkemesi gerek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucunun anne ve babas\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6p toplama sahas\u0131nda bulduklar\u0131 asker\u00ee malzemelerin tehlikesinin fark\u0131nda olmalar\u0131na ra\u011fmen bu malzemeleri evlerinin yan\u0131ndaki alana getirdiklerini, bak\u0131m ve g\u00f6zetim g\u00f6revlerini ihmal ederek velayetleri alt\u0131ndaki \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n\u0131 uyar\u0131p kontrol etmediklerini, olay\u0131n meydana gelmesinde asli kusurlu olduklar\u0131n\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun da olay tarihi itibar\u0131yla 14 y\u0131l 6 ay 15 g\u00fcnl\u00fck oldu\u011funu, ya\u015f\u0131 itibar\u0131yla asker\u00ee m\u00fchimmat\u0131 par\u00e7alamaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fman\u0131n tehlikeli sonu\u00e7lar do\u011furabilece\u011finin fark\u0131nda oldu\u011funu ancak \u00fczerindeki yaz\u0131lardan askeriyeye ait oldu\u011funu anlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kutuyu a\u00e7maya \u00e7al\u0131\u015farak kusurlu eylemde bulundu\u011funu, davac\u0131lar\u0131n kusurlu eylemlerinin zarar\u0131n do\u011fumu ile \u0130darenin kusuru aras\u0131ndaki illiyet ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kesti\u011fini, bu nedenlerle daval\u0131 \u0130darenin tazmin sorumlulu\u011fu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. \u0130dare Mahkemesinin ret h\u00fckm\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 kanun yoluna ba\u015fvuran davac\u0131n\u0131n temyiz talebi Dan\u0131\u015ftay Onuncu Dairesi (Daire) taraf\u0131ndan 9\/9\/2015 tarihinde karar\u0131n usul ve hukuka uygun oldu\u011fu belirtilerek reddedilmi\u015ftir. Daire, karar d\u00fczeltme talebini de 29\/9\/2020 tarihinde kesin olarak reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai karar\u0131 17\/11\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frenmesinin ard\u0131ndan 7\/1\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
11. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
12. \u00d6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucunun adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
A. Ya\u015fam Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucu; yaralanmas\u0131n\u0131n askeriyeye ait el bombas\u0131 f\u00fcnyelerinin patlamas\u0131 sonucu olu\u015ftu\u011funu, f\u00fcnyelerin etkisiz h\u00e2le getirilmeksizin \u00e7\u00f6pl\u00fc\u011fe b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle \u0130darenin hizmet kusuru oldu\u011funu, yaralanmas\u0131 sebebiyle i\u015f g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc ciddi oranda kaybetti\u011fini, psikolojik sorunlar ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan okula devam edemedi\u011fini, ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu s\u0131k\u0131nt\u0131lara ra\u011fmen tazminat taleplerinin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 \u015fekilde reddedildi\u011fini belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131, etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131 ve g\u00fcvenlik hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda ki\u015fi \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi, adil yarg\u0131lanma ve etkili ba\u015fvuru haklar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde somut olay s\u00fcreci ve insan haklar\u0131 yarg\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7tihad\u0131 ile mevzuat\u0131 detayl\u0131 olarak aktararak ba\u015fvurucunun iddia ve tezlerinin derece mahkemeleri nezdinde tart\u0131\u015f\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra maddi ve manevi tazminat taleplerinin reddedildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015f; yap\u0131lacak de\u011ferlendirmede Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin, Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihad\u0131n\u0131n ve somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. Olay\u0131n niteli\u011fi ve formdaki iddialar do\u011frultusunda ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin \u00f6z\u00fc ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkindir. O h\u00e2lde ba\u015fvuruda incelenmesi gereken ilk husus ba\u015fvurunun ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenip incelenemeyece\u011fidir.<\/p>\n
15. Anayasa Mahkemesinin yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihad\u0131na g\u00f6re bir olayda ya\u015fam hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin ilkelerin uygulanabilmesi i\u00e7in gerekli \u015fartlardan biri do\u011fal olmayan bir \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesi olmakla birlikte baz\u0131 durumlarda \u00f6l\u00fcm ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmese dahi olay\u0131n ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenebilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr (Mehmet Karada\u011f, B. No: 2013\/2030, 26\/6\/2014, \u00a7 20). Bu de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131l\u0131rken eylemin potansiyel olarak \u00f6ld\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc nitelikte olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve maruz kal\u0131nan eylemin ma\u011fdurun fiziki b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fczerindeki sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir (Yasin A\u011fca, B. No: 2014\/13163, 11\/5\/2017, \u00a7 110).<\/p>\n
16. Ba\u015fvuruya konu olay, askeriyeye ait m\u00fchimmat\u0131n da i\u00e7inde oldu\u011fu \u00e7\u00f6plerin ayr\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda el bombas\u0131 f\u00fcnyelerinin patlamas\u0131 sonucu ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, \u00f6ld\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc niteli\u011fi konusunda \u015f\u00fcphe bulunmayan bu eylem nedeniyle sa\u011f elinin ba\u015f ve i\u015faret parmaklar\u0131n\u0131 kaybetmi\u015f ve y\u00fcz\u00fcnden yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu sebeple ba\u015fvurunun ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvurucu vekilinin 15\/12\/2020-25\/12\/2020 tarihleri aras\u0131nda istirahatli oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin sundu\u011fu rapor (T.C. Sa\u011fl\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Filyasyon Merkezinden al\u0131nan istirahat raporu) hakl\u0131 mazeret olarak kabul edilmi\u015f ve bu nedenle ba\u015fvurunun s\u00fcresinde oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
18. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131 g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na alan 17. maddesinin kendisine y\u00fckledi\u011fi pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler uyar\u0131nca devlet; yetki alan\u0131ndaki bireylerin ya\u015famlar\u0131n\u0131 kamu g\u00f6revlileri ile di\u011fer bireylerin eylemlerinden hatta ki\u015filerin kendi eylemlerinden kaynaklanabilecek risklere kar\u015f\u0131 koruma \u00f6devi alt\u0131ndad\u0131r (Serpil Kerimo\u011flu ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2012\/752, 17\/9\/2013, \u00a7\u00a7 50, 51).<\/p>\n
19. Koruma \u00f6devinin yerine getirilebilmesi i\u00e7in devletin; ya\u015fam hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelen tehdit ve risklere kar\u015f\u0131 cayd\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 ve koruyucu yasal ve idari \u00e7er\u00e7eve olu\u015fturmas\u0131 (\u0130pek Deniz ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/1595, 21\/4\/2016, \u00a7 149; T.A. [GK], B. No: 2017\/32972, 29\/9\/2021, \u00a7 135), bir ki\u015finin ya\u015fam\u0131na y\u00f6nelik ger\u00e7ek ve yak\u0131n bir tehlikenin bulundu\u011funun kamu makamlar\u0131nca bilindi\u011fi ya da bilinmesi gerekti\u011fi durumlarda organlar\u0131 veya g\u00f6revlileri arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla makul \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ve bu tehlikenin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesini \u00f6nleyebilecek \u015fekilde \u00f6nlemler almas\u0131 (Serpil Kerimo\u011flu ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 53; T.A., \u00a7 136) ve hatta \u00f6nceden belirlenebilir bir veya daha fazla bireyin ya\u015fam\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir tehdit s\u00f6z konusu olmasa bile ki\u015filerin ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131 korumak i\u00e7in genel g\u00fcvenlik tedbirleri almas\u0131 gerekir (Mehmet \u00c7etinkaya ve Maide \u00c7etinkaya, B. No: 2013\/1280, 28\/5\/2014, \u00a7 59). \u00d6te yandan yetkili makamlardan ya\u015famla ilgili her t\u00fcrl\u00fc potansiyel tehdidin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesini \u00f6nlemek i\u00e7in somut tedbirler almas\u0131 beklenemeyece\u011fi (Mehmet \u00c7etinkaya ve Maide \u00c7etinkaya, \u00a7 60) gibi \u00f6zellikle insan davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemezli\u011fi, \u00f6ncelikler ve kaynaklar de\u011ferlendirilerek yap\u0131lacak i\u015flem veya y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclecek faaliyet tercihi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn kamu makamlar\u0131 \u00fczerinde a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 y\u00fck olu\u015fturacak \u015fekilde yorumlanmas\u0131 da m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Ayr\u0131ca hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 ad\u0131na pek \u00e7ok y\u00f6ntem benimsenebilir ve mevzuatta d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f herhangi bir tedbirin yerine getirilmesinde ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131z olunsa bile pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler di\u011fer bir tedbirle yerine getirilebilir. Unutulmamas\u0131 gerekir ki ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n gerektirdi\u011fi pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerin yerine getirilmesi kapsam\u0131nda al\u0131nacak tedbirlerin belirlenmesi, idari ve yarg\u0131sal makamlar\u0131n takdirindedir (Bilal Turan ve di\u011ferleri (2), B. No: 2013\/2075, 4\/12\/2013, \u00a7 59; T.A., \u00a7 136, 137).<\/p>\n
20. An\u0131lan koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc niteli\u011fi itibar\u0131yla birtak\u0131m riskler i\u00e7eren, ihmal edilmesi h\u00e2linde ki\u015filerin ya\u015fam\u0131na y\u00f6nelik tehlikeli bir durum yarataca\u011f\u0131 hususunda teredd\u00fct bulunmayan asker\u00ee m\u00fchimmat\u0131n toplanmas\u0131na ve imhas\u0131na ili\u015fkin faaliyetler i\u00e7in de ge\u00e7erlidir (Kadri Ceyhan [GK], B. No: 2014\/1924, 17\/5\/2018, \u00a7 90). Bu a\u00e7\u0131dan bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda devletin ya\u015fam\u0131 koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kapsam\u0131nda an\u0131lan hizmeti yerine getirirken ki\u015filerin ya\u015fam\u0131 ile v\u00fccut b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn korunmas\u0131 i\u00e7in gerekli g\u00fcvenlik tedbirlerini almas\u0131, \u00f6l\u00fcm ve yaralanma olaylar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6n\u00fcne ge\u00e7mek i\u00e7in makul \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde gerekenleri yapmas\u0131 bir zorunluluktur (Cemal K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7, B. No: 2014\/8722, 11\/6\/2018, \u00a7 48).<\/p>\n
21. Pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kapsam\u0131nda devletin ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131 korumak i\u00e7in olu\u015fturulan yasal ve idari \u00e7er\u00e7evenin gere\u011fi gibi uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 ve bu hakka y\u00f6nelik ihlallerin durdurulup cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayacak etkili bir yarg\u0131sal sistem kurma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc de bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck, kamusal olsun veya olmas\u0131n, ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n tehlikeye girebilece\u011fi her t\u00fcrl\u00fc faaliyet bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ge\u00e7erlidir (Serpil Kerimo\u011flu ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 52; T.A., \u00a7 134).<\/p>\n
22. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlaline kasten sebebiyet verilmemi\u015f ise etkili bir yarg\u0131sal sistem kurma y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck her olayda mutlaka ceza davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirmez. Ma\u011fdurlara hukuki, idari hatta disiplinle ilgili hukuk yollar\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k olmas\u0131 yeterli olabilir (Serpil Kerimo\u011flu ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 59; Nafia Sevin Erg\u00fcn Sefada ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2014\/14844, 1\/12\/2016, \u00a7 63).<\/p>\n
23. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki sorumlulu\u011fu ortaya koymak ad\u0131na adli ve idari yarg\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131lan tazminat talepli davalarda makul derecede ivedilik ve \u00f6zen \u015fart\u0131n\u0131n yerine getirilmesi gerekmektedir (Perihan U\u00e7ar, B. No: 2013\/5860, 1\/12\/2015, \u00a7 52) ancak yarg\u0131 mercilerinin \u00f6zenli inceleme yapma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri, ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 ile ilgili her davada mutlaka ma\u011fdurlar lehine sonuca var\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 garanti etmez (Aysun Okumu\u015f ve Aytekin Okumu\u015f, B. No: 2013\/4086, 20\/4\/2016, \u00a7 73).<\/p>\n
24. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu, yaralanmas\u0131na neden olan patlaman\u0131n \u0130darenin hizmet kusuru neticesinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi iddias\u0131yla zararlar\u0131n\u0131n tazmini i\u00e7in tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130dare Mahkemesi ise meydana gelen patlamada ba\u015fvurucu ve ailesinin kusurunun zarar\u0131n ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131 ile \u0130darenin kusuru aras\u0131ndaki illiyet ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kesti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle maddi ve manevi tazminat taleplerini reddetmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7 8). Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131, \u0130darenin hizmet kusuru neticesinde do\u011fan zararlardan sorumlu tutulmas\u0131 gerekirken bu hususun g\u00f6zard\u0131 edilerek taleplerinin reddedilmesine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvuruya konu yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcreci incelendi\u011finde \u0130dare Mahkemesinin Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n patlama olay\u0131na ili\u015fkin y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc soru\u015fturma dosyas\u0131 ile 7. Kolordu Komutanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Asker\u00ee Savc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n soru\u015fturma dosyas\u0131n\u0131 dava dosyas\u0131na getirtmedi\u011fi, ceza soru\u015fturmalar\u0131nda elde edilen delilleri yarg\u0131lamaya kazand\u0131rmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. \u00d6zellikle Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k\u00e7a al\u0131nan olay yeri inceleme raporu ve bilirki\u015fi raporundaki tespitler \u0130darenin hizmet i\u015fleyi\u015finde kusuru oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde teredd\u00fct uyand\u0131rmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen bu deliller de\u011ferlendirmeye al\u0131nmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca \u0130dare Mahkemesi, patlamaya neden olan el bombas\u0131 f\u00fcnyelerinin askeriyeye ait olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, asker\u00ee m\u00fchimmat\u0131n toplanmas\u0131 ve imha edilmesi faaliyetinin ilgili mevzuata uygun \u015fekilde ve kamusal g\u00fcvenli\u011fe ili\u015fkin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc makul tedbir al\u0131narak ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilip ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmedi\u011fi hususlar\u0131n\u0131 ara\u015ft\u0131rmam\u0131\u015f; gerekiyorsa ke\u015fif yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ve bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131nmas\u0131 gibi delillere de ba\u015fvurmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
26. Ba\u015fvurucunun ba\u015fvuruya konu tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131nda \u0130darenin hizmet kusuru nedeniyle ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131n tehlikeye girdi\u011fine yani olayda ya\u015fam\u0131 koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fine dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in bu iddialar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131ksa da yarg\u0131 makamlar\u0131, idari hizmet i\u015fleyi\u015finde var oldu\u011fu iddia edilen kusurun olay\u0131n olu\u015fumundaki etkileri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu a\u00e7\u0131dan kamuya a\u00e7\u0131k \u00e7\u00f6p toplama sahas\u0131nda at\u0131l h\u00e2lde bulunan asker\u00ee at\u0131klara ba\u015fvurucu yak\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n ula\u015fabilmesine ve ba\u015fvuruya konu olay\u0131n ya\u015fanmas\u0131na \u0130darenin hizmetinin k\u00f6t\u00fc i\u015flemesinin neden olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bahsedilen deliller ba\u011flam\u0131nda tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n bir karar verilmesinin yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6nemli bir eksiklik oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
27. \u0130zah edildi\u011fi \u015fekilde delillerin toplanmas\u0131 ve de\u011ferlendirilmesi s\u0131ras\u0131ndaki eksiklikler dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u0130darenin sorumlulu\u011fundaki asker\u00ee m\u00fchimmat\u0131n toplanmas\u0131 ve imha edilmesi faaliyetinin kusurlu \u015fekilde yerine getirildi\u011fi iddias\u0131n\u0131n \u0130dare Mahkemesince derinlemesine ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131 koruyan ilgili hukuk h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin etkili bir \u015fekilde uygulanmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yacak bir yarg\u0131laman\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
28. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutunun ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
29. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutu konusunda var\u0131lan sonucun gerek\u00e7esi dikkate al\u0131narak ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ili\u015fkin maddi boyutunun bu a\u015famada incelenmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B. Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
30. Ba\u015fvurucu, tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 yarg\u0131lamas\u0131n\u0131n dokuz y\u0131ldan fazla s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 ile makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde somut olay s\u00fcreci ve insan haklar\u0131 yarg\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7tihad\u0131 ile mevzuat detayl\u0131 olarak aktar\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra yap\u0131lacak de\u011ferlendirmede Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin, Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihad\u0131n\u0131n ve somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
31. Ba\u015fvuru, makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
32. 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 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, an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddia y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer kabul edilebilirlik nedenleri incelenmeksizin ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
33. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti, yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ve 250.000 TL maddi, 50.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
34. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu kapsamda karar\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flatmak ve Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gideren, ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun yeni bir karar vermektir (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
35. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Adli yard\u0131m talebinin KABUL\u00dcNE,<\/p>\n
B. 1. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. 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
C. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutunun \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Diyarbak\u0131r 3. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2011\/2108, K.2011\/3271) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. \u00d6demenin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
H. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 10\/12\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 10\/12\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/4057 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u00a0 \u00a0 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 MEHMET AL\u0130 G\u00dcL\u015eEN BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/4057) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 10\/12\/2024 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL \u00a0 \u00a0 Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN \u00a0 \u00a0 Muhterem \u0130NCE Raport\u00f6r : \u015eehadet \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK Ba\u015fvurucu : Mehmet Ali G\u00dcL\u015eEN Vekili : Av. Mehmet B\u0130\u00c7EN \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru; \u00e7\u00f6p toplama sahas\u0131nda bulunan ve askeriyeye ait olan malzemenin patlamas\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen a\u011f\u0131r yaralanmadan do\u011fan zararlar\u0131n tazmini istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n reddedilmesi nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmamas\u0131 nedeniyle makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucunun ailesi 4\/4\/2010 tarihinde Ergani Belediyesine ait \u00e7\u00f6p toplama sahas\u0131ndaki geri d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcml\u00fc at\u0131klar\u0131 ayr\u0131\u015ft\u0131rmak \u00fczere evlerinin yan\u0131ndaki alana getirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun babas\u0131 C.G. 5\/4\/2010 g\u00fcn\u00fc bu at\u0131klar\u0131n i\u00e7inde bulunan asker\u00ee malzemeleri ay\u0131klarken metal kutu \u015feklindeki el bombas\u0131 f\u00fcnyesini a\u00e7amam\u0131\u015f ve yere atm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu s\u0131rada kendisine yard\u0131m eden ba\u015fvurucunun kutuyu kurcalay\u0131p i\u00e7indeki y\u00fcz\u00fck \u015feklindeki pimi \u00e7ekmesiyle patlama meydana gelmi\u015ftir. Bu patlama sonucu ba\u015fvurucunun sa\u011f elinin ba\u015f ve i\u015faret parmaklar\u0131 kopmu\u015f, y\u00fcz\u00fcnde yaralanma olmu\u015ftur. Ayr\u0131ca bu alanda oyun oynayan M.Y. de patlaman\u0131n etkisiyle yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Ergani Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) olaya ili\u015fkin soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. …<\/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-36217","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n