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
G\u00d6KHAN \u00c7OLAK BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/16014)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 23\/1\/2025<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 24\/3\/2025 – 32851<\/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
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
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/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
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6rler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Denizhan HOROZG\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Mustafa \u015eENOCAK<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
G\u00f6khan \u00c7OLAK<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Melike \u015eENL\u0130K<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesine y\u00f6nelik g\u00fcvence verilmesine ra\u011fmen yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru 2\/6\/2020tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Komisyon; adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa, an\u0131lan hakka ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n
4. \u0130kinci B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurunun Genel Kurul taraf\u0131ndan incelenmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu; \u0130stanbul 9. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin 10\/10\/2013 tarihli karar\u0131yla, su\u00e7 i\u015flemek amac\u0131yla kurulan \u00f6rg\u00fcte \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan 10 ay hapis cezas\u0131, uyu\u015fturucu veya uyar\u0131c\u0131 madde ticareti yapma veya sa\u011flama su\u00e7undan 15 y\u0131l hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu h\u00fck\u00fcm Yarg\u0131tay 9. Ceza Dairesinin 20\/1\/2016 tarihli karar\u0131yla onanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7. Kesinle\u015fen ilam, infaz i\u00e7in \u0130stanbul Anadolu Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) verilmi\u015f; Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda yakalama karar\u0131 \u00e7\u0131karm\u0131\u015f ancak ba\u015fvurucunun G\u00fcrcistan’da oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. 8\/5\/1991 tarihli ve 3732 say\u0131l\u0131 Su\u00e7lular\u0131n \u0130adesine Dair Avrupa S\u00f6zle\u015fmesine Ek \u0130kinci Protokolun Onaylanmas\u0131n\u0131n Uygun Bulundu\u011fu Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 3. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda \u0130stanbul Anadolu 1. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) verdi\u011fi ek kararla “iadesi talep edilen h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc G\u00f6khan \u00c7OLAK’\u0131n [ba\u015fvurucu] yoklu\u011funda yap\u0131lan i\u015flemler ile ilgili yarg\u0131lanman\u0131n yenilenmesine konu talebin [Mahkemenin] g\u00fcvencesi alt\u0131nda oldu\u011funa” karar vermi\u015ftir. Bunun \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucunun T\u00fcrkiye’ye iadesi sa\u011flanm\u0131\u015f ve cezas\u0131n\u0131n infaz\u0131na ba\u015flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafii, ba\u015fvurucunun iade edilmesi s\u00fcrecinde yeniden yarg\u0131lanma talebinin de\u011ferlendirilece\u011fi g\u00fcvencesi verilmesi karar\u0131na dayanarak sundu\u011fu dilek\u00e7eyle yeniden yarg\u0131lanma talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Mahkeme ek kararla ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi ve infaz\u0131n durdurulmas\u0131 talebinin reddine dosya \u00fczerinden karar vermi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“… San\u0131\u011f\u0131n iadesi s\u00fcrecinde yeniden yarg\u0131lanma talebinin de\u011ferlendirilece\u011fi g\u00fcvencesi verilmi\u015f olmakla; san\u0131\u011f\u0131n 17. celse hari\u00e7 t\u00fcm yarg\u0131lamaya kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, karar\u0131n 18. celsede verildi\u011fi ve san\u0131\u011f\u0131n bu celsede haz\u0131r bulundu\u011fu, 17. celsede de san\u0131\u011f\u0131n aleyhine sonu\u00e7 do\u011furan tekrarlanmas\u0131 gereken bir usuli i\u015flemde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, karar\u0131n san\u0131k G\u00f6khan \u00c7olak m\u00fcdafiince temyiz edilip Yarg\u0131tay 9. Ceza Dairesinin 14\/01\/2016 tarihli karar\u0131yla onanarak kesinle\u015fti\u011fi, bu durumda yeniden yarg\u0131lanma talebinin incelenmesi garantisi verilen san\u0131k hakk\u0131nda CMK 311 maddesindeki \u015fartlar\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olup yasada belirtilen hi\u00e7bir hususun ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fi ve san\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan da ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan Yeniden Yarg\u0131lanma ve \u0130nfaz\u0131n Durdurulmas\u0131 taleplerinin reddine …” <\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu, ret karar\u0131na itiraz etmi\u015f; \u0130stanbul Anadolu 2. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi ba\u015fvurucunun itiraz\u0131n\u0131 kesin olarak reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai karardan sonra s\u00fcresinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
A. \u0130lgili Mevzuat <\/p>\n
12. 4\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun “H\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc lehine yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi nedenleri” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 311. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“(1) Kesinle\u015fen bir h\u00fck\u00fcmle sonu\u00e7lanm\u0131\u015f bir dava, a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 h\u00e2llerde h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc lehine olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi yoluyla tekrar g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcr:<\/p>\n
a) Duru\u015fmada kullan\u0131lan ve h\u00fckm\u00fc etkileyen bir belgenin sahteli\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131rsa.<\/p>\n
b) Yemin verilerek dinlenmi\u015f olan bir tan\u0131k veya bilirki\u015finin h\u00fckm\u00fc etkileyecek bi\u00e7imde h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc aleyhine kas\u0131t veya ihmal ile ger\u00e7ek d\u0131\u015f\u0131 tan\u0131kl\u0131kta bulundu\u011fu veya oy verdi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131rsa.<\/p>\n
c) H\u00fckme kat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan h\u00e2kimlerden biri, h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcn\u00fcn neden oldu\u011fu kusur d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, aleyhine ceza kovu\u015fturmas\u0131n\u0131 veya bir ceza ile mahk\u00fbmiyetini gerektirecek bi\u00e7imde g\u00f6revlerini yapmada kusur etmi\u015f ise.<\/p>\n
d) Ceza h\u00fckm\u00fc hukuk mahkemesinin bir h\u00fckm\u00fcne dayand\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olup da bu h\u00fck\u00fcm kesinle\u015fmi\u015f di\u011fer bir h\u00fck\u00fcm ile ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ise.<\/p>\n
e) Yeni olaylar veya yeni deliller ortaya konulup da bunlar yaln\u0131z ba\u015f\u0131na veya \u00f6nceden sunulan delillerle birlikte g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131klar\u0131nda san\u0131\u011f\u0131n beraatini veya daha hafif bir cezay\u0131 i\u00e7eren kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn uygulanmas\u0131 ile mahk\u00fbm edilmesini gerektirecek nitelikte olursa.<\/p>\n
f) Ceza h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn, \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131n\u0131 ve Ana H\u00fcrriyetleri Korumaya Dair S\u00f6zle\u015fmenin veya eki protokollerin ihl\u00e2li suretiyle verildi\u011finin ve h\u00fckm\u00fcn bu ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011fa dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesinin kesinle\u015fmi\u015f karar\u0131yla tespit edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 veya ceza h\u00fckm\u00fc aleyhine Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesine yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131nda dostane \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm ya da tek tarafl\u0131 deklarasyon sonucunda d\u00fc\u015fme karar\u0131 verilmesi. Bu h\u00e2lde yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi, Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fti\u011fi tarihten itibaren bir y\u0131l i\u00e7inde istenebilir.<\/p>\n
\u00a0(2) Birinci f\u0131kran\u0131n (f) bendi h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, 4.2.2003 tarihinde Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesinin kesinle\u015fmi\u015f kararlar\u0131 ile, 4.2.2003 tarihinden sonra Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesine yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurular \u00fczerine verilecek kararlar hakk\u0131nda uygulan\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
13. 3732 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 3. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“T\u00fcrk mahkemelerince g\u0131yab\u0131nda mahkumiyet karar\u0131 verilmi\u015f olup, s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye taraf \u00fclkelerden birinde bulundu\u011funun tespit edilmesi \u00fczerine bu \u00fclkeden iadesi istenilen ki\u015fiye Protokol\u00fcn 3 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin 1 inci bendinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u015fekilde yeniden muhakeme edilme hakk\u0131 tan\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in an\u0131lan \u00fclke taraf\u0131ndan teminat istenilmesi halinde, karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fip kesinle\u015fmedi\u011fine bak\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n karar\u0131 veren mahkemece s\u00f6z\u00fc edilen ki\u015finin yeniden muhakeme edilece\u011fine dair karar verilir ve ki\u015fi iade edildikten sonra bu karar do\u011frultusunda i\u015flem, yap\u0131l\u0131r. \u0130adeyi m\u00fcteakip, g\u0131yapta verilmi\u015f olan karar iade edilen ki\u015fiye tebli\u011f olunur ve tebli\u011f tarihinden itibaren 7 g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde bu ki\u015fi karara itiraz etmezse, yeniden muhakeme yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n g\u0131yapta verilmi\u015f olan karar infaz edilir.”<\/p>\n
B. Yarg\u0131tay Kararlar\u0131<\/p>\n
14. (Kapat\u0131lan) Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesinin 19\/4\/2021 tarihli ve E.2020\/7753, K.2021\/3067 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanununun 311. ve devam\u0131 maddelerinden farkl\u0131 olarak, 3732 say\u0131l\u0131 Su\u00e7lular\u0131n \u0130adesine Dair Avrupa S\u00f6zle\u015fmesine Ek Protokol\u00fcn Onaylanmas\u0131na Dair Kanunun 3. maddesinde de, ayr\u0131 bir yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi m\u00fcessesesi d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. 3732 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun (R.G. Yay\u0131m tarihi:25\/09\/1991) 3. maddesinde, ‘T\u00fcrk mahkemelerince g\u0131yab\u0131nda mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 verilmi\u015f olup, S\u00f6zle\u015fmeye taraf \u00fclkelerden birinde bulundu\u011funun tespit edilmesi \u00fczerine bu \u00fclkeden iadesi istenilen ki\u015fiye, Protokol\u2019\u00fcn 3. maddesinin 1. bendinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u015fekilde yeniden muhakeme edilme hakk\u0131 tan\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in an\u0131lan \u00fclke taraf\u0131ndan teminat istenilmesi halinde, karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fip kesinle\u015fmedi\u011fine bak\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n karar\u0131 veren mahkemece s\u00f6z\u00fc edilen ki\u015finin yeniden muhakeme edilece\u011fine dair karar verilir ve ki\u015fi iade edildikten sonra bu karar do\u011frultusunda i\u015flem yap\u0131l\u0131r. \u0130adeyi m\u00fcteakip, g\u0131yapta verilmi\u015f olan karar iade edilen ki\u015fiye tebli\u011f olunur ve tebli\u011f tarihinden itibaren 7 g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde bu ki\u015fi karara itiraz etmezse, yeniden muhakeme yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n g\u0131yapta verilmi\u015f olan karar infaz edilir.’ h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu haliyle, 3732 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunda ifade edilen yeniden muhakemenin, 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanununun 311. ve devam\u0131 maddelerinde belirtilen yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi m\u00fcessesesinden farkl\u0131 oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. <\/p>\n
3732 Say\u0131l\u0131 Su\u00e7lular\u0131n \u0130adesine Dair Avrupa S\u00f6zle\u015fmesine Ek Protokol\u00fcn Onaylanmas\u0131na Dair Kanunun 3. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda verilen bir yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi karar\u0131nda art\u0131k mahkeme, yeni bir yarg\u0131lamada oldu\u011fu gibi deliller toplamal\u0131, re\u2019sen ara\u015ft\u0131rma ilkesi sonucu olarak yenilenme sebebine ba\u011fl\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n gerekirse ba\u015fvuruda belirtilen delillerin d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda da delil toplamal\u0131, toplanan delilleri karar yerinde tart\u0131\u015f\u0131p su\u00e7un ne \u015fekilde i\u015flendi\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131klamal\u0131, mevcut delilleri irdelemeli, delillerle sonu\u00e7 aras\u0131nda ba\u011f kurmal\u0131d\u0131r. S\u0130DAS’a Ek 2 Nolu Protokol\u00fcn A\u00e7\u0131klay\u0131c\u0131 Raporuna g\u00f6re, h\u00fckm\u00fcn verildi\u011fi duru\u015fmada mahk\u00fbm edilen ki\u015finin bizzat kendisinin haz\u0131r bulunmamas\u0131 durumunda karar ‘yoklukta verilen karar’ \u015feklinde anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu yorumun, \u00e7o\u011fu yabanc\u0131 \u00fclke taraf\u0131ndan da benimsendi\u011fi, halbuki T\u00fcrk Hukukunda, savunmas\u0131 al\u0131nan ancak h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131 duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r bulunmayan san\u0131k hakk\u0131nda verilen h\u00fck\u00fcm ‘yoklukta verilmi\u015f’ say\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. <\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131lamaya konu olan davada yeniden yarg\u0131lanma karar\u0131, 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanununun 311. ve devam\u0131 maddelerinden farkl\u0131 olarak, 3732 say\u0131l\u0131 Su\u00e7lular\u0131n \u0130adesine Dair Avrupa S\u00f6zle\u015fmesine Ek Protokol\u00fcn Onaylanmas\u0131na Dair Kanunun 3. maddesine dayan\u0131larak verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
3732 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun 3. maddesine g\u00f6re verilen teminatta bahsedilen yeniden yarg\u0131laman\u0131n CMK 311 vd maddelerindeki yeniden yarg\u0131lamadan farkl\u0131 oldu\u011fu, 3732 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun 3. maddesine g\u00f6re yeniden yarg\u0131laman\u0131n ‘duru\u015fma a\u00e7\u0131larak ilgilinin yeniden yarg\u0131lanaca\u011f\u0131, h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcn\u00fcn bu duru\u015fmaya davet edilerek kendisini savunma ve m\u00fcdafi ile temsil ettirme haklar\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131naca\u011f\u0131’ ile ilgili oldu\u011fu, Aksaray 1. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince duru\u015fma a\u00e7\u0131larak h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcye kendisini m\u00fcdafii ile savunma hakk\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ek karar ile tan\u0131nan teminat\u0131n yerine getirildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. <\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
3732 say\u0131l\u0131 Su\u00e7lular\u0131n \u0130adesine Dair Avrupa S\u00f6zle\u015fmesine Ek Protokol\u00fcn Onaylanmas\u0131na Dair Kanunun 3. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda verilen bir yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi karar\u0131nda art\u0131k mahkeme, yeni bir yarg\u0131lamada oldu\u011fu gibi deliller toplamal\u0131, re\u2019sen ara\u015ft\u0131rma ilkesi sonucu olarak yenilenme sebebine ba\u011fl\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n gerekirse ba\u015fvuruda belirtilen delillerin d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda da delil toplamal\u0131, toplanan delilleri karar yerinde tart\u0131\u015f\u0131p su\u00e7un ne \u015fekilde i\u015flendi\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131klamal\u0131, mevcut delilleri irdelemeli, delillerle sonu\u00e7 aras\u0131nda ba\u011f kurmal\u0131d\u0131r…”<\/p>\n
15. Yarg\u0131tay 1. Ceza Dairesinin 6\/11\/2017 tarihli ve E.2017\/418, K.2017\/3696 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“3732 say\u0131l\u0131 Su\u00e7lular\u0131n \u0130adesine Dair Avrupa S\u00f6zle\u015fmesine Ek \u0130kinci Protokol\u00fcn Onaylanmas\u0131n\u0131n Uygun Bulundu\u011fu Hakk\u0131nda Kanunun 3. Maddesinde ‘T\u00fcrk mahkemelerince g\u0131yab\u0131nda mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 verilmi\u015f olup, s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye taraf \u00fclkelerden birinde bulundu\u011funun tespit edilmesi \u00fczerine bu \u00fclkeden iadesi istenilen ki\u015fiye Protokol\u00fcn 3. maddesinin 1. bendinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u015fekilde yeniden muhakeme edilme hakk\u0131 tan\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in an\u0131lan \u00fclke taraf\u0131ndan teminat istenilmesi halinde, karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fip kesinle\u015fmedi\u011fine bak\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n karar\u0131 veren mahkemece s\u00f6z\u00fc edilen ki\u015finin yeniden muhakeme edilece\u011fine dair karar verilir ve ki\u015fi iade edildikten sonra bu karar do\u011frultusunda i\u015flem yap\u0131l\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u0130adeyi m\u00fcteakip, g\u0131yapta verilmi\u015f olan karar iade edilen ki\u015fiye tebli\u011f olunur ve tebli\u011f tarihinden itibaren 7 g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde bu ki\u015fi karara itiraz etmezse, yeniden muhakeme yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n g\u0131yapta verilmi\u015f olan karar infaz edilir.’ \u015feklinde d\u00fczenlemeye yer verildi\u011fi, iadesi halinde yeniden yarg\u0131lanaca\u011f\u0131na dair teminat verilen h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcn\u00fcn Alman yetkili makamlar\u0131nca 18\/05\/2016 tarihinde \u00fclkemize iade edildi\u011fi, iadeyi m\u00fcteakip hakk\u0131ndaki h\u00fckm\u00fcn infaz\u0131na ba\u015flanan h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcn\u00fcn, 3732 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 3\/2. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen 7 g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde 25\/05\/2016 tarihinde vermi\u015f oldu\u011fu dilek\u00e7e ile karara itiraz etti\u011fi cihetle, Elaz\u0131\u011f 1. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin … ek Karar\u0131 uyar\u0131nca yeniden muhakeme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi g\u00f6zetilmeksizin yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde karar verilmesinde isabet g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011finden bahisle 5271 Say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu\u2019nun 309.maddesi uyar\u0131nca an\u0131lan karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131 l\u00fczumu Y\u00fcksek Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Ceza \u0130\u015fleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc’n\u00fcn … yaz\u0131l\u0131 istemlerine m\u00fcsteniden Yarg\u0131tay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tebli\u011fnamesi ile Dairemize ihbar ve dava evrak\u0131 g\u00f6nderilmekle, incelenerek gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc;<\/p>\n
Kanun yarar\u0131na bozma talebine dayan\u0131larak Yarg\u0131tay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nca d\u00fczenlenen tebli\u011fnamedeki bozma iste\u011fi incelenen dosya kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden, Elaz\u0131\u011f 2. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin … say\u0131l\u0131 Karar\u0131n\u0131n 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 CMK’nun 309. maddesi uyar\u0131nca KANUN YARARINA BOZULMASINA…”<\/p>\n
16. Yarg\u0131tay 2. Ceza Dairesinin 5\/4\/2023 tarihli ve E.2023\/9637, K.2023\/1759 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“… H\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc hakk\u0131ndaki karar\u0131n Yarg\u0131tay 6. Ceza Dairesinin … say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131yla onanarak kesinle\u015fmesi \u00fczerine h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc hakk\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan yakalama emrine istinaden h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcn\u00fcn G\u00fcrcistan \u00fclkesinde yakaland\u0131\u011f\u0131, G\u00fcrcistan makamlar\u0131nca, 21.05.1991 tarih ve 20877 say\u0131l\u0131 Resmi Gazetede yay\u0131mlanarak y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren 3732 say\u0131l\u0131 Su\u00e7lular\u0131n \u0130adesine Dair Avrupa S\u00f6zle\u015fmesine Ek \u0130kinci Protokol\u00fcn Onaylanmas\u0131n\u0131n Uygun Bulundu\u011fu Hakk\u0131nda Kanunun 3. maddesinde yer alan; ‘T\u00fcrk Mahkemelerince g\u0131yab\u0131nda mahkumiyet karar\u0131 verilmi\u015f olup, s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye taraf \u00fclkelerden birinde bulundu\u011funun tespit edilmesi \u00fczerine bu \u00fclkeden iadesi istenilen ki\u015fiye Protokol\u00fcn 3. Maddesinin 1. Bendinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u015fekilde yeniden muhakeme edilme hakk\u0131 tan\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in an\u0131lan \u00fclke taraf\u0131ndan teminat istenilmesi halinde, karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fip kesinle\u015fmedi\u011fine bak\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n karar\u0131 veren mahkemece s\u00f6z edilen ki\u015finin yeniden muhakeme edilece\u011fine dair karar verilir ve ki\u015fi iade edildikten sonra bu karar do\u011frultusuna i\u015flem yap\u0131l\u0131r.\u0130adeyi m\u00fcteakip, g\u0131yapta verilmi\u015f olan karar iade edilen ki\u015fiye tebli\u011f olunur ve tebli\u011f tarihinden itibaren 7 g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde bu ki\u015fi karar itiraz etmezse, yeniden muhakeme yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n g\u0131yapta verilmi\u015f olan karar infaz edilir’ h\u00fckm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc … yoklu\u011funda yap\u0131lan i\u015flemler ile ilgili yeniden yarg\u0131lanmas\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n istenildi\u011fi, talep gere\u011fi mahkemenin … Say\u0131l\u0131 ek karar\u0131yla h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcn\u00fcn yeniden yarg\u0131lanma talebinin g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fi, bunun \u00fczerine h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcn\u00fcn 25\/09\/2018 tarihinde \u00fclkemize iade edildi\u011fi, bu karara istinaden yine mahkemenin … Say\u0131l\u0131 ek karar\u0131yla h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc hakk\u0131ndaki infaz\u0131n durdurulmas\u0131na karar verilerek, yeniden yarg\u0131lanmas\u0131na ba\u015flan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131…”<\/p>\n
17. Yarg\u0131tay 11. Ceza Dairesinin 15\/2\/2021 tarihli ve E.2020\/5109, K.2021\/1455 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“H\u00fckm\u00fcn infaz\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bulundu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcn\u00fcn iadesi i\u00e7in Almanya devleti taraf\u0131ndan Su\u00e7lular\u0131n \u0130adesine Dair Avrupa S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin Ek 2 No\u2018lu Protokol\u00fc\u2018n\u00fcn 3. maddesi uyar\u0131nca yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 hususunda g\u00fcvence istenmesi \u00fczerine, Mahkemenin … say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc iade edildi\u011finde yasal s\u00fcresi i\u00e7erisinde talepte bulunulmas\u0131 halinde h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc hakk\u0131nda yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fi ve bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcn\u00fcn iadesinin sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131; h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcye 3732 say\u0131l\u0131 Su\u00e7lular\u0131n \u0130adesine Dair Avrupa S\u00f6zle\u015fmesine Ek 2 No\u2018lu Protokol\u00fcn Onaylanmas\u0131na Dair Kanunun 3. maddesi gere\u011fince yoklu\u011funda kurulan mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn 24\/08\/2015 tarihinde tebli\u011f edildi\u011fi ve m\u00fcdafinin 7 g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde verdi\u011fi 25\/08\/2015 tarihli dilek\u00e7eye istinaden Mahkemenin … say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesine karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmakla; <\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesi \u00fczerine yeniden yap\u0131lan duru\u015fma neticesinde toplanan delillerin h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcn\u00fcn hukuki durumunu de\u011fi\u015ftirecek nitelikte bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirlendi\u011finden; Dairemizin … say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131 ile onanmas\u0131na karar verilen Mahkemenin … say\u0131l\u0131 mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn, 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 CMK\u2019nin 323\/1. maddesi uyar\u0131nca onaylanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi dosya i\u00e7eri\u011fine uygun \u015fekilde gerek\u00e7eleri g\u00f6sterilerek mahkemece kabul ve takdir k\u0131l\u0131nm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fundan, h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc m\u00fcdafinin yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmeyen temyiz nedenlerinin reddiyle h\u00fckm\u00fcn ONANMASINA…”<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
18. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 23\/1\/2025 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki ba\u015fl\u0131klar alt\u0131nda incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130ddialar\u0131<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucu, Mahkemece yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesine y\u00f6nelik g\u00fcvence verilmesine ra\u011fmen yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi talebinin reddedildi\u011fini belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
B. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
20. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n “Hak arama h\u00fcrriyeti” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 36. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u201cHerkes, me\u015fru vas\u0131ta ve yollardan faydalanmak suretiyle yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddia ve savunma ile adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na sahiptir.<\/p>\n
Hi\u00e7bir mahkeme, g\u00f6rev ve yetkisi i\u00e7indeki davaya bakmaktan ka\u00e7\u0131namaz.\u201d<\/p>\n
21. 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. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
1. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
22. Anayasa Mahkemesi daha \u00f6nce, tespit edilen ihlalin giderilmesi amac\u0131yla yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131na h\u00fckmetti\u011fi h\u00e2llerde ilgili usul kanunlar\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi kurumundan farkl\u0131 olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi sebebinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ve \u00f6nceki karar\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 hususunda yarg\u0131 merciinin herhangi bir takdir yetkisi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Zira ihlal karar\u0131 verilen h\u00e2llerde yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesinin gereklili\u011fi hususundaki takdir yarg\u0131 mercilerine de\u011fil ihlalin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit eden Anayasa Mahkemesine b\u0131rak\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Benzer bir durum, Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesinin (A\u0130HM) ihlal kararlar\u0131 \u00fczerine yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda da mevcuttur. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Anayasa Mahkemesi ve A\u0130HM’in ihlal kararlar\u0131n\u0131n ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na d\u00f6n\u00fck yeniden yarg\u0131lama taleplerine ili\u015fkin iddialar Anayasa Mahkemesince adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n kapsam\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr (Nihat Akbulak [GK], B. No: 2015\/10131, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 38, 39).<\/p>\n
23. A\u0130HM de Bochan\/Ukrayna (2) (B. No: 22251\/08, 5\/2\/2015) karar\u0131nda \u00f6zellikle ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc ba\u015fvuru yolunun t\u00fcr ve konu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ola\u011fan ba\u015fvuru yolu gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc durumlarda i\u00e7 hukuktaki tan\u0131mlamadan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olarak bu t\u00fcr yarg\u0131sal s\u00fcre\u00e7lerin Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u2019nin (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) 6. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclebilece\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. A\u0130HM, ilgili yarg\u0131sal mercilere takdir hakk\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumlarda ilgili ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc yolun temyiz benzeri bir yol oldu\u011funu kabul etmi\u015ftir (ayn\u0131 kararda bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 46-49).<\/p>\n
24. Somut olayda uygulama alan\u0131 bulan 3732 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 3. maddesinde belirtilen \u015fartlar\u0131n olu\u015fmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde art\u0131k herhangi bir kabule de\u011ferlik denetimi yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n Mahkemece “s\u00f6z\u00fc edilen ki\u015finin yeniden muhakeme edilece\u011fine dair karar” verilece\u011finin (bkz. \u00a7 13) ve bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle art\u0131k an\u0131lan s\u00fcrecin ola\u011fan ba\u015fvuru yolu gibi d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurucunun yeniden yarg\u0131lanma talebinin verilen g\u00fcvenceye ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak reddedilmesinin Anayasa Mahkemesinin konu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetkisi kapsam\u0131na girdi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
2. Esas Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
a. Hakk\u0131n Kapsam\u0131 ve M\u00fcdahalenin Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
25. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, herkesin yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddiada bulunma ve savunma hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bir unsurudur. Di\u011fer yandan Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesine “…ile adil yarg\u0131lanma” ibaresinin eklenmesine ili\u015fkin gerek\u00e7ede T\u00fcrkiye’nin taraf oldu\u011fu uluslararas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerce de g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n madde metnine d\u00e2hil edildi\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. S\u00f6zle\u015fme’yi yorumlayan A\u0130HM, S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011fini belirtmektedir (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2014\/13156, 20\/4\/2017, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
26. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcne ta\u015f\u0131yabilmek ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n etkili bir \u015fekilde karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilmek anlam\u0131na gelmektedir (\u00d6zkan \u015een, B. No: 2012\/791, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
27. Mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131n hukuka uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmek \u00fczere bir yarg\u0131 makam\u0131 \u00f6n\u00fcne ta\u015f\u0131nmas\u0131 kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurma olarak nitelendirilmektedir. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, bir temel hak olman\u0131n yan\u0131nda di\u011fer temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerden gereken \u015fekilde yararlan\u0131lmay\u0131 ve bunlar\u0131n korunmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan en etkili g\u00fcvencelerden biridir. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 bir mahkeme karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 \u00fcst yarg\u0131 yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvurabilmeyi g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na almamakla birlikte gerek su\u00e7 isnad\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 yarg\u0131lamalarda gerekse medeni hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklere ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lamalarda istinaf veya temyiz gibi kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvurma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f ise bu kanun yollar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki g\u00fcvencelerin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 gerekir (Hasan \u0130\u015ften, B. No: 2015\/1950, 22\/2\/2018, \u00a7 37).<\/p>\n
28. Somut olay bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun iadesi s\u00fcrecinde yeniden yarg\u0131lanma talebinin Mahkemece “san\u0131\u011f\u0131n 17. celse hari\u00e7 t\u00fcm yarg\u0131lamaya kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, karar\u0131n 18. celsede verildi\u011fi ve san\u0131\u011f\u0131n bu celsede haz\u0131r bulundu\u011fu, 17. celsede de san\u0131\u011f\u0131n aleyhine sonu\u00e7 do\u011furan tekrarlanmas\u0131 gereken bir usuli i\u015flem de olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131” gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesi ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na bir m\u00fcdahale olu\u015fturmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
b. M\u00fcdahalenin \u0130hlal Olu\u015fturup Olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
29. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcmlerinden biri olan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, mutlak bir hak olmay\u0131p bu hakk\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Ancak mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalede bulunulurken Anayasa’n\u0131n temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin genel ilkeleri d\u00fczenleyen 13. maddesinin g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmas\u0131 gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
30. Anayasa’n\u0131n “Temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetlerin s\u0131n\u0131rlanmas\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 13. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetler, \u00f6zlerine dokunulmaks\u0131z\u0131n yaln\u0131zca Anayasan\u0131n ilgili maddelerinde belirtilen sebeplere ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ve ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir. Bu s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar, Anayasan\u0131n s\u00f6z\u00fcne ve ruhuna, demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin ve l\u00e2ik Cumhuriyetin gereklerine ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamaz.”<\/p>\n
31. Yukar\u0131da an\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinde belirtilen ko\u015fullara uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinin ihlalini te\u015fkil edecektir. Bu sebeple m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ve somut ba\u015fvuruya uygun d\u00fc\u015fen, kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme, hakl\u0131 bir sebebe dayanma, \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmama ko\u015fullar\u0131na uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
i. Kanunilik \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcne \u0130li\u015fkin Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
32. Temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 rejimini d\u00fczenleyen Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilece\u011fi temel bir ilke olarak benimsenmi\u015ftir (kanunilik \u015fart\u0131na ba\u015fka ba\u011flamlarda dikkat \u00e7eken kararlar i\u00e7in bkz. Sevim Akat E\u015fki, B. No: 2013\/2187, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 36; Tu\u011fba Arslan [GK], B. No: 2014\/256, 25\/6\/2014, \u00a7 82; Hayriye \u00d6zdemir, B. No: 2013\/3434, 25\/6\/2015, \u00a7\u00a7 56-61; Halk Radyo ve Televizyon Yay\u0131nc\u0131l\u0131k A.\u015e. [GK], B. No: 2014\/19270, 11\/7\/2019, \u00a7 35; Hamit Yakut [GK], B. No: 2014\/6548, 10\/6\/2021, \u00a7 76; Atilla Yazar ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2016\/1635, 5\/7\/2022, \u00a7 100).<\/p>\n
33. Hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin, bunlara yap\u0131lacak m\u00fcdahalelerin ve s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rmalar\u0131n kanunla d\u00fczenlenmesi bu haklara ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere keyf\u00ee m\u00fcdahaleyi engelleyen, hukuk g\u00fcvenli\u011fini sa\u011flayan demokratik hukuk devletinin en \u00f6nemli unsurlar\u0131ndan biridir (Tahsin Erdo\u011fan, B. No: 2012\/1246, 6\/2\/2014, \u00a7 60).<\/p>\n
34. M\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131 \u00f6ncelikle \u015fekl\u00ee manada bir kanunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 zorunlu k\u0131lar. \u015eekl\u00ee manada kanun, T\u00fcrkiye B\u00fcy\u00fck Millet Meclisi (TBMM) taraf\u0131ndan Anayasa’da belirtilen usule uygun olarak kanun ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan d\u00fczenleyici yasama i\u015flemidir. Hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere m\u00fcdahale edilmesi ancak yasama organ\u0131nca kanun ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan d\u00fczenleyici i\u015flemlerde m\u00fcdahaleye imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan bir h\u00fckm\u00fcn bulunmas\u0131 \u015fart\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. TBMM taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan \u015fekl\u00ee anlamda bir kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmamas\u0131 hakka yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyi anayasal temelden yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131r (Ali H\u0131d\u0131r Akyol ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2015\/17510, 18\/10\/2017, \u00a7 56; Tu\u011fba Arslan, \u00a7 96; Fikriye Aytin ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/6154, 11\/12\/2014, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
35. Kanunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kadar kanun metninin ve uygulamas\u0131n\u0131n da bireylerin davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n sonucunu \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilece\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde hukuki belirlilik ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131 gerekir. Bir di\u011fer ifadeyle kanunun niteli\u011fi de kanunilik ko\u015fulunun sa\u011flan\u0131p sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespitinde \u00f6nem arz etmektedir (Necmiye \u00c7ift\u00e7i ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/1301, 30\/12\/2014, \u00a7 55). M\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131, i\u00e7 hukukta m\u00fcdahaleye ili\u015fkin yeterince ula\u015f\u0131labilir ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir kurallar\u0131n bulunmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirmektedir (T\u00fcrkiye \u0130\u015f Bankas\u0131 A.\u015e. [GK], B. No: 2014\/6192, 12\/11\/2014, \u00a7 44).<\/p>\n
36. Mahkemelerin yorumlar\u0131n\u0131n ve uygulamalar\u0131n\u0131n kanunun a\u00e7\u0131k lafz\u0131yla \u00e7eli\u015fti\u011fi veya kanun metni dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda bireyler taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2llerde yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine var\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr (baz\u0131 farkl\u0131l\u0131klarla birlikte bkz. Ziya \u00d6zden, B. No: 2016\/67737, 19\/11\/2019, \u00a7 59; Ramazan Atay, B. No: 2017\/26048, 29\/1\/2020, \u00a7 29; W\u0131sam Sula\u0131man Dawood Eaqadah [GK], B. No: 2021\/2831, 15\/2\/2023, \u00a7 81). Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla kanunilik \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan Anayasa Mahkemesince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken, incelemeye konu kurallar\u0131n yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131nca yap\u0131lan yorumlar\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015filerce \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilecek belirlilikte olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n veya kanunun a\u00e7\u0131k lafz\u0131yla \u00e7eli\u015fip \u00e7eli\u015fmedi\u011finin tespit edilmesidir (baz\u0131 eklemelerle birlikte bkz. Mehmet Demircio\u011flu [GK], B. No: 2020\/35797, 14\/9\/2023, \u00a7 33).<\/p>\n
ii. \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/p>\n
37. Ba\u015fvuruya konu olayda Mahkeme, ilk olarak ba\u015fvurucunun yoklu\u011funda yap\u0131lan i\u015flemlerle ilgili olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesine konu talebin mahkemenin g\u00fcvencesi alt\u0131nda oldu\u011funa karar vermi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucunun iade s\u00fcrecinden sonra yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yeniden yarg\u0131lanma talebini ise yoklu\u011funda yap\u0131lan celsede ba\u015fvurucunun aleyhine sonu\u00e7 do\u011furan ve tekrarlanmas\u0131 gereken bir usuli i\u015flem olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
38. 3732 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 3. maddesinde belirtilen \u015fartlar\u0131n olu\u015fmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde art\u0131k herhangi bir kabule de\u011ferlik denetimi yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n mahkemece s\u00f6z\u00fc edilen ki\u015finin yeniden muhakeme edilece\u011fine dair karar verilece\u011finin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir (bkz. \u00a7 13). Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n yukar\u0131da an\u0131lan i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131nda da 3732 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 3. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda verilen bir yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi karar\u0131nda art\u0131k mahkemelerin yeni bir yarg\u0131lamada oldu\u011fu gibi resen ara\u015ft\u0131rma ilkesi sonucu olarak, yenilenme sebebine ba\u011fl\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n gerekirse ba\u015fvuruda belirtilen delillerin d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda da delil toplamas\u0131, toplanan delilleri karar yerinde tart\u0131\u015f\u0131p su\u00e7un ne \u015fekilde i\u015flendi\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131, mevcut delilleri irdelemesi, delillerle sonu\u00e7 aras\u0131nda ba\u011f kurmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 14-17). Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k somut olayda Mahkeme yaln\u0131zca 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 311. maddesindeki ko\u015fullar\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fip ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fini tart\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015f, daha sonra yeniden yarg\u0131lamaya ba\u015flamaks\u0131z\u0131n ve yukar\u0131da an\u0131lan gereklilikleri yerine getirmeksizinba\u015fvurucunun yeniden yarg\u0131lanma talebini dosya \u00fczerinden reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
39. Somut olayda iadesi s\u00fcrecinde san\u0131\u011fa yeniden yarg\u0131lanma talebinin de\u011ferlendirilece\u011fi g\u00fcvencesi verildi\u011fi, yeniden yarg\u0131lanma konusunda ciddi bir gerek\u00e7e olu\u015fturdu\u011fu h\u00e2lde 3732 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un uygulanmas\u0131 ile ilgili olarak yap\u0131lan hatal\u0131 yorumun ba\u015fvurucunun yeniden yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle Mahkemece, duru\u015fma a\u00e7\u0131larak ba\u015fvurucuya kendisini savunma ve m\u00fcdafi ile temsil ettirme haklar\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekirken ek karar ile dosya \u00fczerinden ve somut olaydaki \u015fekilde ba\u015fvurucunun yoklu\u011funda yap\u0131lan i\u015flemlerle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 bir incelemeyle yeniden yarg\u0131lanma talebinin reddine karar verilmesi 3732 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a ayk\u0131r\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fimini engelleyecek \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde bir yorum olarak de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6ylelikle somut olayda ilgili kural\u0131n Mahkemece yap\u0131lan yorumunun ki\u015filerce \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilecek belirlilikte olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kanunun lafz\u0131yla \u00e7eli\u015fti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu durumda a\u00e7\u0131k kanun\u00ee d\u00fczenlemeye ra\u011fmen Mahkemenin yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesine dair s\u00f6z\u00fc edilen de\u011ferlendirmesi sonucu ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelen m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
40. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VI. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
41. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi ve manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
42. 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 mercilerinin yapmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flatmak ve Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gideren, ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun yeni bir karar vermektir (Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2), B. No: 2016\/12506, 7\/11\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 53-60, 66; Kadri Enis Berbero\u011flu (3) [GK], B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n
43. \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
44. \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 ba\u015fvurucunun manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VII. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere \u0130stanbul Anadolu 1. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (E.2010\/385, K.2013\/553) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun manevi tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 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
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 23\/1\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 23\/1\/2025 tarihli ve 2020\/16014 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 G\u00d6KHAN \u00c7OLAK BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/16014) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 23\/1\/2025 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 24\/3\/2025 – 32851 \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 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 Muhterem \u0130NCE \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6rler : Denizhan HOROZG\u0130L \u00a0 \u00a0 Mustafa \u015eENOCAK Ba\u015fvurucu : G\u00f6khan \u00c7OLAK Vekili : Av. Melike \u015eENL\u0130K \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesine y\u00f6nelik g\u00fcvence verilmesine ra\u011fmen yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 2\/6\/2020tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Komisyon; adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa, an\u0131lan hakka ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. 4. \u0130kinci B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurunun Genel Kurul taraf\u0131ndan incelenmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 5. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir: 6. Ba\u015fvurucu; \u0130stanbul 9. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin 10\/10\/2013 tarihli karar\u0131yla, su\u00e7 i\u015flemek …<\/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-36782","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n