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
TALHA ALTINTOP BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/18170)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 15\/1\/2025<\/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
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Y\u00fcksel G\u00dcNARSLAN<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Talha ALTINTOP<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Zeynep Rana EK\u0130NC\u0130 KO\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, ifadeleri belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu (san\u0131k) taraf\u0131ndan sorgulanmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n verilmemesi nedeniyle tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, Gaziosmanpa\u015fa il\u00e7esinde h\u00e2kim olarak g\u00f6rev yapmaktayken H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Kurulu (HSK) 2. Dairesinin 16\/7\/2016 tarihli karar\u0131 ile g\u00f6revinden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f; 24\/8\/2016 tarihli karar\u0131 ile g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. \u0130stanbul Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) ba\u015fvurucunun Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesiyle ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. Soru\u015fturma neticesinde Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle 9\/6\/2017 tarihinde iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015ftir. \u0130ddianamede ba\u015fvurucu aleyhindeki deliller \u00f6zetle;<\/p>\n
i. Ba\u015fvurucunun ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 olan 505 … 27 numaral\u0131 telefon hatt\u0131 \u00fczerinden 357…26 IMEI numaral\u0131 cihaz ile ilk tespit tarihi 23\/8\/2014 olacak \u015fekilde ByLock \u015fifreli haberle\u015fme program\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin tespitler i\u00e7eren 31\/1\/2017 tarihli “Yeni ByLock CBS Sorgu Sonucu” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 tutanak,<\/p>\n
ii. \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fcn Yarg\u0131\u00e7lar ve Savc\u0131lar Birli\u011fi Derne\u011finin (YARSAV) ele ge\u00e7irilmesi talimat\u0131 do\u011frultusunda ba\u015fvurucunun 23\/11\/2010 tarihinde an\u0131lan Derne\u011fe \u00fcye oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131,<\/p>\n
iii. HSK taraf\u0131ndan FET\u00d6\/PDY mensubu olduklar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilerek meslekten \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmalar\u0131na karar verilen kurul m\u00fcfetti\u015fleri taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6rg\u00fctsel ama\u00e7 ve politikalar do\u011frultusunda Akhisar Adliyesinin 2012 y\u0131l\u0131 denetiminde ba\u015fvurucuya y\u00fcksek bir not (79) takdir edildi\u011fi,<\/p>\n
iv. HSK’n\u0131n 24\/8\/2016 tarihli meslekten \u00e7\u0131karma karar\u0131ndaki tespitler,<\/p>\n
v. Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan 15\/8\/2016 tarihinde “Atmaca” takma ad\u0131yla ifadesi al\u0131nan gizli tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 evin sorumlulu\u011funu y\u00fcr\u00fcten ba\u015fvurucunun kendisine temkinli ve tedbirli davranmas\u0131, cumalara gitmemesi ve eve misafir getirmemesi gerekti\u011fini s\u00f6yledi\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki beyan\u0131,<\/p>\n
vi. Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan 22\/8\/2016 tarihinde ifadesi al\u0131nan tan\u0131k A.B.nin ba\u015fvurucuyu Ankara h\u00e2kim aday\u0131 olarak tan\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131, cemaat\u00e7i olmalar\u0131 nedeniyle tan\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131klar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki beyan\u0131,<\/p>\n
vii. \u0130zmir Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan 15\/2\/2017 tarihinde ifadesi al\u0131nan ve \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn Karadeniz B\u00f6lgesi Ta\u015fra-3 grubunun abisi oldu\u011funu ikrar eden B.B.nin “gruptaki t\u00fcm \u00f6rg\u00fct mensuplar\u0131n\u0131n birbirini tan\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucunun da grup i\u00e7erisinde yer alan mensuplardan oldu\u011fu” y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki beyan\u0131 \u015feklinde s\u0131ralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. \u0130ddianamenin kabul\u00fc ile a\u00e7\u0131lan dava \u0130stanbul 30. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin (Mahkeme) E.2017\/53 s\u0131ras\u0131na kaydedilerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmeye ba\u015flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu; m\u00fcdafiinin haz\u0131r bulundu\u011fu 9\/8\/2017 tarihli ilk oturumda al\u0131nan savunmas\u0131nda ByLock kullanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcfetti\u015fler taraf\u0131ndan verilen ve y\u00fcksek olmayan notun (79) \u00f6zverili \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011funu, YARSAV’a \u00fcye olmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6zel bir amac\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, tan\u0131k B.B.nin kamuoyunda Ergenekon olarak bilinen soru\u015fturmalarda yapt\u0131klar\u0131 nedeniyle beyan\u0131na itibar edilemeyece\u011fini, \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn HSK se\u00e7imlerine ili\u015fkin \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131na kat\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu kapsamda se\u00e7im esnas\u0131nda m\u00fc\u015fahitlik yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve kamera kayd\u0131 almad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. An\u0131lan oturumda -di\u011ferlerinin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra- ByLock tespiti kapsam\u0131ndaki detay bilgilerinin Ka\u00e7ak\u00e7\u0131l\u0131k ve Organize Su\u00e7larla M\u00fccadele \u015eube M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden, HTS kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n Bilgi Teknolojileri ve \u0130leti\u015fim Kurumundan (BTK) istenmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca B.B. ve A.B.nin istinabe yoluyla tan\u0131k olarak dinlenmesi ve san\u0131k m\u00fcdafilerinin tan\u0131klardan sorulmas\u0131n\u0131 istediklerine ili\u015fkin olarak dilek\u00e7e vermeleri h\u00e2linde bunun istinabe evrak\u0131na eklenmesine, istinabe duru\u015fma tarihinin san\u0131k m\u00fcdafilerine tebli\u011finin istenmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi (UYAP) vas\u0131tas\u0131yla dava dosyas\u0131 \u00fczerinde yap\u0131lan incelemede s\u00f6z konusu duru\u015fmada al\u0131nan ara karara ra\u011fmen B.B.nin beyan\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in bulundu\u011fu yer mahkemesine istinabe talebinde bulunuldu\u011funa dair herhangi bir talep yaz\u0131s\u0131 tespit edilememi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. \u00c7orum 2. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan 17\/11\/2017 tarihinde dinlenilen A.B. \u00f6nceki ifadesi ile uyumlu olarak “Ben san\u0131\u011f\u0131 2003-2005 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda Hakim-Savc\u0131l\u0131k staj\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda cemaat mensubu olarak tan\u0131r\u0131m, \u015fu anda kimin tan\u0131\u015ft\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 hat\u0131rlam\u0131yorum, stajdan sonra da san\u0131kla g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fcm\u00fc hat\u0131rlam\u0131yorum.” \u015feklinde beyanda bulunmu\u015ftur. UYAP kay\u0131tlar\u0131nda an\u0131lan tan\u0131k A.B.nin dinlenece\u011fi duru\u015fma tarihinin ba\u015fvurucu veya m\u00fcdafiine bildirildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin herhangi bir belgeye rastlanmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Y.C.nin G\u00f6rdes Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u015f\u00fcpheli s\u0131fat\u0131yla verdi\u011fi ve ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda \u201cG\u00f6rdes\u2019te \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn memur, sanayi, esnaf gruplar\u0131 oldu\u011fu, san\u0131k Talha Alt\u0131ntop\u2019un M.A. ile ilgisi olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 H.C. isimli ki\u015fiye sordu\u011fu, s\u00f6z konusu ki\u015finin de ikisinin karde\u015f oldu\u011fu ve M.A.n\u0131n da memur grubunda yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6yledi\u011fi\u201d \u015feklinde a\u00e7\u0131klamalar i\u00e7eren ifadesine ili\u015fkin olarak 13\/4\/2017 tarihli tutanak oturum aras\u0131nda Mahkemeye sunulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
9. BTK taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan HIS (CGNAT) sorgu sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 ikinci oturum \u00f6ncesinde Mahkemeye ula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu belgede, ba\u015fvurucunun kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen 505 … 27 numaral\u0131 cep telefonu hatt\u0131 \u00fczerinden ByLock sunucular\u0131na tahsis edilen IP adreslerine 23\/8\/2014-27\/3\/2015 tarihleri aras\u0131nda toplam 4.957 ba\u011flant\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespitine yer verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Duru\u015fman\u0131n 13\/12\/2017 tarihli ikinci oturumda iddia makam\u0131 esas hakk\u0131nda m\u00fctalaa sunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafii, gelen belgelere ve esas hakk\u0131nda m\u00fctalaaya kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmak i\u00e7in s\u00fcre talep etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme s\u00fcre talebinin kabul\u00fcne, duru\u015fmaya ara verilmesine ve yeni oturumun 6\/3\/2018 tarihinde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. \u0130stanbul Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ByLock’a ili\u015fkin kay\u0131tlarda ba\u015fvurucuya ait i\u00e7erik bilgisinin mevcut olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair m\u00fczekkere cevab\u0131 duru\u015fman\u0131n \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc oturumu \u00f6ncesinde dava dosyas\u0131na girmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucu, m\u00fcdafiinin mesleki mazeret bildirerek kat\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 6\/3\/2018 tarihli \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc oturumda B.B.nin beyan\u0131n\u0131n -h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nacak ise- duru\u015fmada al\u0131nmas\u0131, Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda HTS kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n celbedilerek kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini beyan etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme m\u00fcdafiin mazeretinin kabul\u00fc ile di\u011fer tevsii tahkikat taleplerinin reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafii M.\u00c7. oturum aras\u0131nda m\u00fcdafilikten \u00e7ekilme dilek\u00e7esi ibraz etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, bizzat kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc oturumda ByLock ile ilgili HTS kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n getirtilerek dijital verilerin kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131, ba\u015fkalar\u0131n\u0131n bu talepleri kar\u015f\u0131lan\u0131rkenkendi taleplerinin neden kar\u015f\u0131lanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131 istemi\u015ftir. Mahkeme an\u0131lan oturumda ByLock’a ili\u015fkin talepler y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmadan ba\u015fvurucuya kendisine bir avukat se\u00e7mesi i\u00e7in s\u00fcre vererek duru\u015fmaya ara vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurucu; duru\u015fman\u0131n 6\/6\/2018 tarihli be\u015finci ve son oturumunda HTS kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n getirtilmesini, A.B.nin yeminsiz olarak yeniden dinlenilmesini, B.B.nin dinlenilmesini, B.B.nin dinlenilmemesi h\u00e2linde beyan\u0131n\u0131n h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nmamas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu ayr\u0131ca \u00f6nceki savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 tekrarlamak suretiyle isnat edilen silahl\u0131ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131n\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu m\u00fcdafii de esas hakk\u0131ndaki m\u00fctalaaya kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda delillerin yeterince toplanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve CGNAT verileri \u00fczerinde bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu oturumda Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan 7 y\u0131l 6 ay hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“… san\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 sabit olan 505 … 27 GSM numaras\u0131 ile, hatt\u0131n tak\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu 357…26 IMEI numaral\u0131 telefona ili\u015fkin 23.08.2014 ilk tespit tarihli [ByLock] tespit raporu mevcuttur.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
Bilgi Teknolojileri ve \u0130leti\u015fim Kurumu Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131’na yaz\u0131lan m\u00fczekkerelerin cevaplar\u0131 dosya i\u00e7inde mevcuttur. 11.09.2017 tarihli cevabi yaz\u0131ya g\u00f6re san\u0131\u011f\u0131n [ByLock] i\u00e7in Baltics Servers-Litvanya adl\u0131 firmadan kiraland\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan sunuculara 23.08.2014 tarihinden 27.03.2015 Tarihine kadar toplamda 4.957 kez internet ba\u011flant\u0131 ileti\u015fim sorgu kayd\u0131 olu\u015fturacak \u015fekilde ba\u011flant\u0131 kurdu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. BTK yaz\u0131 cevaplar\u0131 incelendi\u011finde; [ByLock] tespit raporuna g\u00f6re [ByLock] sunucular\u0131na irtibata kaynak olan telefonun [IMEI] numaras\u0131 ile BTK’n\u0131n cevabi yaz\u0131s\u0131nda belirtilen san\u0131\u011f\u0131n kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 bilinen telefon numaras\u0131n\u0131n tak\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu telefon IMEI bilgilerinin uyumlu oldu\u011fu ve BTK cevabi yaz\u0131s\u0131ndaki [ByLock] sunucular\u0131na ba\u011flant\u0131ya ili\u015fkin baz istasyon bilgilerinin san\u0131\u011f\u0131n bulundu\u011fu yer bilgisiyle \u00f6rt\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Somut dosya kapsam\u0131nda mevcut san\u0131\u011f\u0131n [ByLock] kullan\u0131m\u0131na dair BTK cevabi yaz\u0131s\u0131nda belirtilen IMEI numaras\u0131 ile CGNAT verilerinin al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 telefon numaras\u0131 ve IMEI bilgilerinin, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n bulundu\u011fu yer bilgileri ile ve CGNAT verilerine esas verilerin sinyal kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 yer bilgilerinin birbirleriyle uyumlu oldu\u011fu, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla konu ile ilgili olarak bilirki\u015fi incelemesi cihetine gidilmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden dosyaya katk\u0131 sa\u011flayacak bir gereklilik g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
T\u00fcm bu anlat\u0131lanlar san\u0131\u011f\u0131n hukuki durumunu [ByLock] tespiti yan\u0131nda destekler nitelikte g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f ve san\u0131k aleyhine anlaml\u0131 bulunmu\u015ftur. San\u0131k hakk\u0131nda [ByLock] kullan\u0131m\u0131 ve tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131yla birlikte de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, san\u0131k hakk\u0131nda y\u00fcksek not takdir edilmesi, s\u00f6z konusu ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn mensuplar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ne \u00e7\u0131kartmak amac\u0131yla hareket edildi\u011fi kanaatini mahkememizde olu\u015fturmu\u015ftur. Ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00f6rg\u00fct ile irtibatl\u0131\/iltisakl\u0131 oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilen YARSAV’a \u00fcye olmas\u0131 di\u011fer delillerle birlikte dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda t\u00fcm bu verilerin at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan san\u0131k aleyhine de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015fmam\u0131za neden olmu\u015ftur. <\/p>\n
… <\/p>\n
Mahkememizce al\u0131nan tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131 bir b\u00fct\u00fcn halinde de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde; san\u0131\u011f\u0131n mesle\u011fini icra etti\u011fi d\u00f6nemde FET\u00d6\/PDY silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen toplant\u0131lara kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc ile irtibatl\u0131 hakim ve savc\u0131larla birlikte hareket etti\u011fi, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n [ByLock] program\u0131n\u0131 kullan\u0131m \u00f6zellikleri ile \u00f6rt\u00fc\u015fmesi kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda t\u00fcm tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131na a\u00e7\u0131klanan y\u00f6nlerden tam olarak itibar edilmi\u015ftir. Nitekim tan\u0131klar\u0131n san\u0131k aleyhine beyanda bulunmak i\u00e7in somut bir nedenleri de tespit edilememi\u015f ve san\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ek d\u0131\u015f\u0131 olmas\u0131 sebebini do\u011furabilecek, tan\u0131klarla aras\u0131nda somut ve kabul edilebilir husumet iddias\u0131nda da bulunulmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
San\u0131\u011f\u0131n [ByLock] program\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunun Mahkememizce gerekli olan ara\u015ft\u0131rmalar\u0131n yap\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle kabul g\u00f6rmesi kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda somut bir gerek\u00e7e, itibar edilir resmi evrak(Baz istasyon bilgilerinin aksini g\u00f6steren nitelikli belge) i\u00e7ermeyen ve sabit g\u00f6r\u00fclen [ByLock] program\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131 ile ilgili olarak \u00f6rg\u00fct stratejisi amac\u0131n\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bir kullan\u0131m iradesinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 havi olmayan san\u0131k savunmas\u0131na itibar edilmemi\u015ftir. Bu nedenlerle, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00f6rg\u00fct talimat\u0131yla bu a\u011fa dahil oldu\u011fu ve gizlili\u011fi sa\u011flamak amac\u0131yla an\u0131lan program\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u015eu halde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00f6rg\u00fct hiyerar\u015fine dahil eski tarihlerde y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00f6rg\u00fct yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 i\u00e7erisindeki konumunu, mesle\u011fini icra etti\u011fi zamanda da [ByLock] program\u0131n\u0131 kullanarak devam ettirmesi ve bu ba\u011flamda \u00f6rg\u00fct iradesine terk etmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00f6nemlidir.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
San\u0131\u011f\u0131n [ByLock] a\u011f\u0131na dahil oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki kesin tespitin yan\u0131nda yukar\u0131da \u00f6zetlenen san\u0131k hakk\u0131nda \u00f6rg\u00fct \u00fcyesi olmas\u0131 sebebiyle meslekten ihra\u00e7 edilen m\u00fcfetti\u015f taraf\u0131ndan y\u00fcksek not takdir edilmesi, \u00f6rg\u00fct ile irtibatl\u0131 olan Yarsav’a \u00fcye olmas\u0131, tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131yla sabit olan \u00f6rg\u00fctle d\u00fczenli irtibat\u0131n\u0131n var oldu\u011fu gibi hususlar dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda an\u0131lan silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn kurgusuna dahil olma konusundaki iradesinin, ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc bilin\u00e7 ve iradesini kapsamakla birlikte TCK 30. maddesinde belirtilen hata h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin ve hukuka uygunluk nedenlerinin somut olayda uygulamas\u0131na mahal yoktur. Zira, san\u0131k \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn hiyerar\u015fisine dahil olmu\u015f ve asli olarak [ByLock] program\u0131n\u0131 yo\u011fun bir \u015fekilde kullanm\u0131\u015f, tali olarak ise \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn 2014 y\u0131l\u0131ndaki \u00fcye se\u00e7imlerine ili\u015fkin stratejisine uygun davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131yla \u00f6rg\u00fct hiyerar\u015fisindeki konumunu peki\u015ftirmi\u015f, b\u00f6ylelikle at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7a konu olacak \u015fekilde manevi unsuru ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6stermi\u015ftir.”<\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvurucunun bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 istinaf kanun yolu ba\u015fvurusu \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 3. Ceza Dairesinin 7\/2\/2019 tarihli karar\u0131yla esastan reddedilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafii bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 temyiz kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
16. Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesi 26\/2\/2020 tarihinde temyiz isteminin reddine ve h\u00fckm\u00fcn onanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Onama karar\u0131nda san\u0131\u011f\u0131n YARSAV \u00fcyeli\u011finin \u00f6rg\u00fctsel faaliyet olarak de\u011ferlendirilemeyece\u011fi ve ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funa dair ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 ByLock Tespit ve De\u011ferlendirme Tutana\u011f\u0131 getirtilmeden karar verilmesinin di\u011fer delillerin at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7un s\u00fcbutu a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan yeterli g\u00f6r\u00fclmesi nedeniyle sonuca etkili bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 17\/6\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 26\/6\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
18. Komisyon; adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne, tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa, an\u0131lan hakka ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucu; aleyhinde beyanda bulunan tan\u0131klar A.B., B.B. ve Y.C.nin duru\u015fmada dinlenilmemesi nedeniyle tan\u0131klar\u0131 sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131 verilmedi\u011fini, bu nedenle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
20. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131n\u0131n kanun yolu \u015fik\u00e2yeti niteli\u011finde olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ncelikle de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca s\u00f6z konusu tan\u0131k ifadelerinin ba\u015fvurucuya okunarak beyanlara kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiinin diyeceklerinin soruldu\u011fu, ba\u015fvurucunun bu kapsamda tan\u0131k ifadelerine kar\u015f\u0131 savunmas\u0131n\u0131 Mahkemeye sundu\u011fu, tan\u0131k ifadelerinin tamam\u0131 ve dosya kapsam\u0131ndaki bilgi ve belgelerin ba\u015fvurucuya bildirildi\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 cevab\u0131nda ba\u015fvuru formundaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
22. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131 adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmi\u015ftir. 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 ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
23. Anayasa Mahkemesi, bir\u00e7ok karar\u0131nda tan\u0131k kavram\u0131n\u0131 san\u0131\u011fa isnat edilen fiil hakk\u0131nda bilgi veren herhangi bir ki\u015fi \u015feklinde \u00f6zerk olarak yorumlam\u0131\u015f ve tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131 ile ilgili ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir (Atila O\u011fuz Boyal\u0131, B. No: 2013\/99, 20\/3\/2014; Sel\u00e7uk Demir, B. No: 2014\/9783, 22\/1\/2015; AZ. M., B. No: 2013\/560, 16\/4\/2015; Baran Karada\u011f, B. No: 2014\/12906, 7\/5\/2015; Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, B. No: 2019\/30221, 28\/12\/2021).Buna g\u00f6re bir ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131nda san\u0131\u011f\u0131n aleyhine olan tan\u0131klar\u0131 sorguya \u00e7ekme veya \u00e7ektirme hakk\u0131 vard\u0131r. Hakk\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 s\u00fcrecinde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n tan\u0131klara soru y\u00f6neltebilmesi, onlarla y\u00fczle\u015febilmesi ve tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n do\u011frulu\u011funu s\u0131nama imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip olmas\u0131 adil bir yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yap\u0131labilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan gereklidir (AZ. M., \u00a7 55). Di\u011fer yandan bir mahk\u00fbmiyet -tek veya belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde- san\u0131\u011f\u0131n soru\u015fturma veya yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir kimse taraf\u0131ndan verilen ifadelere dayand\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve dengeleyici g\u00fcvenceler sa\u011flayan bir usul \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f ise san\u0131\u011f\u0131n haklar\u0131 Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesindeki g\u00fcvencelerle ba\u011fda\u015fmayacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde k\u0131s\u0131tlanm\u0131\u015f olur (Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, \u00a7 35).<\/p>\n
24. Anayasa Mahkemesi, tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131yla ilgili olarak verdi\u011fi kararlar\u0131nda somut bir yarg\u0131lama \u00f6ncesinde veya haricinde elde edilen tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n delil olarak kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn yarg\u0131laman\u0131n adilli\u011fine zarar verip vermedi\u011fini de\u011ferlendirmek i\u00e7in \u00fc\u00e7 a\u015famal\u0131 bir test uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ifade etmektedir. Buna g\u00f6re ilk olarak tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n mahkemede haz\u0131r edilmemesi ge\u00e7erli bir nedenin mevcudiyetine dayanmal\u0131d\u0131r. \u0130kinci olarak san\u0131\u011f\u0131n sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tan\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan verilen beyan\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyetin dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 tek veya belirleyici delil olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir. Sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmayan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131n\u0131n tek veya belirleyici delil oldu\u011funun tespit edilmesi durumunda ise \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc a\u015fama olarak savunma taraf\u0131n\u0131n maruz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu olumsuzlu\u011fun telafi edilmesi amac\u0131yla yeterli d\u00fczeyde kar\u015f\u0131 dengeleyici g\u00fcvenceler sa\u011flayan bir usul\u00fcn y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcl\u00fcp y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmedi\u011fi ortaya konulmal\u0131d\u0131r (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Abdurrahim Balur, B. No: 2013\/5467, 7\/1\/2016, \u00a7 80; Onur Urbay, B. No: 2014\/6222, 6\/3\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 36, 40; Zekeriya Sevim, B. No: 2018\/18989, 16\/6\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 44, 51). Bu kapsamda, h\u00fckme ula\u015f\u0131l\u0131rken sorgulanmam\u0131\u015f tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131n\u0131 destekleyen ba\u015fka do\u011frulay\u0131c\u0131 delillere dayan\u0131lmas\u0131 telafi edici g\u00fcvencelerden biri olarak kabul edilebilir (Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, \u00a7 39). Mahkemenin yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresi d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki tan\u0131klar\u0131n -san\u0131\u011f\u0131n da onlara soru sormas\u0131na imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayacak ve sorulan sorulara verdikleri cevaplar hakk\u0131nda ki\u015fisel izlenim edinme f\u0131rsat\u0131 elde edecek \u015fekilde- Ses ve G\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc Bili\u015fim Sistemi (SEGB\u0130S) gibi vas\u0131talarla dinlenmesi telafi edici bir g\u00fcvence olabilir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte U\u011fur \u00d6zcan, B. No: 2021\/12137, 26\/7\/2022, \u00a7 40). Sorgulanmayan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenilirli\u011finin ve do\u011frulu\u011funun saptanmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla savunma taraf\u0131na sa\u011flanabilecek bir di\u011fer telafi edici g\u00fcvence ise san\u0131\u011fa olay\u0131n kendi versiyonunu anlatma ve delillerini sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131d\u0131r (Orhan G\u00fclery\u00fcz, \u00a7 40).<\/p>\n
25. Somut olayda Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan tan\u0131klar B.B., A.B. ve Y.C.nin soru\u015fturma ve kovu\u015fturma evrelerinde dava dosyas\u0131na giren ifade tutanaklar\u0131, ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafiine okunmu\u015f ancak tan\u0131klar\u0131n huzurda dinlenilmesine ili\u015fkin herhangi bir \u00e7aba g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015ftir. \u0130lgili duru\u015fma tutanaklar\u0131 ve gerek\u00e7eli kararda da tan\u0131klar\u0131n duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r edilememesinin veya ayn\u0131 anda g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcl\u00fc ve sesli ileti\u015fim tekni\u011finin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle dinlenilmemesinin hangi ge\u00e7erli nedene dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir a\u00e7\u0131klamaya yer verilmemi\u015ftir. Ancak buna ili\u015fkin ge\u00e7erli bir nedenin ortaya konulmam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131, tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011finin kabul edilmesi i\u00e7in yeterli de\u011fildir. \u0130kinci olarak h\u00fckm\u00fcn tek ba\u015f\u0131na veya belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde ba\u015fvurucunun duru\u015fmada sorgulama veya sorgulatma imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir tan\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan verilen ifadeye dayal\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
26. Mahkeme; ByLock haberle\u015fme program\u0131 kullan\u0131m\u0131na ili\u015fkin veriler, tan\u0131k ifadeleri, YARSAV \u00fcyeli\u011fine ili\u015fkin belgeler, meslekten \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan HSK m\u00fcfetti\u015fleri taraf\u0131ndan verilen tefti\u015f notu, HSK’n\u0131n meslekten \u00e7\u0131karma karar\u0131 ve ekli belgelere istinaden mahk\u00fbmiyet sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00d6te yandan Mahkeme, iddianamede yer alan gizli tan\u0131k beyan\u0131na gerek\u00e7eli kararda yer vermemi\u015f ve bu beyan\u0131 h\u00fckme esas almam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. H\u00fck\u00fcm, Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan YARSAV \u00fcyeli\u011finin \u00f6rg\u00fctsel bir eylem olarak de\u011ferlendirilemeyece\u011fi kabul\u00fc ile onanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
27. Ayr\u0131ca Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihad\u0131 uyar\u0131nca ki\u015finin ByLock kullan\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funun tespiti a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan somut olayda da oldu\u011fu gibi- sadece Bilgi Teknolojileri ve \u0130leti\u015fim Kurumundan getirtilen CGNAT kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n yeterli delil olarak kabul edilmemektedir [bir\u00e7ok karar aras\u0131ndan bkz. (Kapat\u0131lan) Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesinin 30\/6\/2021 tarihli ve E.2020\/2018, K.2021\/4527; Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesinin 4\/10\/2022 tarihli ve E.2021\/18943, K.2022\/5428 say\u0131l\u0131 kararlar\u0131].<\/p>\n
28. Gerek\u00e7eli karar i\u00e7eri\u011fi, onama karar\u0131 ve h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan delillere ili\u015fkin Yarg\u0131tay uygulamas\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda tan\u0131k ifadelerinin ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki kanaatin olu\u015fmas\u0131nda dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015fmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle sorgulama imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmayan tan\u0131k anlat\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131na g\u00f6t\u00fcren tek olmasa da belirleyici nitelikte delil oldu\u011funun kabul edilmesi gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
29. Sorgulanmalar\u0131na imk\u00e2n sa\u011flanmayan tan\u0131klar\u0131n ifadelerinin mahkeme karar\u0131nda belirleyici delil oldu\u011fu bu \u015fekilde tespit edildikten sonra savunma taraf\u0131na dengeleyici g\u00fcvenceler sa\u011flayan bir usul\u00fcn y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcl\u00fcp y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmedi\u011fi de belirlenmelidir. Yeterli dengeleyici fakt\u00f6rlerin somut olayda mevcut olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 dikkatli bir \u015fekilde incelendi\u011finde istinabe yolu ile dinlenen A.B. ile kendileri hakk\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen soru\u015fturmalar kapsam\u0131nda \u015f\u00fcpheli s\u0131fat\u0131yla ifadeleri al\u0131nan B.B. ve Y.C.nin soru\u015fturma evresindeki ifadelerine ili\u015fkin tutanaklar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafii huzurunda okundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. \u00d6te yandan yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde ba\u015fvurucuya olay\u0131n kendi versiyonunu anlatma ve delillerini sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
30. Bununla birlikte ba\u015fvurucu ve m\u00fcdafii, tan\u0131klar B.B. ve Y.C.nin kovu\u015fturma evresinde dinlenilmemesi, tan\u0131k A.B.nin beyan\u0131n\u0131n ise istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nmas\u0131 nedeniyle tan\u0131klar\u0131 sorgulayamam\u0131\u015f; beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n do\u011frulu\u011fu ve g\u00fcvenilirli\u011fini Mahkeme huzurunda test edememi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131 Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan san\u0131k (ba\u015fvurucu) ve m\u00fcdafiinin huzurunda okunmu\u015f ve ba\u015fvurucuya tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 diyecekleri sorulmu\u015f ise de bu durum tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 yeterli bir itiraz imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulamayan savunman\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 zorluklar\u0131 telafi edecek yeterli kar\u015f\u0131 dengeleyici g\u00fcvenceler olarak de\u011ferlendirilemez.<\/p>\n
31. Son olarak ilgili duru\u015fma tutanaklar\u0131nda ve gerek\u00e7eli kararda, tan\u0131klar\u0131n neden Mahkeme huzurunda savunman\u0131n haz\u0131r bulundu\u011fu oturumlarda dinlenilmedi\u011fi hususunda bir gerek\u00e7eye yer verilmedi\u011fi gibi ilk oturumda B.B.nin beyan\u0131n\u0131n kovu\u015fturma evresinde istinabe yoluyla al\u0131nmas\u0131na karar verilmesine ra\u011fmen bu karardan neden vazge\u00e7ildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir a\u00e7\u0131klama da yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yine gerek\u00e7eli kararda ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6rg\u00fct hiyerar\u015fisi i\u00e7erisinde Karadeniz B\u00f6lgesi Ta\u015fra-3 grubunda yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve \u00f6rg\u00fct ile irtibat\u0131n\u0131n adayl\u0131k d\u00f6neminde de mevcut oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin sorgulanamayan tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131 do\u011frulayan ba\u015fkaca delillere dayan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir a\u00e7\u0131klamaya yer verilmemi\u015ftir. Dahas\u0131 4\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun 180. maddesinin ” … tan\u0131k veya bilirki\u015finin ayn\u0131 anda g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcl\u00fc ve sesli ileti\u015fim tekni\u011finin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle dinlenebilmeleri olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu y\u00f6ntem uygulanarak ifade al\u0131n\u0131r.” \u015feklindeki (5) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131na ra\u011fmen Mahkemenin s\u00f6z\u00fc edilen tan\u0131klar\u0131 SEGB\u0130S yoluyla neden dinlemedi\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir bilgi ve belgeye de ula\u015f\u0131lamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Sonu\u00e7 olarak g\u00fcvenilirli\u011fi ve do\u011frulu\u011fu test edilmemi\u015f tan\u0131k ifadesi belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde savunma taraf\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 zorluklar\u0131 telafi edecek dengeleyici g\u00fcvencelerin tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda tan\u0131klar\u0131n duru\u015fmada dinlenmemesinin bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetini zedeledi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
32. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
33. Ba\u015fvurucu ihlalin tespiti ile maddi ve manevi tazminat 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 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\u0131pAnayasa 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), 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. \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
36. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat taleplerinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere \u0130stanbul 30. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (E.2017\/53, K.2018\/114) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \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
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 15\/1\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 15\/1\/2025 tarihli ve 2020\/18170 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 TALHA ALTINTOP BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/18170) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 15\/1\/2025 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 Muhterem \u0130NCE \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Y\u00fcksel G\u00dcNARSLAN Ba\u015fvurucu : Talha ALTINTOP Vekili : Av. Zeynep Rana EK\u0130NC\u0130 KO\u00c7 \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, ifadeleri belirleyici \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu (san\u0131k) taraf\u0131ndan sorgulanmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n verilmemesi nedeniyle tan\u0131k sorgulama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, Gaziosmanpa\u015fa il\u00e7esinde h\u00e2kim olarak g\u00f6rev yapmaktayken H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Kurulu (HSK) 2. Dairesinin 16\/7\/2016 tarihli karar\u0131 ile g\u00f6revinden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f; 24\/8\/2016 tarihli karar\u0131 ile g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. \u0130stanbul Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) ba\u015fvurucunun Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesiyle ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 4. Soru\u015fturma neticesinde Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucunun silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle 9\/6\/2017 tarihinde iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015ftir. \u0130ddianamede ba\u015fvurucu aleyhindeki deliller \u00f6zetle; i. Ba\u015fvurucunun ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 olan 505 … 27 numaral\u0131 telefon hatt\u0131 \u00fczerinden 357…26 IMEI numaral\u0131 cihaz ile ilk tespit tarihi 23\/8\/2014 olacak \u015fekilde ByLock \u015fifreli haberle\u015fme program\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin tespitler i\u00e7eren 31\/1\/2017 tarihli “Yeni ByLock CBS Sorgu Sonucu” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 tutanak, ii. \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fcn …<\/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-49506","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n