{"id":1891,"date":"2019-05-08T18:32:22","date_gmt":"2019-05-08T18:32:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.freejudges.eu\/tr\/?p=1891"},"modified":"2019-05-11T23:27:16","modified_gmt":"2019-05-11T23:27:16","slug":"16-nisan-2019-tarihli-anayasa-mahkemesi-uyesi-alparslan-altan-v-turkiye-kararinin-ozet-cevirisi-ve-degerlendirmesi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.freejudges.eu\/tr\/2019\/05\/08\/16-nisan-2019-tarihli-anayasa-mahkemesi-uyesi-alparslan-altan-v-turkiye-kararinin-ozet-cevirisi-ve-degerlendirmesi\/","title":{"rendered":"16 Nisan 2019 tarihli, Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00fcyesi Alparslan Altan v. T\u00fcrkiye Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zet \u00c7evirisi ve De\u011ferlendirmesi"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dr. Oktay BAHADIR<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span>*<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n

Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi (A\u0130HM\/Mahkeme), 16\/04\/2019 tarihinde, Anayasa Mahkemesi (AYM) eski \u00fcyesi olan Alparslan Altan\/T\u00fcrkiye karar\u0131nda (Ba\u015fvuru No: 12778\/17), oy\u00e7oklu\u011fu ile (alt\u0131ya kar\u015f\u0131 bir oyla\/karara sadece T\u00fcrk <\/span><\/span><\/span>ad hoc<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span> h\u00e2kim muhalif kalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r), Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u2019nin (A\u0130HS\/S\u00f6zle\u015fme) \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck ve g\u00fcvenlik hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin 5. maddesinin ihlal edildi\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

S\u00f6z konusu karara konu olay ve olgular k\u0131saca \u015fu \u015fekildedir<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span>: 15 Temmuz 2016 g\u00fcn\u00fc ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen darbe giri\u015fiminden sonra, 20 Temmuz g\u00fcn\u00fc ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc hal ilan edilmi\u015ftir. T\u00fcrkiye, ertesi g\u00fcn, S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin 15. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerini ask\u0131ya ald\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair Avrupa Konseyi\u2019ne bildirimde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Ba\u015fvurucu, o tarihte, AYM\u2019de h\u00e2kim olarak g\u00f6rev yapmaktad\u0131r. 16 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde, 3.000 civar\u0131nda h\u00e2kim ve savc\u0131 ile birlikte, hakk\u0131nda yakalama ve g\u00f6zalt\u0131na alma karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir. 20 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde, sulh ceza h\u00e2kimi \u201csilahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyesi\u201d (T\u00fcrk Ceza Kanunu\u2019nun 314. maddesi) oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesiyle tutuklanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. 2016 y\u0131l\u0131n\u0131n A\u011fustos ay\u0131nda, AYM ba\u015fvurucuyu meslekten \u00e7\u0131karm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Ekim 2017\u2019de Yarg\u0131tay, ba\u015fka bir dosya kapsam\u0131nda, silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyesi olmakla su\u00e7lanan h\u00e2kimlerin su\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc hali bulundu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle yarg\u0131 dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (h\u00e2kimlik teminat\u0131) kald\u0131r\u0131lmadan genel usule g\u00f6re tutuklanabileceklerine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Ba\u015fvurucu, AYM\u2019ye yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvuruda iki a\u00e7\u0131dan tutuklama karar\u0131n\u0131n hukuki olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ne s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr: (i) bir h\u00e2kim olmas\u0131 nedeniyle \u00f6zel bir kanun \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde yarg\u0131 dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131na sahiptir ve bu dokunulmazl\u0131k AYM taraf\u0131ndan kald\u0131r\u0131lmadan tutuklanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. (ii) ilk tutuklama karar\u0131, aleyhine hi\u00e7bir delil olmadan verilmi\u015ftir. Ocak 2018\u2019de AYM, ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinden ilkini yukar\u0131da yer verilen Yarg\u0131tay karar\u0131na at\u0131fta bulunarak, ikincisini ise ilk tutuklanma an\u0131ndan sonra toplanan \u00e7e\u015fitli delillere dayanarak ret etmi\u015ftir. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Temmuz 2018\u2019de ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc hal kald\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mart 2019\u2019da ise ba\u015fvurucu mahk\u00fbm edilmi\u015ftir. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

(a)\u00a0\u00a0\u0130lk <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span>tutuklama karar\u0131n\u0131n \u201ckanunda belirtilen usule\u201d uygunlu\u011fu<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

(i)\u00a0\u00a0\u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck ve g\u00fcvenlik hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin 5 \u00a7 1. madde a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

T\u00fcrk Ceza Muhakemesi Kanuna (CMK) g\u00f6re su\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc hali, i\u015flenmekte olan ya da hen\u00fcz i\u015flenmi\u015f olan su\u00e7lar\u0131 ifade etmektedir. Buna kar\u015f\u0131n, ulusal mahkemelerin yeni yorumuna g\u00f6re, mevcut maddi bir olgu ya da devam eden bir su\u00e7 eylemine ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131k ba\u015fka bir delil ortaya konulmaks\u0131z\u0131n, su\u00e7 \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyeli\u011fine ili\u015fkin yaln\u0131zca \u015f\u00fcphe bulunmas\u0131, su\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc halinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in yeterli g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Su\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc hali kavram\u0131n\u0131 a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 geni\u015fleten bu yorum, yarg\u0131 mensuplar\u0131n\u0131 idarenin m\u00fcdahalesine kar\u015f\u0131 koruyan usul\u00fc g\u00fcvenceyi olumsuz etkileyecek niteliktedir. H\u00e2kimlere bu t\u00fcr bir yasal teminat verilmesinin nedeni, g\u00f6revlerini yerine getirirken, yarg\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131 organlar\u0131n ve hatta denetim ve inceleme yapan h\u00e2kimlerin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 m\u00fcdahalesi olmaks\u0131z\u0131n, ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z hareket edebilmelerini sa\u011flamakt\u0131r. Zaten bu teminat, cezas\u0131zl\u0131k anlam\u0131na da gelmemektedir. Zira Anayasa ve Anayasa Mahkemesi Kanununda belirtilen ko\u015fullar\u0131n bulunmas\u0131 halinde, bir AYM \u00fcyesinin tutuklanmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla, somut davada i\u00e7 hukukun a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a makul olmayan (<\/span><\/span><\/span>manifestly unreasonable<\/span><\/span><\/span>) bir \u015fekilde uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Sonu\u00e7 olarak ba\u015fvurucu, kanunda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen usule uyulmaks\u0131z\u0131n tutuklanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

(ii)\u00a0Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc hallerde y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerin ask\u0131ya al\u0131nmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin 15. maddenin etkisi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Su\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc hali kavram\u0131n\u0131n a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 geni\u015f yorumlanmas\u0131, ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc halin gerektirdi\u011fi bir durum olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclemez. Zira bu yorumun hukuki sonu\u00e7lar\u0131, ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc halin yasal \u00e7er\u00e7evesinin fazlas\u0131yla d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu nedenle, ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc halin \u00f6zel ko\u015fullar\u0131 gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek hakl\u0131 kabul edilemez. \u00d6zetle; \u201ckanunda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen usule uygun olmayan\u201d tutuklama karar\u0131n\u0131n, \u201cdurumun kesinlikle gerektirdi\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde\u201d oldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenemez. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Bu nedenlerle, S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin <\/span><\/span><\/span>5 \u00a7 1<\/span><\/span><\/span>. maddesi ihlal edilmi\u015ftir.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

(b) Ba\u015fvurucunun bir su\u00e7 i\u015fledi\u011fine dair makul \u015f\u00fcphe bulunmas\u0131<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

(i)\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck ve g\u00fcvenlik hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin 5 \u00a7 1. madde a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Organize su\u00e7larla m\u00fccadele etme zorunlulu\u011fu, \u201cmakull\u00fck (<\/span><\/span><\/span>reasonableness<\/span><\/span><\/span>)\u201d kavram\u0131n\u0131n S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin <\/span><\/span><\/span>5 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c). <\/span><\/span><\/span>maddesiyle korunan hakk\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcne zarar verecek \u015fekilde geni\u015fletilmesini hakl\u0131 k\u0131lmaz. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Ba\u015fvurucu, yasad\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00f6rg\u00fcte \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan tutuklanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ancak, ba\u015fvurucunun \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011fine dair ikna edici hi\u00e7bir delil g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015ftir. Tutuklama karar\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun yasad\u0131\u015f\u0131 bir \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn \u00fcyesi oldu\u011funa dair kuvvetli \u015f\u00fcphe olu\u015fturacak nitelikte bir tan\u0131k ifadesine, olay ya da bilgiye dayanmamaktad\u0131r. Tutuklama karar\u0131nda, CMK\u2019n\u0131n maddelerine genel ve soyut olarak at\u0131fta bulunulmu\u015ftur. Dosyadaki deliller, makul \u015f\u00fcphe olu\u015fturacak d\u00fczeyde de\u011fildir. Toplam 14 \u015f\u00fcpheli bulunan dosyada, ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6zel bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

AYM\u2019nin ba\u015fvurucunun yasad\u0131\u015f\u0131 bir \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn \u00fcyesi oldu\u011funa dair makul \u015f\u00fcphe bulundu\u011funa dair de\u011ferlendirmesi, ba\u015fvurucunun ilk tutuklanmas\u0131ndan uzun s\u00fcre sonra toplanan delillere dayanmaktad\u0131r. Benzer \u015fekilde, ba\u015fvurucunun daha sonra \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7tan mahk\u00fbm edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n da haks\u0131z tutukluluk \u015fik\u00e2yetinin incelenmesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan hi\u00e7bir etkisi bulunmamaktad\u0131r. H\u00fck\u00fbmet de, ilk tutuklama an\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun isnat edilen su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011fine dair makul \u015f\u00fcphe bulundu\u011funu g\u00f6sterecek herhangi bir delil sunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

(ii)\u00a0Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc hallerde y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerin ask\u0131ya al\u0131nmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin 15. maddenin etkisi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Yukar\u0131da yer verilen tespitler g\u00f6stermektedir ki, ba\u015fvurucunun tutuklanmas\u0131n\u0131n \u201cdurumun kesinlikle gerektirdi\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde\u201d oldu\u011fu s\u00f6zlenemez. Tersi bir sonuca ula\u015fmak, S\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 5 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c). maddesinin \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckten yoksun b\u0131rakmay\u0131 hakl\u0131 k\u0131lan makul \u015f\u00fcpheye dair minimum gerekliliklerini h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fcz k\u0131lar ve 5. maddenin amac\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131r.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Bu nedenlerle, S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin <\/span><\/span><\/span>5 \u00a7 1 (c)<\/span><\/span><\/span>. maddesi ihlal edilmi\u015ftir.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Mahkeme ba\u015fvurucu lehine 10.000 Euro manevi tazminata h\u00fckmetmi\u015f, ancak maddi tazminata ve yarg\u0131lama giderine ili\u015fkin talepleri ret etmi\u015ftir.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00d6zetlemek gerekirse<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span>, s\u00f6z konusu ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n iki temel gerek\u00e7esi bulunmaktad\u0131r: \u00d6ncelikle A\u0130HM, su\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc kavram\u0131 a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 geni\u015fletilmek suretiyle, h\u00e2kimlik teminat\u0131na ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvence usul\u00fcne uygun \u015fekilde kald\u0131r\u0131lmadan ba\u015fvurucunun tutuklanmas\u0131 nedeniyle kanunla \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen usule uyulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in tutuklaman\u0131n hukuki olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin <\/span><\/span><\/span>5 \u00a7 1<\/span><\/span><\/span>. f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir. Bir ba\u015fka ifadeyle, ilk derece mahkemesi, istinaf mahkemeleri, Yarg\u0131tay ve AYM taraf\u0131ndan kabul edilen \u201cter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyeli\u011fi temadi (devam) eden bir su\u00e7tur, bu nedenle h\u00e2kimlik teminat\u0131na ili\u015fkin \u00f6zel kanunlar\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131na gerek yoktur\u201d arg\u00fcman\u0131 A\u0130HM taraf\u0131ndan kabul edilmemi\u015ftir.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u0130kinci olarak, ba\u015fvurucunun su\u00e7lay\u0131c\u0131 somut hi\u00e7bir delil (<\/span><\/span><\/span>specific incriminating evidence<\/span><\/span><\/span>) bulunmaks\u0131z\u0131n, sadece yasad\u0131\u015f\u0131 bir \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesiyle tutuklanmas\u0131 nedeniyle tutuklama i\u00e7in zorunlu olan \u201cmakul \u015f\u00fcphe\u201d bulunmas\u0131 \u015fart\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve bu \u015fekilde S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin <\/span><\/span><\/span>5 \u00a7 1 (c)<\/span><\/span><\/span>. f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir. A\u0130HM, ayn\u0131 gerek\u00e7eyle, h\u00fck\u00fcmetin 15 Temmuz 2016 tarihinden sonra A\u0130HS\u2019ni ask\u0131ya ald\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin itiraz\u0131n\u0131 ret etmi\u015ftir ve tutuklaman\u0131n S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin 15. maddesinin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131 anlam\u0131nda \u201cdurumun kesinlikle gerektirdi\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde\u201d olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Bu iki ihlal gerek\u00e7esi, 15 Temmuz\u2019dan sonra g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nan ve tutuklanan, \u00f6zel soru\u015fturma usullerine tabi kamu g\u00f6revlileri ve \u00f6zellikle h\u00e2kim ve savc\u0131lar\u0131n neredeyse tamam\u0131 lehine emsal olma \u00f6zelli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131maktad\u0131r.<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Asl\u0131nda tutuklama i\u00e7in gerekli delilin, ilk tutuklama an\u0131ndan itibaren bulunmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine ili\u015fkin karar, A\u0130HM\u2019in \u00e7ok kadim ve yerle\u015fik bir i\u00e7tihad\u0131d\u0131r. AYM\u2019nin bunu bilmeden ve ihlali \u00f6ng\u00f6rmeden karar verdi\u011fini s\u00f6ylemek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Maalesef AYM\u2019nin ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyeli\u011fi ile su\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131 dosyalarda bilerek (ve belki de isteyerek) A\u0130HM ile \u00e7eli\u015fkili karar verdi\u011fini s\u00f6ylemek yanl\u0131\u015f olmayacakt\u0131r. Bunun \u00f6rneklerini haks\u0131z tutuklama ve cezaevi ko\u015fullar\u0131na ili\u015fkin ba\u015fvurularda \u00e7ok\u00e7a g\u00f6rmekteyiz. Oysaki, \u00f6rne\u011fin ya\u015fama hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin baz\u0131 ba\u015fvurularda, AYM\u2019nin haklar\u0131 A\u0130HM\u2019den bile daha geni\u015fletici \u015fekilde yorumlad\u0131\u011f\u0131na \u015fahit olmaktay\u0131z.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Son y\u0131llarda A\u0130HM, B\u00fcy\u00fck Daire d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki kararlar\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7o\u011funlukla resmi dilleri olan \u0130ngilizce ya da Frans\u0131zca olarak yay\u0131mlamaktad\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu karar\u0131n her iki dilde birden yay\u0131mlanmas\u0131 ve olduk\u00e7a uzun (54 sayfa) olmas\u0131 dikkat \u00e7ekicidir. Bu karar\u0131n \u00f6nc\u00fc (leading) bir karar oldu\u011fu ve A\u0130HM\u2019in bundan sonra s\u00f6z konusu karara at\u0131fla daha k\u0131sa ve seri kararlar verece\u011fini \u00f6ng\u00f6rmek m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

*Karar\u0131n \u00f6zet \u00e7evirisi ve yorumlar, \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Uzman\u0131 Dr. Oktay BAHADIR\u2019\u0131n twitter hesab\u0131ndan (@Bahadir_Dr) al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Karar\u0131n \u0130ngilizce (orjinal) linki:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng?i=002-12446<\/a><\/u><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Karar\u0131n T\u00fcrk\u00e7e linki i\u00e7in:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

"A\u0130HM ALPARSLAN ALTAN \/ T\u00dcRK\u0130YE DAVASI (Ba\u015fvuru No. 12778\/17) KARARI TAM \u00c7EV\u0130R\u0130S\u0130" hem patreon sayfamdan hem de google drive dosyas\u0131 olarak payla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
Faydal\u0131 olmas\u0131n\u0131 diliyorum.https:\/\/t.co\/WqHsQaAVE1<\/a>https:\/\/t.co\/gGOOngLRpz<\/a><\/p>\n

— Levent MAZILIG\u00dcNEY (@Leventism) May 6, 2019<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n