{"id":1923,"date":"2019-05-25T22:43:21","date_gmt":"2019-05-25T22:43:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.freejudges.eu\/tr\/?p=1923"},"modified":"2019-05-26T20:56:12","modified_gmt":"2019-05-26T20:56:12","slug":"aihmnin-alparslan-altan-karari-ve-mevcut-davalara-etkisi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.freejudges.eu\/tr\/2019\/05\/25\/aihmnin-alparslan-altan-karari-ve-mevcut-davalara-etkisi\/","title":{"rendered":"A\u0130HM\u2019N\u0130N ALPARSLAN ALTAN KARARI VE MEVCUT DAVALARA ETK\u0130S\u0130"},"content":{"rendered":"

Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi (A\u0130HM), 15 Temmuz darbe giri\u015fiminin ard\u0131ndan tutuklanan Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin eski Ba\u015fkanvekili Dr. Alparslan Altan ile ilgili ba\u015fvuruda hak ihlali karar\u0131 verdi. (https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-192804%22]}<\/a>)<\/p>\n

A\u0130HM 15 Nisan 2019 tarihli 12778\/17 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131nda, Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u2019nin (A\u0130HS) 5\/1 maddesi kapsam\u0131nda Altan\u2019\u0131n \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck ve g\u00fcvenlik hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine h\u00fckmetti. Mahkeme gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131nda ayr\u0131ca, Altan\u2019\u0131n tutuklanmas\u0131n\u0131n i\u00e7 hukukta yarg\u0131 mensuplar\u0131na tan\u0131nan g\u00fcvencelere ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funa, do\u011frudan g\u00f6zalt\u0131na alma gerek\u00e7esi olarak kullan\u0131lan CMK\u2019n\u0131n 2. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen \u201csu\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc hali\u201d yorumunun ise yasaya a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funa h\u00fckmetti.<\/p>\n

A\u0130HM\u2019nin Altan v. T\u00fcrkiye karar\u0131, devam eden binlerce soru\u015fturma ve davay\u0131 etkileyecek, emsal nitelikte olduk\u00e7a \u00f6nemli bir karard\u0131r. T\u00fcm Cumhuriyet savc\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n mevcut soru\u015fturmalar\u0131n\u0131, mahkemelerin ise derdest davalar\u0131n\u0131 bu karar \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda yeniden de\u011ferlendirmeleri gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. A\u0130HM Kararlar\u0131, Yarg\u0131 Makamlar\u0131 Dahil, T\u00fcm Ki\u015fi ve Kurumlar Y\u00f6n\u00fcyle Ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131d\u0131r<\/strong>:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 90\/4 maddesine g\u00f6re, \u201cusul\u00fcne g\u00f6re y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe konulmu\u015f milletleraras\u0131 antla\u015fmalar kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcndedir. Bunlar hakk\u0131nda Anayasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k iddias\u0131 ile Anayasa Mahkemesine ba\u015fvurulamaz. Usul\u00fcne g\u00f6re y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe konulmu\u015f temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere ili\u015fkin milletleraras\u0131 antla\u015fmalarla kanunlar\u0131n ayn\u0131 konuda farkl\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcmler i\u00e7ermesi nedeniyle \u00e7\u0131kabilecek uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klarda milletleraras\u0131 antla\u015fma h\u00fck\u00fcmleri esas al\u0131n\u0131r.\u201d<\/p>\n

    T\u00fcrkiye 1954 y\u0131l\u0131ndan beri A\u0130HS\u2019e taraft\u0131r. 1989 y\u0131l\u0131nda ise A\u0130HM\u2019in zorunlu yarg\u0131 yetkisini tan\u0131m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla A\u0130HS h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin ve A\u0130HM kararlar\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 90. Maddesi uyar\u0131nca t\u00fcm ki\u015fi ve kurumlar\u0131 ba\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair ku\u015fku bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n

    A\u0130HS\u2019in \u201cKararlar\u0131n Ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u0130nfaz\u0131\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 46\/1 maddesine g\u00f6re, \u201cY\u00fcksek S\u00f6zle\u015fmeci Taraflar, taraf olduklar\u0131 davalarda Mahkeme\u2019nin verdi\u011fi kesinle\u015fmi\u015f kararlara uymay\u0131 taahh\u00fct ederler.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 90\/4, A\u0130HS 46\/1 ve A\u0130HM\u2019in 16\/04\/2019 tarihli Altan v. T\u00fcrkiye karar\u0131 birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde, A\u0130HM\u2019in Altan v. T\u00fcrkiye karar\u0131nda h\u00fckme ba\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususlar\u0131n herkes i\u00e7in ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131k bir \u015fekilde anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla T\u00fcrk yarg\u0131 makamlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan bu karar dikkatle ele al\u0131nmal\u0131, verilecek kararlar A\u0130HM\u2019in karar\u0131ndaki ilkelere uygun olarak verilmelidir. Bu anayasal bir zorunluluktur. Aksi y\u00f6ndeki uygulamalar ki\u015filerin temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerini ihlal edece\u011fi gibi, buna sebebiyet verenler y\u00f6n\u00fcyle de hukuki ve cezai sorumluluk do\u011furacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Yarg\u0131 Mensuplar\u0131n\u0131n Tutuklanmas\u0131nda CMK\u2019n\u0131n 2. Maddesindeki \u201cSu\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc H\u00fck\u00fcmleri\u201dnin uygulanmas\u0131 Hukuka Ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      A\u0130HM karar\u0131nda \u201csu\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc\u201d (in flagrante delicto) kavram\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6zel olarak ele ald\u0131. Zira Altan, i\u015fledi\u011fi iddia edilen \u201cter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma\u201d su\u00e7unda CMK\u2019n\u0131n 2. maddesinde tan\u0131mlanan \u201csu\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc halinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131\u201d gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek CMK\u2019n\u0131n 100 vd. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca tutuklanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131.<\/p>\n

      A\u0130HM, Yarg\u0131tay Ceza Genel Kurulu\u2019nun 10 Ekim 2017 tarihli i\u00e7tihad\u0131nda \u201cdevam eden herhangi bir su\u00e7 fiiline ili\u015fkin olgusal unsur ya da belirtiler olmasa dahi, -CMK\u2019nin 100. maddesi ba\u011flam\u0131nda- bir su\u00e7 \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcyelik \u015f\u00fcphesi olmas\u0131 tek ba\u015f\u0131na bir durumu su\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc halinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ortaya koymaya yeterli\u201d oldu\u011funa karar verdi\u011fini, ancak bu karar\u0131n yasal belirlilikten uzak ve hukuki dayanaktan yoksun oldu\u011funu vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n

      Mahkeme karar\u0131nda,\u00a0\u201csu\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc hali kavram\u0131n\u0131n tespitine ili\u015fkin bu geni\u015f yorum, bu kavram\u0131n kapsam\u0131n\u0131 bir su\u00e7 \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcyelik \u015f\u00fcphesi ta\u015f\u0131yan hakimlerin T\u00fcrk hukuku taraf\u0131ndan, Anayasa Mahkemesi hakimi olarak g\u00f6rev yapan ve bu nedenle 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 kanunun korumas\u0131nda olan ba\u015fvurucunun da i\u00e7inde oldu\u011fu, yarg\u0131 mensuplar\u0131na sa\u011flanan yarg\u0131sal korumadan mahrum b\u0131rakmaktad\u0131r. Mevcut davadaki \u015fartlar\u0131n bir sonucu olarak, bu yorum, yetkililerin m\u00fcdahalelerine kar\u015f\u0131 yarg\u0131 mensuplar\u0131n\u0131 korumak amac\u0131yla sa\u011flanan usul\u00fc g\u00fcvenceleri bo\u015fa \u00e7\u0131karmaktad\u0131r.\u201d demektedir.<\/p>\n

      Sonu\u00e7 olarak Mahkeme, \u201culusal mahkemelerin su\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc hali kavram\u0131n\u0131n kapsam\u0131n\u0131 bu \u015fekilde geni\u015fletmeleri ve i\u00e7 hukuktaki uygulamalar\u0131 yaln\u0131zca yasal belirlilik anlam\u0131nda sorun te\u015fkil etmemekte ayr\u0131ca a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaks\u0131z g\u00f6r\u00fcnmektedir. Buna g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun tutuklulu\u011fu i\u00e7in CMK\u2019nin 100. maddesine dayan\u0131lmas\u0131, onu Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00fcyelerine sa\u011flanan usuli korumadan mahrum b\u0131rakm\u0131\u015f ve S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin 5. maddesinin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131na g\u00f6re gerekli olan yasa ile \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme \u015fart\u0131 yerine getirilmemi\u015ftir.\u201d diyerek, su\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc haline dair hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 keyfi yorumlar\u0131n A\u0130HS\u2019ye ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ortaya koymaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n

      Su\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc hali kavram\u0131na dair Mahkemenin bu karar\u0131, sadece somut Altan v. T\u00fcrkiye davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan de\u011fil, su\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc halinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilen ve halen derdest olan t\u00fcm soru\u015fturma ve davalar y\u00f6n\u00fcyle \u00f6nemlidir. A\u0130HM\u2019in bu karar\u0131ndan sonra, su\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc halinin Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihad\u0131nda belirtildi\u011fi \u015fekilde yorumlanmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. A\u0130HM\u2019nin karar\u0131na g\u00f6re, 16 Temmuz sabah\u0131, su\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc halinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle 3000\u2019e yak\u0131n hakim ve savc\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 ve tutuklanmas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r. Zira 2802 say\u0131l\u0131 H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Kanununun 88. maddesine g\u00f6re \u201cA\u011f\u0131r ceza mahkemesinin g\u00f6revine giren su\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2lleri d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda su\u00e7 i\u015fledi\u011fi ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen hakim ve savc\u0131lar yakalanamaz, \u00fczerleri ve konutlar\u0131 aranamaz, sorguya \u00e7ekilemez.\u201d<\/p>\n

      Yarg\u0131 mensuplar\u0131yla ilgili halen devam eden soru\u015fturma ve davalarda, A\u0130HM karar\u0131 sonras\u0131nda art\u0131k bir \u201csu\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc hali\u201dnden bahsedilemeyece\u011fine g\u00f6re, bu soru\u015fturma ve davalar\u0131n DERHAL DURDURULMASI, e\u011fer dosya kapsam\u0131nda tutuklu yarg\u0131 mensubu varsa DERHAL TAHL\u0130YELER\u0130 hukuki zorunluluktur. Aksi uygulamalar\u0131n hukuki ve cezai sorumluluk do\u011furaca\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Yarg\u0131 Mensuplar\u0131 \u0130\u00e7in \u0130\u00e7 Hukukta \u00d6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen G\u00fcvencelere Ayk\u0131r\u0131 Davran\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r:<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Mahkeme karar\u0131nda yarg\u0131 mensuplar\u0131n\u0131n hukukun \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ile y\u00f6netilen bir devlette adaletin teminat\u0131 olarak \u00f6zel rol\u00fcn\u00fcn bulundu\u011funu vurgulayarak, \u201cBilhassa, yarg\u0131 mensuplar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6revlerini ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z bir \u015fekilde y\u00fcr\u00fctmelerinin g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in i\u00e7 hukukun yasal koruma \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc durumlarda bu tedbirlerin s\u00f6z konusu d\u00fczenlemelere uygun olmas\u0131 zorunludur. Demokratik bir toplumda devlet organlar\u0131 aras\u0131nda yarg\u0131n\u0131n tuttu\u011fu se\u00e7kin yer ve kuvvetler ayr\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n artan \u00f6nemi ile ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z yarg\u0131n\u0131n teminat almas\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nemi g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Mahkeme, yarg\u0131 mensuplar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 tutuklama karar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131 s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011funda, S\u00f6zle\u015fme bak\u0131m\u0131ndan onlar\u0131 korumada daha \u00f6zenli davranmal\u0131d\u0131r.\u201d demektedir.<\/p>\n

        Mahkemeye g\u00f6re, \u201c\u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckten mahrum b\u0131rak\u0131lma s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011funda, yasal belirlili\u011fin (legal certainty) genel kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yerine getirilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 bilhassa \u00f6nemlidir. Bu nedenle, i\u00e7 hukukta \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckten yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131lma ile ilgili \u015fartlar\u0131n, a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a tan\u0131mlanm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 ve uygulanmas\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir olmas\u0131 gerekmekte, S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin \u2018yasall\u0131k\u2019 standard\u0131na uygun olabilmesi i\u00e7in, b\u00fct\u00fcn kanunlar\u0131n \u2013 gerekirse uygun \u00f6neri i\u00e7erecek \u015fekilde- ki\u015filer taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesini sa\u011flamas\u0131 gerekmektedir.\u201d<\/p>\n

        Mahkeme, yarg\u0131\u00e7lara sa\u011flanan bu t\u00fcr yarg\u0131sal korumalar\u0131n kendi ki\u015fisel \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131 i\u00e7in de\u011fil ancak ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z bir \u015fekilde g\u00f6revlerini ifa etmelerini sa\u011flamak i\u00e7in oldu\u011funu, genelde yarg\u0131 sistemi \u00f6zelde yarg\u0131 mensuplar\u0131na sa\u011flanan bu koruman\u0131n amac\u0131n\u0131n, g\u00f6revlerini yerine getirirken, yarg\u0131sal sistem d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bulunan makamlardan ve hatta denetleyici ve inceleme g\u00f6revinde bulunan hakimlerden gelebilecek haks\u0131z k\u0131s\u0131tlamalara maruz kalmamalar\u0131n\u0131 temin etmek oldu\u011funu, bu ba\u011flamda, T\u00fcrk mevzuat\u0131n\u0131n bir Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00fcyesinin tutuklanmas\u0131n\u0131 yasaklamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak Anayasa ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 yasada teminat alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f koruma usulleri oldu\u011funu, bu kanunun 16 ve 17. b\u00f6l\u00fcmlerinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen usullere uygun olarak yarg\u0131sal dokunulmazl\u0131k Anayasa Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan kald\u0131r\u0131labilece\u011fini ve yarg\u0131lama ba\u015flat\u0131larak tutuklama gibi \u00f6nleyici tedbirlere karar verilebilece\u011fini ifade ettikten sonra, Altan\u2019\u0131n Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00fcyelerine sa\u011flanan usuli korumadan mahrum b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin 5\/1. Maddesinin ihlal edildi\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

        A\u0130HM\u2019in Altan i\u00e7in ortaya koydu\u011fu bu tespitlerin, di\u011fer yarg\u0131 mensuplar\u0131 i\u00e7in de ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Anayasan\u0131n 159\/9 h\u00fckm\u00fcne g\u00f6re, bir yarg\u0131 mensubu hakk\u0131nda ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131 ancak soru\u015fturma izni verildikten sonra ba\u015flat\u0131labilir. Yukar\u0131da da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere, 2802 say\u0131l\u0131 H\u00e2kimler ve Savc\u0131lar Kanununun 88. maddesine g\u00f6re \u201cA\u011f\u0131r ceza mahkemesinin g\u00f6revine giren su\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2lleri d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda su\u00e7 i\u015fledi\u011fi ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen hakim ve savc\u0131lar yakalanamaz, \u00fczerleri ve konutlar\u0131 aranamaz, sorguya \u00e7ekilemez.\u201d<\/p>\n

        15 Temmuz darbe giri\u015fiminin ard\u0131ndan ba\u015flat\u0131lan s\u00fcre\u00e7te, ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta 2745 hakim ve savc\u0131 hakk\u0131nda g\u00f6zalt\u0131 ve tutuklama i\u015flemi yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, daha sonra bu say\u0131 5000\u2019e kadar \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. A\u0130HM\u2019nin Altan v. T\u00fcrkiye karar\u0131ndan sonra durum tekrar de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde, t\u00fcm yarg\u0131 mensuplar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda i\u00e7 hukukta \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen yarg\u0131sal g\u00fcvencelere ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcreci i\u015fletildi\u011fi net bir \u015fekilde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmaktad\u0131r. S\u00f6z\u00fc edilen bu 5000 hakim ve savc\u0131n\u0131n tamam\u0131nda A\u0130HM\u2019nin ayn\u0131 karar\u0131 verece\u011fi her t\u00fcrl\u00fc \u015f\u00fcpheden uzakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n

        Altan karar\u0131ndan sonra, T\u00fcrk soru\u015fturma ve yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131n\u0131n \u201cbiz hukuki kavramlar\u0131 farkl\u0131 yorumluyoruz\u201d deme imkan\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Zira A\u0130HM hukuki kavramlar\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131nda son s\u00f6z\u00fc s\u00f6yleme yetkisine sahip olan makamd\u0131r. Yukar\u0131da da ele al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, bu mahkemenin kararlar\u0131 Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 90. maddesi uyar\u0131nca HERKES i\u00e7in ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131d\u0131r. A\u0130HM\u2019nin bu karar\u0131 ortadayken, devam eden davalarda verilebilecek tek karar YARGILAMANIN DURDURULMASI ve usul\u00fcne uygun soru\u015fturma i\u00e7in dosyan\u0131n ilgili yerlere g\u00f6nderilmesidir. Bu karara ra\u011fmen, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n durdurulmamas\u0131 ve \u00fcstelik bir yarg\u0131 mensubunun tutukluluk halinin devam\u0131na karar verilmesi, ilgili yarg\u0131 mensubunun temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn KASTEN ihlal edilmesi anlam\u0131na gelecektir ki, bu su\u00e7tur.<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. G\u00f6zalt\u0131\/Tutuklama Kararlar\u0131 Verilirken Dosyalarda Delil Bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Oysa G\u00f6zalt\u0131\/Tutuklama Kararlar\u0131 Sadece O Anda Mevcut Delillere G\u00f6re Verilir<\/strong>:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          A\u0130HM\u2019in Altan v. T\u00fcrkiye karar\u0131nda yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6nemli tespitlerden birisi de, Altan\u2019\u0131n tutukland\u0131\u011f\u0131 anda dosyas\u0131nda tutuklanmay\u0131 gerektirecek hi\u00e7 bir delilin olmamas\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n

          Mahkeme karar\u0131nda, \u201cAnayasa Mahkemesi bu tedbiri incelerken FET\u00d6\/PDY \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn yap\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 ve yarg\u0131 i\u00e7indeki yap\u0131lanmas\u0131n\u0131 anlatt\u0131ktan sonra ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine bu delillere dayanmaktad\u0131r: iki gizli tan\u0131k ifadesi; FET\u00d6\/PDY \u00fcyesi olmakla su\u00e7lanan Anayasa Mahkemesi eski raport\u00f6r\u00fc bir ki\u015finin ifadeleri; Bylock arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla yap\u0131lan mesajla\u015fmalar ve di\u011fer fakt\u00f6rler. Ancak, s\u00f6z konusu deliller, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda verilen tutuklama karar\u0131ndan uzun zaman sonra toplanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.\u201d<\/p>\n

          A\u0130HM, Altan\u2019\u0131n dosyas\u0131nda tutukland\u0131\u011f\u0131 anda herhangi bir delilin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 hem yerel mahkemede, hem AYM\u2019de hem de A\u0130HM\u2019de \u201cdefalarca\u201d g\u00fcndeme getirmesine ra\u011fmen, yerel mahkemenin, AYM\u2019nin ve A\u0130HM ba\u015fvurusunda da H\u00fck\u00fcmetin bu konuda sessiz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 adeta \u201c\u015fa\u015fk\u0131nl\u0131kla\u201d kay\u0131tlara ge\u00e7irmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

          Sulh ceza hakimlerinin bireyselle\u015ftirme yapmaks\u0131z\u0131n, sadece kanun maddelerine at\u0131fla tutuklama karar\u0131 vermelerindeki hukuksuzlu\u011fa da vurgu yap\u0131lan kararda, \u201cMahkeme, sulh ceza hakimi taraf\u0131ndan verilen tutuklama karar\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131k ifadeleri ya da ba\u015fvurucunun bu su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011fine dair \u015f\u00fcphe olu\u015fturacak herhangi bir ba\u015fka veri ya da bilgi gibi kuvvetli su\u00e7 \u015f\u00fcphesi ta\u015f\u0131yan herhangi bir somut delil i\u00e7ermedi\u011fini g\u00f6zlemlemektedir. Sulh ceza hakimi, karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esi olarak CMK\u2019nin 100. maddesine ve dosyadaki delillere dayanmaktad\u0131r. Ancak sulh ceza hakimi, yaln\u0131zca ilgili madde metnine at\u0131f yapm\u0131\u015f ve delilleri listelemi\u015f, sadece ba\u015fvurucu i\u00e7in de\u011fil, dosyadaki di\u011fer 13 \u015f\u00fcpheli i\u00e7in de bireyselle\u015ftirme yapmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.\u201d denilmektedir.<\/p>\n

          \u201cMahkeme\u2019nin g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne g\u00f6re, dosyadaki deliller ya da ba\u015fvurucuya y\u00f6nelik \u015f\u00fcpheyi me\u015frula\u015ft\u0131racak herhangi bir bilgi ki\u015fiye \u00f6zg\u00fc \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirilmeden CMK\u2019nin 100. maddesinin metnine geni\u015f ve genel referans vermek ve dosyadaki deliller ba\u015fvurucunun tutuklulu\u011funun dayanmas\u0131 gereken \u015f\u00fcphenin \u2018makull\u00fc\u011f\u00fc\u2019 i\u00e7in yeterli g\u00f6r\u00fclemez.\u201d<\/p>\n

          \u201cBu nedenle Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun tutuklulu\u011funu hakl\u0131 g\u00f6sterecek \u015f\u00fcpheyi do\u011furacak herhangi bir veri ya da bilgi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.\u201d<\/p>\n

          T\u00fcm bu de\u011ferlendirmelerden sonra mahkeme hak ihlalini \u015fu ifadelerle tespit etmi\u015ftir: \u201cH\u00fck\u00fcmet ba\u015fka bir veri ya da bilgi sunamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in, Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin 5. maddesinin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n c bendi uyar\u0131nca tutuklanmas\u0131n\u0131 hakl\u0131 g\u00f6sterecek makul bir \u015f\u00fcphe olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.\u201d<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Yarg\u0131 Mensuplar\u0131 Hakk\u0131ndaki Soru\u015fturma ve Davalardaki Usuls\u00fczl\u00fckler OHAL Gerek\u00e7esiyle Hakl\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lamaz:<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Mahkemeye g\u00f6re, \u201cbu davada uygulanabilir olan CMK\u2019nin 100. maddesi ile Anayasa Mahkemesi hakimlerinin konumunu d\u00fczenleyen mevzuat\u0131n OHAL s\u0131ras\u0131nda de\u011fi\u015ftirilmedi\u011fini \u00f6zellikle not etmek gerekir. Buna mukabil, mevcut davada \u015fikayet konusu tedbirler daha \u00f6nce var olan mevzuata dayand\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olup OHAL ilan\u0131ndan sonra ve \u015fuan dahi uygulanabilir durumdad\u0131r.\u201d<\/p>\n

            Bu ba\u011flamda Mahkeme, su\u00e7\u00fcst\u00fc hali kavram\u0131n\u0131n bu \u015fekilde geni\u015f yorumlanmas\u0131n\u0131n OHAL\u2019e uygun bir cevap olarak kabul edilemeyece\u011fini dikkate almaktad\u0131r. B\u00f6yle bir yorum, herhangi bir \u015fekilde OHAL\u2019in gereklili\u011fine cevap olamay\u0131p yaln\u0131zca yasal belirlilik ilkesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan sorun te\u015fkil etmemekte, ayn\u0131 zamanda,\u00a0 yarg\u0131 mensuplar\u0131n\u0131n yetkili makamlardan gelebilecek haks\u0131z k\u0131s\u0131tlamalara maruz kalmamalar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan usuli korumalara da a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil etmektedir. Bununla beraber OHAL\u2019in yasal \u00e7er\u00e7evesinin \u00f6tesine ge\u00e7ilmesinin kanuni sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 vard\u0131r. Bu durum herhangi bir \u015fekilde OHAL ko\u015fullar\u0131 ile hakl\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lamaz.\u201d<\/p>\n

            Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun \u2018yasa ile \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f bir usule g\u00f6re verilmi\u015f\u2019 tutukluluk karar\u0131n\u0131n durumun gereklerine uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vurgulayarak, \u201cba\u015fvurucunun tutuklulu\u011funun \u2018hukuki\u2019 olmamas\u0131 nedeniyle S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin 5. maddesinin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131 ihlal edildi\u011fine\u201d karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

            Sonu\u00e7 Olarak:<\/strong><\/p>\n