Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesi, bir ilke imza att\u0131. AYM\u2019nin tutuklu T\u0130P Hatay Milletvekili Can Atalay hakk\u0131nda verdi\u011fi ihlal karar\u0131na uyulmamas\u0131na h\u00fckmetti, ‘hak ihlali’ karar\u0131na imza atan \u00fcyeler hakk\u0131nda su\u00e7 duyurusunda bulundu.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesi, T\u0130P Hatay Milletvekili se\u00e7ilen Gezi Park\u0131 davas\u0131 tutuklusu Can Atalay hakk\u0131nda ihlal karar\u0131 veren Anayasa Mahkemesi (AYM) \u00fcyeleri hakk\u0131nda su\u00e7 duyurusunda bulundu.<\/p>\n
Sabah\u2019tan \u0130lker Turak\u2019\u0131n haberine g\u00f6re, Can Atalay’\u0131n daha \u00f6nceden mahkumiyet karar\u0131n\u0131 onayan daire \u00f6nceki karar\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fru oldu\u011funu \u00f6ne s\u00fcrerek AYM’nin ihlal karar\u0131na uyulmamas\u0131na h\u00fckmetti. Atalay’\u0131n milletvekilli\u011finin de d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmesi i\u00e7in TBMM’ye bildirimde bulundu.<\/p>\n
Can Atalay, Gezi Park\u0131 davas\u0131nda 18 y\u0131l hapse mahkum edildikten sonra 14 May\u0131s’ta yap\u0131lan 28. D\u00f6nem Milletvekili Genel Se\u00e7iminde T\u0130P’ten milletvekili se\u00e7ilmi\u015fti. Atalay’\u0131n, “milletvekili se\u00e7ilmesi nedeniyle hakk\u0131ndaki yarg\u0131laman\u0131n durmas\u0131 ve tahliye edilmesi” talebiyle yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru, Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesi’nce reddedilmi\u015fti. Milletvekili se\u00e7ilerek yasama dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle yarg\u0131lamada durma karar\u0131 verilmesi talebinin reddedilerek yarg\u0131lamaya devam edilmesi nedeniyle “se\u00e7ilme ve siyasi faaliyette bulunma” hakk\u0131n\u0131n, tahliye talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle de “ki\u015fi h\u00fcrriyeti ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi” hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclerek Anayasa Mahkemesi’ne bireysel ba\u015fvuru yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131.<\/p>\n
S\u00fcrecin devam etti\u011fi s\u0131rada Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesi, Can Atalay’a verilen 18 y\u0131l hapis cezas\u0131n\u0131 onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131. AYM de ba\u015fvuruyu kabul ederek oy \u00e7oklu\u011fuyla 25 Ekim’de Can Atalay’\u0131n “se\u00e7ilme hakk\u0131” ile “ki\u015fi h\u00fcrriyeti ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi” haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine h\u00fckmetmi\u015fti. AYM’nin k\u0131sa karar\u0131 Gezi davas\u0131na bakan ve h\u00fckm\u00fc veren \u0130stanbul 13. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi’ne g\u00f6nderilmi\u015fti.<\/p>\n
Can Atalay’\u0131n avukatlar\u0131 tahliye ba\u015fvurusu yaparken Mahkeme, dosyada karar verme yetkisinin Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesi’nde oldu\u011funu belirterek dosyay\u0131 ge\u00e7ti\u011fimiz g\u00fcnlerde bu daireye g\u00f6nderdi.<\/p>\n
Daire, karar\u0131nda, “Hakk\u0131ndaki kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm TBMM’ye bildirildi\u011finde, bu husus Genel Kurul’a sunulmak suretiyle milletvekilli\u011finin derhal d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmesine dair karar verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi halde, her ne kadar s\u00fcre\u00e7 i\u00e7erisinde TBMM taraf\u0131ndan bu hususta bir karar verilememi\u015f olsa da bu konuyu d\u00fczenleyen Anayasa’n\u0131n 84\/2 maddesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan Anayasa Mahkemesi’ne m\u00fcracaat imkan\u0131 tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin bu konuda da inceleme yetkisi bulunmamaktad\u0131r” denildi. Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesi, kararda, “Ayr\u0131ca, Anayasa Mahkemesi, \u015eerafettin Can Atalay hakk\u0131nda vermi\u015f oldu\u011fu hak ihlali karar\u0131nda, \u00f6nceki \u00d6mer Faruk Gergerlio\u011flu ve Leyla G\u00fcven kararlar\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 olarak milletvekili dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Anayasa’n\u0131n 14. maddesinin hangi su\u00e7lar\u0131 kapsad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n anayasal ya da yasal d\u00fczenleme d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda yarg\u0131sal bir yorumla belirlenmesinin ciddi s\u0131k\u0131nt\u0131lara yol a\u00e7aca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtirken, kendisinin daha \u00f6nceden yarg\u0131sal aktivizm sonucu vermi\u015f oldu\u011fu ve kamuoyunda \u00fcniversitelere ba\u015f\u00f6rt\u00fc yasa\u011f\u0131 olarak bilinen, bizce de kabul g\u00f6rmeyen bir karar\u0131n\u0131 gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6stermesi taraf\u0131m\u0131zdan dikkat \u00e7ekici bulunmu\u015f ve bir ironi olarak de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir” ifadelerine yer verdi.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay 3. Dairesi, “Karar\u0131nda, yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa’n\u0131n 14. maddesine hangi su\u00e7lar\u0131n girece\u011fini yorumlamalar\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011fl\u0131kl\u0131 olmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, mutlaka anayasal ya da yasal d\u00fczenleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n gerekti\u011fini s\u00f6yleyen Anayasa Mahkemesi, bug\u00fcne kadar hem norm denetimi kararlar\u0131nda (mesela y\u00fcr\u00fctmeyi durdurma karar\u0131 vermesi ya da h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 kurumunun do\u011fru uygulanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle iptali vb.) hem de sonradan kendisine tali g\u00f6rev olarak verilen bireysel ba\u015fvuru kararlar\u0131nda, anayasal veya yasal bir yetkisi olmamas\u0131na ra\u011fmen hi\u00e7bir organ taraf\u0131ndan denetlenmememin vermi\u015f oldu\u011fu rahatl\u0131kla da, i\u00e7tihat yoluyla anayasal yetkisini s\u00fcrekli art\u0131rmak ve k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullanmak suretiyle kendisinin, daha \u00f6nceden norm denetimi g\u00f6revi s\u0131ras\u0131nda s\u0131k\u00e7a dile getirilen yasama organ\u0131 \u00fczerinde vesayet organ\u0131 oldu\u011funa y\u00f6nelik ele\u015ftirilerin, bireysel ba\u015fvuruya ili\u015fkin yetkinin verilmesi \u00fczerine y\u00fcksek mahkemeler dahil t\u00fcm yarg\u0131 \u00fczerinde de ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131na neden olmu\u015ftur” ifadelerine yer verdi.<\/p>\n
AYM i\u015fi Yarg\u0131tay 3. ceza dairesi \u00fcyelerini tehdit etme boyutuna vard\u0131rd\u0131<\/strong><\/p>\n Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin, h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc \u015eerafettin Can Atalay’a y\u00f6nelik vermi\u015f oldu\u011fu ihlal karar\u0131nda, yasal bir dayana\u011f\u0131 olmamas\u0131na ve doktrinde bile tart\u0131\u015fmal\u0131 bir konu olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, ‘Anayasa Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131n\u0131n objektif i\u015flevinden’ bahsederek, karar\u0131 veren Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesi \u00fcyelerini ‘ihmal su\u00e7unu i\u015flemi\u015flerdir’ \u015feklinde tehdit etme boyutuna kadar i\u015fi vard\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131na dikkat \u00e7ekilerek, “Bug\u00fcne kadar bir\u00e7ok ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc veya \u00fcyesi taraf\u0131ndan hem sosyal medya hem de yaz\u0131l\u0131 ve g\u00f6rsel bas\u0131n \u00fczerinden ya da ilk derece yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131 veya temyiz incelemesi s\u0131ras\u0131nda g\u00f6nderilen dilek\u00e7elerle s\u00fcrekli tehdit edilen Dairemiz \u00fcyelerinin, bir de Anayasa Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan bu \u015fekilde tehdit edilmesi de esef verici ve manidar bulunmu\u015ftur” denildi.<\/p>\n AYM Vesayet makam\u0131 gibi davran\u0131yor<\/strong><\/p>\n Kararda, T\u00fcrkiye’de Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin sadece yasalar\u0131 iptal ederek yasama organ\u0131n\u0131n alan\u0131na m\u00fcdahale etmemekte oldu\u011fu; ayr\u0131ca, bazen yasa koyucu gibi davranarak Anayasa’ya g\u00f6re aralar\u0131nda astl\u0131k \u00fcstl\u00fck ili\u015fkisi bulunmayan y\u00fcksek mahkemeler \u00fczerinde de s\u00fcper temyiz mahkemesi olarak vesayet makam\u0131 gibi davranmakta oldu\u011fu belirtildi.<\/p>\n Yarg\u0131dan beklenenin, kanunlara, Anayasa’ya ve en \u00f6nemlisi hukuka uygun kararlar alabilmesi oldu\u011funa vurgu yap\u0131larak, ” Anayasa Mahkemesi, bu \u015fekilde yarg\u0131sal aktivizim yaparak, ‘\u015feklen denetleyemedi\u011fi Anayasa h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc uygulanamaz hale getirme, kanunda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f idari ve yarg\u0131sal ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n tamam\u0131 t\u00fcketilmeden bireysel ba\u015fvurular\u0131 kabul etme, soru\u015fturmalara m\u00fcdahil olma, kovu\u015fturmalar\u0131 yap\u0131lamaz hale getirme’ \u015feklinde Anayasa’ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak verdi\u011fi kararlar\u0131 ile g\u00f6rev ve yetkilerini, Anayasa ve kanunlardan \u00fcst\u00fcn g\u00f6rmek suretiyle bir nevi Anayasa’y\u0131 uygulanamaz hale getirerek, kendisinin sorgulanmas\u0131na ve me\u015fruiyetinin tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131na yol a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Devletin cebri g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc ve g\u00f6revleri gere\u011fi Devletin kamu g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc elinde bulunduran kimselerin, sahip olduklar\u0131 kamu g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc s\u00fcrekli Anayasa’ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir \u015fekilde kullanmalar\u0131n\u0131n, Anayasay\u0131 ihlal etme eyleminin i\u015flenmesinde kolayl\u0131k sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 a\u015fikard\u0131r” denildi.<\/p>\n AYM’nin kararlar\u0131na uyulmamas\u0131 kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131<\/strong><\/p>\n Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesi, Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin \u015eerafettin Can Atalay’\u0131n bireysel ba\u015fvurusu hakk\u0131nda 25 Eyl\u00fcl 2023 tarihli ihlal karar\u0131na hukuki de\u011fer ve ge\u00e7erlilik olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek, bu ba\u011flamda Anayasa’n\u0131n 153. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda uygulanmas\u0131 gereken bir karar bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u015eerafettin Can Atalay hakk\u0131nda verilen mahkumiyet karar\u0131n\u0131n temyizi \u00fczerine yap\u0131lan temyiz incelemesi sonucu 28 Eyl\u00fcl’de karar verilerek onand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vurgulayarak, kesinle\u015fen karar kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda; Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin an\u0131lan karar\u0131na uyulmamas\u0131na karar verdi.<\/p>\n Milletvekilli\u011finin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmesi i\u00e7in TBMM’ye bildirim g\u00f6nderildi<\/strong><\/p>\n Ayr\u0131ca, \u015eerafettin Can Atalay hakk\u0131ndaki mahkumiyet h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn onanmas\u0131 ile h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131 kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131, Anayasa’ya g\u00f6re milletvekilli\u011finin d\u00fc\u015fmesi sebeplerinden biri olarak ”kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm giyme veya k\u0131s\u0131tlanma halinin” d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f oldu\u011funu, Anayasa’n\u0131n 76. maddesinde say\u0131lan milletvekilli\u011fi ile ba\u011fda\u015fmayan su\u00e7lardan kurulan mahkumiyet h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn milletvekilli\u011fini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrece\u011fini belirterek, Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin bu konuda inceleme yetkisinin de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dikkat \u00e7ekerek, h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc \u015eerafettin Can Atalay’\u0131n milletvekilli\u011finin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmesine y\u00f6nelik i\u015flemlere ba\u015flanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin TBMM Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131’na g\u00f6nderilmesine karar verdi.<\/p>\n Su\u00e7 duyurusu<\/strong><\/p>\n Son olarak, Anayasa h\u00fck\u00fcmlerini ihlal eden ve kendisine verilen yetki s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131 yasal olmayacak \u015fekilde a\u015farak hak ihlalinin kabul\u00fc y\u00f6n\u00fcnde oy kullanan ilgili Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00fcyeleri hakk\u0131nda gere\u011finin takdir ve ifas\u0131 i\u00e7in Yarg\u0131tay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131’na su\u00e7 duyurusunda bulunulmas\u0131na karar verdi.<\/p>\n MHP Genel Ba\u015fkan\u0131 Devlet Bah\u00e7eli, daha \u00f6nce verdi\u011fi baz\u0131 kararlar\u0131 be\u011fenmedi\u011fi Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin kapat\u0131lmas\u0131 \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131s\u0131nda bulunmu\u015ftu.<\/p>\n Anayasa Mahkemesi bug\u00fcn oy \u00e7oklu\u011fu ile verdi\u011fi kararda, CHP’nin dezenformasyon yasas\u0131n\u0131n iptali i\u00e7in yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvuruyu reddetmi\u015fti.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesi, bir ilke imza att\u0131. AYM\u2019nin tutuklu T\u0130P Hatay Milletvekili Can Atalay hakk\u0131nda verdi\u011fi ihlal karar\u0131na uyulmamas\u0131na h\u00fckmetti, ‘hak ihlali’ karar\u0131na imza atan \u00fcyeler hakk\u0131nda su\u00e7 duyurusunda bulundu. Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesi, T\u0130P Hatay Milletvekili se\u00e7ilen Gezi Park\u0131 davas\u0131 tutuklusu Can Atalay hakk\u0131nda ihlal karar\u0131 veren Anayasa Mahkemesi (AYM) \u00fcyeleri hakk\u0131nda su\u00e7 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":277909,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-277368","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-gundem"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/277368","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=277368"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/277368\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":278753,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/277368\/revisions\/278753"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/277909"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=277368"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=277368"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=277368"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}