{"id":5429,"date":"2024-02-02T20:22:41","date_gmt":"2024-02-02T17:22:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/?p=5429"},"modified":"2024-02-02T20:22:41","modified_gmt":"2024-02-02T17:22:41","slug":"tutuklu-milletvekillikleri-sorununda-son-perde-ve-bireysel-basvuru-hakkinin-gelecegi-can-atalay-vakasi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/?p=5429","title":{"rendered":"\u201cTutuklu Milletvekillikleri Sorununda\u201d Son Perde ve Bireysel Ba\u015fvuru Hakk\u0131n\u0131n Gelece\u011fi: \u201cCan Atalay\u201d Vakas\u0131"},"content":{"rendered":"

1.Giri\u015f<\/strong><\/p>\n

T\u00fcrkiye, 2011 TBMM se\u00e7imlerinden bu yana \u201ctutuklu milletvekilleri\u201d olarak addedilen ve bir temsili demokraside rahatl\u0131kla \u201coksimoron\u201d[1]<\/sup><\/a> olarak nitelendirilebilecek bir olgu ile y\u00fczle\u015fmektedir. \u00dcstelik bu durumun \u201cmilli iradeci\u201d, Prof. Dr. Zafer Toprak\u2019\u0131n tabiri ile \u00e7o\u011funluk\u00e7u, milli iradeci, \u201csiyasi pop\u00fclist\u201d bir iklimin h\u00e2kim oldu\u011fu co\u011frafyada olmas\u0131 bu \u00e7eli\u015fkiyi daha artt\u0131rmaktad\u0131r.[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Bu \u00e7eli\u015fki, en nihayetinde tabii ki Anayasa Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131na da konu olmu\u015ftur. 2011\u2019den bu yana Mahkeme, milletvekili se\u00e7ildi\u011fi h\u00e2lde cezaevinde tutulmaya devam eden milletvekillerinin ba\u015fvurular\u0131na ili\u015fkin \u00e7ok say\u0131da ihlal karar\u0131 vermi\u015f; buna ra\u011fmen h\u00e2len her yasama d\u00f6neminde tutukluyken milletvekili se\u00e7ilen yahut milletvekiliyken dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131\u00a0 kald\u0131r\u0131larak tutuklanarak cezaevine konulan ki\u015filerin ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ma\u011fduriyetler ve anayasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 bu hukuki uygulamalar kamuoyunun g\u00fcndeminde yer almaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Bu ba\u011flamda 14 May\u0131s 2023 se\u00e7imlerinde Hatay\u2019dan milletvekili se\u00e7ilen ve \u201cGezi Park\u0131 davas\u0131ndan\u201d[3]<\/sup><\/a> tutuklu olan Can Atalay, milletvekili se\u00e7ilmesini m\u00fcteakip tahliye edilmesi sebebiyle dosyas\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu Yarg\u0131tay\u2019a ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015f; Yarg\u0131tay 13. Ceza Dairesi ise Atalay\u2019\u0131n tahliyesini reddetmi\u015ftir. Bunu takiben yap\u0131lan bireysel ba\u015fvuruda ise AYM, daha \u00f6nceki i\u00e7tihad\u0131n\u0131 takip ederek hakl\u0131 olarak Atalay hakk\u0131nda hak ihlali tespitinde bulunmu\u015f; ancak bu karar da \u0131srarla Gezi Park\u0131 dosyas\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fen \u0130stanbul 13. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi ve Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan uygulanmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n

A\u015fa\u011f\u0131da hukuk devleti ve anayasal devlet ile hi\u00e7bir suret ile ba\u011fda\u015fmayan bu kararlara de\u011finmeden \u00f6ncelikle AYM\u2019nin 2011\u2019den bu yana verdi\u011fi \u201ctutuklu milletvekilleri\u201d i\u00e7tihad\u0131 aktar\u0131lacak, ard\u0131ndan AYM\u2019nin \u201cCan Atalay\u201d hakk\u0131nda verilen kararlar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmamas\u0131 ve\u00a0 AYM\u2019nin bireysel ba\u015fvuru yoluna ili\u015fkin yetkilerine dair muhtemel kanun de\u011fi\u015fikliklerinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131na de\u011finilecektir.<\/p>\n

2. Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin Tutuklu Milletvekilleri \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131<\/strong><\/p>\n

Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin (AYM) cezaevinde tutuklu iken milletvekili se\u00e7ilen ki\u015filer hakk\u0131nda bireysel ba\u015fvuru yolunda \u00f6nemli ve tutarl\u0131 bir i\u00e7tihat olu\u015fturdu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.\u00a0 Mahkemenin bu husustaki i\u00e7tihad\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturdu\u011fu temel kararlar Mustafa Ali Balbay[4]<\/sup><\/a> ve\u00a0 Mehmet Haberal[5]<\/sup><\/a> ba\u015fvurular\u0131d\u0131r. Her iki ba\u015fvuruda da AYM, \u00f6zetle tutuklu olan kimselerin milletvekili se\u00e7ildikten sonra tahliye edilmemelerinin, onlar\u0131n yasama faaliyetlerine kat\u0131lmalar\u0131n\u0131 engelledi\u011fini belirtmi\u015f, ki\u015fi \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131 kadar se\u00e7me ve se\u00e7ilme hakk\u0131 \u00fczerindeki etkisini dikkate alm\u0131\u015f ve ki\u015fi \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak se\u00e7me ve se\u00e7ilme haklar\u0131n\u0131n da ihlal edildi\u011fine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle Anayasa Mahkemesi, bir milletvekilinin tutuklanmas\u0131n\u0131n ancak ve ancak \u00e7ok kat\u0131 bir gereklilik testine tabi tutulduktan sonra m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olabilece\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir[6]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

AYM\u2019nin tutuklu milletvekilleri ile ilgili bir di\u011fer temel karar\u0131 ise 6718 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa De\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi Hakk\u0131nda Kanun ile 1982 Anayasas\u0131\u2019n\u0131n ge\u00e7ici 20. maddesi ile TBMM\u2019ye sevkedilmi\u015f t\u00fcm milletvekili dokunulmazl\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n bir defaya mahsus kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 \u00fczerine verilmi\u015ftir[7]<\/sup><\/a>. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu \u0130stanbul milletvekili Enis Berbero\u011flu[8]<\/sup><\/a>,\u00a0 6718 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun sonucunda dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n akabinde tutuklanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, cezaevinde tutuklu olarak yarg\u0131lanmaktayken 24 Haziran 2018\u2019de yap\u0131lan 27. D\u00f6nem TBMM Se\u00e7imleri sonucunda yeniden milletvekili se\u00e7ilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun 1982 Anayasas\u0131\u2019n\u0131n 83. maddesi uyar\u0131nca yeniden milletvekili se\u00e7ilmekle dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bir kez daha kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n, Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesi, ba\u015fvurucunun tahliye edilmemesine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tay 16. Ceza Dairesinin bu karar\u0131 sonucunda ba\u015fvurucu\u00a0 Enis Berbero\u011flu Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019ne bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015f, Anayasa Mahkemesi ise\u00a0 6718 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un ge\u00e7icili\u011fine\u00a0 vurgu yaparak 83. maddesindeki g\u00fcvencelere ayk\u0131r\u0131 \u015fekilde ba\u015fvurucunun tahliye edilmemesinin ba\u015fvurucunun se\u00e7me ve se\u00e7ilme hakk\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak ki\u015fi \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlali anlam\u0131na geldi\u011fini tespit etmi\u015ftir. Bu ihlal karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n, \u0130stanbul 14. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi Berbero\u011flu\u2019nu tahliye etmemi\u015f[9]<\/sup><\/a>; bu karar \u00fczerine tekrar yap\u0131lan bireysel ba\u015fvuruda[10]<\/sup><\/a> Anayasa Mahkemesi, Anayasa Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131n\u0131n ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin 153. maddesini vurgulam\u0131\u015f ve tekrar ki\u015fi \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131 ile se\u00e7me ve se\u00e7ilme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlali tespitinde bulunarak bu kez 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin Yarg\u0131lama ve Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun\u2019un 50. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda bu kez ihlalin giderilmesinden sorumlu mahkemenin (somut olayda \u0130stanbul 14. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi), ihlali nas\u0131l giderece\u011fini h\u00fck\u00fcm k\u0131sm\u0131nda detayl\u0131 bi\u00e7imde a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r[11]<\/sup><\/a>. \u0130stanbul 14. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi, bu karar \u00fczerine Enis Berbero\u011flu hakk\u0131nda yeniden yarg\u0131lama karar\u0131 vererek, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n durmas\u0131na h\u00fckmetmi\u015f ve bu karar TBMM Genel Kurulunda okunarak daha \u00f6nce milletvekilli\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f olan Berbero\u011flu\u2019nun milletvekili\u011fi s\u0131fat\u0131 tekrar kendisine iade edilmi\u015ftir[12]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Tutuklu milletvekilleri hususunda Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin esasl\u0131 bir i\u00e7tihat de\u011fi\u015fimini ortaya koyan ve Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 14. maddesine ili\u015fkin \u201cCan Atalay\u201d karar\u0131ndan do\u011fan tart\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f noktas\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturan kararlar ise Leyla G\u00fcven[13]<\/strong><\/sup><\/a>ve \u00d6mer Faruk Gergerlio\u011flu[14]<\/strong><\/sup><\/a><\/em> kararlar\u0131d\u0131r. Mahkeme bu kararlar\u0131nda \u00f6zetle 1982 Anayasas\u0131\u2019n\u0131n milletvekili dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fczenleyen yasama dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n iki istisnas\u0131ndan biri olan 14. maddedeki h\u00e2llerin ne oldu\u011funun yasal bir d\u00fczenleme ile a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131\u011fa kavu\u015fturulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, bu h\u00e2llerin ne oldu\u011funun ve hangi su\u00e7lara denk geldi\u011finin tespitinin yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131na b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n keyf\u00eeli\u011fe yol a\u00e7abilece\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.[15]<\/sup><\/a> Mahkeme\u2019ye g\u00f6re TBMM bu hususta kanuni bir d\u00fczenleme yapmadan Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 14. maddesindeki h\u00e2llerin uygulanmas\u0131, milletvekili dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin anayasal g\u00fcvenceler ile ba\u011fda\u015fmaz. Mahkeme\u2019ye g\u00f6re 1982 Anayasas\u0131, Anayasan\u0131n 83. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda yer alan “Anayasan\u0131n 14 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesindeki durumlar” <\/em>ibaresinin belirlili\u011fini sa\u011flama g\u00f6revini kanun koyucuya vermi\u015f, di\u011fer bir ifadeyle yorum yoluyla 14. madde kapsam\u0131na giren su\u00e7lar\u0131 belirlemek i\u00e7in yarg\u0131 organ\u0131na a\u00e7\u0131k bir yetki vermemi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla AYM yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131n\u0131n, hangi su\u00e7un bu istisnaya kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k geldi\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir tespit yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131, dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00fcvencelerinden faydalanamayan milletvekilleri a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan\u00a0 \u201cse\u00e7me ve se\u00e7ilme hakk\u0131n\u0131n\u201d ihlali oldu\u011fu kanaatindedir.<\/p>\n

AYM\u2019nin tutuklu milletvekilleri i\u00e7tihad\u0131n\u0131n son halkas\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturan \u201c\u015eerafettin Can Atalay (2)\u201d[16]<\/sup><\/a> karar\u0131n\u0131n\u00a0 odak noktas\u0131n\u0131 da bu tart\u0131\u015fma olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r. Mahkeme, konuya ili\u015fkin yukar\u0131da belirtilen tespitlerini yineleyerek, gerek yasama dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 koruma alt\u0131na alan Anayasa’n\u0131n 83. maddesinin gerekse temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 yasaklayan Anayasa’n\u0131n 14. maddesinin ancak demokrasinin korunmas\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda ve hak eksenli yorumland\u0131klar\u0131 takdirde i\u015flevlerini tam olarak yerine getirebilece\u011fini ifade etmi\u015f, somut olayda mahkemelerin s\u00f6z konusu anayasal h\u00fck\u00fcmleri \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckler lehine yorumlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve onlar\u0131 da\u00a0 b\u00f6yle bir yorum yapmaya sevk edecek esasa ve usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencelerin bulundu\u011fu bir yasal sistem de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade ederek, yine kanuni bir d\u00fczenleme gereklili\u011fine vurgu yapm\u0131\u015f ve Can Atalay\u2019\u0131n ki\u015fi \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak se\u00e7me ve se\u00e7ilme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

Bu karara kar\u015f\u0131n\u00a0 Yarg\u0131tay 3. Dairesi ise AYM\u2019nin vermi\u015f oldu\u011fu karar\u0131n 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131nda belirtilen \u201cyerindelik yasa\u011f\u0131na\u201d ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, yerindelik kavram\u0131n\u0131 olduk\u00e7a pejoratif bi\u00e7imde kullanarak belirtmi\u015f, AYM\u2019nin 14. madde kapsam\u0131nda yapt\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n fiili olarak anayasa de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi anlam\u0131na geldi\u011fini, bunun ise ancak TBMM taraf\u0131ndan tali kurucu iktidar s\u0131fat\u0131yla yap\u0131labilece\u011fini vurgulayarak, karar\u0131 uygulamay\u0131 reddetmi\u015f; \u00fcstelik AYM \u00fcyeleri hakk\u0131nda da su\u00e7 duyurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur[17]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Bu\u00a0 noktada belirtilmesi\u00a0 gereken bir husus da \u015fudur: AYM, kamuoyunda esasen yanl\u0131\u015f aktar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere \u201canayasal d\u00fczene ve devletin b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 su\u00e7lar a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan\u201d<\/em> Anayasan\u0131n 14. maddesinin Anayasan\u0131n 83. maddesindeki yasama dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n istisnas\u0131 olarak uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 kategorik olarak reddetmemektedir; tam aksine bu durumun yasal bir g\u00fcvenceye kavu\u015fturulmas\u0131n\u0131, hangi su\u00e7lar\u0131n 14. maddenin kapsam\u0131nda yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirtilmesi gerekti\u011fini savunmaktad\u0131r. Esas\u0131nda parlamentonun yapmas\u0131 gereken \u015fekilde T\u00fcrk Ceza Kanunu, Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadele Kanunu vb. kanunlarda yer alan hangi su\u00e7 tiplerinin Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 14. maddesindeki h\u00e2llerin kapsam\u0131na girdi\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a d\u00fczenleyen bir kanun yapmak[18]<\/sup><\/a> yahut \u00f6\u011fretide de savunuldu\u011fu \u00fczere temel haklar\u0131n\u00a0 k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nlemek i\u00e7in yetersiz\/gereksiz g\u00f6r\u00fclen bu d\u00fczenlemeyi (1982 Anayasas\u0131\u2019n\u0131n 14. Maddesi) kald\u0131rmak gerekmektedir.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

B\u00f6ylece 1982 Anayasas\u0131\u2019n\u0131n 14. maddesine ili\u015fkin bu hususlar\u0131n d\u00fczenlenmemesi yoluyla olu\u015fan yasama ihmali[20]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 tam da \u201c\u00d6mer Faruk Gergerlio\u011flu\u201d ve \u201cLeyla G\u00fcven\u201d kararlar\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fczere, yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a keyfili\u011fine yol a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. <\/strong><\/p>\n

3. Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesi\u2019nin Son Karar\u0131: Anayasan\u0131n Tastamam Uygulanmamas\u0131 Ve\u00a0 Kurumlar\u0131n \u0130tibar\u0131<\/strong><\/p>\n

T\u00fcm bu geli\u015fmeler \u00fczerine Anayasa Mahkemesi, bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere\u00a0 \u015eerafettin Can Atalay 3 karar\u0131nda tekrar Can Atalay\u2019\u0131n haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal etti\u011fine h\u00fckmetmi\u015f ve daha \u00f6nceki karar\u0131ndaki hukuki pozisyonun arkas\u0131nda durmu\u015ftur.[21]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 AYM\u2019nin bu kararda benzer \u015eahin Alpay-II karar\u0131 ve Enis Berbero\u011flu-III kararlar\u0131ndan ayr\u0131lan \u00f6nemli bir y\u00f6n\u00fc, AYM\u2019nin\u00a0 bu kez \u201cbireysel ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n\u201d ihlal edildi\u011fine h\u00fckmetmesidir.[22]<\/sup><\/a> Buna g\u00f6re AYM\u2019nin bireysel ba\u015fvuru yolunda verdi\u011fi kararlar\u0131n uygulanmamas\u0131, bireysel ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edecektir. B\u00f6ylece Mahkeme, \u00e7a\u011fda\u015flar\u0131 Federal Alman Anayasa Mahkemesi ya da Macaristan Anayasa Mahkemesi gibi \u201ctemel hak t\u00fcreten\u201d bir yarg\u0131 organ\u0131 olarak i\u015flev g\u00f6rmeye devam etmektedir.[23]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Buna kar\u015f\u0131n Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesinin ise son karar\u0131 ile \u201cyarg\u0131 yoluyla hukuki kavramlar\u0131n a\u015f\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n\u201d nadide ancak baya\u011f\u0131 bir \u00f6rne\u011fini[24]<\/sup><\/a> olu\u015fturdu\u011funu ifade etmek gerekmektedir.\u00a0 Anayasa hukuk\u00e7usu Tolga \u015eirin\u2019in de hakl\u0131 olarak belirtti\u011fi[25]<\/sup><\/a> \u00fczere Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesinin son karar\u0131nda sadece bir\u00e7ok anayasal ve hukuki kavram\u0131n yanl\u0131\u015f kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 de\u011fil[26]<\/sup><\/a>; ayn\u0131 zamanda y\u00fcksek bir mahkemenin hi\u00e7bir kanuni bir dayanak olmaks\u0131z\u0131n\u00a0 tamamen anayasadan ve yasadan kaynakl\u0131 yetkilerini kullanan bir yarg\u0131 organ\u0131n\u0131n karar\u0131n\u0131 hi\u00e7e saymas\u0131 s\u00f6z konusudur. Bu hususun\u00a0 1982 Anayasas\u0131\u2019n\u0131n hi\u00e7 kimsenin kayna\u011f\u0131n\u0131 Anayasadan almayan bir devlet yetkisi kullanamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6yleyen\u00a0 6. maddesini de ihlal etti\u011fi ortadad\u0131r. [27]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Bu noktada akla gelen bir ba\u015fka soru ise Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin yarg\u0131sal aktivizm ile a\u00e7\u0131klanamayacak ve \u201canayasan\u0131n tastamam uygulanmamas\u0131\u201d[28]<\/sup><\/a> anlam\u0131na gelen bu tutum kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda ne yapaca\u011f\u0131d\u0131r?<\/p>\n

Bu noktada yine kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131rmal\u0131 anayasa tarihinden bir \u00f6rnek, anayasa yarg\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n me\u015frulu\u011funun ve kurumlar\u0131n itibar\u0131n\u0131n kolay elde edilemeyece\u011fini g\u00f6stermesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan payla\u015fmaya de\u011ferdir.<\/p>\n

2. D\u00fcnya Sava\u015f\u0131 sonras\u0131nda 1949 Bonn Anayasas\u0131 ile kurulan Federal Alman Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin ilk s\u0131nav\u0131, So\u011fuk Sava\u015f\u0131n hemen ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131nda \u015eans\u00f6lye Konrad Adanuer\u2019in yeniden silahlanma politikas\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yurtta\u015flardan \u201c Savunma Harc\u0131\u201d al\u0131nmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik yasa teklifi sonucunda olmu\u015ftur. Bu teklif, her ne kadar yeni kurulan cumhuriyette iktidar ve muhalefeti kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya getirse de, teklifin anayasa ve siyasal tarih a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan as\u0131l \u00f6nemi ilk kez kamuoyunda bu denli politikle\u015fmi\u015f bir tart\u0131\u015fman\u0131n anayasa yarg\u0131s\u0131 \u00f6n\u00fcne ta\u015f\u0131nmas\u0131 ile olmu\u015ftur.[29]<\/sup><\/a> Avrupa Savunma Birli\u011fi\u2019ne\u00a0 Federal Almanya\u2019n\u0131n yeniden kat\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin anla\u015fman\u0131n onaylanmas\u0131na dair yap\u0131lan iptal davas\u0131 \u00f6ncesinde Federal H\u00fck\u00fcmet, Cumhurba\u015fkan\u0131n\u0131 \u201ciptal davas\u0131n\u0131n reddine\u201d dair bir m\u00fctalaa vermeye te\u015fvik etmi\u015f; bunun Hristiyan Demokrat yarg\u0131\u00e7lar\u0131n \u00e7o\u011funlukta oldu\u011fu 2. Daire\u2019de g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmesi i\u00e7in de h\u00fck\u00fcmet davay\u0131 a\u00e7an sosyal demokrat SPD grubuna kar\u015f\u0131, uluslararas\u0131 anla\u015fmalara kar\u015f\u0131 dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n\u00a0 parlamento \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc zedeledi\u011fi hususunda bir\u00a0 organ davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f ve b\u00f6ylece davan\u0131n 2. Daire\u2019de g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmesini sa\u011flamaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.[30]<\/sup><\/a> Bu giri\u015fim ise \u201cbumerang etkisi\u201d yaparak geri d\u00f6nm\u00fc\u015f, Mahkeme\u00a0 konuyu\u00a0 Genel Kurul\u2019a havale etmi\u015f ve bu durum h\u00fck\u00fcmet \u00e7evresinde \u015fok etkisi yaratm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.[31]<\/sup><\/a>Genel Kurul\u2019un vermi\u015f oldu\u011fu karar ise parlamenter muhalefet a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan daha da\u00a0 \u00e7arp\u0131c\u0131d\u0131r: Mahkeme, parlamentonun uluslararas\u0131 anla\u015fmalar\u0131 basit \u00e7o\u011funlukla onaylamas\u0131na dair bir ku\u015fku bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmekle beraber, muhalefetin uluslararas\u0131 anla\u015fmalara kar\u015f\u0131 iptal davas\u0131 a\u00e7mas\u0131n\u0131n sadece bir hak de\u011fil, bir y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck hatta anayasal bir g\u00f6rev (Verfassungsauftrag<\/em>) oldu\u011funu vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Karara kar\u015f\u0131 bu d\u00f6nemde\u00a0 h\u00fck\u00fcmet temsilcileri \u00e7ok yo\u011fun tepki g\u00f6stermi\u015f; karar\u0131n hukuki de\u011fil \u201c s\u0131f\u0131r etkisinde (Nullum) oldu\u011funu ifade etmi\u015flerdir.[32]<\/sup><\/a> Dehler\u2019in Anayasa\u2019dan FAYM\u2019nin en y\u00fcksek organ oldu\u011funu \u00e7\u0131karmaya y\u00f6nelik yasa giri\u015fimlerine kar\u015f\u0131 FAYM Yarg\u0131c\u0131\u00a0 Gerhard Leibholz\u2019un\u00a0 haz\u0131rlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 m\u00fctalaa Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan 20\u2019ye kar\u015f\u0131 2 oyla kabul edilmi\u015f ve gerek muhalefet gerekse de kamuoyunun deste\u011fi ile s\u00f6z konusu yasal giri\u015fim akim kalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.[33]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Her ne kadar daha sonra\u00a0 anla\u015fma Fransa Parlamentosunda kabul edilmese de ve Adenauer se\u00e7im zaferi ile anayasay\u0131 de\u011fi\u015ftirecek bir \u00e7o\u011funluk etse\u00a0 de,[34]<\/sup><\/a> karar\u0131n esas etkisi yeniden silahlanmaya y\u00f6nelik de\u011fildir. Mahkeme, yo\u011fun h\u00fck\u00fcmet bask\u0131s\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n ortaya koydu\u011fu\u00a0 tutum ile ba\u015fta bas\u0131n olmak \u00fczere kamuoyunun yo\u011fun deste\u011fini sa\u011flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.[35]<\/sup><\/a> Ve b\u00f6ylece Mahkeme\u2019ye 1953\u2019ten sonra Adalet Bakan\u0131n\u0131n onay\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n kendi b\u00fct\u00e7esini \u00e7\u0131karma yetkisi tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n

\u00d6zetle belirtmek istedi\u011fimiz \u015fudur ki, bir anayasal organ me\u015frulu\u011funu \u015f\u00fcphesiz anayasa metninden al\u0131r ancak toplumlar\u0131n \u201c anayasal inan\u00e7\u201d olarak nitelendirebilece\u011fimiz duygusunun\u00a0 ba\u015fta anayasa yarg\u0131s\u0131 olmak \u00fczere anayasal organlar i\u00e7in ge\u00e7erli olmas\u0131n\u0131n yollar\u0131ndan birisi de o organlar\u0131n kurumsal itibarlar\u0131na kendilerini sahip \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131d\u0131r. Bu nedenle T\u00fcrkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin bu Yarg\u0131tay 13. Dairesinin\u00a0 bu \u201canayasas\u0131zla\u015ft\u0131rma\u201d giri\u015fimine kar\u015f\u0131 g\u00f6sterece\u011fi kurumsal refleks de\u00a0 anayasa tarihimiz a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan olduk\u00e7a \u00f6nemli bir\u00a0 k\u00f6\u015fe ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n

4. \u201cAtalay\u201d Vakas\u0131n\u0131n Ard\u0131ndan Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin Yap\u0131s\u0131na Dair Muhtemel Kanun De\u011fi\u015fiklikleri ve\u00a0 \u201c Hukuk Devleti\u201d A\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan Sonu\u00e7lar\u0131<\/strong><\/p>\n

T\u0130P Hatay milletvekili Can Atalay\u2019\u0131n Yarg\u0131tay 3. Dairesinin anayasaya a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ayk\u0131r\u0131 bu iki karar\u0131 sonras\u0131nda tahliye edilmemesi ve b\u00f6ylece 1982 Anayasas\u0131\u2019n\u0131n 153. maddesinin a\u00e7\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine kar\u015f\u0131n AYM\u2019nin bireysel ba\u015fvuru kararlar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmamas\u0131 sonucunda ise\u00a0 AYM kararlar\u0131n\u0131n etkili\u011finin artt\u0131racak yasal d\u00fczenlemeler yerine tam tersi \u015fekilde AYM\u2019nin bireysel ba\u015fvuru konusundaki kararlar\u0131na ili\u015fkin 6216 Say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 50. maddesinde de\u011fi\u015fiklik yap\u0131larak, Mahkemenin\u00a0 bireysel ba\u015fvuruya ili\u015fkin yetkilerinin sadece ihlal tespitinde ve tazminata h\u00fckmetme yetkisi ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 g\u00fcndeme gelmi\u015ftir.[36]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

\u00d6ncelikle tekrar ve tekrar vurgulamak gerekir ki insan haklar\u0131 yarg\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n ve bunun en \u00f6nemli ara\u00e7lar\u0131ndan birisi olan bireysel ba\u015fvuruda ihlal tespitinin nihai amac\u0131 eski h\u00e2le iadedir (restitio in integrum<\/em>).[37]<\/sup><\/a> Bu noktada\u00a0 6216 Say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019da de\u011fi\u015fiklik yaparak AYM\u2019nin\u00a0 bireysel ba\u015fvuru kararlar\u0131n\u0131 sadece ihlal tespiti ya da tazminata h\u00fckmetmekle s\u0131n\u0131rlamak, \u00e7o\u011fu ba\u015fvuruda ihlalin eski h\u00e2le iadesini m\u00fcmk\u00fcn k\u0131lmayacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Oysa ki 6216 Say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun ile bireysel ba\u015fvuruda ihlal karar\u0131 sonucunda AYM\u2019nin yapabilecekleri, kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131rmal\u0131 \u00f6rneklere bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 zaman mevcut durum ile dahi yetersizdir. \u00d6rne\u011fin anayasa yarg\u0131s\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan bireysel ba\u015fvurunun en ba\u015far\u0131yla uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6rneklerden birisi olan Federal Alman Anayasa Mahkemesi (FAYM), \u201canayasa \u015fikayeti\u201d ad\u0131 verilen bireysel ba\u015fvuru yolunda ihlal tespitinde bulundu\u011fu zaman, e\u011fer ihlale yol a\u00e7an bir mahkeme karar\u0131ysa o karar\u0131 kald\u0131rma (aufheben) yetkisine sahiptir.[38]<\/sup><\/a> \u00d6yle ki ihlalin yasaya kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan bir anayasa \u015fikayetinde tespit edilmesi durumunda ise FAYM, t\u0131pk\u0131 norm denetiminde oldu\u011fu \u00fczere o yasay\u0131 \u00fcstelik ge\u00e7mi\u015fe etkili olacak \u015fekilde de iptal etme yetkisini haizdir.[39]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cAmparo\u201d usul\u00fcyle yine ba\u015far\u0131l\u0131 bir bireysel ba\u015fvuru \u00f6rne\u011fini olu\u015fturan \u0130spanyol Anayasa Mahkemesi ise, yine ihlale konu olan i\u015flemi, mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 hatta yasay\u0131 iptal edebilir, uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rlayabilir ya da ihlal edilen hak veya \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn yeniden in\u015fas\u0131 i\u00e7in gerekli \u00f6nlemleri alabilir.[40]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Peki bu t\u00fcr bir de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fin A\u0130HM \u00f6n\u00fcnde etkisi ne olacakt\u0131r? Hi\u00e7 \u015f\u00fcphesiz A\u0130HM de bir yarg\u0131 yolunun etkili olmas\u0131 i\u00e7in ko\u015fullardan birisi olarak ihlalin giderilmesini (eski h\u00e2le iade) \u015fart ko\u015fmaktad\u0131r.[41]<\/sup><\/a> Nitekim Anayasa Mahkemesi de \u015eerafettin Can Atalay-3 karar\u0131nda esas\u0131nda\u00a0 T\u00fcrkiye a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan bu muhtemel sonuca G\u00fcrcistan \u00f6rne\u011fini vererek, Apostol\/G\u00fcrcistan karar\u0131nda \u201cG\u00fcrcistan Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin kamu mercileri veya yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131nca al\u0131nan kararlar\u0131 iptal edebilme yetkisinin bulunmamas\u0131 sebebiyle s\u00f6z konusu ba\u015fvuru yolunu etkili kabul edilmedi\u011fini\u201d belirterek dikkat \u00e7ekmi\u015ftir.[42]<\/sup><\/a> Bu nedenle 6216 Say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunda yukar\u0131da bahsedilen t\u00fcrden bir de\u011fi\u015fiklik A\u0130HM \u00f6n\u00fcnde Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019ne bireysel ba\u015fvuru yolunu etkisiz k\u0131lacak ve bireysel ba\u015fvuru t\u00fcketilmesi gereken bir i\u00e7 hukuk yolu olmaktan muhtemelemen \u00e7\u0131kacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 bi\u00e7imde tutularak, se\u00e7me ve se\u00e7ilme hakk\u0131 ve ki\u015fi \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi hakk\u0131 ba\u015fta olmak \u00fczere pek \u00e7ok hakk\u0131 ihlal edilen T\u0130P Hatay Milletvekili Can Atalay a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ise karar\u0131n bu bi\u00e7imde uygulanmamas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcbjektif sonucu ise muhtemelen A\u0130HM \u00f6n\u00fcnde yap\u0131lacak muhtemel bir ba\u015fvuruda T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin bir kez daha A\u0130HS\u2019in ki\u015fi \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fine dair 5. Maddesi ile birlikte A\u0130HS\u2019in 18. maddesini de ihlal etmesi gerek\u00e7esiyle ihlal tespiti ile y\u00fczle\u015fecek olmas\u0131d\u0131r.[43]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

T\u00fcm bu\u00a0 tespitlerin ise anayasal bir devlet ve bir hukuk devleti a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ku\u015fkusuz \u00e7ok k\u00f6t\u00fc bir manzaraya i\u015faret etti\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klamaya ise l\u00fczum bulumamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n

5. Sonu\u00e7 Yerine<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bir hukuk devletinin hi\u00e7 ku\u015fkusuz en \u00f6nemli unsurlar\u0131ndan birisi mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131d\u0131r. Bu durum, merkezile\u015fmi\u015f bir anayasa yarg\u0131s\u0131 modelinin benimsemi\u015f bir \u00fclke olan T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de ise Anayasa Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan daha da ayr\u0131 bir anlam ifade etmektedir.<\/p>\n

\u00c7ok partili demokrasiye ge\u00e7ildi\u011finden bu yana \u201cmilli irade\u201d kavram\u0131n\u0131n siyasal ve dahi anayasal tart\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n merkezinde oldu\u011fu T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de ise \u201c tutuklu milletvekili\u201d olgusu ve bu olguya ili\u015fkin verilen Anayasa Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmamas\u0131 ise esas\u0131nda anayasa hukukunun somut verileriyle a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 olduk\u00e7a zor bir durumdur.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

[1]<\/a> T\u00fcrk\u00a0 Dil Kurumuna g\u00f6re \u201coksimoron\u201d, z\u0131t anlaml\u0131 iki kelime, kavram\u0131n bir arada kullan\u0131lmas\u0131d\u0131r. Bkz. https:\/\/sozluk.gov.tr\/oksimoron<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Bkz. Ahmet Mert Duygun, Pop\u00fclist Anayasac\u0131l\u0131\u011fa Giri\u015f, Anayasa Hukuku Dergisi – Cilt: 9\/Say\u0131:19\/Y\u0131l:2020, s. 437vd.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Gezi Park\u0131na ili\u015fkin yap\u0131lan eylemlere dair AYM\u2019nin \u00e7ok say\u0131da verdi\u011fi \u201c toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc hakk\u0131\u201d ihlali de g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulunduruldu\u011funda\u00a0 bu davadan verilen mahkumiyetlerin de\u011ferlendirilmesi ise bamba\u015fka bir yaz\u0131n\u0131n konusu olmay\u0131 hak edecekniteliktedir.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> AYM, Mustafa Ali Balbay Ba\u015fvurusu, Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2012\/1272.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a>AYM, Mehmet Haberal Ba\u015fvurusu, Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2012\/849.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Tolga \u015eirin, \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck ve G\u00fcvenlik Hakk\u0131- Anayasa Mahkemesine Bireysel Ba\u015fvuru El Kitaplar\u0131 Serisi – 1 (Ankara: 2018), s.275.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> \u0130lgili anayasa de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi s\u00fcreci ve ele\u015ftirisi hakk\u0131nda bkz. Ey\u00fcp Kaan Demirk\u0131ran, Kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131rmal\u0131 Hukukta ve T\u00fcrk Hukukunda Yasama Ba\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131klar\u0131, Yetkin Yay\u0131nlar\u0131, Ankara, 2023,\u00a0 s.548vd. Bu anayasa de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi A\u0130HM taraf\u0131ndan \u201canayasa de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011finin suistimal edilmesi olarak\u201d nitelendirilmi\u015f ve b\u00f6ylece uluslararas\u0131 bir yarg\u0131 organ\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan bir \u201csuistimalci anayasac\u0131l\u0131k\u201d \u00f6rne\u011fi olarak tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Bkz. A\u0130HM, Kerestecio\u011flu Demir v. Turkey, Ba\u015fvuru No: 68136\/16.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> AYM, Kadri Enis Berbero\u011flu(2) Ba\u015fvurusu, Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2018\/30030.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Bu karar\u0131n ele\u015ftirisi i\u00e7in, Kemal G\u00f6zler, \u201c\u0130stanbul 14. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi Anayasa Mahkemesine Kar\u015f\u0131\u201d, https:\/\/www.anayasa.gen.tr\/berberoglu-2.htm<\/a>\u00a0 (Eri\u015fim tarihi:10.01.2024)<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a>AYM, Kadri Enis Berbero\u011flu(2) Ba\u015fvurusu, Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2018\/30030.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019ne g\u00f6re bunlar, yeniden yarg\u0131lama\u00a0 i\u015flemlerine ba\u015flan\u0131lmas\u0131, mahkumiyet h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn infaz\u0131n\u0131n durdurulmas\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131n durdurulmas\u0131, yeniden yap\u0131lacak yarg\u0131lama durma karar\u0131 verilmesidir.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Bu hususta bkz. Ula\u015f Karan, Milletvekilli\u011fi D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclen Bir Ki\u015fi Anayasa Mahkemesi Taraf\u0131ndan Verilen Bir \u0130hlal Karar\u0131 Sonras\u0131nda Yeniden Milletvekili S\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131 Kazanabilir mi?, Lexpera Blog, https:\/\/blog.lexpera.com.tr\/milletvekilligi-dusurulen-bir-kisi-anayasa-mahkemesi-tarafindan-verilen-bir-ihlal-karari-sonrasinda-yeniden-milletvekili-sifatini-kazanabilir-mi\/<\/a> (Eri\u015fim tarihi:10.01.2024)<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> AYM, Leyla G\u00fcven Ba\u015fvurusu, Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2018\/26689.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a>AYM, \u00d6mer Faruk Gergerlio\u011flu Ba\u015fvurusu, Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/10634.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Nitekim uygulamada Anayasan\u0131n 14. maddesinin kapsam\u0131na hangi su\u00e7lar\u0131n girdi\u011fi Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131 ile tespit edilmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.\u00a0 Bkz.Osman Serkan G\u00fclfidan, Yasama Dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131- M\u00fcessesinin Amac\u0131 Kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda 1982 Anayasas\u0131n\u0131n Yasama Dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n Kapsam\u0131 ve S\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131- Oniki Levha Yay\u0131nlar\u0131, s.107vd.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a>Bkz. AYM, \u015eerafettin Can Atalay (2) Ba\u015fvurusu, Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2023\/53898.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a>Bu karar\u0131n ele\u015ftirisi i\u00e7in bkz. Sibel \u0130nceo\u011flu,\u00a0 Milletvekili Av. Can Atalay\u2019\u0131n dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczerine, Bianet, https:\/\/bianet.org\/yazi\/milletvekili-av-can-atalay-in-dokunulmazligi-uzerine-281508<\/a> (Eri\u015fim Tarihi: 10.01.2024).<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a>Bkz., Tevfik S\u00f6nmez K\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck, Anayasa Hukukunda \u00c7ag\u0306das\u0327 Eg\u0306ilimler Is\u0327\u0131g\u0306\u0131nda Parlamenter Dokunulmazl\u0131klar, Legal Yay\u0131nc\u0131l\u0131k, (\u0130stanbul: 2019), s.370. Ayn\u0131 y\u00f6nde\u00a0 tutuklu milletvekili sorunun\u00a0 Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 14. Maddesinin farkl\u0131 yorumlar\u0131ndan kaynaklad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bkz. Demirhan Burak \u00c7elik, Tutuklu Milletvekilleri, Se\u00e7me ve Se\u00e7ilme Hakk\u0131 ve Anayasa Mahkemesi, in: Se\u00e7im, Demokrasi ve Se\u00e7im Sistemleri Sempozyumu (ed. Havva Karag\u00f6z\/ Atag\u00fcn Mert Kejanl\u0131o\u011flu), On \u0130ki Levha Yay\u0131nc\u0131l\u0131k, \u0130stanbul 2019, s.99. Nitekim 1961 Anayasas\u0131nda yer almayan bu kural, yazar\u0131n belirtti\u011fi gibi 1982 Anayasas\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131m s\u00fcrecinde Milli G\u00fcvenlik Konseyi\u00a0 taraf\u0131ndan anayasaya eklenmi\u015f; ancak bu istisna her ne kadar 2007 sonras\u0131nda baz\u0131 milletvekilleri i\u00e7in uygulansa da bu milletvekilleri, tutuksuz yarg\u0131lanm\u0131\u015flard\u0131r.\u00a0 Ayn\u0131 y\u00f6nde bkz. G\u00fclfidan, s.97.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> Cem Ero\u011ful, Anat\u00fczeye Giri\u015f(Anayasa Hukukuna Giri\u015f)<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> Yasama ihmaline ili\u015fkin\u00a0 bkz. Tolga \u015eirin, Yasama \u0130hmali Yoluyla Anayasaya Ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k: Kemal G\u00f6zler\u2019in Yaz\u0131s\u0131 Vesilesiyle Bir De\u011ferlendirme, in: Norm ve Olgu(G\u00f6zler, Alt\u0131parmak ve \u015eirin\u2019in HAGB Karar\u0131 Tart\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131), Yetkin Yay\u0131nlar\u0131, Ankara 2022, s.41.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> \u015eerafettin Can Atalay Karar\u0131-III Ba\u015fvuru No: 2023\/99744.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> \u015eerafettin Can Atalay Karar\u0131-III Ba\u015fvuru No: 2023\/99744.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> Bu noktada Avrupa Adalet Divan\u0131n\u0131n \u201c unutulma hakk\u0131 i\u00e7tihad\u0131\u201d\u00a0 uluslararas\u0131 insan haklar\u0131 yarg\u0131s\u0131ndan,\u00a0 Federal Alman Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin ise ge\u00e7ti\u011fimiz sene pandemi tedbirlerine ili\u015fkin verdi\u011fi \u201c okulda e\u011fitim hakk\u0131\u201d , Macaristan Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin ge\u00e7mi\u015fte t\u00fcretti\u011fi \u201c\u00f6zkimlik- kendini belirleme hakk\u0131\u201d gibi haklar\u00a0 bu noktada akla gelen ilk kararlar olmaktad\u0131r. Bu hususta bkz. Jorge Luis Le\u00f3n V\u00e1squez, Die grundrechtsschaffende Gewalt Vorschlag f\u00fcr eine Methodik zur Pr\u00fcfung der Schaffung neuer Grundrechte durch die Verfassungsgerichte, Dunckler&Humblot Verlag, Berlin 2024, s.33.<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> Anayasa tarihinde yarg\u0131n\u0131n totaliter ya da otoriter rejimler i\u00e7in nas\u0131l ba\u015far\u0131l\u0131 bir aparat olarak i\u015flev g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ili\u015fkin\u00a0 bkz.\u00a0 Helmut Kramer ,\u00a0 Zum Gebrauch und Missbrauch der juristischen Methoder zur Stabilisierung(nict nur) totaliterer Systeme, Zum Gebrauch und Missbrauch der juristischen Methode zur Stabilisierung(nicht nur) totalitarer Systeme,in : Die Unabhaengigkeit des Richters( Hrsg: Holzwarth\/Lamprecht\/Schalk\/Spaeth\/Zech),Mohr Siebeck, s.33vd.<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> Bkz. Tolga \u015eirin, Yarg\u0131tay 3. Ceza Dairesinin S\u00fcregelen Hatalar\u0131, https:\/\/t24.com.tr\/yazarlar\/tolga-sirin\/yargitay-3-ceza-dairesinin-suregelen-hatalari,43035<\/a> (Eri\u015fim tarihi:10.01.2024)<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a>\u00a0 Yarg\u0131tay \u00f6rne\u011fin K\u0131ta Avrupas\u0131 anayasal modelini benimsememi\u015f olan Pakistan hukuk sisteminde bir merkezile\u015fmi\u015f anayasa mahkemesi oldu\u011funu iddia etmi\u015f ve Pakistan Y\u00fcksek Mahkemesini \u201cPakistan Anayasa Mahkemesi\u201d olarak nitelendirmekten geri durmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bkz. Yarg\u0131tay 3. CD, E: 12611 K:2024\/1. Mahkeme bunun d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda \u201cs\u00fcper temyiz mahkemesi\u201d ya da \u201canayasaya sadakat\u201d gibi hukuki ama bir o kadar da teknik kavramlar\u0131\u00a0 pejoratif bi\u00e7imde kullanmaktan\u00a0 \u00e7ekinmemi\u015ftir. Ayn\u0131 y\u00f6nde bkz. \u015eirin, https:\/\/t24.com.tr\/yazarlar\/tolga-sirin\/yargitay-3-ceza-dairesinin-suregelen-hatalari,43035<\/a>\u00a0 (Eri\u015fim tarihi:10.01.2024)<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> Bu madde ilk kez 1961 Anayasas\u0131 ile d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Bkz. Fevzi Demir, Cumhuriyet D\u00f6nemi T\u00fcrk Anayasalar\u0131 ve H\u00fck\u00fcmet Sistemleri, https:\/\/hukuk.deu.edu.tr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/Fevzi-Demir3.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> 1961 Anayasas\u0131 d\u00f6neminde Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nde a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu davalarla anayasa hukukunun ve temel haklar\u0131n geli\u015fmesine b\u00fcy\u00fck katk\u0131s\u0131 olan ve parlamenter muhalefet a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan siyasal tarihimizdeki yeri yads\u0131anmayacak olan T\u00fcrkiye \u0130\u015f\u00e7i Partisi\u2019nin(T\u0130P) kurucu genel ba\u015fkan\u0131 Mehmet Ali Aybar, \u0130\u015f\u00e7i Partisinin\u00a0 anayasan\u0131n tastamam uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 hedefledi\u011fini ve bunun %100 devrimci bir hareket oldu\u011funu ifade etmektedir. Aybay\u2019\u0131n bu s\u00f6zleri ve T\u0130P\u2019in anayasa mahkemesinde a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu davalar i\u00e7in bkz.\u00a0 M. Murat \u00d6ngel, \u201cAnayasa\u2019n\u0131n Eksiksiz, Tastamam Uygulanmas\u0131\u201d: T\u00fcrkiye \u0130\u015f\u00e7i Partisi\u2019nin Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nde A\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0130ptal Davalar\u0131 (1963 \u2013 1971), ViraVerita E-Dergi, Say\u0131 6, s.43-44.<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a> Bu tart\u0131\u015fma i\u00e7in bkz. Dieter Grimm, Die Historiker und die Verfassung- Ein Beitrag zur Wirkungsgeschichte des Grundgesetzes, C.H. Beck Verlag,\u00a0 M\u00fcnchen 2023, s.65vd.<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a> Grimm, s.71-72.<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a>\u00a0 BVerfGE 2, 143.<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a> Bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri s\u00f6yleyen ki\u015fi d\u00f6nemin Adalet Bakan\u0131 Dehler\u2019dir. Bkz Grimm, s.72.<\/p>\n

[33]<\/a> Grimm, s.73.<\/p>\n

[34]<\/a>\u00a0 Avrupa Savunma Anla\u015fmas\u0131 yerine Almanya Kuzey Pasifik\u00a0 \u0130ttifak\u0131 Nato\u2019ya girmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

[35]<\/a> Grimm, s.72.<\/p>\n

[36]<\/a>\u00a0 Bkz. https:\/\/www.haberturk.com\/aym-yargitay-krizinde-son-perde-bireysel-basvuru-yasasinin-50-maddesi-degisiyor-3639293<\/a>(Eri\u015fim tarihi:11.01.2024)<\/p>\n

[37]<\/a>\u00a0 Bu konuda detayl\u0131 bilgi i\u00e7in bkz. H\u00fcdanur Aygut, \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Avrupa S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi Sisteminde \u0130hlallerin Onar\u0131lmas\u0131, Y\u0131l 2017, Cilt: 22 Say\u0131: 37, 177 – 216<\/p>\n

[38]<\/a> Michael Sachs, Verfassungsprozessrecht, s.161 vd.<\/p>\n

[39]<\/a> Sachs, s.162.<\/p>\n

[40]<\/a> Sibel \u0130nceo\u011flu, Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019ne Bireysel Ba\u015fvuru: T\u00fcrkiye ve Latin Modelleri, Oniki Levha Yay\u0131nc\u0131l\u0131k, s.120vd.<\/p>\n

[41]<\/a> Bu hususta bkz. Kerem Alt\u0131parmak, \u00d6ll\u00fc Do\u011fan \u00c7ocuk: 685 Say\u0131l\u0131 KHK ile Kurulan OHAL Komisyonu, Ankara Barosu Dergisi, 75.1, (2017), s. 69-88.<\/p>\n

[42]<\/a> \u015eerafettin Can Atalay Karar\u0131-III Ba\u015fvuru No: 2023\/99744, Prg. 30.<\/p>\n

[43]<\/a> A\u0130HS\u2019nin 18. Maddesine ili\u015fkin detayl\u0131 bir \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma i\u00e7in bkz. Benan Molu, Siyasi Ama\u00e7l\u0131 Tutuklama Yasa\u011f\u0131 \u00c7er\u00e7evesinde \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Avrupa S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’nin 18. Maddesinin Kapsam\u0131, Onik, Levha Yay\u0131nc\u0131l\u0131k, \u0130stanbul 2019.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1.Giri\u015f T\u00fcrkiye, 2011 TBMM se\u00e7imlerinden bu yana \u201ctutuklu milletvekilleri\u201d olarak addedilen ve bir temsili demokraside rahatl\u0131kla \u201coksimoron\u201d[1] olarak nitelendirilebilecek bir olgu ile y\u00fczle\u015fmektedir. \u00dcstelik bu durumun \u201cmilli iradeci\u201d, Prof. Dr. Zafer Toprak\u2019\u0131n tabiri ile \u00e7o\u011funluk\u00e7u, milli iradeci, \u201csiyasi pop\u00fclist\u201d bir iklimin h\u00e2kim oldu\u011fu co\u011frafyada olmas\u0131 bu \u00e7eli\u015fkiyi daha artt\u0131rmaktad\u0131r.[2] Bu \u00e7eli\u015fki, en nihayetinde tabii ki […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":137,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[349],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5429","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sayi-40"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5429","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/137"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5429"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5429\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5429"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5429"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5429"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}