Bireysel başvuru üzerine verilen ihlal kararı sonrası somut norm denetimi
Yükleniyor...
Tarih
2021
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Maltepe Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Bu çalışmada, sanık hakkında verilen hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması kararına karşı Anayasa Mahkemesi’ne (AYM) bireysel başvuruda bulunulması ve İkinci Bölüm tarafından ihlal kararı verilmesi üzerine, dava mahkemesince yeniden yargılama sırasında somut norm denetiminde bulunulması isteminin AYM Genel Kurulu tarafından, dava mahkemesinin anayasaya aykırılık konusunda yetkili olmadığı gerekçesiyle reddedilmesi ele alınmaktadır. Yasa koyucu kimi suçlar bakımından hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılmasına (HAGB) karar verilemeyeceğini açıkça belirtmiş olmakla beraber, yargı kararlarıyla da kimi suçlar bakımından HAGB’ye karar verilemeyeceği belirtilmiştir. Ancak bu suçların hangileri olduğu sadece bireysel başvuru üzerine değerlendirilmiş olup, vatandaş ve yargı organları bakımından bu husus açık, anlaşılabilir, ulaşılabilir şekilde düzenlenmediği için, hukuki sorunlara sebebiyet verebilecektir. Diğer yandan, AYM, HAGB kararları üzerine ihlal kararı vermekle beraber, Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu İçtihadında (CGK), aleyhe yasa yolu işletilmemesi halinde HAGB kararının sanık bakımından kazanılmış hak olduğuna karar vermektedir. Uygulamada, çok sayıda davanın bu şekilde karara bağlandığı düşünüldüğünde, konu üzerinde böyle bir çalışma yapılmasının uygun olacağı düşünülmüştür. Ayrıca AYM ihlal kararı verirken, temel hakların korunması bakımından Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM) Kararlarını da gözetmektedir. İşte HAGB kararının gerekçesinde AİHM kararında ortaya konan ilkeler de gözetildiğinden, Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun (CMK) 231’inci maddesindeki düzenlemenin yeniden gözden geçirilmesi gerektiği üzerinde de durulması gerekmiştir. Oysa, CMK’nın 231’inci maddesindeki düzenlemenin anayasaya aykırı olmadığına ilişkin AYM’nin soyut ve somut norm denetiminde ortaya koyduğu içtihatları ile, bireysel başvuru üzerine verilen ve CMK’nın 231’inci maddesinin somut olayda uygulanmaması gerektiğine ilişkin içtihatları karşısında, konuyla ilgili olarak hukuki güven konusu tartışmaya açık hale gelmiştir. Çalışmada, bu hususların birlikte dikkate alınması ve değerlendirilmesi, hatta konuyla ilgili yasa değişikliğine gidilmesi gerektiğine vurgu amaçlanmıştır.
In this study, upon the individual application before the Constitutional Court against the decision to delaying the pronouncement of the judgment of the accused and the decision of violation by the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court; the issue of rejection on the grounds that the trial court was not authorized on the matter of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court General Assembly of the request by the trial court to carry out a concrete judicial review during the retrial is analyzed. Although the legislator has clearly stated that it cannot be decided to delaying the pronouncement of the judgment for some crimes and it is also stated with judicial decisions that it cannot be decided to delaying the pronouncement of the judgment in terms of some crimes. However, since these crimes were evaluated only on individual application and this issue is not regulated in a clear, understandable and accessible way for citizens and judicial bodies, it may cause legal problems. On the other hand, even though the Turkish Constitutional Court found violation on the decisions to delaying the pronouncement of the judgment, in the case-law of the General Assembly of Criminal Chambers of the Court of Cassation it is stated that if there is not an against legal remedy the decision to delaying the pronouncement of the judgment is an acquired right for the accused. Considering that many cases were decided in this way in practice, it was thought that it would be appropriate to conduct such a study on the subject. In addition the Constitutional Court also observes the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in terms of protection of fundamental rights while deciding on violations. Since the principles set forth in the case-law of ECtHR were taken into account in the reasoning of the decision to delaying the pronouncement of the judgment, it should also be emphasized that the regulation in Article 231 of the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code should be revised. However, due to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court regarding the fact that the regulation in Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not unconstitutional and the jurisprudence given upon individual application that Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be applied in the concrete case; the security of law has become open to discussion on this subject. In the study, it is aimed to emphasize that these issues should be considered and evaluated together, and even the need to change the law on the subject.
In this study, upon the individual application before the Constitutional Court against the decision to delaying the pronouncement of the judgment of the accused and the decision of violation by the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court; the issue of rejection on the grounds that the trial court was not authorized on the matter of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court General Assembly of the request by the trial court to carry out a concrete judicial review during the retrial is analyzed. Although the legislator has clearly stated that it cannot be decided to delaying the pronouncement of the judgment for some crimes and it is also stated with judicial decisions that it cannot be decided to delaying the pronouncement of the judgment in terms of some crimes. However, since these crimes were evaluated only on individual application and this issue is not regulated in a clear, understandable and accessible way for citizens and judicial bodies, it may cause legal problems. On the other hand, even though the Turkish Constitutional Court found violation on the decisions to delaying the pronouncement of the judgment, in the case-law of the General Assembly of Criminal Chambers of the Court of Cassation it is stated that if there is not an against legal remedy the decision to delaying the pronouncement of the judgment is an acquired right for the accused. Considering that many cases were decided in this way in practice, it was thought that it would be appropriate to conduct such a study on the subject. In addition the Constitutional Court also observes the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in terms of protection of fundamental rights while deciding on violations. Since the principles set forth in the case-law of ECtHR were taken into account in the reasoning of the decision to delaying the pronouncement of the judgment, it should also be emphasized that the regulation in Article 231 of the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code should be revised. However, due to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court regarding the fact that the regulation in Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not unconstitutional and the jurisprudence given upon individual application that Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be applied in the concrete case; the security of law has become open to discussion on this subject. In the study, it is aimed to emphasize that these issues should be considered and evaluated together, and even the need to change the law on the subject.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Hükmün Açıklanmasının Geri Bırakılması, Bireysel Başvuru, Somut Norm Denetimi, Davaya Uygulanacak Hüküm, Davaya Bakan Mahkeme, Delaying the Pronouncement of the Judgment, Individual Application, Concrete Judicial Review, The Provision which is Applicable to the Case, Trial Court
Kaynak
Maltepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
1
Sayı
2
Künye
Şahbaz, İ. (2021). Bireysel başvuru üzerine verilen ihlal kararı sonrası somut norm denetimi. Maltepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Maltepe Üniversitesi. 1(2), s. 117-175.
