G\u0130R\u0130\u015e
Yarg\u0131lamada makul s\u00fcrenin a\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fikayeti, 6. madde ba\u011flam\u0131nda Mahkeme
\u00f6n\u00fcne getirilen davalarda say\u0131 itibari ile en \u00f6n s\u0131rada yer almaktad\u0131r. Zira ki\u015fiyi pek \u00e7ok
bak\u0131mdan dayan\u0131lmaz s\u0131k\u0131nt\u0131lara sokan bu duruma \u00e7are bulmak amac\u0131yla, ulusal
anayasalar yada kanunlara veya uluslar aras\u0131 belgelere yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcresi ile ilgili \u00e7e\u015fitli
h\u00fck\u00fcmler konulmu\u015ftur1
.
Gecikmi\u015f adalet adaletsizlik (justice delaid is justice denied) olarak
g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Avrupa S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u2019nin 6. maddesinin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131nda,
yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcresinin makul s\u00fcrede sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f ve bu konuda geni\u015f
bir i\u00e7tihat olu\u015fturulmu\u015ftur. Adil yarg\u0131lanma taahh\u00fcd\u00fcnde bulunmu\u015f, S\u00f6zle\u015fmeye taraf
devletlerin bu durumu i\u00e7 hukuklar\u0131nda d\u00fczenlemeleri bir zorunluluktur. Mahkeme\u2019ye
g\u00f6re, \u201c6. maddenin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131, devletleri, kendi adil sistemlerini, makemelerin bu f\u0131kra
gereklerinden her birini yerine getirecek \u015fekilde d\u00fczenlemeye mecbur tutmaktad\u0131r.2
\u201d
Mahkeme, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede tamamlanmas\u0131n\u0131 emreden h\u00fckm\u00fcn
amac\u0131n\u0131 \u201cT\u00fcm hak arayanlar i\u00e7in ge\u00e7erli olan bu h\u00fckm\u00fcn amac\u0131, bu ki\u015fileri yarg\u0131lama
i\u015flemlerinin s\u00fcr\u00fcncemede kalmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 korumak; \u00f6ncelikle ceza davalar\u0131nda,
su\u00e7lanan ki\u015finin, uzun s\u00fcre, davas\u0131n\u0131n nas\u0131l sonu\u00e7lanaca\u011f\u0131 endi\u015fesi ile ya\u015famas\u0131n\u0131
engellemektir3
.\u201d \u015feklinde belirtmi\u015ftir.
1982 Anayasas\u0131 da davalar\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olan s\u00fcratle sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131
yarg\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6revleri aras\u0131nda g\u00f6rmektedir.
Makul s\u00fcrenin ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131 medeni hak davalar\u0131nda, ilke olarak, davan\u0131n yetkili
makam \u00f6n\u00fcne g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc tarihte ba\u015flarken4
, ceza davalar\u0131nda polis yada savc\u0131l\u0131k
soru\u015fturmas\u0131na ba\u015fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte ba\u015flar. S\u00fcrenin sonu ise, m\u00fcmk\u00fcn ve olas\u0131 kanun
yollar\u0131 dahil, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n kesin h\u00fck\u00fcmle sonu\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihtir5
.
Her olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc farkl\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131 oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in, yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcresinin
makull\u00fc\u011f\u00fc her davan\u0131n kendi \u00f6zellikleri \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde de\u011ferlendirilmektedir, makul
s\u00fcreye ili\u015fkin her hangi bir mutlak s\u00fcre yoktur6
. Mahkeme bu de\u011ferlendirmeyi
yaparken; davan\u0131n karma\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun tutumu ve yetkili mercilerin tutumunu
g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne almaktad\u0131r. A\u015fa\u011f\u0131da bu kriterler daha detayl\u0131 bir \u015fekilde incelenecektir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1
G\u00f6lc\u00fckl\u00fc, Feyyaz. Yarg\u0131lama Makamlar\u0131 \u00d6n\u00fcnde \u201cMakul S\u00fcre\u201d, \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Merkezi Dergisi, A\u00dcSBF \u0130nsan
Haklar\u0131 Merkezi, Nisan 1995, c.III, S.2
2
Tutsa-\u0130talya, 27.02.1992, A 231-d; Francesco Lombardo-\u0130talya, 26.11.1992, A 240-b; Bunkate-Hollanda,
26.05.1989, A 248-b; Pellisier ve Sassi-Fransa, 25.03.1999
3
Bock-Almanya, 29.03.1989, A 150
4
Mahkemeye ba\u015fvurmadan \u00f6nce, idari bir makama ba\u015fvurmak gibi, \u00f6zel bir durum \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015fse, s\u00fcre bu
tarihten itibaren de i\u015flemeye ba\u015flayabilir. (Golder-\u0130ngiltere, 21.02.1975, A 18; K\u00f6nig- Almanya, 28.06.1978, A
27)
5
G\u00f6lc\u00fckl\u00fc, Feyyaz ve G\u00f6z\u00fcb\u00fcy\u00fck, \u015eeref. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi Uygulamas\u0131, 3. bas\u0131, Turan Yay\u0131nevi,
Ankara: 2002, s.285
6
\u0130nceo\u011flu, Sibel. \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Avrupa Mahkemesi Kararlar\u0131nda Adil Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131, 1. bas\u0131, Beta Yay\u0131nlar\u0131,
\u0130stanbul: 2002, s.358
MAKUL S\u00dcREDE YARGILANMA HAKKI
De\u011ferlendirme Kriterleri
Av. Melis \u00dcnl\u00fctepe
Mahkeme yarg\u0131lamada makul s\u00fcreyi ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131rken \u00fc\u00e7 \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct kullanmaktad\u0131r.
Bunlar, davan\u0131n karma\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun tutumu, yetkili makamlar\u0131n tutumudur.
Ancak yine de bu de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131l\u0131rken, bu \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctlerin yan\u0131nda her olay\u0131n kendine
has \u00f6zellikleri de g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nmaktad\u0131r.
Belirli bir mutlak s\u00fcre \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f olsa da, Mahkeme hemen her zaman
sekiz y\u0131l ve \u00fczerindeki s\u00fcreleri 6\/1\u2019e ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulmu\u015ftur. Olay\u0131n \u015fartlar\u0131 dolay\u0131s\u0131yla alt\u0131
y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcreler s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye uygun bulunmu\u015fken7
, \u00fc\u00e7 y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcrenin makul s\u00fcreye ayk\u0131r\u0131
bulundu\u011fu da olmu\u015ftur8
. H\u0131zl\u0131 bir yarg\u0131laman\u0131n gerekti\u011fi durumlarda ise, iki y\u0131ll\u0131k bir
s\u00fcre dahi makul s\u00fcreye ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulunmaktad\u0131r9
, zira Mahkeme, kriterlerin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra
ba\u015fvurucunun menfaatinin ne derecede tehlikede oldu\u011funu da dikkate almaktad\u0131r.
Ba\u015fvurucunun menfaati de\u011ferlendirilirken de ki\u015fi \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne \u00f6zel bir \u00f6nem
verilmektedir ve bu davalar\u0131n daha k\u0131sa s\u00fcrede sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 beklenmektedir. Yine
\u00e7ocu\u011fun menfaatine ili\u015fkin davalar10, sosyal sigorta \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ba\u011flanan ayl\u0131klar da
dahil olmak \u00fczere \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ortam\u0131na ili\u015fkin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar11 ve AIDS hastas\u0131 olmak gibi
\u00f6zel durumlar olmas\u0131 halinde12 Mahkeme daha h\u0131zl\u0131 bir \u015fekilde sonu\u00e7land\u0131rma
beklemektedir13
.
\u00d6rne\u011fin Silva Pontes-Portekiz14 davas\u0131nda, ge\u00e7irdi\u011fi trafik kazas\u0131 sonucu
Kas\u0131m 1975\u2019ten May\u0131s 1976\u2019ya kadar hastanede kalan, y\u00fczde elli sekiz kal\u0131c\u0131 sakatl\u0131\u011f\u0131
olan ve i\u015fine d\u00f6nemeyecek olan ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat davas\u0131 11 y\u0131ldan fazla
s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Mahkeme, makul s\u00fcre de\u011ferlendirirken davan\u0131n \u00f6zelliklerine g\u00f6re karar
verilece\u011fini vurgulad\u0131ktan sonra, kriter d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusunun ba\u015fvurucu i\u00e7in
\u00f6nemini de dikkate alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmektedir. Tarfik kazas\u0131 ma\u011fdurlar\u0131 i\u00e7in tazminat\u0131n
belirlenmesinde \u00f6zel bir gayret g\u00f6sterilmesi gerekti\u011fini belirtmektedir.
Belirtilen hi\u00e7bir kriter tek ba\u015f\u0131na yetreli de\u011fildir. Her kriter ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 ele
al\u0131nmakta ve bunlar\u0131n toplam etkisi de\u011ferlendirilmektedir. \u00d6rne\u011fin, i\u015f uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131yla
ilgili olan Ruotolo-\u0130talya15 davas\u0131 on iki y\u0131ldan fazla s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr ve u s\u00fcrede
ba\u015fvurucunun katk\u0131lar\u0131 oldu\u011fu gibi, davan\u0131n karma\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131 da etkili olmu\u015ftur. Ancak
Mahkeme, yetkili mahkemelerin sorumlu tutulabilece\u011fi iki gecikme d\u00f6nemini ve genel
olarak gecikmeyi de\u011ferlendirerek yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 uzun bulmu\u015ftur.
1.2 Davan\u0131n Karma\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131
Davan\u0131n hem hukuki hem de maddi a\u00e7\u0131dan b\u00fct\u00fcn y\u00f6nleri, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n
karma\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilirken ele al\u0131nmaktad\u0131r. Bunun i\u00e7in de davan\u0131n konusu, hukuki
meselenin \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcndeki g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fck, delillerin toplanmas\u0131ndaki zorluklar, hastal\u0131k ve
tutukluluk, davan\u0131n taraflar\u0131n\u0131n yada isnat edilen su\u00e7lar\u0131n veya san\u0131klar\u0131n say\u0131s\u0131,
davan\u0131n uluslar aras\u0131 unsurlar\u0131, yaz\u0131l\u0131 delillerin hacmi konular\u0131 ele al\u0131nmaktad\u0131r. Ancak
bu unsurlar tek ba\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n davan\u0131n uzamas\u0131na sebep olmuyor, ba\u015fka nedenler de bu<\/p>\n\n\n\n
7
Boddaert-Bel\u00e7ika, 12.10.1992, A 235-d (alt\u0131 y\u0131l \u00fc\u00e7 aya yak\u0131n s\u00fcre makul bulunmu\u015ftur.)
8
Foti-\u0130talya, 10.12.1998, A 56 (\u00fc\u00e7 y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcre makul bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.)
9
H-\u0130ngiltere, 08.07.1987, A 120 (dava \u00e7ocu\u011fun menfaatlerinin korunmas\u0131 ile ilgilidir.)
10 H-\u0130ngiltere, a.g.k.
11 Nibbio-\u0130talya, 26.02.1992, A 228-a; B\u00fcker-T\u00fcrkiye, 24.10.1995
12 X-Fransa, 31.03.1992, A 234-c (bu davada kan bankas\u0131na dava a\u00e7an bir AIDS hastas\u0131 s\u00f6zkonusudur.)
13 \u0130nceo\u011flu, Sibel. s.359
14 Silva Pontes-Portekiz, 23.03.1994, A 304
15 Ruotolo-\u0130talya, 2.02.1992, A 2330-d
MAKUL S\u00dcREDE YARGILANMA HAKKI
De\u011ferlendirme Kriterleri
Av. Melis \u00dcnl\u00fctepe
unsurlara ekleniyorsa, davan\u0131n karma\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131 hakl\u0131 bir gerek\u00e7e olmaktan \u00e7\u0131kmaktad\u0131r16
.
\u00d6rne\u011fin Mansur-T\u00fcrkiye karar\u0131nda17 uyu\u015fturucu ka\u00e7ak\u00e7\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan yarg\u0131lanan
ba\u015fvurucuya ili\u015fkin Yunanistan\u2019dan istenen belgeler, devletin ilgili birimleri aras\u0131ndaki
ileti\u015fimsizlik, yeminli terc\u00fcman bulunamamas\u0131 nedeniyle zaman\u0131nda kullan\u0131lamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
Dava konusu olaylar basit ise, yetki sorunlar\u0131 ile davan\u0131n uzamas\u0131, davan\u0131n
karma\u015f\u0131k oldu\u011funu g\u00f6stermemektedir. \u00d6rne\u011fin Zana-T\u00fcrkiye davas\u0131nda18, Diyarbak\u0131r
Askeri Cezaevindeyken mahkum olan ba\u015fvurucunun soru\u015fturmas\u0131 \u0130stanbul\u2019da
ba\u015flam\u0131\u015f, savc\u0131l\u0131k yetkisizlik nedeni ile dosyay\u0131 Diyarbak\u0131r DGM\u2019ye g\u00f6ndermi\u015f, DGM
savc\u0131s\u0131 ise san\u0131\u011f\u0131n su\u00e7un i\u015flendi\u011fi s\u0131rada askeri cezaevinde olmas\u0131ndan bahisle dosyay\u0131
Diyarbak\u0131r Askeri Savc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6ndermi\u015ftir.
Davan\u0131n karma\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilirken adaletin yerine gelmesi de g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne
al\u0131n\u0131r. Bu nedenle bazen yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi hakl\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclebilir19. \u00d6rne\u011fin
Boddaert-Bel\u00e7ika davas\u0131nda20 dava zor bir cinayet davs\u0131na ve iki davan\u0131n birbirine
paralel gitmesine ili\u015fkindir ve alt\u0131 y\u0131l \u00fc\u00e7 aya yak\u0131n s\u00fcre makul bulunmu\u015ftur.
Katte Klitsche-\u0130talya davas\u0131nda21 da, ba\u015fvurucuya ait ormanl\u0131k bir park alan\u0131n\u0131
da kapsayan bir planlama nedeniyle, arazisini kullanma haklar\u0131n\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rlayan bir
kamula\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmas\u0131ndan bahisle, tazminat talep eden ba\u015fvurucunun davas\u0131 sekiz
y\u0131ldan fazla s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Mahkeme, davan\u0131n karma\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131 sebebiyle bu s\u00fcreyi ihlal olarak
g\u00f6rmemi\u015ftir. Bu davada \u0130HAM normal olmayan \u00fc\u00e7 gecikme protokol\u00fc belirlemesine
ra\u011fmen, karar\u0131n \u00e7evre korunmas\u0131 ve \u015fehir planlamas\u0131 gibi hassas konulara ili\u015fkin
olmas\u0131 dolay\u0131s\u0131yla sekiz senelik s\u00fcreyi uzun bulmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
Bununla birlikte davan\u0131n karma\u015f\u0131k olmas\u0131, belli bir s\u00fcreden sonra ge\u00e7erli bir
sebep olmamaktad\u0131r. \u00d6rne\u011fin Ferrantelli ve Santangelo-\u0130talya davas\u0131nda22, dava zor
bir cinayet davas\u0131d\u0131r, k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fckler b\u00fcy\u00fcklerle birlikte yarg\u0131lanmaktad\u0131r ve yetkili yarg\u0131
yerini belirlemede sorunlar vard\u0131r. Ancak davan\u0131n karma\u015f\u0131k olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen,
Mahkeme on alt\u0131 y\u0131ll\u0131k bir s\u00fcreyi makul bulmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
1.3 Ba\u015fvurucunun Tutumu
Makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lama y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihla edildi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131labilmesi
i\u00e7in, gecikmelerin devletten kaynaklanmas\u0131 gereklidir. Ancak ba\u015fvurucunun usuli
haklar\u0131n\u0131 kullanmas\u0131 sonucu olan gecikmeler23, ba\u015fvurucunun k\u00f6t\u00fc niyet ve
tutumundan kaynaklanan gecikmelerden devlet sorumlu tutulmayacakt\u0131r.
Hukuk davalar\u0131nda, her ne kadar, i\u015fin takibi taraflara ait bir sorunsa da, bu
durum mahkemenin davay\u0131 gerekli s\u00fcratle y\u00fcr\u00fctmesi y\u00fck\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc ortadan
kald\u0131rmayacakt\u0131r24. Bununla beraber ba\u015fvurucunun da yarg\u0131lamada s\u00fcrati sa\u011flamak<\/p>\n\n\n\n
16 \u0130nceo\u011flu, Sibel. s.366
17 Mansur-T\u00fcrkiye, 08.06.1995, A 321
18 Zana-T\u00fcrkiye, 25.11.1997
19 \u0130nceo\u011flu, Sibel. s.367
20 Boddaert-Bel\u00e7ika, a.g.k.
21 Katte Klitsche de la Grange-\u0130talya, 27.10.1994, A 293-b
22 Ferrantelli ve Santangelo-\u0130talya, 07.08.1996
23 K\u00f6nig- Almanya, a.g.k.
24 Union Alimentaria Sanders S.A.-\u0130spanya, 07.07.1989, A 157 (bu davada \u0130HAM, ba\u015fvurucunun sadece kendisi
ile ilgili usuli i\u015flemleri yerine getirirken yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 uzat\u0131c\u0131 taktiklerden ka\u00e7\u0131narak, yeterli \u00f6zeni g\u00f6sterme
y\u00fck\u00fcm\u00fcnde oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Do\u011fru, Osman. \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Avrupa Mahkmesi Kararlar Rehberi (1960-
1994), \u0130B Yay\u0131nlar\u0131, \u0130stanbul: 1999, s.134
MAKUL S\u00dcREDE YARGILANMA HAKKI
De\u011ferlendirme Kriterleri
Av. Melis \u00dcnl\u00fctepe
i\u00e7in kendine d\u00fc\u015feni yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kan\u0131tlamas\u0131 gerekir25. Aksi halde devletin
sorumlulu\u011fundan bahsedilemeyecektir26. Ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131laman\u0131n h\u0131zland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131
i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 zorunlu olmamakla beraber, lehine bir durum yaratacakt\u0131r.
Ceza davalar\u0131nda ise san\u0131k, adli makamlarla aktif i\u015fbirli\u011fi yapmak zorunda
de\u011fildir. Ba\u015fvurucunun, kendisine a\u00e7\u0131k kanun yollar\u0131n\u0131 sonuna kadar kullanmas\u0131
sonucu yarg\u0131lama uzam\u0131\u015fsa, bundan kendisi sorumlu tutulamayacakt\u0131r27. Ancak,
san\u0131\u011f\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli giri\u015fimleri de Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan hesaba al\u0131nmaktad\u0131r28. Devlet,
davan\u0131n hareketsiz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nemlerden sorumlu tutulmaktad\u0131r29, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n bu durumu
engellemek i\u00e7in tav\u0131r alma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc yoktur30
.
San\u0131k belli bir s\u00fcre ka\u00e7t\u0131ktan sonra teslim olmu\u015fsa, sakland\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcre, yarg\u0131lama
s\u00fcresi belirlenirken hesaba kat\u0131lmayacakt\u0131r31. San\u0131k, tutuklama m\u00fczekkeresine
uymayarak veya ka\u00e7arak yarg\u0131lman\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kald\u0131ysa, yarg\u0131lama belli bir s\u00fcre ask\u0131da
kalm\u0131\u015f olsa dahi, \u015fikayet etmeye hakk\u0131 yoktur32. \u00d6rne\u011fin Erdo\u011fan-T\u00fcrkiye davas\u0131nda33
,
T\u00fcrk konsoloslu\u011funda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan Erdo\u011fan hakk\u0131nda Ankara S\u0131k\u0131y\u00f6netim Mahkmesinde,
T\u00fcrkiye\u2019ye kar\u015f\u0131 yurtd\u0131\u015f\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc d\u00fc\u015fmanca faaliyetler sebebiyle dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f,
tutuklama karar\u0131 al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ancak, ba\u015fvurucu ne Konsoloslu\u011fun davetine icabet etmi\u015f
ne de tutuklanma korkusuyla T\u00fcrkiye\u2019ye d\u00f6nm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Dava yakla\u015f\u0131k alt\u0131 y\u0131l s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.
Komisyona g\u00f6re, milli makamlar, Ceza Usul Yasas\u0131na uygun olarak, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n
yoklu\u011funda yarg\u0131lama yapmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu durum ba\u015fvurucunun se\u00e7imi oldu\u011fundan
ba\u015fvuru kabul edilmemi\u015ftir.
Ba\u015fvurucunun tutumu makul s\u00fcrenin a\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131nda \u00f6nemli rol oynuyorsa,
devletin sorumlulu\u011fu do\u011fmaz. \u00d6rne\u011fin Monnet-Fransa davas\u0131nda34, yedi y\u0131ldan fazla
s\u00fcren bir bo\u015fanma davas\u0131 s\u00f6z konusudur. Bu davada ba\u015fvurucu, iki kere yarg\u0131laman\u0131n
ilk a\u015famas\u0131n\u0131n sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131 tehir talep etmi\u015f, esas hakk\u0131ndaki m\u00fctalaas\u0131n\u0131
ve temyiz talebini geciktirmi\u015ftir. Bu davada taraflar ve \u00f6zellikle de ba\u015fvurucunun
yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzamas\u0131nda \u00f6nemli katk\u0131lar\u0131 olmu\u015ftur.
Cricosta ve Viola-\u0130talya davas\u013135 4 Temmuz 1980\u2019de ba\u015flam\u0131\u015f ve Ocak 1995\u2019te
\u0130HAM\u2019a getirildi\u011finde hala devam etmektedir. Bu davada milli makamlar\u0131n kusurlar\u0131
olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, birinci derecede sorumlu olan ba\u015fvurucudur. Ba\u015fvurucu kar\u015f\u0131 tarafla
uzla\u015farak, davan\u0131n on yedi kez tehirini istemi\u015f, kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131n tehir taleplerine de itirazda<\/p>\n\n\n\n
25 G\u00f6lc\u00fckl\u00fc, Feyyaz. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde \u201cAdil Yarg\u0131lama\u201d, A\u00dcSBF Dergisi (\u00d6ztrak\u2019a Arma\u011fan),
Ocak-Haziran 1994, c.49, S.1-2, s.215
26 Deumeland-Almanya, 29.05.1986, A 100; Pretto ve di\u011ferleri-\u0130talya, 08.12.1983, A 71; Monnet-Fransa,
27.10.1993, A 273-b
27 Zana-T\u00fcrkiye, a.g.k.; Corigliano-\u0130talya, 10.12.1982, A 57 (bu davada san\u0131k, kendine m\u00fcdafi atanmas\u0131n\u0131
reddetmi\u015ftir, ancak Mahkeme bu durumu, yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 uzat\u0131c\u0131 bir durum olarak g\u00f6rmemi\u015ftir; zira san\u0131\u011f\u0131n
yarg\u0131sal makamlarla i\u015fbirli\u011fi yapma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc yoktur.); Ya\u011fc\u0131 ve sarg\u0131n-T\u00fcrkiye, 08.06.1995, A 319 (d\u00f6rt
bu\u00e7uk y\u0131ldan uzun s\u00fcren bu davada duru\u015fmalara kat\u0131lan m\u00fcdafilerin say\u0131ca \u00e7oklu\u011fu ve m\u00fcdafilerin g\u00fcvenlik
\u00f6nlemlerine kar\u015f\u0131 tutumunun yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 bir \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde yava\u015flatt\u0131\u011f\u0131 Mahkemece kabul edilmesine ra\u011fmen, bu
unsurlar tek ba\u015f\u0131na yeterli g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.)
28 G\u00f6lc\u00fckl\u00fc, Feyyaz ve G\u00f6z\u00fcb\u00fcy\u00fck, \u015eeref. s.286
29 Orchin-\u0130ngiltere, 09.10.1982, 34 DR 81
30 \u0130nceo\u011flu, Sibel. s.370
31 Girolami-\u0130talya, 19.02.1991, A 196-e
32 A.P.-\u0130talya, 24.06.1996
33 Erdo\u011fan-T\u00fcrkiye, 09.07.1992, 73 DR 81
34 Monnet-Fransa, a.g.k.
35 Cricosta ve Viola-\u0130talya, 04.12.1995, A 337
MAKUL S\u00dcREDE YARGILANMA HAKKI
De\u011ferlendirme Kriterleri
Av. Melis \u00dcnl\u00fctepe
bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla davan\u0131n, onbe\u015f y\u0131ldan uzun s\u00fcrmesine ra\u011fmen,
ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n tutumu nedeniyle \u015fikayet kabul edilmemi\u015ftir.
Mahkeme, yetkili makamlar\u0131n tutumu ve ba\u015fvurucunun tutumunu ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131
de\u011ferlendirerek, hangi tutumun yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzamas\u0131na daha etkili oldu\u011funu
saptamaktad\u0131r36. \u00d6rne\u011fin Beaumartin-Fransa davas\u0131nda37, ba\u015fvurucunun davay\u0131
Dan\u0131\u015ftay yerine Paris \u0130dare Mahkmesinde a\u00e7mas\u0131 sonucu dava dokuz aya yak\u0131n
uzam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r, yine ba\u015fvurusuna ili\u015fkin gerek\u00e7elerini sunmakta gecikmesi kendi kusuru
olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Fakat, Mahkeme, Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019daki yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan
bekleme periodlar\u0131n\u0131 dikkate alarak devleti daha hatal\u0131 bulmu\u015ftur.
1.4 Yetkili Makamlar\u0131n Tutumu
Mahkeme, vaki gecikmeden devleti ancak ihmal ve kusuru nedeniyle sorumlu
tutmaktad\u0131r. Yarg\u0131sal organlar, \u00f6rne\u011fin kamu davas\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131ndaki gecikmeler38
veya davan\u0131n daha sonra ba\u015fka bir mahkemeye g\u00f6nderilmesi nedeniyle ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan
gecikmeler39 de dahil olmak \u00fczere tutumlar\u0131ndan sorumlu olabilmektedirler. Bununla
beraber yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131n\u0131n, kendilerinden bekleneni yapm\u0131\u015f olmalar\u0131na ra\u011fmen
g\u00f6rev d\u0131\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fka nedenlerle -yarg\u0131\u00e7 a\u00e7\u0131\u011f\u0131, siyasi ortam, ulusal hukuktaki bo\u015fluklar, i\u015f
y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi- makul s\u00fcrenin a\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 halinde, durumdan gene devlet sorumlu
tutulmaktad\u0131r40
.
Yarg\u0131lama organlar\u0131, yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 en h\u0131zl\u0131 \u015fekilde ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirirken, adaletin
ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesini de g\u00f6zetmek zorundad\u0131rlar. Bu ikili y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck aras\u0131nda bir
dengenin olmas\u0131 beklenmektedir41. Bu nedenle, Mahkeme, milli mahkemelerin,
davalar\u0131 birle\u015ftirme, delil toplama gibi sebeplerledavay\u0131 uzatmalar\u0131n\u0131 bir yere kadar
makul g\u00f6rmektedir. \u00d6rne\u011fin Ewing-\u0130ngiltere davas\u0131nda
42, Komisyon, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n
gecikmesine neden olan \u00fc\u00e7 davay\u0131 birle\u015ftirme karar\u0131n\u0131, adaletin etkili bir bi\u00e7imde
ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesini g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na alma ihtiyac\u0131 g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131narak makul
bulunmu\u015ftur.
Davan\u0131n daha iyi y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclebilmesi i\u00e7in biri hafif di\u011feri a\u011f\u0131r iki su\u00e7 isnad\u0131na
ili\u015fkin davan\u0131n ayr\u0131lmas\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n, yetkili makamlar\u0131n davay\u0131 h\u0131zl\u0131 sonu\u00e7land\u0131rma
sorumlulu\u011funu artt\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 Mahkemece belirtilmi\u015ftir43. \u00d6rne\u011fin Reilly-\u0130rlanda
davas\u0131nda44, adam \u00f6ld\u00fcrme ve h\u0131rs\u0131zl\u0131k nedenleri ile yarg\u0131lanan ba\u015fvurucunun
davas\u0131n\u0131n, savc\u0131n\u0131n talebi ile ve ba\u015fvurucunun itiraz\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n ayr\u0131lmas\u0131 ve ikinci su\u00e7
isnad\u0131na ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131laman\u0131n ertelenmesi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015f ve davalar\u0131n ayr\u0131lmas\u0131
sonucunda, s\u00fcreye potansiyel etkisi sebebiyle, davan\u0131n h\u0131zl\u0131 bir bi\u00e7imde
sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 sorumlulu\u011funun artt\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Komisyon, hem h\u0131rs\u0131zl\u0131k hem de
adam \u00f6ld\u00fcrme su\u00e7lar\u0131na ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecindeki baz\u0131 gecikmeleri dikkate alarak,
yedi y\u0131l yedi aydan uzun s\u00fcren h\u0131rs\u0131zl\u0131k su\u00e7una ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 6\/1\u2019e ayk\u0131r\u0131
bulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
36 \u0130nceo\u011flu, Sibel. s.371
37 Beaumartin-Fransa, 24.11.1994, A 296-b
38 Eckle-Almanya, 15.07.1982, A 51
39 Foti-\u0130talya, a.g.k.
40 G\u00f6lc\u00fckl\u00fc, Feyyaz ve G\u00f6z\u00fcb\u00fcy\u00fck, \u015eeref. s.287
41 \u0130nceo\u011flu, Sibel. s.372
42 Ewing-Birle\u015fik Krall\u0131k, 07.10.1987. 56 DR 71
43 \u0130nceo\u011flu, Sibel. s.372
44 Reilly-\u0130rlanda, 22.02.1995
MAKUL S\u00dcREDE YARGILANMA HAKKI
De\u011ferlendirme Kriterleri
Av. Melis \u00dcnl\u00fctepe<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1.4.1 Yetkili Makamlar\u0131n Kusur ve \u0130hmali
Ayr\u0131ca \u0130HAM, her bir hareketsiz d\u00f6nemi, makul s\u00fcre a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131
de\u011ferlendirmektedir. Zana-T\u00fcrkiye davas\u0131nda45, ba\u015fvurucunun haz\u0131r bulundu\u011fu
duru\u015fmadan dokuz ay sonra mahkumiyet karar\u0131 verilmesini makul s\u00fcreye ayk\u0131r\u0131
bulmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye yetkisizlik itiraz\u0131nda bulunmas\u0131ndan d\u00f6rt ay
sonra yetkisizlik karar\u0131 verilmesi de ayr\u0131ca ele al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
Yine Ya\u011fc\u0131 ve Sarg\u0131n-T\u00fcrkiye davas\u0131nda46 da, DGM\u2019nin, Ceza Kanununun 141-<\/p>\n\n\n\n
45 Zana-T\u00fcrkiye, a.g.k.
46 Ya\u011fc\u0131 ve Sarg\u0131n-T\u00fcrkiye, a.g.k.
47 Reilly-\u0130rlanda, a.g.k.; Bunkate-Hollanda (doland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131l\u0131k su\u00e7undan g\u00f6zalt\u0131na al\u0131nan ba\u015fvurucu, davas\u0131n\u0131 temyiz
ettikten sonra, dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131n Y\u00fcksek Mahkemenin yaz\u0131 i\u015flerine gelmesi on be\u015f bu\u00e7uk ay s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Do\u011fru,
Osman. \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Avrupa Mahkemesi Kararlar Rehberi (1960-1994), \u0130B Yay\u0131nlar\u0131, \u0130stanbul: 1999, s.351),
a.g.k.; Eckle-Almanya, a.g.k.
48 \u0130nceo\u011flu, Sibel. s.373
49 X-Fransa, 31.03.1992, A 234-c
50 Guincho-Portekiz, 10.07.1984, A 81; K\u00f6nig-Almanya, a.g.k.; Wiesinger-Avusturya, 24.09.1991, A 213 (davan\u0131n
uzamas\u0131na b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde Balediye ile tar\u0131m M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc aras\u0131ndaki koordinasyon eksikli\u011fi sebep olmu\u015ftur.)
51 Mansur-T\u00fcrkiye, a.g.k.
52 Martins Moreira-Portekiz, 26.10.1988, A 143
MAKUL S\u00dcREDE YARGILANMA HAKKI
De\u011ferlendirme Kriterleri
Av. Melis \u00dcnl\u00fctepe
sonucu \u00fc\u00e7 ayr\u0131 t\u0131p kurumuna ba\u015fvurmak gerekmi\u015ftir. Bu kurulu\u015flar\u0131n hepsi kamu
kurulu\u015fudur. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla, Portekiz H\u00fck\u00fcmeti\u2019nin, Adli T\u0131p Enstit\u00fcs\u00fcne ama\u00e7lar\u0131na uygun
ara\u00e7lar\u0131 sa\u011flam y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc oldu\u011fu kabul edilmi\u015ftir.
Medeni hak davalar\u0131nda, bu t\u00fcrden bir sorumlulu\u011fun do\u011fmas\u0131 i\u00e7in, davan\u0131n
gecikmesine sebep olan ki\u015fi veya kurumun devlet i\u00e7in \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131yor olmas\u0131 gerekmektedir.
\u00d6rne\u011fin H-Fransa davas\u0131nda53, ba\u015fvurucuya sa\u011flanan yasal yard\u0131m sonucu atanan
m\u00fcdafinin hareketsiz kalmas\u0131 sonucu, yarg\u0131lamada meydana gelen gecikmelerden,
m\u00fcdafiinin devlet i\u00e7in de\u011fil de m\u00fcvekkili i\u00e7in \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 var say\u0131larak, devlet sorumlu
g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir. Kamasinski-Avusturya davas\u0131nda54 da m\u00fcdafi ister \u00f6zel olarak finanse
edilmi\u015f olsun ister devlet taraf\u0131ndan finanse edilmi\u015f olsun, savunman\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclme
bi\u00e7imi san\u0131k ile m\u00fcdafii aras\u0131ndaki bir ili\u015fkidir.
1.4.2 Yap\u0131sal Sorunlar
Yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131n\u0131n, kendilerinden bekleneni yapm\u0131\u015f olmalar\u0131na ra\u011fmen
g\u00f6rev d\u0131\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fka nedenlerle \u2013yarg\u0131\u00e7 a\u00e7\u0131\u011f\u0131, siyasi ortam, ulusal hukuktaki bo\u015fluklar, i\u015f
y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi- makul s\u00fcrenin a\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 halinde durumdan gene devlet sorumlu
tutulmaktad\u0131r55. Zira devlet, 6. maddenin gereklerinin yerine getirilmesini sa\u011flayacak
b\u00fct\u00fcn tedbirleri almakla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr.
Mahkemenin \u00f6n\u00fcndeki dava s\u0131ras\u0131nda, \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemeyen, ge\u00e7ici bir yo\u011funluk
varsa ve e\u011fer yetkili makamlar bu sorunun bilincinde olup, \u00e7\u00f6zmek i\u00e7in yeterli gayreti
g\u00f6stermi\u015flerse, makul s\u00fcre a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ihlal olu\u015fmayacakt\u0131r56. \u00d6rne\u011fin BuchholzAlmanya davas\u0131nda57, ekonomik durgunluk nedeni ile 1974-1976 aras\u0131nda i\u015f
mahkemelerindeki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k oran\u0131 ciddi bir \u015fekilde artm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Fakat, yetkili makamlar
daha 1974\u2019te art\u0131\u015f\u0131 farkedip yarg\u0131\u00e7 say\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 artt\u0131rm\u0131\u015f, 1976\u2019da alt\u0131nc\u0131 idare kurulmu\u015f,
1979\u2019da reform yasas\u0131 kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Mahkemeye g\u00f6re yetkili makamlar
sorumluluklar\u0131na uygun olarak davranm\u0131\u015flard\u0131r ve ihlal yoktur.
Ancak, dava say\u0131s\u0131ndaki ge\u00e7ici yo\u011funluk, yetkili makamlar\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu
istisnai durumu \u00e7\u00f6zmek i\u00e7in makul bir h\u0131zda davranmak y\u00fck\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc ortadan
kald\u0131rmamaktad\u0131r. Foti ve di\u011ferleri-\u0130talya davas\u0131nda
58, Reggio Calabria\u2019da bir siyasi
karar sonucu tetiklenen ve yayg\u0131nla\u015fan toplumsal karma\u015fa olmu\u015f ve \u00e7e\u015fitli olaylar
sonucu y\u00fczlerce tutuklama ve ceza davas\u0131 g\u00fcndeme gelmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme \u00f6zel ko\u015fullar\u0131
de\u011ferlendirmekle beraber, bunlar\u0131 tek ba\u015f\u0131na makul s\u00fcrenin ihlalini \u00f6nleyici
bulmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
E\u011fer i\u015f y\u00fck\u00fc yap\u0131sal organizasyon sorunlar\u0131 sonucu ise, devletin etkili
\u00f6nlemler almas\u0131 gerekmektedir. Zimmermann_Steiner-\u0130svi\u00e7re davas\u0131nda59, 1969\u2019dan
1979\u2019a kadar i\u015f y\u00fck\u00fc %86 kadar artm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r ve bu art\u0131\u015f ge\u00e7ici bir art\u0131\u015f de\u011fildir.
Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla bu durum ilgili makamlar\u0131n yeterince ilgi g\u00f6stermedi\u011fi yap\u0131sal organizasyon<\/p>\n\n\n\n
53 H-Fransa, 24.10.1988, A 143
54 Kamasinski-Avusturya, 19.12.1989, A 168
55 Zimmemann_Steiner-\u0130svi\u00e7re, 13.07.1983, A 66; Martins Moreira-Portekiz, a.g.k.; Salesi-\u0130talya, 26.02.1993, A
257-e (dava mal\u00fcll\u00fck tazminat\u0131 ile ilgilidir. Yakla\u015f\u0131k alt\u0131 sene s\u00fcren dava uzun y\u0131llar hareketsiz, hatta donmu\u015f
durumda kalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Do\u011fru, Osman. \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Avrupa Mahkemesi Kararlar Rehberi (1960-1994), \u0130B
Yay\u0131nlar\u0131, \u0130stanbul: 1999, s.341)
56 \u0130nceo\u011flu, Sibel. s.376
57 Buchholz-Almanya, 06.05.1981, A 42
58 Foti ve di\u011ferleri-\u0130talya, a.g.k.
59 Zimmermann_Steiner-\u0130svi\u00e7re, 13.07.1983, A 66
MAKUL S\u00dcREDE YARGILANMA HAKKI
De\u011ferlendirme Kriterleri
Av. Melis \u00dcnl\u00fctepe
sorunudur. Yine, Guincho-Portekiz davas\u0131nda60 da ekonomik durgunluk, demokrasiye
d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f ve yeni Anayasa nedeniyle ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k say\u0131s\u0131ndaki art\u0131\u015f, \u00f6nceden
\u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir bulunmu\u015f ve devletin yeterli tedbirleri almad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.
Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00f6n\u00fcndeki s\u00fcre\u00e7 davaya etkiliyse dikkate al\u0131nacakt\u0131r.
Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin ge\u00e7 karar vermesi ve bu y\u00fczden esas davan\u0131n ge\u00e7
sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131 ihlale neden olmaktad\u0131r61. \u00d6rne\u011fin Ruiz Meteos-\u0130spanya davas\u0131nda62
,
AM\u2019nin davay\u0131 etkileyebilecek nitelikteki karar\u0131n\u0131n beklenmesi dolay\u0131s\u0131yla esas dava
makul s\u00fcrede sonu\u00e7lanamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca, bu konuda, AM\u2019nindaha \u00f6nce de karar
vermi\u015f olmas\u0131 ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00f6nemli olmakla beraber, pek \u00e7ok ki\u015fiyi de
etkileyebilecek olmas\u0131 da daha \u00e7abuk karar verilmesini gerektirmektedir.
Anayasa Mahkemesi davalar\u0131n kronolojik s\u0131ras\u0131ndan \u00e7ok, siyasi ve sosyal
\u00f6nemine g\u00f6re karar alabilir. Sussmann-Almanya davas\u0131nda63, Mahkeme, makul s\u00fcre
y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc AM i\u00e7in de ge\u00e7erli olmakla birlikte, ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde uygulanmaz, ancak
medeni hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri belirleyici ise 6\/1 kapsam\u0131na dahildir.
Baz\u0131 \u00fclkelerdeki, ceza davalar\u0131ndaki ilk soru\u015fturma a\u015famas\u0131 gibi yarg\u0131
sisteminden kaynaklanan gecikmeler ortaya \u00e7\u0131kabilmektedir. Neumeister-Avusturya
davas\u0131nda64, yarg\u0131lama ilk soru\u015fturma a\u015famas\u0131nda \u00e7ok uzam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130HAM ilk soru\u015fturma
sistemini nitelik olarak ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulmamakla birlikte etkili bir bi\u00e7imde i\u015fletilmesi
gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir.
Bazen de ki\u015fi haklar\u0131n\u0131 korumak i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f \u00e7e\u015fitli ve \u00e7ok say\u0131daki
mahkeme yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecini uzatmaktad\u0131r65. K\u00f6nig-Almanya davas\u0131nda66, \u0130HAM, her
ne kadar Alman yarg\u0131lama sisteminde ki\u015fi haklar\u0131n\u0131 korumak esas al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olsa da,
6\/1\u2019in uygulamas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan sistemi basitle\u015ftirmek devletin g\u00f6revidir.
\u0130dari yarg\u0131 ile ilgili olarak, B\u00fcker-T\u00fcrkiye davas\u0131nda67 da ba\u015fvurucunun
s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi sona erdirilerek, g\u00f6revine son verilmi\u015ftir. Dava yedi y\u0131l dokuz ay s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr
ve bu s\u00fcrenin makul s\u00fcreyi a\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Bu karar\u0131n verilmesinde,
mahkmelerin, karar\u0131n verilme a\u015famalar\u0131nda yada dosyalar\u0131n bir mahkemeden di\u011ferine
g\u00f6nderilmesi gibi a\u015famalarda gecikme oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in kusurlu olduklar\u0131ndan de\u011fil,
sistemin hatal\u0131 oldu\u011fundan yola \u00e7\u0131kmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
60 Guincho-Portekiz, 10.07.1984, A 81
61 \u0130nceo\u011flu, Sibel. s.377
62 Ruiz Meteos-\u0130spanya, 23.06.1993. A 262-a
63 Sussmann-Almanya, 16.09.1996
64 Neumeister-Avusturya, 27.06.1968, A 8
65 \u0130nceo\u011flu, Sibel. s.379
66 K\u00f6nig-Almanya, a.g.k.
67 B\u00fcker-T\u00fcrkiye, a.g.k.
68 G\u00f6lc\u00fckl\u00fc, Feyyaz. Yarg\u0131lama Makamlar\u0131 \u00d6n\u00fcnde \u201cMakul S\u00fcre\u201d, \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Merkezi Dergisi, A\u00dcSBF \u0130nsan
Haklar\u0131 Merkezi, Nisan 1995, c.III, S.2, s.10 vd.
MAKUL S\u00dcREDE YARGILANMA HAKKI
De\u011ferlendirme Kriterleri
Av. Melis \u00dcnl\u00fctepe
s\u00fcresini k\u0131saltma amac\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131maktad\u0131r. A\u0130HS m.5\/3 ile yakalama ve tutuklama makul
yani kabul edilebilir bir s\u00fcre ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu s\u00fcre makul olma niteli\u011fini
yitirdi\u011finde, san\u0131k hemen sal\u0131verilmelidir. A\u0130HS m. 6\/1\u2019deki makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma
hakk\u0131 tutuklu-tutuksuz b\u00fct\u00fcn san\u0131klara ait bir hak oldu\u011fu halde, m.5\/3\u2019teki makul s\u00fcre,
tutuklu san\u0131\u011f\u0131n yarg\u0131 organ\u0131 \u00f6n\u00fcne \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131larak tutuklululk halinin incelenmesini
\u00f6ng\u00f6rmektedir. Mahkeme san\u0131\u011f\u0131 yarg\u0131layacak, ko\u015fullar\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015f ise re\u2019sen
sal\u0131verecektir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
69 Wemhoff-Almanya, 27.06.1968, A 7 (bu kararda Mahkeme, tutuklu san\u0131\u011f\u0131n davas\u0131na \u00f6ncelik verilmesi ve \u00f6zel
bir h\u0131zla hareket edilmesi gerekti\u011fini \u00f6ng\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.)
70 Mansur-T\u00fcrkiye, a.g.k.
71 G\u00f6lc\u00fckl\u00fc, Feyyaz, a.g.m.
72 E.1999\/1, K:1999\/33, T:20.07.1999
73 \u0130zgi, \u00d6mer ve G\u00f6nen, zafer. T\u00fcrkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasas\u0131\u2019n\u0131n Yorumu II, TBMM Bas\u0131mevi, Ankara:2002,
s.1251
MAKUL S\u00dcREDE YARGILANMA HAKKI
De\u011ferlendirme Kriterleri
Av. Melis \u00dcnl\u00fctepe
maddenin amac\u0131 yarg\u0131laman\u0131n bir an \u00f6nce sona ermesi ile maddi ve manevi
ma\u011fduriyetlere engel olmakt\u0131r.
Av. Melis \u00dcnl\u00fctepe, \u0130stanbul<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
G\u0130R\u0130\u015eYarg\u0131lamada makul s\u00fcrenin a\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fikayeti, 6. madde ba\u011flam\u0131nda Mahkeme\u00f6n\u00fcne getirilen davalarda say\u0131 itibari ile en \u00f6n s\u0131rada yer almaktad\u0131r. Zira ki\u015fiyi pek \u00e7okbak\u0131mdan dayan\u0131lmaz s\u0131k\u0131nt\u0131lara sokan bu duruma \u00e7are bulmak amac\u0131yla, ulusalanayasalar yada kanunlara veya uluslar aras\u0131 belgelere yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcresi ile ilgili \u00e7e\u015fitlih\u00fck\u00fcmler konulmu\u015ftur1.Gecikmi\u015f adalet adaletsizlik (justice delaid is justice denied) olarakg\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Avrupa […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1481","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-genel"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.unlutepehukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1481","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.unlutepehukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.unlutepehukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.unlutepehukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.unlutepehukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1481"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.unlutepehukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1481\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1482,"href":"https:\/\/www.unlutepehukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1481\/revisions\/1482"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.unlutepehukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1481"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.unlutepehukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1481"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.unlutepehukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1481"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}