{"id":727,"date":"2015-12-07T14:38:49","date_gmt":"2015-12-07T12:38:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tuncayilcim.av.tr\/v5\/?p=727"},"modified":"2015-12-10T00:15:35","modified_gmt":"2015-12-09T22:15:35","slug":"avukatin-ustlendigi-gorevi-yapmamasi-aldigi-paraya-makbuz-duzenlememesi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tuncayilcim.av.tr\/v5\/avukatin-ustlendigi-gorevi-yapmamasi-aldigi-paraya-makbuz-duzenlememesi\/","title":{"rendered":"Avukat\u0131n \u00fcstlendi\u011fi g\u00f6revi yapmamas\u0131, ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 paraya makbuz d\u00fczenlememesi&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"page-header clearfix\">\n<h2 class=\"lead\" style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>Avukat\u0131n \u00fcstlendi\u011fi g\u00f6revi yapmamas\u0131, ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 paraya makbuz d\u00fczenlememesi<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n<h2 class=\"lead\" style=\"text-align: center;\"><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"row-fluid muted\">\n<p class=\"pull-left\" style=\"text-align: left;\"><strong>Yarg\u0131tay Ceza Genel Kurulu \u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p class=\"pull-left\" style=\"text-align: left;\"><strong>\u00a02014\/561 E. \u00a0, \u00a02015\/243 K.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>&#8220;\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni&#8221;<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Tebli\u011fname :<\/strong>2014\/266002\u00a0 Mahkemesi : \u0130STANBUL ANADOLU 3. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza G\u00fcn\u00fc : 25.03.2014\u00a0 Say\u0131s\u0131 : 97-72<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>G\u00f6revi k\u00f6t\u00fcye\u00a0kullanmak<\/strong> su\u00e7undan san\u0131k R.. Y..\u2019\u0131n beraatine ili\u015fkin, Kad\u0131k\u00f6y 1. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesince verilen 26.01.2012 g\u00fcn ve 67-89 say\u0131l\u0131 h\u00fckm\u00fcn kat\u0131lanlar vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine dosyay\u0131 inceleyen Yarg\u0131tay 5. Ceza Dairesince 14.01.2014 g\u00fcn ve 12946-378 say\u0131 ile; \u201c\u0130stanbul Barosuna ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak avukatl\u0131k yapan san\u0131\u011f\u0131n, kat\u0131lan ve annesinin Dan\u0131\u015ftay 13. Dairesinde a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131 davalarda verilen kararlara kar\u015f\u0131 karar d\u00fczeltme yoluna ba\u015fvurmak \u00fczere, dosyada \u00f6rne\u011fi bulunan Beyo\u011flu 8. Noterli\u011fince d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f 03.03.2008 tarih ve 4614 yevmiye say\u0131l\u0131 vekaletname ile vekilliklerini \u00fcstlendi\u011fi, <em><strong>avukatl\u0131k s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin yaz\u0131l\u0131 olmas\u0131n\u0131n zorunlu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/strong><\/em>, 2.000 TL verildikten sonra istenen makbuzu d\u00fczenlemenin kendisi ve yan\u0131nda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131n yetkisi dahilinde bulunmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen tanzim edilmedi\u011fi, azledildi\u011fi 04.03.2009 tarihine kadar karar d\u00fczeltme talebi ile ilgili herhangi bir i\u015flem yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, vekalet \u00fccreti olarak ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 paray\u0131 da kat\u0131lana iade etmedi\u011fi, kat\u0131lan ile annesinin beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131klar C.. Y.., \u015e&#8230;r ve N&#8230;&#8217;nun ifadeleri ile desteklendi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmakla ki\u015fi ma\u011fduriyetine yol a\u00e7an eyleminde ihmali davran\u0131\u015fla <em><strong>g\u00f6revi k\u00f6t\u00fcye\u00a0kullanma\u00a0su\u00e7unun t\u00fcm unsurlar\u0131 ile olu\u015ftu\u011fu g\u00f6zetilmeden<\/strong> <\/em>dosya kapsam\u0131 ve olu\u015fa uygun d\u00fc\u015fmeyen gerek\u00e7elerle yaz\u0131l\u0131 bi\u00e7imde beraet karar\u0131 verilmesi\u201d isabetsizli\u011finden bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u0130stanbul Anadolu 3. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi ise 25.03.2014 g\u00fcn ve 97-72 say\u0131 ile; \u201cSan\u0131k avukat Re\u015fide hakk\u0131nda vekaletname \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131p 2.000 TL&#8217;s\u0131 vekalet \u00fccreti ald\u0131ktan sonra avukatl\u0131k g\u00f6revini ihmal ederek kat\u0131lan\u0131 zarara u\u011fratt\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131 ile dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 \u00fczerine mahkememizce yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamada, kat\u0131lanlar\u0131n anne k\u0131z N&#8230; ve F.. K.. olduklar\u0131, \u0130mar Bankas\u0131ndan alacaklar\u0131n\u0131 tahsil etmek i\u00e7in Dan\u0131\u015ftay&#8217;da a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131 davan\u0131n reddedilmesi \u00fczerine yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi yolunda talepte bulunmalar\u0131n\u0131 isteyerek dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131n suretini ve Beyo\u011flu 8. Noterli\u011finden \u00e7\u0131kard\u0131klar\u0131 ortak vekaletnameyi san\u0131\u011fa verdikleri, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 inceleme neticesi dosya i\u00e7inde g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ibraname ve taahh\u00fctname ile kat\u0131lanlar\u0131n t\u00fcm haklar\u0131ndan vazge\u00e7tiklerini, kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda bir miktar para ald\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 ve a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f davalardan vazge\u00e7eceklerini, ba\u015fkaca dava a\u00e7mayacaklar\u0131n\u0131 taahh\u00fct ettiklerini, dava a\u00e7mas\u0131 halinde taahh\u00fcd\u00fcn ihlali nedeniyle cezai \u015fart \u00f6denmesinin s\u00f6z konusu olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve bu dava ile istenilen amaca var\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, o sebeple de kat\u0131lanlar\u0131n vekaletini \u00fcstlenmeyece\u011fini kendilerine bildirdi\u011fi, vekalet ili\u015fkisinin kurulmas\u0131 i\u00e7in tek ba\u015f\u0131na vekaletname \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yetmeyece\u011fi, bunun avukat taraf\u0131ndan da kabul edilmesi gerekti\u011fi, avukat\u0131n dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131 iade etmekle vekilli\u011fi kabul etmedi\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a bildirdi\u011fi, bu durumda kurulmu\u015f bir vekalet ili\u015fkisinden s\u00f6z edilemeyece\u011fi, <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><em><strong>kat\u0131lan taraf vekalet \u00fccreti olarak 2.000 TL&#8217;s\u0131 \u00f6dediklerini s\u00f6ylemi\u015f iseler de buna ili\u015fkin bir makbuz ibraz edemedikleri,<\/strong><\/em><\/span> medeni kanun ve bor\u00e7lar kanunun paralel d\u00fczenlemelerine g\u00f6re \u00f6denen bir paran\u0131n yak\u0131n akrabal\u0131k ve yayg\u0131n adet halleri d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda <em><strong>makbuz ile ispatlanmas\u0131n\u0131n gerekti\u011fi, kat\u0131lanlar\u0131n elinde verdikleri paray\u0131 ispata yarayan bir makbuzun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/strong><\/em>, iddia edenin iddias\u0131n\u0131 ispatla m\u00fckellef olmas\u0131n\u0131n bir hukuk kaidesi olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fc ters \u00e7evirecek bir d\u00fczenlemenin de olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, <em><strong>somut olayda san\u0131\u011f\u0131n paray\u0131 almad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ispat\u0131 ile y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, kat\u0131lan taraf\u0131n paray\u0131 verdiklerini belge ile ispatlamas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, b\u00f6yle bir belgenin olmay\u0131\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda kat\u0131lan taraf\u0131n para verdiklerinin kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn hukukun temel ilkelerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olaca<\/strong><\/em>\u011f\u0131, ceza usul hukukunda kural\u0131n san\u0131\u011f\u0131n su\u00e7u i\u015fledi\u011finin somut deliller ile ortaya konulup \u015f\u00fcpheye mahal vermeyecek derecede kan\u0131tlanmas\u0131 halinde mahkumiyetin s\u00f6z konusu olabilece\u011fi, ortada \u015f\u00fcpheli durum var ise, <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><strong>\u015f\u00fcpheden san\u0131\u011f\u0131n yararlanaca\u011f\u0131 ve ayr\u0131ca san\u0131\u011f\u0131n su\u00e7suz oldu\u011funu ispatlama mecburiyetinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, san\u0131ktan su\u00e7suzlu\u011funu ispatlanamamas\u0131n\u0131n beklenemeyece\u011fi<\/strong><\/span>, zira aksi hareketin hukukun temel ilkelerine ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil edece\u011fi, somut olayda san\u0131\u011f\u0131n savunmams\u0131n\u0131n aksine mahkumiyetini gerektirir bir eylemin tespit edilemedi\u011fi, kat\u0131lan taraf\u0131n soyut iddias\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda mahkumiyet i\u00e7in bir somut delil bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, salt kat\u0131lan tan\u0131klar\u0131 olarak dinlenen Naile Fatma Kuyucu ve \u015eakir \u00d6zdemir&#8217;in beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n san\u0131\u011f\u0131n mahkumiyeti i\u00e7in yeterli olamayaca\u011f\u0131, zira ceza hukukunda tan\u0131k delilinin takdiri deliller i\u00e7erisinde yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131, tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n kesin delil olarak s\u00f6z konusu olamayaca\u011f\u0131, <strong>\u015f\u00fcphenin oldu\u011fu yerde mahkumiyet karar\u0131n\u0131n verilemeyece\u011fi&#8221;<\/strong> gerek\u00e7esiyle \u00f6nceki h\u00fck\u00fcmde direndi\u011fini belirtmi\u015f, ancak herhangi bir h\u00fck\u00fcm kurmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu h\u00fckm\u00fcn de kat\u0131lanlar vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine, Yarg\u0131tay C.Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 17.09.2014 g\u00fcn ve 266002 say\u0131l\u0131 \u201conama\u201d istekli tebli\u011fnamesi ile Yarg\u0131tay Birinci Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilen dosya, Ceza Genel Kurulunca de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015f ve a\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle karara ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\"> CEZA GENEL KURULU KARARI<\/span> <\/strong>\u00d6zel Daire ile yerel mahkeme aras\u0131nda olu\u015fan ve Ceza Genel Kurulunca \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmesi gereken uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; san\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 <strong>g\u00f6revi k\u00f6t\u00fcye\u00a0kullanma\u00a0su\u00e7unun<\/strong> sabit olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesine ili\u015fkin ise de, \u00f6nceki h\u00fck\u00fcmde direnilmesine karar vermekle yetinen yerel mahkemenin, h\u00fck\u00fcm f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131 yeniden kurma zorunlulu\u011fu bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususu, Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7 Y\u00f6netmeli\u011finin 27. maddesi uyar\u0131nca \u00f6n sorun olarak \u00f6ncelikle ele al\u0131n\u0131p de\u011ferlendirilmelidir. \u0130ncelenen dosya kapsam\u0131ndan; Yerel mahkemece bozmadan sonra yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamada ilk h\u00fck\u00fcmde direnilmesine karar verildi\u011fi ancak \u00f6nceki h\u00fckme at\u0131f yap\u0131lmas\u0131yla yetinilerek, hem k\u0131sa kararda hem de gerek\u00e7eli kararda yeni bir h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Yarg\u0131tay\u2019\u0131n istikrarl\u0131 uygulamalar\u0131na g\u00f6re; bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bozulmakla tamamen ortadan kalkaca\u011f\u0131ndan, yerel mahkemelerce direnme karar\u0131 verilirken, 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 CMK\u2019nun 230, 231 ve 232. maddelerine uygun yeni bir h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 zorunlu olup, aksi h\u00e2l 1412 say\u0131l\u0131 CMUK&#8217;nun 5320 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun 8\/1. maddesi gere\u011fince halen y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan 308. maddesi uyar\u0131nca mutlak hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r. Ceza Genel Kurulunun yerle\u015fmi\u015f kararlar\u0131nda da vurguland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere, CMK\u2019nun 230 ve 232. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca, ayn\u0131 kanunun 223. maddesine g\u00f6re verilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn ne oldu\u011fu hi\u00e7bir teredd\u00fcde yer vermeyecek \u015fekilde a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a g\u00f6sterilmeli, bozulmakla tamamen ortadan kalkan ve infaz yetene\u011fini yitiren \u00f6nceki h\u00fckme at\u0131f yap\u0131lmas\u0131yla yetinilmemeli, kesinle\u015fti\u011fi takdirde ba\u015fka bir karar\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 gerektirmeden infaza esas al\u0131nabilecek nitelikte yeni bir h\u00fck\u00fcm verilmelidir. Nitekim, Ceza Genel Kurulunun 12.05.1998 g\u00fcn 104-171, 01.04.2008 g\u00fcn 42-69 ile 29.09.2009 g\u00fcn 125-207 say\u0131l\u0131 ve 04.11.2014 g\u00fcn 648-477 say\u0131l\u0131 kararlar\u0131nda da ayn\u0131 sonuca ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde; Yerel mahkemece, belirtilen ilkeler do\u011frultusunda i\u015flem yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f, bozulmakla ortadan kalkan \u00f6nceki h\u00fck\u00fcmde direnilmesine karar verildikten sonra, 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 CMK\u2019nun 230 ve 232. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca verilen karar\u0131n ne oldu\u011fu ve h\u00fck\u00fcmde bulunmas\u0131 zorunlu olan\u201csonu\u00e7 (h\u00fck\u00fcm)\u201d k\u0131sm\u0131 eksik b\u0131rak\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu itibarla, sair y\u00f6nleri incelenmeyen direnme h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn belirtilen bu usul\u00fc nedenle bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmelidir. SONU\u00c7: A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle; 1- \u0130stanbul Anadolu 3. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin 25.03.2014 g\u00fcn ve 97-72 say\u0131l\u0131 direnme h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn, usul ve kanuna uygun olarak direnme h\u00fckm\u00fc kurulmamas\u0131 isabetsizli\u011finden sair y\u00f6nleri incelenmeksizin <strong>BOZULMASINA<\/strong>, 2- Dosyan\u0131n, mahalline g\u00f6nderilmek \u00fczere Yarg\u0131tay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131na TEVD\u0130\u0130NE, 23.06.2015 tarihinde yap\u0131lan m\u00fczakerede oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Avukat\u0131n \u00fcstlendi\u011fi g\u00f6revi yapmamas\u0131, ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 paraya makbuz d\u00fczenlememesi Yarg\u0131tay Ceza Genel Kurulu \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a02014\/561 E. \u00a0, \u00a02015\/243 K. &#8220;\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni&#8221; Tebli\u011fname :2014\/266002\u00a0 Mahkemesi : \u0130STANBUL ANADOLU<span class=\"excerpt-hellip\"> [\u2026]<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":234,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-727","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-haberler"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tuncayilcim.av.tr\/v5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/727","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tuncayilcim.av.tr\/v5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tuncayilcim.av.tr\/v5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tuncayilcim.av.tr\/v5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tuncayilcim.av.tr\/v5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=727"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/tuncayilcim.av.tr\/v5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/727\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tuncayilcim.av.tr\/v5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/234"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tuncayilcim.av.tr\/v5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=727"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tuncayilcim.av.tr\/v5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=727"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tuncayilcim.av.tr\/v5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=727"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}