![](\"https:\/\/www.kibristurk.com\/images\/haberler\/2023\/11\/ibb-baskani-imamoglunun-ihaleye-fesat-karistirma-sucundan-yargilanmasina-devam-edildi-1701360976.webp\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\u0130stanbul B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediye (\u0130BB) Ba\u015fkan\u0131 Ekrem \u0130mamo\u011flu’nun, Beylikd\u00fcz\u00fc Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6neminde, \u015fartlar\u0131 olu\u015fmayan bir firmaya ihale verdi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkin “ihaleye fesat kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131rma” su\u00e7undan 3 y\u0131ldan 7 y\u0131la kadar hapis cezas\u0131 istemiyle yarg\u0131lanmas\u0131na devam edildi. <\/p>\n
B\u00fcy\u00fck\u00e7ekmece 10. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi’ndeki duru\u015fmaya, tutuksuz yarg\u0131lanan 7 san\u0131\u011f\u0131n avukatlar\u0131 ile davaya m\u00fcdahil olan \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n avukat\u0131 kat\u0131ld\u0131. <\/p>\n
\u0130mamo\u011flu d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki di\u011fer san\u0131klar ad\u0131na s\u00f6z alan avukat Mehmet Gencel Erg\u00fcl, mahkemeye sundu\u011fu savunma dilek\u00e7esini tekrar etti\u011fini belirterek, \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n davaya kat\u0131lma karar\u0131n\u0131n yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ne s\u00fcrd\u00fc, mahkemenin bu karar\u0131ndan d\u00f6nmesini talep etti. <\/p>\n
Ekrem \u0130mamo\u011flu’nun avukat\u0131 Kemal Polat ise bir \u00f6nceki duru\u015fmaya da gelmeyen \u0130mamo\u011flu’nu bu duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r edeceklerini s\u00f6ylediklerini hat\u0131rlatarak, \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemeyen sebeplerden \u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fc bunu yapamad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 dile getirdi. <\/p>\n
Polat, en ge\u00e7 bir sonraki celseye kadar m\u00fcvekkilini haz\u0131r edeceklerini bildirdi. <\/p>\n
\u0130mamo\u011flu’nun di\u011fer avukat\u0131 Nusret Y\u0131lmaz ise di\u011fer san\u0131klar ve avukatlar\u0131n\u0131n, “isnat edilen eylemin yasal unsurlar\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair, su\u00e7 yoksa su\u00e7lu da yoktur.” fikri uyar\u0131nca yapt\u0131klar\u0131 savunmaya i\u015ftirak ettiklerini s\u00f6yledi. <\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz, “Say\u0131n Ba\u015fkan’\u0131n (\u0130mamo\u011flu’nun) beyan\u0131 al\u0131nd\u0131ktan sonra i\u015fin esas\u0131na ili\u015fkin eylemin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fine, Say\u0131n Ba\u015fkan’la bu eylemin illiyet ba\u011f\u0131 kurulamayaca\u011f\u0131na ve 5393 say\u0131l\u0131 yasan\u0131n 38. maddesinin cezai sorumlulu\u011funa dair dayanak olamayaca\u011f\u0131na dair savunma beyanlar\u0131m\u0131z\u0131 ayr\u0131nt\u0131lar\u0131yla sunaca\u011f\u0131z.” dedi. <\/p>\n
– Cumhuriyet savc\u0131s\u0131, \u0130mamo\u011flu’nun zorla getirilmesini istedi <\/p>\n
Cumhuriyet savc\u0131s\u0131 ise Ekrem \u0130mamo\u011flu’na usul\u00fcne uygun davetiye tebli\u011f edilmesine ra\u011fmen san\u0131\u011f\u0131n duru\u015fmaya gelmekten imtina etti\u011finin anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek, CMK’n\u0131n 146. maddesi uyar\u0131nca \u0130mamo\u011flu hakk\u0131nda zorla getirilme karar\u0131 verilmesini talep etti. <\/p>\n
Cumhuriyet savc\u0131s\u0131, \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n davaya kat\u0131lmas\u0131 karar\u0131na san\u0131k avukatlar\u0131n\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 itirazlar\u0131n reddedilmesi ve dosyan\u0131n bilirki\u015fiye g\u00f6nderilmesi talebinde bulundu. <\/p>\n
– Avukatlar yo\u011fun ya\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131 mazeret g\u00f6sterdi <\/p>\n
Tekrar s\u00f6z alan \u0130mamo\u011flu’nun avukatlar\u0131ndan Kemal Polat, “M\u00fcvekkil hakk\u0131ndaki zorla getirme talebine kat\u0131lm\u0131yoruz. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc \u00e7ok yo\u011fun bir ya\u011f\u0131\u015f vard\u0131. Bir\u00e7ok randevusu aksad\u0131. Bug\u00fcne \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemeyen \u015fekilde akseden ve kalan i\u015fleri vard\u0131. Bu nedenle haz\u0131r edemedik. Sabah mazeret dilek\u00e7esi sunmu\u015ftuk. Zorla getirme karar\u0131n\u0131n uygun olmayaca\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcndeyiz, reddini talep ederiz. Di\u011fer talepler hususunda takdir mahkemenindir.” dedi. <\/p>\n
Avukat Nusret Y\u0131lmaz da zorla getirme karar\u0131n\u0131n tedbir niteli\u011finde oldu\u011funu belirterek, “\u0130limizde yo\u011fun ya\u011f\u0131\u015f ile ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc geli\u015fen ko\u015fullar g\u00f6ze al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda bu talebin yersiz oldu\u011fu a\u015fikard\u0131r. Kendisi bilahare duru\u015fmada haz\u0131r edilecektir. Yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzat\u0131lmas\u0131 amac\u0131na y\u00f6nelik eylem ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmemi\u015ftir.” ifadelerini kulland\u0131. <\/p>\n
– Hakim, mazereti kabul etti <\/p>\n
Ara karar\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klayan hakim, san\u0131k Ekrem \u0130mamo\u011flu’nun avukatlar\u0131n\u0131n beyan\u0131 ve mazeret dilek\u00e7esi i\u00e7eri\u011fi ile san\u0131\u011f\u0131n ifa etti\u011fi kamu g\u00f6revi g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131narak, \u0130mamo\u011flu’nun bu celse mazeretli say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verdi. <\/p>\n
\u0130ddia makam\u0131n\u0131n zorla getirilme emri \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131 talebini reddeden hakim, \u0130mamo\u011flu’nun son kez mazeretli say\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 kararla\u015ft\u0131rd\u0131. <\/p>\n
Hakim, \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n davaya kat\u0131lma karar\u0131na san\u0131k avukatlar\u0131n\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 itiraz\u0131 da reddetti. <\/p>\n
– Emekli Say\u0131\u015ftay denet\u00e7ilerinden olu\u015facak \u00fc\u00e7 ki\u015filik bilirki\u015fi heyeti rapor haz\u0131rlayacak <\/p>\n
Hakim, ayr\u0131ca soru\u015fturma a\u015famas\u0131nda al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporuna san\u0131klar\u0131n avukatlar\u0131nca itiraz edildi\u011finden, kamu zarar\u0131n\u0131n olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, zarar var ise ne kadar oldu\u011funun tespiti amac\u0131yla emekli Say\u0131\u015ftay denet\u00e7ilerinden olu\u015facak \u00fc\u00e7 ki\u015filik bilirki\u015fi heyetinden rapor ald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na h\u00fckmetti. <\/p>\n
\u0130ddianamede belirtilen 250 bin 86 lira tutar\u0131nda kamu zarar\u0131n\u0131n ne suretle ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131, ihalenin Kamu \u0130hale Kanunu, hizmet al\u0131mlar\u0131 ihaleleri uygulama y\u00f6netmeli\u011fi ve benzeri mevzuatlara uygun yap\u0131l\u0131p yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n da bilirki\u015fi heyetince tespit edilmesine karar veren hakim, dosyan\u0131n tesliminden itibaren raporun haz\u0131rlanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in bilirki\u015filere 3 ay s\u00fcre verdi. <\/p>\n
Duru\u015fma, 25 Nisan 2024’e ertelendi. <\/p>\n
– \u0130ddianameden <\/p>\n
B\u00fcy\u00fck\u00e7ekmece Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nca haz\u0131rlanan iddianamede, ihbar eden olarak \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131, san\u0131k olarak ise Ekrem \u0130mamo\u011flu ile Cem \u00dclken, Fidan G\u00fcl, Hasan \u00c7etin, Hilal \u00c7uhadar, Mehmet Hepg\u00fcl ve T\u00fcrkan Demirel Di\u015fisa\u011flam yer al\u0131yor. <\/p>\n
\u0130ddianamede, 29 Aral\u0131k 2015’te “K\u00fclt\u00fcr Merkezlerinde Personel \u00c7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ve K\u00fclt\u00fcr Sanat Organizasyonlar\u0131 Hizmet Al\u0131m \u0130\u015fi” ihalesi s\u0131ras\u0131nda, \u0130mamo\u011flu’nun Beylikd\u00fcz\u00fc Belediye Ba\u015fkan\u0131 oldu\u011fu, di\u011fer san\u0131klar\u0131n ise belediyede m\u00fcd\u00fcr ve personel olarak g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131klar\u0131 anlat\u0131l\u0131yor. <\/p>\n
Beylikd\u00fcz\u00fc Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nca yap\u0131lan s\u00f6z konusu ihalede, san\u0131klar\u0131n fikir ve eylem birli\u011fi i\u00e7erisinde hareket ettikleri de\u011ferlendirilen iddianamede, “San\u0131klar, ihale al\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 bir firma lehine ancak kamu zarar\u0131na neden olacak \u015fekilde, ihaleye kat\u0131lma yeterlili\u011fine veya ko\u015fullar\u0131na sahip olmayan ki\u015filerin ihaleye kat\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamak ve teklif edilen mallar\u0131, \u015fartnamesinde belirtilen niteliklere sahip olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 halde, sahip oldu\u011fundan bahisle de\u011ferlendirmeye almak eylemlerinde bulunarak kamu kurumu stat\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fc haiz Beylikd\u00fcz\u00fc Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 250 bin 86 lira fazladan para \u00f6demesine ve neticede 250 bin 86 lira tutar\u0131nda kamu zarar\u0131na neden olarak \u00fczerlerine at\u0131l\u0131 ‘ihaleye fesat kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131rma’ su\u00e7unu i\u015fledikleri anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.” deniliyor. <\/p>\n
\u0130ddianamede, san\u0131klar Ekrem \u0130mamo\u011flu, Cem \u00dclken, Fidan G\u00fcl, Hasan \u00c7etin, Hilal \u00c7uhadar, Mehmet Hepg\u00fcl ve T\u00fcrkan Demirel Di\u015fisa\u011flam hakk\u0131nda “ihaleye fesat kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131rma” su\u00e7undan \u00fc\u00e7er y\u0131ldan yedi\u015fer y\u0131la kadar hapis cezas\u0131 isteniyor. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u0130stanbul B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediye (\u0130BB) Ba\u015fkan\u0131 Ekrem \u0130mamo\u011flu’nun, Beylikd\u00fcz\u00fc Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6neminde, \u015fartlar\u0131 olu\u015fmayan bir firmaya ihale verdi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkin “ihaleye fesat kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131rma” su\u00e7undan 3 y\u0131ldan 7 y\u0131la kadar hapis cezas\u0131 istemiyle yarg\u0131lanmas\u0131na devam edildi. B\u00fcy\u00fck\u00e7ekmece 10. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi’ndeki duru\u015fmaya, tutuksuz yarg\u0131lanan 7 san\u0131\u011f\u0131n avukatlar\u0131 ile davaya m\u00fcdahil olan \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n avukat\u0131 kat\u0131ld\u0131. \u0130mamo\u011flu d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":20592,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20591","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-gundem"],"yoast_head":"\n