T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
AHMET TUNA VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/5685)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 15\/4\/2025<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Y\u00fcksel G\u00dcNARSLAN<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1. Ahmet TUNA<\/p>\n
2. Ay\u015feg\u00fcl \u00c7\u0130F\u00c7\u0130<\/p>\n
3. Fatma TUNA<\/p>\n
4. Utku TUNA<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Tahsin KO\u00c7<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; kamu makamlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir ve \u00f6nlenebilir nitelikte oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen \u00f6l\u00fcmden kaynaklanan zararlar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada olay\u0131n idarenin kusuruyla meydana geldi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmemesi nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n, davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle k\u0131smen reddi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ve yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle de makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Hatay’\u0131n Reyhanl\u0131 il\u00e7esinde 11\/5\/2013 tarihinde biri belediye binas\u0131 \u00f6n\u00fcnde, di\u011feri postane binas\u0131n\u0131n yak\u0131nlar\u0131nda olmak \u00fczere bomba y\u00fckl\u00fc iki arac\u0131n infilak ettirilmesi suretiyle ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir. Sald\u0131r\u0131 sonucu 51 ki\u015fi ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131 yitirmi\u015f, 222 ki\u015fi yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular Ahmet Tuna ve Fatma Tuna’n\u0131n o\u011flu, di\u011fer ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n karde\u015fi olan O.T. de ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 nedeniyle hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n 22\/5\/2013 tarihinde Hatay Valili\u011fi Zarar Tespit Komisyonuna yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerine 21\/6\/2013 tarihinde sulhname imzalanm\u0131\u015f, 17\/7\/2004 tarihli ve 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Ter\u00f6r ve Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadeleden Do\u011fan Zararlar\u0131n Kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun uyar\u0131nca 25.842,95 TL tutar\u0131nda maddi tazminat O.T.nin miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131na \u00f6denmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
A. Olaya \u0130li\u015fkin Olarak G\u00f6revi K\u00f6t\u00fcye Kullanma Su\u00e7undan A\u00e7\u0131lan Kamu Davas\u0131<\/p>\n
4. Ya\u015fanan ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131yla ilgili olarak \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 M\u00fclkiye M\u00fcfetti\u015fli\u011fi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen 2\/4\/2014 tarihli \u00f6n inceleme raporunda Hatay Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne olay \u00f6ncesi konuyla ilgili olarak \u00e7ok say\u0131da ihbar geldi\u011fi, istihbarat birimlerinin ara\u00e7 plakas\u0131, \u015fah\u0131s isimleri gibi bilgileri de belirtmek suretiyle Hatay emniyetine bilgi verdi\u011fi, patlaman\u0131n meydana gelmesinde \u00f6nlem almayan emniyet birimlerinin hizmet kusuru oldu\u011fu, ilgililer hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma izni verilmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. \u0130lgili emniyet g\u00f6revlileri ile m\u00fclki idare amirleri hakk\u0131nda Hatay Valili\u011fi taraf\u0131ndan soru\u015fturma izni verilmesi \u00fczerine Hatay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) 30\/12\/2014 tarihinde g\u00f6revi k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullanma su\u00e7undan iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\u015f ve iddianamenin kabul\u00fc ile Hatay 7. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi nezdinde 19\/1\/2015 tarihinde kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n 7\/1\/2016 tarihinde ayn\u0131 su\u00e7a ili\u015fkin olarak haz\u0131rlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ikinci iddianamenin kabul\u00fcyle a\u00e7\u0131lan kamu davas\u0131 ilk ceza davas\u0131 ile birle\u015ftirilerek g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
6. \u0130\u015fbu bireysel ba\u015fvuru yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda derdest olan kamu davas\u0131, inceleme devam ederken neticelenmi\u015ftir. Hatay 7. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesinin 1\/6\/2021 tarihli karar\u0131yla, d\u00f6nemin Hatay \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc R.K., Hatay \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadele M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (TEM) \u015eube M\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc N.E. ve Reyhanl\u0131 \u0130l\u00e7e Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc M.B.nin neticeten 8 ay 10 g\u00fcn hapis cezas\u0131 ile tecziyelerine ancak h\u00fckmedilen cezalar\u0131n ertelenmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Kararda, gelen bir telefon ihbar\u0131 \u00fczerine Mill\u00ee \u0130stihbarat Te\u015fkilat\u0131nca (M\u0130T) haz\u0131rlanan ve bombalama eyleminin yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 patlay\u0131c\u0131 y\u00fckl\u00fc iki ara\u00e7 ile ilgili marka, renk ve plaka gibi somut bilgiler i\u00e7eren 10\/5\/2013 tarihli ve 2013\/32 say\u0131l\u0131 eylem ihbar\u0131 notunun Hatay \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne teslim edilmesine ve evrak\u0131n n\u00f6bet\u00e7i memur taraf\u0131ndan taranarak ilgili birimi olan TEM \u015eubesi ve \u0130l\u00e7e Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fcklerine POL-NET olarak isimlendirilen bili\u015fim sistemi \u00fczerinden g\u00f6nderilmesine ra\u011fmen bu istihbari bilgiye emniyet g\u00f6revlilerinin yeterli ilgiyi g\u00f6stermedi\u011fi ve eyleme kar\u015f\u0131 yeterli tedbir almad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca bu patlama olay\u0131 \u00f6ncesinde 23\/10\/2012 tarihinden itibaren \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne M\u0130T taraf\u0131ndan bombal\u0131 eylemler ve eylemi ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirecek \u015fah\u0131slar ile iltisaklar\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7eren bir\u00e7ok istihbari bilgi iletildi\u011fi ancak bu bilgilerin yeterince de\u011ferlendirilmedi\u011fi kabul edilmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fck\u00fcmleri istinaf incelemesinden ge\u00e7erek 7\/11\/2022 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n Olaya \u0130li\u015fkin Olarak A\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 Tam Yarg\u0131 Davas\u0131<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucular 21\/3\/2014 tarihinde \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na sunduklar\u0131 dilek\u00e7e ile \u00f6l\u00fcm nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131klar\u0131 maddi ve manevi zararlar\u0131n \u00f6denmesi i\u00e7in talepte bulunmu\u015ftur. Talebin 22\/4\/2014 tarihli i\u015flemle reddi \u00fczerine 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmleri kapsam\u0131nda idare ile imzalanan sulhnamenin iptali ile maddi ve manevi zararlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesi talepleriyle 23\/5\/2014 tarihinde tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular dava dilek\u00e7esinde, patlaman\u0131n ve \u00f6l\u00fcmlerin ya\u015fanmas\u0131nda idarenin kusuru oldu\u011funu, istihbarat bilgisi bulunmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen \u00f6nlem al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f ve dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131klama yaparak 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’dan ayr\u0131 olarak kusur sorumlulu\u011fu temelinde dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca idarenin hizmet kusurunun konuya ili\u015fkin y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 s\u00fcrecindeki bilgi ve belgelerden anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve sulhnamenin gabin ko\u015fullar\u0131nda imzalat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Hatay \u0130dare Mahkemesi (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) patlamaya ili\u015fkin olarak y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131ndaki bilgi ve belgeler ba\u015fta olmak \u00fczere dava dilek\u00e7esinde belirtilen delilleri toplamadan davay\u0131 neticelendirmi\u015ftir. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 11\/3\/2015 tarihli karar\u0131nda ilk olarak olay\u0131n bir ter\u00f6r eylemi oldu\u011funun anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 (idarenin hizmetin i\u015fleyi\u015fine ili\u015fkin kusurunun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmesi) kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n maddi tazminat talepleri bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00f6zel kanun olan 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131nda, manevi tazminat talepleri bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ise sosyal risk ilkesi kapsam\u0131nda \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenece\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. \u0130dare Mahkemesi bu de\u011ferlendirme \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde;<\/p>\n
i. Manevi tazminat talebini \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden sosyal risk ilkesi uyar\u0131nca kabul ederek toplam 160.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n idareye ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren i\u015fletilecek faizi ile birlikte ba\u015fvuruculara \u00f6denmesine,<\/p>\n
ii. Maddi tazminat talebinin komisyon taraf\u0131ndan incelenerek karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131 nedeniyle \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bu k\u0131sm\u0131 a\u015fan maddi tazminat talebinin \u00f6denmesinin 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun uyar\u0131nca m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmamas\u0131 nedeniyle reddine,<\/p>\n
iii. Sulhnamenin imzaland\u0131\u011f\u0131 21\/6\/2013 tarihinden itibaren en ge\u00e7 altm\u0131\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde veya ayn\u0131 s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde idareye ba\u015fvurulup dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekirken bu s\u00fcreler ge\u00e7ildikten sonra a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n sulhnamenin iptali talebi ve Hatay Valili\u011finden talep edilen maddi tazminat (destekten yoksun kalma tazminat\u0131 ile defin giderleri) talebi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddine,<\/p>\n
iv. 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un manevi zararlar\u0131 kapsamamas\u0131 nedeniyle manevi tazminat talebinin Hatay Valili\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucular ve \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 karara kar\u015f\u0131 temyiz kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucular; temyiz dilek\u00e7elerinde patlaman\u0131n meydana gelmesinde hizmet kusuru oldu\u011funu, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun uyar\u0131nca sosyal risk ilkesi esas al\u0131narak de\u011fil 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu’nun 13. maddesi gere\u011fince hizmet kusuru de\u011ferlendirmesi yap\u0131larak \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fclmesi gerekti\u011fini, sulhnamenin gabin ko\u015fullar\u0131nda imzaland\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki iddialar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7eli kararda de\u011ferlendirilmedi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
10. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Onuncu ve Onbe\u015finci Dairelerinden olu\u015fan m\u00fc\u015fterek Kurul temyiz incelemesi neticesinde \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n bozulmas\u0131na 14\/11\/2018 tarihinde karar vermi\u015ftir. M\u00fc\u015fterek Kurul, an\u0131lan kararda \u00f6ncelikle eylemlerin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesinde idarenin hizmet kusuru bulundu\u011funun yine idarenin kendi m\u00fcfetti\u015fince haz\u0131rlanan \u00f6n inceleme raporu, Hatay Valili\u011fi \u0130l \u0130dare Kurulunun soru\u015fturma izni verilmesine ili\u015fkin karar\u0131, Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan iddianameler ve a\u00e7\u0131lan ceza davas\u0131 ile ortaya konuldu\u011funu, bu nedenle s\u00f6z konusu patlamalara istinaden a\u00e7\u0131lan maddi ve manevi tazminat taleplerinin 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131nda de\u011fil idarenin sorumlulu\u011funun do\u011frudan ve asli nedeni olan hizmet kusuru ilkesi gere\u011fince kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. M\u00fc\u015fterek Kurul, gerek\u00e7esinde ayr\u0131ca patlamalar\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fi veya sulhnamenin imzaland\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihler itibar\u0131yla olayda hizmet kusuru bulundu\u011fu ve daval\u0131 idarelerin faaliyeti ile olay aras\u0131nda nedensellik ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131n var oldu\u011fu hususlar\u0131 net olarak bilinmedi\u011finden 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a g\u00f6re sulhname imzalanarak \u00f6deme yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n hizmet kusuru nedeniyle genel ilkeler uyar\u0131nca tazminat \u00f6denmesine engel olu\u015fturmayaca\u011f\u0131na i\u015faret etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Daval\u0131 idareler, m\u00fc\u015fterek Kurul karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 karar d\u00fczeltme talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. 10\/4\/2019 ve 16\/4\/2019 tarihli karar d\u00fczeltme dilek\u00e7elerinde ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n maddi zararlar\u0131n\u0131n 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde sulhname imzalanmas\u0131n\u0131 takiben \u00f6dendi\u011fi, olay nedeniyle baz\u0131 kamu g\u00f6revlileri hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131n\u0131n devam etti\u011fi, idarenin hizmet kusurunu ortaya koyan kesin bir yarg\u0131 karar\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
12. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Onuncu Dairesi (Daire) 19\/10\/2020 tarihinde yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 inceleme neticesinde karar d\u00fczeltme taleplerinin kabul\u00fcne, 14\/11\/2018 tarihli karar\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan talep edilmeyen faize ili\u015fkin k\u0131sm\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmak suretiyle d\u00fczeltilerek onanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015f; s\u00f6z konusu kararda \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n usul ve hukuka uygun oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin genel nitelikte bir a\u00e7\u0131klamaya yer vererek 14\/11\/2018 tarihli m\u00fc\u015fterek Kurul karar\u0131nda belirtilen gerek\u00e7eler ve ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n hizmet kusurunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc iddialar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucular, nihai karar\u0131 22\/1\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frenmelerinin ard\u0131ndan 18\/2\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
A. Ya\u015fam Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvurucular, ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen ter\u00f6r eylemine dair riskten haberdar olan kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n sald\u0131r\u0131y\u0131 \u00f6nlemek i\u00e7in gerekli \u00f6nlemleri almamas\u0131 nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n, olaya ili\u015fkin haz\u0131rlanan tefti\u015f raporu ile bir k\u0131s\u0131m kamu g\u00f6revlisi hakk\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lan tespitlerin idarenin a\u011f\u0131r hizmet kusurunu ortaya koymas\u0131na ra\u011fmen \u0130dare Mahkemesinin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 sosyal risk kapsam\u0131nda ele almas\u0131 nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n, yasal \u015fartlar\u0131 olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde karar d\u00fczeltme taleplerinin kabul\u00fc ile kanunilik ilkesinin, benzer olaylara ili\u015fkin olarak verilen farkl\u0131 yarg\u0131sal kararlar nedeniyle de hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ve hukuki belirlilik ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
16. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; yap\u0131lacak de\u011ferlendirmede Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ile somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n da dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanlar\u0131nda ba\u015fvuru formundaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 tekrarlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn \u015fik\u00e2yetleri esas olarak \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir nitelikte olan ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n idarenin kusuru nedeniyle engellenemedi\u011fi ve a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131 tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131nda da aksi y\u00f6ndeki olgulara ra\u011fmen herhangi bir a\u00e7\u0131klama yap\u0131lmadan idarenin hizmet kusurunun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6neliktir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucular, ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutu yan\u0131nda devletin kusuru nedeniyle ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu yak\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131 kaybettiklerinden ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ili\u015fkin maddi boyutunun da ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ne var ki bu iddia hakk\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayacak nitelikteki kan\u0131t, Anayasa Mahkemesinin elinde bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bu nedenle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lacak inceleme ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutuyla s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 olacakt\u0131r (benzer de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. Hasan K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 [2. B.], B. No: 2018\/22085, 27\/1\/2021; \u0130brahim Kanbal [2. B.], B. No: 2019\/6690, 16\/3\/2022; B\u00fclent K\u00f6re\u011fi [1. B.], B. No: 2021\/21941, 11\/6\/2024 ve Veysel Sevmez [2. B.], B. No: 2021\/5650, 8\/1\/2025).<\/p>\n
18. Anayasa Mahkemesi Hasan K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 ba\u015fvurusunda, yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda sosyal risk uyar\u0131nca ba\u015fvurucu lehine h\u00fckmedilen tazminat bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmede yarg\u0131lamada ya\u015fam\u0131 koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir tespitte bulunmamas\u0131 ve idarenin kusursuz sorumluluk ilkesi uyar\u0131nca olaydan sorumlu oldu\u011funun kabul edilmesi nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun ma\u011fdur s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kalkmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (ayn\u0131 kararda bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 41-43). Somut ba\u015fvuru bak\u0131m\u0131ndan da bu de\u011ferlendirmeden ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektirecek bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fka herhangi bir kabul edilemezlik nedeni tespit edilmeyen somut ba\u015fvuruda a\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutunun ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
19. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki sorumlulu\u011fu ortaya koymak ad\u0131na adli ve idari yarg\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131lan tazminat talepli davalarda makul derecede ivedilik ve \u00f6zen \u015fart\u0131n\u0131n yerine getirilmesi gerekir (Perihan U\u00e7ar ve di\u011ferleri [2. B.], B. No: 2013\/5860, 1\/12\/2015, \u00a7 52) ancak yarg\u0131 mercilerinin \u00f6zenli inceleme yapma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri, ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 ile ilgili her davada mutlaka ma\u011fdurlar lehine sonuca var\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 garanti etmez (Aysun Okumu\u015f ve Aytekin Okumu\u015f [1. B.], B. No: 2013\/4086, 20\/4\/2016, \u00a7 73).<\/p>\n
20. Somut olaya konu yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde \u0130dare Mahkemesi olaya ili\u015fkin y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131ndaki bilgi ve belgeleri temin etmeden karar vermi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan kararda (bkz. \u00a7 8) -aynen aktar\u0131lacak olursa- “dava dosyas\u0131 incelendi\u011finde, olay\u0131n bir ter\u00f6r eylemi oldu\u011funun anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 (idarenin hizmetin i\u015fleyi\u015fine ili\u015fkin kusurunun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmesi)” ifadeleri kullan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ancak idarenin hizmetin i\u015fleyi\u015fine ili\u015fkin kusurunun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki bu kanaate nas\u0131l ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair bir gerek\u00e7eye yer verilmemi\u015ftir. \u0130dare Mahkemesi bu kabulden hareketle uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131, kusur sorumlulu\u011funa ili\u015fkin genel h\u00fck\u00fcmler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde de\u011fil 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun ve sosyal risk ilkesi kapsam\u0131nda \u00e7\u00f6zm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Karar\u0131n onanmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik Daire karar\u0131nda da (bkz. \u00a7 12) hizmet kusuruna ili\u015fkin herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirmeye yer verilmemi\u015f -aynen aktar\u0131lacak olursa- “karar\u0131n d\u00fczeltilmesi dilek\u00e7esinde ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen nedenler…uygun bulundu\u011fundan, karar d\u00fczeltme isteminin kabul\u00fc”ne karar verilerek bozma y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki temyiz karar\u0131 kald\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve “…ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen temyiz nedenleri karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirecek nitelikte g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.” denilerek temyiz isteminin reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Oysa \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n bozulmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olarak karar d\u00fczeltme yolu ile kald\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan Dan\u0131\u015ftay karar\u0131nda (bkz. \u00a7 10) gerek\u00e7elerine de yer verilmek suretiyle meydana gelen patlamalarda hizmet kusuru oldu\u011fu belirtilerek maddi ve manevi tazminat talebinin hizmet kusuruna dayan\u0131larak tazminat hukukunun genel ilkelerine g\u00f6re de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
21. M\u00fclkiye m\u00fcfetti\u015fi taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan \u00f6n inceleme raporundaki tespitler do\u011frultusunda verilen soru\u015fturma izni \u00fczerine ilgili emniyet personeli hakk\u0131nda g\u00f6revi ihmal su\u00e7undan kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130dare Mahkemesi nezdinde a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131nda ne bahsi ge\u00e7en ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 s\u00fcrecinde elde edilen deliller ne de m\u00fclkiye m\u00fcfetti\u015fi inceleme raporu irdelenmi\u015ftir. Y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 neticesinde ter\u00f6r olay\u0131nda ihmalleri tespit edilen d\u00f6nemin il emniyet m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc ile TEM \u015fube m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc ve il\u00e7e emniyet m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn hapis cezas\u0131 ile tecziyelerine karar verilmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7 6). Ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 neticesinde ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7; bombalama eyleminin yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 patlay\u0131c\u0131 y\u00fckl\u00fc iki ara\u00e7 ile ilgili marka, renk ve plaka gibi somut bilgileri i\u00e7eren istihbari bilgiye yeterli \u00f6nem g\u00f6sterilmedi\u011fi ve eyleme kar\u015f\u0131 yeterli tedbir al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015feklindedir.<\/p>\n
22. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131nda idarenin ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131 koruyucu tedbirler almamas\u0131na yani olayda ya\u015fam\u0131 koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fine dayand\u0131klar\u0131 g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in gerekli delillerin toplanmas\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucunun an\u0131lan iddialar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu nedenle yarg\u0131sal makamlar\u0131n Anayasa’n\u0131n 17. maddesinin gerektirdi\u011fi dikkat ve \u00f6zende inceleme yapmad\u0131klar\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
23. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 17. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutunun ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Adil Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia <\/p>\n
1. Mahkemeye Eri\u015fim Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia <\/p>\n
24. Ba\u015fvurucular, olay\u0131n meydana gelmesinde idarenin hizmet kusuru oldu\u011funun olay an\u0131nda bilinmedi\u011fini, bu durumun olaya ili\u015fkin y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 ile ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u0130dare Mahkemesinin bu hususu dikkate almadan maddi tazminat talebini Hatay Valili\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddetti\u011fini ve aleyhe vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmetti\u011fini beyan ederek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; yap\u0131lacak de\u011ferlendirmede Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ile somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n da dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanlar\u0131nda ba\u015fvuru formundaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 tekrarlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
25. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
26. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n en temel unsurlar\u0131ndan biri olan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcne ta\u015f\u0131yabilmek ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n etkili bir \u015fekilde karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilmek anlam\u0131na gelir. Ki\u015finin mahkemeye ba\u015fvurmas\u0131n\u0131 engelleyen veya mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 anlams\u0131z h\u00e2le getiren, bir ba\u015fka ifadeyle mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde etkisizle\u015ftiren s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilir (\u00d6zkan \u015een [2. B.], B. No: 2012\/791, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
27. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, mahkemeye ba\u015fvuru konusunda etkili bir sistemin var olmas\u0131n\u0131 ve dava a\u00e7mak isteyen ki\u015filerin mahkemeye ula\u015fmada a\u00e7\u0131k, pratik ve yeterli f\u0131rsatlara sahip olmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir. \u00d6zellikle hukuki ya da uygulamadaki belirsizlikler ki\u015filerin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilir (Aktif Elektrik M\u00fch. \u0130n\u015f. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. [1. B.], B. No: 2012\/855, 26\/6\/2014, \u00a7 34). Bu nedenle mahkemeler usul kurallar\u0131n\u0131 uygularken yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetine zarar getirecek \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kat\u0131 \u015fekilcilikten, ayr\u0131ca kanunla \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f usul \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kalkmas\u0131na neden olacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 esneklikten de ka\u00e7\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r (Kamil Ko\u00e7 [1. B.], B. No: 2012\/660, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 65). Bu kapsamda mevzuatta \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine ili\u015fkin kurallar\u0131n hukuka a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak yanl\u0131\u015f uygulanmas\u0131 veya bu s\u00fcrelerin hatal\u0131 hesaplanmas\u0131 nedeniyle ki\u015filerin dava a\u00e7ma ya da kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvuru haklar\u0131n\u0131 kullanmas\u0131na engel olunmas\u0131 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilir (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. [2. B.], B. No: 2014\/13156, 20\/4\/2017, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
28. Vurgulamak gerekir ki dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin hangi tarihte ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirlemek ve mevzuat\u0131 bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle yorumlamak g\u00f6revi esasen yarg\u0131lama mercilerine aittir. Bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincillik ilkesi gere\u011fi, dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flat\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 tarihin belirlenmesi noktas\u0131nda Anayasa Mahkemesinin bir g\u00f6revi bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesinin bu hususta \u00fcstlenece\u011fi rol, dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin hangi tarihten itibaren ba\u015flat\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fiyle ilgili yarg\u0131lama mercilerinin yorumlar\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na etkisini somut olay\u0131n \u015fartlar\u0131 \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda incelemektir (Ahmet Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m [1. B.], B. No: 2014\/18135, 20\/9\/2017, \u00a7 46).<\/p>\n
29. Somut olayda Hatay Valili\u011fine y\u00f6neltilen maddi tazminat talebinin s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddedilmesinin ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu sebeple m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ve somut ba\u015fvuruya uygun d\u00fc\u015fen, kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme, hakl\u0131 bir sebebe dayanma, \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmama ko\u015fullar\u0131na uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
30. Somut s\u00fcrece bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na davan\u0131n s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddedilmesi suretiyle yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011fu ve s\u0131n\u0131rlaman\u0131n me\u015fru amac\u0131 bulundu\u011fu (idari i\u015flem ya da eylemlere kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lacak davalarda s\u00fcre \u015fart\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin en genel ifadeyle idari istikrar\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 \u015feklinde bir me\u015fru amaca hizmet etti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. Ay\u015fe Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m [1. B.], B. No: 2014\/5, 25\/10\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 54, 55; Fatma Altuner [2. B.], B. No: 2014\/17714, 26\/10\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 48, 49; \u00c7\u00f6lbeyi Lojistik Nakliyat G\u00fcmr\u00fckleme Denizcilik \u0130n\u015faat Turizm Sanayii ve Ticaret Limited \u015eirketi [1. B.], B. No: 2014\/12354, 9\/11\/2017, \u00a7 52) anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
31. Kanunilik ve me\u015fru ama\u00e7 \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahale, \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan da de\u011ferlendirilmelidir. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi elveri\u015flilik, gereklilik ve orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k olmak \u00fczere \u00fc\u00e7 alt ilkeden olu\u015fmaktad\u0131r. Elveri\u015flilik \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen m\u00fcdahalenin ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli olmas\u0131n\u0131, gereklilik ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan m\u00fcdahalenin zorunlu olmas\u0131n\u0131 yani ayn\u0131 amaca daha hafif bir m\u00fcdahale ile ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmamas\u0131n\u0131, orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k ise bireyin hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale ile ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 aras\u0131nda makul bir dengenin g\u00f6zetilmesi gereklili\u011fini ifade etmektedir (AYM, E.2011\/111, K.2012\/56, 11\/4\/2012; E.2013\/66, K.2014\/19, 29\/1\/2014; E.2016\/16, K.2016\/37, 5\/5\/2016; Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri [1. B.], B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
32. Hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ba\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 usul kurallar\u0131na uyulmamas\u0131 nedeniyle uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n esas\u0131 hakk\u0131nda karar verilmemesi suretiyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin idari istikrar\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 amac\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan elveri\u015fli ve gerekli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenemez. Somut olaydaki m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn de\u011ferlendirilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan as\u0131l \u00fczerinde durulmas\u0131 gereken husus ise m\u00fcdahalenin orant\u0131l\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
33. Eldeki ba\u015fvuruya konu yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde \u0130dare Mahkemesi, meydana gelen \u00f6l\u00fcm nedeniyle u\u011fran\u0131lan maddi zarar\u0131n tazmini amac\u0131yla 21\/6\/2013 tarihinde sulhname imzaland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bu tarihten itibaren mevzuatta belirtilen s\u00fcreler a\u015f\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra yap\u0131lan idari ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerine a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esine yer vererek davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular, idarenin kusurlu oldu\u011funu ve emniyet birimlerinin olayda ihmali bulundu\u011funu ceza davas\u0131 ile \u00f6\u011frendiklerini belirterek idari ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihi olarak bu tarihin esas al\u0131nmamas\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
34. \u00d6te yandan m\u00fc\u015fterek Kurulun -karar d\u00fczeltme yoluyla kald\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan- karar\u0131nda (bkz. \u00a7 10) patlamalar\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fi veya sulhnamenin imzaland\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihler itibar\u0131yla olayda hizmet kusuru oldu\u011fu ve daval\u0131 idarelerin faaliyeti ile olay aras\u0131nda nedensellik ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131n var oldu\u011fu hususlar\u0131 hen\u00fcz net olarak bilinmedi\u011finden 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a g\u00f6re sulhname imzalanarak \u00f6deme yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n hizmet kusuru nedeniyle genel ilkelere g\u00f6re tazminat \u00f6denmesine engel olu\u015fturmayaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ancak an\u0131lan karar\u0131n d\u00fczeltilmesine ve \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fczeltilerek onanmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik Daire karar\u0131nda (bkz. \u00a7 12) bu hususa ili\u015fkin olarak herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirmeye yer verilmedi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
35. Anayasa Mahkemesince daha \u00f6nce benzer nitelikte ba\u015fvurularda da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere idari eylem nedeniyle u\u011fran\u0131lan zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131nda idarenin tazminle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc tutulabilmesi i\u00e7in ortada idari eylem ve zarar olmal\u0131, ayr\u0131ca zararla idari eylem aras\u0131nda illiyet ba\u011f\u0131 bulunmal\u0131d\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu eylemlerin idarili\u011fi ve do\u011furdu\u011fu zarar bazen eylemin yap\u0131lmas\u0131yla birlikte ortaya \u00e7\u0131karken bazen de \u00e7ok sonra de\u011fi\u015fik ara\u015ft\u0131rma, inceleme ve hatta ceza yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131 sonucu ortaya \u00e7\u0131kabilmektedir (Leyla Bitik ve di\u011ferleri [2. B.], B. No: 2019\/24350, 16\/3\/2023, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
36. \u0130darili\u011fin veya meydana gelen zarar\u0131n ya da aralar\u0131ndaki illiyet ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131n eylemden sonra anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya ortaya konulabildi\u011fi durumlarda dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin hak sahibinin hen\u00fcz dava hakk\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fdu\u011fundan haberdar olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve somut \u015fartlar \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde haberdar oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fcn\u00fc hakl\u0131 k\u0131lan nedenlerin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir d\u00f6nemde i\u015flemeye ba\u015flamas\u0131 dava hakk\u0131n\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 anlams\u0131z k\u0131l\u0131p \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesini zedeleyebilir. Bu nedenle eylemin idarili\u011finin veya yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar\u0131n ya da illiyet ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131n eylemden sonra anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya ortaya konulabildi\u011fi durumlarda dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin bu tarihlerden sonra ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131 kabul edilmektedir (\u00e7ok say\u0131da karar aras\u0131ndan bkz. \u015eeyma Kayao\u011flu [2. B.], B. No: 2014\/5491, 5\/7\/2017, \u00a7 55).<\/p>\n
37. Somut olayda \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn 11\/5\/2013 tarihinde meydana gelen ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi ve sulhnamenin 21\/6\/2013 tarihinde imzaland\u0131\u011f\u0131 konular\u0131nda teredd\u00fct bulunmamaktad\u0131r ancak olayda idarenin kusuru olmas\u0131 durumunun \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan inceleme, akabinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen soru\u015fturma izni verilmesi i\u015flemleri ve olayda ihmali\/kusuru oldu\u011fu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclen emniyet g\u00f6revlileri hakk\u0131nda 19\/1\/2015 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan ceza davas\u0131 ile ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n an\u0131lan s\u00fcre\u00e7ten \u00f6nce \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131na sebebiyet veren olguya dair ihmale, eylemsizli\u011fe, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla eylemin idarili\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir bilgiye, veriye sahip olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n yak\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcne neden olan ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131nda idarenin kusur do\u011furabilecek eylemsizli\u011fini (\u00f6nlem almama h\u00e2li) ve zararla idari eylemsizlik aras\u0131nda illiyet ba\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011funu \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131yla derh\u00e2l \u00f6\u011frendiklerinden s\u00f6z edilemez (benzer y\u00f6ndeki Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi de\u011ferlendirmesi i\u00e7in bkz. Kur\u015fun\/T\u00fcrkiye, B. No: 22677\/10, 30\/10\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 101-106).<\/p>\n
38. Bu itibarla ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n sulhnamenin imzaland\u0131\u011f\u0131 21\/6\/2013 tarihi esas al\u0131narak u\u011frad\u0131klar\u0131 zararla ilgili idari ba\u015fvuru yapmak suretiyle dava a\u00e7malar\u0131n\u0131n beklenmesi ba\u015fvuruculara orant\u0131s\u0131z bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklemektedir.<\/p>\n
39. Bu h\u00e2le g\u00f6re \u0130dare Mahkemesinin dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihine ili\u015fkin yorumunun ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik kat\u0131 bir yorum oldu\u011fu ve bu yorumun ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 derecede g\u00fc\u00e7le\u015ftirerek neredeyse imk\u00e2ns\u0131z h\u00e2le getirdi\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Bu nedenle davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan k\u0131smen reddedilmesi suretiyle ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
40. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
2. Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
41. Ba\u015fvurucular, tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; yap\u0131lacak de\u011ferlendirmede Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ile somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n da dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
42. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olay ve olgular\u0131 somut ba\u015fvuru ile benzer nitelikte olan Veysi Ado ([GK], B. No: 2022\/100837, 27\/4\/2023) karar\u0131nda uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede Anayasa Mahkemesi 9\/1\/2013 tarihli ve 6384 say\u0131l\u0131 Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesine Yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Baz\u0131 Ba\u015fvurular\u0131n Tazminat \u00d6denmek Suretiyle \u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne Dair Kanun’un ge\u00e7ici 2. maddesinde 28\/3\/2023 tarihli ve 7445 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 40. maddesi ile yap\u0131lan de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fe g\u00f6re 9\/3\/2023 tarihi (bu tarih d\u00e2hil) itibar\u0131yla derdest olan, yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddialar\u0131yla yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurulara ili\u015fkin olarak Tazminat Komisyonuna ba\u015fvuru yolu t\u00fcketilmeden yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun incelenmesinin bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincil niteli\u011fi ile ba\u011fda\u015fmayaca\u011f\u0131 neticesine varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Somut ba\u015fvuruda da an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
43. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
44. Ba\u015fvurucular; ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 200.000 ‘er TL maddi ve 100.000’er TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
45. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen anayasal hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar ve zorunluluk bulunmaktad\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n 148. ve 153. maddeleri ile 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. ve 66. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerinin yapmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flat\u0131p Anayasa Mahkemesinin ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere ve gerek\u00e7elere uygun bi\u00e7imde y\u00fcr\u00fctecekleri yarg\u0131lama sonunda hak ihlalinin nedenlerini gidererek yeni bir karar vermektir (yeniden yarg\u0131lama konusunda bkz. Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2) [1. B.], B. No: 2016\/12506, 7\/11\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 53-60, 66; Kadri Enis Berbero\u011flu (3) [GK], B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n
46. \u00d6te yandan hak ihlali karar\u0131ndan Anayasa Mahkemesinin davan\u0131n sonucuyla ilgili olarak bir tutum sergiledi\u011fi sonucu \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmamal\u0131d\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesince verilen hak ihlali karar\u0131 uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sonu\u00e7lar\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olup davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, reddine ya da beraate veya mahk\u00fbmiyete karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi anlam\u0131na gelmez. Kural olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n her a\u015famas\u0131nda oldu\u011fu gibi ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 gidermek \u00fczere yeniden yap\u0131lacak yarg\u0131lama sonunda da delillerin dava ile ili\u015fkisini kurma ve bunlar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirip sonu\u00e7 \u00e7\u0131karma yetkisi ilgili mahkemelere aittir.<\/p>\n
47. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
3. Makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. 1. Anayasa’n\u0131n 17. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutunun \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
2. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ve mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Hatay \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2014\/646, K.2015\/659) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 487,60 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.487,60 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvuruculara M\u00dc\u015eTEREKEN \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \u00d6demelerin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 15\/4\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 15\/4\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/5685 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR AHMET TUNA VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/5685) Karar Tarihi: 15\/4\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Y\u00fcksel G\u00dcNARSLAN Ba\u015fvurucular : 1. Ahmet TUNA 2. Ay\u015feg\u00fcl \u00c7\u0130F\u00c7\u0130 3. Fatma TUNA 4. Utku TUNA Vekili : Av. Tahsin KO\u00c7 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru; kamu makamlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir ve \u00f6nlenebilir nitelikte oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen \u00f6l\u00fcmden kaynaklanan zararlar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada olay\u0131n idarenin kusuruyla meydana geldi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmemesi nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n, davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle k\u0131smen reddi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ve yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle de makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Hatay’\u0131n Reyhanl\u0131 il\u00e7esinde 11\/5\/2013 tarihinde biri belediye binas\u0131 \u00f6n\u00fcnde, di\u011feri postane binas\u0131n\u0131n yak\u0131nlar\u0131nda olmak \u00fczere bomba y\u00fckl\u00fc iki arac\u0131n infilak ettirilmesi suretiyle ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir. Sald\u0131r\u0131 sonucu 51 ki\u015fi ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131 yitirmi\u015f, 222 ki\u015fi yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular Ahmet Tuna ve Fatma Tuna’n\u0131n o\u011flu, di\u011fer ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n karde\u015fi olan O.T. de ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 nedeniyle hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybetmi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n 22\/5\/2013 tarihinde Hatay Valili\u011fi Zarar Tespit Komisyonuna yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerine 21\/6\/2013 tarihinde sulhname imzalanm\u0131\u015f, 17\/7\/2004 tarihli ve 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Ter\u00f6r ve Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadeleden Do\u011fan Zararlar\u0131n …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-141573","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n