T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
G\u00dcLL\u00dc GEN\u00c7AY BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/62105)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 24\/10\/2024<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Mehmet ALTUND\u0130\u015e<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
G\u00fcll\u00fc GEN\u00c7AY<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Utku Co\u015fkuner SAKARYA<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcnde kararname ile kapat\u0131lan e\u011fitim kurumuna yap\u0131lan \u00f6demenin iadesine y\u00f6nelik talebin reddedilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bar\u0131\u015f Ata E\u011fitim Bil. \u0130n\u015f. Turz. San. Tic. A.\u015e.ye ait \u00d6zel Anafartalar Kolejinde e\u011fitim g\u00f6ren \u00e7ocuklar\u0131 i\u00e7in 2016-2017 e\u011fitim \u00f6\u011fretim d\u00f6neminde e\u011fitim g\u00f6rmesi i\u00e7in 8.350 TL \u00f6demi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. 22\/7\/2016 tarihli ve 667 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Al\u0131nan Tedbirlere \u0130li\u015fkin Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin (667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) 2. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (b) bendiyle \u00d6zel Anafartalar Kolejinin ba\u011fl\u0131 oldu\u011fu \u015firkete ait e\u011fitim kurumlar\u0131, \u00f6\u011frenci yurtlar\u0131 ve pansiyonlar kapat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayn\u0131 maddenin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca kapat\u0131lan e\u011fitim kurumlar\u0131, \u00f6\u011frenci yurtlar\u0131 ve pansiyonlara ait olan ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131rlar ile her t\u00fcrl\u00fc mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131, alacak ve haklar, belge ve evrak Hazineye bedelsiz olarak devredilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu, 15\/8\/2016 tarihli ve 670 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Al\u0131nmas\u0131 Gereken Tedbirler Hakk\u0131nda Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin (670 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) 5. maddesinin (4) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca 2\/9\/2016 tarihinde Ankara Defterdarl\u0131\u011f\u0131na verdi\u011fi dilek\u00e7eyle \u00f6dedi\u011fi e\u011fitim \u00f6\u011fretim \u00fccretinin iadesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Ankara Valili\u011fi Defterdarl\u0131k KHK \u0130l B\u00fcrosu (\u0130dare) 27\/1\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6demeye dair ispat edici vesika eklenmedi\u011finden ba\u015fvurunun reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, \u0130darenin 27\/1\/2021 tarihli i\u015fleminin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, KHK ile kapat\u0131lan kuruma yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6demeleri ispata elveri\u015fli belgeleri daval\u0131 idareye ibraz etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek i\u015flemin iptali ile kuruma yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 toplam 8.350 TL \u00f6demenin 2\/9\/2016 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faiziyle \u00f6denmesi istemiyle Ankara 16. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. \u0130dare Mahkemesince 30\/6\/2021 tarihinde davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucunun Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131na (FET\u00d6\/PDY) aidiyeti, iltisak\u0131 veya irtibat\u0131 bulundu\u011fundan 2\/1\/2017 tarihli ve 679 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Baz\u0131 Tedbirler Al\u0131nmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname (679 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) ile kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal \u0130\u015flemleri \u0130nceleme Komisyonuna yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurunun 5\/12\/2018 tarihinde reddedildi\u011fi, an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n da Ankara 22. \u0130dare Mahkemesince 26\/10\/2020 tarihinde reddedildi\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 10. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi (Daire) 3\/11\/2021 tarihinde istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai karar\u0131 26\/11\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 22\/12\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
III. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
9. \u00d6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun oldu\u011funu belirten ba\u015fvurucunun adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu, kapat\u0131lan \u00f6zel e\u011fitim kurumuna \u00f6dedi\u011fi e\u011fitim bedelinin iade edilmedi\u011finden yak\u0131nmaktad\u0131r. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, yap\u0131lacak incelemede Anayasa’n\u0131n 15. maddesi ve Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 ile somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc \u015fartlar\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131narak de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda ba\u015fvuru formunda belirtti\u011fi iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvuru, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. 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 m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
13. Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesiyle g\u00fcvenceye ba\u011flanan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131, ekonomik de\u011fer ifade eden ve parayla de\u011ferlendirilebilen her t\u00fcrl\u00fc mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131 kapsamaktad\u0131r (AYM, E.2015\/39, K.2015\/62, 1\/7\/2015, \u00a7 20). Ba\u015fvuruya konu olayda okul kay\u0131t \u00fccreti olarak \u00f6dedi\u011fi tutar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcyle irtibat\u0131 ve iltisak\u0131 bulundu\u011fundan bahisle kendisine iade edilmemesi tedbiri m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na bir m\u00fcdahale olu\u015fturmu\u015ftur. M\u00fclkten yoksun b\u0131rakma amac\u0131 olmay\u0131p su\u00e7la m\u00fccadele kapsam\u0131nda bir tedbir niteli\u011finde olan m\u00fcdahale m\u00fclk\u00fcn kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n kontrol\u00fc veya d\u00fczenlenmesine ili\u015fkin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc kural kapsam\u0131nda incelenmelidir.<\/p>\n
14. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rs\u0131z bir hak olarak d\u00fczenlenmemi\u015f, bu hakk\u0131n kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131yla ve kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131labilece\u011fi \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalede bulunulurken temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin genel ilkeleri d\u00fczenleyen Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinin de g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmas\u0131 gerekmektedir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’ya uygun olabilmesi i\u00e7in m\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayanmas\u0131, kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131 ve ayr\u0131ca \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi g\u00f6zetilerek yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekmektedir (Recep Tarhan ve Afife Tarhan, B. No: 2014\/1546, 2\/2\/2017, \u00a7 62).<\/p>\n
15. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun 667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK kapsam\u0131nda kapat\u0131lmadan \u00f6nce \u00f6zel e\u011fitim \u00f6\u011fretim kurumuna \u00f6dedi\u011fi e\u011fitim bedelinin iadesi talebi, Mahkeme karar\u0131yla reddedilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucunun FET\u00d6\/PDY’ye aidiyeti, iltisak\u0131 veya irtibat\u0131 bulundu\u011fundan 679 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK ile kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal \u0130\u015flemleri \u0130nceleme Komisyonuna yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurunun reddi \u00fczerine a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n da Ankara 22. \u0130dare Mahkemesince reddedildi\u011fine vurgu yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
16. Anayasa Mahkemesi 26\/10\/2022 tarihli ve E.2018\/85, K.2022\/127 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile 7091 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 5. maddesinin (4) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda yer alan “\u2026aidiyeti, iltisak\u0131 veya irtibat\u0131 olmayan ki\u015filerle\u2026” ibaresinin iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu kural\u0131n kapsam\u0131na muvazaal\u0131 veya varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ku\u015fkulu alacaklar\u0131n girmedi\u011fi, \u00fcstelik idarenin hileli i\u015flemlere dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit etti\u011fi alacaklar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yeterli ara\u00e7larla donat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden kural ile ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne aidiyeti, \u00f6rg\u00fctle irtibat\u0131 veya iltisak\u0131 olanlar\u0131n alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesinin engellenmesinin ama\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir (AYM, E.2018\/85, K.2022\/127, 26\/10\/2022, \u00a7 118). Anayasa Mahkemesi, salt alacakl\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcyle irtibatl\u0131 veya iltisakl\u0131 oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilerek hukuka uygunlu\u011fu konusunda ku\u015fku bulunmayan bir alaca\u011f\u0131n \u00f6denmemesinin bir hukuk devletinde me\u015fru g\u00f6r\u00fclemeyece\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctleriyle irtibatl\u0131 veya iltisakl\u0131 olduklar\u0131 somut olarak ortaya konulan ki\u015filerle ilgili tedbir al\u0131nmas\u0131nda devletin takdir yetkisi olmakla birlikte bu ki\u015filerin \u00f6zel hukuk ili\u015fkileri \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ifa ettikleri y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerinden do\u011fan alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmemesine y\u00f6nelik olarak yap\u0131lan d\u00fczenlemenin makul ve me\u015fru tedbirler aras\u0131nda olamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kaydetmi\u015ftir. Bu h\u00e2liyle s\u00f6z konusu kural\u0131n kamu yarar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik me\u015fru bir amaca dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6ylenemeyece\u011fini belirtmi\u015f, Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. ve 35. maddelerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funa karar vermi\u015ftir (AYM, E.2018\/85, K.2022\/127, 26\/10\/2022, \u00a7\u00a7 119-120).<\/p>\n
17. OHAL tedbirleri kapsam\u0131nda kapat\u0131lan bir e\u011fitim kurumuna yap\u0131lan \u00f6demenin iadesi talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddia Ebam\u00fcsl\u00fcm Y\u0131ld\u0131z (B. No: 2019\/677, 20\/6\/2023) ba\u015fvurusunda incelenmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan ba\u015fvuruda, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131 olan 7091 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 5. maddesinin (4) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda yer alan “\u2026aidiyeti, iltisak\u0131 veya irtibat\u0131 olmayan ki\u015filerle\u2026” ibaresinin iptaline ili\u015fkin norm denetimi karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkeler ve var\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir neden bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmi\u015ftir (Ebam\u00fcsl\u00fcm Y\u0131ld\u0131z, \u00a7\u00a7 27-31). Anayasa Mahkemesi yine OHAL kapsam\u0131nda bir e\u011fitim kurumuna \u00f6dedi\u011fi kay\u0131t \u00fccretinin iadesi talebinin ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcyle irtibatl\u0131 ve iltisakl\u0131 oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesine dair ba\u015fka bir \u015fik\u00e2yeti \u00dcnal \u015eenel (B. No: 2019\/4445, 28\/2\/2024) ba\u015fvurusunda incelemi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu ba\u015fvuruda, okul kay\u0131t \u00fccretinin iade edilmemesinin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131yla ilgili olarak norm denetimindeki kamu yarar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik me\u015fru bir amaca dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin tespit ve s\u00f6z konusu kural\u0131n iptali dikkate al\u0131narak ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin me\u015fru bir amaca dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir (\u00dcnal \u015eenel, \u00a7 44). Bu kapsamda eldeki ba\u015fvuru y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de yukar\u0131da belirtilen kararlarda ula\u015f\u0131lan ilke ve sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir neden bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti, yeniden yarg\u0131lama ve u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zararlar\u0131n\u0131n giderilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu kapsamda karar\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flatmak ve Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gideren, ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun yeni bir karar vermektir (30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu Ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen bireysel ba\u015fvuruya \u00f6zg\u00fc yeniden yarg\u0131lama kurumunun \u00f6zelliklerine ili\u015fkin kapsaml\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamalar i\u00e7in bkz. Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2), 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
21. \u00d6te yandan ihlalin niteli\u011fine g\u00f6re yeniden yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
V. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Adli yard\u0131m talebinin KABUL\u00dcNE,<\/p>\n
B. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
C. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Ankara 16. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E:2021\/344, K:2021\/1418) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE<\/p>\n
F. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. \u00d6demenin 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 faiz UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
H. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 24\/10\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 24\/10\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/62105 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 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 G\u00dcLL\u00dc GEN\u00c7AY BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/62105) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 24\/10\/2024 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : Mehmet ALTUND\u0130\u015e Ba\u015fvurucu : G\u00fcll\u00fc GEN\u00c7AY Vekili : Av. Utku Co\u015fkuner SAKARYA \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru, kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcnde kararname ile kapat\u0131lan e\u011fitim kurumuna yap\u0131lan \u00f6demenin iadesine y\u00f6nelik talebin reddedilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bar\u0131\u015f Ata E\u011fitim Bil. \u0130n\u015f. Turz. San. Tic. A.\u015e.ye ait \u00d6zel Anafartalar Kolejinde e\u011fitim g\u00f6ren \u00e7ocuklar\u0131 i\u00e7in 2016-2017 e\u011fitim \u00f6\u011fretim d\u00f6neminde e\u011fitim g\u00f6rmesi i\u00e7in 8.350 TL \u00f6demi\u015ftir. 3. 22\/7\/2016 tarihli ve 667 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Al\u0131nan Tedbirlere \u0130li\u015fkin Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin (667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) 2. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (b) bendiyle \u00d6zel Anafartalar Kolejinin ba\u011fl\u0131 oldu\u011fu \u015firkete ait e\u011fitim kurumlar\u0131, \u00f6\u011frenci yurtlar\u0131 ve pansiyonlar kapat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayn\u0131 maddenin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca kapat\u0131lan e\u011fitim kurumlar\u0131, \u00f6\u011frenci yurtlar\u0131 ve pansiyonlara ait olan ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131rlar ile her t\u00fcrl\u00fc mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131, alacak ve haklar, belge ve evrak Hazineye bedelsiz olarak devredilmi\u015ftir. 4. Ba\u015fvurucu, 15\/8\/2016 tarihli ve 670 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Al\u0131nmas\u0131 …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,535],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20544","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n