Olaylar<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu \u015firket 2003-2005 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda k\u0131s\u0131tl\u0131 olarak vergilendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi mahkeme karar\u0131yla sabit olan maliki oldu\u011fu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz i\u00e7in fazladan \u00f6dedi\u011fi gecikme zamm\u0131n\u0131n iadesini talep etmi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucunun talebi reddedilmi\u015ftir. Bunun \u00fczerine s\u00f6z konusu i\u015flemin iptali ile \u00f6denen 500.000 TL gecikme zamm\u0131n\u0131n iadesi talebiyle dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Vergi mahkemesi davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar vermi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesinin dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek dava konusu i\u015flemin iptali ile tahsil edilen 500.000 TL gecikme zamm\u0131n\u0131n tecil faiz oran\u0131 i\u015fletilerek ba\u015fvurucuya iadesine karar vermi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 temyiz etmi\u015f ve temyiz dilek\u00e7esiyle ayn\u0131 tarihte verdi\u011fi dilek\u00e7eyle miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Dan\u0131\u015ftay ba\u015fvurucunun miktar\u0131n art\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebini reddetmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun karar d\u00fczeltme talebinin de reddedilmesi \u00fczerine karar kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u0130ddialar<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu, belirli bir miktar g\u00f6sterilerek a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131nda temyiz a\u015famas\u0131nda yap\u0131lan miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
Mahkemenin De\u011ferlendirmesi<\/p>\n
Somut olayda mahkeme ba\u015fvurucunun fazladan \u00f6dedi\u011fi miktar\u0131 tespit etmek i\u00e7in daval\u0131 idareye ara karar\u0131yla baz\u0131 hususlar\u0131 sormu\u015ftur. Mahkeme karar\u0131nda, ara karar\u0131na verilen cevapta, belirtilen zaman diliminde muaccel olan verginin 9\/10’luk k\u0131sm\u0131 \u00fczerinden 606.163,19 TL gecikme zamm\u0131 tahsil edildi\u011finin belirtildi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesinin dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek dava konusu i\u015flemin iptali ile tahsil edilen 500.000 TL gecikme zamm\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya iadesine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u0130darenin ara karar\u0131na verdi\u011fi cevap ba\u015fvurucuya tebli\u011f edilmemi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun idarenin ara karar\u0131na verdi\u011fi cevab\u0131 mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n tebli\u011fi ile \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fi, bunun \u00fczerine temyiz dilek\u00e7esiyle ayn\u0131 tarihte verdi\u011fi dilek\u00e7eyle dava de\u011ferinin art\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinde bulundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu, mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kendisine tebli\u011fi \u00f6ncesinde iadesini talep etti\u011fi ger\u00e7ek mebla\u011f\u0131 bilmemesi nedeniyle dava dilek\u00e7esinde belirti\u011fi miktar\u0131 art\u0131rma imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip olamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucuya y\u00fcklenebilecek bir kusur bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bilakis mahkeme dava de\u011ferini art\u0131r\u0131m talebine esas al\u0131nabilecek bilgileri i\u00e7eren ara karar\u0131 cevab\u0131n\u0131 ba\u015fvurucuya tebli\u011f etmeden davay\u0131 karara ba\u011flayarak bu durumun olu\u015fmas\u0131na sebebiyet vermi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, gerek\u00e7eli kararla birlikte ger\u00e7ek mebla\u011f\u0131 \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra ilk a\u015famada miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131na ili\u015fkin talep dilek\u00e7esini sunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucuya dava de\u011ferini art\u0131r\u0131m imk\u00e2n\u0131 verilmeden taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesi gere\u011fi davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi \u00fczerine yap\u0131lan temyiz ba\u015fvurusunun dava de\u011ferini art\u0131r\u0131m talebinin ilk derece mahkemesince karar verilinceye kadar yap\u0131labilece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckledi\u011fi ve bu durumun ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Anayasa Mahkemesi a\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
—–<\/p>\n
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
KOMBASSAN KA\u011eIT MATBAA GIDA VE TEKST\u0130L SANAY\u0130 VE T\u0130CARET A.\u015e. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/30300)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 18\/7\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 31\/12\/2024-32769<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/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
Muhammed Cemil KANDEM\u0130R<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Kombassan Ka\u011f\u0131t Matbaa G\u0131da ve Tekstil<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.\u015e.<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Serpil ALATALI BAYBURT<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, belirli bir miktar g\u00f6sterilerek a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131nda temyiz a\u015famas\u0131nda yap\u0131lan miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirket, 2003-2005 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda k\u0131s\u0131tl\u0131 olarak vergilendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi mahkeme karar\u0131yla sabit olan maliki oldu\u011fu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz i\u00e7in fazladan \u00f6dedi\u011fi gecikme zamm\u0131n\u0131n iadesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun talebi reddedilmi\u015ftir. Bunun \u00fczerine s\u00f6z konusu i\u015flemin iptali ile \u00f6denen 500.000 TL gecikme zamm\u0131n\u0131n iadesi talebiyle 7\/2\/2013 tarihinde dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. \u0130zmir 1. Vergi Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) 12\/12\/2013 tarihinde davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar vermi\u015ftir. Kararda, yarg\u0131 karar\u0131 uyar\u0131nca s\u00f6z konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2003-2005 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda k\u0131s\u0131tl\u0131 olarak vergilendirilece\u011fi, daval\u0131 idareye ta\u015f\u0131nmaz i\u00e7in 2003-2005 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131 gecikme zamm\u0131 tahsil edilip edilmedi\u011finin soruldu\u011fu, gelen cevaptan belirtilen zaman diliminde muaccel olan verginin 9\/10’luk k\u0131sm\u0131 \u00fczerinden 606.163,19 TL gecikme zamm\u0131 tahsil edildi\u011finin anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesinin dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek dava konusu i\u015flemin iptali ile tahsil edilen 500.000 TL gecikme zamm\u0131n\u0131n tecil faiz oran\u0131 i\u015fletilerek ba\u015fvurucuya iadesine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu, mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 temyiz etmi\u015ftir. Temyiz dilek\u00e7esiyle ayn\u0131 tarihte verdi\u011fi miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 dilek\u00e7esinde davadaki 500.000 TL’lik miktar\u0131n 106.163,19 TL art\u0131r\u0131larak 606.163,19 TL’ye y\u00fckseltilmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
5. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Dokuzuncu Dairesi (Daire) ba\u015fvurucunun miktar\u0131n art\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebini 22\/10\/2018 tarihli karar\u0131yla reddetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde, miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n nihai karar a\u015famas\u0131na, ba\u015fka bir ifadeyle ilk derece mahkemeleri taraf\u0131ndan karar verilinceye kadar yap\u0131labilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. \u00d6te yandan Daire, hesaplamada tecil faizi oran\u0131 kullan\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki isabet bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denecek faizin ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihi hakk\u0131nda h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7eleriyle mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 bozmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucunun karar d\u00fczeltme talebi Dairenin 20\/6\/2019 tarihli karar\u0131yla reddedilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6ylece ba\u015fvurucunun dava dilek\u00e7esinde belirtti\u011fi miktar\u0131n art\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinin reddine ili\u015fkin karar kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 29\/7\/2019 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 26\/8\/2019 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
8. Komisyon, oybirli\u011fi sa\u011flanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. 25\/12\/2020 tarihli T\u00fcrkiye Ticaret Sicil Gazetesi’nden ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirketin \u00fcnvan de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi ile Konya Ka\u011f\u0131t Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim \u015eirketi \u00fcnvan\u0131n\u0131 ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu; bir\u00e7ok ta\u015f\u0131nmaza ili\u015fkin olarak toplu \u00f6deme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan miktar\u0131n belirlenmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, Mahkemenin yersiz olarak tahsil edilen miktar\u0131 ara karar\u0131yla daval\u0131 idareye sordu\u011funu, idarenin 4\/12\/2013 tarihli cevap yaz\u0131s\u0131 kendilerine tebli\u011f edilmeden karar verildi\u011fini, bu sebeple ilk derece a\u015famas\u0131nda davadaki talebini art\u0131rma hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu; ayr\u0131ca nihai karar kavram\u0131n\u0131n Dairece yanl\u0131\u015f yorumland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kanun yolu a\u015famas\u0131nda miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 imk\u00e2n\u0131 veren 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu’nun ge\u00e7ici 7. maddesinin g\u00f6rmezden gelindi\u011fini, Dan\u0131\u015ftay dairelerinin ayn\u0131 konuya ili\u015fkin farkl\u0131 kararlar\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011funu belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
11. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olaylar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan hukuki nitelendirmesi ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olmay\u0131p olay ve olgular\u0131n hukuki tavsifini kendisi takdir eder. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetleri mahiyeti itibar\u0131yla mahkemeye eri\u015fim 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 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
13. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, herkesin yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddiada bulunma ve savunma hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bir unsurudur (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2014\/13156, 20\/4\/2017, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
14. Hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinde belirtilen ko\u015fullara (kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme, hakl\u0131 bir sebebe dayanma ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmama) uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinin ihlalini te\u015fkil edecektir.<\/p>\n
15. Somut olayda, temyiz a\u015famas\u0131nda yap\u0131lan ve dava dilek\u00e7esinde belirtilen de\u011feri art\u0131r\u0131m talebinin ancak ilk derece mahkemesince karar verilinceye kadar yap\u0131labilece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n bu k\u0131sm\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden esasa y\u00f6nelik herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n reddedilmesi mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etmektedir.<\/p>\n
16. Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u0131n temyiz a\u015famas\u0131nda miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 talebinde bulunulamayaca\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin yorumunun kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n mevcut oldu\u011fu konusunda teredd\u00fct bulunmakla birlikte bu hususun a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck unsuru y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n uygun olaca\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Davadaki talep miktar\u0131n\u0131n art\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n dava s\u00fcrecindeki belirli bir a\u015fama ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n usul ekonomisi ile iyi adalet y\u00f6netimi ilkesinin sa\u011flanarak kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi \u015feklinde me\u015fru bir amaca y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. Bu a\u015famada mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 incelenmelidir. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi elveri\u015flilik, gereklilik ve orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k olmak \u00fczere \u00fc\u00e7 alt ilkeden olu\u015fmaktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun art\u0131r\u0131m talebinin de\u011ferlendirilmemesi suretiyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin, kamu yarar\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 \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131yan \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct ise orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu itibarla verilen kararla ba\u015fvurucuya a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 ve orant\u0131s\u0131z bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklenip y\u00fcklenmedi\u011finin tespiti gerekir.<\/p>\n
18. Somut olayda Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun fazladan \u00f6dedi\u011fi miktar\u0131 tespit etmek i\u00e7in daval\u0131 idareye ara karar\u0131yla baz\u0131 hususlar\u0131 sormu\u015ftur. Mahkeme karar\u0131nda, ara karar\u0131na verilen 4\/12\/2012 tarihli cevapta, belirtilen zaman diliminde muaccel olan verginin 9\/10’luk k\u0131sm\u0131 \u00fczerinden 606.163,19 TL gecikme zamm\u0131 tahsil edildi\u011finin belirtildi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme 12\/12\/2013 tarihli karar\u0131yla, taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesinin dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek dava konusu i\u015flemin iptali ile tahsil edilen 500.000 TL gecikme zamm\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya iadesine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. \u0130darenin ara karar\u0131na verdi\u011fi cevap ba\u015fvurucuya tebli\u011f edilmemi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun idarenin ara karar\u0131na verdi\u011fi cevab\u0131 mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n tebli\u011fi ile \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fi, bunun \u00fczerine temyiz dilek\u00e7esiyle ayn\u0131 tarihte verdi\u011fi dilek\u00e7eyle dava dilek\u00e7esinde belirtti\u011fi miktar\u0131n art\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinde bulundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
20. Anayasa Mahkemesinin Ziynet Benli ([GK], B. No: 2019\/23977, 15\/2\/2023) karar\u0131nda \u0131slah\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmamas\u0131 veya g\u00fc\u00e7le\u015ftirilmesinin bireylere a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckleyece\u011finden -bu k\u00fclfeti dengeleyen herhangi bir mekanizma da \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi takdirde- mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik a\u011f\u0131r bir m\u00fcdahalenin meydana gelece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir (Ziynet Benli, \u00a7 56).<\/p>\n
21. Ba\u015fvurucu, mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kendisine tebli\u011fi \u00f6ncesinde iadesini talep etti\u011fi ger\u00e7ek mebla\u011f\u0131 bilmemesi nedeniyle dava dilek\u00e7esinde belirti\u011fi miktar\u0131 art\u0131rma imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip olamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucuya y\u00fcklenebilecek bir kusur bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bilakis Mahkeme miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 talebine esas al\u0131nabilecek bilgileri i\u00e7eren ara karar\u0131 cevab\u0131n\u0131 ba\u015fvurucuya tebli\u011f etmeden davay\u0131 karara ba\u011flayarak bu durumun olu\u015fmas\u0131na sebebiyet vermi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, gerek\u00e7eli kararla birlikte ger\u00e7ek mebla\u011f\u0131 21\/1\/2014 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra ilk a\u015famada 24\/1\/2014 tarihinde miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131na ili\u015fkin talep dilek\u00e7esini sunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
22. Ba\u015fvurucuya dava de\u011ferini artt\u0131rma imk\u00e2n\u0131 verilmeden taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesi gere\u011fi davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi \u00fczerine yap\u0131lan temyiz ba\u015fvurusunun dava de\u011ferini art\u0131r\u0131m talebinin ilk derece mahkemesince karar verilinceye kadar yap\u0131labilece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckledi\u011fi ve bu durumun ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
23. 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
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
24. Ba\u015fvurucu, yeniden yarg\u0131lama talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n 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 (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
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\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 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in \u0130zmir 1. Vergi Mahkemesine (E.2013\/333, K.2013\/2230) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. 364,60 TL har\u00e7 ve 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 19.164,60 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. \u00d6demenin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun 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
F. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 18\/7\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi \u0130kinci B\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc 18\/7\/2024 tarihinde, Kombassan Ka\u011f\u0131t Matbaa G\u0131da ve Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret A.\u015e. (B. No: 2019\/30300) ba\u015fvurusunda Anayasa\u2019n\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 vermi\u015ftir.\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Olaylar Ba\u015fvurucu \u015firket 2003-2005 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda k\u0131s\u0131tl\u0131 olarak vergilendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi mahkeme karar\u0131yla sabit olan maliki oldu\u011fu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz i\u00e7in fazladan \u00f6dedi\u011fi gecikme zamm\u0131n\u0131n iadesini talep etmi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucunun talebi reddedilmi\u015ftir. Bunun \u00fczerine s\u00f6z konusu i\u015flemin iptali ile \u00f6denen 500.000 TL gecikme zamm\u0131n\u0131n iadesi talebiyle dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Vergi mahkemesi davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar vermi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesinin dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek dava konusu i\u015flemin iptali ile tahsil edilen 500.000 TL gecikme zamm\u0131n\u0131n tecil faiz oran\u0131 i\u015fletilerek ba\u015fvurucuya iadesine karar vermi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 temyiz etmi\u015f ve temyiz dilek\u00e7esiyle ayn\u0131 tarihte verdi\u011fi dilek\u00e7eyle miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Dan\u0131\u015ftay ba\u015fvurucunun miktar\u0131n art\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebini reddetmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun karar d\u00fczeltme talebinin de reddedilmesi \u00fczerine karar kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir. \u0130ddialar Ba\u015fvurucu, belirli bir miktar g\u00f6sterilerek a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131nda temyiz a\u015famas\u0131nda yap\u0131lan miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Mahkemenin De\u011ferlendirmesi Somut olayda mahkeme ba\u015fvurucunun fazladan \u00f6dedi\u011fi miktar\u0131 tespit etmek i\u00e7in daval\u0131 idareye ara karar\u0131yla baz\u0131 hususlar\u0131 sormu\u015ftur. Mahkeme karar\u0131nda, ara karar\u0131na verilen cevapta, belirtilen zaman diliminde muaccel olan verginin 9\/10’luk k\u0131sm\u0131 \u00fczerinden 606.163,19 TL gecikme zamm\u0131 tahsil edildi\u011finin belirtildi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesinin dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek dava konusu i\u015flemin iptali ile tahsil edilen 500.000 TL gecikme zamm\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya iadesine karar vermi\u015ftir. \u0130darenin ara karar\u0131na …<\/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-23126","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n