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
AT\u0130YE CO\u015eKUN VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/37198)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 8\/1\/2025<\/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
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Cafiye Ece YALIM<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1. Atiye CO\u015eKUN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
2. Hayati CO\u015eKUN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
3. \u0130kbal \u00d6ZTEK\u0130N<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
4. Kudret KO\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
5. Mehmet CO\u015eKUN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
6. Mesut CO\u015eKUN<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Adil AKTAY<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck belirlenmesi 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\u015fvuru 12\/11\/2019 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyonca ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n maliki oldu\u011fu, Mersin’in Tarsus il\u00e7esi Kalburcu K\u00f6y\u00fc’nde k\u00e2in olan 619 parsel numaral\u0131 3268,34 m\u00b2 y\u00fcz \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcml\u00fc ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n yol in\u015faat\u0131 ve emniyet sahas\u0131 tesisi i\u00e7in Karayollar\u0131 Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (\u0130dare) taraf\u0131ndan kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015f; ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n teklif edilen bedeli kabul etmemesi \u00fczerine \u0130darece 3\/6\/2015 tarihinde Tarsus 1. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti ve tescil davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. Mahkeme, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mahallinde ke\u015fif ve bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bilirki\u015fi heyetince haz\u0131rlanan 7\/1\/2015 tarihli raporda, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sulu tar\u0131m arazisi oldu\u011fu dikkate al\u0131narak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz i\u00e7in %50 objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131 uygulanm\u0131\u015f; ba\u015fvuruculara \u00f6denmesi gereken kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli 117.169,99 TL olarak tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131 %50 olarak kabul edilirken yerle\u015fik alana ve sanayi kurulu\u015funa yak\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n %35 oran\u0131nda, Tarsus \u00c7amyayla asfalt kara yoluna cephe olmas\u0131n\u0131n da %15 oran\u0131nda etkiledi\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7. Taraflar\u0131n bilirki\u015fi raporuna itiraz ederek ek rapor al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 istemeleri \u00fczerine Mahkeme bilirki\u015fiden ek rapor al\u0131nmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. 20\/6\/2016 tarihli bilirki\u015fi raporunda, objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131 %200 olarak uygulanm\u0131\u015f ve ba\u015fvuruculara \u00f6denmesi gereken kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli 234.339,98 TL \u015feklinde tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131 %200 olarak kabul edilirken ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n yerle\u015fik alana ve sanayi kurulu\u015funa yak\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve Tarsus \u00c7amyayla asfalt kara yoluna cephe olmas\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra yerle\u015fim alan\u0131na yak\u0131n olmas\u0131, belediye hizmetlerinden yararlan\u0131yor olmas\u0131, \u015fehrin geli\u015fiminin bu y\u00f6nde olmas\u0131, Sucular Mahalle merkezine 300 metre mesafede olmas\u0131, en yak\u0131n mesk\u00fbn mahale 500 metre mesafede olmas\u0131 hususlar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulunduruldu\u011fu vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Mahkeme 3\/2\/2017 tarihinde 7\/1\/2015 tarihli bilirki\u015fi raporunu esas alarak kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin 117.169,99 TL olarak tespitine karar vermi\u015f, karar gerek\u00e7esinde bilirki\u015fi raporunun dosya kapsam\u0131na uygun oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Mahkeme karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 taraflarca istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurulmu\u015f, ba\u015fvurucular istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde esas al\u0131nan kapitalizasyon faiz oran\u0131n\u0131n ve %50 olarak belirlenen objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131n hatal\u0131 oldu\u011funu ifade etmi\u015ftir. Antalya B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 5. Hukuk Dairesi (B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi) taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda verilen 27\/11\/2017 tarihli kararda davac\u0131 \u0130darenin istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun esastan reddine, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n istinaf talebinin k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi kapitalizasyon faiz oran\u0131n\u0131n\u0131 %4 olarak uygulanmas\u0131na, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin 146.486,99 TL olarak tespitine karar vermi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 %50 olarak tespit eden bilirki\u015fi heyetinin de\u011ferlendirmesinin yerinde oldu\u011funu a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
10. Yarg\u0131tay 5. Hukuk Dairesi (Daire)16\/9\/2019 tarihinde karar\u0131 d\u00fczelterek onama karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Nihai karar 14\/10\/2019 tarihinde ba\u015fvuruculara tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
A. Ulusal Hukuk<\/p>\n
11. 4\/11\/1983 tarihli ve 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma Kanunu’nun “Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin mahkemece tespiti ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n idare ad\u0131na tescili” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 10. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Kamula\u015ft\u0131rman\u0131n sat\u0131n alma usul\u00fc ile yap\u0131lamamas\u0131 halinde idare, \u2026 asliye hukuk mahkemesine m\u00fcracaat eder ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespitiyle, \u2026 idare ad\u0131na tesciline karar verilmesini ister.<\/p>\n
Mahkeme, idarenin ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren en ge\u00e7 otuz g\u00fcn sonras\u0131 i\u00e7in belirledi\u011fi duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fc, \u2026 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n malikine \u2026 bildirerek duru\u015fmaya kat\u0131lmaya \u00e7a\u011f\u0131r\u0131r. Duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fc idareye de tebli\u011f olunur.<\/p>\n
\u2026<\/p>\n
Mahkemece yap\u0131lan duru\u015fmada taraflar\u0131n bedelde anla\u015famamalar\u0131 halinde hakim, en ge\u00e7 on g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde ke\u015fif ve otuz g\u00fcn sonras\u0131 i\u00e7in de duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fc tayin ederek, 15 inci maddede say\u0131lan bilirki\u015filer marifetiyle ve t\u00fcm ilgililerin huzurunda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n de\u011ferini tespit i\u00e7in mahallinde ke\u015fif yapar\u2026 <\/p>\n
Bilirki\u015filer, taraflar ve di\u011fer ilgililerin beyan\u0131n\u0131 da dikkate alarak, 11 inci maddedeki esaslar do\u011frultusunda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n de\u011ferini belirten raporlar\u0131n\u0131 onbe\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde mahkemeye verirler. Mahkeme bu raporu, duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fc beklenmeksizin taraflara tebli\u011f eder. Yap\u0131lacak duru\u015fmaya hakim, taraflar veya vekillerini ve bilirki\u015fileri \u00e7a\u011f\u0131r\u0131r. Bu duru\u015fmada taraflar\u0131n bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131na varsa itirazlar\u0131 dinlenir ve bilirki\u015filerin bu itirazlara kar\u015f\u0131 beyanlar\u0131 al\u0131n\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Taraflar\u0131n bedelde anla\u015famamalar\u0131 halinde gerekti\u011finde hakim taraf\u0131ndan onbe\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmak \u00fczere yeni bir bilirki\u015fi kurulu tayin edilir ve hakim, taraflar\u0131n ve bilirki\u015filerin rapor veya raporlar\u0131 ile beyanlar\u0131ndan yararlanarak adil ve hakkaniyete uygun bir kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli tespit eder. Mahkemece tespit edilen bu bedel, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal, kaynak veya irtifak hakk\u0131n\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma bedelidir. \u2026 \u0130darece, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin hak sahibi ad\u0131na yat\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na \u2026 dair makbuzun ibraz\u0131 halinde mahkemece, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n idare ad\u0131na tesciline ve kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin hak sahibine \u00f6denmesine karar verilir ve bu karar, tapu dairesine ve paran\u0131n yat\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 bankaya bildirilir. Tescil h\u00fckm\u00fc kesin olup taraflar\u0131n bedele ili\u015fkin temyiz haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u00a0(Ek f\u0131kra: 11\/04\/2013-6459 S.K.\/6. md) Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lamamas\u0131 h\u00e2linde, tespit edilen bedele bu s\u00fcrenin bitiminden itibaren kanuni faiz i\u015fletilir.<\/p>\n
\u2026”<\/p>\n
12. 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti esaslar\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 11. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“15 inci madde uyar\u0131nca olu\u015fturulacak bilirki\u015fi kurulu, kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lacak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal veya kayna\u011f\u0131n bulundu\u011fu yere mahkeme heyeti ile birlikte giderek, haz\u0131r bulunan ilgilileri de dinledikten sonra ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal veya kayna\u011f\u0131n;<\/p>\n
a) Cins ve nevini,<\/p>\n
b) Y\u00fcz\u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc,<\/p>\n
c) K\u0131ymetini etkileyebilecek b\u00fct\u00fcn nitelik ve unsurlar\u0131n\u0131 ve her unsurun ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 de\u011ferini,<\/p>\n
d)Varsa vergi beyan\u0131n\u0131,<\/p>\n
e)Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma tarihindeki resmi makamlarca yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f k\u0131ymet takdirlerini,<\/p>\n
f) Arazilerde, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal veya kayna\u011f\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rma tarihindeki mevkii ve \u015fartlar\u0131na g\u00f6re ve oldu\u011fu gibi kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 halinde getirece\u011fi net gelirini,<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
h) Yap\u0131larda, (\u2026)(2) resmi birim fiyatlar\u0131 ve yap\u0131 maliyet hesaplar\u0131n\u0131 ve y\u0131pranma pay\u0131n\u0131,<\/p>\n
\u0131) Bedelin tespitinde etkili olacak di\u011fer objektif \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcleri,<\/p>\n
Esas tutarak d\u00fczenleyecekleri raporda b\u00fct\u00fcn bu unsurlar\u0131n cevaplar\u0131n\u0131 ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 belirtmek suretiyle ve ilgililerin beyan\u0131n\u0131 da dikkate alarak gerek\u00e7eli bir de\u011ferlendirme raporuna dayal\u0131 olarak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n de\u011ferini tespit ederler.<\/p>\n
Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n de\u011ferinin tespitinde, kamula\u015ft\u0131rmay\u0131 gerektiren imar ve hizmet te\u015febb\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn sebep olaca\u011f\u0131 de\u011fer art\u0131\u015flar\u0131 ile ilerisi i\u00e7in d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclen kullanma \u015fekillerine g\u00f6re getirece\u011fi k\u00e2r dikkate al\u0131nmaz.<\/p>\n
\u2026”<\/p>\n
B. Uluslararas\u0131 Hukuk<\/p>\n
13. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’ne (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) ek (1) No.lu Protokol’\u00fcn 1. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Her ger\u00e7ek ve t\u00fczel ki\u015finin mal ve m\u00fclk dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131na sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterilmesini isteme hakk\u0131 vard\u0131r. Bir kimse, ancak kamu yarar\u0131 sebebiyle ve yasada \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ko\u015fullara ve uluslararas\u0131 hukukun genel ilkelerine uygun olarak mal ve m\u00fclk\u00fcnden yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131labilir.<\/p>\n
Yukar\u0131daki h\u00fck\u00fcmler, devletlerin, m\u00fclkiyetin kamu yarar\u0131na uygun olarak kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fczenlemek veya vergilerin ya da ba\u015fka katk\u0131lar\u0131n veya para cezalar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesini sa\u011flamak i\u00e7in gerekli g\u00f6rd\u00fckleri yasalar\u0131 uygulama konusunda sahip olduklar\u0131 hakka halel getirmez.”<\/p>\n
14. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesinin (A\u0130HM) Kahyao\u011flu ve di\u011ferleri\/T\u00fcrkiye (B. No: 37203\/05, 31\/5\/2016, \u00a7\u00a7 4-19) karar\u0131na konu olayda, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n\u0131n bir b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc \u00fczerinden kamula\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n veya kamu irtifak\u0131 tesis edilmeksizin enerji nakil hatt\u0131 ge\u00e7irilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131z el atma nedeniyle a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131 tazminat davas\u0131nda mahkeme, bilirki\u015fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne ba\u015fvurmu\u015f; bilirki\u015fi, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n bir b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn \u00fczerinden enerji nakil hatt\u0131 ge\u00e7irilmesi nedeniyle de\u011ferinin %9 oran\u0131nda azald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabul ederek tazminat hesaplam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ancak mahkeme, Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131nda kamu irtifak\u0131 kurulmas\u0131 nedeniyle ta\u015f\u0131nmazda olu\u015facak de\u011fer d\u00fc\u015f\u00fckl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n toplam de\u011ferinin %2’sini ge\u00e7emeyece\u011finin belirtildi\u011fini gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6stererek zarar\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz de\u011ferinin %2’siyle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme, bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015ften yola \u00e7\u0131karak bilirki\u015fi raporundaki tespite ra\u011fmen ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011ferinin %7’sine isabet eden tazminat talebi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015f ve s\u00f6z konusu karar Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan onanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
15. A\u0130HM; bilirki\u015fi raporunda ta\u015f\u0131nmazda olu\u015fan de\u011fer kayb\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferinin %9’u olarak tespit edildi\u011fi h\u00e2lde yerel mahkemenin Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihad\u0131ndan hareketle zarar miktar\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz de\u011ferinin %2’si ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131na i\u015faret ettikten sonra yarg\u0131 mercilerince bunun gerek\u00e7esinin a\u00e7\u0131klanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. A\u0130HM, Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n farkl\u0131 durumlar\u0131n g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmas\u0131n\u0131 d\u0131\u015flayan kat\u0131 yorumu nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferinin %7’sine tekab\u00fcl eden zararlar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f; bunun da kamu yarar\u0131 ile bireysel yarar aras\u0131ndaki adil dengeyi bozdu\u011funu ifade ederek m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Kahyao\u011flu ve di\u011ferleri\/T\u00fcrkiye, \u00a7\u00a7 33-40).<\/p>\n
16. A\u0130HM; Kutlu ve di\u011ferleri\/T\u00fcrkiye (B. No: 51861\/11, 13\/12\/2016) karar\u0131nda, kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n bilirki\u015fi raporunda objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131 %40 olarak belirtilmesine ra\u011fmen yarg\u0131 mercilerince %25 olarak belirlenmesini m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda incelemi\u015ftir. A\u0130HM; yarg\u0131 mercilerinin bilirki\u015fi raporundaki sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n g\u00f6zard\u0131 edilmesinin nedenlerini somut ve yeterli gerek\u00e7elerle a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, somut olayda ise g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctlerin basit bir anlat\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n -mahkemece de\u011fer d\u00fc\u015f\u00fckl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc oran\u0131n\u0131n %25 ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na yol a\u00e7an kriterlerin neden ve nas\u0131l dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmedi\u011fi i\u00e7in- yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e olarak kabul edilemeyece\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Sonu\u00e7 olarak yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilmeden %25 olarak belirlenerek daha az tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesi adil dengeyi bozdu\u011fu i\u00e7in bu durumun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlaline yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmi\u015ftir (Kutlu ve di\u011ferleri\/T\u00fcrkiye, \u00a7\u00a7 62-76).<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
17. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 8\/1\/2025 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u0130ddialar\u0131 ve Bakanl\u0131k G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc <\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucular; dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaza \u00e7ok yak\u0131n olan, kom\u015fu say\u0131labilecek konumdaki ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar i\u00e7in \u00e7ok daha y\u00fcksek oranda objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131 oran\u0131 belirlendi\u011fi h\u00e2lde dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaza d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck oranda objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131 uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan yak\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular ayr\u0131ca bilirki\u015filer taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen ek raporda \u00f6nceki rapordan d\u00f6rt misli y\u00fcksek belirlendi\u011fi h\u00e2lde \u00e7eli\u015fki giderilmeden ve gerek\u00e7e belirtilmeden bedel tespitinde \u00f6nceki raporun esas al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek m\u00fclkiyet ve adil yarg\u0131lanma haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
19. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde adli yarg\u0131 mercileri taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n talebi incelenmi\u015f ve ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin belirlendi\u011fini, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n iddias\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fcn esas itibar\u0131yla yarg\u0131laman\u0131n sonucuna ili\u015fkin oldu\u011funu, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 makul bir \u015fekilde yetkili mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcnde dile getirme f\u0131rsat\u0131na sahip olduklar\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 cevab\u0131nda \u00f6nceki beyanlar\u0131na benzer \u015fekilde beyanda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
B. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
20. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n “M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 35. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Herkes, m\u00fclkiyet ve miras haklar\u0131na sahiptir.<\/p>\n
Bu haklar, ancak kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131yla, kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir.<\/p>\n
M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 toplum yarar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamaz.”<\/p>\n
21. Anayasa’n\u0131n ”Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 46. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Devlet ve kamu t\u00fczelki\u015fileri; kamu yarar\u0131n\u0131n gerektirdi\u011fi hallerde, ger\u00e7ek kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 pe\u015fin \u00f6demek \u015fart\u0131yla, \u00f6zel m\u00fclkiyette bulunan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mallar\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131 veya bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131, kanunla g\u00f6sterilen esas ve usullere g\u00f6re, kamula\u015ft\u0131rmaya ve bunlar \u00fczerinde idar\u00ee irtifaklar kurmaya yetkilidir. <\/p>\n
Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli ile kesin h\u00fckme ba\u011flanan art\u0131r\u0131m bedeli nakden ve pe\u015fin olarak \u00f6denir. Ancak, tar\u0131m reformunun uygulanmas\u0131, b\u00fcy\u00fck enerji ve sulama projeleri ile isk\u00e2n projelerinin ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi, yeni ormanlar\u0131n yeti\u015ftirilmesi, k\u0131y\u0131lar\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve turizm amac\u0131yla kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan topraklar\u0131n bedellerinin \u00f6denme \u015fekli kanunla g\u00f6sterilir. Kanunun taksitle \u00f6demeyi \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilece\u011fi bu hallerde, taksitlendirme s\u00fcresi be\u015f y\u0131l\u0131 a\u015famaz; bu takdirde taksitler e\u015fit olarak \u00f6denir. <\/p>\n
Kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan topraktan, o topra\u011f\u0131 do\u011frudan do\u011fruya i\u015fleten k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck \u00e7ift\u00e7iye ait olanlar\u0131n\u0131n bedeli, her halde pe\u015fin \u00f6denir. <\/p>\n
\u0130kinci f\u0131krada \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen taksitlendirmelerde ve herhangi bir sebeple \u00f6denmemi\u015f kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedellerinde kamu alacaklar\u0131 i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen en y\u00fcksek faiz uygulan\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
22. Ba\u015fvurucular, m\u00fclkiyet haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131 yan\u0131nda adil yarg\u0131lanma haklar\u0131n\u0131n da ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrmekte ise de kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck belirlendi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
1. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
23. 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
2. Esas Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden <\/p>\n
a. M\u00fclk\u00fcn Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
24. Kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n m\u00fclkiyetinde oldu\u011fundan m\u00fclk\u00fcn varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususu tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131zd\u0131r.<\/p>\n
b. M\u00fcdahalenin Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve T\u00fcr\u00fc<\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etti\u011fi ku\u015fkusuzdur.<\/p>\n
26. Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, herkesin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmek suretiyle m\u00fclkten bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l yararlanma hakk\u0131na yer verilmi\u015f; ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda da m\u00fclkten bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l yararlanma hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalenin \u00e7er\u00e7evesi belirlenmi\u015ftir. Maddenin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda genel olarak m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n hangi ko\u015fullarda s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilece\u011fi belirlenerek m\u00fclkten yoksun b\u0131rakman\u0131n \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n genel \u00e7er\u00e7evesi de \u00e7izilmi\u015ftir. Maddenin son f\u0131kras\u0131nda ise m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n toplum yarar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamayaca\u011f\u0131 kurala ba\u011flanmak suretiyle devletin m\u00fclkiyetin kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 kontrol etmesine ve d\u00fczenlemesine imk\u00e2n sa\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n di\u011fer baz\u0131 maddelerinde de devlet taraf\u0131ndan m\u00fclkiyetin kontrol\u00fcne imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan \u00f6zel h\u00fck\u00fcmlere yer verilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca belirtmek gerekir ki m\u00fclkten yoksun b\u0131rakma ve m\u00fclkiyetin d\u00fczenlenmesi, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6zel bi\u00e7imleridir (Recep Tarhan ve Afife Tarhan, B. No: 2014\/1546, 2\/2\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 55-58).<\/p>\n
27. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmak suretiyle \u0130darenin m\u00fclkiyetine ge\u00e7ti\u011finden m\u00fcdahalenin m\u00fclkten yoksun b\u0131rakma niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
c. M\u00fcdahalenin \u0130hlal Olu\u015fturup Olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
28. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetler, \u00f6zlerine dokunulmaks\u0131z\u0131n yaln\u0131zca Anayasan\u0131n ilgili maddelerinde belirtilen sebeplere ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ve ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir. Bu s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar, Anayasan\u0131n s\u00f6z\u00fcne ve ruhuna, demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin ve l\u00e2ik Cumhuriyetin gereklerine ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamaz.”<\/p>\n
29. Anayasa’n\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. An\u0131lan madde uyar\u0131nca temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckler, demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n Anayasa’n\u0131n ilgili maddelerinde belirtilen sebeplere ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ve ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir. 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, \u00a7 62).<\/p>\n
30. Somut olayda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve me\u015fru amac\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n bir \u015fik\u00e2yeti olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi bu y\u00f6nden resen inceleme gerektiren bir neden de tespit edilememi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck unsuruyla s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 bir denetim yap\u0131lacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
i. Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
31. \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.2012\/102, K.2012\/207, 27\/12\/2012; E.2012\/149, K.2013\/63, 22\/5\/2013; E.2014\/176, K.2015\/53, 27\/5\/2015; E.2015\/43, K.2016\/37, 5\/5\/2016; E.2016\/13, K.2016\/127, 22\/6\/2016; Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
32. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131ndan yoksun b\u0131rakma bi\u00e7imindeki m\u00fcdahalelerde, hedeflenen kamu yarar\u0131 ile malikin bireysel yarar\u0131 aras\u0131nda g\u00f6zetilmesi gereken adil denge ancak malike tazminat \u00f6denmek suretiyle sa\u011flanabilir. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle m\u00fclkten yoksun b\u0131rakmalarda malike tazminat \u00f6denmesi, m\u00fcdahaleyle malike y\u00fcklenen a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 k\u00fclfetin telafi edilmesini temin eden temel bir ara\u00e7t\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n 46. maddesi uyar\u0131nca kamula\u015ft\u0131rma yoluyla malikin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n sona erdirildi\u011fi h\u00e2llerde malike \u00f6denmesi gereken tazminat ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek bedelidir. Bu itibarla ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek bedelinin \u00f6denmedi\u011fi durumlarda somut olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131 da g\u00f6zetilerek m\u00fcdahalenin orant\u0131l\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131labilir (Cevat Ayd\u0131n, B. No: 2014\/13886, 4\/10\/2017, \u00a7 48).<\/p>\n
33. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011fu durumlarda usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencelerin somut olayda yerine getirildi\u011finden s\u00f6z edilebilmesi i\u00e7in yarg\u0131 mercilerinin kararlar\u0131nda konu ile ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7e bulunmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bu zorunluluk ba\u015fvurucunun b\u00fct\u00fcn iddialar\u0131na cevap verilmesi anlam\u0131na gelmemekle birlikte m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 ilgilendiren davan\u0131n sonucuna etki eden esasa ili\u015fkin temel iddia ve itirazlar, yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131nca \u00f6zenli bir \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirilerek kar\u015f\u0131lanmal\u0131d\u0131r (Kamil Darbaz ve GMO Yap\u0131 Grup End. San. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2015\/12563, 24\/5\/2018, \u00a7 53).<\/p>\n
ii. \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/p>\n
34. Somut olayda 7\/1\/2015 tarihli bilirki\u015fi raporunda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 23,90 TL olarak hesaplanan metrekare de\u011feri objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131 nedeniyle %50 oran\u0131nda art\u0131r\u0131larak 35,85 TL olarak hesaplanm\u0131\u015f, ba\u015fvuruculara toplam olarak \u00f6denmesi gereken kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli 117.169,99 TL \u015feklinde tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Ancak taraflar\u0131n bilirki\u015fi raporuna itiraz ederek ek rapor al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmeleri \u00fczerine yeniden Mahkemece bilirki\u015fiden ek rapor al\u0131nmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. 20\/6\/2016 tarihli bilirki\u015fi ek raporunda bu kez objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131 %200 olarak, ba\u015fvuruculara toplam olarak \u00f6denmesi gereken kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli de234.339,98 TL olarak tespit edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
35. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz bedelinin tespiti teknik ve uzmanl\u0131k gerektiren bir konudur. Bu nedenle kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n bedelinin tespiti uzman mahkemelerin ve Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n bu konudaki uzman dairelerinin yetki ve g\u00f6revindedir. Anayasa Mahkemesi bu konuda uzmanla\u015fm\u0131\u015f bir mahkeme olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi Anayasa Mahkemesinin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lan bireysel ba\u015fvurularda bedel veya de\u011fer d\u00fc\u015f\u00fckl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 hesaplamak gibi bir g\u00f6revi de bulunmamaktad\u0131r (Mukadder Sa\u011flam ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/2511, 22\/1\/2015, \u00a7 49; Abd\u00fclkerim \u00c7akmak ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2014\/1964, 23\/2\/2017, \u00a7 52). Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti y\u00f6nteminin ger\u00e7ek bedelin \u00f6denmesini temin edip etmedi\u011fini incelemekten ibarettir.<\/p>\n
36. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011ferini etkileyen objektif unsurlar da de\u011ferin belirlenmesinde hesaba kat\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bu unsurlar\u0131n tahdid\u00ee olarak say\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fil ise de ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n yola ve yerle\u015fim yerine yak\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131, ticari ve i\u015f kapasitesi, deniz, g\u00f6l, nehir gibi tabii g\u00fczelliklere uzakl\u0131\u011f\u0131, imarl\u0131 b\u00f6lgelere yak\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi \u00f6zellikler buna \u00f6rnek g\u00f6sterilebilir (Cevat Ayd\u0131n, \u00a7 58).<\/p>\n
37. Mahkemenin h\u00fckme esas ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 bilirki\u015fi raporu incelendi\u011finde objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131n\u0131n %50 olarak kabul\u00fcnde ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n yerle\u015fik alana ve sanayi kurulu\u015funa yak\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, kara yoluna cephe olmas\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bilirki\u015fi ek raporunda ise s\u00f6z konusu unsurlara ilave olarak \u015fehrin geli\u015fiminin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n y\u00f6n\u00fcnde olmas\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n belediye hizmetlerinden yararlan\u0131yor olmas\u0131 ile mahalle merkezine 300 metre, en yak\u0131n mesk\u00fbn mahale 500 metre mesafede olmas\u0131 hususlar\u0131n\u0131n da bulundu\u011fu, bu nedenle objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131n\u0131n %200 olarak tespit edildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
38. Mahkeme, gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131nda 7\/1\/2015 tarihli bilirki\u015fi raporunun dosya kapsam\u0131na uygun bulundu\u011funu belirtmi\u015f ancak uygun bulma sebeplerine a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131k getirmemi\u015ftir. Bilirki\u015fi ek raporunda yer alan belirlemelerin \u00f6nceki bilirki\u015fi raporunda belirtilen unsurlara ilave unsurlar i\u00e7erdi\u011fi, bu unsurlar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k, somut oldu\u011fu ve dayanaklar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6sterildi\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Mahkemece \u00f6nceki bilirki\u015fi raporu ile bilirki\u015fi ek raporu aras\u0131ndaki \u00e7eli\u015fkiler giderilmeden \u00f6nceki rapora itibar edilerek karar verilmesinin gerek\u00e7elerinin a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ortaya konulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
39. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi, istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun k\u0131smen kabul edilerek mahkemenin karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespit ve tescili davas\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcne y\u00f6nelik gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131nda da 7\/1\/2015 tarihli bilirki\u015fi raporundaki %50 objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131 uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine y\u00f6nelik de\u011ferlendirmenin yerinde oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015f, ek rapordaki somut unsurlara dair belirleme ve iki rapor aras\u0131ndaki \u00e7eli\u015fkiye de\u011finmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
40. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131na ili\u015fkin kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin miktar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ula\u015f\u0131lan sonucun Mahkeme ve B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7e ile ortaya konulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
41. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131na ili\u015fkin kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin miktar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VI. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
42. Ba\u015fvurucular, yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile maddi ve manevi tazminat taleplerinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
43. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen hak 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 mahkemece 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
44. \u00d6te yandan ihlalin niteli\u011fine g\u00f6re yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VII. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. 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 Antalya B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 5. Hukuk Dairesine (E.2017\/555, K.2017\/1102) iletilmesi i\u00e7in Tarsus 1. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesine (E.2015\/438, K.2017\/37) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 364,60 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.364,60 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 faiz UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 8\/1\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 8\/1\/2025 tarihli ve 2019\/37198 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 AT\u0130YE CO\u015eKUN VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/37198) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 8\/1\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Cafiye Ece YALIM Ba\u015fvurucular : 1. Atiye CO\u015eKUN \u00a0 \u00a0 2. Hayati CO\u015eKUN \u00a0 \u00a0 3. \u0130kbal \u00d6ZTEK\u0130N \u00a0 \u00a0 4. Kudret KO\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 5. Mehmet CO\u015eKUN \u00a0 \u00a0 6. Mesut CO\u015eKUN Vekili : Av. Adil AKTAY \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck belirlenmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 12\/11\/2019 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyonca ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 4. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir: 5. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n maliki oldu\u011fu, Mersin’in Tarsus il\u00e7esi Kalburcu K\u00f6y\u00fc’nde k\u00e2in olan 619 parsel numaral\u0131 3268,34 m\u00b2 y\u00fcz \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcml\u00fc ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n yol in\u015faat\u0131 ve emniyet sahas\u0131 tesisi i\u00e7in Karayollar\u0131 Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (\u0130dare) taraf\u0131ndan kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015f; ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n teklif edilen bedeli kabul etmemesi \u00fczerine \u0130darece 3\/6\/2015 tarihinde Tarsus 1. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35350","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n