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
NEV\u0130N \u015eAH\u0130N BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/40314)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 20\/11\/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
Hasan SARA\u00c7<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Nevin \u015eAH\u0130N<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. H\u00fcseyin \u00c7AKMAK<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, trafik kazas\u0131 neticesinde meydana gelen maluliyetten do\u011fan zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, 7\/8\/2004 tarihinde A.\u015e. isimli \u015fahs\u0131n sevk ve idaresindeki ara\u00e7la ailesiyle birlikte seyahat etti\u011fi esnada Mudurnu il\u00e7esi s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7erisinde in\u015faat h\u00e2linde bulunan yolda arac\u0131n m\u0131c\u0131ra girmesi sonucunda meydana gelen kazada yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ankara E\u011fitim ve Ara\u015ft\u0131rma Hastanesinden al\u0131nan 10\/3\/2010 tarihli raporda ba\u015fvurucunun engel oran\u0131 % 86 olarak tespit edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Olay nedeniyle ba\u015flat\u0131lan soru\u015fturmada ara\u00e7 s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fc hakk\u0131nda Mudurnu Asliye Ceza Mahkemesinde (Ceza Mahkemesi) tedbirsizlik ve dikkatsizlikle yaralamaya sebebiyet vermek su\u00e7undan 15\/12\/2004 tarihinde dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130ddianamede ba\u015fvurucunun beyan\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131namad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6zellikle belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ceza Mahkemesinde ba\u015fvurucunun beyan\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in Ankara Asliye Ceza Mahkemesine 13\/4\/2005 tarihinde talimat yaz\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dosya i\u00e7erisinde \u00f6rne\u011fi bulunmamakla beraber bu Ceza Mahkemesinin 29\/6\/2005 tarihli karar\u0131na g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun san\u0131ktan \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7i olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Di\u011fer ma\u011fdurlar\u0131n da \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7i olmamas\u0131 nedeniyle kamu davas\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmesine 29\/6\/2005 tarihinde karar verilmi\u015ftir. Bu dosyada ba\u015fvurucunun kendisi ad\u0131na d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f bir dilek\u00e7esi bulunmasa da olayda yaralanan H.\u015e. taraf\u0131ndan fotokopi talebini i\u00e7erir 6\/3\/2014 havale tarihli dilek\u00e7e bulundu\u011fu tespit edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Olay nedeniyle ba\u015flat\u0131lan soru\u015fturmada jandarma g\u00f6revlileri taraf\u0131ndan kaza tarihinde d\u00fczenlenen tutanakta s\u00f6z konusu kazan\u0131n yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 yerdeki yol \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n A.\u0130n\u015faat Taahh\u00fct ve Ticaret A.\u015e. unvanl\u0131 bir \u015firket taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 bilgisine yer verildi\u011fi tespit edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu, yol \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131 y\u00fcr\u00fcten \u00f6zel \u015firket ile kazaya kar\u0131\u015fan arac\u0131 sigortalayan sigorta \u015firketine kar\u015f\u0131 23\/7\/2014 tarihinde Ankara 12. Ticaret Mahkemesinde (Ticaret Mahkemesi) maddi tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu dava dilek\u00e7esinde, kaza neticesinde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan sa\u011fl\u0131k sorunlar\u0131yla u\u011fra\u015fmas\u0131 nedeniyle kazan\u0131n neticelerinin hukuksal boyutu ile ilgilenemedi\u011fini, konuyla ilgili ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131nda da ancak talimat yolu ile evinde ifade verebildi\u011fini belirten ba\u015fvurucu, zarara sebebiyet veren daval\u0131lardan da ancak ceza dava dosyas\u0131ndan al\u0131nan 6\/3\/2014 tarihli fotokopi sonras\u0131nda haberdar oldu\u011funu beyan etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ticaret Mahkemesi davan\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
” Trafik sigortas\u0131 genel \u015fartlar\u0131 c.8. Maddesi 2.f\u0131kras\u0131nda (karayollar\u0131 trafik kanunun 109. maddesi 2. f\u0131kras\u0131na ve B.K 60\/2. maddesi (yeni B.K 72. maddesi ) ko\u015fut olarak) \u00f6l\u00fcm ve yaralanmalarda sigortac\u0131n\u0131n sorumlulu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde uzam\u0131\u015f ceza zaman a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcrelerinin uygulanaca\u011f\u0131 h\u00fckm\u00fc yer alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. <\/p>\n
Uzam\u0131\u015f (ceza )zaman a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcreleri eski 765. say\u0131l\u0131 TCK’nun 455-456 maddelerindeki eylemler nedeniyle 102. maddeye g\u00f6re bir \u00f6l\u00fc veya bir yaral\u0131 varsa 5 y\u0131l birden fazla \u00f6l\u00fc ile bir veya birden fazla yaral\u0131 varsa 10 y\u0131l iken 5237 say\u0131l\u0131 Yeni TCK 66 maddesine g\u00f6re; 1 yolcu \u00f6lm\u00fc\u015f veya biri yaralanm\u0131\u015f ise zaman a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 8 y\u0131l olacak \u00f6l\u00fc say\u0131s\u0131 birden fazla ise Ya da bir \u00f6l\u00fcmle birlikte bir veya birden fazla yaral\u0131 varsa zaman a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 15 y\u0131l olmu\u015ftur. Somut olayda; 1 yaral\u0131 olmas\u0131 nedeni ile uzam\u0131\u015f zaman a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 5 y\u0131l olup, kazan\u0131n 09.08.2004 tarihinde oldu\u011fu dikkate al\u0131narak 5 y\u0131ll\u0131k zaman a\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n 09.08.2009 tarihinde doldu\u011fu, davan\u0131n zaman a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinden sonra a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmakla; davac\u0131n\u0131n davas\u0131n\u0131n zaman a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinden sonra a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, davan\u0131n usulden reddine”<\/p>\n
8. An\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu, zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131na dair kabul\u00fcn hatal\u0131 oldu\u011funu, uzam\u0131\u015f ceza zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n bitmesinden sonra ancak fail ve zarar\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde davan\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenme tarihinden itibaren 13\/10\/1983 tarihli ve 2918 say\u0131l\u0131 Karayollar\u0131 Trafik Kanunu’nun 109. maddesinine g\u00f6re 2 y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, davan\u0131n da bu m\u00fcddet i\u00e7erisinde a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek temyiz ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu, bu dilek\u00e7esinde, zarar\u0131n sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131 ve bunun bilinebilir olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, kendisinin olay nedeniyle defalarca ameliyat oldu\u011funu ve tedavi g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, bu tedaviler sonras\u0131nda 10\/3\/2010 tarihli rapor ile % 86 oran\u0131nda engellilik halinin ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 b\u00f6ylece zarardan haberdar oldu\u011funu beyan etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, olaya sebebiyet veren failin tespitine dair ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, failin ve zarar\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenilmesinden sonra s\u00fcrelerin ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendisinin kaza nedeniyle yatalak olmas\u0131 nedeniyle duru\u015fmalara kat\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, fotokopi de alamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131 \u015firketin mesul oldu\u011funu ise ancak 6\/3\/2014 tarihinde dava dosyas\u0131ndan al\u0131nan fotokopi sonras\u0131nda \u00f6\u011frenebildi\u011fini,bu tarihe g\u00f6re failin \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011finin kabul edilerek davan\u0131n s\u00fcresi i\u00e7erisinde 23\/7\/2014 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, karar\u0131n hatal\u0131 oldu\u011funu iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Yarg\u0131tay 17. Hukuk Dairesi, 5\/11\/2020 tarihinde h\u00fckm\u00fc onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Onama karar\u0131n\u0131n 9\/12\/2020 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmesi \u00fczerine 31\/12\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucu, temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc hususlar\u0131 tekrarlayarak (bkz. \u00a7 6)kazan\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fi yolda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma yapan daval\u0131 \u015firketin olayda sorumlulu\u011funun bulundu\u011funu ceza davas\u0131 dosyas\u0131n\u0131 incelemesi neticesinde \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fini, buna g\u00f6re dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcrelerinin ge\u00e7medi\u011fini, davan\u0131n her h\u00e2l\u00fck\u00e2rda 10 y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7erisinde a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, buna ra\u011fmen davan\u0131n reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
13. 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
14. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201cTemel 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
15. 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. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olaya ili\u015fkin olarak verilen zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan ret karar\u0131 ile yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131 karar gerek\u00e7esinde dayan\u0131lan kanun maddelerinden anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Di\u011fer yandan hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ve istikrar\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan kanun yolu ba\u015fvurular\u0131 i\u00e7in s\u00fcre ko\u015fulu getirilmesinin me\u015fru bir amac\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu da a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu itibarla somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fimine getirilen s\u0131n\u0131rlaman\u0131n \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucuya a\u011f\u0131r bir y\u00fck getirilip getirilmedi\u011fi hususlar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
16. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesi uyar\u0131nca hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131nda dikkate al\u0131nacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctlerden biri olan \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck, hukuk devleti ilkesinden do\u011fmaktad\u0131r. Hukuk devletinde hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 istisnai bir yetki oldu\u011fundan bu yetki ancak durumun gerektirdi\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 ko\u015fuluyla hakl\u0131 bir temele oturabilir. Bireylerin hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerinin somut ko\u015fullar\u0131n gerektirdi\u011finden daha fazla s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 kamu otoritelerine tan\u0131nan yetkinin a\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelece\u011finden hukuk devletiyle ba\u011fda\u015fmaz (AYM, E.2013\/95, K.2014\/176, 13\/11\/2014).<\/p>\n
17. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde yer alan \u00f6l\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 amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli olmas\u0131n\u0131, gereklilik 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.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; Emrah Yayla [GK], B. No: 2017\/38732, 6\/2\/2020, \u00a7 68).<\/p>\n
18. Ki\u015finin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik s\u00f6z konusu m\u00fcdahalenin de\u011ferlendirilmesi noktas\u0131nda yarg\u0131 mercilerinin kararlar\u0131nda ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7enin g\u00f6sterilmemesi veya bu hususa ili\u015fkin olarak taraflar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 gereken iddialar\u0131n\u0131n cevaps\u0131z b\u0131rak\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 hak ihlaline yol a\u00e7abilir (Zeynep Aysu Kan [GK],\u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
19. Somut olayda Ticaret Mahkemesinin, karar\u0131na bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda (bkz. \u00a7 5), bu mahkemenin ret gerek\u00e7esinin bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak hukuk ve ceza mevzuat\u0131na ili\u015fkin s\u00fcrelere dayand\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Ba\u015fvurucu, ilgili \u015firketin olayda sorumlu olduklar\u0131na dair belgeleri yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda fotokopi al\u0131nmas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda \u00f6\u011frendiklerini b\u00f6ylece zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n da buna g\u00f6re hesaplanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine dair iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda ve kanun yolu a\u015famalar\u0131nda dile getirmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7 4). Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131na bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bu hususlar\u0131n meselenin esas\u0131na da temas etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bu iddialara kar\u015f\u0131n Ticaret Mahkemesinin, meselenin \u00f6z\u00fcne dair bu iddialarla ilgili olarak hi\u00e7bir tart\u0131\u015fma ve de\u011ferlendirme yapmaks\u0131z\u0131n sadece ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine at\u0131f yapmak suretiyle davay\u0131 zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddetti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Ba\u015fvurucunun belirtilen iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak kanun yolu incelemesi s\u0131ras\u0131nda da a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dile getirilmesine ra\u011fmen (\u00a7 6) herhangi bir tart\u0131\u015fma ve de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. Bu itibarla, ba\u015fvurucunun zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin hesaplanmas\u0131yla ilgili olarak ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc iddialar\u0131n mevcut hukuk kurallar\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde nas\u0131l de\u011ferlendirildi\u011fine veya somut davan\u0131n kendi \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n bu ba\u011flamda ne \u015fekilde ele al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olarak gerek ilk derece mahkemesinde gerekse de Yarg\u0131tay incelemesi s\u0131ras\u0131ndaherhangi bir gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun bu hususa ili\u015fkin olarak dile getirdi\u011fi iddialar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131ks\u0131z kalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.Bu durumda ba\u015fvuruya konu m\u00fcdahalenin kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 ile kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucuya \u015fahsi olarak orant\u0131s\u0131z bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckledi\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. 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
22. Ba\u015fvurucunun maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve geli\u015ftirilmesi hakk\u0131 ile etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n daihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc g\u00f6r\u00fclmekle birlikte mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verildi\u011finden belirtilen ihlal iddialar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda ayr\u0131ca inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
23. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti ile yeniden yarg\u0131lama talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
24. 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 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) [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
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 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Ankara 12. Ticaret Mahkemesine (E.2014\/275, K.2015\/469) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.446,90 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. \u00d6demelerin 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 20\/11\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 20\/11\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/40314 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 NEV\u0130N \u015eAH\u0130N BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/40314) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 20\/11\/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 : Hasan SARA\u00c7 Ba\u015fvurucu : Nevin \u015eAH\u0130N Vekili : Av. H\u00fcseyin \u00c7AKMAK \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, trafik kazas\u0131 neticesinde meydana gelen maluliyetten do\u011fan zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, 7\/8\/2004 tarihinde A.\u015e. isimli \u015fahs\u0131n sevk ve idaresindeki ara\u00e7la ailesiyle birlikte seyahat etti\u011fi esnada Mudurnu il\u00e7esi s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7erisinde in\u015faat h\u00e2linde bulunan yolda arac\u0131n m\u0131c\u0131ra girmesi sonucunda meydana gelen kazada yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ankara E\u011fitim ve Ara\u015ft\u0131rma Hastanesinden al\u0131nan 10\/3\/2010 tarihli raporda ba\u015fvurucunun engel oran\u0131 % 86 olarak tespit edilmi\u015ftir. 3. Olay nedeniyle ba\u015flat\u0131lan soru\u015fturmada ara\u00e7 s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fc hakk\u0131nda Mudurnu Asliye Ceza Mahkemesinde (Ceza Mahkemesi) tedbirsizlik ve dikkatsizlikle yaralamaya sebebiyet vermek su\u00e7undan 15\/12\/2004 tarihinde dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130ddianamede ba\u015fvurucunun beyan\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131namad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6zellikle belirtilmi\u015ftir. 4. Ceza Mahkemesinde ba\u015fvurucunun beyan\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in Ankara Asliye Ceza Mahkemesine 13\/4\/2005 tarihinde talimat yaz\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dosya i\u00e7erisinde \u00f6rne\u011fi bulunmamakla beraber bu Ceza Mahkemesinin 29\/6\/2005 tarihli karar\u0131na g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun san\u0131ktan \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7i …<\/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-36235","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n