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
CEM EREN BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/7124)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 22\/1\/2025<\/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
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
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Y\u00fcksel G\u00dcNARSLAN<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Cem EREN<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Candan DUMRUL KADIYORANO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, kamu makamlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir ve \u00f6nlenebilir nitelikte oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen canl\u0131 bomba sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen yaralanma olay\u0131ndan kaynaklanan zararlar\u0131n tazmini istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada olay\u0131n idarenin kusuruyla meydana geldi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmemesi nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ankara’da \u00e7e\u015fitli sivil toplum \u00f6rg\u00fctleri taraf\u0131ndan organize edilen 10\/10\/2015 tarihli toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc s\u0131ras\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen (kamuoyunda Ankara Gar Patlamas\u0131 olarak bilinen) bombal\u0131 ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu y\u00fczden fazla ki\u015fi hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybetmi\u015f ve aralar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun da oldu\u011fu \u00e7ok say\u0131da ki\u015fi yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonras\u0131nda kulaklarda u\u011fultu ve hafif i\u015fitme kayb\u0131 \u015fik\u00e2yetiyle ba\u015fvurdu\u011fu Hacettepe \u00dcniversitesi Hastanesi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen ayn\u0131 tarihli rapordan ba\u015fvurucunun sa\u011f kulak zar\u0131nda 1-2 milimetre \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcnde santral perforasyon (merkezi y\u0131rt\u0131lma) tespit edildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r (s\u00f6z konusu patlama ile ilgili olarak \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n yapt\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6n incelemeyle ilgili s\u00fcre\u00e7, bu s\u00fcre\u00e7 sonundan d\u00fczenlenen soru\u015fturma raporu ve Ankara Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan di\u011fer i\u015flemlere ili\u015fkin t\u00fcm a\u00e7\u0131klamalar i\u00e7in bkz. Hasan K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 [2. B.], B. No: 2018\/22085, 27\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 11-15).<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu; ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fece\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde istihbarat bilgisine sahip olmalar\u0131na ra\u011fmen gerekli \u00f6nlemleri almad\u0131klar\u0131 i\u00e7in kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n a\u011f\u0131r kusurlu oldu\u011funu, patlama neticesinde olu\u015fan a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 g\u00fcr\u00fclt\u00fc nedeniyle kulaklar\u0131nda i\u015fitme kayb\u0131 meydana geldi\u011fini, s\u00f6z konusu vah\u015fete tan\u0131k olmas\u0131 nedeniyle psikolojisinin bozuldu\u011funu, ruhsal travma ge\u00e7irdi\u011fini ve manevi y\u0131k\u0131m ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek yaralanmas\u0131yla sonu\u00e7lanan ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 manevi zarar\u0131n tazmini i\u00e7in Ankara 14. \u0130dare Mahkemesi (\u0130dare Mahkemesi\/Mahkeme) nezdinde tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Ba\u015fvrurucu tazminat talebinin idarece reddine ili\u015fkin i\u015flemi ayn\u0131 s\u00fcre\u00e7te dava konusu etmi\u015f ise de ihlal iddias\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesine bir etkisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bu husus ayr\u0131ca detayland\u0131r\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.).<\/p>\n
4. Daval\u0131 idare Mahkemeye sunulan 11\/5\/2016 tarihli savunma dilek\u00e7esinde Ankara \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 23\/2\/2016 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131na g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun s\u00f6z konusu bombal\u0131 sald\u0131r\u0131 sonucunda yaralanan ki\u015filer aras\u0131nda oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 idare ayr\u0131ca olay\u0131n meydana geli\u015f \u015fekli dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda idareye y\u00fcklenebilecek herhangi bir kusurun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ter\u00f6r eylemi sonucu olu\u015fan zarar\u0131n tazmini isteminden kaynaklanan uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n 17\/7\/2004 tarihli ve 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Ter\u00f6r ve Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadeleden Do\u011fan Zararlar\u0131n Kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun kapsam\u0131nda \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmesi gerekti\u011fini ancak bu Kanun kapsam\u0131nda da manevi zararlar\u0131n tazmini yoluna gidilemeyece\u011fini ve sosyal risk ilkesi gere\u011fince de sorumluluklar\u0131n\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
5. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 9\/6\/2017 tarihli ara karar\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucudan s\u00f6z konusu ter\u00f6r eylemi sonras\u0131nda yaralanmas\u0131yla ilgili olarak tedavi g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc sa\u011fl\u0131k kurumlar\u0131ndan al\u0131nacak epikriz raporlar\u0131n\u0131 istemi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu vekili 7\/9\/2017 tarihli dilek\u00e7e ekinde Hacettepe \u00dcniversitesi Hastanesi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen 10\/10\/2015 tarihli epikriz raporunu ibraz etmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan dilek\u00e7ede ayr\u0131ca Adana’da ikamet eden ba\u015fvurucunun \u00c7ukurova \u00dcniversitesi Balcal\u0131 Hastanesinde g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc tedaviye ili\u015fkin belgelerin celbi talep edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Mahkeme 23\/5\/2019 tarihli karar\u0131yla davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan kararda, olay\u0131n meydana gelmesinde kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n kusurunun bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir de\u011ferlendirmeye yer verilmemi\u015ftir. Kararda, a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 g\u00fcr\u00fclt\u00fc nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun kulaklar\u0131nda u\u011fultu olu\u015fmas\u0131 ve ge\u00e7ici s\u00fcreli hafif bir i\u015fitme kayb\u0131 ya\u015famas\u0131 durumu ile patlama sonras\u0131nda \u00e7evresindeki ki\u015filerin \u00f6l\u00fcmlerine ve par\u00e7alanmalar\u0131na tan\u0131k olmas\u0131 nedeniyle ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 travman\u0131n tek ba\u015f\u0131na tazmin i\u00e7in yeterli olmayaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu kararda ayr\u0131ca uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta manevi zarar\u0131n tazmin edilebilmesi i\u00e7in varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerekli olan, \u015feref, haysiyet, ki\u015filik haklar\u0131 veya v\u00fccut b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne y\u00f6nelmi\u015f sald\u0131r\u0131 niteli\u011finde bir eylem ya da i\u015flem s\u00f6z konusu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davan\u0131n reddedildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, Mahkemenin ret karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu, istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde olay neticesinde yaralanan ki\u015filerden biri oldu\u011funu, Mahkemenin i\u015fitme kayb\u0131 \u015feklindeki yaralanmay\u0131 zarar olarak kabul etmeme gerek\u00e7esinin anla\u015f\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, i\u015fitme kayb\u0131na ilaveten olay sonras\u0131nda tan\u0131k oldu\u011fu \u00f6l\u00fcm ve yaralanmalar nedeniyle manevi zarara u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu an\u0131lan dilek\u00e7esinde ayr\u0131ca ayn\u0131 olay kapsam\u0131nda kendisi ile benzer \u015fekilde yaralanan bir ki\u015finin a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n kabul edildi\u011fini beyan ederek kendisi hakk\u0131nda verilen ret karar\u0131n\u0131n hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf talebi, Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 10. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi (B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi) taraf\u0131ndan Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n usul ve hukuka uygun oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle 10\/12\/2019 tarihinde reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai karar\u0131 18\/1\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frenmesinin ard\u0131ndan 12\/2\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
10. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemelerinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu,<\/p>\n
i. Ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen ter\u00f6r eylemine dair riskten haberdar olan kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n sald\u0131r\u0131y\u0131 \u00f6nlemek ve mitingin sa\u011fl\u0131kl\u0131 bir \u015fekilde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesini sa\u011flamak ad\u0131na gerekli \u00f6nlemleri almad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131,<\/p>\n
ii. Sald\u0131r\u0131 nedeniyle yaralanan ki\u015filerden oldu\u011funa dair 10\/10\/2015 tarihli sa\u011fl\u0131k raporunun g\u00f6zard\u0131 edildi\u011fini, Adana’da devam eden tedavisine ili\u015fkin belgeler temin edilmeden karar verildi\u011fini,<\/p>\n
iii. Mahkemenin idarenin olaydaki sorumlulu\u011funu tart\u0131\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, sa\u011fl\u0131k raporu ile sabit olan yaralanmas\u0131 ve \u015fahit oldu\u011fu \u00f6l\u00fcmler nedeniyle ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 travmadan kaynaklanan manevi zarar\u0131n\u0131n yok say\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131,<\/p>\n
iv. Yarg\u0131laman\u0131n duru\u015fmal\u0131 yap\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinin kar\u015f\u0131lanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esiz oldu\u011funu, ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde yaralanan bir ki\u015finin a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 benzer nitelikteki bir davada k\u0131smen kabul karar\u0131 verilmesine ra\u011fmen kendi davas\u0131n\u0131n hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak reddedildi\u011fini beyan ederek ya\u015fam, adil yarg\u0131lanma, etkili ba\u015fvuru, toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc d\u00fczenleme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
12. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde esasa ili\u015fkin olarak insan haklar\u0131 yarg\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7tihad\u0131 ile mevzuat aktar\u0131lm\u0131\u015f; yap\u0131lacak de\u011ferlendirmede Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihad\u0131 ve somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
13. Anayasa Mahkemesinin yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihad\u0131na g\u00f6re \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fi baz\u0131 h\u00e2llerde de ba\u015fvuru; ki\u015fiye kar\u015f\u0131 kullan\u0131lan g\u00fcc\u00fcn derecesi ile t\u00fcr\u00fc, g\u00fc\u00e7 kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ard\u0131nda yatan niyet ve ama\u00e7 ile maruz kal\u0131nan eylemin ma\u011fdurun fiziki b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fczerindeki sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 gibi hususlar birlikte de\u011ferlendirilerek ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenebilir (Mehmet Karada\u011f [2. B.], B. No: 2013\/2030, 26\/6\/2014, \u00a7 20; Mustafa \u00c7elik ve Siyahmet \u015eeran [2. B.], B. No: 2014\/7227, 12\/1\/2017, \u00a7 69; Yasin A\u011fca [1. B.], B. No: 2014\/13163, 11\/5\/2017, \u00a7 110). Ba\u015fvurucunun bombal\u0131 ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 yap\u0131lan ve bir\u00e7ok ki\u015finin hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybedip pek \u00e7ok insan\u0131n yaraland\u0131\u011f\u0131 alanda bulundu\u011funu ve ya\u015fanan sald\u0131r\u0131 nedeniyle i\u015fitme kayb\u0131 ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc dikkate al\u0131narak ba\u015fvuru, ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir. \u00d6te yandan ba\u015fvuruya konu yarg\u0131sal s\u00fcre\u00e7te ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ili\u015fkin maddi boyutu kapsam\u0131nda ve idarenin olay\u0131n meydana gelmesinde kusurunun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 nazara al\u0131narak yap\u0131lan inceleme ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutuyla s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (benzer y\u00f6nde de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. Mustafa \u00d6zel [2. B.], B. No: 2020\/4300, 6\/9\/2023, \u00a7 8).<\/p>\n
14. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
15. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131 g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na alan 17. maddesinin kendisine y\u00fckledi\u011fi pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler uyar\u0131nca devlet, yetki alan\u0131ndaki bireylerin ya\u015famlar\u0131n\u0131 kamu g\u00f6revlileri ile di\u011fer bireylerin eylemlerinden hatta ki\u015filerin kendi eylemlerinden kaynaklanabilecek risklere kar\u015f\u0131 koruma \u00f6devi alt\u0131ndad\u0131r (Serpil Kerimo\u011flu ve di\u011ferleri [2. B.], B. No: 2012\/752, 17\/9\/2013, \u00a7\u00a7 50, 51).<\/p>\n
16. Pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kapsam\u0131nda devletin ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131 korumak i\u00e7in olu\u015fturulan yasal ve idari \u00e7er\u00e7evenin gere\u011fi gibi uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 ve bu hakka y\u00f6nelik ihlallerin durdurulup cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayacak etkili bir yarg\u0131sal sistem kurma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc de bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck, kamusal olsun veya olmas\u0131n ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n tehlikeye girebilece\u011fi her t\u00fcrl\u00fc faaliyet bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ge\u00e7erlidir (Serpil Kerimo\u011flu ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
17. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlaline kasten sebebiyet verilmemi\u015f ise etkili bir yarg\u0131sal sistem kurma y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck -istisnalar\u0131 bulunmakla birlikte- her olayda mutlaka ceza davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirmez. Ma\u011fdurlara hukuki, idari hatta disiplinle ilgili hukuk yollar\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k olmas\u0131 yeterli olabilir (Serpil Kerimo\u011flu ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 59; Nafia Sevin Erg\u00fcn Sefada ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2014\/14844, 1\/12\/2016, \u00a7 63).<\/p>\n
18. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki sorumlulu\u011fu ortaya koymak ad\u0131na adli ve idari yarg\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131lan tazminat talepli davalarda makul derecede ivedilik ve \u00f6zen \u015fart\u0131n\u0131n yerine getirilmesi gerekmektedir (Perihan U\u00e7ar [2. B.], B. No: 2013\/5860, 1\/12\/2015, \u00a7 52) ancak yarg\u0131 mercilerinin \u00f6zenli inceleme yapma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri, ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 ile ilgili her davada mutlaka ma\u011fdurlar lehine sonuca var\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 garanti etmez (Aysun Okumu\u015f ve Aytekin Okumu\u015f [1. B.], B. No: 2013\/4086, 20\/4\/2016, \u00a7 73).<\/p>\n
19. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu, Ankara Gar\u0131 \u00f6n\u00fcnde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonras\u0131nda ayn\u0131 g\u00fcn kulaklarda u\u011fultu ve hafif i\u015fitme kayb\u0131 \u015fikayetiyle Hacettepe \u00dcniversitesi Hastanesine ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Burada yap\u0131lan muayene sonras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen rapora g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun sa\u011f kulak zar\u0131nda santral perforasyon (merkezi y\u0131rt\u0131lma) tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun olay yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na veya i\u015fitme kayb\u0131 ile patlama aras\u0131nda bir irtibat bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir kanaate ula\u015f\u0131lmamas\u0131 (bkz. \u00a7 6) ve daval\u0131 idarenin ba\u015fvurucunun olay nedeniyle yaralanan ki\u015filerden oldu\u011funa y\u00f6nelik savunmas\u0131(bkz. \u00a7 4) g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun patlama s\u0131ras\u0131nda olay yerinde oldu\u011fu ve kulak zar\u0131nda y\u0131rt\u0131k olu\u015facak \u015fekilde yaraland\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda ku\u015fku bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvurucu yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde, ba\u015fka hususlar yan\u0131nda olayda idarenin hizmet kusuru bulundu\u011funu da ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ancak \u0130dare Mahkemesi, somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun patlamadan kaynaklanan bir zarar\u0131n\u0131n olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 bir inceleme yapm\u0131\u015f ve idarenin olay\u0131n meydana gelmesinde kusurunun bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131nda da bu y\u00f6nde bir a\u00e7\u0131klamaya yer verilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
21. \u00d6te yandan \u0130dare Mahkemesinin davan\u0131n reddi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki karar\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 g\u00fcr\u00fclt\u00fc nedeniyle kulaklar\u0131nda u\u011fultu olu\u015fmas\u0131 ve ge\u00e7ici s\u00fcreli hafif bir i\u015fitme kayb\u0131 ya\u015famas\u0131 ve patlamada ki\u015filerin \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcne ve par\u00e7alanmas\u0131na tan\u0131k olmas\u0131 nedeniyle ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 travman\u0131n tek ba\u015f\u0131na tazmin i\u00e7in yeterli olamayaca\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esine dayanmaktad\u0131r. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun yaralanmas\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7ici ve hafif nitelikte oldu\u011fu kanaatine dayanarak tazmini gereken bir manevi zarar\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Mahkeme karar\u0131ndaki belirleyici hususun ba\u015fvurucunun yaralanmas\u0131n\u0131n mahiyeti ve derecesine ili\u015fkin de\u011ferlendirme oldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenebilir.<\/p>\n
22. Bununla birlikte ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda dava dosyas\u0131nda yer alan 10\/10\/2015 tarihli raporda i\u015fitme kayb\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7ici oldu\u011funa dair bir tespite yer verilmedi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Dahas\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu vekili 7\/9\/2017 tarihli dilek\u00e7e ile ba\u015fvurucunun tedavisinin \u00c7ukurova \u00dcniversitesi Balcal\u0131 Hastanesinde devam etti\u011fini bildirmi\u015f ve an\u0131lan sa\u011fl\u0131k kurumundan t\u0131bbi tedavi evraklar\u0131n\u0131n teminini talep etmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7 5). Ancak \u0130dare Mahkemesi, ba\u015fvurucunun bu y\u00f6ndeki talebine ili\u015fkin bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmaks\u0131z\u0131n ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun yaralanmas\u0131n\u0131n niteli\u011fi ve derecesini a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131\u011fa kavu\u015fturacak delilleri temin etmeksizin davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
23. Sonu\u00e7 olarak yarg\u0131sal merciler taraf\u0131ndan idarenin hizmet kusurunun tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in gerekli delillerin toplanmas\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 hususlar\u0131nda Anayasa’n\u0131n 17. maddesinin gerektirdi\u011fi dikkat ve \u00f6zende bir inceleme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutunun ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
24. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti, yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile 50.000 TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
25. 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 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) [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
26. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutunun \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Ankara 14. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2016\/1627, K.2019\/1117) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 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
F. \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
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 22\/1\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 22\/1\/2025 tarihli ve 2020\/7124 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 CEM EREN BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/7124) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 22\/1\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : Y\u00fcksel G\u00dcNARSLAN Ba\u015fvurucu : Cem EREN Vekili : Av. Candan DUMRUL KADIYORANO\u011eLU \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, kamu makamlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir ve \u00f6nlenebilir nitelikte oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen canl\u0131 bomba sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen yaralanma olay\u0131ndan kaynaklanan zararlar\u0131n tazmini istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada olay\u0131n idarenin kusuruyla meydana geldi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmemesi nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ankara’da \u00e7e\u015fitli sivil toplum \u00f6rg\u00fctleri taraf\u0131ndan organize edilen 10\/10\/2015 tarihli toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc s\u0131ras\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen (kamuoyunda Ankara Gar Patlamas\u0131 olarak bilinen) bombal\u0131 ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu y\u00fczden fazla ki\u015fi hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybetmi\u015f ve aralar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun da oldu\u011fu \u00e7ok say\u0131da ki\u015fi yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonras\u0131nda kulaklarda u\u011fultu ve hafif i\u015fitme kayb\u0131 \u015fik\u00e2yetiyle ba\u015fvurdu\u011fu Hacettepe \u00dcniversitesi Hastanesi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen ayn\u0131 tarihli rapordan ba\u015fvurucunun sa\u011f kulak zar\u0131nda 1-2 milimetre \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcnde santral perforasyon (merkezi y\u0131rt\u0131lma) tespit edildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r (s\u00f6z konusu patlama ile ilgili olarak \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n yapt\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6n incelemeyle ilgili s\u00fcre\u00e7, bu s\u00fcre\u00e7 sonundan d\u00fczenlenen soru\u015fturma raporu …<\/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-36488","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n