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
ERSAN \u00d6ZG\u00dcM\u00dc\u015e BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/54675)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 2\/10\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 29\/4\/2025 – 32885<\/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
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
K\u00fcbra \u00c7\u0130FT\u00c7\u0130<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Ersan \u00d6ZG\u00dcM\u00dc\u015e<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, otizmli bireyin yeterli e\u011fitim g\u00f6rememesinden do\u011fan manevi zarar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle e\u011fitim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, daha \u00f6nce otizm tan\u0131s\u0131 konulmu\u015f lise \u00e7a\u011f\u0131ndaki \u00e7ocu\u011funu 2012 e\u011fitim-\u00f6\u011fretim y\u0131l\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015f\u0131nda S.\u0130. E\u011fitim ve Uygulama Okulunda otizmli bireyler i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan s\u0131n\u0131fa ge\u00e7ici olarak kaydettirmi\u015ftir. E\u011fitim d\u00f6nemi ba\u015flad\u0131ktan sonra s\u0131n\u0131f \u00f6\u011fretmenin uzun s\u00fcreli rapor almas\u0131 \u00fczerine bu s\u0131n\u0131f, ge\u00e7ici olarak kapat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunun \u00fczerine kayd\u0131 silinerek rehberlik merkezine y\u00f6nlendirilen \u00e7ocuk, \u00d6.H. E\u011fitim ve Rehabilitasyon Merkezinde e\u011fitim g\u00f6rmeye ba\u015flam\u0131\u015f ve 2012 e\u011fitim-\u00f6\u011fretim y\u0131l\u0131n\u0131 bu Merkezde e\u011fitim alarak tamamlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu; Rehabilitasyon Merkezinde verilen e\u011fitimin gerek saat gerekse de i\u00e7erik bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetersiz oldu\u011funu, yetersiz e\u011fitimin \u00e7ocu\u011fun durumunda gerilemeye, bu gerilemenin de ailede ciddi \u00fcz\u00fcnt\u00fcye yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek 17\/9\/2013 tarihinde manevi tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. 2013 e\u011fitim-\u00f6\u011fretim y\u0131l\u0131 ba\u015f\u0131nda otizmli bireyler i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n yeniden faaliyete ge\u00e7mesi \u00fczerine Okul, yeniden kay\u0131t yapt\u0131rabilece\u011fi yolunda ba\u015fvurucuya bildirimde bulunmu\u015ftur. Bu bildirim \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7ocu\u011fu 2013 e\u011fitim-\u00f6\u011fretim y\u0131l\u0131n\u0131n ikinci d\u00f6neminde Okula kaydolarak e\u011fitim g\u00f6rmeye ba\u015flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. Bu s\u00fcre\u00e7te \u0130dare Mahkemesi ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7ocu\u011funun bahsi ge\u00e7en Rehabilitasyon Merkezinde 7\/9\/2012-30\/1\/2014 tarihlerinde e\u011fitim g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, ba\u015fvurucunun bu e\u011fitim i\u00e7in herhangi bir harcama yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, e\u011fitim giderlerinin Mill\u00ee E\u011fitim Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nca (MEB) kar\u015f\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00e7ocu\u011fun 2012-2013 e\u011fitim-\u00f6\u011fretim y\u0131l\u0131nda e\u011fitim almamas\u0131 gibi bir durumun s\u00f6z konusu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu s\u00fcre\u00e7te ba\u015fvurucunun nas\u0131l bir manevi zarara u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 somut olarak ortaya koymad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun ba\u015fka otizmli \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n bahsi ge\u00e7en Okulda e\u011fitim g\u00f6rmeye devam ettikleri iddias\u0131yla ilgili olarak ise ayn\u0131 d\u00f6nemde ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7ocu\u011funun d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda iki \u00e7ocu\u011fun daha Okula kayd\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak bu \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n da otizmli bireyler i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n kapat\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle zihinsel engelliler i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan ba\u015fka bir s\u0131n\u0131fa aktar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla otizmli bireyler i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan s\u0131n\u0131fta e\u011fitimin devam etmedi\u011fini, uygulaman\u0131n sadece ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7ocu\u011funa y\u00f6nelik olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan mahkeme karar\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun talebi \u00fczerine Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u0131n temyiz ve karar d\u00fczeltme incelemelerinden ge\u00e7erek kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 2\/6\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 2\/7\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu; Okul yerine Rehabilitasyon Merkezinde e\u011fitim g\u00f6rmesinin \u00e7ocu\u011funun durumunda gerilemeye yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, saat olarak almas\u0131 gerekenden daha az saat e\u011fitim ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, Rehabilitasyon Merkezinin verdi\u011fi e\u011fitimin d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda \u00e7ocu\u011funa ek olarak ders ald\u0131rmak zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu e\u011fitim giderlerinin \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 kuruma ba\u011fl\u0131 vak\u0131f arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla \u00f6dendi\u011fini, \u00e7ocu\u011funun yetersiz e\u011fitim almas\u0131n\u0131n aile \u00fczerinde psikolojik olarak ciddi etkileri oldu\u011funu, ayr\u0131ca kay\u0131t yapt\u0131rabilece\u011fine ili\u015fkin bildirim sonras\u0131 ba\u015fvuru yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 yolundaki bilginin do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, k\u0131sa zamanda ba\u015fvuru yaparak \u00e7ocu\u011funu okula kaydettirdi\u011fini, sonras\u0131nda \u00e7ocu\u011funun bu Okulda e\u011fitim g\u00f6rmeye devam etti\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca kendisiyle birlikte ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde on bir \u00e7ocu\u011fun daha ma\u011fdur edildi\u011fini, sadece iki \u00e7ocu\u011fa ayr\u0131cal\u0131k yap\u0131larak okulda e\u011fitim verilmeye devam edildi\u011fini belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma, \u00f6zel hayata, e\u011fitim ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 haklar\u0131 ile ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
8. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; T\u00fcrkiye’deki mevzuat\u0131n engelli bireylerin ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131\u011fa maruz kalmadan e\u011fitim alma hakk\u0131n\u0131 korudu\u011fu, engelli \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n devlet okullar\u0131nda veya \u00f6zel okullarda kayna\u015ft\u0131rma modelli e\u011fitim veya ihtisasla\u015fm\u0131\u015f kurumlarda \u00f6zel e\u011fitim alma imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu, ba\u015fvurucunun da bu haktan faydaland\u0131\u011f\u0131, ge\u00e7ici olarak rehberlik merkezinde e\u011fitim alman\u0131n e\u011fitim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal eden bir y\u00f6n\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u0130dare Mahkemesinin de\u011ferlendirmelerinin yerinde oldu\u011fu, ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin kanun yolu kapsam\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 verdi\u011fi cevapta ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin \u00f6z\u00fc, belli bir zamanda mevcut olan e\u011fitim kurumundan e\u011fitim al\u0131namamas\u0131ndan kaynaklanan zarar\u0131n tazminine ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fundan \u015fik\u00e2yetler bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak e\u011fitim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. 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 e\u011fitim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI ve Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
11. Anayasa Mahkemesi, \u00f6nceki kararlar\u0131nda e\u011fitim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ilk, orta ve y\u00fcksek\u00f6\u011frenim seviyelerini kapsad\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Hikmet Balabano\u011flu, B. No: 2012\/1334, 17\/9\/2013, \u00a7 28; \u0130hsan Asutay, B. No: 2012\/606, 20\/2\/2014, \u00a7 34), belli bir zamanda mevcut olan e\u011fitim kurumlar\u0131na etkili bir bi\u00e7imde eri\u015fimin sa\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na ald\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Mehmet Re\u015fit Arslan ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/583, 10\/12\/2014, \u00a7 68) ve kamu otoritelerine bireyin e\u011fitim ve \u00f6\u011frenim g\u00f6rmesini engellememe \u015feklinde bir negatif \u00f6dev y\u00fckledi\u011fine (Y\u00fcksel Baran, B. No: 2012\/782, 26\/6\/2014, \u00a7 36; Adem \u00d6\u011f\u00fct ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2014\/20527, 22\/11\/2017, \u00a7 44) karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Anayasa’n\u0131n 5. maddesinde; ki\u015finin temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetlerini sosyal hukuk devleti ve adalet ilkeleriyle ba\u011fda\u015fmayacak surette s\u0131n\u0131rlayan siyasal, ekonomik ve sosyal engelleri kald\u0131rmak, insan\u0131n maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n geli\u015fmesi i\u00e7in gerekli \u015fartlar\u0131 haz\u0131rlamaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmak devletin temel ama\u00e7 ve g\u00f6revleri aras\u0131nda say\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re bireylerin ya\u015fam \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n iyile\u015ftirilmesi ve hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere ula\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6n\u00fcndeki her t\u00fcrl\u00fc engelin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 devletin anayasal bir \u00f6devidir. Bununla birlikte bu alanda devlete y\u00fcklenen pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler yerine getirilirken devletin mali kaynaklar\u0131n\u0131n yeterlili\u011finin g\u00f6zetilece\u011fi de a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r (AYM, E.2012\/65, K.2012\/128, 20\/9\/2012).<\/p>\n
13. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7ocu\u011funun belirli bir s\u00fcre okulda e\u011fitim g\u00f6rememesinin nedeni, otizmli bireyler i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n sonradan ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan bir nedenle kapat\u0131lmas\u0131d\u0131r. \u00c7ocu\u011fun ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta bu s\u0131n\u0131fa ge\u00e7ici olarak kayd\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve kayd\u0131n silinmesinde \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00f6zel durumundan kaynaklanan bir neden de ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmedi\u011fine g\u00f6re \u00e7ocuk i\u00e7in verilmesi planlanan e\u011fitimin okul \u00e7at\u0131s\u0131 alt\u0131nda \u00f6rg\u00fcn e\u011fitim oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Nitekim \u00e7ocu\u011fun bir sonraki y\u0131l okulda e\u011fitim g\u00f6rmeye devam etmesi de bu bulguyu desteklemektedir. Sonu\u00e7 olarak \u00e7ocuk, bir y\u0131l\u0131 a\u015fk\u0131n bir s\u00fcre idareden kaynaklanan bir nedenle kendisi i\u00e7in planlanan\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bir e\u011fitime tabi tutulmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu da bu kapsamda verilen e\u011fitimin yetersizli\u011finin \u00e7ocu\u011fun durumunda gerilemeye yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan yak\u0131nmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. Eldeki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta ilk yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken; ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7ocu\u011funa idarece verilmesi planlanan e\u011fitim ile verilen e\u011fitim aras\u0131nda nicelik ve nitelik olarak bir fark olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit etmek, bir farkl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n tespit edilmesi h\u00e2linde ikinci a\u015fama olarak bunun \u00e7ocuk \u00fczerinde olumsuz bir etkisinin olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirlemektir. Bu hususlar tespit edilmeden manevi bir zarar\u0131n do\u011fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemek olduk\u00e7a g\u00fc\u00e7t\u00fcr. Ancak Mahkemece bu hususlara ili\u015fkin herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
15. Bu ba\u011flamda mahkemelerce ilk olarak ki\u015filerin savunulabilir nitelikteki iddialar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi, yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmede talep edilen \u015feyin ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 durumunda ise bu durumun ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7elerle a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 gerekir. Ancak somut olayda Mahkemece ba\u015fvurucunun manevi tazminat talebi reddedilirken -yukar\u0131da belirtilen hususlara (bkz. \u00a7 14) ili\u015fkin bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan- ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7enin sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
16. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7eyle e\u011fitim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI ve Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi, 120.000 TL manevi tazminat ve miktar belirtmeksizin maddi tazminat taleplerinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
18. 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), 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
19. \u00d6te yandan ihlalin niteli\u011fine g\u00f6re yeniden yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan manevi tazminat, ba\u015fvurucu u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etti\u011fi maddi zararla ilgili bilgi\/belge sunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan da maddi tazminat taleplerinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. E\u011fitim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA Basri BA\u011eCI ve Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU’nun kar\u015f\u0131 oylar\u0131 ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 42. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan e\u011fitim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE Basri BA\u011eCI ve Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU’nun kar\u015f\u0131 oylar\u0131 ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin e\u011fitim hakk\u0131 ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Samsun 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2013\/1133, K.2014\/1345) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Tazminata ili\u015fkin taleplerin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 487,60 TL har\u00e7tan olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \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
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 2\/10\/2024 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY<\/p>\n
1. Somut olayda Ba\u015fvurucu otizmli olan \u00e7ocu\u011funun bu konuda e\u011fitim verecek \u00f6\u011fretmenin hastal\u0131k izni kullanmas\u0131 ve bu nedenle okula gelmemesine ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak kendilerinin rehabilitasyon merkezine y\u00f6nlendirildi\u011fini, bu nedenle daha niteliksiz bir e\u011fitim ald\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, e\u011fitim eksikli\u011finin giderilmesi amac\u0131yla ek ders almak durumunda kald\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, ayn\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131ftan iki \u00f6\u011frencinin okulda bir \u015fekilde e\u011fitim almaya devam ettiklerini buna ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak manevi zarara u\u011frad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 ifade ederek manevi tazminat talebinde bulunduklar\u0131n\u0131 ancak yarg\u0131lama mercileri taraf\u0131ndan bu talebin reddedildi\u011fini beyan etmi\u015flerdir.<\/p>\n
2. Dosya kapsam\u0131ndaki bilgilere g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7ocu\u011fu, e\u011fitimine devam edebilmesi i\u00e7in, \u00fccreti MEB taraf\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131lanmak \u00fczere, \u00f6zel bir rehberlik merkezine y\u00f6nlendirilmi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7ocu\u011funun s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131ndaki \u00f6\u011frencilerden ikisi ise ayn\u0131 okulda zihinsel engelliler s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131na aktar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Esasen hem rehabilitasyon merkezine y\u00f6nlendirme hem de zihinsel engelliler s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131na aktar\u0131lma uygulamas\u0131, e\u011fitimin devam ettirilmesine y\u00f6nelik telafi edici birer mekanizmad\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, kendi \u00e7ocugunun okul yerine rehberlik merkezinde e\u011fitim almas\u0131ndan yak\u0131nmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. Ger\u00e7ekten de \u00e7ocuklar aras\u0131nda hangi unsur dikkate al\u0131narak rehberlik merkezine y\u00f6nlendirme ya da zihinsel engelliler s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131na aktarma yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 dosya kapsam\u0131ndan anla\u015f\u0131lamamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. \u0130darenin ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7ocu\u011funu rehberlik merkezine y\u00f6nlendirirken nas\u0131l bir kriter uygulad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu kriterlerin hukuka uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi sorular\u0131n cevab\u0131 ancak a\u00e7\u0131lacak bir iptal davas\u0131nda cevaplanabilir nitelikte olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen ba\u015fvurucu bu yola tevess\u00fcl etmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu incelemeye konu edilen davada; rehberlik merkezinde verilen e\u011fitimin okulda verilen e\u011fitime k\u0131yasen nitelik ve nicelik olarak yetersiz oldu\u011funu, bu sebeple \u00e7ocu\u011funun haricen e\u011fitim g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, burada yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 harcamalar\u0131n bir vak\u0131f taraf\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00fcrecin manevi olarak y\u0131pranmaya yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Yarg\u0131lama mercii konuyu bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak de\u011ferlendirerek, manevi zarar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan ortaya konulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Devletin pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerine taalluk eden; otizmli bireyler i\u00e7in bir okul belirleme, \u00f6zel s\u0131n\u0131f a\u00e7ma, alan\u0131nda uzman \u00f6\u011fretmen g\u00f6revlendirme, \u00fccretini \u00f6deyerek rehberlik merkezine y\u00f6nlendirme ve sorun ortadan kalkt\u0131\u011f\u0131nda yeniden e\u011fitime devam etme gibi konular ba\u015fvuru genelinde b\u00fct\u00fcnc\u00fcl bir yakla\u015f\u0131mla dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, yarg\u0131lama mercilerinin manevi bir zarar\u0131n olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki karar\u0131n\u0131n yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemenin kolay olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u015fik\u00e2rd\u0131r. Dahas\u0131 t\u00fcm bu i\u015flemlerin imk\u00e2nlar\u0131n elverdi\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcler dahilinde yerine getirilmesi gibi do\u011fal bir s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 da mevcuttur.<\/p>\n
8. Bu de\u011ferlendirmeler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ihlal iddias\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcm\u00fczden, \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fun dosyan\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011fu ve e\u011fitim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fclerine i\u015ftirak edilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 2\/10\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/54675 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 ERSAN \u00d6ZG\u00dcM\u00dc\u015e BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/54675) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 2\/10\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 29\/4\/2025 – 32885 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR Raport\u00f6r : K\u00fcbra \u00c7\u0130FT\u00c7\u0130 Ba\u015fvurucu : Ersan \u00d6ZG\u00dcM\u00dc\u015e \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, otizmli bireyin yeterli e\u011fitim g\u00f6rememesinden do\u011fan manevi zarar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle e\u011fitim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, daha \u00f6nce otizm tan\u0131s\u0131 konulmu\u015f lise \u00e7a\u011f\u0131ndaki \u00e7ocu\u011funu 2012 e\u011fitim-\u00f6\u011fretim y\u0131l\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015f\u0131nda S.\u0130. E\u011fitim ve Uygulama Okulunda otizmli bireyler i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan s\u0131n\u0131fa ge\u00e7ici olarak kaydettirmi\u015ftir. E\u011fitim d\u00f6nemi ba\u015flad\u0131ktan sonra s\u0131n\u0131f \u00f6\u011fretmenin uzun s\u00fcreli rapor almas\u0131 \u00fczerine bu s\u0131n\u0131f, ge\u00e7ici olarak kapat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunun \u00fczerine kayd\u0131 silinerek rehberlik merkezine y\u00f6nlendirilen \u00e7ocuk, \u00d6.H. E\u011fitim ve Rehabilitasyon Merkezinde e\u011fitim g\u00f6rmeye ba\u015flam\u0131\u015f ve 2012 e\u011fitim-\u00f6\u011fretim y\u0131l\u0131n\u0131 bu Merkezde e\u011fitim alarak tamamlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu; Rehabilitasyon Merkezinde verilen e\u011fitimin gerek saat gerekse de i\u00e7erik bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetersiz oldu\u011funu, yetersiz e\u011fitimin \u00e7ocu\u011fun durumunda gerilemeye, bu gerilemenin de ailede ciddi \u00fcz\u00fcnt\u00fcye yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek 17\/9\/2013 tarihinde manevi tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 4. 2013 e\u011fitim-\u00f6\u011fretim y\u0131l\u0131 ba\u015f\u0131nda otizmli bireyler i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n yeniden faaliyete ge\u00e7mesi \u00fczerine …<\/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-70131","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n