T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay\u00a0<\/p>\n
Hukuk Genel Kurulu<\/p>\n
2021\/477 E., 2023\/179 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
\u0130NCELENEN KARARIN
\nMAHKEMES\u0130 : … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 14. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki cezai \u015fart alaca\u011f\u0131 davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Karar\u0131n daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istinaf edilmesi \u00fczerine, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun kabul\u00fc ile \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi karar\u0131 kald\u0131r\u0131larak yeniden esas hakk\u0131nda h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmak suretiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131 davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 11. Hukuk Dairesince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonunda bozulmu\u015f, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 direnilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Direnme karar\u0131 davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmekle; kesinlik, s\u00fcre, temyiz \u015fart\u0131 ve di\u011fer usul eksiklikleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n inceleme sonucunda, temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin kabul\u00fcne karar verildikten sonra Tetkik H\u00e2kimi taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan g\u00fcndem ve dosyadaki belgeler incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
I. DAVA<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131 vekili; m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin petrol sekt\u00f6r\u00fcnde faaliyet g\u00f6steren firmalara tank imalat\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkili \u015firket nezdinde belirsiz s\u00fcreli i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile 17.05.2014 tarihinde istifa edene kadar \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u015firketteki g\u00f6revinin fiziki olarak \u00e7izimi yap\u0131lan tasar\u0131mlar\u0131 bilgisayar ortam\u0131na aktararak imalat b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcne iletmek oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkili nezdinde olu\u015fturulan tasar\u0131mlar\u0131n \u00e7izimleri d\u00e2hilinde \u015firket s\u0131rlar\u0131 ile m\u00fc\u015fteri firmalar\u0131 ve rakip firma bilgilerine vak\u0131f oldu\u011funu, bu kapsamda daval\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkili i\u015fyerinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 esnada taraflar aras\u0131nda 03.09.2011 tarihli gizlilik anla\u015fmas\u0131 akdedildi\u011fini, yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015f hasebiyle m\u00fcvekkilinin ticari s\u0131rlar\u0131na vak\u0131f olan daval\u0131n\u0131n bu anla\u015fmaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 hareket ederek i\u015ften ayr\u0131ld\u0131ktan k\u0131sa bir s\u00fcre sonra davac\u0131 \u015firketle ayn\u0131 konuda faaliyet g\u00f6steren ve ayn\u0131 b\u00f6lgede bulunan ba\u015fka bir \u015firkette \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, an\u0131lan \u015firketin m\u00fcvekkilince \u00fcretilen tasar\u0131mlar\u0131 elde etmek amac\u0131yla daval\u0131 yan\u0131nda bir k\u0131s\u0131m \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131 da istihdam etti\u011fini, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan m\u00fcvekkiline ait i\u015f s\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n yeni \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015firkete aktar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu durumun taraflar aras\u0131ndaki s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olu\u015fturdu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek 70.000,00 TL cezai \u015fart\u0131n daval\u0131dan tahsiline karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. CEVAP<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 vekili; m\u00fcvekkilinin davac\u0131 i\u015fyerinde i\u015fe ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihten yakla\u015f\u0131k sekiz ay sonra davac\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkilinden dava konusu gizlilik s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini imzalamas\u0131n\u0131 talep etti\u011fini, bir k\u0131sm\u0131 bo\u015f olan s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lma bask\u0131s\u0131 ve tehdidi alt\u0131nda m\u00fcvekkiline imzalat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, an\u0131lan bo\u015fluklar\u0131n imzadan sonra davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a tamamland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin tanzim tarihi 03.09.2011 olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen ayn\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmede i\u015ften ayr\u0131lma tarihinin 17.05.2014 olarak belirtildi\u011fini, bu nedenle s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011funu, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede co\u011frafi s\u0131n\u0131rlaman\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi s\u00fcrenin yedi y\u0131l olarak belirlendi\u011fini, bu bak\u0131mdan s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fundan ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131 i\u015fyerinde ustaba\u015f\u0131 olarak g\u00f6rev yapm\u0131\u015f m\u00fcvekkilinin yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015fin gere\u011fi olarak i\u015fyeri s\u0131rlar\u0131na vak\u0131f olmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, i\u015f akdinin hakl\u0131 nedenle sonland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kabul anlam\u0131na gelmemek kayd\u0131yla cezai \u015farta h\u00fckmedilmesi h\u00e2linde cezai \u015farttan indirim yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini belirterek davan\u0131n reddini savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
III. \u0130LK DERECE MAHKEMES\u0130 KARARI<\/p>\n
\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin 03.07.2017 tarihli ve 2014\/1313 Esas 2017\/496 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin bo\u015f olarak imzaland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve daha sonradan davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a doldurdu\u011fu iddias\u0131n\u0131n hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmedi\u011finden bu savunmaya itibar edilmedi\u011fi, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede co\u011frafi yer s\u0131n\u0131rlamas\u0131n\u0131n bulunmamas\u0131n\u0131n ve s\u00fcrenin yasada belirtilenden fazla \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi t\u00fcmden ge\u00e7ersiz k\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, h\u00e2kime m\u00fcdahale hakk\u0131 verildi\u011fi, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn gerekti\u011fi, somut olayda daval\u0131n\u0131n kendi iste\u011fi ile davac\u0131ya ait i\u015fyerinden ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, akabinde davac\u0131 ile ayn\u0131 i\u015f kolunda ve onunla rekabet h\u00e2linde olan bir ba\u015fka i\u015fyerinde ayn\u0131 s\u0131fatla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131fat\u0131 itibariyle davac\u0131n\u0131n ticari\/i\u015f s\u0131rlar\u0131na vak\u0131f oldu\u011fu, bu h\u00e2liyle davac\u0131ya \u00f6nemli zarar verebilece\u011fi, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede cezai \u015fart miktar\u0131 150.000 USD olarak kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ise de davac\u0131n\u0131n talebinin 70.000,00 TL oldu\u011fu, bu tutar\u0131n da daval\u0131n\u0131n mali ve sosyal durumuna g\u00f6re fazla oldu\u011fundan 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu’nun (TBK) 182\/son maddesine dayal\u0131 olarak talepten %60 oran\u0131nda tenkis yap\u0131larak neticede 28.000,00 TL\u2019ye h\u00fckmedildi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc ile 28.000,00 TL\u2019nin daval\u0131dan tahsiline karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130ST\u0130NAF<\/p>\n
A. \u0130stinaf Yoluna Ba\u015fvuranlar
\n\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde daval\u0131 vekili istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
B. Gerek\u00e7e ve Sonu\u00e7
\nB\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin 10.05.2018 tarihli ve 2017\/1059 Esas, 2018\/497 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131yla; TBK’n\u0131n 420\/1 inci maddesi uyar\u0131nca hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerine sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine konulan ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu, somut olayda rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve buna ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ceza ko\u015fulunu d\u00fczenleyen s\u00f6zle\u015fmede sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine ceza ko\u015fulu getirildi\u011fi, bunun kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda i\u015fverene bir y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck getirilmedi\u011fi, bu nedenle s\u00f6zle\u015fmedeki ceza ko\u015fulu ge\u00e7ersiz olup bu ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fin h\u00e2kimin m\u00fcdahalesiyle giderilebilecek nitelikte bir ge\u00e7ersizlik olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, TBK’n\u0131n 420\/1 inci maddesindeki d\u00fczenlemenin emredici bir h\u00fck\u00fcm olup kamu d\u00fczenini ilgilendirdi\u011fi, bu nedenle 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun (HMK’) 355 inci maddesi uyar\u0131nca resen dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n zorunlu oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle daval\u0131 vekilinin istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun kabul\u00fcne, ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131 kald\u0131r\u0131larak davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
V. BOZMA VE BOZMADAN SONRAK\u0130 YARGILAMA S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
A. Bozma Karar\u0131
\n1. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 vekili temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
2. Yarg\u0131tay 11. Hukuk Dairesinin 09.09.2019 tarihli ve 2018\/3794 Esas, 2019\/5098 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; “…Dava, rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131ktan kaynaklanan cezai \u015fart istemine ili\u015fkindir. B\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesince, taraflar aras\u0131nda akdedilen hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde yer alan rekabet etmeme yasa\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin h\u00fckm\u00fcn sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine cezai \u015fart \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bu nedenle 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 TBK\u2019n\u0131n 420. maddesi uyar\u0131nca ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle, ilk derece mahkemesince davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne dair verilen karar kald\u0131r\u0131l\u0131p, esas hakk\u0131nda yeniden h\u00fck\u00fcm tesis edilmek suretiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Ancak Dairemizin 11.02.2019 g\u00fcn, 2017\/3977 Esas – 2019\/990 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131nda da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere, hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi i\u00e7erisinde rekabet etmeme yasa\u011f\u0131na dair h\u00fck\u00fcm bulundu\u011fu hallerde, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin, hem hizmet ili\u015fkisinin devam\u0131 s\u00fcrecinde ge\u00e7erli olan bir hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini, hem de hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi sona erdirdikten sonra da y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler \u00f6ng\u00f6ren bir rekabet etmeme s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini ihtiva etti\u011finin kabul\u00fc gerekir. Bu durumda, hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine konulan cezai \u015fart h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011funu h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na alan TBK\u2019n\u0131n 420. maddesinin taraflar aras\u0131nda akdedilen rekabet etmeme s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine uygulanma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Kald\u0131 ki, taraflar aras\u0131nda imzalanan hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir d\u00fczenlemeye yer verilmemi\u015f olup, bu hususta 03.09.2011 tarihinde ayr\u0131 bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme imzalanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Belirtilen nedenlerle mahkemenin an\u0131lan gerek\u00e7esi do\u011fru bulunmam\u0131\u015f, b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n bozularak kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekmi\u015ftir…” \u015feklindeki gerek\u00e7eyle karar bozularak dosyan\u0131n B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince Verilen Direnme Karar\u0131
\nB\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da tarih ve say\u0131s\u0131 belirtilen karar\u0131 ile \u00f6nceki gerek\u00e7eye ilaveten; TBK\u2019n\u0131n 420 nci maddesinin sosyal hukuk anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n yans\u0131mas\u0131 olarak i\u015fveren kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda zay\u0131f konumda olan i\u015f\u00e7inin korunmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla ihdas edildi\u011fi, d\u00fczenlemenin emredici niteli\u011fi haiz oldu\u011fu, bu sebeple hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine konulan ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu, bu hususta bir istisnan\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu anlamda s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin devam\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda yahut sona ermesinden sonraki d\u00f6nemle alakal\u0131 herhangi bir ayr\u0131m\u0131n mevcut olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ceza ko\u015fulunun hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten sonraki d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin olmas\u0131n\u0131n an\u0131lan ko\u015fulu s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin bir par\u00e7as\u0131 olmaktan \u00e7\u0131karmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, TBK\u2019n\u0131n 446 nc\u0131 maddesi uyar\u0131nca rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 davranan i\u015f\u00e7i, bunun sonucu olarak i\u015fverenin u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 b\u00fct\u00fcn zararlar\u0131 gidermekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc oldu\u011fu, i\u015fverenin i\u015f\u00e7inin rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ihl\u00e2l etti\u011fi olgusunun yan\u0131nda zarar\u0131n\u0131 da kan\u0131tlayarak tazminat talep edebilece\u011fi, ancak ceza ko\u015fulunun i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine tek tarafl\u0131 olarak kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumlarda ceza ko\u015fulu ge\u00e7erli olmayaca\u011f\u0131ndan i\u015fverenin zarar\u0131n\u0131 ve illiyet ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispat etmek zorunda oldu\u011fu, hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine konulacak ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7erlili\u011finin i\u015fverenin de bir edim \u00fcstlenmi\u015f olmas\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 oldu\u011fu, zira rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131na dair i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine konulan ceza ko\u015fulu ile i\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan i\u015f\u00e7inin \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma alan\u0131n\u0131n ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma konusunun belli bir s\u00fcre s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131l\u0131p kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda hi\u00e7bir edim \u00fcstlenilmedi\u011fi, bunun yan\u0131nda ceza ko\u015fulu i\u00e7eren d\u00fczenlemenin ayr\u0131 bir ka\u011f\u0131da yaz\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n da sonuca etkisinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bunun hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin eki niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu, bu kapsamda bir ceza ko\u015fulunun salt ayr\u0131 bir metin h\u00e2linde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n ona ge\u00e7erlilik kazand\u0131rmayaca\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle direnme karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
VI. TEMY\u0130Z
\nA. Temyiz Yoluna Ba\u015fvuranlar
\nB\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen direnme karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 vekili temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
B. Temyiz Sebepleri
\nDavac\u0131 vekili; rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde iki tarafl\u0131 ceza ko\u015fulu \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkilinin \u00f6nemli ticari s\u0131rlar\u0131na vak\u0131f oldu\u011funu, istifas\u0131ndan sonra m\u00fcvekkili ile ayn\u0131 i\u015f kolunda rakip firmada i\u015fe ba\u015flayarak bu s\u0131rlar\u0131 an\u0131lan firmaya aktard\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu suretle rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini ihl\u00e2l etti\u011fini, gizlilik s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin hizmet ili\u015fkisi i\u00e7erisinde imzaland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek direnme karar\u0131n\u0131 temyiz etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
C. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k
\nDirenme yoluyla Hukuk Genel Kurulu \u00f6n\u00fcne gelen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerine sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine konulan ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7ersiz olaca\u011f\u0131na dair TBK\u2019n\u0131n 420\/1 inci maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn, ayn\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 444 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesi kapsam\u0131nda i\u015f\u00e7i ve i\u015fveren aras\u0131nda akdedilen rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde uygulan\u0131p uygulanamayaca\u011f\u0131, buradan var\u0131lacak sonuca g\u00f6re taraflar aras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 davran\u0131\u015f i\u00e7in TBK\u2019n\u0131n 446\/2 nci maddesi kapsam\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7erli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
D. Gerek\u00e7e
\n1. \u0130lgili Hukuk
\nUyu\u015fmazl\u0131k kapsam\u0131nda TBK’n\u0131n 420\/1 inci maddesi; “Hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerine sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine konulan ceza ko\u015fulu ge\u00e7ersizdir.” h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc i\u00e7ermektedir.
\nRekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerindeki cezai \u015farta dair TBK’n\u0131n 446 \u0131nc\u0131 madde d\u00fczenlemesi; “Rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 davranan i\u015f\u00e7i, bunun sonucu olarak i\u015fverenin u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 b\u00fct\u00fcn zararlar\u0131 gidermekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr.
\nYasa\u011fa ayk\u0131r\u0131 davran\u0131\u015f bir ceza ko\u015fuluna ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015fsa ve s\u00f6zle\u015fmede aksine bir h\u00fck\u00fcm de yoksa, i\u015f\u00e7i \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen miktar\u0131 \u00f6deyerek rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin borcundan kurtulabilir; ancak, i\u015f\u00e7i bu miktar\u0131 a\u015fan zarar\u0131 gidermek zorundad\u0131r.
\n\u0130\u015fveren, ceza ko\u015fulu ve do\u011fabilecek ek zararlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede yaz\u0131l\u0131 olarak a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a sakl\u0131 tutmas\u0131 ko\u015fuluyla, kendisinin ihlal veya tehdit edilen menfaatlerinin \u00f6nemi ile i\u015f\u00e7inin davran\u0131\u015f\u0131 hakl\u0131 g\u00f6steriyorsa, yasa\u011fa ayk\u0131r\u0131 davran\u0131\u015fa son verilmesini de isteyebilir.
\n” \u015feklindedir.<\/p>\n
2. De\u011ferlendirme
\n1. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in \u00f6ncelikle konuya ili\u015fkin yasal d\u00fczenlemeler ile hukuki kavram ve kurumlar\u0131n ortaya konulmas\u0131nda yarar bulunmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
2. \u0130\u015f\u00e7inin i\u015f\/hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin devam\u0131 s\u00fcresince i\u015fverenle rekabet etmemesi sadakat borcu i\u00e7inde yer alan bir y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckt\u00fcr. D\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131 gere\u011fince bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck baz\u0131 durumlarda s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin sona ermesinden sonra da belli bir s\u00fcre devam etmelidir. Zira i\u015f\u00e7inin \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 esnas\u0131nda elde etti\u011fi baz\u0131 bilgileri i\u015f akdinin sona ermesinden sonra kullanmas\u0131 i\u015fverenin hakl\u0131 menfaatlerine zarar verebilir. Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 48 inci maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan i\u015f\u00e7inin diledi\u011fi alanda \u201c\u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ve s\u00f6zle\u015fme \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc\u201d, onun hayat\u0131n\u0131 kazanmas\u0131 yan\u0131nda yine Anayasa\u2019da \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f olan maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 koruma ve geli\u015ftirme hakk\u0131yla (md. 5, 17) do\u011frudan ilgilidir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla i\u015f\/hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde s\u00f6zle\u015fme sonras\u0131 rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda i\u015fverenin rekabet nedeniyle ortaya \u00e7\u0131kabilecek hakl\u0131 menfaati ile i\u015f\u00e7inin \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ve s\u00f6zle\u015fme \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn dengelenmesi gerekmektedir. Bu nedenle TBK\u2019da bu dengeyi sa\u011flamaya y\u00f6nelik \u00f6zel d\u00fczenlemeler yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Bu dengenin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla kanunda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 anla\u015fmas\u0131, hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesiyle ba\u011f\u0131tlanan i\u015f\u00e7inin s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin sona ermesi sonras\u0131nda i\u015f sahibiyle rekabet edece\u011fi bir i\u015fi kendi ad\u0131na yapmamas\u0131n\u0131 ve rakip bir i\u015fyerinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmamas\u0131n\u0131, b\u00f6yle bir kurulu\u015fta ortak ve ba\u015fka s\u0131fatlarla ilgili olmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6ren anla\u015fma olarak tan\u0131mlanabilir (T\u00fcrk Hukuk Kurumu: T\u00fcrk Hukuk L\u00fbgat\u0131 C. 1, Ankara 2021 s. 926).<\/p>\n
4. T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu\u2019nun 444\/1 inci maddesi gere\u011fince fiil ehliyetine sahip olan i\u015f\u00e7i, i\u015fverene kar\u015f\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin sona ermesinden sonra herhangi bir bi\u00e7imde onunla rekabet etmekten, \u00f6zellikle kendi hesab\u0131na rakip bir i\u015fletme a\u00e7maktan, ba\u015fka bir rakip i\u015fletmede \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktan veya bunlar\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, rakip i\u015fletmeyle ba\u015fka t\u00fcrden bir menfaat ili\u015fkisine giri\u015fmekten ka\u00e7\u0131nmay\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 olarak \u00fcstlenebilir.<\/p>\n
5. \u0130\u015f\u00e7i ile i\u015fveren aras\u0131nda TBK’n\u0131n 444 ve devam\u0131ndaki maddelerinde i\u015faret edilen ko\u015fullar dahilinde tesis edilecek rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine konulacak bir h\u00fck\u00fcmle d\u00fczenlenebilece\u011fi gibi bu hususta ayr\u0131 bir metin ile rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin akdedilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Her iki durumda da rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olarak varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fcr. Ba\u015fka bir anlat\u0131mla hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi i\u00e7erisinde ayr\u0131 bir h\u00fck\u00fcm olarak rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 kayd\u0131n\u0131n mevcudiyeti h\u00e2linde, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki s\u00f6zle\u015fmede hem hizmet ili\u015fkisinin devam\u0131 s\u00fcresince ge\u00e7erli olan bir hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin, hem de hizmet ili\u015fkisi sona erdikten sonraki d\u00f6neme dair y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler i\u00e7eren bir rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilerek taraflar\u0131n her iki s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olduklar\u0131 kabul edilmelidir.<\/p>\n
6. Rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 ise TBK\u2019n\u0131n 446 nc\u0131 maddesinde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f olup buna g\u00f6re rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 davranan i\u015f\u00e7i, i\u015fverenin bu sebeple u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 t\u00fcm zararlar\u0131 gidermekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. \u00d6te yandan rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 davran\u0131\u015f bir ceza ko\u015fuluna ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015f ise i\u015f\u00e7i, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede aksine bir h\u00fck\u00fcm de yoksa, ceza ko\u015fulu olarak \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen mebla\u011f\u0131 \u00f6deyerek rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131na dair borcundan kurtulabilecektir; ancak i\u015fverenin ceza ko\u015fulu olarak belirlenen miktar\u0131 a\u015fan zararlar\u0131 da i\u015f\u00e7i taraf\u0131ndan tazmin edilmelidir (TBK md. 446\/2).<\/p>\n
7. Bu a\u015famada hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilecek ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7erlili\u011fine dair d\u00fczenleme i\u00e7eren TBK’n\u0131n 420\/1 inci madde h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn, ayn\u0131 Kanun 444 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesi kapsam\u0131nda akdedilen rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilecek ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7erlili\u011fine etkisinin irdelenmesi, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k kapsam\u0131 itibariyle \u00f6nem arz eden bir husus olarak kar\u015f\u0131m\u0131za \u00e7\u0131kmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu’nun 420\/1 inci maddesine g\u00f6re hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine konulan ceza ko\u015fulu ge\u00e7ersiz olacakt\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclecek ceza ko\u015fulu, ancak i\u015fverenin de bu konuda bir kar\u015f\u0131 edim y\u00fck\u00fcmlendi\u011fi durumlarda ge\u00e7erli olacakt\u0131r. Burada kanun koyucu, hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde i\u015fveren kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda dezavantajl\u0131 konumda olan i\u015f\u00e7inin korunmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla, i\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin d\u00fczenlenmesi s\u0131ras\u0131nda i\u015f\u00e7iye dayat\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olan ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7erlili\u011fini, i\u015fveren aleyhine uygun bir kar\u015f\u0131 edimin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ko\u015fuluna ba\u011flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. \u00d6te yandan, TBK’n\u0131n 446 nc\u0131 madde h\u00fckm\u00fcndeki d\u00fczenlemeden hareketle rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine ceza ko\u015fulunun \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilece\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmakla, an\u0131lan ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi herhangi bir kar\u015f\u0131 edim y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ba\u011flanmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fka bir anlat\u0131mla; rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilecek ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi, bu konuda i\u015fverenin kar\u015f\u0131 edim y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ba\u011fl\u0131 de\u011fildir. Zira an\u0131lan h\u00fck\u00fcmde, cezai \u015farta dair i\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131 edim y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ili\u015fkin herhangi bir ge\u00e7erlilik ko\u015fulu aranmaks\u0131z\u0131n; s\u00f6zle\u015fmede aksine bir h\u00fck\u00fcm de yoksa, i\u015f\u00e7inin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen cezai \u015fart\u0131 \u00f6deyerek rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin borcundan kurtulabilece\u011fi ve i\u015f\u00e7inin cezai \u015fart\u0131 a\u015fan zararlar\u0131 gidermekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc oldu\u011fu d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Nitekim rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde i\u015fverenin \u00fcstlenmi\u015f olabilece\u011fi kar\u015f\u0131 edim, ancak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 nitelikteki rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131nda h\u00e2kim taraf\u0131ndan nazara al\u0131nmas\u0131 gereken unsurlardan biri olarak TBK’n\u0131n 445\/2 nci maddesinde ayr\u0131ca d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f olup bunun d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclecek ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi i\u00e7in herhangi bir kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131l\u0131k unsuru aranmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
10. Bu itibarla hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerine sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine konulan ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7ersiz olaca\u011f\u0131na dair TBK\u2019n\u0131n 420\/1 maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn, ayn\u0131 Kanun’un 446 nc\u0131 maddesindeki \u00f6zel d\u00fczenlemenin mevcudiyeti kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerine uygulanma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Zira i\u015f\u00e7i ile i\u015fveren aras\u0131ndaki hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi i\u00e7erisinde bir h\u00fck\u00fcm olarak yahut ayr\u0131 bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme metni ile d\u00fczenlenmesinden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olarak rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, kapsad\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nem ve korudu\u011fu menfaatler itibariyle hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden ayr\u0131, ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme niteli\u011findedir. Bunun yan\u0131nda rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde ceza ko\u015fuluna dair \u00f6zel h\u00fck\u00fcm i\u00e7eren TBK’n\u0131n 446 nc\u0131 maddesi gere\u011fince i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7erlili\u011fine dair i\u015fveren y\u00f6n\u00fcnden herhangi bir kar\u015f\u0131 edim y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn aranmam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131, kanun koyucunun bu y\u00f6ndeki bilin\u00e7li bir tercihinden kaynaklanmakta olup rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin sahip oldu\u011fu bu nitelikler ve bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye ili\u015fkin TBK’daki \u00f6zel h\u00fck\u00fcmlerden hareketle hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclecek olan ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7erlili\u011fine dair TBK’n\u0131n 420\/1 madde h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde uygulanmas\u0131 s\u00f6z konusu olamaz. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen cezai \u015fart, i\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan bu kapsamda bir kar\u015f\u0131 edim \u00fcstlenilmemi\u015f olsa dahi ge\u00e7erli olarak s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin i\u015f\u00e7i taraf\u0131ndan ihl\u00e2li durumunda h\u00fck\u00fcm ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 do\u011furur.<\/p>\n
11. Yap\u0131lan a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda somut olay de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde; daval\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131 \u015firket nezdinde 18.08.2011 tarihli belirsiz s\u00fcreli i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi kapsam\u0131nda istifa tarihi olan 17.05.2014 tarihine kadar \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131, i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesindeki g\u00f6revinin “Petrol ekipmanlar\u0131 \u00fcretiminde yeti\u015ftirilmek \u00fczere tasar\u0131m ve \u00fcretim personeli” olarak belirlendi\u011fi, belirsiz i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yan\u0131nda taraflar aras\u0131nda dava konusu olan “Gizlilik Anla\u015fmas\u0131”n\u0131n akdedildi\u011fi, bu anla\u015fman\u0131n i\u00e7erdi\u011fi h\u00fck\u00fcmler itibariyle TBK’n\u0131n 444 ve devam\u0131ndaki h\u00fck\u00fcmlerde d\u00fczenlenen rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.
\n12. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin “Cezai \u015eart” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 maddesinde s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k h\u00e2linde daval\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine 150.000 USD bedelli ceza ko\u015fulu \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f olup bunun kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda davac\u0131 aleyhine herhangi bir y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck d\u00fczenlenmemi\u015ftir. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ilk paragraf\u0131nda; daval\u0131n\u0131n 18.08.2011 il\u00e2 17.05.2014 tarihleri aras\u0131nda davac\u0131 i\u015fveren nezdinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011funun belirtilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 sebebiyle an\u0131lan rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin davac\u0131 ile daval\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki 18.08.2011 tarihli s\u00f6zle\u015fme kapsam\u0131nda kurulan hizmet ili\u015fkisi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
13. Rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin akdedilmesiyle, hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden ayr\u0131 bir metinde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f yahut hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi i\u00e7erisindeki bir h\u00fck\u00fcmle d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f olmas\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olarak taraflar aras\u0131nda hem bir hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin, hem de bir rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin birbirlerinden ayr\u0131 olarak varl\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 koruyacaklar\u0131na dair kabul kapsam\u0131nda; davac\u0131 ile daval\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki “Gizlilik Anla\u015fmas\u0131” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 rekabet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, her ne kadar taraflar aras\u0131ndaki hizmet ili\u015fkisine ili\u015fkin olarak akdedilmi\u015f ise de sahip oldu\u011fu unsurlar ile uygulanacak kanuni h\u00fck\u00fcmlerdeki farkl\u0131l\u0131klar, i\u015f ili\u015fkisinin feshedildi\u011fi tarihten sonraki d\u00f6neme dair h\u00fck\u00fcmler i\u00e7ermesi ile an\u0131lan d\u00f6nem i\u00e7in ge\u00e7erli olmas\u0131 sebebiyle hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z nitelikte bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme olarak varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 muhafaza eder.<\/p>\n
14. Bu itibarla taraflar aras\u0131ndaki hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z niteli\u011fi nazara al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ve rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilecek ceza ko\u015fuluna dair \u00f6zel h\u00fck\u00fcm niteli\u011finde olan TBK’n\u0131n 446 nc\u0131 maddesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde; hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerine sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine konulan ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7ersiz olaca\u011f\u0131na dair TBK\u2019n\u0131n 420\/1 maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine uygulanma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bu sebeple davac\u0131 ile daval\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ihl\u00e2li durumunda sadece daval\u0131 aleyhine \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ceza ko\u015fulu ge\u00e7erlidir. Bu anlamda an\u0131lan ceza ko\u015fuluna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k olarak davac\u0131n\u0131n herhangi bir kar\u015f\u0131 edim y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn s\u00f6zle\u015fmede \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f olmas\u0131, daval\u0131 aleyhine \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7erlili\u011fini etkilemez. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla davac\u0131 ile daval\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde, daval\u0131 aleyhine \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ceza ko\u015fuluna ili\u015fkin ge\u00e7erli h\u00fck\u00fcm kapsam\u0131nda an\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ihl\u00e2li iddias\u0131na dayal\u0131 olarak cezai \u015fart\u0131 tahsilinin talep edilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
15. Hukuk Genel Kurulundaki g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeler s\u0131ras\u0131nda; taraflar aras\u0131ndaki rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin b\u00fcnyesinde bar\u0131nd\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 unsurlar itibariyle davac\u0131 ile daval\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin devam\u0131 niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu, rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 anla\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n taraflar aras\u0131ndaki hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu, bu sebeple rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden ayr\u0131 d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme oldu\u011funu kabule yeterli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin eki\/devam\u0131 niteli\u011findeki rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin TBK’n\u0131n hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerine dair emredici d\u00fczenlemelerine t\u00e2bi oldu\u011fu, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde sadece daval\u0131 aleyhine \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ceza ko\u015fuluna dair s\u00f6zle\u015fme h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn, TBK’n\u0131n 420\/1 maddesi gere\u011fince ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fundan bu y\u00f6nde verilen B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n onanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc ile somut olaya uygulanmas\u0131 gereken 5521 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015f Mahkemeleri Kanunu gere\u011fince davada i\u015f mahkemelerinin g\u00f6revli oldu\u011fu, bu nedenle direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n an\u0131lan de\u011fi\u015fik gerek\u00e7eyle bozulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f ise de bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fler, Kurul \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fu taraf\u0131ndan benimsenmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. H\u00e2l b\u00f6yle olunca B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince \u00f6nceki kararda direnilmesi do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, h\u00fckm\u00fcn \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131nda belirtilen nedenlerle bozulmas\u0131 gerekmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
VII. KARAR
\nA\u00e7\u0131klanan sebeplerle;
\nDavac\u0131 vekilinin temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131nda g\u00f6sterilen nedenlerden dolay\u0131 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 371 inci maddesi gere\u011fince BOZULMASINA,<\/p>\n
\u0130stek h\u00e2linde temyiz pe\u015fin harc\u0131n\u0131n yat\u0131rana geri verilmesine,<\/p>\n
Dosyan\u0131n 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 373 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 12. Hukuk Dairesine g\u00f6nderilmesine,<\/p>\n
08.03.2023 tarihinde oy \u00e7oklu\u011fuyla kesin olarak karar verildi.<\/p>\n
“K A R \u015e I O Y”<\/p>\n
Dava, rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k iddias\u0131ndan kaynaklanan cezai \u015fart istemine ili\u015fkin olup B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi ile \u00d6zel Daire aras\u0131ndaki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu\u2019nun (TBK) 420\/1 inci maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerine sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine konulan ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7ersiz olaca\u011f\u0131na dair h\u00fckm\u00fcn, ayn\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 444 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesi kapsam\u0131nda rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde uygulan\u0131p uygulanamayaca\u011f\u0131, buradan var\u0131lacak sonuca g\u00f6re taraflar aras\u0131ndaki rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7erli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu\u2019nun 420\/1 inci maddesi gere\u011fince i\u015f\u00e7i ve i\u015fveren aras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen bir hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine ceza ko\u015fulunun \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemeyece\u011fi, \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesi durumunda ise ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Burada yasa koyucu i\u015fveren kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin zay\u0131f taraf\u0131 olarak kabul edilen ve sosyal d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerle korunmas\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclen i\u015f\u00e7iyi koruma yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde emredici bir h\u00fck\u00fcmle hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine getirilecek ceza ko\u015fulunu yasaklam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde d\u00fczenlenecek ceza ko\u015fuluna dair kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131l\u0131k olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumlarda da s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin taraflar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki dengenin kolayca bozulabilece\u011finden hareketle TBK\u2019n\u0131n 420\/1 inci maddesindeki emredici h\u00fck\u00fcm ile bu dengenin sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenebilir.<\/p>\n
T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu\u2019nun 420\/1 inci maddesindeki emredici h\u00fckme ili\u015fkin olarak kanun koyucu taraf\u0131ndan herhangi bir istisna \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f olup bu kural, hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin devam etti\u011fi s\u00fcre\u00e7te ve s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten sonraki d\u00f6nemde de ge\u00e7erli olacakt\u0131r. Ba\u015fka bir anlat\u0131mla hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen tek tarafl\u0131 ceza ko\u015fulunun TBK\u2019n\u0131n 420\/1 inci maddesi gere\u011fince ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fine dair h\u00fckm\u00fcn uygulama zaman\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ayakta oldu\u011fu d\u00f6nem ile s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten sonraki d\u00f6nem aras\u0131nda herhangi bir ayr\u0131m yap\u0131lamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu itibarla bir hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen bir ceza ko\u015fulu, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin devam etti\u011fi d\u00f6nem ile sona erdi\u011fi tarihten sonraki d\u00f6nem bak\u0131m\u0131ndan herhangi bir ayr\u0131ma t\u00e2bi olmaks\u0131z\u0131n TBK\u2019n\u0131n 420\/1 inci maddesindeki emredici d\u00fczenleme gere\u011fince ge\u00e7ersiz olacakt\u0131r. Zira hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde ceza ko\u015fulu, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin devam\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilecek olmakla birlikte genellikle s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten sonraki d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin d\u00fczenlenmekte olup ceza ko\u015fulunun hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini sona erdi\u011fi tarihten sonraki d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin olmas\u0131, ceza ko\u015fuluna dair h\u00fckm\u00fc hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin bir d\u00fczenlemesi yahut eki\/devam\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelmez.<\/p>\n
Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k kapsam\u0131 itibariyle \u00fczerinde durulmas\u0131 gereken bir di\u011fer s\u00f6zle\u015fme t\u00fcr\u00fc ise TBK\u2019n\u0131n 444 ve devam\u0131ndaki h\u00fck\u00fcmlerde d\u00fczenlenen rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesidir.<\/p>\n
T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu\u2019nun 444\/1 inci maddesi gere\u011fince; fiil ehliyetine sahip olan bir i\u015f\u00e7i, i\u015fverene kar\u015f\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin sona ermesinden sonra herhangi bir bi\u00e7imde onunla rekabet etmekten, \u00f6zellikle kendi hesab\u0131na rakip bir i\u015fletme a\u00e7maktan, ba\u015fka bir rakip i\u015fletmede \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktan veya bunlar\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, rakip i\u015fletmeyle ba\u015fka t\u00fcrden bir menfaat ili\u015fkisine giri\u015fmekten ka\u00e7\u0131nmay\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 olarak \u00fcstlenebilir.<\/p>\n
Bu kapsamda i\u015f\u00e7i ve i\u015fveren aras\u0131nda TBK\u2019n\u0131n 444 ve devam\u0131ndaki maddelerde d\u00fczenlenen ko\u015fullar \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde kurulan bir rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde, rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 davran\u0131\u015f hakk\u0131nda ceza ko\u015fulunun \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilece\u011fi yine ayn\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 445\/2 nci maddesinde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f olup an\u0131lan h\u00fck\u00fcm; \u201cYasa\u011fa ayk\u0131r\u0131 davran\u0131\u015f bir ceza ko\u015fuluna ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015fsa ve s\u00f6zle\u015fmede aksine bir h\u00fck\u00fcm de yoksa, i\u015f\u00e7i \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen miktar\u0131 \u00f6deyerek rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin borcundan kurtulabilir; ancak, i\u015f\u00e7i bu miktar\u0131 a\u015fan zarar\u0131 gidermek zorundad\u0131r.\u201d \u015feklindedir.<\/p>\n
T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu\u2019nun 444 ve devam\u0131ndaki h\u00fck\u00fcmlerde belirtilen ko\u015fullar kapsam\u0131nda i\u015f\u00e7i ve i\u015fveren aras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen bir rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde ceza ko\u015fulunun \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Bununla birlikte rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi, TBK\u2019n\u0131n 420\/1 inci maddesi gere\u011fince i\u015fverenin de bir kar\u015f\u0131 edim y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fcstlenmi\u015f olmas\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. Ba\u015fka bir anlat\u0131mla; i\u015f\u00e7i ve i\u015fveren aras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen bir rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen bir ceza ko\u015fulu, TBK\u2019n\u0131n 420\/1 inci maddesindeki emredici h\u00fck\u00fcm gere\u011fi ge\u00e7ersiz olacakt\u0131r. Zira TBK\u2019n\u0131n 393 il\u00e2 447 nci maddelerindeki h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin tamam\u0131 hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerine ili\u015fkin olmakla hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesindeki ceza ko\u015fulunun s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten sonra h\u00fck\u00fcm ifade etmesi, an\u0131lan ceza ko\u015fulunun hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi i\u00e7erisinde d\u00fczenlenen bir h\u00fck\u00fcm olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelmez. Bu sebeple hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi kapsam\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ceza ko\u015fulu, TBK\u2019n\u0131n 420\/1 inci maddesi kapsam\u0131nda ge\u00e7ersiz olacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bunun yan\u0131nda i\u015f\u00e7i ve i\u015fveren aras\u0131ndaki hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesiyle kurulan ili\u015fkiye dair d\u00fczenlemelerde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclecek ceza ko\u015fulu, taraflar aras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi i\u00e7erisinde ayr\u0131 bir madde olarak d\u00fczenlenebilece\u011fi gibi bu metinden ayr\u0131 bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyle de d\u00fczenlenebilir. Bu ba\u011flamda taraflar aras\u0131ndaki hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten sonraki d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin olarak d\u00fczenlenen rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ve bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmede \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ceza ko\u015fulu da yine hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin metni i\u00e7in ayr\u0131 bir madde ile d\u00fczenlenebilece\u011fi gibi hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden ayr\u0131 bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme metniyle de akdedilebilir. Her iki durumda da s\u00f6zle\u015fme ihl\u00e2li durumunda uygulama alan\u0131 bulacak olan ceza ko\u015fuluna ili\u015fkin d\u00fczenleme, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olmayan ve s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin eki niteli\u011finde bir h\u00fck\u00fcm olarak kabul edilir. Buradan hareketle i\u015f\u00e7i ve i\u015fveren aras\u0131ndaki hizmet\/i\u015f ili\u015fkisinden kaynaklanan rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131na dair s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin de hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin eki niteli\u011finde olmas\u0131 sonucu rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihl\u00e2li durumunda uygulanacak ceza ko\u015fulunun ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi, TBK\u2019n\u0131n 420\/1 inci maddesi gere\u011fince kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k unsurunun mevcudiyetine ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. Ba\u015fka bir anlat\u0131mla rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi i\u00e7erisinde ayr\u0131 bir ba\u015fl\u0131k alt\u0131nda yahut ayr\u0131 bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme metni i\u00e7erisinde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f olmas\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olarak rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k h\u00e2linde sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ceza ko\u015fulu, TBK\u2019n\u0131n 420\/1 inci maddesi gere\u011fince ge\u00e7ersiz olacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Somut olayda taraflar aras\u0131nda 18.08.2011 tarihli belirsiz s\u00fcreli i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmedeki i\u015f ili\u015fkisine ili\u015fkin olarak da 03.09.2011 tarihinde ise rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi niteli\u011finde ve ayr\u0131 bir metin h\u00e2linde \u201cGizlilik Anla\u015fmas\u0131\u201d akdedilmi\u015ftir. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, daval\u0131n\u0131n 17.05.2014 tarihindeki istifas\u0131 ile sona ermi\u015ftir. Bunun yan\u0131nda taraflar aras\u0131ndaki rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k durumunda sadece daval\u0131 aleyhine 150.000 USD ceza ko\u015fulu \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. \u00d6te yandan taraflar aras\u0131ndaki rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde an\u0131lan ceza ko\u015fuluna dair h\u00fck\u00fcm kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda davac\u0131 taraf aleyhine ise herhangi bir kar\u015f\u0131 y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck d\u00fczenlenmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ilk paragraf\u0131nda daval\u0131n\u0131n 18.08.2011 il\u00e2 17.05.2011 tarihleri aras\u0131nda davac\u0131 i\u015fveren nezdinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu belirlenmi\u015ftir. Bu belirleme ile an\u0131lan rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin taraflar aras\u0131ndaki hizmet\/i\u015f ili\u015fkisine dair d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bu sebeple taraflar aras\u0131ndaki rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, davac\u0131 ile daval\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin eki\/devam\u0131 niteli\u011findedir.<\/p>\n
Her ne kadar \u00d6zel Dairece; TBK\u2019n\u0131n 420\/1 inci maddesinin rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine uygulanamayaca\u011f\u0131, ayr\u0131ca taraflar aras\u0131ndaki rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden ayr\u0131 bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme olarak akdedildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015f ise de; taraflar aras\u0131ndaki rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, b\u00fcnyesinde bar\u0131nd\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 unsurlar itibariyle davac\u0131 ile daval\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki hizmet\/i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin eki\/devam\u0131 niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fundan s\u00f6zle\u015fme metninin hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden ayr\u0131 d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f olmas\u0131, an\u0131lan rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme niteli\u011finde oldu\u011funu kabul i\u00e7in yeterli de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
Bu kabul neticesinde ise taraflar aras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen ve hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin eki\/devam\u0131 niteli\u011findeki rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi de hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerine dair TBK\u2019da d\u00fczenlenen emredici d\u00fczenlemelere t\u00e2bidir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla taraflar aras\u0131ndaki hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin eki\/devam\u0131 niteli\u011findeki rekabet yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde sadece daval\u0131 aleyhine \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k kapsam\u0131nda talep edilen ceza ko\u015fuluna ili\u015fkin d\u00fczenleme, TBK\u2019n\u0131n 420\/1 inci maddesi gere\u011fince ge\u00e7ersiz olup an\u0131lan ceza ko\u015fuluna dair ge\u00e7ersiz s\u00f6zle\u015fme h\u00fckm\u00fcne dayal\u0131 olarak alacak talep edilemez.<\/p>\n
T\u00fcm bu nedenlerle B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n onanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi kanaatiyle direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zel Dairenin bozma karar\u0131ndaki nedenlerle bozulmas\u0131na dair de\u011ferli \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lam\u0131yorum.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u200bYarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu’nun 08.03.2023 tarihli, 2021\/477 E., 2023\/179 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. Yarg\u0131tay\u00a0 Hukuk Genel Kurulu 2021\/477 E., 2023\/179 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” \u0130NCELENEN KARARIN MAHKEMES\u0130 : … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 14. Hukuk Dairesi Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki cezai \u015fart alaca\u011f\u0131 davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istinaf edilmesi \u00fczerine, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun kabul\u00fc ile \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi karar\u0131 kald\u0131r\u0131larak yeniden esas hakk\u0131nda h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmak suretiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131 davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 11. Hukuk Dairesince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonunda bozulmu\u015f, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 direnilmi\u015ftir. Direnme karar\u0131 davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmekle; kesinlik, s\u00fcre, temyiz \u015fart\u0131 ve di\u011fer usul eksiklikleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n inceleme sonucunda, temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin kabul\u00fcne karar verildikten sonra Tetkik H\u00e2kimi taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan g\u00fcndem ve dosyadaki belgeler incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc: I. DAVA Davac\u0131 vekili; m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin petrol sekt\u00f6r\u00fcnde faaliyet g\u00f6steren firmalara tank imalat\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkili \u015firket nezdinde belirsiz s\u00fcreli i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile 17.05.2014 tarihinde istifa edene kadar \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u015firketteki g\u00f6revinin fiziki olarak \u00e7izimi yap\u0131lan tasar\u0131mlar\u0131 bilgisayar ortam\u0131na aktararak imalat b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcne iletmek oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkili nezdinde olu\u015fturulan tasar\u0131mlar\u0131n \u00e7izimleri d\u00e2hilinde \u015firket s\u0131rlar\u0131 ile m\u00fc\u015fteri firmalar\u0131 ve rakip firma bilgilerine vak\u0131f oldu\u011funu, bu kapsamda daval\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkili i\u015fyerinde …<\/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-78402","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n