T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay<\/p>\n
Hukuk Genel Kurulu<\/p>\n
2018\/93 E., 2022\/255 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 :\u0130cra Hukuk Mahkemesi<\/p>\n
1. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki “\u015fik\u00e2yet” isteminden dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan inceleme sonunda, Konya 2. \u0130cra (Hukuk) Mahkemesince \u015fik\u00e2yetin reddine ili\u015fkin karar \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7i \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 12. Hukuk Dairesince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda bozulmu\u015f, Mahkemece \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na direnilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. Direnme karar\u0131 \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7i \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Hukuk Genel Kurulunca dosyadaki belgeler incelendikten sonra gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
I. \u0130NCELEME S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc Ki\u015fi \u0130stemi:
\n4. \u015eik\u00e2yet\u00e7i \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi vekili \u015fik\u00e2yet dilek\u00e7esinde; Konya 8. \u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 2014\/5015 E. say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda, bor\u00e7lunun mevduat\u0131na bor\u00e7 miktar\u0131nca haciz konulmas\u0131na karar verilerek m\u00fcvekkili bankan\u0131n …\/… \u015eubesine 04.09.2014 tarihli m\u00fczekkerenin g\u00f6nderildi\u011fini, bankaca yap\u0131lan ara\u015ft\u0131rmada bor\u00e7luya ait 4552-0114768 numaral\u0131 VDSZ hesab\u0131na rastlan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bor\u00e7lunun bankaya bor\u00e7 ve risklerinin bulundu\u011fu, yasalar ve bor\u00e7lular ile banka aras\u0131nda imzalanan s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin ilgili maddeleri gere\u011fince bor\u00e7lunun do\u011fmu\u015f ve do\u011facak hak ve alacaklar\u0131 \u00fczerinde rehin, hapis ve takas mahsup hakk\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu, s\u00f6z konusu tutarlar \u00fczerine bankan\u0131n rehin, hapis ve takas mahsup haklar\u0131ndan sonra h\u00fck\u00fcm ifade etmek \u00fczere haciz \u015ferhi i\u015flendi\u011finin icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne bildirildi\u011fini, bu kez icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan 04.11.2014 tarihli m\u00fczekkerenin m\u00fcvekkili bankaya 06.11.2014 tarihinde tebli\u011f edildi\u011fini, bu m\u00fczekkere 2004 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130cra ve \u0130flas Kanunu (\u0130\u0130K) h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fundan iptali gerekti\u011fini, bankan\u0131n rehin hakk\u0131n\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce paran\u0131n bankadan istenilemeyece\u011fini, icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce g\u00f6nderilen yaz\u0131lar\u0131n \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 89. maddesinin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen haciz ihbarnamesi olmay\u0131p, haciz m\u00fczekkeresi niteli\u011finde oldu\u011funu, haciz m\u00fczekkeresine cevap verilmese dahi haciz ihbarnamesine ba\u011flanan sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n do\u011fmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve paran\u0131n bankan\u0131n zimmetinde kabul edilemeyece\u011fini, banka taraf\u0131ndan a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a itiraz edilmesi h\u00e2linde ise itiraz\u0131n mahiyetine g\u00f6re \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n ilgili h\u00fck\u00fcmleri do\u011frultusunda i\u015flem yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekirken, ayn\u0131 konuda haciz m\u00fczekkereleri g\u00f6nderilemeyece\u011fini, \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 99. maddesine g\u00f6re s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde bankaya kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bir istihkak davas\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek 04.11.2014 tarihli m\u00fczekkerenin ve bu m\u00fczekkerenin dayana\u011f\u0131 olan icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc karar\u0131n\u0131n iptaline karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Alacakl\u0131 Cevab\u0131:
\n5. Alacakl\u0131 vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde; Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n yerle\u015fik emsal i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 gere\u011fince haciz m\u00fczekkeresinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi bankaya ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte, bor\u00e7lunun banka nezdindeki hesab\u0131nda bulunan para ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm ifade edece\u011fini, ileriye d\u00f6n\u00fck veya muhtemel alacaklar i\u00e7in h\u00fck\u00fcm ifade etmeyece\u011fini, buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k bankaya haciz m\u00fczekkeresi tebli\u011f edildikten ve bankaca m\u00fczekkereye cevap verildikten sonra bor\u00e7lunun hesab\u0131nda de\u011fi\u015fiklik olmas\u0131n\u0131n (hesaba para giri\u015finin) muhtemel oldu\u011funu, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla birinci haciz ihbarnamesine itiraz edilmesi \u00fczerine \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fiye ikinci haciz ihbarnamesi tebli\u011f edilmesinin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, ancak birinci haciz ihbarnamesi niteli\u011findeki haciz m\u00fczekkeresine itiraz edildikten belli bir s\u00fcre sonra bor\u00e7lunun hesab\u0131nda de\u011fi\u015fiklik olmas\u0131 (hesaba para giri\u015fi) ihtimaline binaen tekrar birinci haciz ihbarnamesi tebli\u011f edilmesinde herhangi bir hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7i bankaya ikinci haciz ihbarnamesi tebli\u011f edilmedi\u011fini, \u00e7e\u015fitli tarihlerde g\u00f6nderilen ve her biri birinci haciz ihbarnamesi niteli\u011finde olan haciz m\u00fczekkerelerinin iptali talebiyle dava a\u00e7makta herhangi bir hukuk\u00ee yarar\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bankan\u0131n takip dosyas\u0131na herhangi bir \u00f6deme yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi konumundaki bankan\u0131n birinci haciz ihbarnamesinin iptali \u015fik\u00e2yeti bak\u0131m\u0131ndan aktif husumet ehliyetinin de olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek \u015fik\u00e2yetin reddini savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Mahkeme Karar\u0131:
\n6. Konya 2. \u0130cra (Hukuk) Mahkemesinin 26.02.2015 tarihli ve 2014\/986 E., 2015\/200 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; her ne kadar banka nezdinde bulunan bor\u00e7lu mevduat\u0131na haciz konulmu\u015f ve davac\u0131 (\u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7i) bankan\u0131n \u00fcst\u00fcn hakka dayal\u0131 talebinin istihkak davas\u0131 olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclmesi gerekir ise de mahkemenin taleple ba\u011fl\u0131 oldu\u011fu ve memur i\u015fleminde de yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esi ile \u015fik\u00e2yetin reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6zel Daire Bozma Karar\u0131:
\n7. \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7i \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi vekili temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
8. Yarg\u0131tay 12. Hukuk Dairesince 22.06.2015 tarihli ve 2015\/12000 E., 2015\/17200 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile;
\n\u201c\u2026Bor\u00e7lunun \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi bankadaki mevduat alaca\u011f\u0131, \u0130\u0130K’nun 106\/2. maddesi gere\u011fince menkul h\u00fckm\u00fcndedir. Bankadaki mevduat, menkul haczi gibi icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce bankaya yaz\u0131lacak yaz\u0131 ile haczedilebilece\u011fi gibi (HGK’nun 1.12.1999 tarih ve 1999\/12-1003\/1017 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131), \u0130\u0130K’nun 89. maddesine uygun olarak d\u00fczenlenen haciz ihbarnamesi ile de haczedilebilir. Bu takdirde \u0130\u0130K’nun 89. ve bunu izleyen maddelerde yaz\u0131l\u0131 hukuki sonu\u00e7lar do\u011far. \u0130\u0130K’nun 89. maddesindeki ko\u015fullar\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mayan haciz yaz\u0131s\u0131 g\u00f6nderilmesi halinde, an\u0131lan maddedeki sonu\u00e7lar do\u011fmaz ve bor\u00e7 bankan\u0131n zimmetinde say\u0131lmaz.<\/p>\n
\u0130\u0130K’nun 89. maddesi uyar\u0131nca g\u00f6nderilen haciz ihbarnamesine kar\u015f\u0131 \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi bankan\u0131n, bor\u00e7luya ait mevduat hesab\u0131 \u00fczerinde rehin hakk\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrmesi, itiraz niteli\u011finde olup, alacakl\u0131, \u0130\u0130K’nun 89\/4. maddesi uyar\u0131nca \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015finin cevab\u0131n\u0131n aksini icra mahkemesinde ispat ederek \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015finin \u0130\u0130K’nun 338\/1. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fcne g\u00f6re cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 ve ayr\u0131ca tazminata mahkum edilmesini isteyebilir (HGK’nun 28.3.2012 tarih ve 2011\/12-849-242 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131).<\/p>\n
\u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015finin haciz m\u00fczekkeresine kar\u015f\u0131 mevduat hesab\u0131 \u00fczerinde kendisinin rehin hakk\u0131 bulundu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrmesi ise, \u0130\u0130K’nun 96\/1. maddesi uyar\u0131nca istihkak iddias\u0131 niteli\u011finde olup, icra m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn \u0130\u0130K’nun 99. maddesinde yaz\u0131l\u0131 kurallara g\u00f6re i\u015flem yapmas\u0131 gerekir. \u0130\u0130K’nun 99. maddesinde; “Haczedilen \u015fey, bor\u00e7lunun elinde (m. 96) olmay\u0131p da \u00fczerinde m\u00fclkiyet veya rehin hakk\u0131 (m.23) iddia eden \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc bir \u015fah\u0131s nezdinde bulunursa, icra m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc o \u015fah\u0131s aleyhine icra mahkemesine m\u00fcracaat i\u00e7in alacakl\u0131ya yedi g\u00fcn m\u00fchlet verir. Bu m\u00fchlet i\u00e7inde icra hakimli\u011fine dava ikame edilmezse \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc \u015fahs\u0131n iddias\u0131 kabul edilmi\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r” d\u00fczenlemesine yer verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Somut olayda, icra dairesinin, bor\u00e7lunun bankadaki mevduat\u0131n\u0131n haczi i\u00e7in do\u011frudan haciz yaz\u0131s\u0131 g\u00f6nderdi\u011fi tespit edilmi\u015ftir. 3.ki\u015fi durumundaki bankan\u0131n haciz yaz\u0131s\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 mevduat \u00fczerinde rehin, takas ve mahsup hakk\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrmesi istihkak iddias\u0131 niteli\u011findedir. Bu durumda icra m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn \u0130\u0130K’nun 99. maddesindeki kurallara g\u00f6re i\u015flem yapmas\u0131 gerekmekte olup, paran\u0131n bankadan istenmesi yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r.
\nO halde icra mahkemesince, \u0130\u0130K.nun 99. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi g\u00f6zetilerek \u015fikayetin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekirken, \u015fikayete konu i\u015flemde yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle istemin reddi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisi isabetsizdir\u2026\u201d gerek\u00e7esi ile karar bozulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Direnme Karar\u0131:
\n9. Konya 2. \u0130cra (Hukuk) Mahkemesinin 22.10.2015 tarihli ve 2015\/649 E., 2015\/861 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n istihkak davas\u0131n\u0131n \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi konumunda olan banka taraf\u0131ndan m\u0131 yoksa alacakl\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan m\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu, dosya kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re mevduat\u0131n bor\u00e7luya aidiyeti konusunda tart\u0131\u015fma olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu durumda icra m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn alacakl\u0131ya dava a\u00e7mas\u0131 i\u00e7in yedi g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcre vermesi gerekti\u011fi, yedi g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcre bitiminde istihkak davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lmamas\u0131 h\u00e2linde \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi bankan\u0131n istihkak iddias\u0131n\u0131n kabul edildi\u011finin varsay\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, ancak bu kural\u0131n \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015finin istihkak davas\u0131 a\u00e7mas\u0131na engel olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, yani alacakl\u0131n\u0131n istihkak davas\u0131 a\u00e7mas\u0131 beklenmeden \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015finin istihkak davas\u0131 a\u00e7abilece\u011fi, kald\u0131 ki \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 99. maddesindeki prosed\u00fcr yerine getirilmeden haczin kesinle\u015fmeyece\u011fi, dolay\u0131s\u0131 ile kesinle\u015fmeyen haciz y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi olan bankan\u0131n \u015fik\u00e2yetinde hukuk\u00ee yarar\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ancak istihkak davas\u0131 a\u00e7mas\u0131nda hukuk\u00ee yarar\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu, \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fiye istihkak (nispi) harc\u0131n\u0131n tamamlanmas\u0131 ve bilirki\u015fi \u00fccretini yat\u0131rmas\u0131 i\u00e7in s\u00fcre verildi\u011fi ancak karar\u0131n gere\u011finin yerine getirilmedi\u011fi, istihkak davas\u0131 olarak yarg\u0131lamaya devam edilebilecekken \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7i taraf\u0131ndan ara karar yerine getirilmedi\u011finden \u015fik\u00e2yetin reddi gerekti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esi ile direnme karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Direnme Karar\u0131n\u0131n Temyizi:
\n10. Direnme karar\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7i \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. UYU\u015eMAZLIK<\/p>\n
11. Direnme yolu ile Hukuk Genel Kurulu \u00f6n\u00fcne gelen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 99. maddesine g\u00f6re \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi bankan\u0131n istihkak davas\u0131 a\u00e7mas\u0131n\u0131n gerekip gerekmedi\u011fi, belirtilen maddedeki prosed\u00fcr yerine getirilmeden bankan\u0131n 04.11.2014 tarihli m\u00fczekkerenin iptaline istemesinde hukuk\u00ee yarar\u0131n\u0131n bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, buradan var\u0131lacak sonuca g\u00f6re \u015fik\u00e2yetin kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn gerekip gerekmedi\u011fi noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
12. Haciz cebri icra organ\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan devlete ili\u015fkin bir hakimiyet tasarrufu olup, icra takibinin konusu olan belli bir para alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesini sa\u011flamak i\u00e7in, bu yolda istemde bulunan alacakl\u0131 lehine, s\u00f6z konusu alaca\u011f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131layacak miktar ve de\u011ferdeki bor\u00e7luya ait mal ve haklara, icra memuru taraf\u0131ndan hukuken el konulmas\u0131d\u0131r. Bor\u00e7lu hakk\u0131nda takibin kesinle\u015fmesinden sonra alacakl\u0131n\u0131n \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 78 ve m\u00fcteakip maddeleri uyar\u0131nca bor\u00e7lunun hak, alacak ve mallar\u0131 \u00fczerine do\u011frudan do\u011fruya haciz konulmas\u0131n\u0131, bu kapsamda \u201chaciz m\u00fczekkeresi\u201d yaz\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 isteme hakk\u0131 vard\u0131r. \u0130\u0130K’n\u0131n 85. maddesinin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131na g\u00f6re icra dairesince, bor\u00e7lunun kendi yedinde veya \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc \u015fah\u0131sta bulunan menkul mallar\u0131 ile gayrimenkullerinden ve alacak ve haklar\u0131ndan alacakl\u0131n\u0131n ana para, faiz ve masraflar da d\u00e2hil olmak \u00fczere b\u00fct\u00fcn alacaklar\u0131na yetecek miktar\u0131 haczedilir. \u0130\u0130K’n\u0131n 85. maddesinin 2. f\u0131kras\u0131 bor\u00e7luya ait olup da \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi elinde olan mallar\u0131n da haczedilebilece\u011fini \u00f6ng\u00f6rmektedir.<\/p>\n
13. Bor\u00e7lunun \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerdeki (bankadaki) alaca\u011f\u0131 menkul (ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131r) h\u00fckm\u00fcndedir (\u0130\u0130K m. 106\/2). Bu nedenle, bankadaki mevduat\u0131n haczi ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131r haczi gibi yap\u0131l\u0131r. Bor\u00e7lunun \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fideki nakit para alaca\u011f\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131r h\u00fckm\u00fcnde olup, bir alaca\u011f\u0131n gerek \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 89. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen usulle ve gerek ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131r haczinin tabi oldu\u011fu usulle haczedilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Ancak, bankadaki mevduat hakk\u0131nda haciz tutana\u011f\u0131 d\u00fczenlenmesi i\u00e7in mahalline (\u0130\u0130K m. 102\/1) yani bankaya gidilmesine gerek yoktur; haciz tutana\u011f\u0131 icra dairesinde d\u00fczenlenir, bor\u00e7lunun bankadaki alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n haczine karar veren icra dairesi, bankaya birinci haciz ihbarnamesi g\u00f6nderir (\u0130\u0130K m. 89\/1). Fakat, bankaya (\u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fiye) \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 89. maddesine g\u00f6re haciz ihbarnamesi g\u00f6nderilmesi \u015fart de\u011fildir, alacakl\u0131 talep ederse, bankaya bir haciz yaz\u0131s\u0131 da (m\u00fczekkeresi de) g\u00f6nderilebilir. \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 89. maddesindeki ko\u015fullar\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mayan haciz yaz\u0131s\u0131 g\u00f6nderilmesi h\u00e2linde ise an\u0131lan maddedeki sonu\u00e7lar do\u011fmaz ve bor\u00e7 bankan\u0131n zimmetinde say\u0131lmaz (Kuru, Baki: \u0130cra ve \u0130flas Hukuku El Kitab\u0131, Ankara 2013, s. 462, 464).<\/p>\n
14. \u0130cra ve \u0130flas Kanunu\u2019nun 96. maddesinin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131 “Bor\u00e7lu, elinde bulunan bir mal\u0131 ba\u015fkas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fclk\u00fc veya rehni olarak g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi yahut \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc bir \u015fah\u0131s taraf\u0131ndan o mal \u00fczerinde m\u00fclkiyet veya rehin hakk\u0131 iddia edildi\u011fi takdirde, icra dairesi bunu haciz ve icra tutanaklar\u0131na ge\u00e7irir ve keyfiyeti iki tarafa bildirir.” \u015feklinde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Haczedilen bir mal \u00fczerinde, (alacakl\u0131 ve bor\u00e7lu d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki) bir \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015finin m\u00fclkiyet veya di\u011fer bir ayni hak sahibi oldu\u011funun ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmesine istihkak iddias\u0131 denir. Haczedilen bir mal \u00fczerinde (alacakl\u0131 ve bor\u00e7lu d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki) bir \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015finin rehin hakk\u0131 bulundu\u011funun ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmesi de istihkak iddias\u0131d\u0131r (Kuru, s. 543, 544).<\/p>\n
15. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 14.05.2014 tarihli ve 2014\/17-637 E., 2014\/658 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda da bor\u00e7luya ait hesap \u00fczerine haciz konulmas\u0131 i\u00e7in \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi bankaya haciz m\u00fczekkeresi g\u00f6nderilmesi \u00fczerine \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi bankan\u0131n rehin hakk\u0131ndan sonra gelmek \u00fczere haciz uygulanaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bildirmesinin istihkak iddias\u0131 niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu benimsenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. \u0130cra m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn bor\u00e7lunun bankadaki paras\u0131 (mevduat\u0131) i\u00e7in fiili haciz uygulamas\u0131 veya haciz yaz\u0131s\u0131 \u00fczerine, banka bor\u00e7lunun (bankadaki) mevduat\u0131 (paras\u0131) \u00fczerinde rehin (veya hapis) hakk\u0131 oldu\u011funu bildirmesi istihkak iddias\u0131 niteli\u011findedir. Bu durumda, icra m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn, bankaya kar\u015f\u0131 istihkak davas\u0131 a\u00e7mas\u0131 i\u00e7in alacakl\u0131ya yedi g\u00fcn s\u00fcre vermesi (\u0130\u0130K m. 99) gerekir. \u0130\u0130K’n\u0131n 99. maddesindeki prosed\u00fcr izlenmeden hacizli paran\u0131n bankadan istenmesi yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r (Kuru, s. 464-465).<\/p>\n
17. Bir mal (bor\u00e7lunun elinde iken de\u011fil de) \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015finin elinde (nezdinde) iken haczedilir ve \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi o mal \u00fczerinde m\u00fclkiyet veya di\u011fer bir ayni hak iddia ederse, icra m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc, bu istihkak iddias\u0131n\u0131 haciz tutana\u011f\u0131na ge\u00e7irir (\u0130\u0130K m. 96\/1; 102\/1) ve \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fiye kar\u015f\u0131 (icra mahkemesinde) istihkak davas\u0131 a\u00e7mas\u0131 i\u00e7in, alacakl\u0131ya yedi g\u00fcnl\u00fck bir s\u00fcre verir (\u0130\u0130K m. 99, c. 2). Yani, bu h\u00e2lde dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi (icra mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan de\u011fil) icra m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan verilir ve istihkak davas\u0131 a\u00e7ma k\u00fclfeti, \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fiye de\u011fil alacakl\u0131ya y\u00fckletilir. Fakat, elindeki mal haczedilen (ve istihkak iddias\u0131nda bulunan) \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015finin, alacakl\u0131n\u0131n dava a\u00e7mas\u0131n\u0131 beklemeden, kendisinin (\u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015finin) icra mahkemesinde istihkak davas\u0131 a\u00e7mas\u0131na engel yoktur (Kuru, s. 573, 577).<\/p>\n
18. Somut olayda; alacakl\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan bor\u00e7lular … ve … aleyhine ba\u015flat\u0131lan kambiyo senetlerine \u00f6zg\u00fc haciz yolu ile takibin kesinle\u015fmesi \u00fczerine alacakl\u0131 vekilinin talebi \u00fczerine \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi … Bankas\u0131 A.\u015e. … \u015eubesine \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 78. maddesine g\u00f6re haciz m\u00fczekkeresi g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi, \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi bankan\u0131n 23.09.2014 tarihli cevab\u0131nda bor\u00e7lu …\u2019nin vadesiz hesab\u0131na, bankada bor\u00e7 ve riskleri bulundu\u011fundan yasalar ve bor\u00e7lular ile banka aras\u0131nda imzalanan s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin ilgili maddeleri nedeniyle bankan\u0131n rehin, hapis ve takas mahsup hakk\u0131 bulundu\u011fundan, s\u00f6z konusu tutarlar \u00fczerine bankan\u0131n rehin, hapis ve takas mahsup haklar\u0131ndan sonra h\u00fck\u00fcm ifade etmek \u00fczere haczin i\u015flendi\u011finin ve i\u015flenen haciz tutar\u0131n\u0131n 4,21TL oldu\u011funun bildirildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/p>\n
19. Alacakl\u0131 vekilinin talebi \u00fczerine \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi … Bankas\u0131 A.\u015e. … \u015eubesine g\u00f6nderilen 04.11.2014 tarihli m\u00fczekkerenin \u201c\u2026konulan haciz nedeniyle bor\u00e7lunun bankan\u0131z nezdindeki hesab\u0131nda bulunan paran\u0131n dosya borcunu a\u015fmayacak miktar\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcm\u00fcz\u00fcn banka hesab\u0131na dosya numaras\u0131 belirtilerek g\u00f6nderilmesine, hesap \u00fczerinde ba\u015fka hesaplar var ise, bu hacizlere ili\u015fkin tarih s\u0131ras\u0131na g\u00f6re s\u0131ras\u0131yla dosya numaralar\u0131 ve icra dairelerinin bildirilmek suretiyle s\u0131ra cetveli yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere paran\u0131n g\u00f6nderilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Karar dairesinde i\u015flem yap\u0131larak, bankan\u0131z\u0131n rehinle temin edilmi\u015f ve muaccel h\u00e2le gelmi\u015f alacaklar\u0131 varsa, bor\u00e7lunun hesab\u0131ndaki paran\u0131n bankan\u0131z alaca\u011f\u0131na mahsup edilerek hesapta para bulundurulmamas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, bankan\u0131z\u0131n alaca\u011f\u0131 hen\u00fcz muaccel hale gelmemi\u015f ise, muaccel h\u00e2le gelmemi\u015f bir alacak i\u00e7in takas-mahsup-rehin-risk ve benzeri haklardan bahisle paran\u0131n g\u00f6nderilmemesinin usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funun bilinmesi ve neticeden m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcm\u00fcz dosyas\u0131na bilgi verilmesi\u2026\u201d \u015feklinde oldu\u011fu, \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7i \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi bankan\u0131n 04.11.2014 tarihli m\u00fczekkerenin iptali istemi ile icra mahkemesine ba\u015fvurdu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. \u015eu h\u00e2le g\u00f6re \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7i \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fiye bor\u00e7lunun bankadaki mevduat\u0131n\u0131n haczi i\u00e7in \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 78. maddesine g\u00f6re 04.09.2014 tarihli haciz m\u00fczekkeresi g\u00f6nderilmi\u015f olup, \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi bankan\u0131n haciz m\u00fczekkeresine kar\u015f\u0131 mevduat \u00fczerinde rehin, takas ve mahsup hakk\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrmesi istihkak iddias\u0131 niteli\u011findedir.<\/p>\n
21. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi bankan\u0131n icra mahkemesine ba\u015fvurusu 04.09.2014 tarihli haciz i\u015flemine kar\u015f\u0131 \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 99. maddesine g\u00f6re a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f istihkak davas\u0131na ili\u015fkin olmay\u0131p, \u0130\u0130K’n\u0131n 99. maddesindeki prosed\u00fcr izlenmeden hacizli paran\u0131n bankadan istenmesine ili\u015fkin 04.11.2014 tarihli m\u00fczekkerenin iptali istemine ili\u015fkindir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi bankan\u0131n \u015fik\u00e2yet yolu ile 04.11.2014 tarihli m\u00fczekkerenin iptalini istemesinde hukuk\u00ee yarar\u0131 bulunmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
22. O h\u00e2lde icra m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn \u0130\u0130K’nun 99. maddesindeki kurallara g\u00f6re i\u015flem yapmas\u0131 gerekirken, \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi bankaya 04.11.2014 tarihli m\u00fczekkere g\u00f6nderilerek belirtilen maddedeki prosed\u00fcr uygulanmadan \u00fczerinde istihkak iddia edilen hacizli paran\u0131n bu a\u015famada bankadan istenmesi usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fundan, icra mahkemesince 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun (HMK) 26. maddesi uyar\u0131nca talepten ba\u015fka bir \u015feye karar verilemeyece\u011fi de g\u00f6zetilerek \u015fik\u00e2yetin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
23. H\u00e2l b\u00f6yle olunca, Hukuk Genel Kurulunca da benimsenen \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na uyulmas\u0131 gerekirken, \u00f6nceki kararda direnilmesi usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
IV. SONU\u00c7:<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle;
\n\u015eik\u00e2yet\u00e7i \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi vekilinin temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131nda g\u00f6sterilen nedenlerden dolay\u0131 BOZULMASINA,<\/p>\n
\u0130stek h\u00e2linde temyiz pe\u015fin harc\u0131n\u0131n yat\u0131rana geri verilmesine,<\/p>\n
2004 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130cra ve \u0130flas Kanunu\u2019na 5311 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 29. maddesi ile eklenen Ge\u00e7ici 7. maddesinin g\u00f6ndermesi ile uygulanmas\u0131 gereken \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 366\/III. maddesi uyar\u0131nca karar\u0131n tebli\u011fden itibaren 10 g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde karar d\u00fczeltme yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere 03.03.2022 tarihinde oy birli\u011fi ile karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bYarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu’nun 03.03.2022 tarihli, 2018\/93 E., 2022\/255 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 Hukuk Genel Kurulu 2018\/93 E., 2022\/255 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” MAHKEMES\u0130 :\u0130cra Hukuk Mahkemesi 1. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki “\u015fik\u00e2yet” isteminden dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan inceleme sonunda, Konya 2. \u0130cra (Hukuk) Mahkemesince \u015fik\u00e2yetin reddine ili\u015fkin karar \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7i \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 12. Hukuk Dairesince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda bozulmu\u015f, Mahkemece \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na direnilmi\u015ftir. 2. Direnme karar\u0131 \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7i \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir. 3. Hukuk Genel Kurulunca dosyadaki belgeler incelendikten sonra gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc: I. \u0130NCELEME S\u00dcREC\u0130 \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc Ki\u015fi \u0130stemi: 4. \u015eik\u00e2yet\u00e7i \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi vekili \u015fik\u00e2yet dilek\u00e7esinde; Konya 8. \u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 2014\/5015 E. say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda, bor\u00e7lunun mevduat\u0131na bor\u00e7 miktar\u0131nca haciz konulmas\u0131na karar verilerek m\u00fcvekkili bankan\u0131n …\/… \u015eubesine 04.09.2014 tarihli m\u00fczekkerenin g\u00f6nderildi\u011fini, bankaca yap\u0131lan ara\u015ft\u0131rmada bor\u00e7luya ait 4552-0114768 numaral\u0131 VDSZ hesab\u0131na rastlan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bor\u00e7lunun bankaya bor\u00e7 ve risklerinin bulundu\u011fu, yasalar ve bor\u00e7lular ile banka aras\u0131nda imzalanan s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin ilgili maddeleri gere\u011fince bor\u00e7lunun do\u011fmu\u015f ve do\u011facak hak ve alacaklar\u0131 \u00fczerinde rehin, hapis ve takas mahsup hakk\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu, s\u00f6z konusu tutarlar \u00fczerine bankan\u0131n rehin, hapis ve takas mahsup haklar\u0131ndan sonra h\u00fck\u00fcm ifade etmek \u00fczere haciz \u015ferhi i\u015flendi\u011finin icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne bildirildi\u011fini, bu kez icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan 04.11.2014 tarihli m\u00fczekkerenin m\u00fcvekkili bankaya 06.11.2014 tarihinde tebli\u011f edildi\u011fini, bu m\u00fczekkere 2004 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130cra ve \u0130flas Kanunu (\u0130\u0130K) …<\/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-79746","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n