T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
G. A. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/39775)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 28\/11\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 1\/7\/2025 – 32943<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Recai AKYEL<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u015eahap KAYMAK<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Emine BELOVACIKLI<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 <\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; i\u015fe iade talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n arabulucuya ba\u015fvurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle dava \u015fart\u0131 yoklu\u011fundan reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n, haks\u0131z olarak aleyhe yarg\u0131lama giderleri ile vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
A. Bireysel Ba\u015fvuruya Konu Yarg\u0131lama S\u00fcreci<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu; \u00f6zel bir firmada sat\u0131\u015f dan\u0131\u015fman\u0131 olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktayken i\u015f akdinin feshedilmesi \u00fczerine Ankara 2. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) feshin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011finin tespiti ile i\u015fe iadesine karar verilmesi, i\u015fverence i\u015fe ba\u015flat\u0131lmamas\u0131 h\u00e2linde sekiz ayl\u0131k \u00fccreti tutar\u0131nda tazminat\u0131n yasal faiziyle \u00f6denmesi, karar\u0131n kesinle\u015ftirilmesine kadar \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmayan s\u00fcreler i\u00e7in d\u00f6rt ayl\u0131k \u00fccret ve di\u011fer t\u00fcm haklar\u0131n yasal faiziyle \u00f6denmesi talebiyle dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu; dava dilek\u00e7esinde, maddi ve manevi tazminat, k\u0131dem ve ihbar tazminat\u0131, fazla mesai \u00fccreti, sair t\u00fcm hak ve alacaklar i\u00e7in dava a\u00e7ma hakk\u0131n\u0131 sakl\u0131 tuttu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Mahkeme, davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar vermi\u015f; daval\u0131 i\u015fverence yap\u0131lan feshin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fine ve ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015fe iadesine, daval\u0131 i\u015fverence \u00f6denmesi gereken tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucunun d\u00f6rt ayl\u0131k \u00fccreti olan br\u00fct 10.233,60 TL olarak tespitine, en \u00e7ok d\u00f6rt ayl\u0131k \u00fccret ve di\u011fer haklar\u0131 i\u00e7in br\u00fct 10.233,60 TL’nin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011finin tespitine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015f akdi feshedilirken a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a bir fesih sebebi g\u00f6sterilmedi\u011fini, daval\u0131 i\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan feshin hakl\u0131 ve ge\u00e7erli nedenle yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ispat edilemedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun usul\u00fcne uygun arabuluculuk \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 yerine getirdi\u011fini, daval\u0131 i\u015fverene yap\u0131lan arabuluculuk tebligat\u0131ndaki toplant\u0131 tarihi hatas\u0131n\u0131n arabulucudan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu eksikli\u011fin dava \u015fart\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015feklinde yorumlanmas\u0131n\u0131n hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 \u015fekilde zorla\u015ft\u0131ran bir durum olarak de\u011ferlendirilebilece\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. \u0130\u015f\u00e7inin hak ve alacaklar\u0131n\u0131 en k\u0131sa s\u00fcrede ve en basit yoldan almas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamaya y\u00f6nelik getirildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lan bir kurumun i\u015f\u00e7inin aleyhine yorumlanmas\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fru olmayaca\u011f\u0131, zay\u0131f konumda olan i\u015f\u00e7inin korunmas\u0131n\u0131n esas oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirmesinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
4. Daval\u0131 i\u015fverenin istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 \u00fczerine Ankara B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 9. Hukuk Dairesi (B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi) daval\u0131n\u0131n istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun kabul\u00fc ile mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve dava \u015fart\u0131 yoklu\u011fundan davan\u0131n reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; daval\u0131 i\u015fverene g\u00f6nderilen ve arabulucu taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen arabuluculuk davet mektubunda toplant\u0131 tarihinin 20\/10\/2019 olarak yaz\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davet mektubunun i\u015fverene 12\/11\/2019 tarihinde tebli\u011f edildi\u011fini, toplant\u0131 tarihinin ise 20\/11\/2019 oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Bu durumda daval\u0131 i\u015fverene g\u00f6nderilen arabuluculuk davetinde toplant\u0131 tarihi yanl\u0131\u015f yaz\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ve tebligat ise yanl\u0131\u015f yaz\u0131m tarihinden sonra yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 usul\u00fcne uygun arabuluculuk \u015fart\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 24\/11\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 11\/12\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B. Bireysel Ba\u015fvurudan Sonraki S\u00fcre\u00e7te A\u00e7\u0131lan Davalar <\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, i\u015fe iade davas\u0131 aleyhine kesinle\u015ftikten sonra 24\/11\/2020 tarihinde yeniden arabulucuya ba\u015fvurmu\u015f; s\u00f6z konusu arabuluculuk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeleri 7\/12\/2020 tarihinde taraflar\u0131n anla\u015famamas\u0131 ile sonu\u00e7lanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunun \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu 19\/12\/2020 tarihinde ilk i\u015fe iade davas\u0131ndaki ayn\u0131 talepler ile Ankara 15. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesinde ikinci kez i\u015fe iade davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Ankara 15. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesince 4\/3\/2021 tarihinde davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, daval\u0131 i\u015fverence yap\u0131lan feshin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fine ve ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015fe iadesine, daval\u0131 i\u015fverence \u00f6denmesi gereken tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucunun d\u00f6rt ayl\u0131k \u00fccreti olan br\u00fct 10.233,60 TL olarak tespitine, en \u00e7ok d\u00f6rt ayl\u0131k \u00fccret ve di\u011fer haklar\u0131 i\u00e7in br\u00fct 10.233,60 TL’nin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011finin tespitine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 daval\u0131 i\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan istinaf ba\u015fvurusu B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan 12\/10\/2021 tarihinde kesin olarak reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Daha sonra ba\u015fvurucu 21\/2\/2022 tarihinde arabuluculuk faaliyeti sebebiyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc 3.440 TL zarar\u0131n (vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti ve yarg\u0131lama gideri olmak \u00fczere) tazmini talebiyle arabulucuya kar\u015f\u0131 Ankara 38. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131rmas\u0131 neticesinde d\u00fczenlenen rapor ve ek raporu de\u011ferlendirmek suretiyle arabulucunun g\u00f6revin ifas\u0131nda \u00f6zen y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ayk\u0131r\u0131 davrand\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucunun maddi zarara u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, 3.440 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n dava tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ilearabulucu taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
10. \u00d6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucunun adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
A. Mahkemeye Eri\u015fim Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu; arabuluculuk davetinde toplant\u0131 tarihinin hatal\u0131 olarak yaz\u0131lmas\u0131nda bir kusuru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin i\u015fe iade davas\u0131ndaki a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 \u015fekilci yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemez nitelikteki bu yorumunun arabulucuya zorunlu ba\u015fvuru yolunun etkisiz h\u00e2le gelmesine neden olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucu, ayr\u0131ca yeniden arabulucuya ba\u015fvurup ard\u0131ndan ikinci kez i\u015fe iade davas\u0131 a\u00e7mas\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden ve bu s\u00fcrecin ba\u015far\u0131ya ula\u015fma \u015fans\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan yak\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
14. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, herkesin yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddiada bulunma ve savunma hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bir unsurudur (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2014\/13156, 20\/4\/2017, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
15. \u0130\u015fe iade davas\u0131n\u0131n dava \u015fart\u0131 yoklu\u011fundan reddedilmesi suretiyle uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmemesi mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etmektedir. Hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne yap\u0131lan bu m\u00fcdahale, Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde belirtilen \u015fartlara (kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme, hakl\u0131 bir sebebe dayanma ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmama) uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin ihlalini te\u015fkil edecektir. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olaya ili\u015fkin verilen dava \u015fart\u0131 olan arabulucuya ba\u015fvurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n usulden reddi karar\u0131 22\/5\/2003 tarihli ve 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015f Kanunu’nun 20. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131na dayan\u0131larak verildi\u011finden m\u00fcdahalenin kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn kar\u015f\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Di\u011fer yandan i\u015f ili\u015fkisinden kaynaklanan uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n daha k\u0131sa s\u00fcrede, daha az masrafla ve i\u015f\u00e7i ile i\u015fverenin e\u015fit bir d\u00fczeyde tatmini sa\u011flanarak yarg\u0131ya ta\u015f\u0131nmadan \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmesi i\u00e7in arabuluculu\u011fun dava \u015fart\u0131 olarak d\u00fczenlenmesinin me\u015fru bir amac\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu da a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu itibarla ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucuya a\u011f\u0131r bir y\u00fck getirip getirmedi\u011fi hususlar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
16. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun ihlal iddias\u0131na konu i\u015fe iade davas\u0131n\u0131n dava \u015fart\u0131 yoklu\u011fundan usulden reddedilmesi \u00fczerine yeniden arabuluculu\u011fa ba\u015fvurarak anla\u015famama ile tamamlanan arabuluculuk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeleri sonucunda ikinci kez a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015fe iade davas\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verildi\u011fi ve an\u0131lan karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu karar ilk i\u015fe iade davas\u0131n\u0131n dava \u015fart\u0131 yoklu\u011fundan reddedilmesi \u00fczerine verildi\u011finden ba\u015fvurucunun ayn\u0131 olaya ili\u015fkin olarak tekrar dava a\u00e7mak zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
17. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 20. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen dava \u015fart\u0131 olarak arabuluculu\u011fa ba\u015fvuru zorunlulu\u011funun ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fine ili\u015fkin B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131 sonras\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu tekrar arabuluculuk s\u00fcrecini ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015f ve sonras\u0131nda tekrar i\u015fe iade davas\u0131 a\u00e7mak zorunda kalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun tekrar arabuluculuk s\u00fcrecini ba\u015flatmas\u0131 ve bunun sonucunda tekrar i\u015fe iade davas\u0131 a\u00e7mak zorunda kalmas\u0131 arabulucunun hatas\u0131ndan kaynaklanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Nitekim ba\u015fvurucunun arabulucuya kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tazminat davas\u0131 lehine sonu\u00e7lanm\u0131\u015f, b\u00f6ylece B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince dava \u015fart\u0131 yoklu\u011fundan ilk i\u015fe iade davas\u0131n\u0131n reddedilmesinde arabulucunun kusurlu oldu\u011fu kabul edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
18. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla arabulucunun hatas\u0131 sonucu ba\u015fvurucunun tekrar arabuluculuk s\u00fcrecini ba\u015flatmas\u0131 ve tekrar i\u015fe iade davas\u0131 a\u00e7mak zorunda b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131nba\u015fvurucuyaa\u011f\u0131r bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckledi\u011fi ve bu suretle ba\u015fvurucunun katlanmak zorunda oldu\u011fu k\u00fclfetin hedeflenen me\u015fru ama\u00e7la kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
19. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. M\u00fclkiyet Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvurucu, ilk i\u015fe iade davas\u0131n\u0131n aleyhine kesinle\u015fmesi nedeniyle 271,30 TL yarg\u0131lama gideri ve 3.400 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinin \u00fczerinde b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6nemli bir azalman\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fini belirtmi\u015f; m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
21. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin dava \u015fart\u0131 yoklu\u011fundan davan\u0131n reddine ili\u015fkin karar\u0131 dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun aleyhine 3.400 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmi\u015f, istinaf a\u015famas\u0131nda daval\u0131 i\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan 40 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucudan al\u0131narak daval\u0131 i\u015fverene verilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Ancak ba\u015fvurucunun arabuluculuk faaliyeti sebebiyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davada Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin ba\u015fvurucunun vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti ve yarg\u0131lama gideri \u00f6demek zorunda kalmas\u0131 nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarara kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k ba\u015fvurucu lehine toplam 3.440 TL maddi tazminata h\u00fckmetti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Nitekim ba\u015fvurucu, Anayasa Mahkemesine sundu\u011fu 19\/7\/2023 tarihli ek beyan dilek\u00e7esinde ilk i\u015fe iade davas\u0131n\u0131n reddedilmesi nedeniyle aleyhine h\u00fckmedilen yarg\u0131lama gideri ve vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine ili\u015fkin u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
22. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6dedi\u011fini iddia etti\u011fi kalan di\u011fer yarg\u0131lama gideri toplam tutar\u0131 271,30 TL olup bu k\u0131s\u0131m bak\u0131m\u0131ndan an\u0131lan ihlal iddias\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilebilirlik kriterlerinden olan anayasal ve ki\u015fisel \u00f6nemden yoksun olmama y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
23. Anayasa Mahkemesi anayasal ve ki\u015fisel \u00f6nem kriterini daha \u00f6nce K.V. ([GK], B. No: 2014\/2293, 1\/12\/2016) karar\u0131nda incelemi\u015f, temel ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 48. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda anayasal ve ki\u015fisel \u00f6nemden yoksun ba\u015fvurular\u0131n kabul edilemez bulunabilmesi i\u00e7in iki \u015fart \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr: Anayasal \u00f6nem olarak adland\u0131r\u0131labilecek olan birinci \u015fart ba\u015fvurunun Anayasa’n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131 ve yorumlanmas\u0131 veya temel haklar\u0131n kapsam\u0131n\u0131n ve s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131mamas\u0131, ki\u015fisel \u00f6nem olarak adland\u0131r\u0131labilecek olan ikinci \u015fart ise ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6nemli bir zarara u\u011framamas\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
24. Eldeki olayda ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131lama giderinden sorumlu tutulmas\u0131 nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi \u015fik\u00e2yetinin ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015f\u00e7i, ba\u015fvuruya konu davan\u0131n i\u015fe iade davas\u0131 oldu\u011fu ve arabulucunun hatas\u0131 nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131lama gideri \u00f6deme durumunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde s\u00f6z konusu tutar\u0131n anayasal ve ki\u015fisel \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
25. \u00d6te yandan Anayasa’n\u0131n 148. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131 ile 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 45. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca bireysel ba\u015fvuru yoluyla Anayasa Mahkemesine ba\u015fvurulabilmesi i\u00e7in ola\u011fan kanun yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 gerekir.<\/p>\n
26. Bireysel ba\u015fvuru, iddia edilen hak ihlallerinin derece mahkemelerince d\u00fczeltilmemesi h\u00e2linde ba\u015fvurulabilecek ikincil nitelikte bir kanun yoludur. Bireysel ba\u015fvuru yolunun bu niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi Anayasa Mahkemesine bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunulabilmesi i\u00e7in \u00f6ncelikle ola\u011fan kanun yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmesi zorunludur. Bu ilke uyar\u0131nca, ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00f6n\u00fcne getirdi\u011fi \u015fik\u00e2yetini \u00f6ncelikle ve s\u00fcresinde yetkili idari ve yarg\u0131sal mercilere usul\u00fcne uygun olarak iletmesi, bu konuda sahip oldu\u011fu bilgi ve kan\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131 zaman\u0131nda bu makamlara sunmas\u0131, ayn\u0131 zamanda bu s\u00fcre\u00e7te dava ve ba\u015fvurusunu takip etmek i\u00e7in gerekli \u00f6zeni g\u00f6stermi\u015f olmas\u0131 gerekir (\u0130smail Bu\u011fra \u0130\u015flek, B. No: 2013\/1177, 26\/3\/2013, \u00a7 17).<\/p>\n
27. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu, arabuluculuk faaliyeti sebebiyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc 3.440 TL zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f; Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi de talep edilen tutar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine karar vermi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, \u00f6dedi\u011fini iddia etti\u011fi 271,30 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin tazminini ise talep etmemi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davada s\u00f6z konusu yarg\u0131lama gideri i\u00e7in neden tazminat talep etmedi\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi bu tutar\u0131n talep edilmesi durumunda an\u0131lan davan\u0131n etkisiz oldu\u011funu da ileri s\u00fcrmemi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun aleyhine 271,30 TL yarg\u0131lama gideri h\u00fckmedilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131yla ilgili olarak ola\u011fan ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131 t\u00fcketmedi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
28. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
29. Ba\u015fvurucu, aleyhine kesinle\u015fen ilk i\u015fe iade davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bir y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcrenin ikinci i\u015fe iade davas\u0131ndaki bo\u015fta ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre \u00fccretinin hesaplanmas\u0131nda dikkate al\u0131namayacak olmas\u0131 nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrmekle birlikte s\u00f6z konusu iddian\u0131n dava \u015fart\u0131 yoklu\u011fundan davan\u0131n reddedilmesinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmek i\u00e7in dile getirildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bu iddia y\u00f6n\u00fcnden inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
30. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ve toplam 34.372,10 TL maddi ile 40.000 TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
31. Ba\u015fvurucunun dava \u015fart\u0131 yoklu\u011fundan davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi \u00fczerine bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulundu\u011fu ve bu arada ikinci kez a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015fe iade davas\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bununla birlikte ihlalin tespit edilmesinin ba\u015fvurucunun u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar\u0131n giderilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetersiz kalaca\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla eski h\u00e2le getirme kural\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ihlalin b\u00fct\u00fcn sonu\u00e7lar\u0131yla ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlali nedeniyle yaln\u0131zca ihlal tespitiyle giderilemeyecek olan manevi zararlar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucuya net 10.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Adli yard\u0131m talebinin KABUL\u00dcNE,<\/p>\n
B. 1. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
C. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n \u0130NCELENMES\u0130NE GEREK OLMADI\u011eINA,<\/p>\n
E. Ba\u015fvurucuya net 10.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE, tazminata ili\u015fkin di\u011fer taleplerin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. \u00d6demelerin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
H. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin bilgi i\u00e7in Ankara B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 9. Hukuk Dairesine (E.2020\/2330, K.2020\/1991) iletilmek \u00fczere Ankara 2. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesine (E.2019\/647, K.2020\/123) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
\u0130. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 28\/11\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 28\/11\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/39775 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 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR G. A. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/39775) Karar Tarihi: 28\/11\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 1\/7\/2025 – 32943 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : \u015eahap KAYMAK Ba\u015fvurucu : Vekili : Av. Emine BELOVACIKLI I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru; i\u015fe iade talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n arabulucuya ba\u015fvurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle dava \u015fart\u0131 yoklu\u011fundan reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n, haks\u0131z olarak aleyhe yarg\u0131lama giderleri ile vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. A. Bireysel Ba\u015fvuruya Konu Yarg\u0131lama S\u00fcreci 2. Ba\u015fvurucu; \u00f6zel bir firmada sat\u0131\u015f dan\u0131\u015fman\u0131 olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktayken i\u015f akdinin feshedilmesi \u00fczerine Ankara 2. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) feshin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011finin tespiti ile i\u015fe iadesine karar verilmesi, i\u015fverence i\u015fe ba\u015flat\u0131lmamas\u0131 h\u00e2linde sekiz ayl\u0131k \u00fccreti tutar\u0131nda tazminat\u0131n yasal faiziyle \u00f6denmesi, karar\u0131n kesinle\u015ftirilmesine kadar \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmayan s\u00fcreler i\u00e7in d\u00f6rt ayl\u0131k \u00fccret ve di\u011fer t\u00fcm haklar\u0131n yasal faiziyle \u00f6denmesi talebiyle dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu; dava dilek\u00e7esinde, maddi ve manevi tazminat, k\u0131dem ve ihbar tazminat\u0131, fazla mesai \u00fccreti, sair t\u00fcm hak ve alacaklar i\u00e7in dava a\u00e7ma hakk\u0131n\u0131 sakl\u0131 tuttu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. 3. Mahkeme, davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar vermi\u015f; daval\u0131 i\u015fverence yap\u0131lan feshin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fine ve ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015fe iadesine, daval\u0131 i\u015fverence \u00f6denmesi gereken tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n …<\/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-132713","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n