I. G\u0130R\u0130\u015e<\/p>\n
Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere sorumluluk i\u00e7in salt hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k yeterli de\u011fildir. Kusur sorumlulu\u011funda, sorumluluk i\u00e7in kusurun bulunmas\u0131 zorunludur.<\/p>\n
Ancak konumuz a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan elatmada bulunan\u0131n mutlaka kas\u0131tl\u0131 hareket etmesi zorunlu olmay\u0131p, kusurlu olmasa dahi, e\u011fer ge\u00e7ersiz bir hukuki nedene dayan\u0131yorsa yani elatma fiili hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 ise elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi istenebilir. Nitekim TMK’n\u0131n 683\/2. maddesinde bu unsur “Malik… her t\u00fcrl\u00fc haks\u0131z elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesini de dava edebilir.” \u015feklinde ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Elatman\u0131n haks\u0131z olmas\u0131 ile kastedilen malikin elatmaya katlanma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmamas\u0131d\u0131r. Katlanma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde malikin olumsuz yetkilerinin k\u0131s\u0131tlanmas\u0131, olumsuz yetkilerini kullanamamas\u0131 s\u00f6z konusudur. Bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck nedeniyle malik baz\u0131 elatmalar\u0131 ho\u015f g\u00f6rmek zorunda kal\u0131r. Elatmaya engel olamaz. Olumsuz bir unsurdur. Bu unsur daval\u0131 i\u00e7inse en \u00f6nemli bir savunma imk\u00e2n\u0131d\u0131r. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc elatman\u0131n haks\u0131z olmas\u0131 davan\u0131n kabul\u00fc i\u00e7in zorunlu olup, ayni veya \u015fahsi bir hakka dayan\u0131yorsa veya kanundan kaynakl\u0131 bir elatma ise, haks\u0131z olma unsuru ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011finden davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmelidir.<\/p>\n
Yap\u0131lan elatman\u0131n haks\u0131z olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 savunmas\u0131 \u00e7e\u015fitli nedenlere dayanabilir. En ba\u015fta gelenleri m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kanundan kaynaklanan bir nedenle s\u0131n\u0131rlanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin olan nedenlerdir. Bu nedenler kamu veya \u00f6zel hukuktan kaynaklanabilir.<\/p>\n
Yine malikin katlanma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc daval\u0131n\u0131n bir ayni veya \u015fahsi (nisbi) hakk\u0131ndan da kaynaklanabilir. \u00d6rne\u011fin elatan daval\u0131n\u0131n malik veya intifa hakk\u0131 sahibi ile olan kira ili\u015fkisi yap\u0131lan elatmay\u0131 haks\u0131z olmaktan \u00e7\u0131karacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Ayr\u0131ca do\u011fal olaylar sonucu olu\u015fan elatmalarda (e\u011fer bir ki\u015finin kas\u0131tl\u0131 veya taksirli hareketi ile birle\u015fmemi\u015fse) haks\u0131zl\u0131k unsuru ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011finden elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi istenemez.<\/p>\n
\u00d6nceki makalemde kanundan kaynaklanan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar\u0131n\u0131 yani bu y\u00f6ndeki savunma vas\u0131talar\u0131n\u0131 ele alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131k. Bu b\u00f6l\u00fcmde ise elatman\u0131n malikin onay\u0131na dayal\u0131 oldu\u011fu, bu nedenle haks\u0131z olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6nl\u00fc savunmay\u0131 ele alaca\u011f\u0131z.<\/p>\n
II. MAL\u0130K\u0130N ONAYI<\/p>\n
Malik taraf\u0131ndan daval\u0131n\u0131n kullanmas\u0131na onay verilmi\u015fse daval\u0131n\u0131n bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisindeki kullan\u0131m\u0131 haks\u0131z elatma olarak de\u011ferlendirilemez. Bu onay a\u00e7\u0131k bir beyanla olabilece\u011fi gibi, z\u0131mni yani ses \u00e7\u0131karmayarak da olabilir.<\/p>\n
Bu durumda malik taraf\u0131ndan onaya dayal\u0131 olarak kullanan daval\u0131ya yapaca\u011f\u0131 bir ihtar ile onay geri al\u0131nabilir. \u0130htar s\u00f6zl\u00fc veya yaz\u0131l\u0131 olabilir. Noter arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile yap\u0131lacak ihtar ispat kolayl\u0131\u011f\u0131 sa\u011flar. 3091 s. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz Mal Zilyetli\u011fine Yap\u0131lan Tecav\u00fczlerin \u00d6nlenmesi Hakk\u0131nda Kanun gere\u011fince zilyetli\u011finin korunmas\u0131 i\u00e7in m\u00fclki idare amirlerine yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvuru ta\u015f\u0131nmaz malikinin muvafakatinin geri al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelir.<\/p>\n
Ancak malik taraf\u0131ndan s\u00f6zl\u00fc veya yaz\u0131l\u0131 herhangi bir ihtar yap\u0131lmadan da elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131labilir. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 onay\u0131n geri al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelir.<\/p>\n
Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131na malikin onay verdi\u011finin daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a ispat edilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
\u201c… M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 yetkilerin malik taraf\u0131ndan gere\u011fi gibi kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nleyen ve \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerden gelen etkilere kar\u015f\u0131 korunma arac\u0131 olarak haks\u0131z elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi, ta\u015fk\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesi, durdurulmas\u0131 i\u00e7in, elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi davas\u0131 hakk\u0131 tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Burada \u00f6nemle vurgulanmal\u0131d\u0131r ki, Yasa h\u00fckm\u00fcnde “haks\u0131z elatmadan” s\u00f6z edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, b\u00fct\u00fcn bu davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n haks\u0131z olmas\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n bir hakka dayanmamas\u0131 gerekli ve yeterlidir.<\/p>\n
T\u00fcm bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde somut olay de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde; davac\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kay\u0131t maliki olup, 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanununun 683. maddesinden kaynaklanan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na dayanmaktad\u0131r. Davac\u0131 maliki oldu\u011fu konutu kullanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 o\u011flu ve daval\u0131 gelinine tahsis etmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 ile birlikte davac\u0131n\u0131n o\u011flu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 davac\u0131 malikin onay\u0131na dayal\u0131 olarak tasarruf etmi\u015flerdir. Bu durumda davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan verilen onay devam etti\u011fi s\u00fcrece konutun davac\u0131n\u0131n o\u011flu ve daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n haks\u0131z olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi davas\u0131nda husumetin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 haks\u0131z kullanana y\u00f6neltilmesi gereklidir. Eldeki davada her ne kadar davac\u0131 anne, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 bedelsiz olarak kullanmalar\u0131 i\u00e7in dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 o\u011flu ve daval\u0131 gelinine vermi\u015fse de, dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 o\u011flunun: daval\u0131 kar\u0131s\u0131 ile aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclmekte olan bo\u015fanma davas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda \u00e7eki\u015fmeli konutu terk etmi\u015f olmas\u0131 ve halen ortak konutta oturan daval\u0131 geline kar\u015f\u0131 da ihtar \u00e7ekerek eldeki davay\u0131 a\u00e7mas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, art\u0131k davac\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131na dair verdi\u011fi muvafakatini geri ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc gereklidir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6te yandan, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz malikinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi olmas\u0131 nedeniyle ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n aile konutu olarak kabul\u00fc m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi taraflar aras\u0131nda bir kira ili\u015fkisi de bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca, davac\u0131n\u0131n o\u011flu ile daval\u0131n\u0131n ayr\u0131 ya\u015famakla birlikte evliliklerinin devam etmekte olmas\u0131 davac\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 daval\u0131n\u0131n kullanmas\u0131n\u0131n hakl\u0131 ve ge\u00e7erli nedeni olarak kabul edilemez.<\/p>\n
Nitekim, ayn\u0131 ilkeler HGK’nun 4.11.2009 g\u00fcn ve 2009\/1-401 E, 2009\/473 K. say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131nda da vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
O halde, davac\u0131 malik taraf\u0131ndan konutun kullan\u0131m\u0131 i\u00e7in onay\u0131n geri al\u0131nmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda daval\u0131n\u0131n konutu kullanmas\u0131n\u0131n hakl\u0131 ve ge\u00e7erli bir nedeninin bulundu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenemez…”[1]<\/p>\n
\u201c… Davac\u0131ya ait ta\u015f\u0131nmaza daval\u0131n\u0131n elatt\u0131\u011f\u0131 sabittir. Esasen, taraflar\u0131n kabul\u00fc de bu y\u00f6ndedir. Davac\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131na muvafakat etmi\u015f olsa dahi, davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 ile muvafakatini geri alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Daval\u0131 bu yeri bah\u00e7e haline getirip de\u011ferini art\u0131rm\u0131\u015f olsa bile daval\u0131n\u0131n bu ki\u015fisel hakk\u0131 elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi davas\u0131na engel te\u015fkil etmez. Dayal\u0131 s\u00f6z konusu ki\u015fisel hak nedeniyle ayr\u0131 bir dava a\u00e7abilir.<\/p>\n
Hal b\u00f6yle olunca, davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekirken…\u201d[2]<\/p>\n
\u201c… Dava, \u00e7apl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaza el atman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi ve ecrimisil iste\u011fine ili\u015fkindir. Daval\u0131, kirac\u0131l\u0131k savunmas\u0131nda bulunmu\u015ftur. Mahkemece, daval\u0131n\u0131n savunmas\u0131 yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclerek davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Ne var ki, davac\u0131 kay\u0131t maliki olup, daval\u0131 ile aralar\u0131nda akdi bir ili\u015fkinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Toplanan delillere g\u00f6re, daval\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmazda davac\u0131n\u0131n muvafakatine dayanarak oturdu\u011funun ve muvafakatin 2.12.1994 tarihli ihtarname ile geri al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc zorunludur. \u00d6te yandan ihtarnamenin i\u00e7eri\u011finde de yanlar aras\u0131nda bir kira ili\u015fkisinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6steren bir ibareye veya kabule rastlan\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Hal b\u00f6yle olunca, el atman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesine… h\u00fckmedilmesi gerekirken…\u201d[3]<\/p>\n
\u201c… Dava, \u015fahsi hakka dayal\u0131 elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi ve ecrimisil iste\u011fine ili\u015fkindir…<\/p>\n
Somut olaya gelince; daval\u0131lar\u0131n beyan\u0131na g\u00f6re dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n davac\u0131lar\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131 olmalar\u0131 nedeniyle kendilerine \u00fccretsiz lojman olarak tahsis edildi\u011fi, dosya aras\u0131nda bulunan belge ve bilgilerden dava konusu ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn davac\u0131 in\u015faat \u015firketine d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Mahkemece hem ecrimisil hem de di\u011fer talepler y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f ise de; intifadan men ko\u015fullar\u0131 olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ecrimisil talebinin reddi do\u011fru olmakla birlikte y\u00fcklenicilerin bu davay\u0131 a\u00e7malar\u0131 ile daval\u0131lara oturmalar\u0131 i\u00e7in verdikleri muvafakat ortadan kalkt\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan daval\u0131lar\u0131n dava konusu parseli kullanmalar\u0131 hakl\u0131 bir nedene dayanmamaktad\u0131r. Bu nedenle davan\u0131n m\u00fcdahalenin men’i y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekirken…\u201d[4]<\/p>\n
\u201c… Dava, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na dayal\u0131 elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi iste\u011fine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
Dosya i\u00e7eri\u011finden ve toplanan delillerden, \u00e7eki\u015fme konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kargir ev ve avlu olarak davac\u0131 ve dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 o\u011flu adlar\u0131na payl\u0131 m\u00fclkiyet h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re tapuda kay\u0131tl\u0131 oldu\u011fu, daval\u0131n\u0131n kay\u0131ttan ve m\u00fclkiyetten kaynaklanan bir hakk\u0131 bulunmamakla beraber ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki alt kat\u0131 de\u011firmen, \u00fcst kat\u0131 mesken olan binay\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131, davaya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerine de\u011firmen a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, de\u011firmene ili\u015fkin kay\u0131tlar\u0131n ise daval\u0131 olan o\u011flu ad\u0131na yapt\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak daval\u0131n\u0131n de\u011firmenin kendisine ait oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131nda bulundu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek eldeki davay\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere; T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu\u2019nun 683. maddesinde de bir \u015feye malik olan kimsenin hukuk d\u00fczeninin s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7erisinde o \u015fey \u00fczerinde diledi\u011fi gibi kullanma, yararlanma ve tasarrufta bulunma yetkisi belirtilmi\u015f, malikin mal\u0131n\u0131 haks\u0131z olarak elinde bulunduran kimseye kar\u015f\u0131 istihkak davas\u0131 a\u00e7abilece\u011fi gibi her t\u00fcrl\u00fc haks\u0131z elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesini de dava konusu edebilece\u011fi h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Davac\u0131 kay\u0131t maliki olup, T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 683. maddesinden kaynaklanan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na dayanmaktad\u0131r. Taraflar aras\u0131nda bir kira ili\u015fkisi de bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Esasen daval\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 muvafakate dayal\u0131 olarak tasarruf etti\u011fi dosya kapsam\u0131 ile sabittir. Ne var ki, dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmakla muvafakatin geri al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc gereklidir.<\/p>\n
Hal b\u00f6yle olunca, daval\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7eki\u015fme konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazda kayda ve m\u00fclkiyete dayal\u0131 bir hakk\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki muhdesat\u0131n ilgilisine \u015fahsi hak tan\u0131yaca\u011f\u0131, bu durumda ayni hak niteli\u011finde olan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fck tan\u0131mak suretiyle daval\u0131n\u0131n haks\u0131z m\u00fcdahalesinin \u00f6nlenmesine karar verilmesi gerekirken…\u201d[5]<\/p>\n
\u201c… taraflar\u0131n bildirdikleri tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131ndan da sabit oldu\u011fu \u00fczere daval\u0131n\u0131n parsel \u00fczerindeki ah\u0131r\u0131 davac\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcsaadesi ile kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6re dava tarihine kadar davac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131ya bir ihtarname ke\u015fide etmedi\u011fi, bir ikazda bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde, daval\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131na iptal-tescil davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lana kadar ses \u00e7\u0131karmayan davac\u0131n\u0131n muvafakat etti\u011finin ve muvafakatin o dava a\u00e7\u0131lmakla geri al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcnde zorunluluk vard\u0131r…\u201d[6]<\/p>\n
\u201c… Dava, \u00e7apl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaza el atman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi iste\u011fine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
Dosya i\u00e7eri\u011fi ve toplanan delillerden, davaya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n davac\u0131 ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 bulundu\u011fu, o\u011flu ve gelini olan daval\u0131lar\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmazda davac\u0131n\u0131n muvafakati ile oturduklar\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece, davac\u0131n\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcniyetli oldu\u011fu ve k\u00f6t\u00fcniyetinin korunamayaca\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na dayanarak eldeki davay\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve davay\u0131 a\u00e7makla daval\u0131lar\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131nda oturmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik muvafakatini sona erdirdi\u011fine g\u00f6re, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na de\u011fer verilerek davan\u0131n kabul edilmesi yerine, yan\u0131lg\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme ile yaz\u0131l\u0131 bi\u00e7imde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 isabetsizdir…\u201d[7]<\/p>\n
Ayd\u0131n Tekdo\u011fan<\/p>\n
Avukat<\/p>\n
\u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi<\/p>\n
2. Hukuk Dairesi Emekli Ba\u015fkan\u0131<\/p>\n
>> ELATMANIN \u00d6NLENMES\u0130 (M\u00dcDAHALEN\u0130N MEN\u0130) DAVASINDA ELATMANIN HAKSIZ OLMADI\u011eINA (MAL\u0130K\u0130N KATLANMA Y\u00dcK\u00dcML\u00dcL\u00dc\u011e\u00dcN\u00dcN BULUNDU\u011eUNA) \u0130L\u0130\u015eK\u0130N SAVUNMALAR: (1) ELATMANIN KANUNDAN KAYNAKLANDI\u011eI SAVUNMASI<\/p>\n
————–<\/p>\n
* Ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 bilgi i\u00e7in Tekdo\u011fan A., \u00c7apl\u0131 ve Kom\u015fu Ta\u015f\u0131nmaza Elatman\u0131n \u00d6nlenmesi Temliken Tescil ve Tazminat Davalar\u0131, 2. Bask\u0131, Se\u00e7kin Yay\u0131nevi, Eyl\u00fcl 2023, 1104 Sayfa<\/p>\n
[1] Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu E. 2010\/1-218 K. 2010\/251 T. 5.5.2010<\/p>\n
[2] Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu E. 2000\/1-994 K. 2000\/1060 T. 21.6.2000<\/p>\n
[3] Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu E. 1997\/1-786 K. 1997\/988 T. 26.11.1997<\/p>\n
[4] Yarg\u0131tay 14. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2016\/3045 K. 2018\/6391 T. 08.10.2018<\/p>\n
[5] Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2018\/6252 K. 2018\/15578 T. 12.09.2018<\/p>\n
[6] Yarg\u0131tay 1. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2014\/5169 K. 2015\/6356 T. 29.04.2015<\/p>\n
[7] Yarg\u0131tay 1. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2014\/20239 K. 2014\/18343 T. 25.11.2014<\/p>\n
\u200bI. G\u0130R\u0130\u015e<\/p>\n
Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere sorumluluk i\u00e7in salt hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k yeterli de\u011fildir. Kusur sorumlulu\u011funda, sorumluluk i\u00e7in kusurun bulunmas\u0131 zorunludur.<\/p>\n
Ancak konumuz a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan elatmada bulunan\u0131n mutlaka kas\u0131tl\u0131 hareket etmesi zorunlu olmay\u0131p, kusurlu olmasa dahi, e\u011fer ge\u00e7ersiz bir hukuki nedene dayan\u0131yorsa yani elatma fiili hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 ise elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi istenebilir. Nitekim TMK’n\u0131n 683\/2. maddesinde bu unsur “Malik… her t\u00fcrl\u00fc haks\u0131z elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesini de dava edebilir.” \u015feklinde ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Elatman\u0131n haks\u0131z olmas\u0131 ile kastedilen malikin elatmaya katlanma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmamas\u0131d\u0131r. Katlanma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde malikin olumsuz yetkilerinin k\u0131s\u0131tlanmas\u0131, olumsuz yetkilerini kullanamamas\u0131 s\u00f6z konusudur. Bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck nedeniyle malik baz\u0131 elatmalar\u0131 ho\u015f g\u00f6rmek zorunda kal\u0131r. Elatmaya engel olamaz. Olumsuz bir unsurdur. Bu unsur daval\u0131 i\u00e7inse en \u00f6nemli bir savunma imk\u00e2n\u0131d\u0131r. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc elatman\u0131n haks\u0131z olmas\u0131 davan\u0131n kabul\u00fc i\u00e7in zorunlu olup, ayni veya \u015fahsi bir hakka dayan\u0131yorsa veya kanundan kaynakl\u0131 bir elatma ise, haks\u0131z olma unsuru ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011finden davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmelidir.<\/p>\n
Yap\u0131lan elatman\u0131n haks\u0131z olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 savunmas\u0131 \u00e7e\u015fitli nedenlere dayanabilir. En ba\u015fta gelenleri m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kanundan kaynaklanan bir nedenle s\u0131n\u0131rlanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin olan nedenlerdir. Bu nedenler kamu veya \u00f6zel hukuktan kaynaklanabilir.<\/p>\n
Yine malikin katlanma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc daval\u0131n\u0131n bir ayni veya \u015fahsi (nisbi) hakk\u0131ndan da kaynaklanabilir. \u00d6rne\u011fin elatan daval\u0131n\u0131n malik veya intifa hakk\u0131 sahibi ile olan kira ili\u015fkisi yap\u0131lan elatmay\u0131 haks\u0131z olmaktan \u00e7\u0131karacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Ayr\u0131ca do\u011fal olaylar sonucu olu\u015fan elatmalarda (e\u011fer bir ki\u015finin kas\u0131tl\u0131 veya taksirli hareketi ile birle\u015fmemi\u015fse) haks\u0131zl\u0131k unsuru ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011finden elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi istenemez.<\/p>\n
\u00d6nceki makalemde kanundan kaynaklanan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar\u0131n\u0131 yani bu y\u00f6ndeki savunma vas\u0131talar\u0131n\u0131 ele alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131k. Bu b\u00f6l\u00fcmde ise elatman\u0131n malikin onay\u0131na dayal\u0131 oldu\u011fu, bu nedenle haks\u0131z olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6nl\u00fc savunmay\u0131 ele alaca\u011f\u0131z.<\/p>\n
II. MAL\u0130K\u0130N ONAYI<\/p>\n
Malik taraf\u0131ndan daval\u0131n\u0131n kullanmas\u0131na onay verilmi\u015fse daval\u0131n\u0131n bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisindeki kullan\u0131m\u0131 haks\u0131z elatma olarak de\u011ferlendirilemez. Bu onay a\u00e7\u0131k bir beyanla olabilece\u011fi gibi, z\u0131mni yani ses \u00e7\u0131karmayarak da olabilir.<\/p>\n
Bu durumda malik taraf\u0131ndan onaya dayal\u0131 olarak kullanan daval\u0131ya yapaca\u011f\u0131 bir ihtar ile onay geri al\u0131nabilir. \u0130htar s\u00f6zl\u00fc veya yaz\u0131l\u0131 olabilir. Noter arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile yap\u0131lacak ihtar ispat kolayl\u0131\u011f\u0131 sa\u011flar. 3091 s. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz Mal Zilyetli\u011fine Yap\u0131lan Tecav\u00fczlerin \u00d6nlenmesi Hakk\u0131nda Kanun gere\u011fince zilyetli\u011finin korunmas\u0131 i\u00e7in m\u00fclki idare amirlerine yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvuru ta\u015f\u0131nmaz malikinin muvafakatinin geri al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelir.<\/p>\n
Ancak malik taraf\u0131ndan s\u00f6zl\u00fc veya yaz\u0131l\u0131 herhangi bir ihtar yap\u0131lmadan da elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131labilir. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 onay\u0131n geri al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelir.<\/p>\n
Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131na malikin onay verdi\u011finin daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a ispat edilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
\u201c… M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 yetkilerin malik taraf\u0131ndan gere\u011fi gibi kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nleyen ve \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerden gelen etkilere kar\u015f\u0131 korunma arac\u0131 olarak haks\u0131z elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi, ta\u015fk\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesi, durdurulmas\u0131 i\u00e7in, elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi davas\u0131 hakk\u0131 tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Burada \u00f6nemle vurgulanmal\u0131d\u0131r ki, Yasa h\u00fckm\u00fcnde “haks\u0131z elatmadan” s\u00f6z edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, b\u00fct\u00fcn bu davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n haks\u0131z olmas\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n bir hakka dayanmamas\u0131 gerekli ve yeterlidir.<\/p>\n
T\u00fcm bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde somut olay de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde; davac\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kay\u0131t maliki olup, 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanununun 683. maddesinden kaynaklanan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na dayanmaktad\u0131r. Davac\u0131 maliki oldu\u011fu konutu kullanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 o\u011flu ve daval\u0131 gelinine tahsis etmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 ile birlikte davac\u0131n\u0131n o\u011flu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 davac\u0131 malikin onay\u0131na dayal\u0131 olarak tasarruf etmi\u015flerdir. Bu durumda davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan verilen onay devam etti\u011fi s\u00fcrece konutun davac\u0131n\u0131n o\u011flu ve daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n haks\u0131z olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi davas\u0131nda husumetin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 haks\u0131z kullanana y\u00f6neltilmesi gereklidir. Eldeki davada her ne kadar davac\u0131 anne, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 bedelsiz olarak kullanmalar\u0131 i\u00e7in dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 o\u011flu ve daval\u0131 gelinine vermi\u015fse de, dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 o\u011flunun: daval\u0131 kar\u0131s\u0131 ile aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclmekte olan bo\u015fanma davas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda \u00e7eki\u015fmeli konutu terk etmi\u015f olmas\u0131 ve halen ortak konutta oturan daval\u0131 geline kar\u015f\u0131 da ihtar \u00e7ekerek eldeki davay\u0131 a\u00e7mas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, art\u0131k davac\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131na dair verdi\u011fi muvafakatini geri ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc gereklidir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6te yandan, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz malikinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi olmas\u0131 nedeniyle ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n aile konutu olarak kabul\u00fc m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi taraflar aras\u0131nda bir kira ili\u015fkisi de bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca, davac\u0131n\u0131n o\u011flu ile daval\u0131n\u0131n ayr\u0131 ya\u015famakla birlikte evliliklerinin devam etmekte olmas\u0131 davac\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 daval\u0131n\u0131n kullanmas\u0131n\u0131n hakl\u0131 ve ge\u00e7erli nedeni olarak kabul edilemez.<\/p>\n
Nitekim, ayn\u0131 ilkeler HGK’nun 4.11.2009 g\u00fcn ve 2009\/1-401 E, 2009\/473 K. say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131nda da vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
O halde, davac\u0131 malik taraf\u0131ndan konutun kullan\u0131m\u0131 i\u00e7in onay\u0131n geri al\u0131nmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda daval\u0131n\u0131n konutu kullanmas\u0131n\u0131n hakl\u0131 ve ge\u00e7erli bir nedeninin bulundu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenemez…”[1]<\/p>\n
\u201c… Davac\u0131ya ait ta\u015f\u0131nmaza daval\u0131n\u0131n elatt\u0131\u011f\u0131 sabittir. Esasen, taraflar\u0131n kabul\u00fc de bu y\u00f6ndedir. Davac\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131na muvafakat etmi\u015f olsa dahi, davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 ile muvafakatini geri alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Daval\u0131 bu yeri bah\u00e7e haline getirip de\u011ferini art\u0131rm\u0131\u015f olsa bile daval\u0131n\u0131n bu ki\u015fisel hakk\u0131 elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi davas\u0131na engel te\u015fkil etmez. Dayal\u0131 s\u00f6z konusu ki\u015fisel hak nedeniyle ayr\u0131 bir dava a\u00e7abilir.<\/p>\n
Hal b\u00f6yle olunca, davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekirken…\u201d[2]<\/p>\n
\u201c… Dava, \u00e7apl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaza el atman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi ve ecrimisil iste\u011fine ili\u015fkindir. Daval\u0131, kirac\u0131l\u0131k savunmas\u0131nda bulunmu\u015ftur. Mahkemece, daval\u0131n\u0131n savunmas\u0131 yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclerek davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Ne var ki, davac\u0131 kay\u0131t maliki olup, daval\u0131 ile aralar\u0131nda akdi bir ili\u015fkinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Toplanan delillere g\u00f6re, daval\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmazda davac\u0131n\u0131n muvafakatine dayanarak oturdu\u011funun ve muvafakatin 2.12.1994 tarihli ihtarname ile geri al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc zorunludur. \u00d6te yandan ihtarnamenin i\u00e7eri\u011finde de yanlar aras\u0131nda bir kira ili\u015fkisinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6steren bir ibareye veya kabule rastlan\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Hal b\u00f6yle olunca, el atman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesine… h\u00fckmedilmesi gerekirken…\u201d[3]<\/p>\n
\u201c… Dava, \u015fahsi hakka dayal\u0131 elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi ve ecrimisil iste\u011fine ili\u015fkindir…<\/p>\n
Somut olaya gelince; daval\u0131lar\u0131n beyan\u0131na g\u00f6re dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n davac\u0131lar\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131 olmalar\u0131 nedeniyle kendilerine \u00fccretsiz lojman olarak tahsis edildi\u011fi, dosya aras\u0131nda bulunan belge ve bilgilerden dava konusu ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn davac\u0131 in\u015faat \u015firketine d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Mahkemece hem ecrimisil hem de di\u011fer talepler y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f ise de; intifadan men ko\u015fullar\u0131 olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ecrimisil talebinin reddi do\u011fru olmakla birlikte y\u00fcklenicilerin bu davay\u0131 a\u00e7malar\u0131 ile daval\u0131lara oturmalar\u0131 i\u00e7in verdikleri muvafakat ortadan kalkt\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan daval\u0131lar\u0131n dava konusu parseli kullanmalar\u0131 hakl\u0131 bir nedene dayanmamaktad\u0131r. Bu nedenle davan\u0131n m\u00fcdahalenin men’i y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekirken…\u201d[4]<\/p>\n
\u201c… Dava, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na dayal\u0131 elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi iste\u011fine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
Dosya i\u00e7eri\u011finden ve toplanan delillerden, \u00e7eki\u015fme konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kargir ev ve avlu olarak davac\u0131 ve dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 o\u011flu adlar\u0131na payl\u0131 m\u00fclkiyet h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re tapuda kay\u0131tl\u0131 oldu\u011fu, daval\u0131n\u0131n kay\u0131ttan ve m\u00fclkiyetten kaynaklanan bir hakk\u0131 bulunmamakla beraber ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki alt kat\u0131 de\u011firmen, \u00fcst kat\u0131 mesken olan binay\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131, davaya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerine de\u011firmen a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, de\u011firmene ili\u015fkin kay\u0131tlar\u0131n ise daval\u0131 olan o\u011flu ad\u0131na yapt\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak daval\u0131n\u0131n de\u011firmenin kendisine ait oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131nda bulundu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek eldeki davay\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere; T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu\u2019nun 683. maddesinde de bir \u015feye malik olan kimsenin hukuk d\u00fczeninin s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7erisinde o \u015fey \u00fczerinde diledi\u011fi gibi kullanma, yararlanma ve tasarrufta bulunma yetkisi belirtilmi\u015f, malikin mal\u0131n\u0131 haks\u0131z olarak elinde bulunduran kimseye kar\u015f\u0131 istihkak davas\u0131 a\u00e7abilece\u011fi gibi her t\u00fcrl\u00fc haks\u0131z elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesini de dava konusu edebilece\u011fi h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Davac\u0131 kay\u0131t maliki olup, T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 683. maddesinden kaynaklanan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na dayanmaktad\u0131r. Taraflar aras\u0131nda bir kira ili\u015fkisi de bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Esasen daval\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 muvafakate dayal\u0131 olarak tasarruf etti\u011fi dosya kapsam\u0131 ile sabittir. Ne var ki, dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmakla muvafakatin geri al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc gereklidir.<\/p>\n
Hal b\u00f6yle olunca, daval\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7eki\u015fme konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazda kayda ve m\u00fclkiyete dayal\u0131 bir hakk\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki muhdesat\u0131n ilgilisine \u015fahsi hak tan\u0131yaca\u011f\u0131, bu durumda ayni hak niteli\u011finde olan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fck tan\u0131mak suretiyle daval\u0131n\u0131n haks\u0131z m\u00fcdahalesinin \u00f6nlenmesine karar verilmesi gerekirken…\u201d[5]<\/p>\n
\u201c… taraflar\u0131n bildirdikleri tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131ndan da sabit oldu\u011fu \u00fczere daval\u0131n\u0131n parsel \u00fczerindeki ah\u0131r\u0131 davac\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcsaadesi ile kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6re dava tarihine kadar davac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131ya bir ihtarname ke\u015fide etmedi\u011fi, bir ikazda bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde, daval\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131na iptal-tescil davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lana kadar ses \u00e7\u0131karmayan davac\u0131n\u0131n muvafakat etti\u011finin ve muvafakatin o dava a\u00e7\u0131lmakla geri al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcnde zorunluluk vard\u0131r…\u201d[6]<\/p>\n
\u201c… Dava, \u00e7apl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaza el atman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi iste\u011fine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
Dosya i\u00e7eri\u011fi ve toplanan delillerden, davaya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n davac\u0131 ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 bulundu\u011fu, o\u011flu ve gelini olan daval\u0131lar\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmazda davac\u0131n\u0131n muvafakati ile oturduklar\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece, davac\u0131n\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcniyetli oldu\u011fu ve k\u00f6t\u00fcniyetinin korunamayaca\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na dayanarak eldeki davay\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve davay\u0131 a\u00e7makla daval\u0131lar\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131nda oturmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik muvafakatini sona erdirdi\u011fine g\u00f6re, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na de\u011fer verilerek davan\u0131n kabul edilmesi yerine, yan\u0131lg\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme ile yaz\u0131l\u0131 bi\u00e7imde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 isabetsizdir…\u201d[7]<\/p>\n
Ayd\u0131n Tekdo\u011fan<\/p>\n
Avukat<\/p>\n
\u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi<\/p>\n
2. Hukuk Dairesi Emekli Ba\u015fkan\u0131<\/p>\n
>> ELATMANIN \u00d6NLENMES\u0130 (M\u00dcDAHALEN\u0130N MEN\u0130) DAVASINDA ELATMANIN HAKSIZ OLMADI\u011eINA (MAL\u0130K\u0130N KATLANMA Y\u00dcK\u00dcML\u00dcL\u00dc\u011e\u00dcN\u00dcN BULUNDU\u011eUNA) \u0130L\u0130\u015eK\u0130N SAVUNMALAR: (1) ELATMANIN KANUNDAN KAYNAKLANDI\u011eI SAVUNMASI<\/p>\n
————–<\/p>\n
* Ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 bilgi i\u00e7in Tekdo\u011fan A., \u00c7apl\u0131 ve Kom\u015fu Ta\u015f\u0131nmaza Elatman\u0131n \u00d6nlenmesi Temliken Tescil ve Tazminat Davalar\u0131, 2. Bask\u0131, Se\u00e7kin Yay\u0131nevi, Eyl\u00fcl 2023, 1104 Sayfa<\/p>\n
[1] Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu E. 2010\/1-218 K. 2010\/251 T. 5.5.2010<\/p>\n
[2] Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu E. 2000\/1-994 K. 2000\/1060 T. 21.6.2000<\/p>\n
[3] Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu E. 1997\/1-786 K. 1997\/988 T. 26.11.1997<\/p>\n
[4] Yarg\u0131tay 14. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2016\/3045 K. 2018\/6391 T. 08.10.2018<\/p>\n
[5] Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2018\/6252 K. 2018\/15578 T. 12.09.2018<\/p>\n
[6] Yarg\u0131tay 1. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2014\/5169 K. 2015\/6356 T. 29.04.2015<\/p>\n
[7] Yarg\u0131tay 1. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2014\/20239 K. 2014\/18343 T. 25.11.2014\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I. G\u0130R\u0130\u015e Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere sorumluluk i\u00e7in salt hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k yeterli de\u011fildir. Kusur sorumlulu\u011funda, sorumluluk i\u00e7in kusurun bulunmas\u0131 zorunludur. Ancak konumuz a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan elatmada bulunan\u0131n mutlaka kas\u0131tl\u0131 hareket etmesi zorunlu olmay\u0131p, kusurlu olmasa dahi, e\u011fer ge\u00e7ersiz bir hukuki nedene dayan\u0131yorsa yani elatma fiili hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 ise elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi istenebilir. Nitekim TMK’n\u0131n 683\/2. maddesinde bu unsur “Malik… her t\u00fcrl\u00fc haks\u0131z elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesini de dava edebilir.” \u015feklinde ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Elatman\u0131n haks\u0131z olmas\u0131 ile kastedilen malikin elatmaya katlanma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmamas\u0131d\u0131r. Katlanma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde malikin olumsuz yetkilerinin k\u0131s\u0131tlanmas\u0131, olumsuz yetkilerini kullanamamas\u0131 s\u00f6z konusudur. Bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck nedeniyle malik baz\u0131 elatmalar\u0131 ho\u015f g\u00f6rmek zorunda kal\u0131r. Elatmaya engel olamaz. Olumsuz bir unsurdur. Bu unsur daval\u0131 i\u00e7inse en \u00f6nemli bir savunma imk\u00e2n\u0131d\u0131r. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc elatman\u0131n haks\u0131z olmas\u0131 davan\u0131n kabul\u00fc i\u00e7in zorunlu olup, ayni veya \u015fahsi bir hakka dayan\u0131yorsa veya kanundan kaynakl\u0131 bir elatma ise, haks\u0131z olma unsuru ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011finden davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmelidir. Yap\u0131lan elatman\u0131n haks\u0131z olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 savunmas\u0131 \u00e7e\u015fitli nedenlere dayanabilir. En ba\u015fta gelenleri m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kanundan kaynaklanan bir nedenle s\u0131n\u0131rlanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin olan nedenlerdir. Bu nedenler kamu veya \u00f6zel hukuktan kaynaklanabilir. Yine malikin katlanma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc daval\u0131n\u0131n bir ayni veya \u015fahsi (nisbi) hakk\u0131ndan da kaynaklanabilir. \u00d6rne\u011fin elatan daval\u0131n\u0131n malik veya intifa hakk\u0131 sahibi ile olan kira ili\u015fkisi yap\u0131lan elatmay\u0131 haks\u0131z olmaktan \u00e7\u0131karacakt\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca do\u011fal …<\/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-143802","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n