T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
M\u00dc\u015eERREF SEDEF BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/19618)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 18\/9\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 3\/12\/2024-32741<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Kamber Ozan TUTAL<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
M\u00fc\u015ferref SEDEF<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; alaca\u011f\u0131n enflasyon kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda de\u011fer kayb\u0131na u\u011framas\u0131 nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n, di\u011fer \u015fik\u00e2yetler nedeniyle de adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. K\u00fctahya Dumlup\u0131nar \u00dcniversitesinde (\u00dcniversite) \u00f6\u011fretim g\u00f6revlisi olan ba\u015fvurucunun s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi uzat\u0131lmayarak 11\/3\/2001 tarihinde i\u015fine son verilmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu i\u015flemin iptali ve parasal haklar\u0131n tazmini i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan davay\u0131 Eski\u015fehir \u0130dare Mahkemesi 25\/12\/2001 tarihinde sicil raporlar\u0131na g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun ba\u015far\u0131l\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddetmi\u015ftir. Karar, kanun yolundan ge\u00e7erek kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Eski\u015fehir \u0130dare Mahkemesi 22\/11\/2002 ve 28\/11\/2002 tarihli kararlar\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki sicil raporlar\u0131n\u0131n iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 6\/4\/2004 tarihinde ise ki\u015filik haklar\u0131n\u0131n zarar g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc iddias\u0131yla raporlar\u0131 d\u00fczenleyen sicil amirine kar\u015f\u0131 manevi tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. K\u00fctahya 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi 13\/3\/2012 tarihinde sicil raporlar\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7e\u011fe ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak dolduruldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle ba\u015fvurucuya 1.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Temyiz edilmeyen karar kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu 18\/6\/2012 tarihinde Eski\u015fehir \u0130dare Mahkemesinin 25\/12\/2001 tarihli karar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Eski\u015fehir 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 20\/10\/2015 tarihinde sicil raporlar\u0131n\u0131n iptali kararlar\u0131 ve manevi tazminat h\u00fckm\u00fc kapsam\u0131nda yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi talebini kabul etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, dava konusu i\u015flemin iptali ile yoksun kal\u0131nan parasal haklar\u0131n ilk davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 16\/3\/2001 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faiziyle birlikte ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131 onayan Dan\u0131\u015ftay Sekizinci Dairesi 24\/5\/2017 tarihinde de daval\u0131 idarenin karar d\u00fczeltme talebini reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu 8\/2\/2016 tarihinde g\u00f6revine ba\u015flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00dcniversite ba\u015fvurucunun hi\u00e7bir yerde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 Mart 2001-A\u011fustos 2005 d\u00f6nemi i\u00e7in 38.593,80 TL maa\u015f ve 66.396,19 TL yasal faiz \u00f6demesi yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00dcniversite, Eyl\u00fcl 2005-Ocak 2016 d\u00f6nemi i\u00e7inse Pamukkale \u00dcniversitesinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan ba\u015fvurucunun daha fazla maa\u015f ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek \u00f6deme yapmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu 23\/8\/2016 tarihinde \u00dcniversiteye kar\u015f\u0131 tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f, maddi ve manevi tazminat\u0131n ilk davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 16\/3\/2001 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faiziyle birlikte \u00f6denmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, mahrum kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 parasal haklar\u0131n \u00f6denmemesi nedeniyle Eski\u015fehir \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n yerine getirilmedi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
7. K\u00fctahya \u0130dare Mahkemesi 30\/4\/2019 tarihinde davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc ile 69.816,60 TL maddi ve 10.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n dava tarihi olan 23\/8\/2016 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faiziyle birlikte ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine karar vermi\u015ftir. Kararda, \u00f6nceki \u00f6demelere ra\u011fmen ba\u015fvurucunun Mart 2001-Ocak 2016 tarihleri aras\u0131nda \u00dcniversitede \u00e7al\u0131\u015fsayd\u0131 69.816,60 TL daha fazla maa\u015f alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve bu h\u00e2liyle yarg\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n gere\u011fi gibi yerine getirilmedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. \u0130zmir B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 5. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi 17\/3\/2020 tarihinde taraflar\u0131n istinaf taleplerini kesin olmak \u00fczere reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 15\/6\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 26\/6\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
A. Adil Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu, Eski\u015fehir \u0130dare Mahkemesinin 25\/12\/2001 tarihli karar\u0131na konu yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucu ayr\u0131ca Eski\u015fehir \u0130dare Mahkemesinde ba\u015flay\u0131p yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi ve tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 ile sona eren yarg\u0131lama ile hukuk mahkemesi \u00f6n\u00fcndeki manevi tazminat davas\u0131ndaki yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcreleri nedeniyle makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
1. Tam Yarg\u0131 Davas\u0131 Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
12. Medeni hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerle ilgili uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klara ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131laman\u0131n s\u00fcresi tespit edilirken s\u00fcrenin ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihi olarak davan\u0131n ikame edildi\u011fi tarih; s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarih olarak -\u00e7o\u011fu zaman icra a\u015famas\u0131n\u0131 da kapsayacak \u015fekilde- yarg\u0131laman\u0131n sona erdi\u011fi tarih, yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 devam eden davalar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise Anayasa Mahkemesinin makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetle ilgili karar\u0131n\u0131 verdi\u011fi tarih esas al\u0131n\u0131r (G\u00fcher Ergun ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2012\/13, 2\/7\/2013, \u00a7\u00a7 50, 52).<\/p>\n
13. Medeni hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerle ilgili uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klara ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcresinin makul olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilirken yarg\u0131laman\u0131n karma\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ka\u00e7 dereceli oldu\u011fu, taraflar\u0131n ve ilgili makamlar\u0131n yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecindeki tutumu ve ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131laman\u0131n s\u00fcratle sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131ndaki menfaatinin niteli\u011fi gibi hususlar dikkate al\u0131n\u0131r (G\u00fcher Ergun ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7\u00a7 41, 45).<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurucunun 23\/8\/2016 tarihinde a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 \u0130zmir B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 5. \u0130dari Dava Dairesinin 17\/3\/2020 tarihli karar\u0131yla sona ermi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan ilkeler ve Anayasa Mahkemesinin benzer ba\u015fvurularda verdi\u011fi kararlar dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda yakla\u015f\u0131k 3 y\u0131l 6 ay ve 24 g\u00fcnl\u00fck yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcresinin makul oldu\u011fu sonucuna varmak gerekir.<\/p>\n
15. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer kabul edilebilirlik ko\u015fullar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmeksizin a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
2. Di\u011fer Davalar Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Silahlar\u0131n E\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00c7eli\u015fmeli Yarg\u0131lama Hakk\u0131 ile Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
16. 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun\u2019un 47. maddesinin (5) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 ile Anayasa Mahkemesi \u0130\u00e7t\u00fcz\u00fc\u011f\u00fc’n\u00fcn 64. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fi bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketildi\u011fi, ba\u015fvuru yolu \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f ise ihlalin \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi tarihten itibaren otuz g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekir.<\/p>\n
17. Somut olayda Eski\u015fehir \u0130dare Mahkemesi \u00f6n\u00fcndeki yarg\u0131lama, Dan\u0131\u015ftay Sekizinci Dairesinin 24\/5\/2017 tarihinde daval\u0131 idarenin karar d\u00fczeltme talebini reddetmesiyle nihayete ermi\u015ftir. Yine manevi tazminat davas\u0131 K\u00fctahya 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin 13\/3\/2012 tarihli karar\u0131 ile kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir. Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k ba\u015fvurucu, s\u00f6z konusu davalar sonras\u0131nda a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n ard\u0131ndan 26\/6\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. Bu h\u00e2liyle \u015fik\u00e2yete konu davalar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurucunun s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer kabul edilebilirlik ko\u015fullar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmeksizin s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. M\u00fclkiyet Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucu, ilk dava tarihinden itibaren maa\u015f alaca\u011f\u0131na faiz i\u015fletilmemesi nedeniyle alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n enflasyon kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda de\u011fer kayb\u0131na u\u011frat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan yak\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. 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 m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
21. Ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denen maa\u015f fark\u0131na konu para alaca\u011f\u0131 Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda m\u00fclk te\u015fkil etmektedir. Alaca\u011f\u0131n de\u011fer kayb\u0131na ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetler, m\u00fclkiyetten bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l yararlanmaya ili\u015fkin birinci kural \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenecektir.<\/p>\n
22. Anayasa Mahkemesi, kamu kurum ve kurulu\u015flar\u0131ndan olan \u00e7e\u015fitli para alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011fer kayb\u0131na u\u011frat\u0131larak \u00f6denmesine ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetleri daha \u00f6nce incelemi\u015f; buna g\u00f6re kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n para bor\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 makul olmayan bir gecikme ile \u00f6dedikleri durumlarda para alaca\u011f\u0131nda meydana gelen de\u011fer a\u015f\u0131nmalar\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucular \u00fczerinde \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir y\u00fck olu\u015fturmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde m\u00fcdahale \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlaline karar vermi\u015ftir (kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bkz. Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013; Ali \u015eim\u015fek ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2014\/2073, 6\/7\/2017; bir sosyal g\u00fcvenlik \u00f6demesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bkz. Ferda Ye\u015filtepe [GK], B. No: 2014\/7621, 25\/7\/2017; ihale alaca\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bkz. ANO \u0130n\u015faat ve Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti. [GK], B. No: 2014\/2267, 21\/12\/2017; vergi iadesi alaca\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bkz. Akel G\u0131da San. ve Tic. A.\u015e., B. No: 2013\/28, 25\/2\/2015; deprem nedeniyle tazminat y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bkz. Abdulhalim Bozbo\u011fa, B. No: 2013\/6880, 23\/3\/2016; a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa al\u0131nan memurun maa\u015f farklar\u0131n\u0131n iadesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bkz. Vildan Utku Atalay, B. No: 2015\/4812, 7\/2\/2019).<\/p>\n
23. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olay ve olgular\u0131 somut ba\u015fvuru ile benzer nitelikte olan Hami \u00c7etiner (B. No: 2019\/7982, 23\/11\/2021) karar\u0131nda uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede sonradan \u00f6denen ayl\u0131klar\u0131n faizsiz olarak \u00f6denmesinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckledi\u011fi ve ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ile m\u00fcdahalenin kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 aras\u0131nda olmas\u0131 gereken adil dengenin ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine bozuldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
24. Somut olayda K\u00fctahya \u0130dare Mahkemesi ba\u015fvurucunun Mart 2001-Ocak 2016 d\u00f6neminde \u00dcniversitede \u00e7al\u0131\u015famamas\u0131 nedeniyle mahrum kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 69.816,60 TL’nin dava tarihi olan 23\/8\/2016 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faiziyle birlikte iadesine karar vermi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte iadeye konu Mart 2001-Ocak 2016 d\u00f6nemine ili\u015fkin maa\u015f alaca\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in maa\u015f alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fdu\u011fu tarihlerden dava tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucuya herhangi bir faiz \u00f6denmesine ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvurucuya geriye d\u00f6n\u00fck olarak maa\u015f\u0131n\u0131n eksik \u00f6denen k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fi idare taraf\u0131ndan kabul edilmi\u015f bir olgudur. Bununla birlikte ba\u015fvurucunun maa\u015f alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fdu\u011fu tarihlerden dava tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda alacaktaki de\u011fer kayb\u0131n\u0131 giderebilecek herhangi bir faiz \u00f6demesi yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 ba\u015fvurucuya \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 ve ola\u011fan d\u0131\u015f\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklemi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla s\u00f6z konusu m\u00fcdahalenin kamunun yarar\u0131 ile ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 aras\u0131nda kurulmas\u0131 gereken adil dengeyi ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine bozdu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
26. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
27. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama ile toplam 800.000 TL tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ihlalinin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu kapsamda karar\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flatmak ve Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gideren, ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun yeni bir karar vermektir (Mehmet Do\u011fan, B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2), B. No: 2016\/12506, 7\/11\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 53-60, 66; Kadri Enis Berbero\u011flu (3), B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n
28. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. Tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Di\u011fer davalar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama hakk\u0131 ile makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
3. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere K\u00fctahya \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2018\/738, K.2019\/185) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 446,90 TL har\u00e7tan olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \u00d6demenin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na; \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal faiz UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 18\/9\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 18\/9\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/19618 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 M\u00dc\u015eERREF SEDEF BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/19618) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 18\/9\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 3\/12\/2024-32741 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Kamber Ozan TUTAL Ba\u015fvurucu : M\u00fc\u015ferref SEDEF \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru; alaca\u011f\u0131n enflasyon kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda de\u011fer kayb\u0131na u\u011framas\u0131 nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n, di\u011fer \u015fik\u00e2yetler nedeniyle de adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. K\u00fctahya Dumlup\u0131nar \u00dcniversitesinde (\u00dcniversite) \u00f6\u011fretim g\u00f6revlisi olan ba\u015fvurucunun s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi uzat\u0131lmayarak 11\/3\/2001 tarihinde i\u015fine son verilmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu i\u015flemin iptali ve parasal haklar\u0131n tazmini i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan davay\u0131 Eski\u015fehir \u0130dare Mahkemesi 25\/12\/2001 tarihinde sicil raporlar\u0131na g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun ba\u015far\u0131l\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddetmi\u015ftir. Karar, kanun yolundan ge\u00e7erek kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir. 3. Eski\u015fehir \u0130dare Mahkemesi 22\/11\/2002 ve 28\/11\/2002 tarihli kararlar\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki sicil raporlar\u0131n\u0131n iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 6\/4\/2004 tarihinde ise ki\u015filik haklar\u0131n\u0131n zarar g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc iddias\u0131yla raporlar\u0131 d\u00fczenleyen sicil amirine kar\u015f\u0131 manevi tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. K\u00fctahya 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi 13\/3\/2012 tarihinde sicil raporlar\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7e\u011fe ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak dolduruldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle ba\u015fvurucuya 1.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Temyiz edilmeyen karar kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir. 4. Ba\u015fvurucu 18\/6\/2012 tarihinde Eski\u015fehir \u0130dare Mahkemesinin 25\/12\/2001 tarihli …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,535],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18869","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n