Olaylar<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucunun sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz, sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle Hazine ad\u0131na tescil edilmi\u015f, bunun \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu Hazine ad\u0131na olu\u015fturulan tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptali talebiyle asliye hukuk mahkemesinde (mahkeme) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkemenin davay\u0131 kabul emesi \u00fczerine daval\u0131 idare, istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. B\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi, mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve yeniden h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015f, bu karar \u00fczerine yap\u0131lan temyiz ba\u015fvurusunu inceleyen Yarg\u0131tay ise b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131 onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u0130ddialar<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011fu tespit edilerek ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fclkiyetinin Hazineye ge\u00e7irilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
Mahkemenin De\u011ferlendirmesi<\/p>\n
Somut olayda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin ger\u00e7ek de\u011fer \u00fczerinden yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 asliye hukuk mahkemesince kabul edilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi ise yap\u0131lan bu tespite ra\u011fmen ticari team\u00fcle g\u00f6re ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n taksitle sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
B\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi ayr\u0131ca, karar\u0131nda arsa niteli\u011findeki ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ve spor salonunun zilyetli\u011finin sat\u0131c\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan anahtar teslimiyle veya ba\u015fka \u015fekilde ba\u015fvurucuya teslim edildi\u011finin iddia ve ispat edilemedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte daval\u0131 Hazine taraf\u0131ndan yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde bu y\u00f6nde bir iddia ve itiraz da dile getirilmemi\u015ftir. Bu itibarla ba\u015fvurucu, bu hususu ispat etmesi gerekti\u011fini b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesinin karar\u0131yla \u00f6\u011frenmi\u015f; bu durumda da zilyetli\u011fin ne \u015fekilde teslim edildi\u011fiyle ilgili bir a\u00e7\u0131klama imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucunun muvazaa olgusunun ispat\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan bu \u015fekilde bir teslimin gerekli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ortaya koyabilmesi de m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kapat\u0131lan kurumun arsa \u00fczerinde muvazaa olgusu te\u015fkil edebilecek bir faaliyetinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u015firket ortaklar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair kararlar verildi\u011fi, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131n alma s\u00fcreci ve \u00f6demenin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 yer ile \u00f6demenin taksitle \u00f6deme yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n ticari hayat\u0131n gereklerine uygun oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki iddialar\u0131 b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesince kar\u015f\u0131lanmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu bunun yan\u0131nda \u00f6demelerin idareye sorularak yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve idarece dahi konuya ili\u015fkin olarak ihtilaf konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n muvazaa i\u00e7ermeyen ger\u00e7ek bir sat\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015f, bu iddia y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de mahkemece bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi ayr\u0131ca ilk derece mahkemesince yap\u0131lan ke\u015fif ve al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131na g\u00f6re sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin ger\u00e7ek de\u011fer \u00fczerinden yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespitine ra\u011fmen ticari team\u00fcle g\u00f6re ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n taksitle sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine var\u0131rken ticari team\u00fcl\u00fcn nas\u0131l belirlendi\u011fini gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131klamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Anayasa Mahkemesi a\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
—–<\/p>\n
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
GENEL KURUL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
AYYILDIZ MADEN MERMER \u0130N\u015eAAT VE \u0130N\u015eAAT MALZEMELER\u0130 SANAY\u0130 T\u0130CARET LTD. \u015eT\u0130. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/35644)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 28\/3\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 3\/12\/2024-32741<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
GENEL KURUL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkanvekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Kadir \u00d6ZKAYA<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkanvekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/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
Recai AKYEL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Cafiye Ece YALIM<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Ayy\u0131ld\u0131z Maden Mermer \u0130n\u015faat ve \u0130n\u015faat Malzemeleri Sanayi Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti.<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Cihat HAYKIR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcnde kararnameyle kapat\u0131lan e\u011fitim kurumunca yap\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011fu tespit edilerek ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fclkiyetinin Hazineye ge\u00e7irilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru 20\/11\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyon ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4 Birinci B\u00f6l\u00fcm, ba\u015fvurunun Genel Kurul taraf\u0131ndan incelenmesine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR <\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
6. Afyonkarahisar’\u0131n Merkez il\u00e7esine ba\u011fl\u0131 Ak\u00e7in Mahallesi’nde bulunan 315 ada 3 parsel numaral\u0131 arsa niteli\u011findeki ta\u015f\u0131nmaz, \u00d6zel Zafer Anadolu, Fen, Meslek ve Teknik Anadolu Lisesinin maliki Menba \u00d6zel \u00d6\u011fretim Kurumlar\u0131 Anonim \u015eirketine (Menba A.\u015e.) ait iken 26\/2\/2016 tarihinde imzalanan sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile ba\u015fvurucuya 7.000.000 TL kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda sat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde ba\u015fvurucunun sat\u0131\u015f bedelinin 709.510 TL’lik k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 nakit, 210.484 TL’lik k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 tapu har\u00e7 bedeli olarak \u00f6deyece\u011fi, 2.962.474 TL’lik k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 vadeler h\u00e2linde \u00e7ek ile, sat\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n bir bankadan kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve sat\u0131\u015fa konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 teminat olarak g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi 3.117.532 TL kredi borcunu ise \u00f6deme plan\u0131 d\u00e2hilinde taksitler h\u00e2linde \u00f6deyece\u011fi kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7. T\u00fcrkiye 15 Temmuz 2016 gecesi silahl\u0131 bir darbe te\u015febb\u00fcs\u00fcyle kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya kalm\u0131\u015f ve Bakanlar Kurulu taraf\u0131ndan \u00fclke genelinde 21\/7\/2016 tarihinden itibaren doksan g\u00fcn s\u00fcreyle ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2l (OHAL) ilan edilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2l 19\/7\/2018 tarihinde bir daha uzat\u0131lmayarak son bulmu\u015ftur. Darbe te\u015febb\u00fcs\u00fcne ili\u015fkin s\u00fcre\u00e7, OHAL ilan\u0131, OHAL d\u00f6neminin gerektirdi\u011fi tedbirlere ili\u015fkin detayl\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamalar Anayasa Mahkemesinin Ayd\u0131n Yavuz ve di\u011ferleri ([GK], B. No: 2016\/22169, 20\/6\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 12-20, 47-66) karar\u0131nda yer almaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. OHAL tedbirleri kapsam\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcnde kararnamelerle, ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctleriyle ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclen e\u011fitim kurumlar\u0131, \u00f6\u011frenci yurtlar\u0131 ve pansiyonlar\u0131n faaliyetlerine son verilmi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede 23\/7\/2016 tarihli ve 29779 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan 667 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc H\u00e2l Kapsam\u0131nda Al\u0131nan Tedbirlere \u0130li\u015fkin Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin (667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) 2. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (b) bendiyle at\u0131f yap\u0131lan ekli listedeyer alan \u00d6zel Zafer Anadolu, Fen, Meslek ve Teknik Anadolu Lisesi kapat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. 29\/10\/2016 tarihli ve 29872 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan 675 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Baz\u0131 Tedbirler Al\u0131nmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin (675 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) 12. maddesinde, ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2l kapsam\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe konulan kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcnde kararnameler gere\u011fince kapat\u0131lan \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011fretim kurum ve kurulu\u015flar\u0131 ile \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011frenci yurtlar\u0131 ve pansiyonlar\u0131n\u0131n faaliyetlerini s\u00fcrd\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc d\u00f6nemde \u00fczerilerinde bulunduklar\u0131, m\u00fclkiyeti kapat\u0131lanlar\u0131n sahibi olan ger\u00e7ek veya t\u00fczel ki\u015filere ait ta\u015f\u0131nmazlardan 1\/1\/2014 tarihi ile bahse konu yerlerin kapat\u0131lma tarihleri aras\u0131nda \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filere devri yap\u0131lan ve \u00fczerinde kapat\u0131lanlar taraf\u0131ndan ayn\u0131 faaliyete kapat\u0131lma tarihi itibar\u0131yla devam edilen ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n devir i\u015flemlerinin muvazaal\u0131 kabul edilece\u011fi ve ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n tapuda ilgisine g\u00f6re Hazine veya Vak\u0131flar Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ad\u0131na her t\u00fcrl\u00fc k\u0131s\u0131tlama ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz y\u00fck\u00fcnden ari olarak resen tescil edilece\u011fi d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Afyonkarahisar Valili\u011fi Mill\u00ee Emlak M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, ba\u015fvurucu ile Menba A.\u015e. aras\u0131ndaki sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011funu kabul ederek 675 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 12. maddesi uyar\u0131nca ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n Hazine ad\u0131na tescili i\u00e7in Afyonkarahisar Tapu M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne yaz\u0131 yazm\u0131\u015f ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz 11\/11\/2016 tarihinde Hazine ad\u0131na tescil edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Afyonkarahisar Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirketin ortaklar\u0131n\u0131n da aralar\u0131nda oldu\u011fu, muvazaal\u0131 olarak sat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddia edilen ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131 devralanlar hakk\u0131nda silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyeli\u011fi su\u00e7undan soru\u015fturma ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015f; soru\u015fturma sonucunda ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirketin ortaklar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucu, Hazine ad\u0131na yap\u0131lan tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptali talebiyle 7\/5\/2018 tarihinde Afyonkarahisar 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu dava dilek\u00e7esinde otuz y\u0131l\u0131 a\u015fk\u0131n s\u00fcredir yakla\u015f\u0131k 150 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131 ile faaliyet g\u00f6steren aktif bir \u015firket oldu\u011funu, \u00e7evre yolu ve kav\u015fak ba\u011flant\u0131 noktalar\u0131na yak\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve b\u00fcy\u00fckl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc itibar\u0131yla hastane yap\u0131m\u0131na uygun olan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 sa\u011fl\u0131k sekt\u00f6r\u00fcne yat\u0131r\u0131m yapmak i\u00e7in bir emlak firmas\u0131 arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla buldu\u011funu, sat\u0131c\u0131 ile aralar\u0131nda sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi imzalad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucu ayr\u0131ca OHAL d\u00f6neminde \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan KHK ile sat\u0131c\u0131 Menba A.\u015e.ye ait e\u011fitim kurumlar\u0131n\u0131n faaliyetinin sonland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 \u00fczerine sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde d\u00fczenlenen s\u0131ral\u0131 \u00f6demelerin hangi kurum ve kurulu\u015fa yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 hususunda defterdarl\u0131\u011fa m\u00fcracaatta bulunup defterdarl\u0131\u011f\u0131n yaz\u0131s\u0131 uyar\u0131nca \u00f6demelere devam etti\u011fini, h\u00e2l b\u00f6yle iken yap\u0131lan sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 olarak kabul edilmesinin do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n yeniden ad\u0131na tesciline karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. Hazine, savunma yaz\u0131s\u0131nda dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin 1\/1\/2014 tarihi ile Menba A.\u015e.nin kapat\u0131lma tarihleri aras\u0131na denk gelen 26\/2\/2016 tarihinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011fini, sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminden sonra kapat\u0131lan Menba A.\u015e.nin kapat\u0131lma tarihine kadar e\u011fitim ve \u00f6\u011fretim faaliyetinin m\u00fcfredat\u0131nda yer alan spor faaliyetlerine an\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmazda devam etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Hazine ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011funu, 675 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK h\u00fckm\u00fc gere\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tapuda Hazine ad\u0131na tescilinin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. Mahkeme, yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazda ke\u015fif yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ke\u015fif sonucu al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporunda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n bedelinin devir tarihi olan 26\/2\/2016 tarihinde 6.987.516,80 TL, dava tarihinde 8.869.866,40 TL oldu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. Yine yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucunun ta\u015f\u0131nmaz bedelini taksitli olarak \u00f6demek i\u00e7in ke\u015fide etti\u011fi \u00e7eklerden vadesi gelenlerin Defterdarl\u0131k Muhasebe M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne \u00f6dendi\u011fini tespit etmi\u015f; vadesi gelip de \u00f6denmeyen \u00e7eklerin bedelini ise ba\u015fvurucuya depo ettirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
17. Mahkeme 28\/2\/2019 tarihinde davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar vermi\u015ftir. Mahkeme ke\u015fif sonucu al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporuna g\u00f6re sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesindeki de\u011fer ile ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tapudaki devir tarihi itibar\u0131yla ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferinin \u00f6rt\u00fc\u015fmesi, ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirketin ortaklar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131na (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan yap\u0131lan soru\u015fturma sonucunda kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi, Menba A.\u015e. ile ba\u015fvurucu aras\u0131nda fiil\u00ee veya hukuki bir ba\u011flant\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilememesi nedeniyle sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca bedele ili\u015fkin \u00f6demelerin bir k\u0131sm\u0131 yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015fken kalan \u00f6demelerin yap\u0131lmaya devam edildi\u011finin yaz\u0131l\u0131 delillerle ispat edilmesi kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin 1\/1\/2014 tarihi ile Menba A.\u015e.nin kapat\u0131lma tarihleri aras\u0131na denk gelen 26\/2\/2016 tarihinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesinin tek ba\u015f\u0131na muvazaan\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in yeterli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme, sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminden sonra ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki spor salonunun 2015-2016 e\u011fitim ve \u00f6\u011fretim d\u00f6nemi sonuna kadar Menba A.\u015e.nin kullan\u0131m\u0131na bedelsiz olarak verilmesinin sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan bir h\u00fck\u00fcm oldu\u011funu, bu hususun da hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131 ile ticari ili\u015fkilere uygun oldu\u011funu de\u011ferlendirmi\u015f; ba\u015fvurucuya yap\u0131lan devir i\u015fleminde muvazaa bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu, bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti nedeniyle, daval\u0131 idare ise an\u0131lan karar\u0131n hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu gibi ba\u015fvurucunun s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde ilgili idareye ba\u015fvurmamas\u0131 nedeniyle hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrenin ge\u00e7ti\u011fi iddias\u0131yla istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
19. Konya B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi Birinci Hukuk Dairesi (B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi) 19\/6\/2019 tarihinde mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve yeniden h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131na karar vererek temyiz yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20.B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi, gerek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucu ile dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 Menba A.\u015e. aras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde bulunan spor salonunun 2015-2016e\u011fitim ve \u00f6\u011fretim y\u0131l\u0131 sonunda kadar sat\u0131c\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan bedelsiz kullan\u0131laca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, taraflar\u0131n dilerse bu tarihten sonra da sat\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmazdan yararlanaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile kararla\u015ft\u0131rabilece\u011finin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu s\u00f6zle\u015fme uyar\u0131nca sat\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 kullanmaya devam etti\u011fine, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki spor salonunun ve arsan\u0131n zilyetli\u011finin sat\u0131c\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan herhangi bir \u015fekilde ba\u015fvurucuya teslim edildi\u011finin iddia ve ispat edilemedi\u011fine i\u015faret etmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca 7.000.000 TL olarak kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan bedelin ticari team\u00fcllere g\u00f6re pe\u015fin \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fi h\u00e2lde 2.962.474 TL’lik k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n taksitlere ba\u011flanmas\u0131 ve banka kredi borcu taksitlerinin \u00fcstlenilmesi neticesinde sat\u0131\u015f s\u0131ras\u0131nda yaln\u0131zca 709.510 TL’lik k\u0131sm\u0131n pe\u015fin olarak \u00f6dendi\u011fi tespitini yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu tespitlerden hareketle e\u011fitim kurumunun devrine ra\u011fmen dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazda faaliyetine devam etmesi ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f bedelinin ticari team\u00fcllere ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak %10’unun pe\u015fin \u00f6denmesi hususlar\u0131n\u0131n taraflar\u0131n ger\u00e7ek ama\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 gizleyerek kapat\u0131lan e\u011fitim kurumu hakk\u0131nda gelecekte yap\u0131lmas\u0131 muhtemel soru\u015fturmalarda s\u00f6z konusu olabilecek elkoyma ve m\u00fcsadere kararlar\u0131n\u0131 etkisiz k\u0131lmak amac\u0131yla ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen sat\u0131\u015flardan oldu\u011fu ve 675 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 12. maddesinde yer alan muvazaa \u015fart\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. Ba\u015fvurucu, muvazaa ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 temyiz yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Yarg\u0131tay 15\/9\/2020 tarihinde B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n usul ve kanuna uygun oldu\u011funu de\u011ferlendirerek onama karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
22. Nihai karar 27\/10\/2020 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucuya tebli\u011f edilmi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu 20\/11\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
A. \u0130lgili Mevzuat<\/p>\n
23. 667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 2. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“(1) Milli g\u00fcvenli\u011fe tehdit olu\u015fturdu\u011fu tespit edilen Fethullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fcne (FET\u00d6\/PDY) aidiyeti, iltisak\u0131 veya irtibat\u0131 belirlenen;<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
b) Ekli (II) say\u0131l\u0131 listede yer alan \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011fretim kurum ve kurulu\u015flar\u0131 ile \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011frenci yurtlar\u0131 ve pansiyonlar\u0131,<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
kapat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u00a0(2) … kapat\u0131lan di\u011fer kurum ve kurulu\u015flara ait olan ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131rlar ile her t\u00fcrl\u00fc mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131, alacak ve haklar, belge ve evrak Hazineye bedelsiz olarak devredilmi\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r, bunlara ait ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar tapuda resen Hazine ad\u0131na, her t\u00fcrl\u00fc k\u0131s\u0131tlama ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz y\u00fck\u00fcnden ari olarak tescil edilir …<\/p>\n
\u00a0(3) Milli g\u00fcvenli\u011fe tehdit olu\u015fturdu\u011fu tespit edilen yap\u0131, olu\u015fum veya gruplara ya da ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctlerine \u00fcyeli\u011fi veya iltisak\u0131 ya da bunlarla irtibat\u0131 belirlenen ve ekli listelerde yer almayan \u00f6zel ve vak\u0131f sa\u011fl\u0131k kurum ve kurulu\u015flar\u0131, \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011fretim kurum ve kurulu\u015flar\u0131 ile \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011frenci yurtlar\u0131 ve pansiyonlar\u0131, vak\u0131flar, dernekler, vak\u0131f y\u00fcksek\u00f6\u011fretim kurumlar\u0131, sendikalar, federasyonlar ve konfederasyonlar, ilgili bakanl\u0131klarda bakan taraf\u0131ndan olu\u015fturulacak komisyonun teklifi \u00fczerine bakan onay\u0131 ile kapat\u0131l\u0131r. Bu f\u0131kra kapsam\u0131nda kapat\u0131lan kurum ve kurulu\u015flar hakk\u0131nda da ikinci f\u0131kra h\u00fck\u00fcmleri uygulan\u0131r.<\/p>\n
…” <\/p>\n
24. 15\/8\/2016 tarihli ve 670 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Al\u0131nmas\u0131 Gereken Tedbirler Hakk\u0131nda Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin 5. maddesinin (3) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Kapat\u0131lan kurum, kurulu\u015f, \u00f6zel radyo ve televizyonlar, gazete, dergi, yay\u0131nevi ve da\u011f\u0131t\u0131m kanallar\u0131n\u0131n ba\u011fl\u0131 olduklar\u0131 \u015firketlerin faaliyetleri sonland\u0131r\u0131larak ticari sicil kay\u0131tlar\u0131 resen terkin edilir. Bunlar\u0131n devral\u0131nan varl\u0131klar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki varl\u0131klar\u0131 da Hazineye bedelsiz devredilmi\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r…”<\/p>\n
25. 675 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 12. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“(1) 20\/7\/2016 tarihli ve 2016\/9064 say\u0131l\u0131 Bakanlar Kurulu Karar\u0131yla \u00fclke genelinde ilan edilen ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc hal kapsam\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe konulan kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcnde kararnameler gere\u011fince kapat\u0131lan \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011fretim kurum ve kurulu\u015flar\u0131 ile \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011frenci yurtlar\u0131 ve pansiyonlar\u0131n\u0131n faaliyetlerinin s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc d\u00f6nemde \u00fczerlerinde bulunduklar\u0131, m\u00fclkiyeti kapat\u0131lanlar\u0131n sahibi ger\u00e7ek veya t\u00fczel ki\u015filere ait ta\u015f\u0131nmazlardan 1\/1\/2014 tarihi ila bahse konu yerlerin kapat\u0131lma tarihleri aras\u0131nda \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filere devri yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan ve \u00fczerinde kapat\u0131lanlar taraf\u0131ndan ayn\u0131 faaliyete kapat\u0131lma tarihi itibar\u0131yla devam edilen ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n devir i\u015flemleri muvazaal\u0131 kabul edilir ve tapuda ilgisine g\u00f6re Hazine veya Vak\u0131flar Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ad\u0131na her t\u00fcrl\u00fc k\u0131s\u0131tlama ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz y\u00fck\u00fcnden ari olarak resen tescil edilir.”<\/p>\n
26. 675 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 12. maddesi 6\/2\/2018 tarihli ve 7082 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Baz\u0131 Tedbirler Al\u0131nmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararnamenin Kabul Edilmesine Dair Kanun’un 8\/3\/2018 tarihli ve 30354 m\u00fckerrer say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanarak y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girmesi sonucu aynen kanunla\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
27. 11\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu’nun “S\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin yorumu, muvazaal\u0131 i\u015flemler” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 19. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin t\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn ve i\u00e7eri\u011finin belirlenmesinde ve yorumlanmas\u0131nda, taraflar\u0131n yanl\u0131\u015fl\u0131kla veya ger\u00e7ek ama\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 gizlemek i\u00e7in kulland\u0131klar\u0131 s\u00f6zc\u00fcklere bak\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n, ger\u00e7ek ve ortak iradeleri esas al\u0131n\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bor\u00e7lu, yaz\u0131l\u0131 bir bor\u00e7 tan\u0131mas\u0131na g\u00fcvenerek alaca\u011f\u0131 kazanm\u0131\u015f olan \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fiye kar\u015f\u0131, bu i\u015flemin muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011fu savunmas\u0131nda bulunamaz.”<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlar\u0131<\/p>\n
28. Anayasa Mahkemesi 7082 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 12. maddesine benzer bir h\u00fck\u00fcm i\u00e7eren 6\/2\/2018 tarihli ve 7086 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Baz\u0131 Tedbirler Al\u0131nmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararnamenin Kabul Edilmesine Dair Kanun’un 4. maddesinin iptali istemini incelemi\u015f; 24\/6\/2021 tarihli ve E.2018\/81, K.2021\/45 say\u0131l\u0131 kararla an\u0131lan maddeyi iptal etmi\u015ftir. \u0130ptal karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“…<\/p>\n
367. Kuralda, 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 133. maddesi gere\u011fi kayy\u0131m atanan \u015firketlerde ortakl\u0131k pay ve haklar\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak soru\u015fturman\u0131n ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihten, kural\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girdi\u011fi tarihe kadarki s\u00fcre\u00e7te yap\u0131lan devir ve temliklerin muvazaal\u0131 kabul edilerek iptal edilece\u011fi h\u00fckme ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
370. Kuralla, 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 133. maddesi gere\u011fi kayy\u0131m atanan \u015firketlerde ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarih ile kural\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girdi\u011fi tarihler aras\u0131nda hukuk d\u00fczeninin \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u015fekilde \u015firket ortakl\u0131k pay ve hakk\u0131 elde eden ki\u015filerin devir ve temliklerinin ge\u00e7ersiz say\u0131larak iptal edilmesi, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi hukuk d\u00fczeninin \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u015fekilde ge\u00e7erli olarak yap\u0131lan devir ve temliklerin temelinde yatan i\u015flemlerin (hisse devir s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, alaca\u011f\u0131n temliki vs.) ge\u00e7ersiz say\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 48. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan s\u00f6zle\u015fme \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc de s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
371. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ve s\u00f6zle\u015fme \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne s\u0131n\u0131rlama getirilirken temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin genel ilkeleri d\u00fczenleyen Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinin de g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmas\u0131 gerekmektedir. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n an\u0131lan maddesi uyar\u0131nca temel haklara s\u0131n\u0131rlama getiren d\u00fczenlemelerin, Anayasa\u2019da \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen s\u0131n\u0131rlama sebebine uygun ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmas\u0131 gerekir.<\/p>\n
372. Kural\u0131n mill\u00ee g\u00fcvenli\u011fe ve kamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131 faaliyetlerin oda\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2line gelebilecek \u015firketlerin mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ka\u00e7\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nlenerek bunlar\u0131n an\u0131lan faaliyetlerde finanse edilmesini engellemek amac\u0131yla ihdas edildi\u011fi dolay\u0131s\u0131yla me\u015fru bir amac\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu ve bu amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmek i\u00e7in elveri\u015fli ve gerekli oldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenebilir.<\/p>\n
373. Kuralla, kayy\u0131m atanan \u015firketlerde ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihten 8\/3\/2018 tarihine kadarki s\u00fcre\u00e7te \u015firket ortaklar\u0131n\u0131n pay ve haklar\u0131na ili\u015fkin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerle yapt\u0131klar\u0131 devir ve temlikler muvazaal\u0131 kabul edilerek iptal edilmekte ve resen ticaret sicilinden terkin edilmektedir. Kural, yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nemde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckteki hukuk kurallar\u0131na g\u00f6re ge\u00e7erli olarak varl\u0131k kazanm\u0131\u015f ve tamamlanm\u0131\u015f hukuki i\u015flemlere do\u011frudan m\u00fcdahale ederek bu i\u015flemlerin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fini ortadan kald\u0131rmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
374. Kural kapsam\u0131ndaki devir ve temlikler (s\u00f6zle\u015fmeler), aksinin iddia ve ispat edilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmayan kanuni bir karine olu\u015fturulmak suretiyle ge\u00e7ersiz hale getirilmektedir. Ba\u015fka bir ifadeyle kayy\u0131m atanan \u015firketlerde ortakl\u0131k pay ve hakk\u0131n\u0131 devralan iyiniyetli \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerin kuralla getirilen kanuni karinenin aksini yani i\u015flemin muvazaal\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia ve ispat etme imk\u00e2nlar\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle kural\u0131n ihdas amac\u0131na uygun kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayacak ve bu konudaki keyf\u00eelikleri \u00f6nleyecek yasal g\u00fcvencelerin temin edilmedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
375. Buna g\u00f6re hukuki ili\u015fkinin kuruldu\u011fu tarih itibariyle y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte olan kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine uygun olarak kazan\u0131lan \u015firket ortakl\u0131k pay ve hakk\u0131n\u0131n aksinin iddia ve ispat edilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmayan kanuni bir karineyle muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011fu kabul edilerek ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6ren kural, ki\u015filere a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckleyerek m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ve s\u00f6zle\u015fme \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne orant\u0131s\u0131z ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz bir s\u0131n\u0131rlama getirmektedir.<\/p>\n
376. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede kural\u0131n ola\u011fan d\u00f6nemde Anayasa\u2019ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde yap\u0131lan tespit, kurallar\u0131n ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc d\u00f6nemde Anayasa\u2019ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirmeyi kapsamamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
377. A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle kural Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13., 35. ve 48. maddelerine ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r. \u0130ptali gerekir.<\/p>\n
…”<\/p>\n
29. Anayasa Mahkemesi 7082 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 12. maddesinin (1) ve (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kralar\u0131n\u0131n iptali istemini incelemi\u015f; 31\/5\/2023 tarihli ve E.2018\/77, K.2023\/105 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131yla f\u0131kralar\u0131 iptal etmi\u015ftir. \u0130ptal karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“…<\/p>\n
260. Dava konusu kurallar ile 7086 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 4. maddesi benzer niteliktedir. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 24\/6\/2021 tarihli ve E.2018\/81, K.2021\/45 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131yla s\u00f6z konusu maddenin Anayasa\u2019ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funa ve iptaline h\u00fckmedilmi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n
261. An\u0131lan karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde kural kapsam\u0131ndaki devir ve temliklerin (s\u00f6zle\u015fmeler), aksinin iddia ve ispat edilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmayan kanuni bir karine olu\u015fturulmak suretiyle ge\u00e7ersiz h\u00e2le getirildi\u011fi, ba\u015fka bir ifadeyle kayy\u0131m atanan \u015firketlerde ortakl\u0131k pay ve hakk\u0131n\u0131 devralan iyiniyetli \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerin kuralla getirilen kanuni karinenin aksini yani i\u015flemin muvazaal\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia ve ispat etme imk\u00e2nlar\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle kural\u0131n ihdas amac\u0131na uygun kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayacak ve bu konudaki keyf\u00eelikleri \u00f6nleyecek yasal g\u00fcvencelerin temin edilmedi\u011fi; hukuki ili\u015fkinin kuruldu\u011fu tarih itibar\u0131yla y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte olan kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine uygun olarak kazan\u0131lan \u015firket ortakl\u0131k pay ve hakk\u0131n\u0131n aksinin iddia ve ispat edilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmayan kanuni bir karineyle muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011funun kabul edilerek ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6ren kural\u0131n, ki\u015filere a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckleyerek m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ve s\u00f6zle\u015fme \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne orant\u0131s\u0131z ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz bir s\u0131n\u0131rlama getirdi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir (AYM, E.2018\/81, K. 2021\/45, 24\/6\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 369-376) .<\/p>\n
262. Dava konusu kurallar a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan s\u00f6z konusu karardan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan 7086 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 4. maddesinin Anayasa\u2019ya uygunluk denetiminde belirtilen gerek\u00e7eler bu kurallar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de ge\u00e7erlidir.<\/p>\n
263. A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle kurallar, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13., 35. ve 48. maddelerine ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r. \u0130ptalleri gerekir.”<\/p>\n
C. Yarg\u0131tay Kararlar\u0131<\/p>\n
30. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 5\/7\/2023 tarihli ve E.2022\/9-905, K.2023\/725 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“…<\/p>\n
8. T\u00fcrk Hukuk L\u00fbgat\u0131nda muvazaan\u0131n ‘Anla\u015fmal\u0131 sapt\u0131rma, ger\u00e7ek d\u0131\u015f\u0131 durumlara ger\u00e7ekmi\u015f niteli\u011fini kazand\u0131rma i\u015flemi; hukuksal bir i\u015flem konusunda ger\u00e7ek duruma ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131kta birle\u015filerek yap\u0131lan ortak a\u00e7\u0131klama (beyan) ya da ortaya konulan belge; dan\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131 i\u015flem’ (T\u00fcrk Hukuk L\u00fbgat\u0131 T\u00fcrk\u00e7e-T\u00fcrk\u00e7e, Ankara-2021 Bask\u0131, Cilt-I, s. 819) \u015feklinde yap\u0131lan tan\u0131m\u0131ndan hareketle muvazaa, taraflar\u0131n \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fileri aldatmak amac\u0131 ile ve fakat kendi ger\u00e7ek iradelerine uymayan ve aralar\u0131nda h\u00fck\u00fcm ve sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmayan bir g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f yaratmak hususunda anla\u015fmalar\u0131 olarak ifade edilebilir.<\/p>\n
9. Bir di\u011fer deyi\u015fle, irade a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131nda bulunan taraflar bu a\u00e7\u0131klaman\u0131n sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmamas\u0131 konusunda anla\u015fm\u0131\u015flar, yaln\u0131z ger\u00e7ek bir hukuki i\u015flemin bulundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc yaratmay\u0131 istemi\u015flerse muvazaadan s\u00f6z edilir.<\/p>\n
10. Taraflar ister yaln\u0131z bir g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f yaratmay\u0131, ister ikinci bir gizli i\u015flem yapmay\u0131 arzu etmi\u015f olsunlar, g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015fteki (zahiri) i\u015flem taraflar\u0131n ger\u00e7ek iradelerine uymad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ilke olarak herhangi bir sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmaz. Muvazaada, g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015fteki i\u015flemin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc hukuki sonu\u00e7tan yoksun olmas\u0131, taraflar\u0131n ortak iradelerinin bu yolda olmas\u0131ndan kaynaklanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
11.Kural olarak hi\u00e7 kimse kendi muvazaas\u0131na dayanarak bir hak talep edemez. Kald\u0131 ki b\u00f6yle bir hak talebi herkesin haklar\u0131n\u0131 kullan\u0131rken ve bor\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 yerine getirirken d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kurallar\u0131na uymak zorunda oldu\u011fu, bir hakk\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n hukuk d\u00fczenince korunamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirten 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun (4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun) 2 nci maddesine de ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r…”<\/p>\n
31. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 22\/3\/2023 tarihli ve E.2023\/11-214, K.2023\/246 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“… 3. 6103 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun Y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve Uygulama \u015eekli Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 1 inci maddesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n devir tarihleri itibariyle somut olaya uygulanacak olan 818 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 18 inci maddesinde muvazaa kurumu d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f olup buna g\u00f6re muvazaa; bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin taraflar\u0131n\u0131n, \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerden ger\u00e7ek durumu gizleyerek, onlar\u0131 aldatmak maksad\u0131yla, ger\u00e7ek iradelerine uymayan ve kendi aralar\u0131nda ge\u00e7erli olmayan bir hususta anla\u015fmalar\u0131d\u0131r. Bu \u015fekilde yap\u0131lan i\u015flemlere de, muvazaal\u0131 i\u015flemler ad\u0131 verilir.<\/p>\n
4. Muvazaa daha \u00e7ok s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin yorumuyla ilgili oldu\u011fundan, \u00f6\u011freti ve uygulamada kapsaml\u0131 olarak incelenmi\u015f ve belirli kurallara ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Gerek \u00f6\u011fretide ve gerekse uygulamada muvazaa, mutlak ve nispi muvazaa olarak iki gruba ayr\u0131lmaktad\u0131r; mutlak muvazaada taraflar herhangi bir hukuki i\u015flem yapmay\u0131 (olu\u015fturmay\u0131) istemezler, yaln\u0131z g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015fte bir hukuki i\u015flem i\u00e7in gerekli irade a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131nda bulunurlar; nispi muvazaada ise taraflar ger\u00e7ekten belli bir hukuki i\u015flem yapmak isterler, ancak onu saklamak amac\u0131yla, bir ba\u015fka hukuki i\u015flemin kuruldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc yaratmak \u00fczere irade a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131nda bulunurlar.<\/p>\n
5. Taraflar ister sadece bir g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f yaratmay\u0131, ister ikinci bir gizli i\u015flem yapmay\u0131 arzu etmi\u015f olsunlar, g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015fteki (zahiri) i\u015flem taraflar\u0131n ger\u00e7ek iradelerine uymad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, ilke olarak herhangi bir sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmaz. Muvazaada g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015fteki i\u015flemin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc hukuki sonu\u00e7tan yoksun olmas\u0131, taraflar\u0131n ortak iradelerinin bu yolda olmas\u0131ndan kaynaklanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. Muvazaa iddias\u0131n\u0131 dile getiren ki\u015finin muvazaal\u0131 i\u015flemin taraf\u0131 olup olmamas\u0131 ispat kurallar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden farkl\u0131 sonu\u00e7lar do\u011furur. Muvazaal\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin taraflar\u0131ndan biri akdin muvazaa nedeniyle h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ileri s\u00fcrmesi halinde bu iddias\u0131n\u0131 ispatla m\u00fckelleftir. Bu noktada \u00f6nemli olan di\u011fer taraf\u0131n muvazaay\u0131 inkar\u0131 halinde iddian\u0131n ne \u015fekilde ispat edilece\u011fidir.<\/p>\n
7. Kanunun muayyen bir delil ile ispat\u0131n\u0131 emretti\u011fi hususlar ba\u015fka suretle ispat olunamazlar. Bu durumun bir tezah\u00fcr\u00fc senede kar\u015f\u0131 senetle ispat kural\u0131d\u0131r. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 201 inci maddesinde senede ba\u011fl\u0131 her \u00e7e\u015fit iddiaya kar\u015f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen ve senedin h\u00fck\u00fcm ve kuvvetini ortadan kald\u0131racak veya azaltacak nitelikte bulunan hukuki i\u015flemlerin miktara bak\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n tan\u0131kla ispat olunamayaca\u011f\u0131 d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Muvazaan\u0131n ispat\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan da ayn\u0131 kural ge\u00e7erlidir. Taraflar muvazaal\u0131 i\u015flemini bir senede ba\u011flad\u0131klar\u0131na g\u00f6re bunun muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011funu da bir senede ba\u011flayabilirler. Aksi y\u00f6ndeki bir kabul senetlerin k\u0131ymetini azaltacak ve ciddi bir hukuki i\u015flem ile sorumluluk alt\u0131na giren ki\u015fi hal ve \u015fartlar kendisi i\u00e7in uygun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin h\u00fck\u00fcm ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131ndan kurtulmak i\u00e7in ger\u00e7ekte mevcut olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 halde muvazaa iddias\u0131nda bulunup, bunu \u015fahitle ispat edebilecektir (Turhan Esener, T\u00fcrk Hususi Hukukunda Muvazaal\u0131 Muameleler, \u0130stanbul 1956, s. 85). \u0130spat\u0131 veya do\u011fumu muayyen bir \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131 olmayan i\u015flemlerde muvazaa iddias\u0131 ise her t\u00fcrl\u00fc delil ile ispatlanabilir(Esener,s. 89).<\/p>\n
9. Muvazaa olgusu taraflar\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra muvazaal\u0131 i\u015flemin butlan\u0131n\u0131 talep etmekte do\u011frudan do\u011fruya veya dolayl\u0131 \u015fekilde hukuki menfaati bulunan ki\u015filer taraf\u0131ndan da ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclebilir. Ancak bu halde yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan ispatta s\u0131k\u0131 \u015fekil ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 aranmaz ve iddia tan\u0131k dahil her t\u00fcrl\u00fc delil ile ispat edilebilir. Bu durum HMK’n\u0131n 203 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinde a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.”<\/p>\n
32. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 26\/9\/2019 tarihli ve E.2018\/13-318, K.2019\/957 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“… Konunun ayd\u0131nlat\u0131lmas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan genel olarak m\u00fclga 818 say\u0131l\u0131 Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun (BK) 18. maddesinde (6098 s. T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu, m. 19) d\u00fczenlenen genel muvazaa ile 2004 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130cra \u0130flas Kanununun 277 ve devam\u0131 maddelerinde d\u00fczenlenen tasarrufun iptali davalar\u0131na de\u011finilmesinde yarar bulunmaktad\u0131r:<\/p>\n
818 say\u0131l\u0131 m\u00fclga BK\u2019n\u0131n 18. maddesinde;<\/p>\n
‘Bir akdin \u015fekil ve \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131 tayininde, iki taraf\u0131n gerek sehven gerek akitteki hakiki maksatlar\u0131n\u0131 gizlemek i\u00e7in kulland\u0131klar\u0131 tabirlere ve isimlere bak\u0131lm\u0131yarak, onlar\u0131n hakiki ve m\u00fc\u015fterek maksatlar\u0131n\u0131 aramak laz\u0131md\u0131r. Tahriri bor\u00e7 ikrar\u0131na istinat ile alacakl\u0131 s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131 iktisabeden ba\u015fkas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131, bor\u00e7lu taraf\u0131ndan muvazaa iddias\u0131 dermeyan olunamaz.’ h\u00fckm\u00fc ile genel muvazaa d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere taraflar\u0131n \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fileri aldatmak amac\u0131 ile ger\u00e7ek durumu onlardan gizleyerek kendi ger\u00e7ek iradelerine uymayan ve kendi aralar\u0131nda ge\u00e7erli olmayan bir hususta anla\u015fmalar\u0131na muvazaa ve bu \u015fekilde yap\u0131lan i\u015flemlere de muvazaal\u0131 i\u015flemler denilir. Bir ba\u015fka s\u00f6yleyi\u015fle muvazaa a\u00e7\u0131klanan beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ek maksatlar\u0131na uymad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 bildikleri h\u00e2lde, taraflar\u0131n kastettikleri durumdan ba\u015fka bir ili\u015fkide kendilerini anla\u015fm\u0131\u015f gibi g\u00f6stermeleri h\u00e2li (7.10.1953 Tarih, 8\/7 Say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131), taraflar\u0131n \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fileri aldatmak amac\u0131yla kendi ger\u00e7ek iradelerine uymayan haks\u0131z eylem niteli\u011finde anla\u015fmalar\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Muvazaal\u0131 bir hukuki i\u015flemden bahsedebilmek i\u00e7in;<\/p>\n
a)Taraflar\u0131n iradeleri ile beyanlar\u0131 aras\u0131nda isteyerek yarat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bir uygunsuzluk,<\/p>\n
b) \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fileri aldatmak (muvazaa) niyeti,<\/p>\n
c) Taraflar aras\u0131nda gizli i\u015flemi yaratan muvazaa s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi bulunmal\u0131d\u0131r…”<\/p>\n
33. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 1\/3\/2023 tarihli ve E.2021\/1-610, K.2023\/164 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“17. Muvazaa daha \u00e7ok s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin yorumuyla ilgili oldu\u011fundan, \u00f6\u011freti ve uygulamada kapsaml\u0131 olarak incelenmi\u015f ve belirli kurallara ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Gerek \u00f6\u011fretide ve gerekse uygulamada muvazaa, mutlak ve nispi muvazaa olarak iki gruba ayr\u0131lmaktad\u0131r; mutlak muvazaada taraflar herhangi bir hukuk\u00ee i\u015flem yapmay\u0131 (olu\u015fturmay\u0131) istemezler, yaln\u0131z g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015fte bir hukuk\u00ee i\u015flem i\u00e7in gerekli irade a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131nda bulunurlar; nispi muvazaada ise taraflar ger\u00e7ekten belli bir hukuk\u00ee i\u015flem yapmak isterler, ancak onu saklamak amac\u0131yla, bir ba\u015fka hukuk\u00ee i\u015flemin kuruldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc yaratmak \u00fczere irade a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131nda bulunurlar.<\/p>\n
18. Taraflar ister yaln\u0131z bir g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f yaratmay\u0131, ister ikinci bir gizli i\u015flem yapmay\u0131 arzu etmi\u015f olsunlar, g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015fteki (zahiri) i\u015flem taraflar\u0131n ger\u00e7ek iradelerine uymad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, ilke olarak herhangi bir sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmaz. Muvazaada g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015fteki i\u015flemin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc hukuk\u00ee sonu\u00e7tan yoksun olmas\u0131, taraflar\u0131n ortak iradelerinin bu yolda olmas\u0131ndan kaynaklanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
30. Bir i\u00e7 sorun olan ve gizlenen ger\u00e7ek irade ve amac\u0131n tespiti ve ayd\u0131nl\u0131\u011fa kavu\u015fturulmas\u0131 ise genellikle zor oldu\u011fundan bu y\u00f6ndeki delillerin eksiksiz toplanmas\u0131 yan\u0131nda, birlikte ve do\u011fru \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirilmesi de b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131nmaktad\u0131r. Bunun i\u00e7in de \u00fclke ve y\u00f6renin gelenek ve g\u00f6renekleri, toplumsal e\u011filimleri, olaylar\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131, miras b\u0131rakan\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi yapmakta hakl\u0131 ve makul bir nedeninin bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131 yan\u0131n al\u0131\u015f g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, sat\u0131\u015f bedeli ile s\u00f6zle\u015fme tarihindeki ger\u00e7ek de\u011fer aras\u0131ndaki fark, taraflar ile miras b\u0131rakan aras\u0131ndaki be\u015feri ili\u015fki gibi olgulardan yararlan\u0131lmas\u0131nda zorunluluk vard\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
34. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 28\/3\/2024 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130ddialar\u0131 ve Bakanl\u0131k G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/p>\n
35. Ba\u015fvuru formunda ba\u015fvurucu;<\/p>\n
i. Ba\u015fvuru konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 Afyonkarahisar’da faaliyet g\u00f6steren bir emlak dan\u0131\u015fmanl\u0131k firmas\u0131 arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve firmaya bu hizmet i\u00e7in \u00f6deme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131,<\/p>\n
ii. Ba\u015fvuru konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n arsa niteli\u011finde oldu\u011funu, \u00fczerinde kay\u0131tlarda g\u00f6r\u00fcnmeyen bir spor salonu bulundu\u011funu, sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde e\u011fitim ve \u00f6\u011fretim y\u0131l\u0131 sonuna kadar salonun kulland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131,<\/p>\n
iii. Bireysel ba\u015fvuruya konu arsa \u00fczerinde sat\u0131c\u0131 Menba A.\u015e.nin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz kredi borcundan kaynaklanan banka ipote\u011fi oldu\u011funu, Menba A.\u015e. ile aralar\u0131nda imzalad\u0131klar\u0131 sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesiyle ipotekle temin edilen bu borcu \u00fcstlendi\u011fini, bu nedenle bu bor\u00e7 tutar\u0131 ile tapu harc\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f bedelinden mahsup edildi\u011fini,<\/p>\n
iv. Menba A.\u015e.nin faaliyetine son verildi\u011fini \u00f6\u011frenir \u00f6\u011frenmez iyi niyetinin g\u00f6stergesi olarak \u00f6denmeyen \u00e7eklerin hangi kurum veya kurulu\u015fa \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fini sordu\u011funu, Afyonkarahisar Defterdarl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n an\u0131lan cevabi yaz\u0131s\u0131 \u00fczerine sat\u0131\u015f \u00f6deme plan\u0131ndaki \u00e7eklerin FET\u00d6\/PDY mensuplar\u0131na \u00f6denmemesi amac\u0131yla sulh ceza h\u00e2kimli\u011finden tedbiren \u00f6deme yasa\u011f\u0131 karar\u0131 ald\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00f6deme yasa\u011f\u0131 karar\u0131 sonras\u0131 \u00e7ek bedellerini Afyonkarahisar Defterdarl\u0131\u011f\u0131na \u00f6demeye devam etti\u011fini,<\/p>\n
v. Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Vergi Denetim Kurulunun Denizli K\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck ve Orta \u00d6l\u00e7ekli M\u00fckellefler Grup Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n Afyonkarahisar Defterdarl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 4\/11\/2016 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131na cevaben verdi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fte, ihtilaf konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n muvazaa i\u00e7ermeyip ger\u00e7ek oldu\u011funu ve okullar\u0131n kararname ile kapat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte sat\u0131\u015fa konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki spor salonunun sat\u0131c\u0131 firman\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131nda olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bildirdi\u011fini,<\/p>\n
vi. Ba\u015fvuruya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 bilirki\u015fi taraf\u0131ndan tespit edilen de\u011ferde sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n bedelinin fazlal\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ticari hayat\u0131n gerekleri dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6demenin tek seferde yap\u0131lmamas\u0131n\u0131n muvazaa olarak kabul edilemeyece\u011fini, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n Hazineye devredilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ile adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
36. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n Hazine ad\u0131na tesciline ili\u015fkin i\u015flemin iptali talebiyle ba\u015fvurucunun dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair bilgi vermedi\u011fi, tapu iptali ve tescili davas\u0131 \u00fczerinden \u015fik\u00e2yetlerini ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ancak i\u015flemin temelde bir idari i\u015flem oldu\u011fu, bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucunun iptal i\u00e7in idari yarg\u0131 nezdinde dava a\u00e7abilece\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucunun sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazla ilgili karar\u0131n OHAL d\u00f6neminde \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan KHK’ya dayan\u0131larak al\u0131nmas\u0131 nedeniyle yap\u0131lacak incelemede Anayasa’n\u0131n 15. maddesinin dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
37. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda \u00f6nceki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 tekrar etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
38. Anayasa’n\u0131n iddian\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesinde dayanak al\u0131nacak “M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 35. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Herkes, m\u00fclkiyet ve miras haklar\u0131na sahiptir.<\/p>\n
Bu haklar, ancak kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131yla, kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir.<\/p>\n
M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 toplum yarar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamaz.”<\/p>\n
1. Uygulanabilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
39. Anayasa’n\u0131n “Temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetlerin s\u0131n\u0131rlanmas\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 13. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetler, \u00f6zlerine dokunulmaks\u0131z\u0131n yaln\u0131zca Anayasan\u0131n ilgili maddelerinde belirtilen sebeplere ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ve ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir. Bu s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar, Anayasan\u0131n s\u00f6z\u00fcne ve ruhuna, demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin ve l\u00e2ik Cumhuriyetin gereklerine ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamaz.”<\/p>\n
40. Anayasa’n\u0131n “Temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetlerin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n durdurulmas\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 15. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Sava\u015f, seferberlik, s\u0131k\u0131y\u00f6netim veya ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc hallerde, milletleraras\u0131 hukuktan do\u011fan y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler ihl\u00e2l edilmemek kayd\u0131yla, durumun gerektirdi\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetlerin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 k\u0131smen veya tamamen durdurulabilir veya bunlar i\u00e7in Anayasada \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen g\u00fcvencelere ayk\u0131r\u0131 tedbirler al\u0131nabilir.<\/p>\n
Birinci f\u0131krada belirlenen durumlarda da, sava\u015f hukukuna uygun fiiller sonucu meydana gelen \u00f6l\u00fcmler d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, ki\u015finin ya\u015fama hakk\u0131na, madd\u00ee ve manev\u00ee varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne dokunulamaz; kimse din, vicdan, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce ve kanaatlerini a\u00e7\u0131klamaya zorlanamaz ve bunlardan dolay\u0131 su\u00e7lanamaz; su\u00e7 ve cezalar ge\u00e7mi\u015fe y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclemez; su\u00e7lulu\u011fu mahkeme karar\u0131 ile saptan\u0131ncaya kadar kimse su\u00e7lu say\u0131lamaz.”<\/p>\n
41. Ba\u015fvurucunun ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131na ili\u015fkin sat\u0131\u015f i\u015flemi muvazaal\u0131 kabul edilerek ta\u015f\u0131nmaz, Hazineye ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2l d\u00f6neminde devredilmi\u015fse de geriye d\u00f6n\u00fck olarak ola\u011fan d\u00f6nemde yap\u0131lan bir sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n muvazaal\u0131 kabul edildi\u011fi g\u00f6zetilmelidir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla yap\u0131lan i\u015flemin etkileri ola\u011fan d\u00f6nemde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve norm denetimi kapsam\u0131nda da benzer bir yorumla Anayasa’n\u0131n 15. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda inceleme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 28, 29) bireysel ba\u015fvuruda Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
42. Bakanl\u0131k, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fclkiyetinin Hazineye ge\u00e7irilmesi \u015feklinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen i\u015flemin idari bir i\u015flem oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle ba\u015fvurucunun idari yarg\u0131 yoluna ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi h\u00e2lde adli yarg\u0131 yoluna ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 nedeniyle ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131 t\u00fcketmedi\u011fi itiraz\u0131nda bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu, Hazine ad\u0131na m\u00fclkiyetin kamuya ge\u00e7irilmesi sonucu olu\u015fan tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptali ile tapuda dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kendi ad\u0131na kayd\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131larak tescil edilmesi talebiyle Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fclkiyetinin kamuya ge\u00e7irilmesinin sebebi ta\u015f\u0131nmaz al\u0131m i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131d\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla incelenmesi gereken husus muvazaa iddias\u0131 olup Mahkemece s\u00f6zkonusu iddian\u0131n incelenerek ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin esas\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurucunun idari yarg\u0131 yolunu t\u00fcketmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n gerekti\u011fi s\u00f6ylenemez. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucunun ihlal iddialar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvuru yolunu t\u00fcketti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
43. 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
3. Esas Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
a. M\u00fclk\u00fcn Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
44. Ba\u015fvurucu ad\u0131na tapuda kay\u0131tl\u0131 iken 667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 12. maddesi uyar\u0131nca resen Hazineye devredilen ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fclk olu\u015fturdu\u011fu hususu tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131zd\u0131r.<\/p>\n
b. M\u00fcdahalenin Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve T\u00fcr\u00fc<\/p>\n
45. Malikin m\u00fclk\u00fcn\u00fc kullanma, m\u00fclk\u00fcn semerelerinden yararlanma ve m\u00fclk\u00fc \u00fczerinde tasarruf etme yetkilerinden herhangi birinin s\u0131n\u0131rlanmas\u0131 m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil eder (Recep Tarhan ve Afife Tarhan, B. No: 2014\/1546, 2\/2\/2017, \u00a7 53). Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesi ile m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na temas eden di\u011fer h\u00fck\u00fcmleri birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde Anayasa’n\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahaleyle ilgili \u00fc\u00e7 kural ihtiva etti\u011fi hat\u0131rlat\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r (Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinin yap\u0131s\u0131 ve i\u00e7erdi\u011fi \u00fc\u00e7 kural ile ilgili olarak bkz. Recep Tarhan ve Afife Tarhan, \u00a7\u00a7 55-58).<\/p>\n
46. Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda herkesin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmek suretiyle m\u00fclkten bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l yararlanma hakk\u0131na yer verilmi\u015f, ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda da m\u00fclkten bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l yararlanma hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalenin \u00e7er\u00e7evesi belirlenmi\u015ftir. Maddenin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda genel olarak m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n hangi ko\u015fullarda s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilece\u011fi belirlenerek ayn\u0131 zamanda m\u00fclkten yoksun b\u0131rakman\u0131n \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n genel \u00e7er\u00e7evesi de \u00e7izilmi\u015ftir. Maddenin son f\u0131kras\u0131nda ise m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n toplum yarar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamayaca\u011f\u0131 kurala ba\u011flanmak suretiyle devletin m\u00fclkiyetin kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 kontrol etmesine ve d\u00fczenlemesine imk\u00e2n sa\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n di\u011fer baz\u0131 maddelerinde de devlet taraf\u0131ndan m\u00fclkiyetin kontrol\u00fcne imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan \u00f6zel h\u00fck\u00fcmlere yer verilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca belirtmek gerekir ki m\u00fclkten yoksun b\u0131rakma ve m\u00fclkiyetin d\u00fczenlenmesi, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6zel bi\u00e7imleridir (Recep Tarhan ve Afife Tarhan, \u00a7\u00a7 55-58).<\/p>\n
47. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 resen yap\u0131lan d\u00fczenleyici i\u015flemle idarenin m\u00fclkiyetine ge\u00e7mi\u015ftir. M\u00fcdahalenin mill\u00ee g\u00fcvenli\u011fe ve kamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131 faaliyetlerin oda\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2line gelebilecek \u015firketlerin mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ka\u00e7\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nlenerek an\u0131lan faaliyetlerle finanse edilmesini engellemek amac\u0131yla ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin m\u00fclkiyetin kamu yarar\u0131na kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n kontrol\u00fcne ve d\u00fczenlenmesine ili\u015fkin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc kural \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
c. M\u00fcdahalenin \u0130hlal Olu\u015fturup Olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
48. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rs\u0131z bir hak olarak d\u00fczenlenmemi\u015f, bu hakk\u0131n kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131yla ve kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131labilece\u011fi \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalede bulunulurken Anayasa’n\u0131n temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin genel ilkeleri d\u00fczenleyen 13. maddesi de g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmal\u0131d\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahale Anayasa’ya uygun olabilmesi i\u00e7in m\u00fcdahale kanuna dayanmal\u0131, kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mal\u0131 ve ayr\u0131ca \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi g\u00f6zetilerek yap\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r (Recep Tarhan ve Afife Tarhan, \u00a7 62).<\/p>\n
i. Kanunilik<\/p>\n
49. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucuya ait ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n Hazineye devredilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fclkiyetinin kamuya ge\u00e7irilmesi karar\u0131, 675 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 12. maddesine dayand\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 675 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 12. maddesi 7082 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girmesi sonucu aynen kanunla\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
50.Anayasa Mahkemesi 7082 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 12. maddesinin (1) ve (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kralar\u0131n\u0131n iptali talebini incelemi\u015f, 31\/5\/2023 tarihli karar\u0131yla f\u0131kralar\u0131 iptal etmi\u015ftir. \u0130ptal karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; iptal edilen h\u00fck\u00fcm kapsam\u0131ndaki devir ve temliklerin aksinin iddia edilemez kanuni bir karine olu\u015fturmak suretiyle denetlenmesinin etkisiz h\u00e2le getirildi\u011fi, s\u00f6z konusu h\u00fckm\u00fcn bireylere, devrin ger\u00e7ek bir devir oldu\u011funu ispatlamak i\u00e7in gerekli iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 etkili olarak ortaya koyabilecekleri usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvenceleri sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
51. Somut olayda ise mahkemelerce muvazaa olgusunun mevcut olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tart\u0131\u015f\u0131larak bir sonuca var\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bu durumda ba\u015fvuruya konu i\u015flem ve dava tarihi itibar\u0131yla y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte olan KHK ve kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcne dayan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, bunun yan\u0131nda somut olayda mahkemelerce muvazaa olgusunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tart\u0131\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck y\u00f6n\u00fcnden inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
ii. Me\u015fru Ama\u00e7<\/p>\n
52. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. ve 35. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ancak kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131yla s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131labilmektedir. Kamu yarar\u0131 kavram\u0131, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kamu yarar\u0131n\u0131n gerektirdi\u011fi durumlarda s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 imk\u00e2n\u0131 vermekle, bir s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rma amac\u0131 olmas\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda s\u0131n\u0131rlanamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6rerek ve bu anlamda bir s\u0131n\u0131rlama s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 olu\u015fturarak m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 etkin bir \u015fekilde korumaktad\u0131r. Kamu yarar\u0131 kavram\u0131, devlet organlar\u0131n\u0131n takdir yetkisini de beraberinde getiren bir kavram olup objektif bir tan\u0131ma elveri\u015fli olmayan bu \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn her somut olay temelinde ayr\u0131ca de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir (Nusrat K\u00fclah,B. No: 2013\/6151, 21\/4\/2016, \u00a7\u00a7 53, 56; Yunis A\u011flar, B. No: 2013\/1239, 20\/3\/2014, \u00a7\u00a7 28, 29).<\/p>\n
53. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n KHK ile kapat\u0131lan e\u011fitim kurumu taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucuya sat\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilerek m\u00fclkiyeti Hazineye ge\u00e7irilmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu m\u00fcdahalenin ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc ile irtibat\u0131 veya iltisak\u0131 oldu\u011fu saptanan kurumlar\u0131n mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlerini hileli yollarla devretmelerinin \u00f6n\u00fcne ge\u00e7mek amac\u0131yla yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda kamu yarar\u0131na dayal\u0131 me\u015fru bir amac\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
iii. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck<\/p>\n
\u00a0(1) Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
54. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesi uyar\u0131nca hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131nda dikkate al\u0131nacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctlerden biri olan \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi, temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rlanma ama\u00e7lar\u0131 ile ara\u00e7 aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkiyi g\u00f6sterir. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck denetimi, ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7tan yola \u00e7\u0131k\u0131larak bu amaca ula\u015f\u0131lmak i\u00e7in se\u00e7ilen arac\u0131n denetlenmesidir. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi elveri\u015flilik, gereklilik ve orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k olmak \u00fczere \u00fc\u00e7 alt ilkeden olu\u015fmaktad\u0131r. Elveri\u015flilik \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen m\u00fcdahalenin ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli olmas\u0131n\u0131, gereklilik ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan m\u00fcdahalenin zorunlu olmas\u0131n\u0131 yani ayn\u0131 amaca daha hafif bir m\u00fcdahale ile ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmamas\u0131n\u0131, orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k ise bireyin hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale ile ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 aras\u0131nda makul bir dengenin g\u00f6zetilmesi gereklili\u011fini ifade eder (AYM, E.2011\/111, K.2012\/56, 11\/4\/2012; E.2014\/176, K.2015\/53, 27\/5\/2015; E.2016\/13, K.2016\/127, 22\/6\/2016, \u00a7 18; Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
55. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi gere\u011fi ki\u015filerin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde elde edilmek istenen kamu yarar\u0131 ile bireyin haklar\u0131 aras\u0131nda adil bir dengenin kurulmas\u0131 gerekir. Bu adil denge, ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir y\u00fcke katland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmesi durumunda bozulmu\u015f olacakt\u0131r. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi gere\u011fi \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen amaca eri\u015fme kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda belirli bir arac\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 ilgililere \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler getirmemeli ve ilgililer bak\u0131m\u0131ndan katlan\u0131labilir nitelikte olmal\u0131d\u0131r. Elveri\u015fli ve gerekli bir tedbirin, m\u00fcdahalenin a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen netice aras\u0131nda bir orant\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131k bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bu y\u00fczden m\u00fcdahaleden vazge\u00e7menin gerekip gerekmedi\u011fi hususlar\u0131 yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde denetlenecektir. M\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc de\u011ferlendirirken Anayasa Mahkemesi bir taraftan ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen me\u015fru amac\u0131n \u00f6nemini, di\u011fer taraftan da m\u00fcdahalenin niteli\u011fini, ba\u015fvurucunun ve kamu otoritelerinin davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde tutarak ba\u015fvurucuya y\u00fcklenen k\u00fclfeti dikkate alacakt\u0131r (Arif G\u00fcven, B. No: 2014\/13966, 15\/2\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 58, 60).<\/p>\n
56. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 ile bireyin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki adil dengenin sa\u011flanabilmesi i\u00e7in \u00f6ncelikle malike, uygulanan tedbirlere kar\u015f\u0131 savunma ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 etkin bi\u00e7imde ortaya koyabilme olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131, s\u00f6z konusu iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n makul bi\u00e7imde kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 gerekir (ba\u015fvurucuya di\u011fer unsurlar yan\u0131nda ayr\u0131ca etkin bir savunma hakk\u0131 tan\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kararlar i\u00e7in bkz. Fatma atma \u00c7avu\u015fo\u011flu ve Bilal \u00c7avu\u015fo\u011flu, B. No: 2014\/5167, 28\/9\/2016, \u00a7\u00a7 74-89; Eyy\u00fcp Baran, B. No: 2014\/8060, 29\/9\/2016, \u00a7\u00a7 75-95; buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k ayn\u0131 ko\u015fulun yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde sa\u011flanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kararlar i\u00e7in bkz. Mahmut \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc, B. No: 2014\/1017, 13\/7\/2016, \u00a7\u00a7 79-102; Arif G\u00fcven, \u00a7\u00a7 57-72).<\/p>\n
57. Usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencelerin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k de\u011ferlendirmesinde \u00f6nemli rol oynayabilir. Bu bak\u0131mdan ki\u015finin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k iddialar\u0131n\u0131n bir mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan etkili \u015fekilde incelenmesi m\u00fcdahalenin orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00f6nemlidir (D.C., B. No: 2018\/13863, 16\/6\/2021, \u00a7 52). Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesi usule ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131k bir g\u00fcvenceden s\u00f6z etmemektedir. Bununla birlikte m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ek anlamda korunabilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan bu madde, Anayasa Mahkemesinin \u00e7e\u015fitli kararlar\u0131nda da ifade edildi\u011fi \u00fczere m\u00fclk sahibine m\u00fcdahalenin kanun d\u0131\u015f\u0131 veya keyf\u00ee ya da makul olmayan \u015fekilde uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin savunma ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 sorumlu makamlar \u00f6n\u00fcnde etkin bir bi\u00e7imde ortaya koyabilme imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131 g\u00fcvencesini kapsamaktad\u0131r. Bu de\u011ferlendirme ise uygulanan s\u00fcrecin b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcne bak\u0131larak yap\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r (Bekir Yaz\u0131c\u0131 [GK], B. No: 2013\/3044, 17\/12\/2015, \u00a7 71; Z\u00fcliye \u00d6zt\u00fcrk, B. No: 2014\/1734, 14\/9\/2017, \u00a7 36).<\/p>\n
58. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvenceleri hem \u00f6zel ki\u015filer aras\u0131ndaki m\u00fclkiyet uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131nda hem de taraflardan birinin kamu g\u00fcc\u00fc oldu\u011fu durumlarda ge\u00e7erlidir. Bu ba\u011flamda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011fu durumlarda usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencelerin somut olayda yerine getirildi\u011finden s\u00f6z edilebilmesi i\u00e7in derece mahkemelerinin kararlar\u0131nda konu ile ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7e bulunmal\u0131d\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca belirtmek gerekir ki bu zorunluluk davac\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn iddialar\u0131na cevap verilmesi anlam\u0131na gelmemekle birlikte m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 ilgilendiren davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili esasa ili\u015fkin temel iddia ve itirazlar yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131nca \u00f6zenli bir \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirilerek kar\u015f\u0131lanmal\u0131d\u0131r (Kamil Darbaz ve Gmo Yap\u0131 Grup End. San. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2015\/12563, 24\/5\/2018, \u00a7 53).<\/p>\n
\u00a0(2) \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/p>\n
59. Somut olayda m\u00fcdahalenin dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 te\u015fkil eden d\u00fczenleme mill\u00ee g\u00fcvenli\u011fe tehdit oldu\u011fu tespit edilen ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctleriyle iltisak\u0131 veya irtibat\u0131 olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kapat\u0131lan e\u011fitim kurumlar\u0131n\u0131n faaliyetlerinde kullan\u0131lan ve 1\/1\/2014 tarihinden sonra m\u00fclkiyeti bu kurumlarca \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filere devredilmesine ra\u011fmen kapat\u0131lma tarihi itibar\u0131yla ayn\u0131 kurumlarca \u00fczerinde ayn\u0131 faaliyetlere devam edilen ta\u015f\u0131nmazlara ili\u015fkindir. Bu ba\u011flamda an\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n devirlerinin muvazaal\u0131 kabul edilmesi ve ilgili idareler ad\u0131na tapuya tescil edilmesi suretiyle ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n hileli yollarla devri ile yasa d\u0131\u015f\u0131 faaliyetlerin finanse edilmesinin \u00f6nlenmesinin ama\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde m\u00fcdahalenin kamu yarar\u0131na dayal\u0131 me\u015fru amac\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan elveri\u015fli ve gerekli oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
60. Eldeki ba\u015fvuruda as\u0131l incelenmesi gereken, m\u00fcdahalenin orant\u0131l\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r. Orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u00f6ncelikle ba\u015fvurucuya ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fclkiyetinin Hazineye ge\u00e7irilmesi karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 etkin bir bi\u00e7imde ortaya koyabilme olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131n\u0131p tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmelidir. Ba\u015fvurucu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n Hazine ad\u0131na kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptali ve kendi ad\u0131na kaydedilmesi ve tescil edilmesi i\u00e7in tapu iptali ve tescili davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkemece dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde ke\u015fif yap\u0131larak bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f, raporda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011feri tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme; ta\u015f\u0131nmaz al\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011fer \u00fczerinden yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, sat\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmazda faaliyetine devam etmesi konusunda ba\u015fvurucu ile anla\u015fma yapmas\u0131n\u0131n hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na uygun oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
61. Taraflar\u0131n an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmalar\u0131 \u00fczerine B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi, karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f bedeli ger\u00e7ek sat\u0131\u015f de\u011feri olarak belirlenmi\u015fse de s\u00f6z konusu bedelin taksitler h\u00e2linde \u00f6denmesinin kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, sadece %10’luk k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n nakit olarak \u00f6dendi\u011fini, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f bedelinin taksitle \u00f6denmesinin ticari team\u00fcllere ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu de\u011ferlendirmi\u015f; ayr\u0131ca ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde bulunan spor salonunun ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirkete teslim edildi\u011fine dair bilgi ve belge olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, arsan\u0131n ve spor salonunun Menba A.\u015e.ye ba\u011fl\u0131 olan ve kapat\u0131lan e\u011fitim kurumlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131lmaya devam edildi\u011fini belirterek ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131n alma i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011funu tespit etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
62. 675 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 12. maddesinde muvazaan\u0131n tan\u0131m\u0131 yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesinin norm denetimi kararlar\u0131nda da de\u011finildi\u011fi \u00fczere esas itibar\u0131yla bir \u00f6zel hukuk kavram\u0131 olan muvazaa m\u00fcessesesi 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f olup bu kavram\u0131n tan\u0131m\u0131 ve \u015fartlar\u0131 ise b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihad\u0131yla ortaya konulmu\u015ftur (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 30-33). Bu ba\u011flamda \u00f6zel hukuk ili\u015fkileri \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ki\u015filer aras\u0131 hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklere ili\u015fkin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klarda ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan muvazaa iddias\u0131n\u0131n mahkemelerce tart\u0131\u015f\u0131larak \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme ba\u011flanmas\u0131, taraflar\u0131n muvazaan\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n mahkemelerce de\u011ferlendirilmesi, de\u011ferlendirmelerin ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7elerle ortaya konulmas\u0131 m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n usuli g\u00fcvencelerinin bir gere\u011fidir.<\/p>\n
63. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131lama a\u015famalar\u0131nda, arsa niteli\u011finde olan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n \u00fczerinde bulunan ancak kay\u0131tlarda g\u00f6r\u00fcnmeyen spor salonunun yaln\u0131zca \u00f6\u011frencilerin ma\u011fdur olmamalar\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan 2015-2016 e\u011fitim ve \u00f6\u011fretim y\u0131l\u0131 sonuna kadar kulland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyle kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bu ba\u011flamda ba\u015fvurucu; kapat\u0131lma tarihi itibar\u0131yla kapat\u0131lan kurulu\u015fun arsa \u00fczerinde bir faaliyetinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek spor salonunun e\u011fitim ve \u00f6\u011fretim y\u0131l\u0131 sonuna kadar a\u00e7\u0131k kalmas\u0131 olgusunun muvazaa olarak kabul edilemeyece\u011fini, kapat\u0131lan kurumun arsa \u00fczerinde ba\u015fkaca bir faaliyetinin de olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 emlak dan\u0131\u015fmanl\u0131k firmas\u0131 arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla buldu\u011funu ve firmaya bu hizmeti i\u00e7in \u00f6deme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine konu bedelin fazlal\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ticari hayat\u0131n gerekleri dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda sat\u0131\u015f bedelinin tek seferde de\u011fil de taksitle \u00f6denmesinin muvazaa olarak kabul edilemeyece\u011fini vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca ilgili e\u011fitim kurulu\u015funun kapat\u0131lmas\u0131 \u00fczerine iyi niyetli olarak s\u00f6zle\u015fme gere\u011fi \u00f6deme plan\u0131na ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015f s\u0131ral\u0131 \u00f6demelerin hangi kurum ve kurulu\u015fa \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fini Afyonkarahisar Defterdarl\u0131\u011f\u0131na sordu\u011funu, yine ilgili mahkemeden \u00e7eklerle ilgili tedbiren \u00f6deme yasa\u011f\u0131 karar\u0131 ald\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade ederek kapat\u0131lan kurulu\u015fla bu i\u015flem d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ba\u015fka bir ticari ili\u015fkisinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na da i\u015faret etmi\u015ftir. Bunun yan\u0131nda Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Vergi Denetim Kurulu Denizli K\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck ve Orta \u00d6l\u00e7ekli M\u00fckellefler Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nca konuya ili\u015fkin olarak ihtilaf konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n muvazaa i\u00e7ermeyen ger\u00e7ek bir sat\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu ve okullar\u0131n KHK ile kapat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte sat\u0131\u015fa konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki spor salonunun sat\u0131c\u0131 firman\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131nda olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirdi\u011fini savunmu\u015ftur. Son olarak \u015eirket ortaklar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kararlar\u0131 da verilmi\u015f oldu\u011funa de\u011finen ba\u015fvurucu, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131nda belirtilen 689 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin olay\u0131n \u015fartlar\u0131 dahilinde uygulanamayaca\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki iddias\u0131n\u0131 da dile getirmi\u015ftir. Buna kar\u015f\u0131n B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi ba\u015fvurucunun uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sonucuna etkili nitelikteki ayr\u0131 ve a\u00e7\u0131k yan\u0131t gerektiren bu iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
64. \u00d6te yandan Mahkemece dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazda yap\u0131lan ke\u015fif sonucu al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporunda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n devir tarihinde de\u011ferinin 6.987.516,80 TL oldu\u011fu tespit edilmi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu ile Menba A.\u015e. aras\u0131nda imzalanan sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde de ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n bedeli 7.000.000 TL olarak kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu kapsamda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin ger\u00e7ek de\u011fer \u00fczerinden yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 Mahkemece kabul edilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi, yap\u0131lan bu tespite ra\u011fmen ticari team\u00fcle g\u00f6re ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n taksitle sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna varm\u0131\u015f ancak bu sonuca var\u0131rken ticari team\u00fcl\u00fcn nas\u0131l belirlendi\u011fini gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131klamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
65. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi ayr\u0131ca, karar\u0131nda arsa niteli\u011findeki ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ve spor salonunun zilyetli\u011finin sat\u0131c\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan anahtar teslimi ile veya ba\u015fka \u015fekilde ba\u015fvurucuya teslim edildi\u011finin iddia ve ispat edilemedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte daval\u0131 Hazine taraf\u0131ndan yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde bu y\u00f6nde bir iddia ve itiraz dile getirilmedi\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun bu hususu ispat etmesi gerekti\u011fini B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin karar\u0131yla \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Ba\u015fvurucu bu durumda zilyetli\u011fin ne \u015fekilde teslim edildi\u011fiyle ilgili bir a\u00e7\u0131klama imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi muvazaa olgusunun ispat\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan bu \u015fekilde bir teslimin gerekli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ortaya koyabilmesi de m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n gerektirdi\u011fi usul g\u00fcvencelerinden biri olan etkili itiraz imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmas\u0131 g\u00fcvencesinin somut olayda ba\u015fvurucuya sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
66. Bu bilgiler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 sat\u0131n alma i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na haks\u0131z olarak m\u00fcdahale edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin sonuca etkili olabilecek itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n ve delillerinin kanun yollar\u0131nda mahkemelerce konu ile ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7eyle tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Sonu\u00e7 olarak ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 i\u00e7in gerekli usuli g\u00fcvencelerin somut olayda yerine getirilmedi\u011fi, adil dengenin ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine bozuldu\u011fu bu nedenle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz oldu\u011fu tespit edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
67. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN, Muhterem \u0130NCE, Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
68. \u00d6te yandan hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131nda keyf\u00eelik, OHAL d\u00f6neminde de m\u00fcsamaha g\u00f6sterilebilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmayan mutlak bir yasakt\u0131r. Bu nedenle OHAL d\u00f6neminde uygulanacak tedbirin keyf\u00eeli\u011fe kar\u015f\u0131 yeterince \u00f6nlem i\u00e7ermesi gerekir. Buna g\u00f6re mahkemelerce ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7e ile ba\u015fvurucunun uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sonucuna etkili iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmamas\u0131 nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvenceleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ihlal sonucuna var\u0131lmas\u0131 tedbirin OHAL’in gerektirdi\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anlam\u0131na da geldi\u011finden Anayasa’n\u0131n OHAL d\u00f6neminde temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n durdurulmas\u0131n\u0131 ve s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fczenleyen 15. maddesinden inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde de var\u0131lan sonu\u00e7 de\u011fi\u015fmeyecektir.<\/p>\n
VI. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
69. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
70. Anayasa Mahkemesince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda, m\u00fclkiyetin kamuya ge\u00e7irilmesi tedbiri nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ihlalin mahkeme karar\u0131ndan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesi, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131 olmayan m\u00fcdahale bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yarg\u0131sal makamlar\u0131n sorumlu oldu\u011funa dikkati \u00e7ekmektedir. \u00d6te yandan ihlalin giderilmesi 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 [GK], 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) [GK], B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n
71. Di\u011fer taraftan bu ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucunun a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n esas\u0131yla ilgili herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi vurgulanmal\u0131d\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtti\u011fi ihlal gerek\u00e7elerini g\u00f6zeterek ve s\u00f6z konusu i\u015flemle ilgili olarak yeniden bir de\u011ferlendirme yaparak gereken karar\u0131 vermek mahkemenin takdirindedir.<\/p>\n
VII. H\u00dcK\u00dcM <\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN, Muhterem \u0130NCE, Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L\u2019in kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/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 Konya B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi Birinci Hukuk Dairesine (E.2019\/497, E.2019\/496) iletilmesi i\u00e7in Afyonkarahisar 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesine (E.2018\/511,K.2019\/195) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 19.246,90 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. \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 FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
F. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 28\/3\/2024 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY GEREK\u00c7ES\u0130<\/p>\n
Kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcnde kararnameyle kapat\u0131lan e\u011fitim kurumundan yap\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131n alma i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011fu kabul edilerek ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fclkiyetinin kamuya ge\u00e7irilmesi ve bu nedenle a\u00e7\u0131lan tapu iptal ve tescil davas\u0131n\u0131n reddedilmesi nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u0130hlal karar\u0131nda; m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencelerinin sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00f6z edilebilmesi i\u00e7in mahkemelerin kararlar\u0131nda konuya ili\u015fkin olarak yeterli gerek\u00e7e bulunmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, ba\u015fvurucunun sonuca etkili olabilecek esasl\u0131 iddia ve itirazlar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lanmadan sat\u0131n alma i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu ve me\u015fru bir amac\u0131n\u0131n mevcut oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 45, 47). Bu itibarla s\u00f6z konusu m\u00fcdahalenin ihlal olu\u015fturup olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespiti i\u00e7in \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmelidir.<\/p>\n
Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinde ifade edilen \u201c\u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi\u201d, temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin ba\u015fvurularda \u00f6ncelikli olarak dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gereken bir g\u00fcvencedir. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck, temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rlanma ama\u00e7lar\u0131 ile ara\u00e7 aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkiyi yans\u0131t\u0131r. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck denetimi, ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7tan yola \u00e7\u0131k\u0131larak bu amaca ula\u015f\u0131lmak i\u00e7in se\u00e7ilen arac\u0131n denetlenmesidir. Bu sebeple m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na getirilen m\u00fcdahalelerde hedeflenen amaca ula\u015fabilmek i\u00e7in se\u00e7ilen m\u00fcdahalenin elveri\u015fli, gerekli ve orant\u0131l\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmelidir (Osman Bayrak, B. No: 2013\/3803, 25\/2\/2015, \u00a7\u00a7 73, 74).<\/p>\n
Bu ba\u011flamda ba\u015fvuru konusu olay bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yap\u0131lacak de\u011ferlendirmelerin temel ekseni, m\u00fcdahaleye neden olan ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen sat\u0131n alma i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011fu kabul edilerek m\u00fclkiyetinin kamuya ge\u00e7irilmesinin ve bu nedenle a\u00e7\u0131lan tapu iptali ve tescil davas\u0131n\u0131n reddedilmesinin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 k\u0131s\u0131tlama bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u201c\u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi\u201dne uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 olacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler kural olarak \u00f6zel hukuk ki\u015filerince yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalelere kar\u015f\u0131 anayasal koruma sa\u011flamakla birlikte kamu otoritelerince ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen m\u00fcdahalelerde de devletin \u00f6zellikle usule ili\u015fkin baz\u0131 pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri s\u00f6z konusu olabilir (Recep Tarhan ve Afife Tarhan, B. No: 2014\/1546, 2\/2\/2017, \u00a7 67).<\/p>\n
S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019ye Ek 1 No.lu Protokol\u2019\u00fcn 1. maddesi, kural olarak usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvenceleri i\u00e7ermemekle beraber ba\u015fvurucuya, keyf\u00ee m\u00fcdahalelerden korunmak amac\u0131yla m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleye kar\u015f\u0131 yetkili makamlar \u00f6n\u00fcnde etkin bir bi\u00e7imde itiraz edebilme olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131n\u0131p tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00fcvencesini kapsamaktad\u0131r (AGOS\u0130\/Birle\u015fik Krall\u0131k, \u00a7 60; Saccocia\/Avusturya, 69917\/01, B. No: 18\/12\/2008, \u00a7 89; Microintelect Ood\/Bulgaristan, \u00a7 48).<\/p>\n
15 Temmuz 2016 gecesi ya\u015fanan silahl\u0131 darbe te\u015febb\u00fcs\u00fcnden sonra OHAL tedbirleri kapsam\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcnde kararnamelerle ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctleriyle ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclen e\u011fitim kurumlar\u0131, \u00f6\u011frenci yurtlar\u0131 ve pansiyonlar\u0131n faaliyetlerine son verilmi\u015ftir (\u00a7\u00a7 7-8). Bu s\u00fcre\u00e7te y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren KHK’lardan biri olan 675 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 12. maddesinde ise ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2l kapsam\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe konulan kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcnde kararnameler gere\u011fince kapat\u0131lan \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011fretim kurum ve kurulu\u015flar\u0131 ile \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011frenci yurtlar\u0131 ve pansiyonlar\u0131n\u0131n faaliyetlerinin s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc d\u00f6nemde \u00fczerlerinde bulunduklar\u0131, m\u00fclkiyeti kapat\u0131lanlar\u0131n sahibi ger\u00e7ek veya t\u00fczel ki\u015filere ait ta\u015f\u0131nmazlardan 1\/1\/2014 tarihi ile bahse konu yerlerin kapat\u0131lma tarihleri aras\u0131nda \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filere devri yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan ve \u00fczerinde kapat\u0131lanlar taraf\u0131ndan ayn\u0131 faaliyete kapat\u0131lma tarihi itibar\u0131yla devam edilen ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n devir i\u015flemlerinin muvazaal\u0131 kabul edilece\u011fi ve tapuda ilgisine g\u00f6re Hazine veya Vak\u0131flar Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ad\u0131na her t\u00fcrl\u00fc k\u0131s\u0131tlama ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz y\u00fck\u00fcnden ari olarak resen tescil edilece\u011fi d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir (\u00a7 9). 675 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 12. maddesi 6\/2\/2018 tarihli ve 7082 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Baz\u0131 Tedbirler Al\u0131nmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararnamenin Kabul Edilmesine Dair Kanun’un 8\/3\/2018 tarihli ve 30354 m\u00fckerrer say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanarak y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girmesi sonucu aynen kanunla\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7082 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girmesi sonucu aynen kanunla\u015fan 675 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 12. maddesi Anayasa Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan muvazaa olgusunun denetlenmesinin etkisizle\u015ftirilmesinin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle iptal edilmi\u015ftir (Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin 14\/12\/2023 tarihli ve 2018\/77 E., 2023\/105 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131)<\/p>\n
Kurala ili\u015fkin iptal karar\u0131nda ve konuya ili\u015fkin bireysel ba\u015fvuru karar\u0131nda (bkz. Mehmet Ali Bayraktar, B. No: 2016\/73431, 20\/6\/2023, \u00a7 68) iptal edilen h\u00fck\u00fcm kapsam\u0131ndaki devir ve temliklerin aksinin iddia edilemez kanuni bir karine olu\u015fturmak suretiyle denetlenmesinin etkisiz h\u00e2le getirildi\u011fi, s\u00f6z konusu h\u00fckm\u00fcn bireylere, devrin ger\u00e7ek bir devir oldu\u011funu ispatlamak i\u00e7in gerekli iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 etkili olarak ortaya koyabilecekleri usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvence sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla muvazaa iddias\u0131n\u0131n tart\u0131\u015f\u0131labilir, denetlenebilir oldu\u011fu durumlarda iptal gerek\u00e7esinde ve bireysel ba\u015fvuru kararlar\u0131nda belirtilen hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 durumun do\u011frudan olu\u015ftu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenemeyecek, her somut olay\u0131n \u00f6zelliklerinin ayr\u0131ca de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekecektir.<\/p>\n
Somut olayda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcnde kararnameyle kapat\u0131lan e\u011fitim kurumu taraf\u0131ndan 26\/02\/2016 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucuya sat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 675 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararnamenin 12. maddesi gere\u011fince ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015f ve dava konusu edilen ta\u015f\u0131nmaz 11\/11\/2016 tarihinde hazine ad\u0131na resen tescil edilmi\u015ftir. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 sat\u0131n alan ba\u015fvurucu sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131yla tapunun iptali ve kendi ad\u0131na tescili i\u00e7in dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u0130lk derece mahkemesi ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde ke\u015fif yaparak, sat\u0131\u015f tarihinde ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferinin 6.987.516,80 TL oldu\u011funu tespit etmi\u015ftir. \u0130lk derece mahkemesi “ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ger\u00e7ek de\u011fer \u00fczerinden yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131, davac\u0131 ile FET\u00d6\/PDY Silahl\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc yada dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 Memba E\u011fitim Kurumlar\u0131 aras\u0131nda fiili-hukuki bir ba\u011flant\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmemi\u015f olmas\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz bedelinin \u00f6demelerinin yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve yap\u0131lmakta oldu\u011funun yaz\u0131l\u0131 delillerle ispat edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131, sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminden sonra ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde bulunan spor salonunun 2015-2016 e\u011fitim \u00f6\u011fretim d\u00f6nemi sonuna kadar bedelsiz kullan\u0131m\u0131na izin verilmesinin sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde ayr\u0131ca belirlendi\u011fi ve bu hususun devredenin e\u011fitim \u00f6\u011fretim faaliyeti y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulunduruldu\u011funda hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131 ile ticari ili\u015fkilere uygun bulunmu\u015f olmas\u0131” gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunulmas\u0131 \u00fczerine b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi; ta\u015f\u0131nmaza ili\u015fkin 26\/2\/2016 tarihli harici sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin 6. maddesinde ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde bulunan spor salonunun 2015-2016 e\u011fitim \u00f6\u011fretim y\u0131l\u0131 sonunda kadar sat\u0131c\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan bedelsiz kullan\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 ve bu tarihten sonra taraflar dilerse al\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmazdan yararlanaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kararla\u015ft\u0131rabilece\u011finin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2015-2016 e\u011fitim \u00f6\u011fretim y\u0131l\u0131n\u0131n sonuna kadar sat\u0131c\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan e\u011fitim \u00f6\u011fretim y\u0131l\u0131 sonu ile e\u011fitim kurumunun kapat\u0131lma tarihleri aras\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmazda bulunan spor salonunun ve arsan\u0131n zilyetli\u011finin taraflar\u0131na teslim edildi\u011finin iddia ve ispat edilmedi\u011fi hususlar\u0131n\u0131n alt\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7izmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi ayr\u0131ca ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 7.000.000,00 TL bedelle sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, sat\u0131\u015f bedelinin pe\u015fin olarak \u00f6denmesi gerekirken ticari team\u00fcllere ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak sat\u0131\u015f bedelinin 2.962.474 TL k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n taksitle \u00f6denmesi \u00fczerinde anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, al\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n ipotek borcunun \u00fcstlenildi\u011fini ve al\u0131c\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan pe\u015fin sat\u0131\u015f bedeli olarak toplam bedelin sadece %10’u olan 709.510,00 TL \u00f6dendi\u011fini vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi bu olgulara dikkat \u00e7ekerek taraflar\u0131n ger\u00e7ek ama\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131c\u0131 \u015firket hakk\u0131nda gelecekte yap\u0131lmas\u0131 muhtemel soru\u015fturmalarda verilecek el koyma karar\u0131ndan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 kurtarmak amac\u0131 ile ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya devredildi\u011fi ve i\u015flemin muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015f, bu gerek\u00e7eyle ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131 kald\u0131rarak davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu temyiz ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015f, karar temyiz kanun yolu incelemesinden ge\u00e7erek kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Bu kapsamda ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131laman\u0131n taraflar\u0131ndan biri olarak muvazaa iddias\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 savunma ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrebilme olana\u011f\u0131 bulabildi\u011fi, yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde ba\u015fvurucunun uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne etki edebilecek nitelikteki iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n ilk derece mahkemesi, b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi ve Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan de\u011ferlendirildi\u011fi, b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesinin dava konusu olay ve olgular\u0131 bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak de\u011ferlendirerek konu ile ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6stererek ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucuya b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi karar\u0131ndaki tespitlere kar\u015f\u0131 itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 da temyiz a\u015famas\u0131nda ileri s\u00fcrme imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinin ve S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019ye Ek 1 No.lu Protokol\u2019\u00fcn 1. maddesinin \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc g\u00fcvence kapsam\u0131nda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 i\u00e7in gerekli usul\u00fc g\u00fcvencelerin ve yetkili makamlar \u00f6n\u00fcnde etkin bir bi\u00e7imde itiraz edebilme olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya tan\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bu itibarla, ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcnde kararnameyle kapat\u0131lan e\u011fitim kurumundan yap\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131n alma i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011fu kabul edilerek ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fclkiyetinin kamuya ge\u00e7irilmesinin kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131na uygun oldu\u011fu ve bu nedenle a\u00e7\u0131lan tapu iptal ve tescil davas\u0131nda gerekli g\u00fcvencelerin sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde, m\u00fcdahalenin ba\u015fvurucuyu ki\u015fisel ve a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir y\u00fck alt\u0131na sokmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, m\u00fcdahalenin amac\u0131 ile ba\u015fvurucuya y\u00fcklenen k\u00fclfetin orant\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Belirtilen gerek\u00e7elerle, ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilmedi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin karara kat\u0131lm\u0131yoruz.<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi Genel Kurulu 28\/3\/2024 tarihinde, Ayy\u0131ld\u0131z Maden Mermer \u0130n\u015faat ve \u0130n\u015faat Malzemeleri Sanayi Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti. (B. No: 2020\/35644) ba\u015fvurusunda Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir.\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Olaylar Ba\u015fvurucunun sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz, sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle Hazine ad\u0131na tescil edilmi\u015f, bunun \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu Hazine ad\u0131na olu\u015fturulan tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptali talebiyle asliye hukuk mahkemesinde (mahkeme) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkemenin davay\u0131 kabul emesi \u00fczerine daval\u0131 idare, istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. B\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi, mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve yeniden h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015f, bu karar \u00fczerine yap\u0131lan temyiz ba\u015fvurusunu inceleyen Yarg\u0131tay ise b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131 onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130ddialar Ba\u015fvurucu, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011fu tespit edilerek ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fclkiyetinin Hazineye ge\u00e7irilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Mahkemenin De\u011ferlendirmesi Somut olayda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin ger\u00e7ek de\u011fer \u00fczerinden yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 asliye hukuk mahkemesince kabul edilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi ise yap\u0131lan bu tespite ra\u011fmen ticari team\u00fcle g\u00f6re ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n taksitle sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi ayr\u0131ca, karar\u0131nda arsa niteli\u011findeki ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ve spor salonunun zilyetli\u011finin sat\u0131c\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan anahtar teslimiyle veya ba\u015fka \u015fekilde ba\u015fvurucuya teslim edildi\u011finin iddia ve ispat edilemedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte daval\u0131 Hazine taraf\u0131ndan yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde bu y\u00f6nde bir iddia ve itiraz da dile getirilmemi\u015ftir. Bu itibarla ba\u015fvurucu, bu hususu ispat etmesi gerekti\u011fini b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesinin karar\u0131yla \u00f6\u011frenmi\u015f; bu durumda da zilyetli\u011fin ne \u015fekilde teslim edildi\u011fiyle ilgili bir a\u00e7\u0131klama imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucunun muvazaa olgusunun ispat\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan bu \u015fekilde bir teslimin …<\/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-18880","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n