T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
BELG\u0130N YAL\u00c7IN VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/6450)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 10\/7\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 31\/12\/2024-32769<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
C. Ece YALIM<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1. Belgin YAL\u00c7IN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
2. Ferat YARIZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
3. Mahmure YAR\u015eI<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
4. Nermin YAL\u00c7IN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
5. Teslim YARIZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
6. Vedat YARIZ<\/p>\n
Vekilleri<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Adil AKTAY<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Av. Utku \u00c7a\u011fr\u0131 AKTAY<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU <\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti davas\u0131nda istinaf talebinin kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n alt\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. <\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru 23\/1\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvuru, ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinin idari y\u00f6nden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n incelemesinden sonra Komisyona sunulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
4. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. B\u00f6l\u00fcm Ba\u015fkan\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin birlikte yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. 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. Ba\u015fvurucular, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR <\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
8. Adana’n\u0131n \u00c7ukurova il\u00e7esi Karahan Mahallesi’nde bulunan ve ba\u015fvuruculara ait olan 12130 ada 2 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz Karayollar\u0131 Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (\u0130dare) taraf\u0131ndan kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. K\u0131ymet Takdir Komisyonunca tespit edilen bedel \u00fczerinde anla\u015fma sa\u011flanamamas\u0131 \u00fczerine \u0130dare taraf\u0131ndan s\u00f6z konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti ile ba\u015fvurucular ad\u0131na olan tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptaline ve \u0130dare ad\u0131na tescili ile yol olarak mahkemece terkinine karar verilmesi istemiyle 25\/1\/2017 tarihinde Adana 7. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Mahkemece ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mahallinde ke\u015fif ve bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bilirki\u015fi heyetince haz\u0131rlanan 13\/6\/2017 tarihli raporda %34,65188 d\u00fczenleme ortakl\u0131k pay\u0131 (DOP) kesintisi yap\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra ba\u015fvuruculara \u00f6denmesi gereken kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli 7.590,25 TL olarak tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Bedel tespit edilirken m\u00b2 birim fiyat\u0131 97 TL olarak kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n itiraz\u0131 \u00fczerine 14\/11\/2018 tarihinde yeniden al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporunda kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli 9.776,25 TL olarak tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Bedel tespit edilirken m\u00b2birim fiyat\u0131 125 TL olarak kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Bilirki\u015filerce ikinci raporda farkl\u0131 sonuca ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n nedeni ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n konumu ve \u00f6zelliklerinin ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 olarak incelenmesi ve daha \u00f6nce ba\u011f olarak de\u011ferlendirilen ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sonras\u0131nda arsa olarak de\u011ferlendirilmesi \u015feklinde a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
10. Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan 18\/6\/2019 tarihinde ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda 9.776,25 TL olarak tespitine, kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan k\u0131sm\u0131n ba\u015fvurucular ad\u0131na olan tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptaliyle \u0130dare ad\u0131na tesciline karar verilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucular ile \u0130dare lehine 2.725 TL maktu vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti \u00f6denmesine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucular, emsal kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 sonucunda belirlenen bedelin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferini kar\u015f\u0131lamaktan uzak oldu\u011funu belirterek istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucular ayr\u0131ca kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli belirlenirken hesap hatas\u0131 da yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferinin kendilerine \u00f6denmedi\u011fini, bu durumun Anayasa ile 4\/11\/1983 tarihli ve 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma Kanunu’na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil etti\u011fini, \u0130dare lehine vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesinin hatal\u0131 oldu\u011funu belirterek istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
12. Adana B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 4. Hukuk Dairesi (B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi) istinaf incelemesi sonucunda 9\/12\/2019 tarihinde istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun usulden reddinekarar vermi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 14. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131 ve 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun 341. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 davalar\u0131na ili\u015fkin ilk derece mahkemesi kararlar\u0131n\u0131n 2019 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in 4.400 TL’yi ge\u00e7memesi h\u00e2linde kesin olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kesin karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunulamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun usulden reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde kamula\u015ft\u0131rma davalar\u0131nda payda\u015flar aras\u0131nda zorunlu dava arkada\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, payda\u015flar\u0131n payl\u0131 m\u00fclkiyete sahip oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. Nihai karar ba\u015fvuruculara 5\/1\/2020 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular 23\/1\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
A. \u0130lgili Mevzuat<\/p>\n
14. 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin mahkemece tespiti ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n idare ad\u0131na tescili” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 10. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Kamula\u015ft\u0131rman\u0131n sat\u0131n alma usul\u00fc ile yap\u0131lamamas\u0131 halinde idare, \u2026 asliye hukuk mahkemesine m\u00fcracaat eder ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespitiyle, \u2026 idare ad\u0131na tesciline karar verilmesini ister.<\/p>\n
Mahkeme, idarenin ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren en ge\u00e7 otuz g\u00fcn sonras\u0131 i\u00e7in belirledi\u011fi duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fc, \u2026 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n malikine \u2026 bildirerek duru\u015fmaya kat\u0131lmaya \u00e7a\u011f\u0131r\u0131r. Duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fc idareye de tebli\u011f olunur.<\/p>\n
\u2026<\/p>\n
Mahkemece yap\u0131lan duru\u015fmada taraflar\u0131n bedelde anla\u015famamalar\u0131 halinde hakim, en ge\u00e7 on g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde ke\u015fif ve otuz g\u00fcn sonras\u0131 i\u00e7in de duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fc tayin ederek, 15 inci maddede say\u0131lan bilirki\u015filer marifetiyle ve t\u00fcm ilgililerin huzurunda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n de\u011ferini tespit i\u00e7in mahallinde ke\u015fif yapar\u2026 <\/p>\n
Bilirki\u015filer, taraflar ve di\u011fer ilgililerin beyan\u0131n\u0131 da dikkate alarak, 11 inci maddedeki esaslar do\u011frultusunda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n de\u011ferini belirten raporlar\u0131n\u0131 onbe\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde mahkemeye verirler. Mahkeme bu raporu, duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fc beklenmeksizin taraflara tebli\u011f eder. Yap\u0131lacak duru\u015fmaya hakim, taraflar veya vekillerini ve bilirki\u015fileri \u00e7a\u011f\u0131r\u0131r. Bu duru\u015fmada taraflar\u0131n bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131na varsa itirazlar\u0131 dinlenir ve bilirki\u015filerin bu itirazlara kar\u015f\u0131 beyanlar\u0131 al\u0131n\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Taraflar\u0131n bedelde anla\u015famamalar\u0131 halinde gerekti\u011finde hakim taraf\u0131ndan onbe\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmak \u00fczere yeni bir bilirki\u015fi kurulu tayin edilir ve hakim, taraflar\u0131n ve bilirki\u015filerin rapor veya raporlar\u0131 ile beyanlar\u0131ndan yararlanarak adil ve hakkaniyete uygun bir kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli tespit eder. Mahkemece tespit edilen bu bedel, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal, kaynak veya irtifak hakk\u0131n\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma bedelidir. \u2026 \u0130darece, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin hak sahibi ad\u0131na yat\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na \u2026 dair makbuzun ibraz\u0131 halinde mahkemece, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n idare ad\u0131na tesciline ve kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin hak sahibine \u00f6denmesine karar verilir ve bu karar, tapu dairesine ve paran\u0131n yat\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 bankaya bildirilir. Tescil h\u00fckm\u00fc kesin olup taraflar\u0131n bedele ili\u015fkin temyiz haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u2026”<\/p>\n
15. 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti esaslar\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 11. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“15 inci madde uyar\u0131nca olu\u015fturulacak bilirki\u015fi kurulu, kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lacak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal veya kayna\u011f\u0131n bulundu\u011fu yere mahkeme heyeti ile birlikte giderek, haz\u0131r bulunan ilgilileri de dinledikten sonra ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal veya kayna\u011f\u0131n;<\/p>\n
a) Cins ve nevini,<\/p>\n
b) Y\u00fcz\u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc,<\/p>\n
c) K\u0131ymetini etkileyebilecek b\u00fct\u00fcn nitelik ve unsurlar\u0131n\u0131 ve her unsurun ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 de\u011ferini,<\/p>\n
d)Varsa vergi beyan\u0131n\u0131,<\/p>\n
e)Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma tarihindeki resmi makamlarca yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f k\u0131ymet takdirlerini,<\/p>\n
f) Arazilerde, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal veya kayna\u011f\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rma tarihindeki mevkii ve \u015fartlar\u0131na g\u00f6re ve oldu\u011fu gibi kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 halinde getirece\u011fi net gelirini,<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
h) Yap\u0131larda, (\u2026)(2) resmi birim fiyatlar\u0131 ve yap\u0131 maliyet hesaplar\u0131n\u0131 ve y\u0131pranma pay\u0131n\u0131,<\/p>\n
\u0131) Bedelin tespitinde etkili olacak di\u011fer objektif \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcleri,<\/p>\n
Esas tutarak d\u00fczenleyecekleri raporda b\u00fct\u00fcn bu unsurlar\u0131n cevaplar\u0131n\u0131 ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 belirtmek suretiyle ve ilgililerin beyan\u0131n\u0131 da dikkate alarak gerek\u00e7eli bir de\u011ferlendirme raporuna dayal\u0131 olarak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n de\u011ferini tespit ederler.<\/p>\n
Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n de\u011ferinin tespitinde, kamula\u015ft\u0131rmay\u0131 gerektiren imar ve hizmet te\u015febb\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn sebep olaca\u011f\u0131 de\u011fer art\u0131\u015flar\u0131 ile ilerisi i\u00e7in d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclen kullanma \u015fekillerine g\u00f6re getirece\u011fi k\u00e2r dikkate al\u0131nmaz.<\/p>\n
\u2026”<\/p>\n
16. 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un ”Dava hakk\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 14. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
”<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
\u0130\u015ftirak halinde veya m\u00fc\u015fterek m\u00fclkiyette, payda\u015flar\u0131n tek ba\u015f\u0131na dava haklar\u0131 vard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
…”<\/p>\n
17. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un “\u0130stinaf yoluna ba\u015fvurulabilen kararlar” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 341. maddesinin(2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n birinci c\u00fcmlesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
” \u0130lk derece mahkemelerinin a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki kararlar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf yoluna ba\u015fvurulabilir:<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
\u00a0(2) Miktar veya de\u011feri \u00fc\u00e7 bin T\u00fcrk Liras\u0131n\u0131 ge\u00e7meyen malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131 davalar\u0131na ili\u015fkin kararlar kesindir…”<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa Mahkemesi Karar\u0131<\/p>\n
18. Anayasa Mahkemesi 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 341. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n birinci c\u00fcmlesinin iptali talebini incelemi\u015f; 24\/2\/2022 tarihli ve E.2021\/34, K.2022\/21 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile an\u0131lan maddenin \u201ckamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespitine ili\u015fkin davalar\u201d y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Anayasa\u2019ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funa ve iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir. \u0130ptal karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“…<\/p>\n
29. Kuralda yer alan \u201cMiktar veya de\u011feri\u2026\u201d ibareleri esasen taraflar aras\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011fa konu olan malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferini ifade etmektedir. Ancak, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131 malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferinin ne oldu\u011funun yarg\u0131 karar\u0131yla ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131, ba\u015fka bir ifadeyle ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011ferinin mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan belirlenmesi olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131 bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle ki\u015filerin talep ya da uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusunu belirli miktar veya de\u011fer ile g\u00f6sterebildikleri di\u011fer malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131 davas\u0131 t\u00fcrlerinden ayr\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bu a\u00e7\u0131dan bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda s\u00f6z konusu davalar\u0131n konusunu belirli bir miktar veya de\u011fer i\u00e7eren talepler olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan karar\u0131n kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesinde davada ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen istemin kabul edilmeyen b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc gibi bir \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn esas al\u0131nmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
30. Di\u011fer yandan kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131nda karar\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz maliki bak\u0131m\u0131ndan kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n, ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle istinaf edilebilir olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesinde mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan lehine h\u00fckmedilen miktar\u0131n bir \u00f6neminin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Nitekim uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131nmaz malikinin istinaf talebinin temel dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli olarak belirlenen bu miktar\u0131n hatal\u0131 oldu\u011fu, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferini yans\u0131tmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131 olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
31. Bu itibarla kuralda kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131na ili\u015fkin kararlar\u0131n kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n hesaplanmas\u0131nda hangi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn esas al\u0131naca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n herhangi bir teredd\u00fcde yer vermeyecek \u015fekilde a\u00e7\u0131k ve net olarak belirlenmedi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla h\u00fckm\u00fcn denetlenmesini talep etme hakk\u0131na s\u0131n\u0131rlama getiren kural\u0131n kanunilik \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
32. \u00d6te yandan Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 46. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda kamula\u015ft\u0131rman\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesi \u015fart\u0131yla yap\u0131lmas\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f olup s\u00f6z konusu madde h\u00fckm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011feri \u00fczerinden kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n da gere\u011fidir.<\/p>\n
33. Kural\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak verilen kararlar\u0131n kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n hesaplanmas\u0131nda hangi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn esas al\u0131naca\u011f\u0131na dair belirsizli\u011fi uygulamada, yorum ve de\u011ferlendirme farkl\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131na dayal\u0131 olarak bireyin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferinden yoksun kalmas\u0131na yol a\u00e7abilecek niteliktedir.<\/p>\n
34. A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle kural Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. ve 36. maddelerine ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r. \u0130ptali gerekir.”<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E <\/p>\n
19. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 10\/7\/2024 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u0130ddialar\u0131 ve Bakanl\u0131k G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvurucular; Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck belirlendi\u011fini ve aleyhe vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedildi\u011fini, istinaf talebinin kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n alt\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesi nedeniyle itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmedi\u011fini belirterek hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ve adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
21. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin ba\u015fvuruculara \u00f6dendi\u011fi, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ma\u011fdur s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
22. Ba\u015fvurucular, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 \u00f6nceki beyanlar\u0131na benzer beyanlarda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
B. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
23. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n “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
24. Anayasa’n\u0131n ”Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 46. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Devlet ve kamu t\u00fczelki\u015fileri; kamu yarar\u0131n\u0131n gerektirdi\u011fi hallerde, ger\u00e7ek kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 pe\u015fin \u00f6demek \u015fart\u0131yla, \u00f6zel m\u00fclkiyette bulunan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mallar\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131 veya bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131, kanunla g\u00f6sterilen esas ve usullere g\u00f6re, kamula\u015ft\u0131rmaya ve bunlar \u00fczerinde idar\u00ee irtifaklar kurmaya yetkilidir. <\/p>\n
Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli ile kesin h\u00fckme ba\u011flanan art\u0131r\u0131m bedeli nakden ve pe\u015fin olarak \u00f6denir. Ancak, tar\u0131m reformunun uygulanmas\u0131, b\u00fcy\u00fck enerji ve sulama projeleri ile isk\u00e2n projelerinin ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi, yeni ormanlar\u0131n yeti\u015ftirilmesi, k\u0131y\u0131lar\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve turizm amac\u0131yla kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan topraklar\u0131n bedellerinin \u00f6denme \u015fekli kanunla g\u00f6sterilir. Kanunun taksitle \u00f6demeyi \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilece\u011fi bu hallerde, taksitlendirme s\u00fcresi be\u015f y\u0131l\u0131 a\u015famaz; bu takdirde taksitler e\u015fit olarak \u00f6denir. <\/p>\n
Kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan topraktan, o topra\u011f\u0131 do\u011frudan do\u011fruya i\u015fleten k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck \u00e7ift\u00e7iye ait olanlar\u0131n\u0131n bedeli, her halde pe\u015fin \u00f6denir. <\/p>\n
\u0130kinci f\u0131krada \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen taksitlendirmelerde ve herhangi bir sebeple \u00f6denmemi\u015f kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedellerinde kamu alacaklar\u0131 i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen en y\u00fcksek faiz uygulan\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvurucular, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131nda adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n da ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n Mahkemece h\u00fckmedilen kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck belirlenmesi ve aleyhe vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti \u00f6denmesine h\u00fckmedilmesine y\u00f6nelik itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 alt\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle usulden reddine karar verilmi\u015f, esasa ili\u015fkin bir karar verilmemi\u015ftir. Bu durumda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin esas\u0131 incelenmedi\u011finden \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
1. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
26. 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\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
2. Esas Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
a. Genel ilkeler<\/p>\n
27. Etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131 anayasal bir hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcren herkese hakk\u0131n niteli\u011fine uygun olarak iddialar\u0131n\u0131 inceletebilece\u011fi makul, eri\u015filebilir, ihlalin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesini veya s\u00fcrmesini engellemeye ya da sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131rmaya (yeterli giderim sa\u011flamaya) elveri\u015fli idari ve yarg\u0131sal yollara ba\u015fvuruda bulunabilme imk\u00e2n\u0131 sa\u011flanmas\u0131 olarak tan\u0131mlanabilir (Y.T. [GK], B. No: 2016\/22418, 30\/5\/2019, \u00a7 47; Murat Hali\u00e7, B. No: 2017\/24356, 8\/7\/2020, \u00a7 44).<\/p>\n
28. \u00d6te yandan \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesine imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayan ve gerekti\u011finde uygun bir telafi y\u00f6ntemi sunan etkili hukuk yollar\u0131n\u0131n olmas\u0131 ilgililere etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131n bir gere\u011fidir. Buna g\u00f6re ki\u015filerin ma\u011fduriyetlerinin giderilmesi amac\u0131yla \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen yarg\u0131 yollar\u0131n\u0131n mevzuatta yer almas\u0131 yaln\u0131z ba\u015f\u0131na yeterli olmay\u0131p bu yolun ayn\u0131 zamanda pratikte de ba\u015far\u0131 \u015fans\u0131 sunmas\u0131 gerekir. S\u00f6z konusu yola ba\u015fvurulabilmesi i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen \u015fartlar somut olaylara tatbik edilirken dayanak i\u015flem, eylem ya da ihmallerden kaynaklanan savunulabilir nitelikteki iddialar\u0131n bu do\u011frultuda geni\u015f \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirilmesi, \u015fartlar\u0131n olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 durumunda ise bu durumun yarg\u0131 makamlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7elerle a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 gerekir (\u0130lhan G\u00f6khan, B. No: 2017\/27957, 9\/9\/2020, \u00a7\u00a7 47, 49).<\/p>\n
29. Mahkemenin \u00f6n\u00fcndeki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131 incelememesi sadece adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131 zedelemekle kalmaz, ayn\u0131 zamanda davan\u0131n konusunu olu\u015fturan medeni hakk\u0131n ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 bulundu\u011fu di\u011fer (maddi) hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckler y\u00f6n\u00fcnden etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilmesine de yol a\u00e7abilir. Yarg\u0131sal ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131, \u00e7o\u011funlukla bir hak veya \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckle ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme kavu\u015fturulmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla ihdas edilmi\u015ftir. Ki\u015filer dava a\u00e7mak suretiyle mahkemelerden hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckleriyle ilgili olarak yarg\u0131sal koruma talep etmektedir. Bireylerin yarg\u0131sal koruma taleplerine cevap vermek, bu ba\u011flamda dava konusu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131 inceleyerek iddia ve savunmalar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirdikten sonra davay\u0131 karara ba\u011flamak yarg\u0131 mercilerinin anayasal y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcd\u00fcr (Emin Arda B\u00fcy\u00fck [GK], B. No: 2017\/28079, 2\/7\/2020, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
30. Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinde “Herkes, m\u00fclkiyet ve miras haklar\u0131na sahiptir.” h\u00fckm\u00fcne yer verilerek m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n 5. maddesinde ise insan\u0131n maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n geli\u015fmesi i\u00e7in gerekli \u015fartlar\u0131 haz\u0131rlamak devletin temel ama\u00e7 ve g\u00f6revleri aras\u0131nda say\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n etkili bir \u015fekilde korunabilmesi yaln\u0131zca devletin bu haklara m\u00fcdahaleden ka\u00e7\u0131nmas\u0131yla sa\u011flanamaz. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 5. maddesi ile birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde 35. maddesi uyar\u0131nca devletin pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri de bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler kimi durumlarda \u00f6zel ki\u015filer aras\u0131ndaki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar da d\u00e2hil olmak \u00fczere s\u00f6z konusu temel haklar\u0131n korunmas\u0131 i\u00e7in belirli tedbirlerin al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir (AYM, E.2019\/40, K.2020\/40, 17\/7\/2020, \u00a7 37; AYM, E.2019\/11, K.2019\/86, 14\/11\/2019, \u00a7 13; T\u00fcrkiye Emekliler Derne\u011fi, B. No: 2012\/1035, 17\/7\/2014, \u00a7\u00a7 34-38; Eyy\u00fcp Boynukara, B. No: 2013\/7842, 17\/2\/2016, \u00a7\u00a7 39-41; Osmano\u011flu \u0130n\u015faat E\u011fitim G\u0131da Temizlik Hizmetleri Petrol \u00dcr\u00fcnleri Sanayi Ticaret Limitet \u015eirketi, B. No: 2014\/8649, 15\/2\/2017, \u00a7 43).<\/p>\n
31. Devletin pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan koruyucu ve d\u00fczeltici baz\u0131 \u00f6nlemler almas\u0131 gerekir. Koruyucu \u00f6nlemler m\u00fclkiyete m\u00fcdahale edilmesini \u00f6nleyici, d\u00fczeltici \u00f6nlemler ise m\u00fcdahalenin etkilerini giderici, di\u011fer bir ifadeyle telafi edici yasal, idari ve fiil\u00ee tedbirleri kapsam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalenin malik \u00fczerinde do\u011furdu\u011fu olumsuz sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcnse eski h\u00e2le d\u00f6nd\u00fcr\u00fclmesi, m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011filse malikin zarar ve kay\u0131plar\u0131n\u0131n telafi edilmesini sa\u011flayan idari veya yarg\u0131sal birtak\u0131m hukuki mekanizmalar\u0131n olu\u015fturulmas\u0131 devletin pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerinin bir gere\u011fidir (Osmano\u011flu \u0130n\u015faat E\u011fitim G\u0131da Temizlik Hizmetleri A.\u015e., B. No: 2014\/8649, 15\/2\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 46, 48).<\/p>\n
b. \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/p>\n
32. Ba\u015fvurucular; Mahkemece h\u00fckmedilen kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin miktar olarak kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 alt\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle kanun yolu incelemesi yap\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck belirlendi\u011fine ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin denetlenmedi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
33. Somut olayda Mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespitine, kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ba\u015fvurucular ad\u0131na olan tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptali ile \u0130dare ad\u0131na tesciline karar verilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme karar\u0131nda tescile ili\u015fkin h\u00fckm\u00fcn kesin oldu\u011fu, bedele ili\u015fkin h\u00fckme kar\u015f\u0131 ise istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurulabilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
34. Ba\u015fvurucular ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011ferinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck belirlendi\u011fini, hesap hatas\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferinin kendilerine \u00f6denmedi\u011fini, bu durumun Anayasa’ya ve 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil etti\u011fini belirterek istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
35. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi kesin karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunulamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun usulden reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131nda 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 341.maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca h\u00fckmedilen bedelin her bir payda\u015fa d\u00fc\u015fen k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n karar tarihi itibar\u0131yla mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 davalar\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak belirlenen kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 alt\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
36. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin esas ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6z konusu h\u00fck\u00fcmde, mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 davalar\u0131na ili\u015fkin ilk derece mahkemesi kararlar\u0131n\u0131n 2019 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in 4.400 TL’yi ge\u00e7memesi h\u00e2linde kesin olaca\u011f\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olup istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunamayacaklar mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 davalar\u0131n\u0131n taraflar\u0131 olarak belirlenmi\u015ftir. Oysa kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131 tipik mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 davalar\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 olup kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131 mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferinin ne oldu\u011fu olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r. Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011ferinin mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan belirlenmesi gerekir. Mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin davalarda ise belirli bir miktar i\u00e7eren talepler davan\u0131n konusunu olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz malikinin mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli olarak belirlenen miktara y\u00f6nelik itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 kanun yolunda ileri s\u00fcrmesi sonucunda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferinin belirlenmesine y\u00f6nelik bir denetleme yap\u0131labilece\u011fi ortadad\u0131r. Nitekim ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011feri \u00fczerinden kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n da gere\u011fidir.<\/p>\n
37. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla sat\u0131n alma g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeleri sonu\u00e7 vermedi\u011fi i\u00e7in idarece ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n maliki aleyhine kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n sonucunda aleyhine dava a\u00e7\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz malikinin mahkemece h\u00fckmedilen kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferinden d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131nda bulunmas\u0131 durumunda mahkeme karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 kanun yolu ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmaktan ba\u015fka bir se\u00e7ene\u011fi yoktur.<\/p>\n
38. Etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131, \u00f6n\u00fcne getirilen bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131n mahkemece incelenerek iddialar\u0131n dinlenip karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir. Somut olayda kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck oldu\u011fu belirtilerek istinaf incelemesi talebinde bulunan ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n talebinin B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince davaya konu kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 alt\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle esas incelemesi yap\u0131lmadan usulden reddedilmesiyle Mahkemece h\u00fckmedilen bedelin denetlenmesi imk\u00e2n\u0131 ortadan kalkm\u0131\u015f, \u00e2deta ba\u015fvurucular h\u00fckmedilen bedeli kabul etmeye zorlanm\u0131\u015f olmaktad\u0131r. Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli belli bir miktar\u0131n alt\u0131nda oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n bedele kar\u015f\u0131 itiraz edememesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fimin k\u0131s\u0131tland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
39. Kald\u0131 ki Mahkemenin gerek\u00e7esinin dayana\u011f\u0131 olan 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 341. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n birinci c\u00fcmlesi Anayasa Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan \u201ckamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespitine ili\u015fkin davalar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden h\u00fckm\u00fcn denetlenmesini talep etme hakk\u0131n\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle iptal edilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla karar tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan ancak hak arama h\u00fcrriyetinin \u00f6z\u00fcne dokunmas\u0131 nedeniyle iptal edilen kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcne dayan\u0131larak davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi ile etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
40. Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak verilen kararlar\u0131n kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n alt\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilerek denetime tabi tutulmamas\u0131 durumunda bireyin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferinden yoksun kalmas\u0131na yol a\u00e7abilece\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda genel h\u00fck\u00fcmlere g\u00f6re a\u00e7\u0131lan ve teorik olarak ba\u015far\u0131 sunma kapasitesi olan dava yolunun B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin kat\u0131 ve \u015fekilci yorumuyla ba\u015far\u0131 sunma kapasitesini yitirdi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
41. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131n\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesini ve giderim sa\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 engelleyen yorum nedeniyle Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
42. Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verildi\u011finden ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck oldu\u011funa, aleyhe vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesine y\u00f6nelik \u015fik\u00e2yetleri hakk\u0131nda ayr\u0131ca bir inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
VI. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
43. Ba\u015fvurucular, yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile maddi ve manevi tazminat\u0131n \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
44. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu kapsamda karar\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flatmak ve Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gideren, ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun yeni bir karar vermektir (Mehmet Do\u011fan [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
45. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat taleplerinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
VII. H\u00dcK\u00dcM <\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Adana B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 4. Hukuk Dairesine (E.2019\/2405, K.2019\/1406) iletilmesi i\u00e7in Adana 7. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesine (E. 2017\/8, K.2019\/1406) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 19.246,90 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvuruculara M\u00dc\u015eTEREKEN \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \u00d6demelerin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n 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
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 10\/7\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 10\/7\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/6450 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 BELG\u0130N YAL\u00c7IN VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/6450) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 10\/7\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 31\/12\/2024-32769 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : C. Ece YALIM Ba\u015fvurucular : 1. Belgin YAL\u00c7IN \u00a0 \u00a0 2. Ferat YARIZ \u00a0 \u00a0 3. Mahmure YAR\u015eI \u00a0 \u00a0 4. Nermin YAL\u00c7IN \u00a0 \u00a0 5. Teslim YARIZ \u00a0 \u00a0 6. Vedat YARIZ Vekilleri : Av. Adil AKTAY \u00a0 \u00a0 Av. Utku \u00c7a\u011fr\u0131 AKTAY \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti davas\u0131nda istinaf talebinin kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n alt\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 23\/1\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Ba\u015fvuru, ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinin idari y\u00f6nden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n incelemesinden sonra Komisyona sunulmu\u015ftur. 4. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. 5. B\u00f6l\u00fcm Ba\u015fkan\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin birlikte yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. 6. 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. Ba\u015fvurucular, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmu\u015ftur. III. OLAY VE …<\/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-23152","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n