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
AL\u0130 \u00d6RS BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/17774)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 18\/9\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 21\/1\/2025 – 32789<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Kamber Ozan TUTAL<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Ali \u00d6RS<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Hac\u0131 Ahmet KANAL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, iptal edilen idari i\u015flemden do\u011fan zarar\u0131n tazmin edilmemesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu 1979 do\u011fumlu olup \u015fof\u00f6r olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Trafik polislerinin 4\/11\/2014 tarihinde yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 kontrolde 1,33 promil alkoll\u00fc oldu\u011fu tespit edilen ba\u015fvurucunun s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc belgesi iki y\u0131l s\u00fcreyle al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Alkol \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcm\u00fcnden yakla\u015f\u0131k iki saat sonra bir devlet hastanesinde yap\u0131lan kan \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcm\u00fcnde ba\u015fvurucunun 0,02 promil alkoll\u00fc oldu\u011fu saptanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu, s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc belgesinin al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u015fleminin iptali i\u00e7in dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcreci sonunda Antalya 3. \u0130dare Mahkemesi, hastane raporu ve iki \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcm aras\u0131ndaki s\u00fcre g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucu, mevzuatta yaz\u0131l\u0131 olan s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n alt\u0131nda alkoll\u00fc oldu\u011fundan dava konusu i\u015flemde hukuka uygunluk bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle i\u015flemin iptaline 13\/6\/2017 tarihinde karar vermi\u015ftir. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Onbe\u015finci Dairesi karar\u0131 onam\u0131\u015f ve karar d\u00fczeltme istemini reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu 18\/5\/2018 tarihinde s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc belgesinin al\u0131nmas\u0131 nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 maddi ve manevi zararlar\u0131n\u0131n tazmini amac\u0131yla dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu; idari i\u015flem sonras\u0131nda i\u015finden kovuldu\u011funu, yeni bir i\u015f bulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan gelir kayb\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, arac\u0131n\u0131 kullanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck bedelle satmak ve ula\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 taksiyle sa\u011flamak zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucu, mesle\u011finin \u015fof\u00f6rl\u00fck oldu\u011funu g\u00f6steren Sosyal G\u00fcvenlik Kurumuna ait belgeleri sunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. Antalya 4. \u0130dare Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) 28\/2\/2019 tarihinde davay\u0131 k\u0131smen kabul ederek gelir kayb\u0131 ve ula\u015f\u0131m masraf\u0131 olarak 1.489 TL maddi tazminat ile 5.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine karar vermi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, \u015fof\u00f6r olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan ba\u015fvurucunun s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc belgesinin geri al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u015fleminin yarg\u0131lama sonucunda iptaledilmesi kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda idarenin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 i\u015flemi nedeniyle olu\u015fan zarar\u0131 tazmin y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc alt\u0131nda oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Taraflar karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
7. Konya B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 5. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi (B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi) 19\/2\/2020 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun reddine, daval\u0131 idarenin istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun ise kabul\u00fcne karar vermi\u015f ve Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 kald\u0131rarak davay\u0131 kesin olmak \u00fczere reddetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde, ba\u015fvurucunun kalibrasyon ayar\u0131 yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f teknik cihazla yap\u0131lan alkol \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcm\u00fc sonucunda 1,33 promil alkoll\u00fc olarak ara\u00e7 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edildi\u011finden s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc belgesinin al\u0131nmas\u0131nda idarenin a\u011f\u0131r ve bariz bi\u00e7imde kusurlu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 21\/4\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 12\/6\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. 25\/3\/2020 tarihli ve 7226 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun ile COVID-19 pandemisi nedeniyle yarg\u0131 alan\u0131ndaki s\u00fcreler 13\/3\/2020 tarihinden 15\/6\/2020 tarihine kadar durdu\u011fundan ba\u015fvurunun s\u00fcresinde oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddia y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddia y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa 16\/6\/2023 tarihinde karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu, hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu tespit edilen bir idari i\u015flem nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar\u0131n tazmin edilmemesinden yak\u0131nmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvuru, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. 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
13. Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesiyle g\u00fcvenceye ba\u011flanan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131, ekonomik de\u011fer ifade eden ve parayla de\u011ferlendirilebilen her t\u00fcrl\u00fc mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131 kapsamaktad\u0131r (AYM, E.2015\/39, K.2015\/62, 1\/7\/2015, \u00a7 20). Somut olayda Mahkeme, ge\u00e7imini \u015fof\u00f6rl\u00fck yaparak sa\u011flayan ba\u015fvurucunun s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc belgesinin al\u0131nmas\u0131 sonucunda gelir kayb\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit etmi\u015ftir. Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k zarar iddialar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bir inceleme yapmaks\u0131z\u0131n B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi, s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc belgesine el konulmas\u0131nda idarenin a\u011f\u0131r ve bariz bir kusuru bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat istenemeyece\u011fini kaydetmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvuruya konu olay\u0131n \u015fartlar\u0131 bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak ele al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda sigorta bildirimlerinde ve mahkeme karar\u0131nda yap\u0131lan tespitler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u015fof\u00f6r olarak ge\u00e7imini sa\u011flayan ba\u015fvurucu a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan mesle\u011fini yapabilmesinin zorunlu \u00f6n \u015fart\u0131 olan s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc ehliyetinin ekonomik bir de\u011fer ifade etti\u011fi ve m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. 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). Ba\u015fvuruya konu olayda sonradan iptal edilmesine kar\u015f\u0131n s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc ehliyetine el konulmas\u0131 s\u00fcrecinde mesle\u011fini icra edememesi ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etmi\u015ftir. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin ba\u015fvurucunun bir s\u00fcre m\u00fclk\u00fcnden yararlanamamas\u0131 nedeniyle birinci kural \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. Anayasa’n\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 temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin genel ilkeleri d\u00fczenleyen Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinin de g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmas\u0131 gerekmektedir. An\u0131lan madde uyar\u0131nca temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckler, demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n Anayasa’n\u0131n ilgili maddelerinde belirtilen sebeplere ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ve ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’ya uygun olabilmesi i\u00e7in m\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayanmas\u0131, kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131 ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi g\u00f6zetilerek yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekmektedir (Recep Tarhan ve Afife Tarhan, \u00a7 62).<\/p>\n
16. Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ancak kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131yla kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilece\u011fi belirtilmek suretiyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalelerin kanunda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesi gere\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. \u00d6te yandan temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin genel ilkelerin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde de hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilece\u011fi temel bir ilke olarak benimsenmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalelerde dikkate al\u0131nacak \u00f6ncelikli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct, m\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131d\u0131r. Bu \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edildi\u011finde di\u011fer \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctler bak\u0131m\u0131ndan inceleme yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lacakt\u0131r (Ford Motor Company, B. No: 2014\/13518, 26\/10\/2017, \u00a7 49).<\/p>\n
17. Somut olayda s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc ehliyetinin al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u015fleminin iptali i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucunun a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 dava, Antalya 3. \u0130dare Mahkemesince kabul edilmi\u015f ve idari i\u015flem hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulunarak iptal edilmi\u015ftir. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Onbe\u015finci Dairesinin onad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6z konusu karar kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc belgesinin al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u015fleminin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcreci sonunda kesinle\u015fmi\u015f bir mahkeme h\u00fckm\u00fcyle tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Bu a\u015famadan sonra Anayasa Mahkemesince yap\u0131lacak inceleme bu ihlalin giderilip giderilmedi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik olacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. Anayasa Mahkemesi, i\u015f m\u00fcfetti\u015fli\u011fine ataman\u0131n geciktirilmesinin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funun mahkemelerce tespit edilmesine kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k u\u011fran\u0131lan parasal hak kay\u0131plar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fik\u00e2yetine ili\u015fkin bir ba\u015fvuruyu Demet Demirel ve di\u011ferleri ([GK], B. No: 2019\/12998, 1\/12\/2022) karar\u0131nda incelemi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan kararda; idari i\u015flemin iptal edilmesi ve ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n atanma i\u015flemlerinin tamamlanmas\u0131 ma\u011fduriyetlerini hafifletse de tam olarak gidermedi\u011fi, ma\u011fduriyetin ger\u00e7ek manada ortadan kalkabilmesi i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlali sebebiyle olu\u015fan zararlar\u0131n\u0131n da kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir (Demet Demirel ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 42).<\/p>\n
19. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu, iptal edilen idare i\u015flem sonucunda u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme, davay\u0131 kabul etmesine kar\u015f\u0131n B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc belgesinin al\u0131nmas\u0131nda idarenin a\u011f\u0131r ve bariz bi\u00e7imde kusurlu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. S\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc belgesine el konulan ba\u015fvurucunun mesle\u011fini icra edememesinin kendi tutum ve davran\u0131\u015f\u0131ndan de\u011fil idarenin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 i\u015fleminden kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r. Hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 kesinle\u015fmi\u015f mahkeme karar\u0131yla tespit edilmi\u015f olan i\u015flem neticesinde ba\u015fvurucu, mesleki faaliyetini ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirememi\u015ftir. Mesle\u011fini icra edemeyen ba\u015fvurucunun idarenin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 i\u015flemi sebebiyle fiilen \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmamas\u0131ndan idare lehine sonu\u00e7lar \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n giderilmesini \u00f6nlemi\u015f ve t\u00fcm k\u00fclfetin ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na yol a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. Hukuk devletinde idare, hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak tesis etti\u011fi i\u015flemlerin sebep oldu\u011fu ihlalleri giderme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc alt\u0131ndad\u0131r. \u0130dare, eski h\u00e2le getirme (restitutio in integrum) ilkesi gere\u011fince ki\u015fiyi, hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 i\u015flem tesis edilmemi\u015f olsayd\u0131 ki\u015fi hangi durumda olacaksa ona m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011funca en yak\u0131n konuma getirmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. Bu ba\u011flamda, idarenin ba\u015fvurucunun s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc belgesini geri vermekle ihlali giderme hususundaki y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerini b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle ifa etti\u011fi s\u00f6ylenemeyecektir. \u0130hlalin tam olarak giderilebilmesi i\u00e7in hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu tespit edilen i\u015flem nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zararlar\u0131n da tazmin edilmesi gerekir (benzer y\u00f6ndeki de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. Demet Demirel ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 45; Narin Nihal Parlak, B. No: 2019\/16487, 3\/3\/2022, \u00a7 39).<\/p>\n
21. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc belgesinin al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u015fleminin iptali suretiyle tespit edilen ihlalin yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n tam olarak giderilmesi, B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesinin karar\u0131 nedeniyle \u00f6nlenmi\u015ftir. Bu durumda ba\u015fvurucuya a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 ve ola\u011fan d\u0131\u015f\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklenmesinden dolay\u0131 kamu yarar\u0131 ile ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki adil dengenin ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine bozuldu\u011fu ve bu nedenle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
22. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
23. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ile yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesini ve 100.000 TL tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
24. 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 (6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 50. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen bireysel ba\u015fvuruya \u00f6zg\u00fc yeniden yarg\u0131lama kurumunun \u00f6zelliklerine ili\u015fkin kapsaml\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamalar i\u00e7in bkz. 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
25. \u00d6te yandan ihlalin niteli\u011fine g\u00f6re yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. 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,<\/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,<\/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\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in Konya B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 5. \u0130dari Dava Dairesine (E.2019\/1434, K.2020\/516) iletilmek \u00fczere Antalya 4. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2018\/576, K.2019\/122) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin 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\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \u00d6demenin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na; \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal faiz UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 18\/9\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 18\/9\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/17774 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 AL\u0130 \u00d6RS BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/17774) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 18\/9\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 21\/1\/2025 – 32789 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Kamber Ozan TUTAL Ba\u015fvurucu : Ali \u00d6RS Vekili : Av. Hac\u0131 Ahmet KANAL \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, iptal edilen idari i\u015flemden do\u011fan zarar\u0131n tazmin edilmemesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu 1979 do\u011fumlu olup \u015fof\u00f6r olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktad\u0131r. 3. Trafik polislerinin 4\/11\/2014 tarihinde yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 kontrolde 1,33 promil alkoll\u00fc oldu\u011fu tespit edilen ba\u015fvurucunun s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc belgesi iki y\u0131l s\u00fcreyle al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Alkol \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcm\u00fcnden yakla\u015f\u0131k iki saat sonra bir devlet hastanesinde yap\u0131lan kan \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcm\u00fcnde ba\u015fvurucunun 0,02 promil alkoll\u00fc oldu\u011fu saptanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 4. Ba\u015fvurucu, s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc belgesinin al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u015fleminin iptali i\u00e7in dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcreci sonunda Antalya 3. \u0130dare Mahkemesi, hastane raporu ve iki \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcm aras\u0131ndaki s\u00fcre g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucu, mevzuatta yaz\u0131l\u0131 olan s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n alt\u0131nda alkoll\u00fc oldu\u011fundan dava konusu i\u015flemde hukuka uygunluk bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle i\u015flemin iptaline 13\/6\/2017 tarihinde karar vermi\u015ftir. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Onbe\u015finci Dairesi karar\u0131 onam\u0131\u015f ve karar d\u00fczeltme istemini reddetmi\u015ftir. 5. Ba\u015fvurucu 18\/5\/2018 tarihinde s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc belgesinin al\u0131nmas\u0131 nedeniyle …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26490","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n