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 \u00c7ET\u0130N VE KADR\u0130YE TUNAY \u00c7ET\u0130N BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/32603)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 20\/11\/2024<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/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
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u015eahap KAYMAK<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1. Ali \u00c7ET\u0130N<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
2. Kadriye Tunay \u00c7ET\u0130N<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Tahsin KO\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 <\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131 nedeniyle u\u011fran\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen manevi zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddedilmesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n, kamu makamlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir ve \u00f6nlenebilir nitelikte oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi i\u00e7in gerekli tedbirlerin al\u0131nmamas\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen \u00f6l\u00fcm nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Hatay’\u0131n Reyhanl\u0131 il\u00e7esinde 11\/5\/2013 tarihinde biri belediye binas\u0131 \u00f6n\u00fcnde, di\u011feri postane binas\u0131n\u0131n yak\u0131nlar\u0131nda olmak \u00fczere bomba y\u00fckl\u00fc iki arac\u0131n infilak ettirilmesi suretiyle ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir. Sald\u0131r\u0131 sonucu 51 ki\u015fi ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131 yitirmi\u015f, 222 ki\u015fi yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n yak\u0131n\u0131 N.\u015e. de s\u00f6z konusu sald\u0131r\u0131da hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybetmi\u015ftir. N.\u015e.nin e\u015fi F.\u015e. taraf\u0131ndan 21\/5\/2013 tarihinde Hatay Valili\u011fi Zarar Tespit Komisyonuna yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerine 25\/6\/2013 tarihinde sulhname imzalanm\u0131\u015f, 17\/7\/2004 tarihli ve 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Ter\u00f6r ve Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadeleden Do\u011fan Zararlar\u0131n Kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun uyar\u0131nca 25.842,95 TL tutar\u0131nda maddi tazminat N.\u015e.nin e\u015fi F.\u015e. ile k\u0131z\u0131 D.\u015e.ye \u00f6denmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. S\u00f6z konusu ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131yla ilgili olarak \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 M\u00fclkiye M\u00fcfetti\u015fli\u011fi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen 2\/4\/2014 tarihli \u00f6n inceleme raporunda \u00f6zetle Hatay Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne olay \u00f6ncesi konuyla ilgili \u00e7ok say\u0131da ihbar geldi\u011fi, istihbarat birimleri taraf\u0131ndan -ara\u00e7 plakas\u0131, \u015fah\u0131s isimleri gibi bilgilerin de belirtilmesi suretiyle- Hatay Emniyetine bilgi sunuldu\u011fu, patlaman\u0131n meydana gelmesinde \u00f6nlem almayan emniyet birimlerinin hizmet kusuru oldu\u011fu, ilgililer hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma izni verilmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. \u0130lgili emniyet g\u00f6revlileri ile m\u00fclki idare amirleri hakk\u0131nda Hatay Valili\u011fi taraf\u0131ndan soru\u015fturma izni verilmesi \u00fczerine Hatay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nca 30\/12\/2014 tarihinde g\u00f6revi k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullanma su\u00e7undan iddianame d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f ve iddianamenin kabul\u00fc ile Hatay 7. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi nezdinde 19\/1\/2015 tarihinde kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucular 4\/5\/2018 tarihinde \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na sunduklar\u0131 dilek\u00e7e ile \u00e7ocuklar\u0131 N.\u015e.nin \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131klar\u0131 manevi zarar\u0131n \u00f6denmesi i\u00e7in talepte bulunmu\u015ftur. Bu talebin 30\/5\/2018 tarihli i\u015flemle reddedilmesi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucular 12\/6\/2018 tarihinde toplam 100.000 TL manevi zarar\u0131n \u00f6denmesi talebiyle Hatay 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dava dilek\u00e7esinde patlaman\u0131n ve \u00f6l\u00fcmlerin ya\u015fanmas\u0131nda idarenin kusuru oldu\u011fu, istihbarat bilgisi bulunmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen \u00f6nlem al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f, dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131klama yap\u0131larak 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’dan ayr\u0131 olarak kusur sorumlulu\u011fu temelinde dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. Mahkeme 20\/12\/2018 tarihinde manevi tazminat talebinin k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc ile toplam 80.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n idareye ba\u015fvurunun yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 4\/5\/2018 tarihinden itibaren hesaplanacak yasal faizi ile ba\u015fvuruculara \u00f6denmesine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; idarenin hizmet kusurundan kaynaklanan ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 neticesinde ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u00e7ocu\u011fu olan N.\u015e. hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybetti\u011finden somut olayda manevi tazminat i\u00e7in gerekli \u015fartlar\u0131n bulundu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Olay\u0131n meydana geli\u015f \u015fekli, zarar\u0131n niteli\u011fi, idarenin a\u011f\u0131r hizmet kusuru ve ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u00e7ocu\u011funun s\u00f6z konusu olay neticesinde vefat etti\u011fi hususlar\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurularak duyulan elem ve ac\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131smen de olsa giderilmesi i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n manevi tazminat talebi k\u0131smen kabul edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 taraflar istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Bunun \u00fczerine Adana B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 2. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi (B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi) ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n istinaf talebinin gerek\u00e7eli olarak reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi daval\u0131 idarenin istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun kabul\u00fc ile Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131smen kabule ili\u015fkin k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 kald\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Neticede davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; ter\u00f6r eyleminden kaynaklanan olayda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisinin vefat etmesi nedeniyle manevi tazminat talebinin sosyal risk ilkesine g\u00f6re incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcresi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu’nun 13. maddesinin dikkate al\u0131narak de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Olay tarihinden itibaren bir y\u0131l i\u00e7inde en ge\u00e7 12\/5\/2014 tarihine kadar idari ba\u015fvuru yap\u0131larak tesis edilecek i\u015flemin sonucuna g\u00f6re altm\u0131\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde dava a\u00e7\u0131labilece\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda olay\u0131n \u00fczerinden uzun s\u00fcre ge\u00e7tikten sonra dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresini canland\u0131rma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulunmayan 4\/5\/2018 tarihli idari ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerine verilen ret cevab\u0131n\u0131n ard\u0131ndan 12\/6\/2018 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan davada s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 bulundu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucular nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 30\/7\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 12\/8\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
A. Mahkemeye Eri\u015fim Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia <\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucular, eylemin idarili\u011finin ceza davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131yla birlikte \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fini, s\u00fcre ret karar\u0131ndaki yorumun kat\u0131 ve \u015fekilci oldu\u011funu belirterek mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
11. 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. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f yaz\u0131s\u0131nda; ba\u015fvurunun \u00f6ncelikle kabul edilebilirlik \u015fartlar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Konuyla ilgili \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan temin edilen g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f ve ilgili belgelerin ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n iddialar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olarak yap\u0131lacak incelemede de\u011ferlendirilmek \u00fczere g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi bildirilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca inceleme yap\u0131l\u0131rken Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ile Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihad\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru formundaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n en temel unsurlar\u0131ndan biri olan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcne ta\u015f\u0131yabilmek ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n etkili bir \u015fekilde karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilmek anlam\u0131na gelir. Ki\u015finin mahkemeye ba\u015fvurmas\u0131n\u0131 engelleyen veya mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 anlams\u0131z h\u00e2le getiren, bir ba\u015fka ifadeyle mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde etkisizle\u015ftiren s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilir (\u00d6zkan \u015een, B. No: 2012\/791, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
13. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, mahkemeye ba\u015fvuru konusunda etkili bir sistemin var olmas\u0131n\u0131 ve dava a\u00e7mak isteyen ki\u015filerin mahkemeye ula\u015fmada a\u00e7\u0131k, pratik ve yeterli f\u0131rsatlara sahip olmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir. \u00d6zellikle hukuki ya da uygulamadaki belirsizlikler ki\u015filerin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilir (Aktif Elektrik M\u00fch. \u0130n\u015f. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2012\/855, 26\/6\/2014, \u00a7 34). Bu nedenle mahkemelerin usul kurallar\u0131n\u0131 uygularken yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetine zarar getirecek \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kat\u0131 \u015fekilcilikten ka\u00e7\u0131nmalar\u0131 gerekti\u011fi gibi kanunla \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f usul \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kalkmas\u0131na neden olacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 esneklikten de ka\u00e7\u0131nmalar\u0131 gerekir (Kamil Ko\u00e7, B. No: 2012\/660, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 65). Bu kapsamda mevzuatta \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine ili\u015fkin kurallar\u0131n hukuka a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak yanl\u0131\u015f uygulanmas\u0131 veya bu s\u00fcrelerin hatal\u0131 hesaplanmas\u0131 nedenleriyle ki\u015filerin dava a\u00e7ma ya da kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvuru haklar\u0131n\u0131 kullanmas\u0131na engel olunmas\u0131 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilir (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2014\/13156, 20\/4\/2017, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
14. Vurgulamak gerekir ki dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin hangi tarihte ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirlemek ve mevzuat\u0131 bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle yorumlamak g\u00f6revi esasen yarg\u0131 mercilerine aittir. Bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincillik ilkesi gere\u011fi, dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flat\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 tarihin belirlenmesi noktas\u0131nda Anayasa Mahkemesinin bir g\u00f6revi bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesinin bu hususta \u00fcstlenece\u011fi rol, dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin hangi tarihten itibaren ba\u015flat\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fiyle ilgili yarg\u0131 mercilerinin yorumlar\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na etkisini somut olay\u0131n \u015fartlar\u0131 \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda incelemektir (Ahmet Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m, B. No: 2014\/18135, 20\/9\/2017, \u00a7 46).<\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesince reddedilmesinin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu sebeple m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ve somut ba\u015fvuruya uygun d\u00fc\u015fen kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme, hakl\u0131 bir sebebe dayanma, \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmama \u015fartlar\u0131na uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
16. Somut olayda mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na davan\u0131n s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddi suretiyle yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011fa sahip oldu\u011fu ve s\u0131n\u0131rlaman\u0131n me\u015fru amac\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu (idari i\u015flem ya da eylemlere kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lacak davalarda s\u00fcre \u015fart\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin en genel ifadeyle idari istikrar\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 \u015feklinde bir me\u015fru amaca hizmet etti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. Ay\u015fe Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m, B. No: 2014\/5, 25\/10\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 54,55; Fatma Altuner, B. No: 2014\/17714, 26\/10\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 48,49; \u00c7\u00f6lbeyi Lojistik Nakliyat G\u00fcmr\u00fckleme Denizcilik \u0130n\u015faat Turizm Sanayii ve Ticaret Limited \u015eirketi, B. No: 2014\/12354, 9\/11\/2017, \u00a7 52) anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. Kanunilik ve me\u015fru ama\u00e7 \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahale, \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan da de\u011ferlendirilmelidir. \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 etmektedir (AYM, E.2011\/111, K.2012\/56, 11\/4\/2012; E.2013\/66, K.2014\/19, 29\/1\/2014; E.2016\/16, K.2016\/37, 5\/5\/2016; Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
18. Hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ba\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 usul kurallar\u0131na uyulmamas\u0131 nedeniyle uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n esas\u0131 hakk\u0131nda karar verilmemesi suretiyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin idari istikrar\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 amac\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan elveri\u015fli ve gerekli oldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenebilir. Somut olaydaki m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn de\u011ferlendirilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan as\u0131l \u00fczerinde durulmas\u0131 gereken husus ise m\u00fcdahalenin orant\u0131l\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
19. Eldeki ba\u015fvuruya konu yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi meydana gelen \u00f6l\u00fcmler ile buna neden olan eylemin patlaman\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi 11\/5\/2013 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi ve bu tarihten itibaren mevzuatta belirtilen s\u00fcreler a\u015f\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra yap\u0131lan idari ba\u015fvurunun reddi \u00fczerine a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esine yer vererek davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20. Anayasa Mahkemesince daha \u00f6nce benzer nitelikte ba\u015fvurularda da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere idari eylem nedeniyle u\u011fran\u0131lan zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131nda idarenin tazminle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc tutulabilmesi i\u00e7in ortada idari eylem ve zarar olmal\u0131, ayr\u0131ca zararla idari eylem aras\u0131nda illiyet ba\u011f\u0131 bulunmal\u0131d\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu eylemlerin idarili\u011fi ve do\u011furdu\u011fu zarar bazen eylemin yap\u0131lmas\u0131yla birlikte ortaya \u00e7\u0131karken bazen de \u00e7ok sonra de\u011fi\u015fik ara\u015ft\u0131rma, inceleme ve hatta ceza yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131 sonucu ortaya \u00e7\u0131kabilmektedir (\u015eeyma Kayao\u011flu, B. No: 2014\/5491, 5\/7\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 55,56).<\/p>\n
21. \u0130darili\u011fin veya meydana gelen zarar\u0131n ya da aralar\u0131ndaki illiyet ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131n eylemden sonra anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya ortaya konulabildi\u011fi durumlarda dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin hak sahibinin hen\u00fcz dava hakk\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fdu\u011fundan haberdar olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve somut \u015fartlar \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde haberdar oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fcn\u00fc hakl\u0131 k\u0131lan nedenlerin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir d\u00f6nemde i\u015flemeye ba\u015flamas\u0131 dava hakk\u0131n\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 anlams\u0131z k\u0131l\u0131p \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesini zedeleyebilir (Ya\u015far \u00c7oban [GK], B. No: 2014\/6673, 25\/7\/2017, \u00a7 66). Bu nedenle eylemin idarili\u011finin veya yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar\u0131n ya da illiyet ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131n eylemden sonra anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya ortaya konulabildi\u011fi durumlarda dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin bu tarihlerden sonra ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131 kabul edilmektedir (\u015eeyma Kayao\u011flu, \u00a7 55).<\/p>\n
22. Ba\u015fvuruya konu olayda \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn 11\/5\/2013 tarihinde meydana gelen ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi konusunda teredd\u00fct bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Ancak olayda idarenin kusuru olmas\u0131 durumunun \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan inceleme, akabinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen soru\u015fturma izni verilmesi i\u015flemleri ve olayda ihmali\/kusuru oldu\u011fu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclen emniyet g\u00f6revlileri hakk\u0131nda 19\/1\/2015 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan ceza davas\u0131 ile a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n an\u0131lan s\u00fcre\u00e7ten \u00f6nce \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131na sebebiyet veren olguya dair ihmale, eylemsizli\u011fe ve eylemin idarili\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir bilgiye, veriye sahip olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n, \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcne neden olan ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131nda idarenin kusur do\u011furabilecek eylemsizli\u011fini (\u00f6nlem almama h\u00e2li) ve zararla idari eylemsizlik aras\u0131nda illiyet ba\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011funu \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131yla derh\u00e2l \u00f6\u011frendi\u011finden s\u00f6z edilemez (benzer y\u00f6ndeki Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi de\u011ferlendirmesi i\u00e7in bkz. Kur\u015fun\/T\u00fcrkiye, B. No: 22677\/10, 30\/10\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 101-106).<\/p>\n
23. Ba\u015fvurucular, dava dilek\u00e7esinde ve ba\u015fvuru formunda da eylemin idarili\u011finin ve zarar\u0131n 19\/1\/2015 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan ceza davas\u0131 ile ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u0131n ayn\u0131 olaya ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131lan davalarda eylemin idarili\u011finin s\u00f6z konusu ceza davas\u0131 ile \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik emsal kararlar\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
24. 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 13. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca idari eylemden dolay\u0131 haklar\u0131 ihlal edilen ilgililerin idari dava a\u00e7madan \u00f6nce, idari eylemi yaz\u0131l\u0131 bildirim \u00fczerine veya ba\u015fka suretle \u00f6\u011frendikleri tarihten itibaren bir y\u0131l ve her h\u00e2lde eylem tarihinden itibaren be\u015f y\u0131l i\u00e7erisinde idareye ba\u015fvurarak haklar\u0131n\u0131n yerine getirilmesini istemeleri gerekmektedir. An\u0131lan f\u0131kradaki \u00f6n karar ba\u015fvurusunun idarenin eyleminden kaynaklanan hak ihlallerinin ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ve meydana gelen zararlar\u0131n tazminine ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. \u0130dari eylemlerden dolay\u0131 haklar\u0131 ihlal edilen ilgililerin \u00f6n karar ba\u015fvuru yolunu t\u00fckettikten sonra idari yarg\u0131da dava a\u00e7abilecekleri anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
25. \u00d6n karar ba\u015fvuru yolu ilk defa 24\/12\/1964 tarihli ve 521 say\u0131l\u0131 Dan\u0131\u015ftay Kanunu ile d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f, 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun ile de aynen korunmu\u015ftur. 521 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fck tarihinden \u00f6nce idari eylemlerden kaynaklanan tam yarg\u0131 davalar\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in idareye \u00f6n karar ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmak bir \u015fart olarak \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
26. 521 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun ile getirilen \u00f6n karar ba\u015fvuru yolunun gerek\u00e7esinde idari eylemler haks\u0131z fiillere benzetilmi\u015ftir. Bu nedenle haks\u0131z fiillerde uygulanan zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresi k\u0131yasen ilgililerin idari eylemi \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fi tarihten itibaren bir y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde idareye ba\u015fvurmas\u0131n\u0131n zorunlu oldu\u011fu \u015feklindeki kurala esas al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca bu usul\u00fcn idari dava a\u00e7mak i\u00e7in idari bir karar\u0131n bulunmas\u0131 yolundaki idare hukukunun genel kabul\u00fcne de uygun d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
27. 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 13. maddesinin gerek\u00e7esi de 521 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’daki gerek\u00e7e ile benzerdir. Haks\u0131z fiilden kaynaklanan tazminat davalar\u0131 bir y\u0131l i\u00e7inde a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bu s\u00fcrenin idari eylemlerden kaynaklanan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in idareye yap\u0131lacak \u00f6n karar ba\u015fvurusu i\u00e7in de ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Devam\u0131nda bir y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcrenin olay\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi ve zarar\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi tarih itibar\u0131yla ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131, be\u015f y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcrenin ise eylemin daha sonra \u00f6\u011frenilmesi h\u00e2linde veya zarar\u0131n sonradan ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumlarda eylem ile zarar aras\u0131nda illiyet ba\u011f\u0131 bulundu\u011funun tespiti h\u00e2linde uygulanaca\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
28. Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u0131n yerle\u015fik uygulamalar\u0131 da eylemin idarili\u011fi ile u\u011fran\u0131lan zarar\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi tarihten itibaren bir y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde idareye ba\u015fvuruda bulunulmamas\u0131 durumunda a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davalar\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddinin gerekti\u011fi \u015feklindedir (Dan\u0131\u015ftay 15. Dairesinin 7\/5\/2018 tarihli ve E.2018\/454, K.2018\/4513 say\u0131l\u0131; Dan\u0131\u015ftay 6. Dairesinin 12\/4\/2023 tarihli ve E.2022\/9241, K.2023\/3730 say\u0131l\u0131; Dan\u0131\u015ftay 10. Dairesinin 2\/4\/2024 tarihli ve E.2020\/952, K.2024\/1258 say\u0131l\u0131 kararlar\u0131).<\/p>\n
29. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda 19\/1\/2015 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan ceza davas\u0131 ile eylemin idarili\u011finin ve zarar\u0131n anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda duraksama bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bu durum idareye \u00f6n karar ba\u015fvurusu ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131n\u0131 do\u011frudan etkilemektedir. Ba\u015fvurucular 4\/5\/2018 tarihinde \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na \u00f6n karar ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015f, bu ba\u015fvurunun 30\/5\/2018 tarihinde reddedilmesi \u00fczerine 12\/6\/2018 tarihinde tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u00f6n karar elde etmek i\u00e7in idareye bir y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde ba\u015fvuruda bulunmalar\u0131 zorunlu oldu\u011fu h\u00e2lde bu s\u00fcre ge\u00e7irildikten \u00e7ok sonra yapt\u0131klar\u0131 ba\u015fvurunun reddi \u00fczerine a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesince s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle kesin olarak reddine karar verildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Bu ba\u011flamda B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddine karar verilmesinin ba\u015fvuruculara orant\u0131s\u0131z bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckledi\u011fi s\u00f6ylenemez.<\/p>\n
30. Di\u011fer yandan ba\u015fvurucular vekilinin, ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybeden N.\u015e.nin e\u015fi F.\u015e. ve k\u0131z\u0131 D.\u015e.yi temsilen 25\/6\/2013 tarihli sulhnamenin iptali ile toplam 253.000 TL maddi ve manevi tazminat talebiyle 25\/1\/2016 tarihinde Hatay \u0130dare Mahkemesinde dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve bu davan\u0131n Dan\u0131\u015ftayda temyiz a\u015famas\u0131nda oldu\u011funun da alt\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7izmek gerekir.<\/p>\n
31. T\u00fcm bu de\u011ferlendirmeler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesinin 4\/5\/2018 tarihinde yap\u0131lan \u00f6n karar ba\u015fvurusunun dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresini canland\u0131rmayaca\u011f\u0131na dair yorumunun ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik kat\u0131 bir yorum olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bu yorumun ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 g\u00fc\u00e7le\u015ftirmedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu nedenle davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesi suretiyle ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ihlal iddias\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
32. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Ya\u015fam Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia <\/p>\n
33. Ba\u015fvurucular, devletin pozitif ve negatif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 davranmak suretiyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
34. Bireysel ba\u015fvuru yolunun ikincil niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi Anayasa Mahkemesine ba\u015fvuruda bulunabilmek i\u00e7in \u00f6ncelikle ola\u011fan kanun yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmesi zorunludur. Ba\u015fvurucunun bireysel ba\u015fvuru konusu \u015fik\u00e2yetini \u00f6ncelikle yetkili idari ve yarg\u0131sal mercilere usul\u00fcne uygun olarak iletmesi, bu konuda sahip oldu\u011fu bilgi ve delilleri zaman\u0131nda bu makamlara sunmas\u0131 ve bu s\u00fcre\u00e7te dava ve ba\u015fvurusunu takip etmek i\u00e7in gerekli \u00f6zeni g\u00f6stermi\u015f olmas\u0131 gerekir (\u0130smail Bu\u011fra \u0130\u015flek, B. No: 2013\/1177, 26\/3\/2013, \u00a7 17).<\/p>\n
35. Bir kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurulmu\u015f olmas\u0131 tek ba\u015f\u0131na bu yolun t\u00fcketildi\u011fi anlam\u0131na gelmez. Bir kanun yolunun t\u00fcketildi\u011finden s\u00f6z edilebilmesi i\u00e7in \u00f6ncelikle usul\u00fcne uygun bir ba\u015fvuru yap\u0131lmas\u0131, yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun sonucunun beklenmesi ve inceleme s\u00fcresince \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f olan y\u00f6ntem, bi\u00e7im, s\u00fcre ve di\u011fer ko\u015fullara uygun hareket edilmesi gerekir (\u00d6zlem T\u00fcrke\u015f, B. No: 2014\/505, 17\/7\/2014, \u00a7 31).<\/p>\n
36. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesince s\u00fcre ret karar\u0131 verilmesi nedeniyle ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131nda idarenin ihmali bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 -ya\u015fam\u0131 korumaya ili\u015fkin y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklere uygun davran\u0131p davranmad\u0131\u011f\u0131- y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesince ikincillik ilkesi gere\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercileri hen\u00fcz bir belirlemede bulunmam\u0131\u015fken ilk elden ya\u015fam\u0131 koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne dair bir inceleme yap\u0131lamaz. \u00d6te yandan ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n iddialar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6revli ve yetkili yarg\u0131sal makamlar \u00f6n\u00fcnde ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmeden do\u011frudan bireysel ba\u015fvuruya konu edilmesi, ihlal iddias\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ncelikle yarg\u0131sal mercilerce incelenmesi gere\u011fini ortadan kald\u0131rm\u0131\u015f olacakt\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ihlale neden oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen s\u00f6z konusu iddiaya ili\u015fkin olarak ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131 usul\u00fcnce t\u00fcketilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
37. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin ba\u015fvurucular \u00fczerinde BIRAKILMASINA 20\/11\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 20\/11\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/32603 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 \u00c7ET\u0130N VE KADR\u0130YE TUNAY \u00c7ET\u0130N BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/32603) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 20\/11\/2024 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : \u015eahap KAYMAK Ba\u015fvurucular : 1. Ali \u00c7ET\u0130N \u00a0 \u00a0 2. Kadriye Tunay \u00c7ET\u0130N Vekili : Av. Tahsin KO\u00c7 \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131 nedeniyle u\u011fran\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen manevi zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddedilmesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n, kamu makamlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir ve \u00f6nlenebilir nitelikte oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi i\u00e7in gerekli tedbirlerin al\u0131nmamas\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen \u00f6l\u00fcm nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Hatay’\u0131n Reyhanl\u0131 il\u00e7esinde 11\/5\/2013 tarihinde biri belediye binas\u0131 \u00f6n\u00fcnde, di\u011feri postane binas\u0131n\u0131n yak\u0131nlar\u0131nda olmak \u00fczere bomba y\u00fckl\u00fc iki arac\u0131n infilak ettirilmesi suretiyle ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir. Sald\u0131r\u0131 sonucu 51 ki\u015fi ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131 yitirmi\u015f, 222 ki\u015fi yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n yak\u0131n\u0131 N.\u015e. de s\u00f6z konusu sald\u0131r\u0131da hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybetmi\u015ftir. N.\u015e.nin e\u015fi F.\u015e. taraf\u0131ndan 21\/5\/2013 tarihinde Hatay Valili\u011fi Zarar Tespit Komisyonuna yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerine 25\/6\/2013 tarihinde sulhname imzalanm\u0131\u015f, 17\/7\/2004 tarihli …<\/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-26701","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n