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
TARIK G\u00dcND\u00dcZ BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/27274)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 11\/12\/2024<\/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
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/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
Tar\u0131k G\u00dcND\u00dcZ<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. S\u00fcleyman U\u00c7AR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, adli t\u0131p uzman\u0131nca Cumhuriyet ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n talebi \u00fczerine bilirki\u015fi s\u0131fat\u0131yla ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen otopsiler kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6denen \u00fccretin yetersiz g\u00f6r\u00fclmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Osmangazi \u00dcniversitesi Rekt\u00f6rl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (\u00dcniversite) ile Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) aras\u0131nda 2\/11\/2001 tarihinde Eski\u015fehir Adli T\u0131p \u015eube M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn faaliyetleriyle ilgili otopsilerin Osmangazi \u00dcniversitesi E\u011fitim Ara\u015ft\u0131rma ve Uygulama Hastanesi morgunda yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6ren bir protokol imzalanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (S\u00f6z konusu protokole ili\u015fkin detayl\u0131 bilgi i\u00e7in bkz. Yasemin Balc\u0131 [GK], B. No: 2014\/8881, 25\/7\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 11, 12). \u00dcniversitede adli t\u0131p uzman\u0131 \u00fcnvan\u0131yla \u00f6\u011fretim \u00fcyeli\u011fi yapan ba\u015fvurucu, s\u00f6z konusu protokol kapsam\u0131nda 2\/11\/2001 ile 20\/6\/2003 tarihleri aras\u0131nda Eski\u015fehir Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) talebi \u00fczerine toplam doksan d\u00f6rt otopsi ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu 22\/6\/2006 tarihinde adli t\u0131p uzman\u0131 olarak kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 otopsi i\u015flemlerinde harcad\u0131\u011f\u0131 emek ve mesaiye kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k bilirki\u015fi \u00fccreti \u00f6denmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n z\u0131mnen reddi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu, s\u00f6z konusu otopsi i\u015flemleri i\u00e7in tespit edilecek \u00fccretin yasal faiziyle birlikte \u00f6denmesi talebiyle dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Eski\u015fehir 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 31\/12\/2010 tarihinde davay\u0131 kabul ederek otopsi i\u015flemleri i\u00e7in hesaplanacak bilirki\u015fi \u00fccretinin 22\/6\/2006 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fletilecek yasal faiziyle birlikte ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Eski\u015fehir Defterdarl\u0131\u011f\u0131 20\/4\/2011 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucuya 233,32 TL \u00f6deme yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu 26\/4\/2011 tarihinde Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011fa ba\u015fvurmu\u015f ve otopsi \u00fccretlerine ili\u015fkin olarak T\u00fcrk Tabipler Birli\u011finden al\u0131nan veriler dikkate al\u0131narak hesaplanan 28.200 TL’nin \u00f6denmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Bu talep \u00fczerine Defterdarl\u0131k 5\/5\/2011 tarihinde 471,19 TL daha \u00f6deme yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 otopsi i\u015flemlerinde harcad\u0131\u011f\u0131 emek ve mesaiye kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k 28.200 TL \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fini belirterek \u00f6denen toplam 704,51 TL’nin mahsubu sonucu kalan 27.445 TL’nin talep tarihinden itibaren i\u015fletilecek yasal faiziyle birlikte \u00f6denmesi i\u00e7in dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Eski\u015fehir 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 14\/12\/2011 tarihinde Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan 4\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun 72. maddesi uyar\u0131nca takdir edilen tutar\u0131n \u00fczerinde \u00f6deme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu, otopsi \u00fccretinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck belirlendi\u011fini belirterek karar\u0131 temyiz etmi\u015ftir. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Onikinci Dairesi 19\/6\/2019 tarihinde temyize konu karar\u0131 hukuka uygun buldu\u011funu belirterek oy\u00e7oklu\u011fuyla onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kar\u015f\u0131oy g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde ise ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denen \u00fccretin otopsiler i\u00e7in sarf edilen emek ve mesaiye oranla d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck oldu\u011fu ve benzer bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011fa ili\u015fkin Yasemin Balc\u0131 ba\u015fvurusunda Anayasa Mahkemesinin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verdi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, takdir edilen \u00fccretin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131nda ayr\u0131ca hukuki durumunun Yasemin Balc\u0131 ba\u015fvurusu ile benzer oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek karar d\u00fczeltme talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Onikinci Dairesi 4\/2\/2020 tarihinde d\u00fczeltmeyi gerektirir bir neden bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek karar d\u00fczeltme talebini reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 30\/6\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 21\/7\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
9. Komisyon 12\/5\/2023 tarihinde m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, di\u011fer iddialar\u0131n ise kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu, ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirdi\u011fi otopsiler i\u00e7in takdir edilen bilirki\u015filik \u00fccretinin yetersiz olmas\u0131 nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrmektedir. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihad\u0131 ve somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda ba\u015fvuru formundaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. 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
12. Anayasa Mahkemesi eldeki ba\u015fvuruya benzer iddialar\u0131 Yasemin Balc\u0131 karar\u0131nda inceleyerek karara ba\u011flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. An\u0131lan karara konu olayda da \u00dcniversite ile Bakanl\u0131k aras\u0131nda imzalanan protokol kapsam\u0131nda 2\/11\/2001 ile 20\/6\/2003 tarihleri aras\u0131nda y\u00fcz d\u00f6rt otopsi ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftiren adli t\u0131p uzman\u0131 olan ba\u015fvurucuya toplam 765,14 TL \u00f6deme yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu takdir edilen bilirki\u015filik \u00fccretinin yetersiz olmas\u0131ndan yak\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesi, ba\u015fvurucunun eme\u011fiyle orant\u0131l\u0131 bilirki\u015filik \u00fccreti alaca\u011f\u0131 yolunda me\u015fru beklentisinin bulundu\u011funu ve s\u00f6z konusu bilirki\u015fi \u00fccretinin \u00f6denmemesinin m\u00fclkiyetten bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l yararlanma hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale kapsam\u0131nda incelenmesi gerekti\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Yasemin Balc\u0131, \u00a7\u00a7 87, 89).<\/p>\n
13. Yasemin Balc\u0131 karar\u0131nda, ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131 ve me\u015fru amac\u0131 bulundu\u011fu tespit edildikten sonra \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi kapsam\u0131nda inceleme yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu kapsamda bilirki\u015fiye \u00f6denecek \u00fccretin belirlenmesinde takdirin kamu makamlar\u0131na ait olmakla birlikte kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n takdirinin bariz hata veya a\u00e7\u0131k bir keyf\u00eelik i\u00e7ermesi durumunda Anayasa Mahkemesinin denetim hakk\u0131n\u0131n sakl\u0131 oldu\u011fu ve belirlenen bilirki\u015fi \u00fccretinin emsallerine nazaran a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bariz takdir hatas\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015fabilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir (Yasemin Balc\u0131, \u00a7 95). Adli T\u0131p Kurumunun 2011 y\u0131l\u0131 fiyat listesinden otopsi \u00fccretinin 390 TL oldu\u011fuve ba\u015fvurucunun 2011 y\u0131l\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirdi\u011fi baz\u0131 otopsiler i\u00e7in Cumhuriyet savc\u0131s\u0131nca otopsi ba\u015f\u0131na 150 TL takdir edildi\u011fi g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucuya otopsi ba\u015f\u0131na \u00f6denen 7,36 TL’nin emsallerine nazaran olduk\u00e7a d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck oldu\u011fu kanaatine var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Yasemin Balc\u0131, \u00a7 96).<\/p>\n
14. Anayasa Mahkemesi, bilirki\u015fi \u00fccretinin hangi gerek\u00e7eye dayan\u0131larak takdir edildi\u011finin anla\u015f\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve yakla\u015f\u0131k sekiz ila on y\u0131l gecikmeli olarak \u00f6denen \u00fccretin 2001, 2002 ve 2003 y\u0131l\u0131 rayi\u00e7leri esas al\u0131narak takdir edilmesinin adalet ve hakkaniyetle ba\u011fda\u015fmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kaydetmi\u015ftir. Kamu kurumlar\u0131ndan olan alacaklar\u0131n ge\u00e7 \u00f6denmesi nedeniyle alacakta meydana gelen de\u011fer a\u015f\u0131nmalar\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucular \u00fczerinde orant\u0131s\u0131z bir y\u00fck olu\u015fturdu\u011funa ili\u015fkin i\u00e7tihada dikkat \u00e7ekmi\u015ftir. Bu ba\u011flamda bilirki\u015fi \u00fccretinin fiilen \u00f6dendi\u011fi y\u0131l\u0131n rayici esas al\u0131narak bir k\u0131yaslama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n hakkaniyete uygun olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirten Anayasa Mahkemesi, bariz bir \u015fekilde d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan \u00fccretin ba\u015fvurucunun emek ve mesaisini kar\u015f\u0131layacak mahiyette olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015f ve ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir (Yasemin Balc\u0131, \u00a7\u00a7 96, 97).<\/p>\n
15. Somut olayda da 2\/11\/2001 ile 20\/6\/2003 tarihleri aras\u0131nda doksan d\u00f6rt otopsi ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftiren adli t\u0131p uzman\u0131 olan ba\u015fvurucuya bilirki\u015filik \u00fccreti olarak toplam 704,51 TL \u00f6deme yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re yukar\u0131da an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilke ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa’n\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
16. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti, yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile 28.000 TL maddi ve 50.000 TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
17. 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 (30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda 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
18. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat taleplerinin 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\u0131lmak \u00fczere Eski\u015fehir 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2011\/1147, K.2011\/1518) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.446,90 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \u00d6demelerin 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 11\/12\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 11\/12\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/27274 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 TARIK G\u00dcND\u00dcZ BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/27274) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 11\/12\/2024 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Kamber Ozan TUTAL Ba\u015fvurucu : Tar\u0131k G\u00dcND\u00dcZ Vekili : Av. S\u00fcleyman U\u00c7AR \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, adli t\u0131p uzman\u0131nca Cumhuriyet ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n talebi \u00fczerine bilirki\u015fi s\u0131fat\u0131yla ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen otopsiler kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6denen \u00fccretin yetersiz g\u00f6r\u00fclmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Osmangazi \u00dcniversitesi Rekt\u00f6rl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (\u00dcniversite) ile Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) aras\u0131nda 2\/11\/2001 tarihinde Eski\u015fehir Adli T\u0131p \u015eube M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn faaliyetleriyle ilgili otopsilerin Osmangazi \u00dcniversitesi E\u011fitim Ara\u015ft\u0131rma ve Uygulama Hastanesi morgunda yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6ren bir protokol imzalanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (S\u00f6z konusu protokole ili\u015fkin detayl\u0131 bilgi i\u00e7in bkz. Yasemin Balc\u0131 [GK], B. No: 2014\/8881, 25\/7\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 11, 12). \u00dcniversitede adli t\u0131p uzman\u0131 \u00fcnvan\u0131yla \u00f6\u011fretim \u00fcyeli\u011fi yapan ba\u015fvurucu, s\u00f6z konusu protokol kapsam\u0131nda 2\/11\/2001 ile 20\/6\/2003 tarihleri aras\u0131nda Eski\u015fehir Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) talebi \u00fczerine toplam doksan d\u00f6rt otopsi ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu 22\/6\/2006 tarihinde adli t\u0131p uzman\u0131 olarak kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 otopsi i\u015flemlerinde harcad\u0131\u011f\u0131 emek ve mesaiye kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k bilirki\u015fi \u00fccreti \u00f6denmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n z\u0131mnen reddi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu, s\u00f6z konusu otopsi i\u015flemleri i\u00e7in …<\/p>\n","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-33227","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n