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
ABDULLAH AYDIN \u00d6ZCAN BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/56406)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 17\/12\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 7\/3\/2025 – 32834<\/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
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
\u015eahap KAYMAK<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Abdullah Ayd\u0131n \u00d6ZCAN<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Fatma Dil\u015fad YELKEN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 <\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, idari i\u015flemden do\u011fan zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle belirli bir miktar g\u00f6sterilerek a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131nda idarenin ger\u00e7ek zarar\u0131 belirledi\u011fi cevab\u0131n\u0131n tebli\u011f edilmedi\u011finden miktar art\u0131r\u0131m talebinde bulunulamamas\u0131 nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Marmara \u00dcniversitesi Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hizmetleri Meslek Y\u00fcksekokulunda \u00f6\u011fretim \u00fcyesi olarak g\u00f6rev yapan ba\u015fvurucu, N\u00f6rolojik Bilimler Enstit\u00fcs\u00fcnde anestezi ve reanimasyon uzman\u0131 olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 29\/6\/2016-13\/3\/2018 tarihleri aras\u0131nda d\u00f6ner sermaye \u00fccreti olarak fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak kayd\u0131yla 1.000 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n idareye ba\u015fvuru tarihi olan 17\/9\/2020 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile daval\u0131 idareden tahsili talebiyle \u0130stanbul 8. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Mahkeme; tek h\u00e2kimli olarak yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yarg\u0131lama neticesinde davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, 1.000 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n 17\/9\/2020 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ileba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde 4\/11\/1981 tarihli ve 2547 say\u0131l\u0131 Y\u00fcksek\u00f6\u011fretim Kanunu ve 11\/10\/1983 tarihli ve 2914 say\u0131l\u0131 Y\u00fcksek\u00f6\u011fretim Personel Kanunu’na tabi kadrolu akademik personel olarak g\u00f6rev yapan ba\u015fvurucuya d\u00f6ner sermaye \u00fccreti \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fini, idarece talep edilen d\u00f6nem i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6deme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda ihtilaf bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Dosyaya sunulan belgelerden ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nem i\u00e7in d\u00f6ner sermaye \u00fccretinin 79.829,34 TL oldu\u011funun belirlendi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Ancak taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesi ve tazminat miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131nda bulunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6zetilerek 1.000 TL maddi tazminata h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 1\/11\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 18\/11\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
5. Di\u011fer taraftan ba\u015fvurucu, ayn\u0131 s\u00fcre\u00e7te dava konusu tazminat miktar\u0131na esas al\u0131nan maa\u015f bordrolar\u0131 ile hangi tarihte i\u015ften ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispatlayacak g\u00f6revlendirme yaz\u0131lar\u0131 dosyada bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in Mahkemece verilen kesin s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131nda bulunamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu’nun 16. maddesinin (4) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda nihai karar verilinceye kadar miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 talebinde bulunma hakk\u0131n\u0131n Mahkemenin ara karar\u0131yla on be\u015f g\u00fcnl\u00fck kesin s\u00fcre ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 dile getirmi\u015ftir. Maa\u015f bordrolar\u0131na g\u00f6re tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n net olarak belirlenebilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etti\u011fini, tazminat olarak 79.829,34 TL talep edebilece\u011fini nihai karar ile \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Parasal s\u0131n\u0131r nedeniyle kesin olarak verilen karara y\u00f6nelik kanun yoluna ba\u015fvuru yap\u0131lamamas\u0131n\u0131n hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc daraltt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek mahkeme karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 7. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun incelenmeksizin reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; dava konusu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n 1.000 TL maddi tazminat talebine ili\u015fkin oldu\u011funu, 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 45. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca 2021 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in konusu alt\u0131 bin T\u00fcrk liras\u0131n\u0131 ge\u00e7meyen tam yarg\u0131 davalar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda idare mahkemelerince kesin olarak karar verildi\u011fini, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu tutar\u0131n ise bu parasal s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n alt\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu; Mahkemenin nihai karar\u0131 ile talep edebilece\u011fi tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fini, d\u00f6ner sermaye \u00fccret alaca\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir hesaplama yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ve maa\u015f bordrosu vb. belgeler dosyada bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan Mahkemece verilen kesin s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131nda bulunamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etmi\u015ftir. H\u00fckmedilen tazminat miktar\u0131 nedeniyle bir \u00fcst kanun yoluna ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131s\u0131tland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
9. 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; ara karar\u0131 cevab\u0131n\u0131n tebli\u011f edilmemesinin\/idarece sunulan belgenin tebli\u011f edilmemi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuyu dezavantajl\u0131 duruma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrmedi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Belirli bir d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin olan ve ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan da hesaplanabilecek nitelikteki tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n ilk ba\u015fta talep edilmemesinin ya da dava s\u0131ras\u0131nda miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 m\u00fcessesesi kullan\u0131larak talep miktar\u0131n\u0131n art\u0131r\u0131lmamas\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucunun kendi hatas\u0131ndan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucuya miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131na imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yacak \u015fekilde on be\u015f g\u00fcnl\u00fck bir s\u00fcre tan\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 ancak ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan bu imk\u00e2ndan yararlan\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 dile getirilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131laman\u0131n sonucunu etkileyebilecek usuli bir imk\u00e2ndan mahrum b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanm\u0131\u015f, ba\u015fvurucuya dava dilek\u00e7esinde talep etti\u011fi miktar kadar tazminat \u00f6denmesine h\u00fckmedilmesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemez bir durumun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na i\u015faret edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi konusunda inceleme yap\u0131l\u0131rken g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fte de\u011finilen Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ile Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihad\u0131 ve somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n da dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine de\u011finilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca konuyla ilgili Marmara \u00dcniversitesi Rekt\u00f6rl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden temin edilen g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f ve ilgili belgelerin ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetine ili\u015fkin olarak yap\u0131lacak incelemede dikkate al\u0131nmak \u00fczere sunuldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131nda bulunulmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
10. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olaylar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan hukuki nitelendirmesi ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olmay\u0131p olay ve olgular\u0131n hukuki tavsifini kendisi takdir eder (Tahir Canan, B. No: 2012\/969, 18\/9\/2013, \u00a7 16). Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetinin \u00f6z\u00fc, dava dilek\u00e7esinde yer alan tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131 art\u0131rma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmadan davan\u0131n dava dilek\u00e7esinde belirtilen de\u011fer \u00fczerinden kabul\u00fcne karar verildi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011fundan ba\u015fvuru mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\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 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
12. Anayasa Mahkemesi, somut ba\u015fvuruya benzer nitelikteki iddialar\u0131 Kombassan Ka\u011f\u0131t Matbaa G\u0131da ve Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret A.\u015e. (B. No: 2019\/30300, 18\/7\/2024) karar\u0131nda incelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. Anayasa Mahkemesi an\u0131lan karar\u0131nda \u00f6zetle Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u0131n temyiz a\u015famas\u0131nda miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 talebinde bulunulamayaca\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin yorumunun kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n mevcut oldu\u011fu konusunda teredd\u00fct bulunmakla birlikte bu hususun \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck unsuru y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n uygun olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davadaki talep miktar\u0131n\u0131n art\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n dava s\u00fcrecindeki belirli bir a\u015fama ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n usul ekonomisi ile iyi adalet y\u00f6netimi ilkesinin sa\u011flanarak kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi \u015feklinde me\u015fru bir amaca y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. Bu ba\u011flamda ba\u015fvurucunun art\u0131r\u0131m talebinin de\u011ferlendirilmemesi suretiyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan elveri\u015fli ve gerekli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6ylenemeyece\u011fini, somut olaydaki m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn de\u011ferlendirilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan as\u0131l \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131yan \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn ise orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k oldu\u011funu ve bu itibarla verilen kararla ba\u015fvurucuya a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 ve orant\u0131s\u0131z bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklenip y\u00fcklenmedi\u011finin tespitinin gerekti\u011fini de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. Kararda, ba\u015fvurucunun mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kendisine tebli\u011fi \u00f6ncesinde iadesini talep etti\u011fi ger\u00e7ek mebla\u011f\u0131 bilmemesi nedeniyle dava dilek\u00e7esinde belirtti\u011fi miktar\u0131 art\u0131rma imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip olamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucuya y\u00fcklenebilecek bir kusurun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015f; mahkemenin miktar art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 talebine esas al\u0131nabilecek bilgileri i\u00e7eren ara karar\u0131 cevab\u0131n\u0131 ba\u015fvurucuya tebli\u011f etmeden davay\u0131 karara ba\u011flayarak bu durumun olu\u015fmas\u0131na sebebiyet verdi\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
16. Anayasa Mahkemesi, ba\u015fvurucuya dava de\u011ferini art\u0131rma imk\u00e2n\u0131 verilmeden taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesi gere\u011fi davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi \u00fczerine yap\u0131lan temyiz ba\u015fvurusunun dava de\u011ferini art\u0131r\u0131m talebinin ilk derece mahkemesince karar verilinceye kadar yap\u0131labilece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckledi\u011fi ve bu durumun ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
17. Somut ba\u015fvuruda da an\u0131lan karardan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektirir bir husus bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bu nedenle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile 79.829,34 TL maddi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
19. 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
20. \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 ba\u015fvurucunun maddi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere \u0130stanbul 8. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2020\/1888, K.2021\/1626) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 487,60 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.487,60 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 FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 17\/12\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 17\/12\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/56406 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 ABDULLAH AYDIN \u00d6ZCAN BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/56406) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 17\/12\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 7\/3\/2025 – 32834 \u00a0 \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 : \u015eahap KAYMAK Ba\u015fvurucu : Abdullah Ayd\u0131n \u00d6ZCAN Vekili : Av. Fatma Dil\u015fad YELKEN \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, idari i\u015flemden do\u011fan zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle belirli bir miktar g\u00f6sterilerek a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131nda idarenin ger\u00e7ek zarar\u0131 belirledi\u011fi cevab\u0131n\u0131n tebli\u011f edilmedi\u011finden miktar art\u0131r\u0131m talebinde bulunulamamas\u0131 nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Marmara \u00dcniversitesi Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hizmetleri Meslek Y\u00fcksekokulunda \u00f6\u011fretim \u00fcyesi olarak g\u00f6rev yapan ba\u015fvurucu, N\u00f6rolojik Bilimler Enstit\u00fcs\u00fcnde anestezi ve reanimasyon uzman\u0131 olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 29\/6\/2016-13\/3\/2018 tarihleri aras\u0131nda d\u00f6ner sermaye \u00fccreti olarak fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak kayd\u0131yla 1.000 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n idareye ba\u015fvuru tarihi olan 17\/9\/2020 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile daval\u0131 idareden tahsili talebiyle \u0130stanbul 8. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Mahkeme; tek h\u00e2kimli olarak yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yarg\u0131lama neticesinde davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, 1.000 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n 17\/9\/2020 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ileba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde …<\/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-35000","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n