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
VEYSEL SEVMEZ BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/5650)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 8\/1\/2025<\/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
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Y\u00fcksel G\u00dcNARSLAN<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Veysel SEVMEZ<\/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; kamu makamlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir ve \u00f6nlenebilir nitelikte oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen yaralanmadan kaynaklanan zararlar\u0131n tazmini istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada olay\u0131n idarenin kusuruyla meydana geldi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmemesi nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle de makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma 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. Ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 nedeniyle yaralanan ba\u015fvurucu, sevk edildi\u011fi hastaneden 45 g\u00fcn istirahat raporu d\u00fczenlenerek 4\/6\/2013 tarihinde taburcu edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucunun Olaya \u0130li\u015fkin Olarak A\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 Tam Yarg\u0131 Davas\u0131<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucunun hastanede tedavi g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc s\u00fcre\u00e7te Reyhanl\u0131 Kaymakaml\u0131\u011f\u0131 23\/5\/2013 tarihinde ilgili banka m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne m\u00fczekkere yazarak meydana gelen yaralanmaya istinaden afet ve acil durum hesab\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucuya 1.000 TL tutar\u0131nda \u00f6deme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 talimat\u0131n\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun 5\/6\/2013 tarihinde Hatay Valili\u011fi Zarar Tespit Komisyonuna yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru, talep edilen zarar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle 6\/6\/2013 tarihinde reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu, ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 maddi ve manevi zararlar\u0131n tazmini talebinin \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan z\u0131mnen reddi \u00fczerine Hatay \u0130dare Mahkemesi (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) nezdinde tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 20\/10\/2014 tarihli dava dilek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucu; yaralama olay\u0131n\u0131n ya\u015fanmas\u0131nda idarenin kusuru oldu\u011funu, istihbarat bilgisi bulunmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n \u00f6nlem al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, patlama sonucunda \u00e7ift tarafl\u0131 diyafram ameliyat\u0131 oldu\u011funu, sol ayak ve sa\u011f el hareket kabiliyetini yitirdi\u011fini, hayat\u0131 boyunca maruz kalaca\u011f\u0131 efor kayb\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fcy\u00fck bir \u00fcz\u00fcnt\u00fcye neden oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak \u00fczere 1.000 TL maddi ve 50.000 TL manevi tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Dava s\u00fcrecinde temin edilen 26\/3\/2015 tarihli sa\u011fl\u0131k raporunda ba\u015fvurucunun s\u00f6z konusu yaralanmaya ba\u011fl\u0131 maluliyet oran\u0131n\u0131n %41 oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. \u0130dare Mahkemesi ba\u015fvurucunun maddi ve manevi tazminat taleplerini Hatay Valili\u011fi ve \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmek suretiyle davay\u0131 neticelendirmi\u015ftir. Bu kapsamda \u0130dare Mahkemesi 14\/5\/2015 tarihli karar\u0131yla, sosyal risk ilkesi uyar\u0131nca talebi \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden k\u0131smen kabul ederek 35.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme ayr\u0131ca Hatay Valili\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 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 ve taleple ba\u011fl\u0131 kal\u0131narak 1.000 TL maddi tazminat talebinin kabul\u00fcne, \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden maddi tazminat ve Hatay Valili\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden manevi tazminat taleplerinin reddine karar vermi\u015f; gerek\u00e7eli kararda, ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r olay\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi i\u00e7in gereken \u00f6nlemlerin al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 temelinde ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc idarenin hizmet kusuruna ili\u015fkin iddias\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmadan hizmet kusurunun saptanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu ve daval\u0131 idareler karara kar\u015f\u0131 temyiz kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu; temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde ilgili kamu g\u00f6revlileri hakk\u0131nda devam eden ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 ve bu yarg\u0131lama kapsam\u0131ndaki delillere istinaden patlaman\u0131n meydana gelmesinde hizmet kusuru oldu\u011funu, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun uyar\u0131nca sosyal risk ilkesi esas al\u0131narak de\u011fil 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu\u2019nun 13. maddesi gere\u011fince hizmet kusuru de\u011ferlendirmesi yap\u0131larak \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fclmesi gerekti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
8. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Onuncu Dairesi (Daire) temyiz incelemesi neticesinde \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n maddi tazminat\u0131n Hatay Valili\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden taleple ba\u011fl\u0131 kal\u0131narak kabul\u00fcne ili\u015fkin k\u0131sm\u0131 ile manevi tazminat\u0131n \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne ili\u015fkin k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n bozulmas\u0131na 28\/3\/2018 tarihinde karar vermi\u015f; kararda \u00f6ncelikle eylemlerin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesinde idarenin a\u011f\u0131r hizmet kusuru bulundu\u011funun yine idarenin kendi m\u00fcfetti\u015fince haz\u0131rlanan \u00f6n inceleme raporu, Hatay Valili\u011fi \u0130l \u0130dare Kurulunun soru\u015fturma izni verilmesine ili\u015fkin karar\u0131, Hatay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan iddianameler ve a\u00e7\u0131lan ceza davas\u0131 ile ortaya konuldu\u011funu, bu nedenle s\u00f6z konusu patlamalara istinaden a\u00e7\u0131lan maddi ve manevi tazminat taleplerinin 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131nda de\u011fil idarenin sorumlulu\u011funun do\u011frudan ve asli nedeni olan hizmet kusuru ilkesi gere\u011fince kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Daval\u0131 idarelerin karar d\u00fczeltme talebinde bulunmas\u0131 \u00fczerine Daire 19\/10\/2020 tarihinde yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 inceleme neticesinde karar d\u00fczeltme taleplerinin kabul\u00fcne, 28\/3\/2018 tarihli karar\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n onanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015f; s\u00f6z konusu kararda \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n usul ve hukuka uygun oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin genel nitelikte bir a\u00e7\u0131klamaya yer vererek 28\/3\/2018 tarihli Daire karar\u0131nda belirtilen gerek\u00e7eler ve ba\u015fvurucunun hizmet kusurunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc iddialar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai karar\u0131 22\/1\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frenmesinin ard\u0131ndan 18\/2\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
11. Komisyon ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemelerinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B. Olaya \u0130li\u015fkin Olarak G\u00f6revi K\u00f6t\u00fcye Kullanma Su\u00e7undan A\u00e7\u0131lan Kamu Davas\u0131<\/p>\n
12. Ya\u015fanan 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 Hatay Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne olay \u00f6ncesi konuyla ilgili \u00e7ok say\u0131da ihbar geldi\u011fi, istihbarat birimlerinin ara\u00e7 plakas\u0131, \u015fah\u0131s isimleri gibi bilgileri de belirtmek suretiyle Hatay Emniyetine bilgi verdi\u011fi, patlaman\u0131n meydana gelmesinde \u00f6nlem almayan emniyet birimlerinin hizmet kusuru oldu\u011fu ve ilgililer hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma izni verilmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. \u0130lgili emniyet g\u00f6revlileri ile m\u00fclki idare amirleri hakk\u0131nda Hatay Valili\u011fi taraf\u0131ndan soru\u015fturma izni verilmesi \u00fczerine Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k 30\/12\/2014 tarihinde g\u00f6revi k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullanma su\u00e7undan iddianame d\u00fczenlemi\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. Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n 7\/1\/2016 tarihinde ayn\u0131 su\u00e7a ili\u015fkin olarak haz\u0131rlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ikinci iddianamenin kabul\u00fcyle a\u00e7\u0131lan kamu davas\u0131 ilk ceza davas\u0131 ile birle\u015ftirilerek g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
14. \u0130\u015fbu bireysel ba\u015fvuru yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda derdest olan kamu davas\u0131, inceleme devam ederken neticelenmi\u015ftir. Hatay 7. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesinin 1\/6\/2021 tarihli karar\u0131yla, d\u00f6nemin Hatay \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc R.K., Hatay \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadele M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (TEM) \u015eube M\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc N.E. ve Reyhanl\u0131 \u0130l\u00e7e Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc M.B.nin neticeten 8 ay 10 g\u00fcn hapis cezas\u0131 ile tecziyelerine ancak h\u00fckmedilen cezalar\u0131n ertelenmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Kararda, gelen bir telefon ihbar\u0131 \u00fczerine Mill\u00ee \u0130stihbarat Te\u015fkilat\u0131nca (M\u0130T) haz\u0131rlanan ve bombalama eyleminin yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 patlay\u0131c\u0131 y\u00fckl\u00fc iki ara\u00e7 ile ilgili marka, renk ve plaka gibi somut bilgiler i\u00e7eren 10\/5\/2013 tarihli ve 2013\/32 say\u0131l\u0131 eylem ihbar\u0131 notunun Hatay \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne teslim edilmesine ve evrak\u0131n n\u00f6bet\u00e7i memur taraf\u0131ndan taranarak ilgili birimi olan TEM \u015eubesi ve \u0130l\u00e7e Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fcklerine POL-NET olarak isimlendirilen bili\u015fim sistemi \u00fczerinden g\u00f6nderilmesine ra\u011fmen bu istihbari bilgiye emniyet g\u00f6revlilerinin yeterli ilgiyi g\u00f6stermedi\u011fi ve eyleme kar\u015f\u0131 yeterli tedbir almad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Kararda ayr\u0131ca bu patlama olay\u0131 \u00f6ncesinde 23\/10\/2012 tarihinden itibaren \u0130l Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne M\u0130T taraf\u0131ndan bombal\u0131 eylemler ve eylemi ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirecek \u015fah\u0131slar ile iltisaklar\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7eren bir\u00e7ok istihbari bilgi iletildi\u011fi ancak bu bilgilerin yeterince de\u011ferlendirilmedi\u011fi kabul edilmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan mahk\u00fbmiyet h\u00fck\u00fcmleri istinaf incelemesinden ge\u00e7erek 7\/11\/2022 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
A. Ya\u015fam Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvurucu ba\u015fvuru formunda; ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen ter\u00f6r eylemine dair riskten haberdar olan kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n sald\u0131r\u0131y\u0131 \u00f6nlemek ad\u0131na gerekli \u00f6nlemleri almamas\u0131 nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n, olaya ili\u015fkin olarak haz\u0131rlanan tefti\u015f raporu ile bir k\u0131s\u0131m kamu g\u00f6revlisi hakk\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lan tespitler idarenin a\u011f\u0131r hizmet kusurunu ortaya koymas\u0131na ra\u011fmen \u0130dare Mahkemesinin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 sosyal risk kapsam\u0131nda ele almas\u0131 nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n, yasal \u015fartlar\u0131 olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde karar d\u00fczeltme taleplerinin kabul\u00fc ile kanunilik ilkesinin, benzer olaylara ili\u015fkin olarak verilen farkl\u0131 yarg\u0131sal kararlar nedeniyle hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ve hukuki belirlilik ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
16. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, ba\u015fvurucu lehine h\u00fckmedilen maddi ve manevi tazminat\u0131n ma\u011fdur s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131 kald\u0131r\u0131p kald\u0131rmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ncelikle de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Esasa ili\u015fkin olarak somut olay s\u00fcreci, insan haklar\u0131 yarg\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7tihad\u0131 ile mevzuat detayl\u0131 olarak aktar\u0131lm\u0131\u015f; yap\u0131lacak de\u011ferlendirmede Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihad\u0131 ve somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda hizmet kusuru iddias\u0131n\u0131n yarg\u0131sal s\u00fcre\u00e7te tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmamas\u0131 nedeniyle ma\u011fdur s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131n devam etti\u011fini belirtmi\u015f ve ba\u015fvuru formundaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
17. Anayasa Mahkemesinin yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihad\u0131na g\u00f6re bir olayda ya\u015fam hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin ilkelerin uygulanabilmesi i\u00e7in gerekli \u015fartlardan biri do\u011fal olmayan bir \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesi olmakla birlikte baz\u0131 durumlarda \u00f6l\u00fcm ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmese dahi olay\u0131n ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenebilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olup bu inceleme yap\u0131l\u0131rken eylemin potansiyel olarak \u00f6ld\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc nitelikte olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, maruz kal\u0131nan eylemin ma\u011fdurun fiziki b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fczerindeki sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmelidir (Mehmet Karada\u011f, B. No: 2013\/2030, 26\/6\/2014, \u00a7 20; Yasin A\u011fca, B. No: 2014\/13163, 11\/5\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 10, 109). Ba\u015fvuruya konu ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131, Reyhanl\u0131 il\u00e7esinin merkez\u00ee yerlerinde bomba patlat\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015f olup \u00f6ld\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc niteli\u011fi konusunda \u015f\u00fcphe bulunmayan bu sald\u0131r\u0131 nedeniyle \u00e7ok say\u0131da ki\u015fi hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybetmi\u015f; aralar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun da oldu\u011fu \u00e7ok say\u0131da ki\u015fi yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu nedenle somut ba\u015fvuruda ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n uygulanabilir oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucunun b\u00fct\u00fcn \u015fik\u00e2yetleri esas olarak \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir nitelikte olan ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n idarenin kusuru nedeniyle engellenemedi\u011fi, a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tazminat davas\u0131nda da aksi y\u00f6ndeki olgulara ra\u011fmen herhangi bir a\u00e7\u0131klama yap\u0131lmadan idarenin hizmet kusurunun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6neliktir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucu, ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutu yan\u0131nda devletin kusuru nedeniyle ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu yaraland\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ili\u015fkin maddi boyutunun da ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ne var ki bu iddia hakk\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayacak nitelikteki kan\u0131t, Anayasa Mahkemesinin elinde bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bu nedenle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lacak inceleme ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutuyla s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 olacakt\u0131r (benzer de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. Hasan K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7, B. No: 2018\/22085, 27\/1\/2021, \u0130brahim Kanbal, B. No: 2019\/6690, 16\/3\/2022 ve B\u00fclent K\u00f6re\u011fi, B. No: 2021\/21941, 11\/6\/2024).<\/p>\n
19. Anayasa Mahkemesi Hasan K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 (ayn\u0131 kararda bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 41-43) ba\u015fvurusunda, yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda sosyal risk uyar\u0131nca ba\u015fvurucu lehine h\u00fckmedilen tazminat bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmede yarg\u0131lamada ya\u015fam\u0131 koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir tespitte bulunmamas\u0131 ve idarenin kusursuz sorumluluk ilkesi uyar\u0131nca olaydan sorumlu oldu\u011funun kabul edilmesi nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun ma\u011fdur s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kalkmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Somut ba\u015fvuru bak\u0131m\u0131ndan da bu de\u011ferlendirmeden ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektirecek bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fka herhangi bir kabul edilemezlik nedeni tespit edilmeyen somut ba\u015fvuruda a\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutunun ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
21. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki sorumlulu\u011fu ortaya koymak ad\u0131na adli ve idari yarg\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131lan tazminat talepli davalarda makul derecede ivedilik ve \u00f6zen \u015fart\u0131n\u0131n yerine getirilmesi gerekir (Perihan U\u00e7ar ve Di\u011ferleri B. No: 2013\/5860, 1\/12\/2015, \u00a7 52) ancak yarg\u0131 mercilerinin \u00f6zenli inceleme yapma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri, ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 ile ilgili her davada mutlaka ma\u011fdurlar lehine sonuca var\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 garanti etmez (Aysun Okumu\u015f ve Aytekin Okumu\u015f, B. No: 2013\/4086, 20\/4\/2016, \u00a7 73).<\/p>\n
22. Somut olayda \u0130dare Mahkemesinin karar\u0131nda (bkz. \u00a7 6) -aynen aktar\u0131lacak olursa- “dava dosyas\u0131 incelendi\u011finde, olay\u0131n bir ter\u00f6r eylemi oldu\u011funun anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 (idarenin hizmetin i\u015fleyi\u015fine ili\u015fkin kusurunun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmesi)” ifadeleri kullan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ancak idarenin hizmetin i\u015fleyi\u015fine ili\u015fkin kusurunun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki bu kanaate nas\u0131l ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair bir gerek\u00e7eye yer verilmemi\u015ftir. \u0130dare Mahkemesi bu kabulden hareketle uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131, kusur sorumlulu\u011funa ili\u015fkin genel h\u00fck\u00fcmler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde de\u011fil 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun ve sosyal risk ilkesi kapsam\u0131nda \u00e7\u00f6zm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Karar\u0131n onanmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik Dan\u0131\u015ftay karar\u0131nda da (bkz. \u00a7 9) hizmet kusuruna ili\u015fkin herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirmeye yer verilmemi\u015f – aynen aktar\u0131lacak olursa- “karar\u0131n d\u00fczeltilmesi dilek\u00e7esinde ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen nedenler…uygun bulundu\u011fundan, karar d\u00fczeltme isteminin kabul\u00fc”ne karar verilerek bozma y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki temyiz ilam\u0131 kald\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve “…ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen temyiz nedenleri karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirecek nitelikte g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.” denilerek temyiz isteminin reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Oysa \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n bozulmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik -karar d\u00fczeltme yolu ile kald\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan- Dan\u0131\u015ftay karar\u0131nda (bkz. \u00a7 8) gerek\u00e7elerine de yer verilmek suretiyle meydana gelen patlamalarda hizmet kusurunun bulundu\u011fu belirtilerek maddi ve manevi tazminat isteminin hizmet kusuruna dayan\u0131larak tazminat hukukunun genel ilkelerine g\u00f6re de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
23. M\u00fclkiye m\u00fcfetti\u015fi taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan \u00f6n inceleme raporundaki tespitler do\u011frultusunda verilen soru\u015fturma izni \u00fczerine ilgili emniyet personeli hakk\u0131nda g\u00f6revi ihmal su\u00e7undan kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130dare Mahkemesi nezdinde a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131nda bahsi ge\u00e7en ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 s\u00fcrecinin tamamlanmas\u0131 beklenmedi\u011fi gibi ne bu ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 s\u00fcrecinde elde edilen deliller ne de m\u00fclkiye m\u00fcfetti\u015fi inceleme raporu irdelenmi\u015ftir. Y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 neticesinde ter\u00f6r olay\u0131nda ihmalleri tespit edilen d\u00f6nemin il emniyet m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc ile TEM \u015fube m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc ve il\u00e7e emniyet m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn hapis cezas\u0131 ile tecziyelerine karar verilmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7 14). Ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 neticesinde ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7 bombalama eyleminin yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 patlay\u0131c\u0131 y\u00fckl\u00fc iki ara\u00e7 ile ilgili marka, renk ve plaka gibi somut bilgileri i\u00e7eren istihbari bilgiye yeterli \u00f6nem g\u00f6sterilmedi\u011fi ve eyleme kar\u015f\u0131 yeterli tedbir al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015feklindedir.<\/p>\n
24. Anayasa Mahkemesi, benzer bir ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak verdi\u011fi Hasan K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 karar\u0131nda mahkemelerce uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in gerekli delillerin toplanmas\u0131 ve iddialar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 hususlar\u0131nda Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesinin gerektirdi\u011fi dikkat ve \u00f6zende bir inceleme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutunun ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Somut ba\u015fvuruda, an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkeler ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bu nedenle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutunun ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia <\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvurucu, tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
26. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olay ve olgular\u0131 somut ba\u015fvuru ile benzer nitelikte olan Veysi Ado ([GK], B. No: 2022\/100837, 27\/4\/2023) karar\u0131nda uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede Anayasa Mahkemesi 9\/1\/2013 tarihli ve 6384 say\u0131l\u0131 Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesine Yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Baz\u0131 Ba\u015fvurular\u0131n Tazminat \u00d6denmek Suretiyle \u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne Dair Kanun’un ge\u00e7ici 2. maddesinde 28\/3\/2023 tarihli ve 7445 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 40. maddesi ile yap\u0131lan de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fe g\u00f6re 9\/3\/2023 tarihi (bu tarih d\u00e2hil) itibar\u0131yla derdest olan, yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddialar\u0131yla yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurulara ili\u015fkin olarak Tazminat Komisyonuna ba\u015fvuru yolu t\u00fcketilmeden yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun incelenmesinin bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincil niteli\u011fi ile ba\u011fda\u015fmayaca\u011f\u0131 neticesine varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
27. Somut ba\u015fvuruda an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddia y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer kabul edilebilirlik nedenleri incelenmeksizin ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
28. \u00d6te yandan ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130dare Mahkemesinin maddi tazminat talebini s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddetmesi ve aleyhe vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmetmesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki iddias\u0131n\u0131n \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131nda s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden redde ili\u015fkin bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmamas\u0131 nedeniyle incelenmesi gerekli g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
29. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti, yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile maddi ve manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
30. 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
31. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat taleplerinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma 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. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutunun \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Hatay 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2014\/1779, K.2015\/1119) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin 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 8\/1\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 8\/1\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/5650 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 VEYSEL SEVMEZ BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/5650) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 8\/1\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Y\u00fcksel G\u00dcNARSLAN Ba\u015fvurucu : Veysel SEVMEZ Vekili : Av. Tahsin KO\u00c7 \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru; kamu makamlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir ve \u00f6nlenebilir nitelikte oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen yaralanmadan kaynaklanan zararlar\u0131n tazmini istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada olay\u0131n idarenin kusuruyla meydana geldi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmemesi nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle de makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma 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. Ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 nedeniyle yaralanan ba\u015fvurucu, sevk edildi\u011fi hastaneden 45 g\u00fcn istirahat raporu d\u00fczenlenerek 4\/6\/2013 tarihinde taburcu edilmi\u015ftir. A. Ba\u015fvurucunun Olaya \u0130li\u015fkin Olarak A\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 Tam Yarg\u0131 Davas\u0131 3. Ba\u015fvurucunun hastanede tedavi g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc s\u00fcre\u00e7te Reyhanl\u0131 Kaymakaml\u0131\u011f\u0131 23\/5\/2013 tarihinde ilgili banka m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne m\u00fczekkere yazarak meydana gelen yaralanmaya istinaden afet ve acil durum hesab\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucuya 1.000 TL …<\/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-35354","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n