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
MUSTAFA \u0130LTER VE SA\u0130ME \u0130LTER BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/5840)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 14\/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
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
Hasan SARA\u00c7<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1. Mustafa \u0130LTER<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
2. Saime \u0130LTER<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Erol Yasin \u00d6ZKE\u00c7EC\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, \u015fehitlik belgesi verilmesine ili\u015fkin davan\u0131n kesin olarak reddedilmesi nedeniyle h\u00fckm\u00fcn denetlenmesini talep hakk\u0131 ile gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Aralar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu Saime \u0130lter’in e\u015fi, di\u011fer ba\u015fvurucunun ise babas\u0131 olan piyade uzman \u00e7avu\u015f M.\u0130.nin de bulundu\u011fu baz\u0131 asker\u00ee personel 19\/6\/1995 tarihinde g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131klar\u0131 I\u011fd\u0131r’da bulunan asker\u00ee komutanl\u0131\u011fa kat\u0131lmak i\u00e7in G\u00f6le’den iki sivil minib\u00fcs ve bir sivil taksi ile ayr\u0131lm\u0131\u015flard\u0131r. K\u0131sa bir s\u00fcre sonra G\u00f6le – Kars yolunda sivil taksiye ba\u015fka bir sivil kamyonun \u00e7arpmas\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen kazada ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisi M.\u0130. vefat etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Olayda \u00f6len M.\u0130.nin aralar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n da oldu\u011fu yak\u0131nlar\u0131na 3\/11\/1980 tarihli ve 2330 say\u0131l\u0131 Nakdi Tazminat ve Ayl\u0131k Ba\u011flanmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun kapsam\u0131nda nakdi tazminat \u00f6denmesine 1995 y\u0131l\u0131nda karar verilmi\u015ftir. Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi(UYAP) ortam\u0131nda yap\u0131lan incelemede ise, Ankara 4. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde a\u00e7\u0131lan bir davada 18\/1\/2018 tarihinde verilen h\u00fck\u00fcm gere\u011fince ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisinin 12\/4\/1991 tarihli ve 3713 say\u0131l\u0131 Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadele Kanunu h\u00fck\u00fcmleri do\u011frultusunda vazife malul\u00fc oldu\u011fu kabul edilerek mevzuatta \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen \u015fekilde ayl\u0131k ba\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvuruculardan Saime \u0130lter; olay\u0131n geli\u015fimi itibar\u0131yla e\u015finin \u015fehit say\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011finden bahisle \u015fehitlik belgesi verilmesi talebiyle Kara Kuvvetleri Komutanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015eehit ve Gazi \u0130\u015flem \u015eube M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne (\u0130dare) m\u00fcracaatta bulunmu\u015ftur. \u0130darenin ret karar\u0131 vermesi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucular, Ankara 7. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) i\u015flemin iptaline karar verilmesi talebiyle dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular; dava dilek\u00e7elerinde kendilerine ilgili mevzuat gere\u011fince tazminatlar verildi\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca murislerinin vazife malul\u00fc oldu\u011funun kabul edildi\u011fini, g\u00f6revin ifas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesine ra\u011fmen \u015fehitlik taleplerinin ise reddedildi\u011fini \u00f6ne s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
5. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 13\/2\/2020 tarihinde davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
”Yasal bir \u015fehit tan\u0131m\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davac\u0131lar\u0131n talebinin kamuoyunda \u015fehit ki\u015filerin yak\u0131nlar\u0131na sa\u011flanan haklar\u0131n 5510 say\u0131l\u0131 Sosyal Sigortalar ve Genel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Sigortas\u0131 Kanununun 47. ve 5434 say\u0131l\u0131 T.C. Emekli Sand\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kanununun 44 ve 45. maddelerinde yer alan vazife mal\u00fbl\u00fc kapsam\u0131nda ayr\u0131ca 2230 say\u0131l\u0131 Nakdi Tazminat ve Ayl\u0131k Ba\u011flanmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun, 2629 say\u0131l\u0131 U\u00e7u\u015f, Para\u015f\u00fct, Denizalt\u0131 Dalg\u0131\u00e7 ve Kurba\u011fa Adam Hizmetleri Tazminat Kanunu ile 3713 say\u0131l\u0131 Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadele Kanunu kapsam\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen g\u00f6revler s\u0131ras\u0131nda ve bu g\u00f6revlerin neden ve etkisiyle hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybedenlere tan\u0131nan haklar kapsam\u0131nda yorumlanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ku\u015fkusuzdur.<\/p>\n
Dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesinden, davac\u0131n\u0131n e\u015fi P. Uzm. \u00c7v\u015f. [M.\u0130.nin] 19\/06\/1995 tarihinde operasyon icra eden 25’inci Mknz. P. Tug. 1’nci Mknz. P. Tb. personelini b\u00fct\u00fcnleme personeli olarak G\u00f6le’den I\u011fd\u0131r’a g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi, 2 sivil min\u00fcb\u00fcs ve 1 sivil taksi ile G\u00f6le’den ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 m\u00fcteakip G\u00f6le – Kars yolunda sivil taksiye ba\u015fka bir sivil kamyonun \u00e7arpmas\u0131 sonucu vefat etti\u011fi, bu nedenle e\u015fi i\u00e7in \u015fehitlik belgesi verilmesi istemiyle daval\u0131 idareye yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun dava konusu i\u015flemle reddedilmesi \u00fczerine bak\u0131lmakta olan davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. <\/p>\n
Olayda; davac\u0131n\u0131n e\u015fi P. Uzm. \u00c7v\u015f. [M.\u0130.nin] 19\/6\/1995 tarihinde operasyon icra eden 25’inci Mknz. P. Tug. 1’nci Mknz. P. Tb. personelini b\u00fct\u00fcnleme personeli olarak G\u00f6le’den I\u011fd\u0131r’a g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi, 2 sivil min\u00fcb\u00fcs ve 1 sivil taksi ile G\u00f6le’den ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 m\u00fcteakip G\u00f6le – Kars yolunda sivil taksiye ba\u015fka bir sivil kamyonun \u00e7arpmas\u0131 sonucu vefat etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Buna g\u00f6re; dava konusu olay de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde; ‘\u015fehitlik’ kavram\u0131 ile ilgili do\u011frudan bir tan\u0131mlaman\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bunun yan\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n e\u015fi P. Uzm. \u00c7v\u015f. [M.\u0130.nin] vefat\u0131 ile neticelenen olay\u0131n, \u015fehit say\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren hallerden olan harp, i\u00e7 g\u00fcvenlik, e\u011fitim, at\u0131\u015f, tatbikat, manevra, ka\u00e7ak\u00e7\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n men ve takibi gibi g\u00f6revler esnas\u0131nda veya do\u011fal afet nedeni gibi \u015fartlar alt\u0131nda veya bu g\u00f6rev ve \u015fartlar\u0131n sebep ve tesiri ile meydana gelmedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, bu kapsamda \u015fehitlik belgesi verilmesi amac\u0131yla yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun reddine ili\u015fkin 22\/02\/2019 tarih ve 42530 say\u0131l\u0131 Kara Kuvvetleri Komutanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015eehit ve Gazi \u0130\u015flem \u015eube M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc i\u015fleminde hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.”<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde kazaya sebebiyet veren arac\u0131n veya ki\u015filerin sivil nitelikte olmas\u0131n\u0131n murislerinin asker ve kamu g\u00f6revlisi olmas\u0131n\u0131 etkilemedi\u011fini, \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn nihayeti itibar\u0131yla bir kamu g\u00f6revinin ifas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fini, olay g\u00fcn\u00fcnde murislerinin ki\u015fisel i\u015fi i\u00e7in hareket etmeyip kamu g\u00f6revini ifa kapsam\u0131nda hareket etti\u011fini, buna ra\u011fmen bu hususlar\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmedi\u011fini \u00f6ne s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi, 10. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi (Dava Dairesi) 11\/11\/2020 tarihinde istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Karar\u0131n 18\/12\/2020 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmesi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu 18\/1\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucu Mustafa \u0130lter Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden <\/p>\n
8. Bireysel ba\u015fvuru yolunun ikincil niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi, Anayasa Mahkemesine ba\u015fvuruda bulunulabilmesi i\u00e7in \u00f6ncelikle ola\u011fan kanun yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmesi zorunludur. Ba\u015fvurucunun bireysel ba\u015fvuru konusu \u015fik\u00e2yetini \u00f6ncelikle ve s\u00fcresinde 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, bu s\u00fcre\u00e7te dava ve ba\u015fvurusunu takip etmek i\u00e7in gerekli \u00f6zeni g\u00f6stermesi gerekir (\u0130smail Bu\u011fra \u0130\u015flek, B. No: 2013\/1177, 26\/3\/2013, \u00a7 17).<\/p>\n
9. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu Mustafa \u0130lter’in di\u011fer ba\u015fvurucudan farkl\u0131 olarak \u0130dare Mahkemesi ile Dava Dairesi kararlar\u0131nda herhangi bir s\u0131fatla (davac\u0131 vb.) yer almad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle bu ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan, hukuk sisteminde d\u00fczenlenen ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131 usul\u00fcne uygun olarak t\u00fcketilmeden adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131n\u0131n bireysel ba\u015fvuru konusu yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bu ba\u015fvurucu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden di\u011fer kabul edilebilirlik ko\u015fullar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmeksizin ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Ba\u015fvurucu Saime \u0130lter Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden <\/p>\n
1. H\u00fckm\u00fcn Denetlenmesini Talep Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fi \u0130ddias\u0131<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu, Dava Dairesinin kesin karar vermek suretiyle temyiz kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurma imk\u00e2nlar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 b\u00f6ylece h\u00fckm\u00fcn hukuksal denetimin yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan ederek mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini \u00f6ne s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
12. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; ba\u015fvurucunun adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi konusunda inceleme yap\u0131l\u0131rken Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin, Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihad\u0131n\u0131n ve somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131narak bir inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
13. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu, bireysel ba\u015fvuru formunda ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc hususlar\u0131 tekrarlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. 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\u015fvuru, h\u00fckm\u00fcn denetlenmesini talep hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. Bireysel ba\u015fvurunun esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenebilmesi i\u00e7in kamu g\u00fcc\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan ihlal edildi\u011fi iddia edilen hakk\u0131n Anayasa\u2019da g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin ve T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin taraf oldu\u011fu ek protokollerin kapsam\u0131na da girmesi gerekir. Bir ba\u015fka ifadeyle Anayasa ve Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u2019nin (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) ortak koruma alan\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan bir hak ihlali iddias\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7eren ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir (Onurhan Solmaz, B. No: 2012\/1049, 26\/3\/2013, \u00a7 18).<\/p>\n
16. Anayasa Mahkemesi, bir\u00e7ok karar\u0131nda h\u00fckm\u00fcn denetlenmesini talep etme hakk\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa’da g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olmakla birlikte S\u00f6zle\u015fme ve T\u00fcrkiye’nin taraf oldu\u011fu ek protokollerin, medeni hak y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklere ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcre\u00e7leri (hukuk yarg\u0131s\u0131 ile idari yarg\u0131 alan\u0131) y\u00f6n\u00fcnden s\u00f6z konusu hakka dair bir g\u00fcvence i\u00e7ermedi\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu kararlarda medeni hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklere ili\u015fkin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden h\u00fckm\u00fcn denetlenmesini talep etme hakk\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa ve S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin ortak koruma alan\u0131n\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015f ve bu ba\u011flamda an\u0131lan hakka dair bir ihlal iddias\u0131n\u0131n incelenebilmesi i\u00e7in yarg\u0131laman\u0131n ceza hukuku alan\u0131na ili\u015fkin bulunmas\u0131n\u0131n \u015fart oldu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir (\u00f6rne\u011fin bir\u00e7ok karardan bkz. E.\u00c7., B. No: 2019\/2490, 3\/12\/2020, \u00a7 38; Y. E, B. No: 2020\/5373, 2\/3\/2023, \u00a7\u00a7 19-25; Turgut \u00d6ztop, B. No: 2016\/6023, 10\/10\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 47-54).<\/p>\n
17. Anayasa Mahkemesi norm denetiminde temyiz s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131na ili\u015fkin kural\u0131 h\u00fckm\u00fcn denetlenmesi hakk\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulup iptal etmi\u015fse de bireysel ba\u015fvuruda h\u00fckm\u00fcn denetlenmesi hakk\u0131 -Anayasa’da g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olmakla birlikte- S\u00f6zle\u015fme ve T\u00fcrkiye’nin taraf oldu\u011fu ek protokollere g\u00f6re, medeni hak y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklere ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcre\u00e7leri (hukuk yarg\u0131s\u0131 ile idari yarg\u0131 alan\u0131) y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bir g\u00fcvence i\u00e7ermemektedir. Nitekim yukar\u0131da yer verilen kararlarda idari bir i\u015flemin iptali i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan ve istinaf kanun yolunda nihayete erdirilen yarg\u0131lamada temyiz kanun yoluna gidilememesi \u015fik\u00e2yet konusunu olu\u015fturmu\u015ftur. Anayasa Mahkemesi, bireysel ba\u015fvuruya konu yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcre\u00e7lerinin su\u00e7 ve cezalara ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvenceler kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilebilecek \u015fekilde ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131na veya bir su\u00e7 isnad\u0131na ili\u015fkin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek ba\u015fvurular\u0131n konu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetkisizlik nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar vermi\u015ftir (\u00d6mer \u015eanl\u0131, B. No: 2015\/7304, 22\/1\/2019, \u00a7 43, 46).<\/p>\n
18. Somut olayda da h\u00fckm\u00fcn denetlenmesini talep hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetin bireysel ba\u015fvuruda -S\u00f6zle\u015fme ve T\u00fcrkiye’nin taraf oldu\u011fu protokollerde bu hakk\u0131n d\u00fczenlenmemi\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle- incelenmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
19. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer kabul edilebilirlik \u015fartlar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmeksizin konu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetkisizlik nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
C. Gerek\u00e7eli Karar Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fi \u0130ddias\u0131 <\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvurucu, \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131n\u0131n devletin bir g\u00f6revinin ifas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda say\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi h\u00e2lde buna ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n\u0131n ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendilerine ilgili mevzuat gere\u011fince tazminat verildi\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca yarg\u0131 karar\u0131 ile murislerinin vazife malul\u00fc say\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine karar verilmesine ra\u011fmen \u015fehitlik belgesi verilmedi\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca benzer uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klarda farkl\u0131 kararlar verildi\u011fini b\u00f6ylece adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini \u00f6ne s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
21. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; \u0130dare Mahkemesinin dosyadaki delilleri de\u011ferlendirdi\u011fini, hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131 yorumlad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kla ilgili vard\u0131klar\u0131 sonucu gerek\u00e7elendirdi\u011fini, ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin kanun yolu \u015fik\u00e2yeti niteli\u011finde olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinde Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
22. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu, bireysel ba\u015fvuru formunda ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc hususlar\u0131 tekrarlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
23. 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. Ba\u015fvurucunun adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc t\u00fcm \u015fik\u00e2yetleri gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
24. 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 ba\u015fvurunun gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
25. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 g\u00fcvencesini de kapsamaktad\u0131r (daha geni\u015f de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. Abdullah Top\u00e7u, B. No: 2014\/8868, 19\/4\/2017, \u00a7 75). Nitekim Anayasa’n\u0131n 141. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131nda \u201cB\u00fct\u00fcn mahkemelerin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc kararlar\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli olarak yaz\u0131l\u0131r.\u201d denilerek mahkemelere kararlar\u0131n\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli yazma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc y\u00fcklenmi\u015ftir. Mahkemelerin an\u0131lan y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, yarg\u0131lamada ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen her t\u00fcrl\u00fc iddia ve savunmaya karar gerek\u00e7esinde ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 yan\u0131t vermesi gerekti\u011fi \u015feklinde anla\u015f\u0131lamaz. Ancak mahkemeler, kendilerine sunulan t\u00fcm iddialara yan\u0131t vermek zorunda de\u011filse de (Yasemin Ek\u015fi, B. No: 2013\/5486, 4\/12\/2013, \u00a7 56) mahkemelerin davan\u0131n esas sorunlar\u0131n\u0131 inceledikleri gerek\u00e7eli karardan anla\u015f\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bir kararda tam olarak hangi unsurlar\u0131n bulunmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi davan\u0131n niteli\u011fine ve \u015fartlar\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. Muhakeme s\u0131ras\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k ve somut bir bi\u00e7imde \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclen iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili, ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle davan\u0131n sonucunu de\u011fi\u015ftirebilecek nitelikte olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde davayla do\u011frudan ilgili olan bu hususlara mahkemelerce makul bir gerek\u00e7e ile yan\u0131t verilmesi gerekir (Sencer Ba\u015fat ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 35). Aksi bir tutumla mahkemenin davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili oldu\u011funu kabul etti\u011fi bir husus hakk\u0131nda ilgili ve yeterli bir yan\u0131t vermemesi veya yan\u0131t vermeyi gerektiren usul veya esasa dair iddialar\u0131 cevaps\u0131z b\u0131rakmas\u0131 hak ihlaline neden olabilecektir (Sencer Ba\u015fat ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 39).<\/p>\n
26. Somut olayda, ba\u015fvurucunun dava dilek\u00e7esi ile istinaf dilek\u00e7elerinde ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc iddialar\u0131na (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 4-6, \u00a7 20), meselenin \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fcn \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn bir kamu g\u00f6revinin ifas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda veya kamu g\u00f6revi ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunun belirlenmesinin temel sorun oldu\u011fu konusunda herhangi bir teredd\u00fct bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu Saime \u0130lter’in e\u015fi, piyade uzman \u00e7avu\u015f olarak g\u00f6rev yaparken yine g\u00f6revi kapsam\u0131nda I\u011fd\u0131r’da bulunan i\u00e7 g\u00fcvenlik harekat\u0131n\u0131 icra eden asker\u00ee birli\u011fe kat\u0131lmak \u00fczere \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yolda ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen trafik kazas\u0131 sonucunda vefat etmi\u015ftir. Asker\u00ee g\u00f6revini icra etmek amac\u0131yla yine asker\u00ee komutanl\u0131k b\u00fcnyesinde yola \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kendisinden kaynaklanmayan bir sebeple ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen olay nedeniyle vefat etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lan ve ayn\u0131 zamanda vazife malul\u00fc kabul edilen ba\u015fvurucunun murisi hakk\u0131nda \u015fehitlik belgesi verilmemesi i\u015fleminin iptali i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan davada mahkemenin bu ba\u011flamda olu\u015fturdu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esinin makul ve yeterli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
27. Di\u011fer taraftan ba\u015fvurucu, ayr\u0131ca vazife malul\u00fc say\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak a\u00e7\u0131lan davada verilen karar ile \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn kamu g\u00f6revi ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011funun yarg\u0131 mercilerince kabul edildi\u011fi h\u00e2lde, murislerinin \u015fehit say\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin taleplerinin ise hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak reddedildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucunun ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bu iddia da uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131 etkileyecek niteliktedir.<\/p>\n
28. Bu itibarla ba\u015fvurucunun ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sonucuna etkili olabilecek nitelikteki iddialar\u0131yla ilgili yarg\u0131sal mercilerce herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirmede bulunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ayr\u0131ca kararlarda ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7eye yer verilmedi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcreci bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucunun gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
29. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
30. Ba\u015fvurucular; ihlalin tespiti, yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 vetoplamda 40.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
31. 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, adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 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’un 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
32. \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 manevi tazminat taleplerinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. Ba\u015fvurucu Mustafa \u0130lter y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurunun ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu Saime \u0130lter y\u00f6n\u00fcnden h\u00fckm\u00fcn denetlenmesini talep hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n konu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetkisizlik nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu Saime \u0130lter y\u00f6n\u00fcnden adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in Ankara 7. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2019\/867, K.2020\/343) 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 14\/1\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 14\/1\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/5840 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 MUSTAFA \u0130LTER VE SA\u0130ME \u0130LTER BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/5840) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 14\/1\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Hasan SARA\u00c7 Ba\u015fvurucular : 1. Mustafa \u0130LTER \u00a0 \u00a0 2. Saime \u0130LTER Vekili : Av. Erol Yasin \u00d6ZKE\u00c7EC\u0130 \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, \u015fehitlik belgesi verilmesine ili\u015fkin davan\u0131n kesin olarak reddedilmesi nedeniyle h\u00fckm\u00fcn denetlenmesini talep hakk\u0131 ile gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Aralar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu Saime \u0130lter’in e\u015fi, di\u011fer ba\u015fvurucunun ise babas\u0131 olan piyade uzman \u00e7avu\u015f M.\u0130.nin de bulundu\u011fu baz\u0131 asker\u00ee personel 19\/6\/1995 tarihinde g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131klar\u0131 I\u011fd\u0131r’da bulunan asker\u00ee komutanl\u0131\u011fa kat\u0131lmak i\u00e7in G\u00f6le’den iki sivil minib\u00fcs ve bir sivil taksi ile ayr\u0131lm\u0131\u015flard\u0131r. K\u0131sa bir s\u00fcre sonra G\u00f6le – Kars yolunda sivil taksiye ba\u015fka bir sivil kamyonun \u00e7arpmas\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen kazada ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisi M.\u0130. vefat etmi\u015ftir. 3. Olayda \u00f6len M.\u0130.nin aralar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n da oldu\u011fu yak\u0131nlar\u0131na 3\/11\/1980 tarihli ve 2330 say\u0131l\u0131 Nakdi Tazminat ve Ayl\u0131k Ba\u011flanmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun kapsam\u0131nda nakdi tazminat \u00f6denmesine 1995 y\u0131l\u0131nda karar verilmi\u015ftir. Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi(UYAP) ortam\u0131nda yap\u0131lan incelemede ise, Ankara …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37210","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n