T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
MEMET \u00c7EL\u0130K BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/5125)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 12\/3\/2025<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u015eehadet \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Memet \u00c7EL\u0130K<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Tahsin KO\u00c7<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131 nedeniyle u\u011fran\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen zararlar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Hatay’\u0131n Reyhanl\u0131 il\u00e7esinde 11\/5\/2013 tarihinde biri belediye binas\u0131 \u00f6n\u00fcnde, di\u011feri postane binas\u0131n\u0131n yak\u0131nlar\u0131nda olmak \u00fczere bomba y\u00fckl\u00fc iki arac\u0131n infilak ettirilmesi suretiyle ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir. Sald\u0131r\u0131 sonucu 51 ki\u015fi ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131 yitirmi\u015f, 222 ki\u015fi yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun babas\u0131 \u0130.\u00c7. de s\u00f6z konusu sald\u0131r\u0131da hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybetmi\u015ftir. \u0130.\u00c7.nin miras\u00e7\u0131s\u0131 olan ba\u015fvurucunun 22\/5\/2013 tarihinde Hatay Valili\u011fi Zarar Tespit Komisyonuna yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerine 21\/6\/2013 tarihinde sulhname imzalanm\u0131\u015f, ba\u015fvurucuya 17\/7\/2004 tarihli ve 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Ter\u00f6r ve Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadeleden Do\u011fan Zararlar\u0131n Kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun uyar\u0131nca 25.842,95 TL tutar\u0131nda maddi tazminat \u00f6denmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. S\u00f6z konusu ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131yla ilgili olarak \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 M\u00fclkiye M\u00fcfetti\u015fli\u011fi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen 2\/4\/2014 tarihli \u00f6n inceleme raporunda Hatay Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne olay \u00f6ncesi konuyla ilgili \u00e7ok say\u0131da ihbar geldi\u011fi, istihbarat birimleri taraf\u0131ndan ara\u00e7 plakas\u0131, \u015fah\u0131s isimleri gibi bilgilerin de belirtilmesi suretiyle Hatay Emniyetine bilgi sunuldu\u011fu, patlaman\u0131n meydana gelmesinde \u00f6nlem almayan emniyet birimlerinin hizmet kusuru oldu\u011fu, ilgililer hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma izni verilmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. \u0130lgili emniyet g\u00f6revlileri ile m\u00fclki idare amirleri hakk\u0131nda Hatay Valili\u011fi taraf\u0131ndan soru\u015fturma izni verilmesi \u00fczerine Hatay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nca 30\/12\/2014 tarihinde g\u00f6revi k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullanma su\u00e7undan iddianame d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f ve iddianamenin kabul\u00fcyle Hatay 7. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi nezdinde 19\/1\/2015 tarihinde kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu 18\/11\/2015 tarihinde \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na sundu\u011fu dilek\u00e7e ile babas\u0131 \u0130.\u00c7.nin \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 manevi zararlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesi i\u00e7in talepte bulunmu\u015ftur. Talebinin 26\/11\/2015 tarihli i\u015flemle reddedilmesi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu 29\/1\/2016 tarihinde manevi zararlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesi talebiyle Hatay \u0130dare Mahkemesi (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) nezdinde tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f; dava dilek\u00e7esinde patlaman\u0131n ve \u00f6l\u00fcmlerin ya\u015fanmas\u0131nda idarenin hizmet kusuru oldu\u011funu, istihbarat bilgisi bulunmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen \u00f6nlem al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f; dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131klama yaparak 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’dan ayr\u0131 olarak kusur sorumlulu\u011fu temelinde dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 26\/2\/2016 tarihli karar\u0131yla davay\u0131 s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddetmi\u015f; gerek\u00e7ede 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu uyar\u0131nca, s\u00f6z konusu patlamalar\u0131n ya\u015fand\u0131\u011f\u0131 11\/5\/2013 tarihinden itibaren bir y\u0131l i\u00e7inde en ge\u00e7 12\/5\/2014 g\u00fcn\u00fc idari ba\u015fvuru yap\u0131larak sonucuna g\u00f6re altm\u0131\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Bu ba\u011flamda olay\u0131n \u00fczerinden uzun s\u00fcre ge\u00e7mesinin ard\u0131ndan dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresini canland\u0131rma imk\u00e2n\u0131 olmayan 18\/11\/2015 tarihli idari ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerine verilen ret cevab\u0131n\u0131n ard\u0131ndan 29\/1\/2016 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan davada s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 bulundu\u011funu ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucunun temyiz talebi \u00fczerine Dan\u0131\u015ftay Onuncu Dairesi (Daire) 28\/3\/2018 tarihli karar\u0131yla s\u00fcre ret karar\u0131n\u0131 bozmu\u015f; karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da tam yarg\u0131 davalar\u0131 i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen bir ve be\u015f y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcrelerin eylemin idarili\u011finin ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 andan itibaren hesaplanmas\u0131n\u0131n \u015fart oldu\u011funu, somut olayda ise ba\u015fvurucunun eylemin idarili\u011fini 19\/1\/2015 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan ceza davas\u0131 ile \u00f6\u011frendi\u011finin kabul\u00fc gerekti\u011fini, bu nedenle de ceza davas\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131ndan itibaren bir y\u0131l i\u00e7inde 18\/11\/2015 tarihinde yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan idari ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerine a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde oldu\u011funu ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Daval\u0131 idarenin karar d\u00fczeltme talebi \u00fczerine Daire, bozma karar\u0131n\u0131 kald\u0131rarak \u0130dare Mahkemesinin 26\/2\/2016 tarihli s\u00fcre ret karar\u0131n\u0131 19\/10\/2020 tarihinde onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai karar\u0131 2\/2\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frenmesinin ard\u0131ndan 12\/2\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
10. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu; ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesinde idarenin kusuru oldu\u011funun olay tarihinde \u00f6\u011frenilmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00fcre ret karar\u0131ndaki yorumun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 derecede s\u0131n\u0131rlad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, sald\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n ya\u015fanmas\u0131nda kusuru olan idarenin bu ihmalinin ya\u015fam\u0131 koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ihlal etti\u011fini belirterek anayasal haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, 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 ba\u015fvuru formundaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvuru, adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. 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 kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
14. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n en temel unsurlar\u0131ndan biri olan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcne ta\u015f\u0131yabilmek ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n etkili bir \u015fekilde karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilmek anlam\u0131na gelir. Ki\u015finin mahkemeye ba\u015fvurmas\u0131n\u0131 engelleyen veya mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 anlams\u0131z h\u00e2le getiren, bir ba\u015fka ifadeyle mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde etkisizle\u015ftiren s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilir (\u00d6zkan \u015een [2. B.], B. No: 2012\/791, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
15. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, mahkemeye ba\u015fvuru konusunda etkili bir sistemin var olmas\u0131n\u0131 ve dava a\u00e7mak isteyen ki\u015filerin mahkemeye ula\u015fmada a\u00e7\u0131k, pratik ve yeterli f\u0131rsatlara sahip olmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir. \u00d6zellikle hukuki ya da uygulamadaki belirsizlikler ki\u015filerin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilir (Aktif Elektrik M\u00fch. \u0130n\u015f. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. [1. B.], B. No: 2012\/855, 26\/6\/2014, \u00a7 34). Bu nedenle mahkemelerin usul kurallar\u0131n\u0131 uygularken yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetine zarar getirecek \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kat\u0131 \u015fekilcilikten ka\u00e7\u0131nmalar\u0131 gerekti\u011fi gibi kanunla \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f usul \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kalkmas\u0131na neden olacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 esneklikten de ka\u00e7\u0131nmalar\u0131 gerekir (Kamil Ko\u00e7 [1. B.], B. No: 2012\/660, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 65). Bu kapsamda mevzuatta \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine ili\u015fkin kurallar\u0131n hukuka a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak yanl\u0131\u015f uygulanmas\u0131 veya bu s\u00fcrelerin hatal\u0131 hesaplanmas\u0131 nedeniyle ki\u015filerin dava a\u00e7ma ya da kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvuru haklar\u0131n\u0131 kullanmas\u0131na engel olunmas\u0131 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilir (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. [2. B.], B. No: 2014\/13156, 20\/4\/2017, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
16. Vurgulamak gerekir ki dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin hangi tarihte ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirlemek ve mevzuat\u0131 bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle yorumlamak g\u00f6revi esasen yarg\u0131lama mercilerine aittir. Bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincillik ilkesi gere\u011fi, dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flat\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 tarihin belirlenmesi noktas\u0131nda Anayasa Mahkemesinin bir g\u00f6revi bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesinin bu hususta \u00fcstlenece\u011fi rol, dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin hangi tarihten itibaren ba\u015flat\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fiyle ilgili yarg\u0131 mercilerinin yorumlar\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na etkisini somut olay\u0131n \u015fartlar\u0131 \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda incelemektir (Ahmet Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m [1. B.], B. No: 2014\/18135, 20\/9\/2017, \u00a7 46).<\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvurucunun davay\u0131 s\u00fcresinde a\u00e7mad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle \u0130dare Mahkemesince davan\u0131n reddedilmesinin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu sebeple m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ve somut ba\u015fvuruya uygun d\u00fc\u015fen, kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme, hakl\u0131 bir sebebe dayanma, \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmama ko\u015fullar\u0131na uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
18. Somut s\u00fcrece bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na davan\u0131n s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddi suretiyle yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011fa sahip oldu\u011fu ve s\u0131n\u0131rlaman\u0131n me\u015fru amac\u0131 bulundu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (idari i\u015flem ya da eylemlere kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lacak davalarda s\u00fcre \u015fart\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin en genel ifadeyle idari istikrar\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 \u015feklinde bir me\u015fru amaca hizmet etti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. Ay\u015fe Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m [1. B.], B. No: 2014\/5, 25\/10\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 54, 55; Fatma Altuner [2. B.], B. No: 2014\/17714, 26\/10\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 48, 49; \u00c7\u00f6lbeyi Lojistik Nakliyat G\u00fcmr\u00fckleme Denizcilik \u0130n\u015faat Turizm Sanayii ve Ticaret Limitet \u015eirketi [1. B.], B. No: 2014\/12354, 9\/11\/2017, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
19. Kanunilik ve me\u015fru ama\u00e7 \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahale, \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan da de\u011ferlendirilmelidir. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi elveri\u015flilik, gereklilik ve orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k olmak \u00fczere \u00fc\u00e7 alt ilkeden olu\u015fmaktad\u0131r. Elveri\u015flilik \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen m\u00fcdahalenin ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli olmas\u0131n\u0131, gereklilik ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan m\u00fcdahalenin zorunlu olmas\u0131n\u0131 yani ayn\u0131 amaca daha hafif bir m\u00fcdahale ile ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmamas\u0131n\u0131, orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k ise bireyin hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale ile ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 aras\u0131nda makul bir dengenin g\u00f6zetilmesi gereklili\u011fini ifade etmektedir (AYM, E.2011\/111, K.2012\/56, 11\/4\/2012; E.2013\/66, K.2014\/19, 29\/1\/2014; E.2016\/16, K.2016\/37, 5\/5\/2016; Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri [1. B.], B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
20. Hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ba\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 usul kurallar\u0131na uyulmamas\u0131 nedeniyle uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n esas\u0131 hakk\u0131nda karar verilmemesi suretiyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin idari istikrar\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 amac\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan elveri\u015fli ve gerekli oldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenebilir. Somut olaydaki m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn de\u011ferlendirilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan as\u0131l \u00fczerinde durulmas\u0131 gereken husus ise m\u00fcdahalenin orant\u0131l\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. Eldeki ba\u015fvuruya konu yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde \u0130dare Mahkemesi, meydana gelen \u00f6l\u00fcmler ile buna neden olan eylemin patlaman\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi 11\/5\/2013 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frenilip 21\/6\/2013 tarihinde sulhname imzaland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bu tarihlerden itibaren mevzuatta belirtilen s\u00fcreler a\u015f\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra yap\u0131lan idari ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerine a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esine yer vererek davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. Daire, temyiz s\u00fcrecinde s\u00fcre ret karar\u0131n\u0131 bozmu\u015fsa da karar d\u00fczeltme s\u00fcrecinde hi\u00e7bir gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6stermeden bozma karar\u0131n\u0131 kald\u0131rm\u0131\u015f ve \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131 onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, idarenin kusurlu oldu\u011funu ve emniyet birimlerinin olayda ihmali bulundu\u011funu ceza davas\u0131yla \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fini belirterek idari ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihi olarak bu tarihin esas al\u0131nmamas\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
22. Anayasa Mahkemesince daha \u00f6nce benzer nitelikte ba\u015fvurularda da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere idari eylem nedeniyle u\u011fran\u0131lan zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131nda idarenin tazminle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc tutulabilmesi i\u00e7in ortada idari eylem ve zarar olmal\u0131, ayr\u0131ca zararla idari eylem aras\u0131nda illiyet ba\u011f\u0131 bulunmal\u0131d\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu eylemlerin idarili\u011fi ve do\u011furdu\u011fu zarar bazen eylemin yap\u0131lmas\u0131yla birlikte ortaya \u00e7\u0131karken bazen de \u00e7ok sonra de\u011fi\u015fik ara\u015ft\u0131rma, inceleme ve hatta ceza yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131 sonucu ortaya \u00e7\u0131kabilmektedir (Leyla Bitik ve di\u011ferleri [2. B.], B. No: 2019\/24350, 16\/3\/2023, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
23. \u0130darili\u011fin veya meydana gelen zarar\u0131n ya da aralar\u0131ndaki illiyet ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131n eylemden sonra anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya ortaya konulabildi\u011fi durumlarda dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin hak sahibinin hen\u00fcz dava hakk\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fdu\u011fundan haberdar olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve somut \u015fartlar \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde haberdar oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fcn\u00fc hakl\u0131 k\u0131lan nedenlerin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir d\u00f6nemde i\u015flemeye ba\u015flamas\u0131 dava hakk\u0131n\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 anlams\u0131z k\u0131l\u0131p \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesini zedeleyebilir. Bu nedenle eylemin idarili\u011finin veya yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar\u0131n ya da illiyet ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131n eylemden sonra anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya ortaya konulabildi\u011fi durumlarda dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin bu tarihlerden sonra ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131 kabul edilmektedir (\u00e7ok say\u0131da karar aras\u0131ndan bkz. \u015eeyma Kayao\u011flu [2. B.], B. No: 2014\/5491, 5\/7\/2017, \u00a7 55).<\/p>\n
24. Somut olayda \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn 11\/5\/2013 tarihinde meydana gelen ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi konusunda teredd\u00fct bulunmamaktad\u0131r ancak olayda idarenin kusuru olmas\u0131 durumunun \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan inceleme ve akabinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen soru\u015fturma izni verilmesi i\u015flemleri ve olayda ihmali\/kusuru oldu\u011fu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclen emniyet g\u00f6revlileri hakk\u0131nda 19\/1\/2015 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan ceza davas\u0131 ile a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun an\u0131lan s\u00fcre\u00e7ten \u00f6nce \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131na sebebiyet veren olguya dair ihmale, eylemsizli\u011fe ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla eylemin idarili\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir bilgiye, veriye sahip olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda ba\u015fvurucunun, babas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcne neden olan ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131nda idarenin kusur do\u011furabilecek eylemsizli\u011fini (\u00f6nlem almama h\u00e2li) ve zararla idari eylemsizlik aras\u0131nda illiyet ba\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011funu \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131yla derh\u00e2l \u00f6\u011frendi\u011finden s\u00f6z edilemez (benzer y\u00f6ndeki Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi de\u011ferlendirmesi i\u00e7in bkz. Kur\u015fun\/T\u00fcrkiye, B. No: 22677\/10, 30\/10\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 101-106).<\/p>\n
25. Bu itibarla ba\u015fvurucudan olay\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi 11\/5\/2013 tarihi esas al\u0131narak u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zararla ilgili idari ba\u015fvuru yapmak suretiyle dava a\u00e7mas\u0131n\u0131n beklenmesi ba\u015fvurucuya orant\u0131s\u0131z bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklemektedir.<\/p>\n
26. Buna g\u00f6re \u0130dare Mahkemesinin dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihine ili\u015fkin de\u011ferlendirmesinin ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik kat\u0131 bir yorum oldu\u011fu ve bu yorumun ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 derecede g\u00fc\u00e7le\u015ftirerek neredeyse imk\u00e2ns\u0131z h\u00e2le getirdi\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Bu nedenle davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesi suretiyle ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
27. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\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
28. Ba\u015fvurucu, ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n da ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f ise de adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7 g\u00f6zetilerek s\u00f6z konusu ihlal iddias\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ayr\u0131ca inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
29. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti, yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ve 100.000 TLtazminat \u00f6denmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
30. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen anayasal hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar ve zorunluluk bulunmaktad\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n 148. ve 153. maddeleri ile 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. ve 66. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flat\u0131p Anayasa Mahkemesinin ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere ve gerek\u00e7elere uygun bi\u00e7imde y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclecek yarg\u0131lama sonunda hak ihlalinin nedenlerini gidererek yeni bir karar vermektir<\/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 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\u2019n\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. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u0130NCELEME YAPILMASINA GEREK OLMADI\u011eINA,<\/p>\n
D. 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 Hatay \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2016\/115, K.2016\/239) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. 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
G. \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
H. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 12\/3\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 12\/3\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/5125 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 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR MEMET \u00c7EL\u0130K BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/5125) Karar Tarihi: 12\/3\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : \u015eehadet \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK Ba\u015fvurucu : Memet \u00c7EL\u0130K Vekili : Av. Tahsin KO\u00c7 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131 nedeniyle u\u011fran\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen zararlar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Hatay’\u0131n Reyhanl\u0131 il\u00e7esinde 11\/5\/2013 tarihinde biri belediye binas\u0131 \u00f6n\u00fcnde, di\u011feri postane binas\u0131n\u0131n yak\u0131nlar\u0131nda olmak \u00fczere bomba y\u00fckl\u00fc iki arac\u0131n infilak ettirilmesi suretiyle ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir. Sald\u0131r\u0131 sonucu 51 ki\u015fi ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131 yitirmi\u015f, 222 ki\u015fi yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun babas\u0131 \u0130.\u00c7. de s\u00f6z konusu sald\u0131r\u0131da hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybetmi\u015ftir. \u0130.\u00c7.nin miras\u00e7\u0131s\u0131 olan ba\u015fvurucunun 22\/5\/2013 tarihinde Hatay Valili\u011fi Zarar Tespit Komisyonuna yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerine 21\/6\/2013 tarihinde sulhname imzalanm\u0131\u015f, ba\u015fvurucuya 17\/7\/2004 tarihli ve 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Ter\u00f6r ve Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadeleden Do\u011fan Zararlar\u0131n Kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun uyar\u0131nca 25.842,95 TL tutar\u0131nda maddi tazminat \u00f6denmi\u015ftir. 3. S\u00f6z konusu ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131yla ilgili olarak \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 M\u00fclkiye M\u00fcfetti\u015fli\u011fi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen 2\/4\/2014 tarihli \u00f6n inceleme raporunda Hatay Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne olay \u00f6ncesi konuyla ilgili \u00e7ok say\u0131da ihbar geldi\u011fi, istihbarat birimleri taraf\u0131ndan ara\u00e7 plakas\u0131, \u015fah\u0131s …<\/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-101753","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n