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
P.\u00c7. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/36152)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 5\/6\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 7\/11\/2024-32715<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
RESEN G\u0130ZL\u0130L\u0130K KARARI VER\u0130LD\u0130<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/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
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u015eahap KAYMAK<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
P.\u00c7.<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Faruk \u00c7AYIR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 <\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; istinaf mahkemesince karar\u0131n sonucunu de\u011fi\u015ftirebilecek nitelikteki esasl\u0131 iddialar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, sa\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n boyanmas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda ay\u0131pl\u0131 hizmet verildi\u011fi i\u00e7in cildinin zarar g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden bahisle kuaf\u00f6rl\u00fck hizmeti sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 daval\u0131lar hakk\u0131nda Ankara 11. T\u00fcketici Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak kayd\u0131yla 10.000 TL maddi, 10.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n 26\/6\/2016 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek faizi ile tahsili talebiyle tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Mahkeme; davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, 17.294 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n 10.000 TL’lik k\u0131sm\u0131na dava tarihi olan 23\/9\/2016, 7.294 TL’lik k\u0131sm\u0131na \u0131slah tarihi olan 23\/10\/2018 tarihinden itibaren, 4.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n 26\/6\/2016 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faiziyle daval\u0131lardan m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen tahsiline, fazlaya ili\u015fkin talebin reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; kuaf\u00f6rl\u00fck hizmetinin ay\u0131pl\u0131 sunulup sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespitine ili\u015fkin olarak yapt\u0131r\u0131lan bilirki\u015fi incelemesi neticesinde d\u00fczenlenen bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131 ve ek rapor h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nmak suretiyle s\u00f6z konusu hizmetin ay\u0131pl\u0131 olarak sunuldu\u011funun belirlendi\u011fini, ba\u015fvurucunun sa\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar nedeniyle eski h\u00e2line gelmesi i\u00e7in gerekli tedavi giderinin tazmininin gerekti\u011fine de\u011finilerek d\u0131\u015f g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn olu\u015fturdu\u011fu sars\u0131nt\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015fi \u00fczerinde olumsuz etkiye sebebiyet vermesinin manevi olarak zarar te\u015fkil etti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Daval\u0131lar\u0131n istinaf talebi \u00fczerine Ankara B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 24. Hukuk Dairesi (B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi) daval\u0131lar\u0131n istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc ile 4.323,50 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n dava tarihi olan 23\/9\/2016, 4.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n 26\/6\/2016 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile daval\u0131lardan m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen tahsiline, fazlaya ili\u015fkin talebin reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde, ba\u015fvurucunun sa\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131larca yap\u0131lan yanl\u0131\u015f uygulamalar sonucunda zarar g\u00f6rmesi ve d\u0131\u015f g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcn bozulmas\u0131 sebebiyle manevi zarara u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n sabit oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ancak bilirki\u015fi taraf\u0131ndan maddi zarardan taraflar\u0131n %50 oran\u0131nda sorumlu olduklar\u0131 tespit edilmesine ra\u011fmen Mahkemece hi\u00e7bir gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilmeden t\u00fcm maddi zarar\u0131n daval\u0131lardan tahsiline karar verilmesinin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun yapt\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 fazla ve zararl\u0131 i\u015flemler ve ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hamilelik s\u00fcreci dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda sa\u00e7\u0131nda meydana gelen zarardan hakkaniyet gere\u011fince yar\u0131 oran\u0131nda sorumlulu\u011funun bulundu\u011fu tespit edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 30\/10\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 25\/11\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
A. Gerek\u00e7eli Karar Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia <\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu; ger\u00e7e\u011fe ayk\u0131r\u0131 bilirki\u015fi raporunun h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, hamilelik s\u00fcrecinin olay tarihinden \u00e7ok sonraya tekab\u00fcl etti\u011fini, bu sebeple kendisine atfedilebilecek herhangi bir kusur bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde bu y\u00f6ndeki itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmad\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, gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. 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 gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
11. Anayasa’n\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 “B\u00fct\u00fcn mahkemelerin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc kararlar\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli olarak yaz\u0131l\u0131r.” 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 [GK], B. No: 2013\/7800, 18\/6\/2014, \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 ya da esasa dair iddialar\u0131 cevaps\u0131z b\u0131rakmas\u0131 hak ihlaline neden olabilecektir (Sencer Ba\u015fat ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 39).<\/p>\n
12. Anayasa Mahkemesinin gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131ndaki g\u00f6revi, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131yan meselelere ili\u015fkin olarak yarg\u0131 mercilerinin ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e ortaya koyup koymad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 incelemekten ibarettir. Anayasa Mahkemesinin mahkemelerin a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a keyf\u00ee olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya bariz bir takdir hatas\u0131 i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi s\u00fcrece gerek\u00e7elerini denetleme gibi bir g\u00f6revi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi mahkeme kararlar\u0131ndaki hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131 gidermek de Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi de\u011fildir (Halit Kabada\u011f, B. No: 2019\/3589, 23\/11\/2021, \u00a7 30).<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucunun temel iddias\u0131 istinaf kanun yolunda ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve esasa etkili oldu\u011funu belirtti\u011fi hususlar\u0131n istinaf mahkemesi karar\u0131nda g\u00f6zetilmedi\u011fine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
14. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu 26\/6\/2016 tarihinde yapt\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 sa\u00e7 boyama i\u015fleminin ard\u0131ndan 12\/8\/2016 tarihinde \u0130stanbul E\u011fitim ve Ara\u015ft\u0131rma Hastanesi Cildiye B\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnde muayene olmu\u015ftur. S\u00f6z konusu muayene sonras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen bila tarihli re\u00e7etede “Hasta de\u011ferlendirildi. Yap\u0131lan muayenesinde oksipital b\u00f6lgedeki sa\u00e7lar di\u011ferlerinden daha k\u0131sa ve pull test pozitiftir.” ibaresine yer verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. Mahkemece 7\/9\/2017 tarihinde Sa\u011fl\u0131k Bilimleri \u00dcniversitesi G\u00fclhane E\u011fitim ve Ara\u015ft\u0131rma Hastanesinden (GATA) ba\u015fvurucunun sa\u00e7\u0131nda kal\u0131c\u0131 hasar olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak rapor d\u00fczenlenmesi talep edilmi\u015ftir. Bunun \u00fczerine tanzim edilen 13\/9\/2017 tarihli sa\u011fl\u0131k kurulu raporunda ba\u015fvurucunun kal\u0131c\u0131 sa\u00e7 d\u00f6k\u00fclme alan\u0131n\u0131n saptanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, sa\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n u\u00e7 k\u0131s\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n yayg\u0131n bir \u015fekilde kuru, mat ve y\u0131pranm\u0131\u015f h\u00e2lde oldu\u011funun belirlendi\u011fi, bu durumun kal\u0131c\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na zamanla yap\u0131lacak muayeneler sonucunda karar verilebilece\u011fi tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme 23\/2\/2018 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun yeniden muayenesi yap\u0131larak sa\u00e7lar\u0131nda d\u00f6k\u00fclme olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve varsa bu d\u00f6k\u00fclmenin sa\u00e7 boyama i\u015flemine ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ger\u00e7ekle\u015fip ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fi ile sa\u00e7\u0131nda kal\u0131c\u0131 hasar olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7eren yeni bir rapor d\u00fczenlenerek g\u00f6nderilmesini istemi\u015ftir. Bu kapsamda d\u00fczenlenen 5\/3\/2018 tarihli sa\u011fl\u0131k kurulu raporunda; \u00f6nceki muayene ile kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun sa\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n uzamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, kal\u0131c\u0131 sa\u00e7 kayb\u0131n\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, sa\u00e7 \u00e7ekme testinin pozitif sonu\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131, aktif d\u00f6k\u00fclmenin ya\u015fand\u0131\u011f\u0131, h\u00e2len sa\u00e7lar\u0131n kuru, mat ve y\u0131pranm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011funun g\u00f6zlemlendi\u011fi, mevcut bulgular\u0131n sa\u00e7a uygulanan renk a\u00e7\u0131c\u0131 ve boyama i\u015flemleri sonras\u0131nda olu\u015ftu\u011funun d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. Ba\u015fvurucunun ay\u0131pl\u0131 hizmet al\u0131p almad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespiti i\u00e7in bu defa Ankara \u00dcniversitesi T\u0131p Fak\u00fcltesi D\u00e2hili T\u0131p Bilimleri B\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc Adli T\u0131p Anabilim Dal\u0131 Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan (Ankara \u00dcniversitesi) rapor talep edilmi\u015ftir. Bu talebe istinaden d\u00fczenlenen 29\/3\/2018 tarihli raporda ba\u015fvurucunun 25\/4\/2017 tarihinde muayene edildi\u011fi, yap\u0131lan fiziki muayene sonucunda de\u011ferlendirilebildi\u011fi kadar\u0131yla sa\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n kuru ve mat oldu\u011fu, sa\u00e7lar\u0131nda k\u0131r\u0131lma g\u00f6zlendi\u011fi ancak kopma olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, sonu\u00e7 olarak GATA’n\u0131n 5\/3\/2018 tarihli sa\u011fl\u0131k kurulu raporundaki bulgulardan bahsedilerek yeni bir tespitte bulunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
17. Mahkeme Ankara \u00dcniversitesinin d\u00fczenledi\u011fi 29\/3\/2018 tarihli raporu h\u00fckme esas alarak ba\u015fvurucuya sunulan hizmetin ay\u0131pl\u0131 oldu\u011fu sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, sa\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n tekrar eski h\u00e2line gelmesi i\u00e7in katlanmas\u0131 gereken tedavi masraflar\u0131n\u0131 talep etti\u011finden Mahkeme eczac\u0131, sa\u00e7 ve cilt g\u00fczellik uzman\u0131 olan bilirki\u015fiden konuyla ilgili bir rapor d\u00fczenlemesini istemi\u015ftir. Mahkemeye sunulan 18\/6\/2018 tarihli bilirki\u015fi raporunda ay\u0131pl\u0131 hizmet nedeniyle talep edilen maddi zarardan taraflar\u0131n %50 oran\u0131nda kusurlu oldu\u011fu kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca an\u0131lan raporda daval\u0131lar hizmetin ifas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda yapt\u0131klar\u0131 uygulamalar, ba\u015fvurucu ise zarar\u0131n telafisi i\u00e7in yapt\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flemler ve hamileli\u011fi nedeniyle kusurlu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f; daval\u0131lar\u0131n olu\u015fan manevi zarar\u0131n yar\u0131s\u0131ndan sorumlu oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Mahkemenin 5\/7\/2018 tarihinde tedavi masraflar\u0131n\u0131n tutar olarak hesaplanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in ek rapor talebi \u00fczerine d\u00fczenlenen 1\/10\/2018 tarihli ek raporda ba\u015fvurucunun sa\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n eski h\u00e2line gelmesi i\u00e7in toplam 17.294 TL masraf yapmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi hesaplanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkemece t\u00fcm bu hususlar de\u011ferlendirilerek nihai olarak 17.294 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n ve 4.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n yasal faiziyle ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
18. Daval\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan mahkeme karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurulmas\u0131 \u00fczerine B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi, 18\/6\/2018 tarihli bilirki\u015fi raporuna atfen maddi zarardan taraflar\u0131n %50 oran\u0131nda kusurlu oldu\u011fu tespitine ra\u011fmen t\u00fcm zarar\u0131n daval\u0131lardan tahsiline karar verildi\u011fi ve ba\u015fvurucunun yapt\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 fazla ve zararl\u0131 i\u015flemler ve ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hamilelik s\u00fcreci nedeniyle sa\u00e7\u0131nda meydana gelen zarardan yar\u0131 oran\u0131nda sorumlulu\u011fu bulundu\u011funun hakkaniyete uygun d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc gerek\u00e7esiyle tazminata h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re Mahkeme, karar\u0131n\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fczelterek 4.323,50 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n ve 4.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n yasal faiziyle ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucu istinaf cevap dilek\u00e7esinde, sa\u00e7lar\u0131ndaki problemin \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in ba\u015fka bir yerde sa\u00e7 bak\u0131m\u0131 yapt\u0131rmas\u0131 sebebiyle kendisine kusur y\u00fcklenemeyece\u011fini; olay\u0131n ya\u015fand\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarih (26\/6\/2016), ilk muayene oldu\u011fu tarih (12\/8\/2016) ve mahkemenin talebi \u00fczerine ilk sa\u011fl\u0131k kurulu raporunun d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi tarih (13\/9\/2017) itibar\u0131yla hamile olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde bu husus dikkate al\u0131nmadan hamileli\u011finin maddi tazminat miktar\u0131ndan indirim nedeni say\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f, 29\/3\/2018 tarihli raporda hamileli\u011fin sa\u00e7 d\u00f6k\u00fclmesini etkiledi\u011fine ili\u015fkin olarak herhangi bir tespitte bulunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi daval\u0131lar\u0131n ay\u0131pl\u0131 hizmet sundu\u011funun belirlendi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
20. Bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131 ve ilk derece ile istinaf mahkemesi kararlar\u0131na g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucuya ay\u0131pl\u0131 hizmet sunuldu\u011fu sabit olup ihtilaf h\u00fckmedilen maddi tazminat miktar\u0131ndan kaynaklanmaktad\u0131r. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131nda eczac\u0131, sa\u00e7 ve cilt g\u00fczellik uzman\u0131 olan bilirki\u015finin d\u00fczenledi\u011fi 18\/6\/2018 tarihli raporu esas alarak maddi tazminat miktar\u0131nda indirim yapmas\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esini ba\u015fvurucunun fazla ve zararl\u0131 i\u015flemler yapt\u0131rmas\u0131na ve hamilelik s\u00fcrecine dayand\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. Bu gerek\u00e7elerden ilkine y\u00f6nelik olarak s\u00f6z konusu raporda taraflar\u0131n %50 oran\u0131nda kusurlu oldu\u011funun nas\u0131l belirlendi\u011fine ili\u015fkin somut bir tespit yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi de kusur oran\u0131n\u0131n hesaplanmas\u0131na dair bir de\u011ferlendirmede bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Di\u011fer taraftan 1\/10\/2018 tarihli ek raporda ba\u015fvurucunun sa\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n eski h\u00e2line kavu\u015fabilmesi i\u00e7in yapt\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 bak\u0131m dokuz ba\u015fl\u0131k alt\u0131nda incelenmek suretiyle sa\u00e7 bak\u0131m\u0131 i\u00e7in uygulanan i\u015flemlerden sadece biri d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda di\u011ferlerinin do\u011fru oldu\u011funa i\u015faret edilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bu hususun davan\u0131n sonucunu de\u011fi\u015ftirebilecek nitelikte oldu\u011fu ve B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin an\u0131lan iddiay\u0131 makul bir gerek\u00e7e ile cevapland\u0131rma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc alt\u0131nda bulundu\u011fu kabul edilmelidir. Ancak bu duruma ra\u011fmen B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan herhangi bir a\u00e7\u0131klama yap\u0131lmadan 18\/6\/2018 tarihli rapor g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurularak karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
22. Di\u011fer bir gerek\u00e7e olan ba\u015fvurucunun hamileli\u011finin sa\u00e7 d\u00f6k\u00fclmesinde etkili oldu\u011fu hususu B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131nda tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f ve ba\u015fvurucunun iddias\u0131n\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lar mahiyette herhangi bir gerek\u00e7eye yer verilmemi\u015ftir. Somut olay\u0131n ya\u015fand\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarih olan 26\/6\/2016 ve ba\u015fvurucunun ilk muayene oldu\u011fu 12\/8\/2016 tarihlerinde hamile olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, daha sonraki tarihlerde gerek GATA taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen sa\u011fl\u0131k kurulu raporlar\u0131nda gerekse Ankara \u00dcniversitesinin d\u00fczenledi\u011fi raporda ba\u015fvurucunun hamile olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve varsa hamileli\u011finin somut olayda herhangi bir tesiri bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmedi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
23. \u00d6te yandan 18\/6\/2018 tarihli raporda “…davac\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fka kuaf\u00f6rlere bak\u0131m ad\u0131 ile yapt\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flemler ile sa\u00e7\u0131n\u0131 kimyasala maruz b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi uygulamalar sonucu y\u0131kamalarla sa\u00e7 derisi ya\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kaybetti\u011fi…” ve “di\u011fer yar\u0131s\u0131ndan da davac\u0131n\u0131n zarar\u0131 telafi maksad\u0131yla yapt\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 di\u011fer i\u015flemler… sebebiyle sorumlu oldu\u011fu…” belirtilmi\u015fken ayn\u0131 bilirki\u015finin d\u00fczenledi\u011fi 1\/10\/2018 tarihli ek raporda “…davac\u0131n\u0131n \u0130stanbul’da gitti\u011fi sa\u00e7 tasar\u0131m merkezi taraf\u0131ndan iyile\u015ftirme ama\u00e7l\u0131 d\u00fczenlenen listenin davac\u0131n\u0131n sa\u00e7\u0131 gibi y\u0131pranm\u0131\u015f sa\u00e7lara uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131n, y\u0131pranm\u0131\u015f sa\u00e7\u0131n do\u011fal olarak art\u0131k eski h\u00e2le gelmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmasa da olduk\u00e7a iyile\u015ftirilmesi hususunda gerekli ve do\u011fru bir uygulama oldu\u011fu ortadad\u0131r.” \u015feklinde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirildi\u011fi, fakat her iki rapor aras\u0131nda bulunan \u00e7eli\u015fkinin giderilmesine y\u00f6nelik B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve ek rapora kararda de\u011finilmedi\u011finin de alt\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7izmek gerekir.<\/p>\n
24. T\u00fcm bu de\u011ferlendirmeler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131laman\u0131n sonucuna etkili nitelikteki iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince konu ile ilgili yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e ile kar\u015f\u0131lanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
25. Di\u011fer yandan bu ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n davan\u0131n esas\u0131yla ilgili herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi vurgulanmal\u0131d\u0131r. Zira gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131, taraflara yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fckleri iddialar\u0131n\u0131n kurallara uygun bi\u00e7imde incelenip incelenmedi\u011fini bilmelerine imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayan bir hak olup yarg\u0131lama sonucuna y\u00f6nelik bir teminat sa\u011flamaz. Bu itibarla Anayasa Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtti\u011fi ihlal gerek\u00e7elerini g\u00f6zeterek ve s\u00f6z konusu iddiayla ilgili olarak yeniden bir de\u011ferlendirme yaparak gereken karar\u0131 vermek yine yarg\u0131lama mercilerinin takdirindedir.<\/p>\n
26. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\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
27. Ba\u015fvurucunun hamileli\u011fi sebebiyle maddi tazminat miktar\u0131nda indirim yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 ile maddi tazminat talebinin reddedilen k\u0131sm\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden aleyhine nispi vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedildi\u011fini belirterek mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n da ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc g\u00f6r\u00fclmekle birlikte gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7 g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde bu a\u015famada an\u0131lan ihlal iddialar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
28. Ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesinden \u015fik\u00e2yet etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
29. Somut ba\u015fvurunun dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturan makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n kapsam\u0131na d\u00e2hil olup ayr\u0131ca davalar\u0131n en az giderle ve m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olan s\u00fcratle sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yarg\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6revi oldu\u011funu belirten Anayasa’n\u0131n 141. maddesinin de Anayasa’n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcnselli\u011fi ilkesi gere\u011fi, makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesinde g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r (Selahattin Aky\u0131l, B. No: 2012\/1198, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 39).<\/p>\n
30. Medeni hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerle ilgili uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klara ili\u015fkin makul s\u00fcre de\u011ferlendirmesinde, s\u00fcrenin ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131 kural olarak uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 karara ba\u011flayacak yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinin i\u015fletilmeye ba\u015fland\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle davan\u0131n ikame edildi\u011fi tarih olup s\u00fcrenin biti\u015f tarihi ise \u00e7o\u011fu zaman icra a\u015famas\u0131n\u0131 da kapsayacak \u015fekilde yarg\u0131laman\u0131n sona erme tarihidir (G\u00fcher Ergun ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2012\/13, 2\/7\/2013, \u00a7\u00a7 50-52).<\/p>\n
31. Ba\u015fvuruya konu olayda, Ankara 11. T\u00fcketici Mahkemesinde 23\/9\/2016 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n 29\/9\/2020 tarihli B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131 ile kesinle\u015fti\u011fi, bu h\u00e2liyle iki dereceli yarg\u0131laman\u0131n 4 y\u0131l 6 g\u00fcn s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc tespit edilmi\u015f olup an\u0131lan ilkeler ve Anayasa Mahkemesinin benzer ba\u015fvurularda verdi\u011fi kararlar dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda bu s\u00fcrenin makul oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
32. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
33. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile 50.000 TL maddi ve 50.000 TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
34. 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
35. \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 ve manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurunun niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi kamuya a\u00e7\u0131k belgelerde ba\u015fvurucunun kimli\u011finin RESEN G\u0130ZL\u0130 TUTULMASINA,<\/p>\n
B. 1. Makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
C. Anayasa’n\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
D. Di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n \u0130NCELENMES\u0130NE GEREK BULUNMADI\u011eINA,<\/p>\n
E. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Ankara B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 24. Hukuk Dairesine (E.2019\/179, K.2020\/747) iletilmek \u00fczere Ankara 11. T\u00fcketici Mahkemesine (E.2017\/7, K.2018\/1161) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 19.246,90 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
H. \u00d6demenin 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
\u0130. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 5\/6\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 5\/6\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/36152 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 P.\u00c7. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/36152) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 5\/6\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 7\/11\/2024-32715 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR RESEN G\u0130ZL\u0130L\u0130K KARARI VER\u0130LD\u0130 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : \u015eahap KAYMAK Ba\u015fvurucu : P.\u00c7. Vekili : Av. Faruk \u00c7AYIR \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru; istinaf mahkemesince karar\u0131n sonucunu de\u011fi\u015ftirebilecek nitelikteki esasl\u0131 iddialar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, sa\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n boyanmas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda ay\u0131pl\u0131 hizmet verildi\u011fi i\u00e7in cildinin zarar g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden bahisle kuaf\u00f6rl\u00fck hizmeti sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 daval\u0131lar hakk\u0131nda Ankara 11. T\u00fcketici Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak kayd\u0131yla 10.000 TL maddi, 10.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n 26\/6\/2016 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek faizi ile tahsili talebiyle tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Mahkeme; davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, 17.294 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n 10.000 TL’lik k\u0131sm\u0131na dava tarihi olan 23\/9\/2016, 7.294 TL’lik k\u0131sm\u0131na \u0131slah tarihi olan 23\/10\/2018 tarihinden itibaren, 4.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n 26\/6\/2016 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faiziyle daval\u0131lardan m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen tahsiline, fazlaya ili\u015fkin talebin reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; kuaf\u00f6rl\u00fck hizmetinin ay\u0131pl\u0131 sunulup sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespitine ili\u015fkin …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,535],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14478","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n