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
E.E.BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/6074)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 12\/6\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 8\/11\/2024-32716<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
G\u0130ZL\u0130L\u0130K TALEB\u0130 KABUL<\/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
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/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
\u00d6zge ULUKAYA<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
E.E.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirme g\u00f6revlisi olan ba\u015fvurucunun Say\u0131\u015ftay taraf\u0131ndan tespit edilen kamu zarar\u0131n\u0131 tazmin etmeye mahk\u00fbm edilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet 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. Ba\u015fvurucu, 2008 ve 2016 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda Antalya Su ve At\u0131ksu Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde (ASAT) avukatl\u0131k hizmetleri s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131na tabi memur olarak g\u00f6rev yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Say\u0131\u015ftay Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ASAT’\u0131n 2013 y\u0131l\u0131na ili\u015fkin hesaplar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik denetim yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Denetim sonucunda Say\u0131\u015ftay denet\u00e7ileri 26\/9\/2011 tarihli ve 659 say\u0131l\u0131 Genel B\u00fct\u00e7e Kapsam\u0131ndaki Kamu \u0130dareleri ve \u00d6zel B\u00fct\u00e7eli \u0130darelerde Hukuk Hizmetlerinin Y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesine \u0130li\u015fkin Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin (659 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) 14. maddesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak 2013 y\u0131l\u0131 vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti \u00f6demelerinde \u00fcst s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n uygulanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve i\u015f\u00e7i stat\u00fcs\u00fcndeki personele avukatlarla ayn\u0131 tutarda vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti \u00f6dendi\u011finin tespit edilmesi \u00fczerine kamu zarar\u0131na sebep olundu\u011fu iddias\u0131n\u0131 sorgu konusu yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Say\u0131\u015ftay 6. Dairesi (Daire) 659 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 14. maddesi gere\u011fi avukatl\u0131k hizmetleri s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131na d\u00e2hil olan hukuk birimi amiri, hukuk m\u00fc\u015faviri, muhakemat m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc ve avukatlar i\u00e7in belirlenen g\u00f6sterge rakam\u0131n\u0131n memur ayl\u0131klar\u0131na uygulanan katsay\u0131 ile \u00e7arp\u0131m\u0131 sonucu bulunacak ayl\u0131k br\u00fct tutar\u0131n\u0131n on iki kat\u0131 a\u015f\u0131lmak suretiyle \u00f6denen 162.774,77 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan kamu zarar\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirme g\u00f6revlisi s\u0131fat\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun d\u00e2hil oldu\u011fu ki\u015filerden m\u00fcteselsilen tahsil edilmesine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan karar\u0131 temyiz etmi\u015ftir. Say\u0131\u015ftay Temyiz Kurulu (Kurul) 18\/1\/2017 tarihinde oy\u00e7oklu\u011fuyla Daire karar\u0131n\u0131n tasdikine karar vermi\u015ftir. Kararda de\u011finilen hususlar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
i. 10\/12\/2003 tarihli ve 5018 say\u0131l\u0131 Kamu Mal\u00ee Y\u00f6netimi ve Kontrol Kanunu’nun 33. maddesi uyar\u0131nca bir mali i\u015flemi ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmede g\u00f6revli olanlar\u0131n sorumlulu\u011funun belirlenmesinde, ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirme i\u015flemini yapan memurun yetkili ve g\u00f6revli olmas\u0131, yap\u0131lan giderin de bu g\u00f6revli taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenip imzalanan belgeye dayand\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 zorunludur. Bu nedenle aralar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun da bulundu\u011fu ki\u015filer, hukuk m\u00fc\u015favirli\u011fi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda farkl\u0131 birimlerde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fsalar dahi g\u00f6revlendirilmeleri neticesinde \u00f6deme i\u00e7in gerekli belgeleri haz\u0131rlamalar\u0131 ve \u00f6demelerin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 muhasebe i\u015flem fi\u015flerini d\u00fczenleyen olarak imzalamalar\u0131 nedeniyle sorumlu olarak kabul edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
ii. 5018 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 2. maddesinde an\u0131lan Kanun’un merkez\u00ee y\u00f6netim kapsam\u0131ndaki kamu idareleri, sosyal g\u00fcvenlik kurumlar\u0131 ve mahall\u00ee idarelerden olu\u015fan genel y\u00f6netim kapsam\u0131ndaki kamu idarelerinin mali y\u00f6netimini ve kontrol\u00fcn\u00fc kapsad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan d\u00fczenlemede “mahall\u00ee idarelerin ve bunlar\u0131n birlikleri” ifadesinin ba\u011fl\u0131 kurulu\u015flar\u0131 da kapsad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015f, b\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir belediyesine ba\u011fl\u0131 kurulu\u015flar aras\u0131nda oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan ASAT’\u0131n 5018 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a tabi oldu\u011fu kabul edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
iii. Genel nitelikli olmas\u0131 nedeniyle 19\/3\/1969 tarihli ve 1136 say\u0131l\u0131 Avukatl\u0131k Kanunu kamu kurum ve kurulu\u015flar\u0131nda g\u00f6rev yapan avukatlar\u0131 da kapsamaktad\u0131r. Ancak i\u015f sahibi ile avukat aras\u0131ndaki \u00fccret ili\u015fkilerini d\u00fczenlemesi nedeniyle an\u0131lan Kanun’un 164. maddesi tamamen mesleklerini serbest olarak ifa eden avukatlar i\u00e7in ge\u00e7erlidir. Ayr\u0131ca kamuda istihdam edilen avukatlar\u0131n stat\u00fc hukukuna tabi olmalar\u0131 nedeniyle bunlara sadece avukatl\u0131k \u00fccreti de\u011fil kadrolar\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ilgili mevzuatta \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ayl\u0131k, ek g\u00f6sterge, zam ve tazminat ile di\u011fer mali, sosyal hak ve yard\u0131mlar her ay herhangi bir dava ile ili\u015fki kurulmaks\u0131z\u0131n \u00f6denmektedir. Bu nedenle kamuda istihdam edilen avukatlara avukatl\u0131k vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti da\u011f\u0131t\u0131l\u0131rken 14\/7\/1965 tarihli ve 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Devlet Memurlar\u0131 Kanunu’nda ve di\u011fer kanunlarda yer alan d\u00fczenlemelere uyulmas\u0131 zorunludur.<\/p>\n
iv. 20\/11\/1981 tarihli ve 2560 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130stanbul Su ve Kanalizasyon \u0130daresi Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc Kurulu\u015f ve G\u00f6revleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 1. maddesinin (4) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda \u0130stanbul Su ve Kanalizasyon \u0130daresi Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (\u0130SK\u0130) personelinin657 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine tabi oldu\u011fu d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. ASAT Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc Hukuk M\u00fc\u015favirli\u011fi Kurulu\u015f G\u00f6rev ve Yetki Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fi’nin (Y\u00f6netmelik) 22. maddesinde; avukatlar\u0131n dava ve icra takiplerinde mahkemeler, icra daireleri, Dan\u0131\u015ftay ve Yarg\u0131tay gibi idari ve adli kaza mercilerince idare ve avukat lehine takdir olunarak tahsil edilen vek\u00e2let \u00fccretlerinin 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 146., 2560 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 4., 5. ve ek 5., 3\/7\/2005 tarihli ve 5393 say\u0131l\u0131 Belediye Kanunu’nun 82., 1136 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 164. ve ek 1. maddeleri gere\u011fince hukuk m\u00fc\u015faviri, avukatlar ve b\u00fcro personeli aras\u0131nda, bu maddenin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda belirtilen oranlara g\u00f6re da\u011f\u0131t\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yine 659 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 18. maddesinde 2\/2\/1929 tarihli ve 1389 say\u0131l\u0131 Devlet Davalar\u0131n\u0131 \u0130nta\u00e7 Eden Avukat ve Saireye Verilecek \u00dccreti Vek\u00e2let Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un ve 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 146. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckten kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, di\u011fer mevzuatta vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinin \u00f6denmesine ili\u015fkin y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckten kald\u0131r\u0131lan bu d\u00fczenlemelere yap\u0131lan at\u0131flar\u0131n 659 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’ya yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
v. 659 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 14. maddesinde yer alan d\u00fczenleme ile \u00f6denebilecek vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti \u00fcst s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 belirlenmi\u015ftir. ASAT taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7e\u015fitli yarg\u0131 ve icra mercilerinde sonu\u00e7lanan dava ile i\u015flemler neticesinde kazan\u0131lan, emanet hesab\u0131nda toplanan ve \u00fc\u00e7 y\u0131l sonunda da\u011f\u0131t\u0131m\u0131 yap\u0131lmayan tutarlar\u0131n kamu kurumunun b\u00fct\u00e7esine gelir olarak kaydedilmesi gerekmektedir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla s\u00f6z konusu tutarlar\u0131n kamu kayna\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. 5018 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 17. maddesine g\u00f6re hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir i\u015flemle kamu kayna\u011f\u0131nda eksilmeye neden olunmas\u0131 kamu zarar\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda kabul edilmelidir. ASAT’ta \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan avukatlara \u00f6denen vek\u00e2let \u00fccretleri i\u00e7in 659 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK ile belirlenen \u00fcst s\u0131n\u0131ra uyulmamas\u0131 sonucunda kamu kayna\u011f\u0131nda bir eksilme, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla kamu zarar\u0131 ortaya \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, belirtilen Kurul karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 karar d\u00fczeltme talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Kurul 3\/10\/2018 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa’ya ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k iddias\u0131n\u0131n ciddi g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fini belirtip temyiz incelemesindeki gerek\u00e7esini tekrar ederek oy\u00e7oklu\u011fuyla karar d\u00fczeltme talebini reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 8\/2\/2019 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 26\/2\/2019 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
7. 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
A. M\u00fclkiyet Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia <\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu;<\/p>\n
i. 659 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 14. maddesi uyar\u0131nca belirlenen \u00fcst s\u0131n\u0131ra uyulmaks\u0131z\u0131n vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti \u00f6denmesi nedeniyle Say\u0131\u015ftay taraf\u0131ndan hakk\u0131nda tazmin h\u00fckm\u00fc verildi\u011fini belirterek mahkeme niteli\u011fi tart\u0131\u015fmal\u0131 olan Say\u0131\u015ftay nezdinde yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ayr\u0131ca Say\u0131\u015ftay\u0131n ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z ve tarafs\u0131z bir yarg\u0131 mercii g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fc vermedi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
ii. 659 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 14. maddesinin Anayasa’ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esiz olarak reddedildi\u011fini, ASAT’\u0131n 659 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK kapsam\u0131nda olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki iddias\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kamu zarar\u0131n\u0131n nas\u0131l olu\u015ftu\u011funun Say\u0131\u015ftay karar\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131klanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
iii. Yarg\u0131laman\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle Say\u0131\u015ftay b\u00fcnyesindeki denet\u00e7ilerin haz\u0131rlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 rapor \u00fczerinden y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, \u00e7eki\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lanma yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusunu bizzat Say\u0131\u015ftay\u0131n kendi i\u015fleminin olu\u015fturdu\u011funu a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
iv. Kamu zarar\u0131n\u0131n tespiti bak\u0131m\u0131ndan sadece denet\u00e7i raporu ile yetinildi\u011fini ve bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131nmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki talebinin reddedilerek savunma sonras\u0131nda tanzim edilen ve yarg\u0131lamada esas al\u0131nan raporun kendisine tebli\u011f edilmeksizin, usul h\u00fck\u00fcmleri uygulanmadan karar verildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
v. Say\u0131\u015ftay Dairelerinin ASAT’\u0131n 659 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’ya tabi olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde farkl\u0131 kararlar\u0131 oldu\u011funu, i\u00e7tihat farkl\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n giderilmesi i\u00e7in i\u00e7tihad\u0131 birle\u015ftirme yoluna ba\u015fvurulmayarak hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
vi. Tahsili talep edilen \u00f6demenin kamu zarar\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile ASAT’\u0131n 659 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’ya tabi olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin de\u011ferlendirmenin a\u00e7\u0131k \u015fekilde takdire ve yorumlama hatas\u0131na dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirme g\u00f6revlisi olmas\u0131 nedeniyle hukuken tart\u0131\u015fmal\u0131 bir konu hakk\u0131nda Say\u0131\u015ftay karar\u0131 ile tespit edilen kamu zarar\u0131ndan ki\u015fisel mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile sorumlu tutulmas\u0131n\u0131n a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz bir m\u00fcdahale oldu\u011funu ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
vii. Belirtti\u011fi gerek\u00e7elerle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n, gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n, \u00e7eki\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n, hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n, etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ve m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvuru, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesiyle g\u00fcvenceye ba\u011flanan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131, ekonomik de\u011fer ifade eden ve parayla de\u011ferlendirilebilen her t\u00fcrl\u00fc mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131 kapsamaktad\u0131r (AYM, E.2015\/39, K.2015\/62, 1\/7\/2015, \u00a7 20). Hakk\u0131nda verilen tazmin karar\u0131 uyar\u0131nca ba\u015fvurucunun bir miktar paray\u0131 \u00f6demek zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k olup bu paran\u0131n Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n konusuna giren bir m\u00fclk te\u015fkil etti\u011fi hususunda teredd\u00fct bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Somut olayda \u00fcst s\u0131n\u0131r uygulanmaks\u0131z\u0131n \u00f6denen vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti nedeniyle ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirme g\u00f6revlisi s\u0131fat\u0131yla sorumlu kabul edilen ba\u015fvurucudan kamunun zarar\u0131n\u0131n tazmin edilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucudan kamu zarar\u0131n\u0131n tazmin edilmesinin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Di\u011fer taraftan m\u00fcdahalenin amac\u0131 da g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde m\u00fclkiyet, kamu yarar\u0131na kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n kontrol\u00fc veya d\u00fczenlenmesine ili\u015fkin kural \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenmelidir.<\/p>\n
11. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni olmas\u0131 ve kamu yarar\u0131na dayal\u0131 me\u015fru bir amac\u0131n\u0131n bulunmas\u0131 yeterli olmay\u0131p \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmas\u0131 da gerekir. Hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131nda dikkate al\u0131nacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctlerden biri olan Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi uyar\u0131nca m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle elde edilmek istenen kamu yarar\u0131 ile bireyin haklar\u0131 aras\u0131nda adil bir dengenin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 zorunludur. Bu adil denge, ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fahsi olarak ola\u011fan d\u0131\u015f\u0131 ve a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir y\u00fcke katland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmesi durumunda bozulmu\u015f olacakt\u0131r (Arslan Gedik, B. No: 2014\/17217, 14\/9\/2017, \u00a7 39).<\/p>\n
12. \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.2016\/46, K.2016\/178,23\/11\/2016, \u00a7 12; AYM, E.2015\/40, K.2016\/5, 28\/1\/2016, \u00a7 10).<\/p>\n
13. Say\u0131\u015ftay\u0131n tazmin karar\u0131nda 5018 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 33. maddesi uyar\u0131nca \u00fcst s\u0131n\u0131r uygulanmaks\u0131z\u0131n fazladan yap\u0131lan vek\u00e2let \u00fccretlerine ili\u015fkin \u00f6demelerden ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirme g\u00f6revlisi olarak ba\u015fvurucunun tazmin sorumlulu\u011fu oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015f olup m\u00fcdahalenin kanunilik unsurunu ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvuruya konu olayda ba\u015fvurucunun kamu kaynaklar\u0131 kullan\u0131larak fazla \u00f6dendi\u011fi ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti nedeniyle olu\u015fan kamu zarar\u0131n\u0131n tazmininden sorumlu tutulmas\u0131nda kamu yarar\u0131 bulundu\u011fu ve m\u00fcdahalenin bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle me\u015fru bir amac\u0131 oldu\u011fu tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131zd\u0131r. Di\u011fer yandan kamu zarar\u0131n\u0131n zarar\u0131n olu\u015fmas\u0131na eylemleri ve i\u015flemleriyle sebep oldu\u011fu kabul edilen ki\u015filerden tahsil edilmesi amac\u0131yla m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan elveri\u015fli ve gerekli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenemez. Somut olaydaki m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn de\u011ferlendirilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan as\u0131l \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131yan \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct ise orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu itibarla, uygulanan tedbirle ba\u015fvurucuya a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 ve orant\u0131s\u0131z bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklenip y\u00fcklenmedi\u011fi tespit edilmelidir.<\/p>\n
14. Yarg\u0131sal faaliyetin en \u00f6nemli unsuru, bir hukuki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n t\u00fcm y\u00f6nleriyle esastan \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenerek karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131 ve bu karar\u0131n kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm niteli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131d\u0131r. Kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm, davan\u0131n taraflar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki hukuki ili\u015fkinin b\u00fct\u00fcn bir gelecek i\u00e7in kesin olarak tespit edilmesi veya d\u00fczenlenmesi ve ayn\u0131 davan\u0131n h\u00fckm\u00fcn kesinle\u015fmesinden sonra yeniden a\u00e7\u0131lamamas\u0131d\u0131r. Say\u0131\u015ftay, sorumlular\u0131n hesap ve i\u015flemlerinin hukuka uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 ise kamu zarar\u0131 do\u011furup do\u011furmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 mali i\u015flem ile kamu zarar\u0131 aras\u0131nda illiyet ba\u011f\u0131 bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda 6085 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen yarg\u0131lama usullerini izleyerek bir inceleme yapt\u0131ktan sonra her \u00fc\u00e7 ko\u015fulun da ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesi durumunda kamu zarar\u0131n\u0131n hesap sorumlusundan tazminine karar vermektedir (AYM,E.2012\/102, K.2012\/207, 27\/12\/2012).<\/p>\n
15. Say\u0131\u015ftay\u0131n tazmin karar\u0131 vermesi hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n m\u00fceyyidesidir. Anayasa’n\u0131n 160. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, Say\u0131\u015ftay\u0131n bu karar\u0131n\u0131n kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm niteli\u011finde oldu\u011funun a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirtilmesi ve bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 herhangi bir hukuksal yola ba\u015fvurma yolunun \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmemesi Say\u0131\u015ftay karar\u0131n\u0131n yarg\u0131sal anlamda kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm niteli\u011finde oldu\u011funu g\u00f6sterir (AYM, E.2012\/102, K.2012\/207, 27\/12\/2012; Anayasa Mahkemesinin ayn\u0131 y\u00f6ndeki di\u011fer kararlar\u0131 i\u00e7in ayr\u0131ca bkz. AYM,E.2011\/21, K.2013\/36, 28\/2\/2013; E.2011\/142, K.2013\/52, 3\/4\/2013; E.2014\/172, K.2014\/170, 13\/11\/2014).<\/p>\n
16. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu \u00f6ncelikle ASAT’\u0131n 659 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK kapsam\u0131nda olmamas\u0131 nedeniyle an\u0131lan KHK’n\u0131n 14. maddesinde vek\u00e2let \u00fccretlerine ili\u015fkin d\u00fczenlenen \u00fcst s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n uygulanamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bireysel ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131nda ilgili kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin yorumlanmas\u0131 ve buna dayan\u0131larak delillerin de\u011ferlendirilmesi kural olarak uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7\u00f6zen ve kanun yolu denetimi yapan mahkemelerin g\u00f6revidir. Anayasa Mahkemesinin hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yorumuna ya da delillerin de\u011ferlendirilmesine ili\u015fkin g\u00f6revi a\u00e7\u0131k bir keyf\u00eelik veya bariz takdir hatas\u0131 durumlar\u0131 ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131d\u0131r (Sina Aziz Manast\u0131r\u0131 ve Ba\u015fpiskoposlu\u011fu (Tur-u Sina Manast\u0131r\u0131), B. No: 2018\/26955, 14\/12\/2022, \u00a7 92).<\/p>\n
17. Daire ve Kurul kararlar\u0131nda mevzuat d\u00fczenlemelerine yer verilerek 659 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 14. maddesi uygulanmak suretiyle de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirtilmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 3, 4). Daire ve Kurul, belirtilen d\u00fczenlemenin Anayasa’ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin iddiay\u0131 inceleyerek ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirme g\u00f6revlisi olan ba\u015fvurucunun durumuna ve tahsili talep edilen miktar\u0131n kamu zarar\u0131 olu\u015fturdu\u011funa ili\u015fkin olarak ayr\u0131ca ve a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a de\u011ferlendirmelerde bulunmu\u015ftur. Maddi hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yorumu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7\u00f6zen, kanun yolu denetimi yapan mahkemelerin g\u00f6rev ve yetkisinde olup Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi bu yorumun Anayasa’da yer alan hak ve g\u00fcvencelere ayk\u0131r\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 incelemekten ibarettir. Somut olayda Say\u0131\u015ftay\u0131n ilgili dairesinin ve Temyiz Kurulunun an\u0131lan mevzuata ili\u015fkin yorumunun keyf\u00ee ya da hukuka a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funun s\u00f6ylenmesi i\u00e7in hi\u00e7bir neden bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bunun yan\u0131nda 659 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n kapsam\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak ba\u015fvurucunun sundu\u011fu ve temyiz incelemesinden ge\u00e7ip ge\u00e7medi\u011fi hususunda belirsizlik bulunan kararlara dayan\u0131larak yarg\u0131sal farkl\u0131l\u0131klar bulundu\u011fu iddia edilmi\u015f ise de olu\u015ftu\u011fu iddia edilen yarg\u0131sal farkl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n i\u00e7tihat farkl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 olu\u015fturacak boyutta olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu, savunmas\u0131 al\u0131nd\u0131ktan sonra haz\u0131rlanan ve yarg\u0131lamaya esas al\u0131nan raporun kendisine tebli\u011f edilmedi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Anayasa Mahkemesince \u0130smail Bu\u011fra \u0130\u015flek (B. No: 2013\/1177, 26\/3\/2013) karar\u0131nda bireysel ba\u015fvuru yolunun ikincil niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunabilmek i\u00e7in \u00f6ncelikle ola\u011fan kanun yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmesinin zorunlu oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. 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, \u00a7 17). Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131lamaya esas al\u0131nan raporun kendisine tebli\u011f edilmedi\u011fini ve bahsi ge\u00e7en raporun i\u00e7eri\u011finden haberdar olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 dile getirmi\u015ftir. Kald\u0131 ki ba\u015fvurucunun an\u0131lan raporun i\u00e7eri\u011finden en ge\u00e7 daire karar\u0131 ile birlikte haberdar oldu\u011fu ve temyiz a\u015famas\u0131nda bu rapora y\u00f6nelik itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrme imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulundu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucu son olarak Say\u0131\u015ftayda g\u00f6revli denet\u00e7iler taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan rapora g\u00f6re karar verilmesinden ve bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131nmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki talebinin reddedilmesinden yak\u0131nmaktad\u0131r. Kural olarak Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi herhangi bir davada bilirki\u015fi raporunun veya uzman m\u00fctalaas\u0131n\u0131n gerekli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar vermek de\u011fildir (Sencer Ba\u015fat ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2013\/7800, 18\/6\/2014, \u00a7 68). H\u00e2kim ya da mahkeme, bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131rmak zorunda olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi bilirki\u015filerce haz\u0131rlanan raporlarla da ba\u011fl\u0131 de\u011fildir. Yarg\u0131lama mercii, bilirki\u015fi m\u00fctalaas\u0131na uymayan bir karar da verebilir (baz\u0131 farklarla birlikte bkz. Yahya Murat Demirel ve H\u00fcsn\u00fc Barbaros Olcay, B. No: 2013\/7996, 17\/2\/2016, \u00a7 54). Daire ve Kurul taraf\u0131ndan denet\u00e7i raporu ve yarg\u0131lamaya esas al\u0131nan rapor yeterli g\u00f6r\u00fclerek bir karar verildi\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun s\u00f6z konusu raporlara kar\u015f\u0131 itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131 buldu\u011fu, raporlarda yap\u0131lan hesaplamalara y\u00f6nelik somut bir itiraz ileri s\u00fcrmedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecine bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun delillerini ve iddialar\u0131n\u0131 sunma f\u0131rsat\u0131 bulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair bir olguya rastlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. Sonu\u00e7 olarak ba\u015fvurucu, mevzuata ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak yap\u0131lan \u00f6demeler nedeniyle olu\u015fan kamu zarar\u0131ndan sorumlu tutulmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucunun bu sorumlulu\u011funun ilgili kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re Say\u0131\u015ftay taraf\u0131ndan tespit edildi\u011fi, ba\u015fvurucunun Say\u0131\u015ftay taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamada itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 serbest\u00e7e ileri s\u00fcrme imk\u00e2n\u0131 elde etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunun yan\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131sal makamlar\u0131n kararlar\u0131n\u0131n makul bir de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7ermedi\u011fini veya keyf\u00ee oldu\u011funu ortaya koyamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddia etti\u011fi yarg\u0131sal kararlardaki farkl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n hukuki g\u00fcvenli\u011fi sarsacak nitelikte olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurunun hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131 ve delillerin de\u011ferlendirilmesi kapsam\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazmin etmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc tutuldu\u011fu miktar nedeniyle \u00f6deme yap\u0131lan personele r\u00fccu etme imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulundu\u011fu, bu ba\u011flamda Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen g\u00fcvencelerin de sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde m\u00fcdahalenin ba\u015fvurucuya \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklemedi\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ile m\u00fcdahalenin kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 aras\u0131nda olmas\u0131 gereken adil denge bozulmam\u0131\u015f olup m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcd\u00fcr. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilmedi\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun di\u011fer kabul edilebilirlik ko\u015fullar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmeksizin a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
22. Ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
23. 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. Somut ba\u015fvuruda, an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
24. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer kabul edilebilirlik \u015fartlar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmeksizin ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucunun kamuya a\u00e7\u0131k belgelerde kimli\u011finin gizli tutulmas\u0131 talebinin KABUL\u00dcNE,<\/p>\n
B. 1. M\u00fclkiyet 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. 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
C. Yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde BIRAKILMASINA 12\/6\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 12\/6\/2024 tarihli ve 2019\/6074 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 E.E.BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/6074) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 12\/6\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 8\/11\/2024-32716 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR G\u0130ZL\u0130L\u0130K TALEB\u0130 KABUL Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : \u00d6zge ULUKAYA Ba\u015fvurucu : E.E. \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru; ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirme g\u00f6revlisi olan ba\u015fvurucunun Say\u0131\u015ftay taraf\u0131ndan tespit edilen kamu zarar\u0131n\u0131 tazmin etmeye mahk\u00fbm edilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet 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. Ba\u015fvurucu, 2008 ve 2016 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda Antalya Su ve At\u0131ksu Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde (ASAT) avukatl\u0131k hizmetleri s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131na tabi memur olarak g\u00f6rev yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Say\u0131\u015ftay Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ASAT’\u0131n 2013 y\u0131l\u0131na ili\u015fkin hesaplar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik denetim yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Denetim sonucunda Say\u0131\u015ftay denet\u00e7ileri 26\/9\/2011 tarihli ve 659 say\u0131l\u0131 Genel B\u00fct\u00e7e Kapsam\u0131ndaki Kamu \u0130dareleri ve \u00d6zel B\u00fct\u00e7eli \u0130darelerde Hukuk Hizmetlerinin Y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesine \u0130li\u015fkin Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin (659 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) 14. maddesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak 2013 y\u0131l\u0131 vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti \u00f6demelerinde \u00fcst s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n uygulanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve i\u015f\u00e7i stat\u00fcs\u00fcndeki personele avukatlarla ayn\u0131 tutarda vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti \u00f6dendi\u011finin tespit edilmesi \u00fczerine kamu zarar\u0131na sebep olundu\u011fu iddias\u0131n\u0131 sorgu konusu yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Say\u0131\u015ftay 6. Dairesi (Daire) 659 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 14. maddesi gere\u011fi …<\/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-14483","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n