T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130DR\u0130S \u00c7AMUR BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/38677)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 23\/10\/2024<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Saliha AKSOY<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u0130dris \u00c7AMUR<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Engin YILMAZEL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; i\u015f kazas\u0131ndan kaynaklanan tazminat davas\u0131nda, \u0131slah talebinin zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim 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; \u015fof\u00f6r olarak g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015firkette, misafirlerin \u015fantiyeye g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fclmesi esnas\u0131nda 13\/08\/2002 tarihinde trafik kazas\u0131 ge\u00e7irmi\u015f ve kaza sonucu yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu 24\/9\/2004 tarihinde \u0130stanbul Anadolu 6. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi nezdinde i\u015f kazas\u0131ndan kaynaklanan tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f; fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak \u00fczere 40.000 TL manevi, 1.000 TL maddi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
4. Mahkemece esas incelemesi yap\u0131lan dosyada 27\/5\/2013 tarihinde al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporunda daval\u0131 \u015firketin \u00f6demesi gereken tazminat miktar\u0131 75.059,05 TL olarak tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 17\/7\/2013 tarihinde verdi\u011fi \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esiyle talep etti\u011fi maddi tazminat\u0131 75.000 TL’ye y\u00fckseltmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan zaman a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 defi ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
5. Mahkeme 10\/9\/2013 tarihli karar\u0131yla daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 defini reddetmi\u015f ve davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcyle 75.000 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n ve 20.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n kaza tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek faiziyle ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle, talep edilen maddi tazminat y\u00f6n\u00fcnden hesap, bilirki\u015fisi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen bilirki\u015fi raporu ve ek rapor g\u00f6zetilerek ba\u015fvurucunun maddi tazminat alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 75.059,05 TL oldu\u011fu ancak istek g\u00f6zetilerek 75.000 TL maddi tazminata; taraflar\u0131n kusur durumlar\u0131, konu hakk\u0131ndaki bilimsel g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fler ve yarg\u0131 kararlar\u0131ndaki ilkeler g\u00f6zetilerek de takdiren 20.000 TL manevi tazminata h\u00fckmedildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Karar hakk\u0131nda temyiz talebinde bulunulmas\u0131 \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 21. Hukuk Dairesinin 10\/2\/2014 tarihli karar\u0131yla Mahkeme h\u00fckm\u00fc bozulmu\u015ftur. Bozma gerek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle davac\u0131n\u0131n 13\/8\/2002 tarihindeki i\u015f kazas\u0131na ili\u015fkin maddi tazminat talebinin 1.000 TL’si d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n 10 y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresi ge\u00e7tikten sonra 17\/7\/2013 tarihli \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esi ile talep edildi\u011fi ve daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a \u0131slahen art\u0131r\u0131lan maddi tazminat k\u0131sm\u0131na ili\u015fkin s\u00fcresinde zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 definde bulunuldu\u011fu vurgulanarak, Mahkemece \u0131slahen art\u0131r\u0131lan maddi tazminat talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesinin hatal\u0131 oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Yarg\u0131tay bozma ilam\u0131 \u00fczerine yeniden incelenen dosyada Mahkeme 1\/4\/2014 tarihli karar\u0131yla bozmaya uymayarak 10\/9\/2013 tarihli ilk karar\u0131nda direnmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 12\/3\/2019 tarihli karar\u0131yla mahkeme h\u00fckm\u00fc bozulmu\u015ftur. Bozma gerek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; Mahkemece 20\/12\/2010 tarihli Adli T\u0131p Kurumu raporuna g\u00f6re davac\u0131n\u0131n iyile\u015fmesinin 18 aya kadar uzayabilece\u011fi ve bu d\u00f6nemde %100 malul say\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki m\u00fctalaa da esas al\u0131narak iyile\u015fme s\u00fcresi de eklendi\u011finde \u0131slah tarihi itibar\u0131yla zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ancak dosya i\u00e7erisindeki 16\/6\/2007 tarihli \u201cS\u00fcrekli \u0130\u015f G\u00f6remezlik Tespit Karar\u0131\u201dna g\u00f6re davac\u0131n\u0131n maluliyetinin t\u0131pk\u0131 aradan \u00fc\u00e7 y\u0131ldan fazla s\u00fcre ge\u00e7tikten sonra tanzim edilen Adli T\u0131p Kurumu raporundaki gibi %35,2 olarak belirlendi\u011fi ve kontrol muayenesinin gerekmedi\u011finin a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu durumda iyile\u015fme s\u00fcrecinin zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n hesaplanmas\u0131n\u0131 etkileyen geli\u015fen durum olarak kabul edilemeyece\u011fi ve yine k\u0131smi dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ancak dava edilen de\u011fer y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kesilece\u011fi vurgulanarak \u0131slah tarihi itibar\u0131yla on y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Mahkeme, Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 12\/3\/2019 tarihli bozma karar\u0131na uymu\u015f; ba\u015fvurucunun 13\/08\/2002 tarihinde ge\u00e7irdi\u011fi i\u015f kazas\u0131n\u0131n on y\u0131ll\u0131k zaman a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresine tabi oldu\u011fu kanaatiyle davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne ve 1.000 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n ve 20.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n kaza tarihinden itibaren i\u015fletilecek faiziyle ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme karar\u0131 kesin olmak \u00fczere verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Nihai karar\u0131n 1\/12\/2020 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6\u011frenilmesi \u00fczerine, 2\/12\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
A. Mahkemeye Eri\u015fim Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia <\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu; dava tarihinde i\u015f kazas\u0131 sonucu olu\u015fan maluliyet oran\u0131 hen\u00fcz belirli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan k\u0131smi talepli dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, olu\u015fan zarar\u0131 kesin olarak Adli T\u0131p Kurumu Raporu ve bilirki\u015fi raporu sonucu \u00f6\u011frenebildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Maluliyet oran\u0131n\u0131n dava devam ederken mahkemeye sunulan rapor ile ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin hesab\u0131nda raporun tanzim tarihi ile cismani zarar\u0131n niteli\u011fi ile kapsam\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi tarihin esas al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nmadan verilen mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n hatal\u0131 oldu\u011funu belirterek mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. 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 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
13. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, herkesin yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddiada bulunma ve savunma hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bir unsurudur (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2014\/13156, 20\/4\/2017, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
14. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, herkesin yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddiada bulunma ve savunma hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bir unsurudur. Di\u011fer yandan Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesine adil yarg\u0131lanma ibaresinin eklenmesine ili\u015fkin gerek\u00e7ede, T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin taraf oldu\u011fu uluslararas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerce de g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n madde metnine d\u00e2hil edildi\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’ni (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) yorumlayan Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi (A\u0130HM), S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011fini belirtmektedir (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
15. Anayasa Mahkemesi; bireysel ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131nda yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmelerde mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n 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 geldi\u011fini, ki\u015finin mahkemeye ba\u015fvurmas\u0131n\u0131 engelleyen veya mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 anlams\u0131z h\u00e2le getiren, bir ba\u015fka anlat\u0131mla mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde etkisizle\u015ftiren s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilece\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir (\u00d6zkan \u015een, B. No: 2012\/791, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
16. Dava a\u00e7may\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z k\u0131lacak ya da a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 zorla\u015ft\u0131racak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde k\u0131sa olmad\u0131k\u00e7a dava a\u00e7ma ya da kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvurma i\u00e7in belli s\u00fcrelerin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesi hukuki belirlilik ilkesinin bir gere\u011fidir ve tek ba\u015f\u0131na bu durum mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olu\u015fturmaz (Remzi Durmaz, B. No: 2013\/1718, 2\/10\/2013, \u00a7 27). Bu nedenle usul kurallar\u0131n\u0131 uygularken mahkemelerin yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetine zarar getirecek \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kat\u0131 \u015fekilcilikten ve kanunla \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f usul \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kalkmas\u0131na neden olacak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 esneklikten ka\u00e7\u0131nmalar\u0131 gerekir (Kamil Ko\u00e7, B. No: 2012\/660, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 65).<\/p>\n
17. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu 13\/8\/2002 tarihinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen i\u015f kazas\u0131ndan sonra 24\/9\/2004 tarihinde 1.000 TL maddi ve 40.000 TL manevi tazminat talepli dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f ve al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131 \u00fczerine 17\/7\/2013 tarihli dilek\u00e7e ile 75.000 TL istemiyle bu talebini \u0131slah etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, i\u015f kazas\u0131n\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fi tarihten itibaren ba\u015flayan zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n \u0131slah tarihinde doldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle ba\u015fvurucunun dava dilek\u00e7esindeki talebiyle ba\u011fl\u0131 kalarak 1.000 TL maddi, 20.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
18. Anayasa Mahkemesi somut ba\u015fvuruya benzer nitelikte iddialar\u0131 \u00c7etin Akbo\u011fa [GK] (B. No: 2019\/430, 23\/3\/2023) karar\u0131nda incelemi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan karara konu olayda, 5\/1\/2005 tarihinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen i\u015f kazas\u0131ndan sonra 6\/8\/2007 tarihinde fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 tutulmak kayd\u0131yla 2.000 TL maddi tazminat talepli dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bilirki\u015fi incelemesi sonucu maddi zarar 121.312,31 TL olarak belirlenmi\u015f ve 8\/11\/2016 tarihli dilek\u00e7e ile maddi tazminat talebi bilirki\u015fi raporundaki tutar kadar art\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130lk derece mahkemesi ba\u015fvurucunun davas\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmi\u015f ise de B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi, i\u015f kazas\u0131n\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fi 5\/1\/2005 tarihinden itibaren ba\u015flayan zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esinin sunuldu\u011fu 8\/11\/2016 tarihinde doldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle bilirki\u015fi raporu do\u011frultusunda art\u0131r\u0131lan maddi tazminat k\u0131sm\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. An\u0131lan ba\u015fvuruda davan\u0131n \u0131slah ile art\u0131r\u0131lan k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n reddedilmesini mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda inceleyen Anayasa Mahkemesi, davaya konu zarar\u0131n tespit edilmesinin belli bir uzmanl\u0131k gerektirdi\u011fini bu nedenle zarar\u0131n boyutunun belirlenebilmesi i\u00e7in derece mahkemelerince bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131nmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fine dikkat \u00e7ekmi\u015f ve zarar\u0131n\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131 yarg\u0131laman\u0131n ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131nda bilmesinin ba\u015fvurucudan beklenemeyece\u011fini, bu sebeple ba\u015fvurucunun t\u00fcm zarar\u0131 i\u00e7in tazminat talep edemedi\u011fini karar\u0131nda belirtmi\u015ftir (\u00c7etin Akbo\u011fa \u00a7 68).<\/p>\n
20. Anayasa Mahkemesi an\u0131lan kararda; T\u00fcrk hukukunda belirsiz alacak davas\u0131na ili\u015fkin d\u00fczenlemenin kabul\u00fcnden \u00f6nceki d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin olarak a\u00e7\u0131lan k\u0131smi davalarda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n zarar\u0131n miktar\u0131n\u0131 dava tarihi itibar\u0131yla \u00f6\u011frenebilmelerinin kendilerinden beklenemeyece\u011fine dair A\u0130HM’nin ihlal kararlar\u0131na da dikkat \u00e7ekmi\u015ftir (\u00c7etin Akbo\u011fa \u00a7 69)<\/p>\n
21. Somut olay yukar\u0131da yer verilen ilkeler bak\u0131m\u0131ndan de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015f kazas\u0131 nedeniyle olu\u015fan maluliyet durumunun ve u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar\u0131n davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte belirli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu hususlar\u0131n yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda olaya ili\u015fkin al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131 neticesinde \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Nitekim ba\u015fvurucu da zarar\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenilmesinden sonra talebini art\u0131rarak davas\u0131n\u0131 \u0131slah etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
22. Yukar\u0131da yer verilen tespitler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvuruya konu olay de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucunun dava de\u011ferini art\u0131rarak a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 birle\u015fen dava y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesine ili\u015fkin uygulaman\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckledi\u011fi, ba\u015fvurucunun katlanmak zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 k\u00fclfetin hedeflenen me\u015fru ama\u00e7la kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda orant\u0131s\u0131z oldu\u011fu, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
23. 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
B. Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
24. Ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesinden \u015fik\u00e2yet etmektedir. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
25. 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 da an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
26. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
27. Ba\u015fvurucu; yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile 300.000 TL maddi ve 300.000 TL manevi tazminata karar verilmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
28. 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
29. \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 tazminat taleplerinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\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. 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 \u0130stanbul Anadolu 6. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesine (E.2019\/611, K.2020\/550) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.446,90 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \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
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 23\/10\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 23\/10\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/38677 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 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u0130DR\u0130S \u00c7AMUR BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/38677) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 23\/10\/2024 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Saliha AKSOY Ba\u015fvurucu : \u0130dris \u00c7AMUR Vekili : Av. Engin YILMAZEL \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru; i\u015f kazas\u0131ndan kaynaklanan tazminat davas\u0131nda, \u0131slah talebinin zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim 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; \u015fof\u00f6r olarak g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015firkette, misafirlerin \u015fantiyeye g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fclmesi esnas\u0131nda 13\/08\/2002 tarihinde trafik kazas\u0131 ge\u00e7irmi\u015f ve kaza sonucu yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu 24\/9\/2004 tarihinde \u0130stanbul Anadolu 6. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi nezdinde i\u015f kazas\u0131ndan kaynaklanan tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f; fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak \u00fczere 40.000 TL manevi, 1.000 TL maddi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. 4. Mahkemece esas incelemesi yap\u0131lan dosyada 27\/5\/2013 tarihinde al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporunda daval\u0131 \u015firketin \u00f6demesi gereken tazminat miktar\u0131 75.059,05 TL olarak tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 17\/7\/2013 tarihinde verdi\u011fi \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esiyle talep etti\u011fi maddi tazminat\u0131 75.000 TL’ye y\u00fckseltmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan zaman a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 defi ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. 5. Mahkeme 10\/9\/2013 tarihli karar\u0131yla daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 defini reddetmi\u015f …<\/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-21015","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n