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
ADNAN BAKRIYANIK BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/3389)<\/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
Tu\u011fba YILDIZ<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Adnan BAKRIYANIK<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan bilgi ve belgelerin tebli\u011f edilmemesi ve eksik incelemeye istinaden karar verilmesi nedenleriyle silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru 29\/1\/2021 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyon, an\u0131lan hakka ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, Gen\u00e7lik ve Spor Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (\u0130dare) Spor Kontrol\u00f6rleri Kurul Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 b\u00fcnyesinde Spor Kontrol\u00f6r\u00fc olarak g\u00f6rev yapmaktayken 9\/7\/2018 tarihli ve 30473 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan Anayasada Yap\u0131lan De\u011fi\u015fikliklere Uyum Sa\u011flanmas\u0131 Amac\u0131yla Baz\u0131 Kanun ve Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararnamelerde De\u011fi\u015fiklik Yap\u0131lmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin (703 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) ge\u00e7ici 16. maddesi gere\u011fince ara\u015ft\u0131rmac\u0131 kadrosuna atanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu, mali ve \u00f6zl\u00fck haklar\u0131nda kay\u0131plar\u0131n meydana geldi\u011finden bahisle olu\u015fan zararlar\u0131n\u0131n taraf\u0131na \u00f6denmesi talebiyle \u0130dareye yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurunun z\u0131mnen reddedilmesi \u00fczerine Ankara 14. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) iptal davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7. Mahkeme 13\/2\/2020 tarihli kararla i\u015flemin iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar gerek\u00e7esinde; ba\u015fvurucunun yeniden yap\u0131lanma gerek\u00e7esiyle spor kontrol\u00f6r\u00fc g\u00f6revinden al\u0131narak ara\u015ft\u0131rmac\u0131 kadrosuna atand\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve h\u00e2len bu g\u00f6reve devam etti\u011fi belirtilerek 27\/6\/1989 tarihli ve 375 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin (375 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) ge\u00e7ici 11. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc gere\u011fince \u00f6zl\u00fck haklar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan dava konusu i\u015flemde hukuka uygunluk bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. \u0130dare istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Mahkemeye de istinaf dilek\u00e7esinin haricinde 12\/5\/2020 havale tarihli ek beyan sunmu\u015ftur. Sunulan ek beyanda 375 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n ge\u00e7ici 11. maddesinde yer alan \u00f6zl\u00fck haklar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesine ili\u015fkin d\u00fczenlemenin ba\u015fvurucuya uygulanmas\u0131 hususunda Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 al\u0131nan 22\/4\/2020 tarihli g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn ek olarak sunuldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. \u0130darenin istinaf talebi; Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 7. \u0130dari Dava Dairesinin 2\/12\/2020 tarihli karar\u0131 ile kabul edilmi\u015f ve Mahkeme karar\u0131 kald\u0131r\u0131larak davan\u0131n esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. \u0130stinaf karar gerek\u00e7esinde; ba\u015fvurucunun 375 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 11. maddesi uygulanarak m\u00fcd\u00fcr yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 kadro \u00fcnvan\u0131 i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen zam ve tazminatlar ile ek \u00f6deme oran\u0131 \u00fczerinden ayl\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesini talep etti\u011fi, ancak ba\u015fvurucunun ara\u015ft\u0131rmac\u0131 kadrosuna atanmas\u0131ndan \u00f6nce g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 spor kontrol\u00f6rl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kadrosunun idarenin te\u015fkilat yap\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7inde, Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 22\/4\/2020 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131 uyar\u0131nca “m\u00fcd\u00fcr yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 e\u015fiti veya daha \u00fcst bir idari g\u00f6rev” kapsam\u0131nda bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirtildi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla spor kontrol\u00f6r\u00fc olarak g\u00f6rev yapmaktayken ara\u015ft\u0131rmac\u0131 kadrosuna atanan ba\u015fvurucunun mali haklar\u0131n\u0131n, eski ve yeni kadrosu aras\u0131nda fark bulunmas\u0131 durumunda fark tazminat\u0131 \u00f6denerek belirlenmesi gerekti\u011fi d\u00fczenleme alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olup ara\u015ft\u0131rmac\u0131 kadro \u00fcnvan\u0131na atanmadan \u00f6nce bulundu\u011fu spor kontrol\u00f6r\u00fc kadrosu en az m\u00fcd\u00fcr yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 kadro \u00fcnvan\u0131na e\u015fit stat\u00fcde bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, mali haklar\u0131n\u0131n 375 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’nin ge\u00e7ici 11. maddesinin 3. f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca belirlenmesine hukuken olanak bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu nihai karar\u0131 8\/1\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frenmi\u015f, 19\/1\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
A. Ulusal Hukuk<\/p>\n
11. 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu’nun 16. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131s\u0131mlar\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
” Dava dilek\u00e7elerinin ve eklerinin birer \u00f6rne\u011fi daval\u0131ya, daval\u0131n\u0131n verece\u011fi savunma davac\u0131ya tebli\u011f olunur.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131n\u0131n ikinci dilek\u00e7esi daval\u0131ya, daval\u0131n\u0131n verece\u011fi ikinci savunma da davac\u0131ya tebli\u011f edilir. <\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
Davalara ili\u015fkin i\u015flem dosyalar\u0131n\u0131n asl\u0131 veya onayl\u0131 \u00f6rne\u011fi idarenin savunmas\u0131 ile birlikte, Dan\u0131\u015ftay veya ilgili mahkeme ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilir “<\/p>\n
12. 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 20. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Dan\u0131\u015ftay, b\u00f6lge idare mahkemeleri ile idare ve vergi mahkemeleri, bakmakta olduklar\u0131 davalara ait her t\u00fcrl\u00fc incelemeyi kendili\u011finden yapar. Mahkemeler belirlenen s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde l\u00fczum g\u00f6rd\u00fckleri evrak\u0131n g\u00f6nderilmesini ve her t\u00fcrl\u00fc bilgilerin verilmesini taraflardan ve ilgili di\u011fer yerlerden isteyebilirler. Bu husustaki kararlar\u0131n, ilgililerce, s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde yerine getirilmesi mecburidir. … “<\/p>\n
B. Uluslararas\u0131 Hukuk<\/p>\n
13. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u2019nin (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) \u201cAdil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131\u201d kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 6. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u201cHerkes medeni hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri ile ilgili uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar ya da cezai alanda kendisine y\u00f6neltilen su\u00e7lamalar konusunda karar verecek olan, kanunla kurulmu\u015f ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z ve tarafs\u0131z bir mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan davas\u0131n\u0131n makul bir s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde, hakkaniyete uygun ve a\u00e7\u0131k olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclmesini isteme hakk\u0131na sahiptir.\u201d<\/p>\n
14. S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019deki haklar\u0131n etkili bir bi\u00e7imde korunmas\u0131 i\u00e7in davaya bakan mahkemelerin S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin 6. maddesine g\u00f6re “taraflar\u0131n dayanaklar\u0131n\u0131, iddialar\u0131n\u0131 ve delillerini etkili bir bi\u00e7imde inceleme g\u00f6revi” vard\u0131r (Dulaurans\/Fransa, B. No: 34553\/97, 21\/3\/2000, \u00a7 33).<\/p>\n
15. S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda ki\u015filerin davalar\u0131n\u0131n hakkaniyete uygun olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclmesini isteme haklar\u0131 g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanman\u0131n temel unsuru, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n \u00e7eli\u015fmeli olmas\u0131 ve taraflar aras\u0131nda silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011finin sa\u011flanmas\u0131d\u0131r (Rowe ve Davis\/Birle\u015fik Krall\u0131k [BD], B. No: 28901\/95, 16\/2\/2000, \u00a7 60).<\/p>\n
16. H\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporu d\u00e2hil yarg\u0131lamaya esas olan t\u00fcm kan\u0131t ve belgeler hakk\u0131nda bilgi sahibi olma, bu unsurlara ili\u015fkin yorumda\/itirazda bulunma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n taraflara sa\u011flanmas\u0131, ayr\u0131ca bu imk\u00e2n\u0131n pratik ve etkili bir niteli\u011fi haiz bulunmas\u0131 adil bir yarg\u0131laman\u0131n gere\u011fidir (D\u0131rama\/T\u00fcrkiye, B. No: 20797\/07, 13\/11\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 22-24).<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
17. Mahkemenin 23\/10\/2024 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130ddialar\u0131 ve Bakanl\u0131k G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu; idare mahkemesinin lehine iptal karar\u0131 verdi\u011fini, istinafta ise Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan sunulan g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f dikkate al\u0131narak \u00f6zl\u00fck haklar\u0131yla ilgili aleyhine karar verildi\u011fini, h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan belgenin kendisine tebli\u011f edilmedi\u011fini, iddialar\u0131n\u0131 mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcnde dile getiremedi\u011fini, istinaf karar\u0131yla an\u0131lan g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f yaz\u0131s\u0131ndan haberdar oldu\u011funu belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Spor kontrol\u00f6rl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 maa\u015f ve ek \u00f6demelerin m\u00fcd\u00fcr kadrosuyla ayn\u0131 ek g\u00f6stergelere sahip oldu\u011funu, yapt\u0131klar\u0131 i\u015fte il m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fcklerini dahi denetlediklerini bu \u015fekilde denetim yetkisi olan ki\u015finin m\u00fcd\u00fcr yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 stat\u00fcs\u00fcnde bile g\u00f6r\u00fclmemesinin denetim ilkelerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu iddia ederek \u00fccrette adaletin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fini iddia etmektedir.<\/p>\n
19. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan sunulan g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn takdiri delil niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu, istinaf mahkemesinin ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmlerini dikkate alarak karar verdi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Mevcut ba\u015fvuruda ba\u015fvurucunun adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi konusunda Anayasa Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lacak incelemede Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihad\u0131 ve somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n da dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda; genel olarak bireysel ba\u015fvuru formundaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
21. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n \u201cHak arama h\u00fcrriyeti\u201d kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201cHerkes, me\u015fru vas\u0131ta ve yollardan faydalanmak suretiyle yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddia ve savunma ile adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na sahiptir.\u201d <\/p>\n
22. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olaylar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan hukuki nitelendirmesi ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olmay\u0131p olay ve olgular\u0131n hukuki tavsifini kendisi takdir eder. Ba\u015fvurucu -esas olarak- istinaf mahkemesi karar\u0131nda dikkate al\u0131nan Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcn kendisine sunulmamas\u0131 nedeniyle iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 gere\u011fi gibi sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131ndan yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden ba\u015fvuru, adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkeleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
1. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
23. 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 adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
2. Esas Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
a. Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
24. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesine “… ile adil yarg\u0131lanma” ibaresinin eklenmesine ili\u015fkin gerek\u00e7ede, T\u00fcrkiye’nin taraf\u0131 oldu\u011fu uluslararas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerce de g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lama hakk\u0131n\u0131n madde metnine d\u00e2hil edildi\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Nitekim Anayasa Mahkemesi de Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesi uyar\u0131nca inceleme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir\u00e7ok karar\u0131nda, A\u0130HM i\u00e7tihad\u0131yla adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n kapsam\u0131na d\u00e2hil edilen silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerine Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda yer vermektedir (Ruh\u015fen Mahmuto\u011flu, B. No: 2015\/22, 15\/1\/2020, \u00a7 56).<\/p>\n
25. Silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ilkesi davan\u0131n taraflar\u0131n\u0131n usule ili\u015fkin haklar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ayn\u0131 ko\u015fullara tabi tutulmas\u0131 ve taraflardan birinin di\u011ferine g\u00f6re daha zay\u0131f bir duruma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmeksizin iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 makul bir \u015fekilde mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcnde dile getirme f\u0131rsat\u0131na sahip olmas\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelir (Ya\u015fas\u0131n Aslan, B. No. 2013\/1134, 16\/5\/2013, \u00a7 32).<\/p>\n
26. Silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ilkesi, mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcnde sahip olunan hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler bak\u0131m\u0131ndan taraflar aras\u0131nda dengenin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 ve bu dengenin yarg\u0131laman\u0131n her a\u015famas\u0131nda korunmas\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmekte olup bu usul g\u00fcvencesi gere\u011fince uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n her iki taraf\u0131na da savunmas\u0131n\u0131n temel dayana\u011f\u0131 olan delilleri sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r (Y\u00fcksel Han\u00e7er, B. No. 2013\/2116, 23\/1\/2014, \u00a7 18).<\/p>\n
27. Silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ilkesinin tamamlay\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 olan \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkesi, kural olarak bir hukuk ya da ceza davas\u0131nda t\u00fcm taraflara, g\u00f6sterilen kan\u0131tlar ve sunulan g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fler hakk\u0131nda bilgi sahibi olma ve bunlarla ilgili g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirebilme imk\u00e2n\u0131 vermektedir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede ba\u015fvuranlar\u0131n bilirki\u015fi raporunun sonucuna itiraz edememesi ya da delillerle ilgili g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirmelerine f\u0131rsat verilmemesi \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkesinin ihlali olarak de\u011ferlendirilebilmektedir (H\u00fcseyin Sezen, B. No: 2013\/1793, 18\/9\/2014, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
28. Anayasa Mahkemesinin bireysel ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131ndaki g\u00f6revi, somut olay\u0131n usul kurallar\u0131na uygunlu\u011funu de\u011fil adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki g\u00fcvencelerin somut olayda ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fini denetlemektir. Bu kapsamda silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkeleri uyar\u0131nca taraflara delillerini sunma ve inceletme noktas\u0131nda uygun imk\u00e2nlar\u0131n tan\u0131n\u0131p tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 yarg\u0131laman\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fc nazara al\u0131narak de\u011ferlendirilecektir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte Fazl\u0131 Celep, B. No. 2015\/1025, 21\/3\/2018, \u00a7 25).<\/p>\n
b. \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/p>\n
29. Somut olayda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k, ba\u015fvurucunun spor kontrol\u00f6rl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kadrosundan ara\u015ft\u0131rmac\u0131 kadrosuna atanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin i\u015flem nedeniyle olu\u015ftu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen mali ve \u00f6zl\u00fck haklar\u0131ndaki zarar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131ndan kaynaklanmaktad\u0131r. Mahkeme a\u00e7\u0131lan davada ba\u015fvurucunun ara\u015ft\u0131rmac\u0131 kadrosuna atanm\u0131\u015f olsa da \u00f6zl\u00fck ve mali haklar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fine ve i\u015flemin iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir. Buna kar\u015f\u0131n istinaf incelemesinde; mahkeme karar\u0131 kald\u0131r\u0131larak dosya kapsam\u0131nda sunulan Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 22\/4\/2020 tarihli g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne yer verilerek ba\u015fvurucunun ara\u015ft\u0131rmac\u0131 kadrosuna atanmadan \u00f6nce bulundu\u011fu kadronun en az m\u00fcd\u00fcr yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 stat\u00fcs\u00fcne e\u015fit stat\u00fcde bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilip dava reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
30. Adil bir yarg\u0131laman\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015f oldu\u011fundan s\u00f6z edilebilmesi i\u00e7in yarg\u0131laman\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcnde taraflara yarg\u0131lamaya esas olan t\u00fcm kan\u0131t ve belgeler hakk\u0131nda yorumda ve itirazda bulunabilmeleri i\u00e7in pratik ve etkin imk\u00e2nlar\u0131n sunulmu\u015f olmas\u0131\/\u00e7eli\u015fmenin sa\u011flanm\u0131\u015f bulunmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r (Feyzullah \u00c7elik ve Sevda \u00d6zdemir, B. No: 2018\/35147, 16\/12\/2020, \u00a7 39). Somut olayda daval\u0131 kurumun istinaf ba\u015fvuru dilek\u00e7esi 4\/3\/2020 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucuya tebli\u011f edilmi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu 7\/3\/2020 tarihinde istinaf ba\u015fvuru dilek\u00e7esine kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmu\u015ftur. Ancak daha sonra istinaf a\u015famas\u0131nda daval\u0131 kurum Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 22\/4\/2020 tarihli g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc istinaf mahkemesine sunmu\u015f ancak s\u00f6z konusu bu belge ba\u015fvurucuya tebli\u011f edilmemi\u015f, bu belgeden ba\u015fvurucunun bilgisi olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
31. Ba\u015fvuruya konu olaylarda B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar gerek\u00e7esinin (bkz. \u00a7 9) \u0130dare taraf\u0131ndan istinaf a\u015famas\u0131nda sunulan Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 22\/4\/2020 tarihli g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne dayan\u0131larak olu\u015fturuldu\u011fu ve an\u0131lan belgenin yarg\u0131laman\u0131n sonucunu etkiledi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucuya an\u0131lan belgelerin tebli\u011f edilmedi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Dosya i\u00e7eri\u011finden anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere ba\u015fvurucu B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesinin kesin nitelikteki karar\u0131na dayanak te\u015fkil eden ve ba\u015fvuruya konu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik tespitler i\u00e7eren Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 22\/4\/2020 tarihli g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnden B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131 ile haberdar olmu\u015ftur. Bu noktada ba\u015fvurucunun B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131na dayanak te\u015fkil eden 22\/4\/2020 tarihli g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f yaz\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 -karar\u0131n kesin nitelikte oldu\u011fu, ba\u015fka bir kanun yolunda ileri s\u00fcrme imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda- incelemesi, buna kar\u015f\u0131 iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 dile getirebilmesi i\u00e7in pratik ve etkin bir imk\u00e2n\u0131n sunulmam\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
32. Bu nedenlerle i\u00e7eri\u011finden haberdar edilmemesi sebebiyle ba\u015fvurucuya h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan belgelere y\u00f6nelik yorumda\/itirazda bulunma konusunda etkin ve pratik imk\u00e2nlar\u0131n sa\u011flanmamas\u0131n\u0131n silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkeleriyle ba\u011fda\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bu ba\u011flamda adil bir yarg\u0131laman\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
33. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvencelerinden olan silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VI. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
34. Ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi ile 30.047,24 TL maddi ve 20.000 TL manevi tazminata karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
35. 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 (30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen bireysel ba\u015fvuruya \u00f6zg\u00fc yeniden yarg\u0131lama kurumunun \u00f6zelliklerine ili\u015fkin kapsaml\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamalar i\u00e7in bkz. Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2), B. No: 2016\/12506, 7\/11\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 53-60, 66; Kadri Enis Berbero\u011flu (3) [GK], B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n
36. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, maddi zarara ili\u015fkin olarak bilgi\/belge sunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan maddi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VII. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak amac\u0131yla Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 7. \u0130dari Dava Dairesine (E.2020\/826, K.2020\/1611 iletilmek \u00fczere Ankara 14. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2019\/1823, K.2020\/378) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 487,60 TL har\u00e7tan olu\u015fan 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 tarihlerinden 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 2021\/3389 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 ADNAN BAKRIYANIK BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/3389) \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 : Tu\u011fba YILDIZ Ba\u015fvurucu : Adnan BAKRIYANIK \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru; h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan bilgi ve belgelerin tebli\u011f edilmemesi ve eksik incelemeye istinaden karar verilmesi nedenleriyle silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 29\/1\/2021 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyon, an\u0131lan hakka ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 4. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir: 5. Ba\u015fvurucu, Gen\u00e7lik ve Spor Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (\u0130dare) Spor Kontrol\u00f6rleri Kurul Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 b\u00fcnyesinde Spor Kontrol\u00f6r\u00fc olarak g\u00f6rev yapmaktayken 9\/7\/2018 tarihli ve 30473 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan Anayasada Yap\u0131lan De\u011fi\u015fikliklere Uyum Sa\u011flanmas\u0131 Amac\u0131yla Baz\u0131 Kanun ve Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararnamelerde De\u011fi\u015fiklik Yap\u0131lmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin (703 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) ge\u00e7ici 16. maddesi gere\u011fince ara\u015ft\u0131rmac\u0131 kadrosuna atanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 6. Ba\u015fvurucu, mali ve \u00f6zl\u00fck haklar\u0131nda kay\u0131plar\u0131n meydana geldi\u011finden …<\/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-21132","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n