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
T. S. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/31535)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 30\/4\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 6\/2\/2025 – 32805<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Recai AKYEL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/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
K\u00fcbra KAYA<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Fatmag\u00fcl KARAPI\u00c7AK CENG\u0130Z<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocu\u011fun uzun s\u00fcren yarg\u0131lama sonucunda yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bulunan mutat meskenine iade edilmesinin aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal etti\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu ile e\u015fi (Y.T.) 2010 y\u0131l\u0131nda T\u00fcrkiye’de evlenmi\u015f ve Almanya’ya yerle\u015fmi\u015ftir. Bu evlilikten 2013 y\u0131l\u0131nda E., 2014 y\u0131l\u0131nda ise \u00e7ocuklar\u0131 Y. d\u00fcnyaya gelmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, 2018 y\u0131l\u0131nda \u00e7ocuklarla T\u00fcrkiye’ye geldikten sonra 6\/6\/2018 tarihinde Gebze 3. Aile Mahkemesinde (Aile Mahkemesi) bo\u015fanma davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Aile Mahkemesi 7\/6\/2018 tarihinde m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n ge\u00e7ici velayetini ba\u015fvurucuya b\u0131rakm\u0131\u015f, 11\/6\/2018 tarihinde ise yarg\u0131lama sonu\u00e7lan\u0131ncaya kadar m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n yasaklanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. 3\/5\/2019 tarihinde Gebze Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) Gebze 2. Aile Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n mutat meskene iadesi konulu dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f ve Y.T. bu davaya m\u00fcdahil olmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k\u00e7a haz\u0131rlanan davanamede; \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n babalar\u0131n\u0131n r\u0131zas\u0131 ve bilgisi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda anneleri taraf\u0131ndan T\u00fcrkiye’ye getirildi\u011fi belirtilerek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n mutat meskenlerinin oldu\u011fu Almanya’ya iadesi i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucuya teslim edilip edilmeyece\u011fine karar verilmesi kamu ad\u0131na dava ve talep edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Mahkemece sosyal hizmet uzman\u0131 bilirki\u015fiden al\u0131nan 26\/6\/2019 tarihli sosyal inceleme raporunda \u00e7ocuklar ve ya\u015fam ko\u015fullar\u0131yla ilgili g\u00f6zlem ve incelemelere yer verilmi\u015ftir. Bu kapsamda bilirki\u015finin \u00e7ocuklarla birebir g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fme ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirdi\u011fi rapor i\u00e7eri\u011finden anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Raporun sonu\u00e7 k\u0131sm\u0131nda \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n Almanya’da do\u011fup belli bir s\u00fcre T\u00fcrkiye’de anneleriyle ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131, babalar\u0131yla da ileti\u015fimlerinin ve ili\u015fkilerinin devam etti\u011fi hususlar\u0131na yer verilmi\u015ftir. \u00c7ocuklar\u0131n T\u00fcrkiye’ye uyumu konusunda g\u00f6zle g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcr bir sorun ya\u015fad\u0131klar\u0131na dair bir hususun tespit edilmedi\u011fine i\u015faret edilmi\u015ftir. \u00c7ocuklarla bizzat g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fme yap\u0131lmakla beraber \u00e7ocuklara ya\u015f ve geli\u015fimsel d\u00f6nemleri itibar\u0131yla nerede ya\u015famak istedikleri sorusunun do\u011frudan y\u00f6neltilmedi\u011fi, \u00e7ocuklarla ilgili g\u00f6zlem ve tespitlere yer verildi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Sonu\u00e7 olarak annenin \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n bak\u0131m ve sorumlulu\u011funu almas\u0131na engel bir durum olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, esasa ili\u015fkin takdirin Mahkemeye ait oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Mahkemece 25\/10\/2019 tarihinde iade talebinin reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Karar gerek\u00e7esinde; an\u0131lan rapor kapsam\u0131nda \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n T\u00fcrkiye’ye uyum sorunu ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair bir hususa yer yerilmedi\u011fine i\u015faret edilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n T\u00fcrkiye’ye hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 \u015fekilde getirilmedi\u011fi ve al\u0131konulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte bo\u015fanma davas\u0131nda toplanan delillerden Y.T.nin ba\u015fvurucuya fiziksel \u015fiddet uygulad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00e7ocuklar\u0131 ihmal etti\u011fi hususlar\u0131n\u0131n sabit oldu\u011fu belirtilerek Y.T.nin annelerinin \u00fczerine b\u0131\u00e7akla y\u00fcr\u00fcd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc g\u00f6ren \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n olaydan \u00e7ok korkup etkilendi\u011fine, \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n mutat meskene d\u00f6nmelerinin fiziksel ve psikolojik \u015fiddet riski i\u00e7erdi\u011fine yer verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Y.T. an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 6\/12\/2019 tarihinde Sakarya B\u00f6lge Adiye Mahkemesi 2. Hukuk Dairesine (Daire) istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur. \u0130stinaf dilek\u00e7esinde; \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n T\u00fcrkiye’ye uyum sa\u011flam\u0131\u015f olmalar\u0131n\u0131n mutat meskene iade davas\u0131nda g\u00f6zetilmesi gereken hususlardan olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, fiziksel ve psikolojik \u015fiddet hususundaki de\u011ferlendirmenin ise bo\u015fanma davas\u0131ndaki soyut beyanlar \u00fczerinden yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu 18\/12\/2019 tarihli istinafa cevap dilek\u00e7esinde bo\u015fanma davas\u0131n\u0131n derdest oldu\u011funu, \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n ge\u00e7ici velayetinin kendisine b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f; Y.T.nin bo\u015fanma davas\u0131n\u0131n velayete ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden ka\u00e7mak i\u00e7in mutat meskene iade yoluna k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli olarak ba\u015fvurdu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucu; \u00e7ocuklar\u0131 ka\u00e7\u0131rmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 2018 y\u0131l\u0131nda yaz tatili i\u00e7in T\u00fcrkiye’ye geldiklerini, Y.T.nin kendisine fiziksel \u015fiddet uygulad\u0131\u011f\u0131na \u015fahit olan \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n olaydan olumsuz etkilendi\u011fini, bu durumun \u00e7ocuklar \u00fczerinde psikolojik \u015fiddet yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Daire taraf\u0131ndan 10\/11\/2020 tarihinde istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Karar gerek\u00e7esinde; \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n ge\u00e7ici velayetinin 7\/6\/2018 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucuya b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, Y.T.nin ise 10\/12\/2018 tarihinde mutat meskene iade talebinde bulundu\u011fu, Y.T.nin talepte bulundu\u011fu tarih itibar\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n ge\u00e7ici velayetine tek ba\u015f\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu, bu anlamda \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu yan\u0131nda kalmas\u0131n\u0131n hakl\u0131 sebebe dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
10. Y.T. an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 26\/11\/2020 tarihinde Yarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesine (Yarg\u0131tay) temyiz ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur. Temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde; somut olayda \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n mutat mesken hukuku olarak Alman aile hukukunun uygulanmas\u0131 ve buna g\u00f6re evlilik birli\u011fi devam etti\u011finden velayetin m\u00fc\u015ftereken anne ve babaya ait olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan al\u0131konulmas\u0131n\u0131n hakl\u0131 sebebe dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte mutat meskene iade talebinin reddini gerektirecek fiziksel veya psikolojik \u015fiddet tehlikesinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
11. Yarg\u0131tay 28\/6\/2021 tarihinde mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n bozulmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar gerek\u00e7esinde \u015fu tespitlere yer verilmi\u015ftir: “Toplanan delillerden, \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n mutat meskeni olan Almanya’dan 2018 y\u0131l\u0131nda T\u00fcrkiye’ye getirildikleri, tekrar mutat meskenlerine g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fclmedikleri, \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n mutat meskeninin bulundu\u011fu devletin kanunundan do\u011fan baban\u0131n velayet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlali suretiyle daval\u0131 anne taraf\u0131ndan T\u00fcrkiye’de haks\u0131z olarak al\u0131konuldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. 1980 tarihli “Uluslararas\u0131 \u00c7ocuk Ka\u00e7\u0131rman\u0131n Hukuki Ve\u00e7helerine Dair Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi” h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re; kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015ftir. (S\u00f6zle\u015fme m.3). Geri d\u00f6nmesinin, \u00e7ocu\u011fu fiziki veya psikolojik bir tehlikeye maruz b\u0131rakaca\u011f\u0131 veya ba\u015fka bir \u015fekilde m\u00fcsamaha edilmeyecek bir duruma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrece\u011fi yolunda ciddi bir risk bulundu\u011funa ili\u015fkin bir delil ve olgu ortaya konulmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Daval\u0131 annenin a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 bo\u015fanma davas\u0131nda \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n tedbiren velayetlerinin daval\u0131 anneye verilmesi \u00e7ocu\u011fun mutat meskenine iade edilmesini engelleyemez. \u00c7ocuklar\u0131n anne yan\u0131nda bulunduklar\u0131 ortama al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 iadeden ka\u00e7\u0131nma sebebi olarak kabul edilmemi\u015ftir. Davac\u0131 baban\u0131n da \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n iadesine engel te\u015fkil edecek \u00e7ocuklara kar\u015f\u0131 bir davran\u0131\u015f\u0131 da ispatlanmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
12. Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n bozma karar\u0131 sonras\u0131nda Mahkeme \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n mutat meskene iadesi h\u00e2linde fiziksel veya psikolojik \u015fiddete u\u011frayacaklar\u0131na veya m\u00fcsamaha g\u00f6sterilemeyecek bir durumla kar\u015f\u0131la\u015facaklar\u0131na ili\u015fkin delil veya olgu bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle 7\/10\/2021 tarihinde iade talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucu 1\/12\/2021 tarihinde Yarg\u0131taya temyiz ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur. Temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde; \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n Y.T.nin r\u0131zas\u0131 d\u00e2hilinde ba\u015fvurucuyla T\u00fcrkiye’ye geldi\u011fini, ka\u00e7\u0131r\u0131lmalar\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, Mahkemenin \u00e7ocuklar idrak \u00e7a\u011f\u0131nda olmalar\u0131na ra\u011fmen onlar\u0131 dinlemeden karar verdi\u011fini, Y.T.nin \u00e7ocuklarla ilgilenmedi\u011fini, mutat meskene d\u00f6nmeleri h\u00e2linde \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n ihmal edilece\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
14. Y.T. 17\/1\/2022 tarihli temyize cevap dilek\u00e7esinde temyiz talebinin davay\u0131 uzatmaya y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Yarg\u0131tay 24\/1\/2022 tarihinde usul ve kanuna uygun oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle an\u0131lan karar\u0131n onanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai karar\u0131 14\/2\/2022 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 8\/3\/2022 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
16. Ba\u015fvurucu; \u00e7ocu\u011fun mutat meskene iade edilmemesinin istisnalar\u0131ndan birinin \u00e7ocu\u011fun iadesi h\u00e2linde psikolojik ve fiziksel olarak tehlikeye maruz kalma ihtimalinin bulunmas\u0131 oldu\u011funu, somut olayda da \u015fiddet riski var olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen derece mahkemelerinin yeterli inceleme yapmaks\u0131z\u0131n karar verdi\u011fini vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bununla birlikte 2018 y\u0131l\u0131ndan itibaren anneleriyle T\u00fcrkiye’de ya\u015fayan \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n kendileriyle ilgilenmeyen babalar\u0131na teslim edilerek Almanya’ya d\u00f6nmelerinin \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131 ilkesiyle ba\u011fda\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, idrak \u00e7a\u011f\u0131nda olan \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri al\u0131nmadan karar verildi\u011fini, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n d\u00f6rt y\u0131ldan fazla s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan h\u0131zl\u0131 karar verilmesinin \u00e7ok \u00f6nemli oldu\u011funu, bu durumun da aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlali anlam\u0131na geldi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
17. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; derece mahkemelerinin sosyal inceleme raporu almak d\u00e2hil gerekli delilleri toplamak suretiyle inceleme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 bununla birlikte yarg\u0131lamayla var\u0131lan sonucun ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7eyle a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucuya gerek ilk derece yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 gerekse kanun yollar\u0131 a\u015famas\u0131nda etkili kat\u0131l\u0131m imk\u00e2n\u0131 sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvuru, aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. 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 aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
20. Anayasa Mahkemesi, uluslararas\u0131 \u00e7ocuk ka\u00e7\u0131rma vakalar\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak mutat meskene iade konular\u0131n\u0131 inceledi\u011fi daha \u00f6nceki kararlar\u0131nda ilgili mevzuata ve benzer durumlara ili\u015fkin uluslararas\u0131 hukuka yer vermi\u015ftir (Marcus Frank Cerny [GK], B. No: 2013\/5126, 2\/7\/2015, \u00a7\u00a7 18-25; N.\u00d6., B. No: 2014\/19725, 19\/11\/2015, \u00a7\u00a7 19, 22; Levent A\u015f\u0131klar, B. No: 2014\/13936, 8\/3\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 32, 54; Angela Jane Kilkenny, B. No: 2015\/10826, 17\/7\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 25, 52; Cem Ramazan Ninek, B. No: 2015\/13760, 18\/7\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 38, 67).<\/p>\n
21. Uluslararas\u0131 \u00e7ocuk ka\u00e7\u0131rma vakalar\u0131, uluslararas\u0131 anlamda ciddi bir i\u015f birli\u011fini gerektirmekte olup bu i\u015f birli\u011fi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan en \u00f6nemli vas\u0131talardan biri Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u2019dir. Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, en basit ifadesiyle yasa d\u0131\u015f\u0131 ka\u00e7\u0131r\u0131lan veya taraf devletlerden birinde al\u0131konulan \u00e7ocu\u011fun ivedi \u015fekilde iadesini \u00f6ng\u00f6rerek ebeveyn taraf\u0131ndan ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen uluslararas\u0131 \u00e7ocuk ka\u00e7\u0131rma vakalar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc hususunda h\u0131zl\u0131 bir prosed\u00fcr \u00f6ng\u00f6rmekte olup Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u2019ne taraf bir devlette mutat olarak ikamet eden \u00e7ocu\u011fun di\u011fer bir taraf devlete yasa d\u0131\u015f\u0131 ka\u00e7\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 veya orada al\u0131konulmas\u0131 durumunda S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019de yer verilen s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 say\u0131daki istisnai h\u00e2ller d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda \u00e7ocu\u011fun bulundu\u011fu \u00fclkenin yetkili makamlar\u0131n\u0131n, \u00e7ocu\u011fu mutat ikametg\u00e2h\u0131 olan \u00fclkesine ivedi \u015fekilde iade etmesi zorunludur (Marcus Frank Cerny, \u00a7\u00a7 44, 46, 47; Dilek Tsak\u0131r\u0131d\u0131s, B. No: 2018\/35068, 9\/6\/2020, \u00a7 35).<\/p>\n
22. \u00d6ncelikle belirtmek gerekir ki Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’nin 13. maddesine g\u00f6re al\u0131konulan \u00e7ocu\u011fun mutat meskeni tespit edildikten sonra ancak \u00e7ocu\u011fun iade edilmesinin \u00e7ocu\u011fu fiziksel veya psikolojik bir tehlikeye maruz b\u0131rakaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n veya ba\u015fka bir \u015fekilde m\u00fcsamaha edilemeyecek bir duruma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrece\u011finin tespiti h\u00e2linde yarg\u0131sal makamlar\u0131n usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvenceleri i\u015fleterek ve \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne alarak iade talebini reddetme konusunda takdir yetkisine sahip olduklar\u0131 \u015f\u00fcphesizdir (benzer y\u00f6ndeki de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. Dilek Tsak\u0131r\u0131d\u0131s, \u00a7 37.21. Uluslararas\u0131 \u00e7ocuk ka\u00e7\u0131rma vakalar\u0131, uluslararas\u0131 anlamda ciddi bir i\u015f birli\u011fini gerektirmekte olup bu i\u015f birli\u011fi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan en \u00f6nemli vas\u0131talardan biri Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u2019dir. Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, en basit ifadesiyle yasa d\u0131\u015f\u0131 ka\u00e7\u0131r\u0131lan veya taraf devletlerden birinde al\u0131konulan \u00e7ocu\u011fun ivedi \u015fekilde iadesini \u00f6ng\u00f6rerek ebeveyn taraf\u0131ndan ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen uluslararas\u0131 \u00e7ocuk ka\u00e7\u0131rma vakalar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc hususunda h\u0131zl\u0131 bir prosed\u00fcr \u00f6ng\u00f6rmekte olup Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u2019ne taraf bir devlette mutat olarak ikamet eden \u00e7ocu\u011fun di\u011fer bir taraf devlete yasa d\u0131\u015f\u0131 ka\u00e7\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 veya orada al\u0131konulmas\u0131 durumunda S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019de yer verilen s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 say\u0131daki istisnai h\u00e2ller d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda \u00e7ocu\u011fun bulundu\u011fu \u00fclkenin yetkili makamlar\u0131n\u0131n, \u00e7ocu\u011fu mutat ikametg\u00e2h\u0131 olan \u00fclkesine ivedi \u015fekilde iade etmesi zorunludur (Marcus Frank Cerny, \u00a7\u00a7 44, 46, 47; Dilek Tsak\u0131r\u0131d\u0131s, B. No: 2018\/35068, 9\/6\/2020, \u00a7 35).<\/p>\n
23. Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi kapsam\u0131nda kural ivedi iade olmakla birlikte zorunlu iade karar\u0131n\u0131n bir dizi istisnas\u0131 vard\u0131r. Bu istisnalar Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u2019nin 13. ve 20. maddelerinde yer almakta olup ilgili h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin yarg\u0131sal makamlara \u00e7ocu\u011fun iadesini reddetme yetkisi tan\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u2019nin temel amac\u0131, \u00e7ocu\u011fun mutat meskeni olan \u00fclkesine iade edilmesini sa\u011flayarak koruma hakk\u0131n\u0131n nas\u0131l d\u00fczenlenmesi gerekti\u011finin \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131 nazara al\u0131nmak suretiyle mutat meskenin yarg\u0131 makamlar\u0131nca belirlenmesidir. Bununla birlikte yer de\u011fi\u015ftirmenin veya al\u0131koyman\u0131n ge\u00e7erli sebeplerinin bulunabilece\u011fi veya iadenin \u00e7ocu\u011fa ciddi zararlar verebilece\u011fi durumlar\u0131n olabilece\u011fi ger\u00e7e\u011fi kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda belirtilen istisna h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine yer verilmek suretiyle Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’nin uygulamas\u0131nda baz\u0131 g\u00fcvence h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine yer verilmek istendi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr (Marcus Frank Cerny, \u00a7 58; Dilek Tsak\u0131r\u0131d\u0131s, \u00a7 37).<\/p>\n
24. \u00d6ncelikle \u00e7ocu\u011fun mutat meskene iadesine ili\u015fkin davalarda taraflar\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131 ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 bir \u015fekilde incelenmeli, taraflar\u0131n \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131 ile \u00e7ocu\u011fun y\u00fcksek menfaati aras\u0131nda bir denge kurulmal\u0131, sonu\u00e7 olarak \u00e7ocuk i\u00e7in en iyi \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcn ne oldu\u011fu tespit edilerek karar verilmelidir. \u00c7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131na olan\u0131n ve mutat meskenin belirlenmesi s\u00fcrecinde \u00f6zellikle anneye ba\u011f\u0131ml\u0131l\u0131k \u00e7a\u011f\u0131ndaki \u00e7ocuklar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u00e7ocu\u011fun ya\u015f\u0131, anneyle ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 yer ve s\u00fcre, annenin ya\u015fam ko\u015fullar\u0131na al\u0131\u015fma d\u00fczeyi ile annenin \u00e7ocukla birlikte \u00e7ocu\u011fun iade edilece\u011fi \u00fclkede ya\u015fama olana\u011f\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususlar\u0131 g\u00f6zetilerek iadesi h\u00e2linde \u00e7ocu\u011fun maruz kalabilece\u011fi risklerin tespit edilmesi gerekti\u011fi s\u00f6ylenebilir. Bu kapsamda anneye ba\u011f\u0131ml\u0131l\u0131k \u00e7a\u011f\u0131nda olan ve do\u011fumundan itibaren annesinin bakt\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n anne yan\u0131ndayken al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 ko\u015fullardan ve anneden kopar\u0131larak ba\u015fka bir \u00fclkeye g\u00f6nderilmesinin \u00e7ocuk \u00fczerinde olumsuz etkileri olabilece\u011fi de g\u00f6zetilmelidir. (Dilek Tsak\u0131r\u0131d\u0131s, B. No: 2018\/35068, 9\/6\/2020, \u00a7 46).<\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvurucu, iddialar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmadan karar verilmesi ve yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f olup ba\u015fvurucunun an\u0131lan iddialar\u0131 iki farkl\u0131 alt ba\u015fl\u0131\u011fa ayr\u0131larak incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
A. Yarg\u0131laman\u0131n Uzun S\u00fcrmesi Nedeniyle Aile Hayat\u0131na Sayg\u0131 Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
26. Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u2019ne taraf bir devlette mutat olarak ikamet eden \u00e7ocu\u011fun di\u011fer bir taraf devlete yasa d\u0131\u015f\u0131 ka\u00e7\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 veya orada al\u0131konulmas\u0131 durumunda s\u00f6zle\u015fmede yer verilen s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 say\u0131daki istisnai h\u00e2ller d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda \u00e7ocu\u011fun bulundu\u011fu \u00fclkenin yetkili makamlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7ocu\u011fu mutat ikametg\u00e2h\u0131 olan \u00fclkesine ivedi \u015fekilde iade etmesi zorunludur. G\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc gibi S\u00f6zle\u015fmenin en temel ilkelerinden birisinin \u00e7ocu\u011fun mutat meskene iadesine y\u00f6nelik idari ve yarg\u0131sal prosed\u00fcr\u00fcn ivedi bir \u015fekilde sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 oldu\u011funda ku\u015fku yoktur.<\/p>\n
27. Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi kapsam\u0131ndaki taleplerin acil i\u015flerden say\u0131larak ivedilikle sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 kural\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011fu dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda yarg\u0131laman\u0131n \u00fc\u00e7 y\u0131l gibi uzun bir s\u00fcrede tamamlanmas\u0131, Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’nin ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f amac\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu gibi ba\u015fvurucu ile \u00e7ocuk aras\u0131ndaki ba\u011flar\u0131n s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclebilirli\u011fine telafisi imk\u00e2ns\u0131z zararlar\u0131n verilmesine yol a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu nedenle s\u00fcrecin ivedilikle tamamlanmas\u0131 konusundaki devletin pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerinin yerine getirilmedi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (benzer y\u00f6ndeki kararlar i\u00e7in bkz. Angela Jane Kilkenny, B. No: 2015\/10826, 17\/7\/2018, Emrah Ac\u0131dereli, B. No: 2018\/34860, 12\/1\/2021).<\/p>\n
28. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Di\u011fer \u0130hlal \u0130ddialar\u0131 Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Aile Hayat\u0131na Sayg\u0131 Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
29. Somut olayda Almanya’da do\u011fan ancak bir s\u00fcredir T\u00fcrkiye’de ya\u015fayan \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re mutat meskenlerine iadesi talebiyle dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkemece resen atanan sosyal hizmet uzman\u0131 bilirki\u015fi, \u00e7ocuklarla bizzat g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015ferek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n ya\u015fam ko\u015fullar\u0131na, anne ve babalar\u0131yla ili\u015fkilerine dair g\u00f6zlem, inceleme ve de\u011ferlendirmelerini i\u00e7eren sosyal inceleme raporu d\u00fczenlemi\u015ftir. Mahkeme ve Dairece iade talebinin reddine karar verilmi\u015f, an\u0131lan karar Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n temyiz incelemesi sonucu bozulmu\u015ftur. Yarg\u0131tay bozma ilam\u0131nda bo\u015fanma davas\u0131nda velayetin T\u00fcrkiye’de ya\u015fayan anneye tedbiren b\u0131rak\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n iade talebinin reddine dayanak te\u015fkil etmeyece\u011fine bu hususta yap\u0131lacak incelemenin Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’nin istisna h\u00fck\u00fcmleriyle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 oldu\u011funa dikkat \u00e7ekilmi\u015ftir. Bu kapsamda \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n mutat meskene iadesi h\u00e2linde psikolojik veya fiziksel bir tehlikeye maruz kalacaklar\u0131na ili\u015fkin ciddi bir riskin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Somut olayda baban\u0131n \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n iadelerine engel olacak bir davran\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n ispatlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
30. Mahkeme, al\u0131nan uzman raporlar\u0131 sonucunda \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n ve annenin ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131 da de\u011ferlendirerek anne yan\u0131nda kalmalar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n\u0131n yarar\u0131na oldu\u011funu belirtmesine ra\u011fmen Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan bu ko\u015fullar\u0131n ortadan kalkmas\u0131, \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n anneden kopar\u0131lmalar\u0131n\u0131n olas\u0131 olumsuz sonu\u00e7lar\u0131, annenin yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ya\u015fama imk\u00e2n\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususlar\u0131 \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131 ilkesi de g\u00f6zetilerek tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmadan \u015fekl\u00ee bir inceleme yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunun yan\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n\u0131n beyan\u0131 al\u0131nmadan karar verildi\u011fi iddias\u0131 derece mahkemeleri taraf\u0131ndan dikkate al\u0131nmam\u0131\u015f, bu hususta bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Sonu\u00e7 olarak somut olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131, \u00e7ocu\u011fun y\u00fcksek yarar\u0131 ilkesi ve Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi birlikte g\u00f6zetilmek suretiyle aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7eyle bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (benzer y\u00f6ndeki kararlar i\u00e7in bkz. R\u0131fat Korkut Canayak\u0131n, B.No: 2020\/35621, 21\/11\/2023; Asiye Kovanc\u0131, B.No:2022\/25700, 6\/3\/2024).<\/p>\n
31. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN ve Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
32. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti, yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile maddi ve manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
33. 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
34. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat taleplerinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
B. 1. Yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle Anayasa’n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
2. Di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Anayasa’n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN ile Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L’in kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Gebze 2. Aile Mahkemesine (E.2021\/529, K.2021\/577) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 664,10 TL har\u00e7 ve 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 19.464,10 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 30\/4\/2024 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY GEREK\u00c7ES\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvurucu, m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocu\u011fun yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bulunan mutat meskenine iade edilmesi nedeniyle aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 ve makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015f, Mahkememiz \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011funca s\u00f6z konusu m\u00fcdahale nedeniyle aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine, makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n ise ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmi\u015ftir. \u00c7o\u011funluk karar\u0131n\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin k\u0131sm\u0131na kat\u0131lmakla birlikte aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin k\u0131sm\u0131na a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki belirtti\u011fimiz gerek\u00e7elerle kat\u0131lm\u0131yoruz.<\/p>\n
2. Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi temelde, \u00e7ocu\u011fun korunmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin meselelerde \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn menfaati ilkesinin de g\u00f6zetilerek, k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fc\u011f\u00fc uluslararas\u0131 alanda, kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir yer de\u011fi\u015ftirmenin zararl\u0131 etkilerinden korumay\u0131 ve \u00e7ocu\u011fun mutat ikametg\u00e2h\u0131 devletine derhal d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc teminat alt\u0131na almak i\u00e7in usuller tespit etmeyi ve ziyaret hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamay\u0131 ama\u00e7lamaktad\u0131r. Nitekim Anayasan\u0131n 41. maddesinde de her \u00e7ocu\u011fun, korunma ve bak\u0131mdan yararlanma, y\u00fcksek yarar\u0131na a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmad\u0131k\u00e7a, ana ve babas\u0131yla ki\u015fisel ve do\u011frudan ili\u015fki kurma ve s\u00fcrd\u00fcrme hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu, devletin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc istismara ve \u015fiddete kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7ocuklar\u0131 koruyucu tedbirleri alaca\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Yukar\u0131da ifade edilen ilkeler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’ne g\u00f6re \u00e7ocu\u011fun zorunlu iade kural\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 say\u0131da istisnas\u0131 mevcuttur. Buna g\u00f6re ilk olarak \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u015fahs\u0131n\u0131n bak\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 \u00fcstlenmi\u015f bulunan ki\u015fi ya da kurumun yer de\u011fi\u015ftirme veya al\u0131koyma d\u00f6neminde koruma hakk\u0131n\u0131 etkili \u015fekilde yerine getirmedi\u011finin anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 veya yer de\u011fi\u015ftirmeye\/al\u0131koymaya muvafakat etmi\u015f olmalar\u0131, ikinci olarak k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn geri d\u00f6nmesinin onu fiziki veya psikolojik bir tehlikeye maruz b\u0131rakaca\u011f\u0131 veya m\u00fcsamaha edilemeyecek bir duruma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrece\u011fi yolunda ciddi bir risk oldu\u011funun tespit edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131, \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc olarak adl\u00ee veya idar\u00ee makam taraf\u0131ndan geri d\u00f6nmeyi istemeyen \u00e7ocu\u011fun g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcn g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmas\u0131n\u0131n uygun olaca\u011f\u0131 bir ya\u015fa ve olgunlu\u011fa eri\u015fmi\u015f bulundu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde g\u00f6zlemin bulunmas\u0131 ve son olarak da \u00e7ocu\u011fun geri d\u00f6nmesinin, talepte bulunulan Devletin insan haklar\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve temel h\u00fcrriyetlerine ili\u015fkin ilkeleri ihlal ediyor olmas\u0131 halinde \u00e7ocu\u011fun mutat meskenine iadesinin reddedilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
4. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun 2018 y\u0131l\u0131nda T\u00fcrkiye’ye gelmesi sonras\u0131 bu tarihte d\u00f6rt ve be\u015f ya\u015f\u0131nda olan iki \u00e7ocu\u011fun babalar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan mutat meskenlerine iadesi talep edilmi\u015ftir. M\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n s\u00fcrekli T\u00fcrkiye’de bar\u0131nd\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na talepte bulunan\u0131n r\u0131zas\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de tutuldu\u011fu, taraflar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131 ve dosya kapsam\u0131 birlikte g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde ihtilaf d\u0131\u015f\u0131d\u0131r. Hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak mutat meskenleri de\u011fi\u015ftirilen \u00e7ocuklarla yap\u0131lan g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeye istinaden 2019 y\u0131l\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen raporda \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n mutat meskene iadesinin onlar\u0131 fiziki veya psikolojik bir tehlikeye b\u0131rakaca\u011f\u0131 veya m\u00fcsamaha edilemeyecek bir duruma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrece\u011fi yolunda ciddi bir riske i\u015faret eden bir bulgu ya da tespite yer verilmemi\u015ftir. Rapor tarihi itibariyle be\u015f ve alt\u0131 ya\u015f\u0131nda olan ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla adli ve idari makamlarca m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n iadeye ili\u015fkin g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcn g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmas\u0131n\u0131n uygun olaca\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir g\u00f6zlem de yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f, s\u00f6z konusu makamlarca \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n iadesinin insan haklar\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve temel h\u00fcrriyetlerine ili\u015fkin ilkelere ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 da iddia edilmemi\u015ftir. Bu bilgiler do\u011frultusunda m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n iadesinin Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin bir gere\u011fi oldu\u011fu sabittir.<\/p>\n
5. Kald\u0131 ki Mahkememizce verilen Mehmet Emin Balc\u0131 (B. No: 2015\/10459, 8\/1\/2020) ve Nuray \u00d6zt\u00fcrk (B. No: 2017\/38142, 10\/6\/2020) kararlar\u0131nda da ya\u015f\u0131 k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n babalar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan talep sonras\u0131 mutat meskene iadesine karar verilmesine ili\u015fkin olarak aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilmedi\u011fine karar verilmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu kararlarda \u00f6zetle her \u00e7ocu\u011fun, menfaatleri aksini gerektirmedik\u00e7e ebeveyni ile do\u011frudan ve d\u00fczenli olarak ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkisini s\u00fcrd\u00fcrme hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re \u00e7ocu\u011fun menfaati; bir yandan -s\u00f6z konusu ailenin sa\u011fl\u0131ks\u0131z olmas\u0131 durumu hari\u00e7- ailesiyle ba\u011flar\u0131n\u0131 s\u00fcrd\u00fcrmesi gerekti\u011fine i\u015faret etmekte, \u00f6te yandan \u00e7ocu\u011fun sa\u011fl\u0131kl\u0131 ve g\u00fcvenli bir \u00e7evrede geli\u015fimini s\u00fcrd\u00fcrmesini i\u00e7ermektedir. Ayn\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi i\u00e7in de ge\u00e7erli olup \u00e7ocu\u011fun geri d\u00f6nd\u00fcr\u00fclmesi, \u00e7ocu\u011fu a\u011f\u0131r fiziksel veya psikolojik zarar riskine maruz b\u0131rakmad\u0131k\u00e7a veya ba\u015fka bir \u015fekilde katlan\u0131lmaz bir duruma sokmad\u0131k\u00e7a kural olarak ka\u00e7\u0131r\u0131lan \u00e7ocu\u011fun ivedi olarak iadesini gerektirmekte ve bu \u015fekilde aile ili\u015fkilerinin s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclebilirli\u011fini ama\u00e7lamaktad\u0131r (Marcus Frank Cerny, \u00a7 75; Levent A\u015f\u0131klar, \u00a7 77).<\/p>\n
6. Mahkememizce adli yarg\u0131 mercilerinin ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7eleri yerine dosya kapsam\u0131nda bulunmayan tespitlere ve iddialara i\u015faret edilerek salt annenin beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n esas al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00fclkemizin taraf\u0131 oldu\u011fu S\u00f6zle\u015fmenin gereklerinin yerine getirilmesine m\u00e2ni olaca\u011f\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesiyle, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilmedi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi kanaatinde oldu\u011fumuzdan \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fun aksi y\u00f6ndeki karar\u0131na kat\u0131lm\u0131yoruz.<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 30\/4\/2024 tarihli ve 2022\/31535 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 T. S. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/31535) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 30\/4\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 6\/2\/2025 – 32805 \u00a0 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL \u00a0 \u00a0 Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : K\u00fcbra KAYA Ba\u015fvurucu : Vekili : Av. Fatmag\u00fcl KARAPI\u00c7AK CENG\u0130Z \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocu\u011fun uzun s\u00fcren yarg\u0131lama sonucunda yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bulunan mutat meskenine iade edilmesinin aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal etti\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu ile e\u015fi (Y.T.) 2010 y\u0131l\u0131nda T\u00fcrkiye’de evlenmi\u015f ve Almanya’ya yerle\u015fmi\u015ftir. Bu evlilikten 2013 y\u0131l\u0131nda E., 2014 y\u0131l\u0131nda ise \u00e7ocuklar\u0131 Y. d\u00fcnyaya gelmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, 2018 y\u0131l\u0131nda \u00e7ocuklarla T\u00fcrkiye’ye geldikten sonra 6\/6\/2018 tarihinde Gebze 3. Aile Mahkemesinde (Aile Mahkemesi) bo\u015fanma davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Aile Mahkemesi 7\/6\/2018 tarihinde m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n ge\u00e7ici velayetini ba\u015fvurucuya b\u0131rakm\u0131\u015f, 11\/6\/2018 tarihinde ise yarg\u0131lama sonu\u00e7lan\u0131ncaya kadar m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n yasaklanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. 4. 3\/5\/2019 tarihinde Gebze Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) Gebze 2. Aile Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n mutat meskene iadesi konulu dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f ve Y.T. bu davaya m\u00fcdahil olmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k\u00e7a haz\u0131rlanan davanamede; \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n babalar\u0131n\u0131n r\u0131zas\u0131 ve bilgisi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda anneleri taraf\u0131ndan T\u00fcrkiye’ye getirildi\u011fi …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30610","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n