T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
YILDIRIM UNLU MAM\u00dcLLER\u0130 GIDA \u0130N\u015eAAT TUR\u0130ZM TEKST\u0130L SANAY\u0130 VE T\u0130CARET LTD. \u015eT\u0130. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/30986)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 11\/12\/2024<\/p>\n
\u0130K\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
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Mehmet ALTUND\u0130\u015e<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m Unlu Mam\u00fclleri G\u0131da \u0130n\u015faat Turizm Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti.<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Do\u011fu\u015f KAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, m\u00fcstakil ve ayr\u0131k nizamda bulunma \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mayan ekmek f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7in verilen i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptal edilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru 25\/9\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvuru, ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinin idari y\u00f6nden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n incelemesinden sonra Komisyona sunulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
4. Komisyonca ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. B\u00f6l\u00fcm Ba\u015fkan\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin birlikte yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR <\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvuru Konusu Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n Arka Plan\u0131<\/p>\n
8. \u0130stanbul’un Fatih il\u00e7esi, Ayvansaray Mahallesi, Sultan\u00e7e\u015fme Caddesi No: 2 adresinde yer alan binan\u0131n alt kat\u0131nda bulunan ekmek f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131 2010 y\u0131l\u0131ndan itibaren V. Ekmek G\u0131da San. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. taraf\u0131ndan i\u015fletilmektedir. Ekmek f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n\u0131n faaliyet g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi bina m\u00fcstakil olmay\u0131p bodrum kat ve giri\u015f kat f\u0131r\u0131n olarak kullan\u0131l\u0131rken f\u0131r\u0131n \u00fcst kat\u0131 mesken olarak kullan\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. V. Ekmek G\u0131da San. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. an\u0131lan f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131 17\/10\/2016 tarihinde \u0130stanbul 32. Noterli\u011finde yap\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyle ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirkete devretmi\u015ftir. Devir sonras\u0131nda Fatih Belediyesince (Belediye) binada inceleme yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, 24\/2\/2017 tarihli muayene raporuyla f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n mevcut h\u00e2liyle faaliyete uygun oldu\u011fu tespit edilmi\u015f ve ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirkete 7\/3\/2017 tarihinde “ekmek ve ekmek \u00e7e\u015fitleri imalat ve sat\u0131\u015f yeri” faaliyet konulu gayris\u0131hhi i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B. Ba\u015fvuruya Konu \u0130\u015fyeri A\u00e7ma ve \u00c7al\u0131\u015fma Ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n \u0130ptali \u0130\u00e7in A\u00e7\u0131lan Dava<\/p>\n
10. 26\/12\/2016 tarihinde \u0130stanbul Ekmek \u00dcreticileri Derne\u011fi; Belediyeye ve \u00c7evre ve \u015eehircilik \u0130l M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ba\u015fvurup yapt\u0131klar\u0131 ara\u015ft\u0131rma sonucunda Fatih il\u00e7esi, Ayvansaray Mahallesi, Sultan\u00e7e\u015fme Caddesi No: 2 adresinde yer alan ekmek f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 (el de\u011fi\u015ftirdi\u011fi), yeni i\u015fletmecinin mevcut f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131 end\u00fcstriyel f\u0131r\u0131na d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcrme \u00e7abas\u0131nda oldu\u011funu, \u015fehir merkezinde b\u00f6ylesine y\u00fcksek kapasiteli end\u00fcstriyel f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n binaya ve \u00e7evreye zarar verece\u011fini belirterek end\u00fcstriyel f\u0131r\u0131n in\u015faat\u0131n\u0131n durdurulmas\u0131n\u0131 ve gerekli cezai i\u015flemlerin uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir. Belediye 28\/2\/2017 tarihinde yap\u0131lan denetim sonucunda ekmek f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n\u0131n mevcut h\u00e2liyle faaliyette bulunmas\u0131n\u0131n uygun oldu\u011funa karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. 30\/10\/2017 tarihinde bu kez \u0130stanbul Ekmek F\u0131r\u0131nc\u0131lar\u0131 Sanatk\u00e2rlar\u0131 ve Ekmek Sat\u0131c\u0131lar\u0131 Esnaf Odas\u0131 (F\u0131r\u0131nc\u0131lar Esnaf Odas\u0131) taraf\u0131ndan Belediyeye ba\u015fvurulup el de\u011fi\u015ftiren f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu ta\u015f\u0131nmazda esasl\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fiklikler yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilerek 7\/3\/2017 tarihli i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptali talep edilmi\u015ftir. Belediye taraf\u0131ndan verilen 7\/11\/2017 tarihli yan\u0131tta yap\u0131lan incelemelerde ekmek f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131na ait yap\u0131 kullan\u0131m izin belgesi bulundu\u011fu, mimari tadilat projesinin uygun oldu\u011fu, mevcut h\u00e2liyle 3\/5\/1985 tarihli ve 3194 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130mar Kanunu’na ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir durumun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bildirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Bunun \u00fczerine F\u0131r\u0131nc\u0131lar Esnaf Odas\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirkete verilen7\/3\/2017 tarihli i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptali istemiyle \u0130stanbul 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) iptal davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dava dilek\u00e7esinde 14\/7\/2005 tarihli ve 2005\/9207 say\u0131l\u0131 Bakanlar Kurulu karar\u0131 ile y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe konulan \u0130\u015fyeri A\u00e7ma ve \u00c7al\u0131\u015fma Ruhsatlar\u0131na \u0130li\u015fkin Y\u00f6netmelik’te (Y\u00f6netmelik) 29\/6\/2010 tarihinde yap\u0131lan de\u011fi\u015fiklik sonucu b\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir belediyesi ile n\u00fcfusu 100.000\u2019i ge\u00e7en belediye s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7inde a\u00e7\u0131lacak ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n bu amaca tahsisli ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil binalarda a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 \u015fart\u0131n\u0131n getirildi\u011fi, dava konusu f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu binan\u0131n ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z ve sadece f\u0131r\u0131n i\u015fletmesine tahsis edilmi\u015f bir bina olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, f\u0131r\u0131n i\u015fyerleri i\u00e7in belirlenen bu \u015fartlar\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mayan i\u015fyerlerinin \u00e7evrede ya\u015fayan insanlar\u0131n can ve mal g\u00fcvenli\u011fine kar\u015f\u0131 tehdit olu\u015fturaca\u011f\u0131, mahkemece belirlenecek bilirki\u015fi ile birlikte ke\u015fif yap\u0131larak i\u015fyerinin ekmek \u00fcretim faaliyetini s\u00fcrd\u00fcrmek i\u00e7in gerekli yasal \u015fartlar\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmesi gerekti\u011fi, an\u0131lan i\u015fyerinde i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 al\u0131nd\u0131ktan sonra in\u015faat projesine ve imar mevzuat\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak de\u011fi\u015fiklik yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
13. Mahkeme 21\/6\/2018 tarihinde davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Mahkeme; gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131nda dava konusu i\u015fyerinin 7\/3\/2017 tarihinde ruhsatland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaza ili\u015fkin 10\/5\/1999 tarihli yap\u0131 kullanma izin belgesinin bulundu\u011funu, ekmek f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n\u0131n 2010 y\u0131l\u0131nda ayr\u0131ca ruhsatland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 24\/2\/2017 tarihli muayene raporuyla f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n mevcut h\u00e2liyle faaliyete uygun oldu\u011funun tespit edildi\u011fini, Y\u00f6netmelik’in ge\u00e7ici 3. maddesi uyar\u0131nca s\u00f6z konusu maddenin yay\u0131n tarihinden \u00f6nce al\u0131nan yap\u0131 kullanma izin belgesinde yap\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131m amac\u0131n\u0131n f\u0131r\u0131n olarak belirlendi\u011fini ve bu h\u00e2liyle ayr\u0131k nizamda bulunma \u015fart\u0131n\u0131n dava konusu i\u015fyeri bak\u0131m\u0131ndan gerekli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, gerekli denetimlerin ve ruhsatland\u0131rman\u0131n belediye taraf\u0131ndan mevzuata uygun olarak yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususlar\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda dava konusu i\u015flemde hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. F\u0131r\u0131nc\u0131lar Esnaf Odas\u0131, davan\u0131n reddine y\u00f6nelik mahkeme karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi Alt\u0131nc\u0131 \u0130dare Dava Dairesi (B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi) 7\/5\/2019 tarihinde mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve dava konusu ruhsat\u0131n iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi; gerek\u00e7esinde f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n i\u015fletme hakk\u0131n\u0131n 17\/10\/2016 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirkete devredildi\u011fini, 10\/7\/1996 tarihinden itibaren her mevzuatta f\u0131r\u0131n i\u015fyeri i\u00e7in bu amaca tahsisli ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil binalarda a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olma ko\u015fulunun bulundu\u011funu, yap\u0131 kullanma izin belgesinde \u00fcst kat\u0131 mesken olan bu h\u00e2liyle m\u00fcstakil ve ayr\u0131k nizamda bulunma \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mayan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n yap\u0131 kullanma izin belgesi de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011finin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 1999 ve 2010 y\u0131l\u0131nda da mevzuatta aran\u0131lan ko\u015fullar\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi, 10\/7\/1996 tarihli ve 22692say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan G\u0131da \u00dcretimi ve Sat\u0131\u015f Yerleri Hakk\u0131nda Y\u00f6netmelik’in yay\u0131m tarihinden itibaren her mevzuatta bu amaca tahsisli ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil binalarda a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olma ko\u015fulunun bulundu\u011funa, yap\u0131 kullanma izin belgesinde \u00fcst kat\u0131 mesken olan bu h\u00e2liyle m\u00fcstakil ve ayr\u0131k nizamda bulunma \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mayan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n yap\u0131 kullanma izin belgesi de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011finin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 1999 y\u0131l\u0131nda da f\u0131r\u0131n i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n verildi\u011fi 2010 y\u0131l\u0131nda da mevzuatta aran\u0131lan ko\u015fullar\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131na vurgu yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
15. Belediye 12\/7\/2019 tarihinde karar\u0131 temyiz etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu da 26\/12\/2019 tarihinde hem m\u00fcdahale isteminde bulunmu\u015f hem B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131 temyiz etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu; f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n yirmi y\u0131ldan beri i\u015fletildi\u011fini, yap\u0131 kullan\u0131m izin belgesinin oldu\u011funu, Y\u00f6netmelik’in ge\u00e7ici 3. maddesi gere\u011fince ayr\u0131k nizamda bulunma ko\u015fulunun aranmamas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n Belediye taraf\u0131ndan usul\u00fcne uygun verildi\u011fini, buna g\u00fcvenerek y\u00fckl\u00fc miktarda yat\u0131r\u0131m yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve hukuki belirlilik ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Onuncu Dairesi (Daire) 11\/6\/2020 tarihinde B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n onanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
17. Nihai karar ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirket vekiline 4\/9\/2020 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirket 25\/9\/2020tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
A. Ulusal Hukuk <\/p>\n
1. \u0130lgili Mevzuat<\/p>\n
19. 3\/7\/2005 tarihli ve 5393 say\u0131l\u0131 Belediye Kanunu\u2019nun “Belediyenin yetkileri ve imtiyazlar\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 15. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“…<\/p>\n
l) Gayris\u0131hh\u00ee m\u00fcesseseler ile umuma a\u00e7\u0131k istirahat ve e\u011flence yerlerini ruhsatland\u0131rmak ve denetlemek.<\/p>\n
…”<\/p>\n
20. 14\/6\/1989 tarihli ve 3572 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015fyeri A\u00e7ma ve \u00c7al\u0131\u015fma Ruhsatlar\u0131na Dair Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararnamenin De\u011fi\u015ftirilerek Kabul\u00fcne Dair Kanun’un 3. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
” \u0130\u015fyeri A\u00e7ma ve \u00c7al\u0131\u015fma Ruhsat\u0131n\u0131 vermeye a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki merciler yetkilidir:<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
b) Belediye hudutlar\u0131 ile m\u00fccavir alan i\u00e7inde kalan t\u00fcm i\u015fyerleri ve i\u015fletmelere belediyeler,<\/p>\n
21. 3572 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 4. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“3 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddede belirtilen merciler, iznin verilmesi i\u00e7in yap\u0131lacak beyan ve incelemelerde a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen genel kriterlere g\u00f6re d\u00fczenlenecek y\u00f6netmeli\u011fi esas al\u0131rlar.<\/p>\n
a) \u0130nsan sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131na zarar vermemek,<\/p>\n
b) \u00c7evre kirlili\u011fine yol a\u00e7mamak,<\/p>\n
c) Yang\u0131n, patlama, genel g\u00fcvenlik, i\u015f g\u00fcvenli\u011fi, i\u015f\u00e7i sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131, trafik ve karayollar\u0131, imar, kat m\u00fclkiyeti ve do\u011fan\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ile ilgili d\u00fczenlemelere ayk\u0131r\u0131 davranmamak.”<\/p>\n
22. Y\u00f6netmelik’in “\u0130\u015fyerlerinde aranacak genel \u015fartlar” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 5. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 verilen i\u015fyerleri a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da belirtilen \u015fartlar\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mak zorundad\u0131r:<\/p>\n
a) \u0130\u015f sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi ile ilgili olarak mevzuatta \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen tedbirlerin al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131,<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
c) \u00d6zel yap\u0131 \u015feklini gerektiren sinema, tiyatro, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn salonu, otel, hamam, sauna; ekmek f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131 ile akaryak\u0131t, s\u0131v\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f petrol gaz\u0131, s\u0131v\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f do\u011fal gaz ve s\u0131k\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f do\u011fal gaz istasyonu i\u00e7in yap\u0131 kullanma izin belgesinin al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131<\/p>\n
…”<\/p>\n
23. 26\/11\/2014 tarihli ve 29187 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanarak y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren \u0130\u015fyeri A\u00e7ma ve \u00c7al\u0131\u015fma Ruhsatlar\u0131na \u0130li\u015fkin Y\u00f6netmelik’te De\u011fi\u015fiklik Yap\u0131lmas\u0131na Dair Y\u00f6netmelik’in 1. maddesiyle de\u011fi\u015ftirilen Y\u00f6netmelik’in 5. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
m) Ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n bu amaca tahsisli ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil binalarda a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 (Ancak, al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f merkezleri i\u00e7inde bulunan 1000 m2 ve \u00fcst\u00fc alana sahip hipermarket, s\u00fcpermarket, grossmarket ve megamarket gibi adlarla a\u00e7\u0131lan i\u015fyerleri b\u00fcnyesinde yer alan f\u0131r\u0131nlarda ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil bina \u015fart\u0131 aranmaz.),<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
24. \u0130\u015fyeri A\u00e7ma ve \u00c7al\u0131\u015fma Ruhsatlar\u0131na \u0130li\u015fkin Y\u00f6netmelikte De\u011fi\u015fiklik Yap\u0131lmas\u0131na Dair Y\u00f6netmelik’in ge\u00e7ici 3. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Bu maddenin yay\u0131m\u0131 tarihinden \u00f6nce yap\u0131 ruhsat\u0131 ve yap\u0131 kullanma izin belgesi \u00f6zel yap\u0131 \u015fekline uygun olarak d\u00fczenlenen ve bu haliyle tapu k\u00fct\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne tescil edilen yap\u0131larda a\u00e7\u0131lacak f\u0131r\u0131nlarda ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil bina \u015fart\u0131 aranmaz. \u0130\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 bulunan ancak ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil binada bulunmayan ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131 devredilemez.”<\/p>\n
…”<\/p>\n
25. Y\u00f6netmelik’in “\u0130\u015fletmecinin de\u011fi\u015fmesi ve i\u015fyerinin nakli” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 8. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Ruhsatta belirtilen faaliyet konusu, faaliyet alan\u0131 ve adresin de\u011fi\u015fmemesi kayd\u0131yla i\u015f yerinin devredilmesi halinde, devralan ki\u015finin ba\u015fvurusu \u00fczerine dosyadaki bilgi ve belgeler esas al\u0131nmak suretiyle yeni i\u015fletmeci ad\u0131na tekrar ruhsat d\u00fczenlenir. Ancak devredilmek istenen i\u015f yerinin fiziki durumu ve ruhsat dosyas\u0131ndaki bilgi ve belgelerin i\u015fletmecinin kusuru sebebiyle faaliyet konusuyla ilgili bu Y\u00f6netmelik kapsam\u0131nda kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 gereken mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmas\u0131 halinde, s\u00f6z konusu ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131klar ve noksanl\u0131klar giderilmeden yeni i\u015fletmeci ad\u0131na ruhsat d\u00fczenlenemez.”<\/p>\n
2. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Kararlar\u0131<\/p>\n
26. Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u0130dari Dava Daireleri Kurulunun (\u0130DDK) 23\/12\/2015 tarihli ve E.2014\/3722, K.2015\/5499 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fin, ‘\u0130\u015fyerlerinde aranacak genel \u015fartlar’ ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 5. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131na,25\/07\/2010 g\u00fcnl\u00fc, 27652 say\u0131l\u0131 Resmi Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan Y\u00f6netmelikle, dava konusu (m) bendi eklenmi\u015f ve ‘B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir belediyesi ile n\u00fcfusu 100.000\u2019i ge\u00e7en belediye s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7inde a\u00e7\u0131lacak ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n bu amaca tahsisli ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil binalarda a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 (Ancak, al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f merkezleri i\u00e7inde bulunan 1000 m2 ve \u00fcst\u00fc alana sahip hipermarket, s\u00fcpermarket, grossmarket ve megamarket gibi adlarla a\u00e7\u0131lan i\u015fyerleri b\u00fcnyesinde yer alan f\u0131r\u0131nlarda ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil bina \u015fart\u0131 aranmaz.)’ d\u00fczenlemesi getirilmi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n
Bu nedenle, kamu yarar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6zetmek ve kamu d\u00fczenini korumakla g\u00f6revli idarenin, ekmek ve ekmek \u00e7e\u015fitlerinin \u00fcretiminden t\u00fcketicilere ula\u015f\u0131ncaya kadar, halk sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve g\u00fcvenli\u011finin korunmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla, sa\u011fl\u0131k ve \u00e7evre ko\u015fullar\u0131na g\u00f6re bir standart olu\u015fturulmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olarak yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00fczenlemede hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir. Dava konusu d\u00fczenleme ile getirilen standard\u0131n, b\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir belediyesi d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki belediyeler ile n\u00fcfusu 100.000’in alt\u0131nda kalan belediye s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7inde faaliyette bulunan f\u0131r\u0131nlar i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f olmas\u0131 ise, an\u0131lan d\u00fczenlemeyi hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 hale getirmeyecektir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6te yandan, dava konusu d\u00fczenleme y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girmeden \u00f6nce, y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan mevzuata g\u00f6re davac\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131rma ruhsat\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, an\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n i\u015fyeri olarak faaliyet g\u00f6stermesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hakk\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan da s\u00f6z edilemez. Bu nedenle, yap\u0131 kullanma izni belgesi ve tapu senedinde ‘f\u0131r\u0131n’ niteli\u011fi bulunan ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden, i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131rma ruhsatlar\u0131na ili\u015fkin dava konusu Y\u00f6netmelik h\u00fckm\u00fcnde ge\u00e7i\u015f d\u00fczenlemesinin yer almamas\u0131 an\u0131lan i\u015flemi hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 hale getirmemektedir. Kat m\u00fclkiyeti mevzuat\u0131na g\u00f6re tapuya f\u0131r\u0131n olarak tescil edilen bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n, i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsatlar\u0131na ili\u015fkin mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden muaf oldu\u011fu ya da tapuya tescil edilmekle kendili\u011finden i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131rma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131 edindi\u011fi gibi bir sonu\u00e7 do\u011far ki, bu durum i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131rma ruhsatlar\u0131na ili\u015fkin mevzuat\u0131n amac\u0131yla ba\u011fda\u015fmaz…”<\/p>\n
27. Dairenin 19\/12\/2016 tarihli ve E.2016\/8011, K.2016\/4576 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“…f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n \u00f6zel yap\u0131 kullanma izin belgesinin olmas\u0131 ko\u015fuluyla konut b\u00f6lgelerinde a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 yasaklay\u0131c\u0131 bir d\u00fczenleme bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131; imar hukukuna uygun olarak ruhsatland\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil yap\u0131larda faaliyet g\u00f6steren f\u0131r\u0131nlara, yap\u0131n\u0131n niteli\u011fine uygun i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 verilebilece\u011fi; \u00f6nceden ruhsat alm\u0131\u015f i\u015fyerleriyle ilgili kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f haklar\u0131n korunarak yeniden ruhsat al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n istenilmeyece\u011fi ve i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 bulunan ancak ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil binada bulunmayan ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n devredilemeyece\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmakta olup; davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan devral\u0131nan i\u015fyerinin devre esas ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n tek ki\u015fi ad\u0131na oldu\u011fu, davac\u0131n\u0131n ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir ibarenin ruhsatta yer almad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bu durumda ilk ruhsat verildi\u011fi tarihte y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckteki mevzuata uygun olarak verilen i\u015fyeri ruhsat\u0131 esas al\u0131narak, devir nedeniyle ruhsat d\u00fczenlenemeyece\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan; i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 bulunan ancak ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil binada bulunmayan ekmek f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n devredildi\u011finden dolay\u0131 i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 verilmemesine ili\u015fkin i\u015flemde hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir. ”<\/p>\n
28. \u0130DDK’n\u0131n 5\/4\/2021 tarihli ve E.2020\/2989, K.2021\/707 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“…<\/p>\n
Dava konusu Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fin 5. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (m) bendinin incelenmesinden;<\/p>\n
\u0130\u015fyeri A\u00e7ma ve \u00c7al\u0131\u015fma Ruhsatlar\u0131na \u0130li\u015fkin Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fin dava konusu edilen 5. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (m) bendi ile ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n bu amaca tahsisli ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil binalarda olma \u015fart\u0131 getirilmi\u015f, bu konuda al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f merkezleri b\u00fcnyesinde belli bir alana sahip marketlerde bulunan f\u0131r\u0131nlar ise d\u00fczenlemeden istisna tutulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Yap\u0131lan d\u00fczenleme ile \u00fclkemizde en \u00e7ok t\u00fcketilen g\u0131da maddelerinden biri olan ekmek ve ekmek \u00e7e\u015fitlerinin \u00fcretiminden t\u00fcketicilere ula\u015f\u0131ncaya kadar halk sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve g\u00fcvenli\u011finin korunmas\u0131 amac\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi i\u00e7in sa\u011fl\u0131k ve \u00e7evre \u015fartlar\u0131na g\u00f6re belirli standartlar\u0131n sa\u011flanabilmesine y\u00f6nelik ko\u015fullar getirildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. <\/p>\n
Bu t\u00fcr i\u015fyerlerine, kamu sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan m\u00fcstakil bina ve ayr\u0131k nizamda bulunma ko\u015fulu getirilerek kamu yarar\u0131n\u0131n ama\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Tamamen ticari \u00fcnitelerden olu\u015fan, belirli a\u00e7\u0131l\u0131\u015f ve kapan\u0131\u015f saatleri do\u011frultusunda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan ve mesken niteli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131mayarak insan bar\u0131nmas\u0131na olanakl\u0131 olmayan al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f merkezlerinin, ayr\u0131k nizam ve m\u00fcstakil binada bulunmayan ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n do\u011furabilece\u011fi g\u00fcvenlik ve sa\u011fl\u0131k olumsuzluklar\u0131na neden olmayaca\u011f\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, iptali istenilen bu d\u00fczenlemenin, al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f merkezleri b\u00fcnyesindeki marketler a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan getirilen istisna y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. <\/p>\n
\u00d6te yandan, geli\u015fen kentle\u015fme olgusunun \u015fekillendirdi\u011fi al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f hayat\u0131n\u0131n bir yans\u0131mas\u0131 olan al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f merkezleri b\u00fcnyesinde kurulan b\u00fcy\u00fck marketlerde, pek \u00e7ok mal ve hizmetin bir arada t\u00fcketiciye sunuldu\u011fu, t\u00fcketicinin neredeyse her t\u00fcrl\u00fc ihtiyac\u0131n\u0131 tek bir noktadan kar\u015f\u0131lamas\u0131na olanak sa\u011flayan bu modern al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f sistemi i\u00e7erisinde, taze ve uygun fiyatl\u0131 olarak sunulan ekmek ve ekmek \u00fcr\u00fcnlerinin bulunmamas\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclemeyece\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n ayr\u0131k nizam ve m\u00fcstakil binada a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 \u015fart\u0131n\u0131n, al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f merkezleri b\u00fcnyesinde a\u00e7\u0131lacak f\u0131r\u0131nlar i\u00e7in de aranmamas\u0131n\u0131n kamu yarar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bilakis, bu i\u015fletmelerin b\u00fcnyesinde ekmek \u00fcretimi yapmas\u0131n\u0131 engellemenin ve bu suretle t\u00fcketicilerin bu marketlerden yapt\u0131klar\u0131 al\u0131\u015fveri\u015fte, taze ve uygun fiyatl\u0131 ekmek ve ekmek \u00fcr\u00fcnlerine ula\u015fma imkanlar\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131rman\u0131n kamu yarar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil edece\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Dava konusu Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fin ge\u00e7ici 3. maddesinin incelenmesinden;<\/p>\n
Dava konusu Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fin ge\u00e7ici 3. maddesinde, ‘Bu maddenin yay\u0131m\u0131 tarihinden \u00f6nce yap\u0131 ruhsat\u0131 ve yap\u0131 kullanma izin belgesi \u00f6zel yap\u0131 \u015fekline uygun olarak d\u00fczenlenen ve bu haliyle tapu k\u00fct\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne tescil edilen yap\u0131larda a\u00e7\u0131lacak f\u0131r\u0131nlarda ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil bina \u015fart\u0131 aranmaz…’ h\u00fckm\u00fc ile kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f haklar\u0131n g\u00f6zetildi\u011fi, ‘…\u0130\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 bulunan ancak ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil binada bulunmayan ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131 devredilemez.’ h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn de bundan sonraki a\u015famalarda verilecek i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsatlar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan, \u0130\u015fyeri A\u00e7ma ve \u00c7al\u0131\u015fma Ruhsatlar\u0131na \u0130li\u015fkin Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fin 5. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (m) bendinde getirilen d\u00fczenleme \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde, kamu d\u00fczeninin ve e\u015fitlik ilkesinin sa\u011flanmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, dava konusu Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fin ge\u00e7ici 3. maddesinde yer alan d\u00fczenlemelerde de hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Melikgazi Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 19\/10\/2016 tarih ve 2716942 say\u0131l\u0131 i\u015flemine gelince; Davac\u0131ya ait ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n, f\u0131r\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131na \u00f6zg\u00fc yap\u0131 ruhsat\u0131 ve yap\u0131 kullanma izin belgesinin bulunmas\u0131, an\u0131lan i\u015fyerine her ko\u015fulda i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 verilece\u011fi ya da i\u015fyerinin kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hakk\u0131 oldu\u011fu anlam\u0131na gelmemektedir. \u0130\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n verilebilmesi i\u00e7in, imar mevzuat\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra, i\u015fyerlerinin ruhsatland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik mevzuat\u0131n \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n da sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ortaya konulmas\u0131 gerekmektedir. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta, Kayseri \u0130li, Melikgazi \u0130l\u00e7esi, [….] adresinde faaliyet g\u00f6steren f\u0131r\u0131n faaliyet konulu i\u015fyerinin, ayr\u0131k nizamda ve m\u00fcstakil bir yap\u0131da yer almad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan, an\u0131lan adresteki f\u0131r\u0131na y\u00f6nelik i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n kendisine devrine izin verilmesine ili\u015fkin ba\u015fvurunun reddine y\u00f6nelik Melikgazi Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 19\/10\/2016 tarih ve 2716942 say\u0131l\u0131 i\u015fleminde, dayanak mevzuat d\u00fczenlemelerine ve hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bu durumda, davan\u0131n reddi yolundaki Daire karar\u0131nda sonucu itibar\u0131yla hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmamaktad\u0131r…”<\/p>\n
B. Uluslararas\u0131 Hukuk<\/p>\n
29. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’ne (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) ek 1 No.lu Protokol’\u00fcn “M\u00fclkiyetin korunmas\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 1. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Her ger\u00e7ek ve t\u00fczel ki\u015finin mal ve m\u00fclk dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131na sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterilmesini isteme hakk\u0131 vard\u0131r. Bir kimse, ancak kamu yarar\u0131 sebebiyle ve yasada \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ko\u015fullara ve uluslararas\u0131 hukukun genel ilkelerine uygun olarak mal ve m\u00fclk\u00fcnden yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131labilir.<\/p>\n
Yukar\u0131daki h\u00fck\u00fcmler, devletlerin, m\u00fclkiyetin kamu yarar\u0131na uygun olarak kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fczenlemek veya vergilerin ya da ba\u015fka katk\u0131lar\u0131n veya para cezalar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesini sa\u011flamak i\u00e7in gerekli g\u00f6rd\u00fckleri yasalar\u0131 uygulama konusunda sahip olduklar\u0131 hakka halel getirmez.”<\/p>\n
30. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi (A\u0130HM) i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131nda, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kapsam\u0131 konusunda mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden ve yarg\u0131 mercilerinin bunlara ili\u015fkin yorumundan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olarak \u00f6zerk bir yorum esas al\u0131nmaktad\u0131r (Depalle\/Fransa [BD], B. No: 34044\/02, 29\/3\/2010, \u00a7 62; Anheuser-Busch Inc.\/Portekiz [BD], B. No: 73049\/01, 11\/1\/2007, \u00a7 63; \u00d6nery\u0131ld\u0131z\/T\u00fcrkiye [BD], B. No: 48939\/99, 30\/11\/2004, \u00a7 124; Broniowski\/Polonya [BD], B. No: 31443\/96, 22\/6\/2004, \u00a7 129).<\/p>\n
31. Bir i\u015fin y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesi i\u00e7in verilen i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsatlar\u0131, Anayasa ve S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin ortak koruma alan\u0131nda yer alan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n konusunu olu\u015fturur. A\u0130HM’e g\u00f6re verilen ruhsat ve izinlerin sona erdirilmesi, ilgili \u015firketin veya i\u015fyerlerinin ticari itibar\u0131n\u0131 ve de\u011ferini olumsuz etkiledi\u011finden m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale niteli\u011findedir. Bununla birlikte A\u0130HM; ruhsat veya izinlerin sona erdirilmesini, S\u00f6zle\u015fme’ye ek 1 No.lu Protokol’\u00fcn 1. maddesinin birinci paragraf\u0131n\u0131n ikinci c\u00fcmlesi anlam\u0131nda m\u00fclkiyetten yoksun b\u0131rakma kapsam\u0131nda de\u011fil an\u0131lan maddenin ikinci paragraf\u0131 anlam\u0131nda m\u00fclkiyetin kontrol\u00fc kapsam\u0131nda bir m\u00fcdahale olarak incelemektedir (Tre Trakt\u00f6rer Aktiebolag\/\u0130sve\u00e7, B. No: 10873\/84, 7\/7\/1989, \u00a7\u00a7 53, 55; Rosenzweig And Bonded Warehouses Ltd.\/Polonya, B. No: 51728\/99, 28\/7\/2005, \u00a7 49; Capital Bank AD\/Bulgaristan, B. No: 49429\/99, 24\/11\/2005, \u00a7\u00a7 130, 131; Bimer S.A.\/Moldova, B. No: 15084\/03, 10\/7\/2007, \u00a7\u00a7 49-51; Megadat.com SRL\/Moldova, B. No: 21151\/04, 8\/4\/2008, \u00a7\u00a7 62, 63, 65).<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
32. Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin 11\/12\/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 <\/p>\n
33. Ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirket devir konusu f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n yirmi y\u0131ldan beri i\u015fletildi\u011fini, Y\u00f6netmelik’in ge\u00e7ici 3. maddesi gere\u011fince ayr\u0131k nizamda bulunma ko\u015fulunun aranmamas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde yer verdi\u011fi y\u00f6netmeli\u011fin y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckten kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n Belediye taraf\u0131ndan usul\u00fcne uygun verildi\u011fini buna g\u00fcvenerek y\u00fckl\u00fc miktarda yat\u0131r\u0131m yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve ayn\u0131 olaya ili\u015fkin farkl\u0131 y\u00f6nde Dan\u0131\u015ftay kararlar\u0131 bulundu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirket; bu gerek\u00e7elerle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131, adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 ve hukuki belirlilik ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
B. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
34. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n “M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 35. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201cHerkes, m\u00fclkiyet ve miras haklar\u0131na sahiptir.<\/p>\n
Bu haklar, ancak kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131yla, kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir.<\/p>\n
M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 toplum yarar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamaz.\u201d<\/p>\n
35. 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 \u015eirket, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131, hukuki belirlilik ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr ancak somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirketin as\u0131l \u015fik\u00e2yetinin i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptaline y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirketin b\u00fct\u00fcn \u015fik\u00e2yetleri m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlali iddias\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
1. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
36. 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 m\u00fclkiyet 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. M\u00fclk\u00fcn Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
i. Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
37. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011finden \u015fik\u00e2yet eden kimse, \u00f6nce b\u00f6yle bir hakk\u0131n\u0131n var oldu\u011funu kan\u0131tlamak zorundad\u0131r (Mustafa Ate\u015fo\u011flu ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/1178, 5\/11\/2015, \u00a7\u00a7 49-54). Bu nedenle \u00f6ncelikle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesi uyar\u0131nca korunmay\u0131 gerektiren m\u00fclkiyete ili\u015fkin menfaatinin olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131ndaki hukuki durumunun de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir (Cemile \u00dcnl\u00fc, B. No: 2013\/382, 16\/4\/2013, \u00a7 26; \u0130hsan Vurucuo\u011flu, B. No: 2013\/539, 16\/5\/2013, \u00a7 31).<\/p>\n
38. Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesiyle g\u00fcvenceye ba\u011flanan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131, ekonomik de\u011fer ifade eden ve parayla de\u011ferlendirilebilen her t\u00fcrl\u00fc mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131 kapsamaktad\u0131r (AYM, E.2015\/39, K.2015\/62, 1\/7\/2015, \u00a7 20). Bu ba\u011flamda m\u00fclk olarak de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011finde ku\u015fku bulunmayan menkul ve gayrimenkul mallar ile bunlar\u0131n \u00fczerinde tesis edilen s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 ayni haklar ve fikr\u00ee haklar\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra icras\u0131 kabil olan her t\u00fcrl\u00fc alacak da m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kapsam\u0131na d\u00e2hildir (Mahmut Duran ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2014\/11441, 1\/2\/2017, \u00a7 60).<\/p>\n
39. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6zel hukukta veya idari yarg\u0131da kabul edilen m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kavramlar\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 bir anlam ve kapsam\u0131 olup bu alanlarda kabul edilen m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131, yasal d\u00fczenlemeler ile yarg\u0131 i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olarak \u00f6zerk bir yorum ile ele al\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r (H\u00fcseyin Remzi Polge, B. No: 2013\/2166, 25\/6\/2015, \u00a7 31; Mustafa Ate\u015fo\u011flu ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 51).<\/p>\n
ii. \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/p>\n
40. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirkete “ekmek ve ekmek \u00e7e\u015fitleri imalat ve sat\u0131\u015f yeri” faaliyet konulu i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan ruhsat B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131yla iptal edilmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7 14).<\/p>\n
41. Ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirket kendisine verilen i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda iki y\u0131ldan fazla s\u00fcre ticari faaliyette bulunmu\u015ftur. Bu durumda m\u00fc\u015fteri \u00e7evresi ve ticari itibar sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k olan i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirket i\u00e7in ekonomik bir de\u011feri oldu\u011fu ve bu ekonomik de\u011ferin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi hususunda teredd\u00fct yoktur.<\/p>\n
b. M\u00fcdahalenin Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve T\u00fcr\u00fc<\/p>\n
42. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde bir temel hak olarak g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ki\u015fiye -ba\u015fkas\u0131n\u0131n hakk\u0131na zarar vermemek ve kanunlar\u0131n koydu\u011fu s\u0131n\u0131rlamalara uymak ko\u015fuluyla- sahibi oldu\u011fu \u015feyi diledi\u011fi gibi kullanma ve \u00fczerinde tasarruf etme, onun \u00fcr\u00fcnlerinden yararlanma imk\u00e2n\u0131 verir (Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 32). Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla malikin m\u00fclk\u00fcn\u00fc kullanma, m\u00fclk\u00fcn semerelerinden yararlanma ve m\u00fclk\u00fc \u00fczerinde tasarruf etme yetkilerinden herhangi birinin s\u0131n\u0131rlanmas\u0131 m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil eder (Recep Tarhan ve Afife Tarhan, B. No: 2014\/1546, 2\/2\/2017, \u00a7 53).<\/p>\n
43. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesi ile m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na temas eden di\u011fer h\u00fck\u00fcmleri birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde Anayasa’n\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahaleyle ilgili \u00fc\u00e7 kural ihtiva etti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Buna g\u00f6re Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda herkesin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmek suretiyle m\u00fclkten bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l yararlanma hakk\u0131na yer verilmi\u015f, ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda da m\u00fclkten bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l yararlanma hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalenin \u00e7er\u00e7evesi belirlenmi\u015ftir. Maddenin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, genel olarak m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n hangi ko\u015fullarda s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilece\u011fi belirlenerek ayn\u0131 zamanda m\u00fclkten yoksun b\u0131rakman\u0131n \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n genel \u00e7er\u00e7evesi de \u00e7izilmi\u015ftir. Maddenin son f\u0131kras\u0131nda ise m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n toplum yarar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamayaca\u011f\u0131 kurala ba\u011flanmak suretiyle devletin m\u00fclkiyetin kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 kontrol etmesine ve d\u00fczenlemesine imk\u00e2n sa\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n di\u011fer baz\u0131 maddelerinde de devlet taraf\u0131ndan m\u00fclkiyetin kontrol\u00fcne imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan \u00f6zel h\u00fck\u00fcmlere yer verilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca belirtmek gerekir ki m\u00fclkten yoksun b\u0131rakma ve m\u00fclkiyetin d\u00fczenlenmesi, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6zel bi\u00e7imleridir (Recep Tarhan ve Afife Tarhan, \u00a7\u00a7 55-58).<\/p>\n
44. Ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirketin m\u00fclkiyetindeki ruhsat\u0131n iptal edilmesinin Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesi anlam\u0131nda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale olu\u015fturdu\u011funu belirtmek gerekir. Somut olayda gayris\u0131hhi i\u015fyerlerine ruhsat verilmesi ve denetimler sonucunda ruhsatlar\u0131n iptalinin kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n kontrol ve d\u00fczenleme yetkisi kapsam\u0131nda oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu sebeple ba\u015fvurunun m\u00fclkiyetin kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fczenleme ve kontrole ili\u015fkin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc kural \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
c. M\u00fcdahalenin \u0130hlal Olu\u015fturup Olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
45. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetler, \u00f6zlerine dokunulmaks\u0131z\u0131n yaln\u0131zca Anayasan\u0131n ilgili maddelerinde belirtilen sebeplere ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ve ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir. Bu s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar, Anayasan\u0131n s\u00f6z\u00fcne ve ruhuna, demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin ve l\u00e2ik Cumhuriyetin gereklerine ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamaz.”<\/p>\n
46. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rs\u0131z bir hak olarak d\u00fczenlenmemi\u015f, bu hakk\u0131n kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131yla ve kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131labilece\u011fi \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalede bulunulurken temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin genel ilkeleri d\u00fczenleyen Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesi de g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmal\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’ya uygun olabilmesi i\u00e7in m\u00fcdahale kanuna dayanmal\u0131, kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mal\u0131, ayr\u0131ca \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi g\u00f6zetilerek yap\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r(Recep Tarhan ve Afife Tarhan, \u00a7 62).<\/p>\n
i. Kanunilik <\/p>\n
47. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalelerde ilk incelenmesi gereken, kanuna dayal\u0131 olma \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcd\u00fcr. Bu \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edildi\u011finde di\u011fer \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctler bak\u0131m\u0131ndan inceleme yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lacakt\u0131r. M\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131, i\u00e7 hukukta m\u00fcdahaleye ili\u015fkin yeterince ula\u015f\u0131labilir, belirli ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir kurallar\u0131n olmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir (T\u00fcrkiye \u0130\u015f Bankas\u0131 A.\u015e. [GK], B. No: 2014\/6192, 12\/11\/2014, \u00a7 44; Ford Motor Company, B. No: 2014\/13518, 26\/10\/2017, \u00a7 49; Necmiye \u00c7ift\u00e7i ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/1301, 30\/12\/2014, \u00a7 55).<\/p>\n
48. Somut olayda i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 3572 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a dayan\u0131larak y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren \u0130\u015fyeri A\u00e7ma ve \u00c7al\u0131\u015fma Ruhsatlar\u0131na \u0130li\u015fkin Y\u00f6netmelik’e g\u00f6re iptal edilmi\u015ftir. Bu kapsamda m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
ii. Me\u015fru Ama\u00e7<\/p>\n
49. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. ve 35. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ancak kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131yla s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131labilir. Kamu yarar\u0131 kavram\u0131, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kamu yarar\u0131n\u0131n gerektirdi\u011fi durumlarda s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n vermekte ve bir s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rma amac\u0131 olmas\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda s\u0131n\u0131rlanamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6rerek ve bu anlamda bir s\u0131n\u0131rlama s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 olu\u015fturarak m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 etkin \u015fekilde korumaktad\u0131r. Kamu yarar\u0131 kavram\u0131, devlet organlar\u0131n\u0131n takdir yetkisini beraberinde getiren bir kavram olup objektif bir tan\u0131ma elveri\u015fli olmayan bu \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn her somut olay temelinde ayr\u0131ca de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir (benzer y\u00f6ndeki karar i\u00e7in bkz. Nusrat K\u00fclah,B. No: 2013\/6151, 21\/4\/2016, \u00a7\u00a7 53, 56; Yunis A\u011flar, B. No: 2013\/1239, 20\/3\/2014, \u00a7\u00a7 28, 29).<\/p>\n
50. Somut ba\u015fvuruda ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirkete verilen i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n bu amaca tahsisli ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil binalarda a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in iptal edildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n mesken niteli\u011findeki binalar\u0131n alt\u0131nda faaliyet g\u00f6stermesinin ortaya \u00e7\u0131karaca\u011f\u0131 muhtemel tehlikeler g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131narak bu t\u00fcr i\u015fletmelerin bu amaca tahsisli ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil binalarda a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n zorunlu tutulmas\u0131n\u0131n halk\u0131n can ve mal g\u00fcvenli\u011fini korumak amac\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmek gerekir. Bu ba\u011flamda ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n bu amaca tahsisli ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil binalarda a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n zorunlu k\u0131l\u0131nmas\u0131 nedeniyle ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen m\u00fcdahalede kamu yarar\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu kabul edilmelidir.<\/p>\n
iii. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck<\/p>\n
\u00a0(1) Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
51. Son olarak kamu makamlar\u0131nca ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirketin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyle ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmek istenen ama\u00e7la bu amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmek i\u00e7in kullan\u0131lan ara\u00e7 aras\u0131nda makul bir \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ili\u015fkisinin olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmelidir.<\/p>\n
52. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi elveri\u015flilik, gereklilik ve orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k olmak \u00fczere \u00fc\u00e7 alt ilkeden olu\u015fur. Elveri\u015flilik \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen m\u00fcdahalenin ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli olmas\u0131n\u0131, gereklilik ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan m\u00fcdahalenin zorunlu olmas\u0131n\u0131 yani ayn\u0131 amaca daha hafif m\u00fcdahaleyle ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmamas\u0131n\u0131, orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k ise bireyin hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale ile ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 aras\u0131nda makul bir dengenin g\u00f6zetilmesi gereklili\u011fini ifade eder (AYM, E.2011\/111, K.2012\/56, 11\/4\/2012; E.2014\/176, K.2015\/53, 27\/5\/2015; E.2016\/13, K.2016\/127, 22\/6\/2016, \u00a7 18; Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
53. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi gere\u011fi, ki\u015filerin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde elde edilmek istenen kamu yarar\u0131 ile bireyin haklar\u0131 aras\u0131nda adil bir dengenin kurulmas\u0131 gerekir. Bu adil denge, ba\u015fvurucunun a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir y\u00fcke katland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmesi durumunda bozulmu\u015f olacakt\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesi; m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc de\u011ferlendirirken bir taraftan ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen me\u015fru amac\u0131n \u00f6nemini ve di\u011fer taraftan m\u00fcdahalenin niteli\u011fini, ba\u015fvurucunun ve kamu otoritelerinin davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131 da g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurarak ba\u015fvurucuya y\u00fcklenen k\u00fclfeti dikkate alacakt\u0131r (Arif G\u00fcven, B. No: 2014\/13966, 15\/2\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 58, 60).<\/p>\n
54. Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesi usule ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131k bir g\u00fcvenceden s\u00f6z etmez. Bununla birlikte m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ek anlamda korunabilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan bu madde, Anayasa Mahkemesinin \u00e7e\u015fitli kararlar\u0131nda da ifade edildi\u011fi \u00fczere m\u00fclk sahibine m\u00fcdahalenin kanun d\u0131\u015f\u0131 veya keyf\u00ee ya da makul olmayan \u015fekilde uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin savunma ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 sorumlu makamlar \u00f6n\u00fcnde etkin bir bi\u00e7imde ortaya koyabilme olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131 g\u00fcvencesini kapsar. Bu de\u011ferlendirme ise uygulanan s\u00fcrecin b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcne bak\u0131larak yap\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r (Z\u00fcliye \u00d6zt\u00fcrk, B. No: 2014\/1734, 14\/9\/2017, \u00a7 36; Bekir Yaz\u0131c\u0131 [GK], B. No: 2013\/3044, 17\/12\/2015, \u00a7 71).<\/p>\n
55. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvenceleri hem \u00f6zel ki\u015filer aras\u0131ndaki m\u00fclkiyet uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131nda hem de taraflardan birinin kamu g\u00fcc\u00fc oldu\u011fu durumlarda ge\u00e7erlidir. Bu ba\u011flamda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011fu durumlarda usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencelerin somut olayda yerine getirildi\u011finden s\u00f6z edilebilmesi i\u00e7in yarg\u0131 mercilerinin kararlar\u0131nda konuyla ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7e bulunmal\u0131d\u0131r, ayr\u0131ca belirtmek gerekir ki bu zorunluluk davac\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn iddialar\u0131na cevap verilmesi anlam\u0131na gelmemekle birlikte m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 ilgilendiren davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili esasa ili\u015fkin temel iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131nca \u00f6zenli \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirilerek kar\u015f\u0131lanmal\u0131d\u0131r (Kamil Darbaz ve Gmo Yap\u0131 Grup End. San. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2015\/12563, 24\/5\/2018, \u00a7 53).<\/p>\n
\u00a0(2) \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/p>\n
56. \u0130lk olarak m\u00fcdahalenin kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131n\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczerinde durulmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bu de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131l\u0131rken de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fe neden ihtiya\u00e7 duyuldu\u011fu ortaya konulmal\u0131d\u0131r. Ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n mesken niteli\u011findeki binalar\u0131n alt\u0131nda faaliyet g\u00f6stermesinin ortaya \u00e7\u0131karaca\u011f\u0131 muhtemel tehlikeler (binalar\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131 ve\/veya yang\u0131n) g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131narak bu t\u00fcr i\u015fletmelerin bu amaca tahsisli ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil binalarda a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n zorunlu tutulmas\u0131, bu \u015fart\u0131 sa\u011flamayan i\u015fyerlerinin ruhsatlar\u0131n\u0131n iptal edilmesi \u015feklinde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan m\u00fcdahalenin halk\u0131n can ve mal g\u00fcvenli\u011fini korumak amac\u0131na y\u00f6nelik ve m\u00fcdahalenin kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131n\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli oldu\u011fu noktas\u0131nda \u015f\u00fcphe yoktur.<\/p>\n
57. \u0130kinci olarak ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin gerekli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 incelenmelidir. Y\u00f6netmelik de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fiyle ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n -olas\u0131 bir deprem ya da yang\u0131nda meydana gelecek zararlar nedeniyle- mesken niteli\u011findeki binalar\u0131n alt\u0131nda faaliyet g\u00f6stermesinin yasaklanmas\u0131, halk\u0131n can ve mal g\u00fcvenli\u011fi ile kamu g\u00fcvenli\u011finin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6nem nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptal edilmesi \u015feklinde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan m\u00fcdahalenin gerekli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenemez.<\/p>\n
58. Son olarak orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lacakt\u0131r. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun ruhsat\u0131 iptal edilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi, buna gerek\u00e7e olarak 2005 y\u0131l\u0131ndan bu yana getirilen mevzuatta ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n bu amaca tahsisli ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil binalarda a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n zorunlu tutulmas\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6stermi\u015ftir. Daire, B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131 onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 14, 16). Ger\u00e7ekten ba\u015fvurucunun devrald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ekmek f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131 bu amaca tahsisli ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil binada yer almamaktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu; yirmi y\u0131ld\u0131r ayn\u0131 adreste i\u015fletilen f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131 devralmas\u0131ndan sonra Belediyenin kendisine 7\/3\/2017 tarihinde ruhsat verdi\u011fini, bu \u015fekilde belirli s\u00fcre \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131na m\u00fcsaade edilmesine ra\u011fmen sonradan ruhsat\u0131n B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131yla iptal edilmesinden yak\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucuya g\u00f6re ruhsat\u0131n iptal edilmesinde kendisinin kusuru bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
59. Y\u00f6netmelik de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi sonras\u0131 26\/11\/2014 tarihinden sonra m\u00fcstakil binada faaliyet g\u00f6stermeyen ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n devredilmesinin yasakland\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr (bkz. \u00a7 24). Bu kural\u0131n uyu\u015fmazl\u0131ktan \u00f6nce y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girdi\u011fi, \u00f6nceden belirli ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir nitelikte oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. 26\/11\/2014 tarihinden sonra ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n ve ruhsatlar\u0131n devrinin ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu Dan\u0131\u015ftay i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131yla da ortaya koyulmu\u015ftur (bkz. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Onuncu Dairesi, 2\/12\/2019 tarihli ve E.2016\/8858, K.2019\/9041 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131; Dan\u0131\u015ftay D\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc Dairesi, 19\/12\/2023 tarihli ve E.2023\/12217, K.2023\/7106 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131; Dan\u0131\u015ftay D\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc Dairesi, 15\/11\/2023tarihli ve E.2023\/6618, K.2023\/6299 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131).<\/p>\n
60. Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00f6ncelikle ba\u015fvurucunun ekmek f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n\u0131 17\/10\/2016 tarihinde devrald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6zlemlemi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun ekmek f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n\u0131 devrald\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte m\u00fcstakil binada bulunmayan ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n devredilmesinin yasakland\u0131\u011f\u0131, devir ve ruhsat taleplerinin ge\u00e7ersiz kabul edildi\u011fi g\u00f6zden uzak tutulmamal\u0131d\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, devir yasa\u011f\u0131 olmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n ekmek f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n\u0131 17\/10\/2016 tarihinde devralm\u0131\u015f ve yakla\u015f\u0131k be\u015f ay sonra kendi ad\u0131na ruhsat d\u00fczenletmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun devir yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bilmesine kar\u015f\u0131n bu kural\u0131n aksine ekmek f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n\u0131 devralmas\u0131n\u0131n ortaya \u00e7\u0131karaca\u011f\u0131 hukuki sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6rmesi beklenirdi.<\/p>\n
61. Ba\u015fvurucuya g\u00f6re B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesinin karar gerek\u00e7esinde yer verdi\u011fi Y\u00f6netmelik eski tarihlidir ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu olayda uygulanma kabiliyeti yoktur ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucu iki farkl\u0131 Dan\u0131\u015ftay karar\u0131ndan bahsetmi\u015ftir ve bu kararlar\u0131n kendi durumuyla ayn\u0131 olan ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131 lehine sonu\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00d6ncelikle belirtmek gerekir ki Anayasa Mahkemesinin bireysel ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131nda kural olarak delilleri de\u011ferlendirme veya hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131 yorumlama gibi bir g\u00f6revi yoktur. \u00dcstelik mahkemeler bu bak\u0131mdan ilk elden delilleri de\u011ferlendirebilme imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fundan daha avantajl\u0131 bir konumdad\u0131r. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi, karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde ekmek f\u0131r\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n bu amaca tahsisli ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil binalarda a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n zorunlu tutulmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik kural\u0131n 2005 y\u0131l\u0131ndan bu yana mevzuatta zorunlu olarak arand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, farkl\u0131 tarihlerde dava konusu edildi\u011fini ancak gelinen a\u015famada somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta ba\u015fvurucunun devrald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ekmek f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n\u0131n bu amaca tahsisli ayr\u0131k nizamda m\u00fcstakil binalarda a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 ko\u015fulunu ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit etmi\u015ftir. \u00d6te yandan ba\u015fvurucunun formda zikretti\u011fi Dan\u0131\u015ftay kararlar\u0131 incelendi\u011finde an\u0131lan kararlar\u0131n Y\u00f6netmelik’in iptaline y\u00f6nelik ilk derece mahkemesi s\u0131fat\u0131yla Dan\u0131\u015ftay Sekizinci Daire karar\u0131na dayal\u0131 oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Oysaki Sekizinci Dairenin an\u0131lan iptal kararlar\u0131 temyiz incelemesi sonras\u0131nda \u0130DDK taraf\u0131ndan bozulmu\u015f ve davalar\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 26, 28).<\/p>\n
62. Son olarak m\u00fcdahalenin sebep oldu\u011fu sonu\u00e7lara bak\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu Belediyenin verdi\u011fi i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131na g\u00fcvenerek yat\u0131r\u0131m yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ruhsat\u0131n B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131yla iptal edilmesiyle f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n kapand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. \u00d6ncelikle ba\u015fvurucunun Belediyenin verdi\u011fi ruhsata g\u00fcvenerek yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 harcamalar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar\u0131n tazminine y\u00f6nelik tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131p a\u00e7mad\u0131\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda formda herhangi bir a\u00e7\u0131klama yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bu sebeple Anayasa Mahkemesi bu y\u00f6nden bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmayacakt\u0131r. Bu durumda m\u00fcdahalenin ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131yla kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 ve ola\u011fan d\u0131\u015f\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklemedi\u011fi, kamu yarar\u0131 ile ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 aras\u0131nda olmas\u0131 gereken adil dengenin bozulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
63. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilmedi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VI. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LMED\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde BIRAKILMASINA,<\/p>\n
D. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 11\/12\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 11\/12\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/30986 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 YILDIRIM UNLU MAM\u00dcLLER\u0130 GIDA \u0130N\u015eAAT TUR\u0130ZM TEKST\u0130L SANAY\u0130 VE T\u0130CARET LTD. \u015eT\u0130. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/30986) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 11\/12\/2024 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Mehmet ALTUND\u0130\u015e Ba\u015fvurucu : Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m Unlu Mam\u00fclleri G\u0131da \u0130n\u015faat Turizm Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti. Vekili : Av. Do\u011fu\u015f KAN \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru, m\u00fcstakil ve ayr\u0131k nizamda bulunma \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mayan ekmek f\u0131r\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7in verilen i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptal edilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 25\/9\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Ba\u015fvuru, ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinin idari y\u00f6nden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n incelemesinden sonra Komisyona sunulmu\u015ftur. 4. Komisyonca ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. 5. B\u00f6l\u00fcm Ba\u015fkan\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin birlikte yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. 6. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 7. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir: A. Ba\u015fvuru Konusu Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n Arka Plan\u0131 8. \u0130stanbul’un Fatih il\u00e7esi, Ayvansaray Mahallesi, Sultan\u00e7e\u015fme Caddesi No: 2 adresinde …<\/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-33230","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n