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
TUNCAY \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/38607)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 24\/10\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 7\/3\/2025 – 32834<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/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
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Tu\u011fba YILDIZ<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Tuncay \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. B\u00fclent \u0130LG\u00dc<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; idari eylemden do\u011fan zarar\u0131n tazmini istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n, davan\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle de makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru 27\/11\/2019 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. 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
5. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu, zorunlu askerlik hizmetini yapmak \u00fczere 9\/3\/2010 tarihinde 1. Piyade E\u011fitim Tugay Komutanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Manisa) emrine sevk edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. 9\/3\/2010 tarihli askerlik muayenesinde G\u00fclhane Asker\u00ee T\u0131p Akademisi (GATA) Haydarpa\u015fa E\u011fitim Hastanesi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen raporda, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda eski sol kal\u00e7a k\u0131r\u0131\u011f\u0131, eklem hareketleri tam oldu\u011fundan “Ortopedik a\u00e7\u0131dan askerli\u011fe elveri\u015flidir. Komando olamaz.” karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu, askerlik hizmetini yaparken 15\/3\/2010 tarihinde pentatlon e\u011fitimi s\u0131ras\u0131nda y\u00fcksekten atlama sonras\u0131 sakatlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00d6nce \u0130zmir Asker Hastanesine, sonra \u0130zmir Atat\u00fcrk E\u011fitim ve Ara\u015ft\u0131rma Hastanesine sevk edilmi\u015f, yap\u0131lan tetkikler neticesinde de ba\u015fvurucunun GATA Haydarpa\u015fa E\u011fitim Hastanesine yat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, bir s\u00fcre fizik tedavi alm\u0131\u015f ve \u00fc\u00e7 ay hava de\u011fi\u015fimine g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Daha sonra ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda GATA Haydarpa\u015fa E\u011fitim Hastanesi taraf\u0131ndan 2\/2\/2011 tarihli raporla “bilateral siyatik sinir lezyonu” tan\u0131s\u0131yla “Bar\u0131\u015fta askerli\u011fe elveri\u015fli de\u011fildir. Seferde g\u00f6rev yapar.” karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 16\/6\/2011 tarihinde terhis edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, askerlik g\u00f6revi s\u0131ras\u0131nda ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 olay nedeniyle 23\/1\/2012 tarihinde Ankara 18. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde maddi ve manevi tazminat talepli dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
10. Ankara 18. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi 10\/7\/2012 tarihli kararla g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 vermi\u015f ve g\u00f6revli yarg\u0131 yerinin Asker\u00ee Y\u00fcksek \u0130dare Mahkemesi (AY\u0130M) oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Karar gerek\u00e7esinde 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun 3. maddesi uyar\u0131nca v\u00fccut b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn k\u0131smen veya tamamen yitirilmesine yahut ki\u015finin \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcne ba\u011fl\u0131 maddi ve manevi zararlar\u0131n tazminine ili\u015fkin davalar\u0131n asliye hukuk mahkemelerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmesi gerekti\u011fini fakat Anayasa Mahkemesinin 16\/2\/2012 tarihli ve E.2011\/35, K.2012\/23 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131yla 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 3. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n iptal edilmesiyle mevcut davan\u0131n g\u00f6rev alan\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
11. Temyiz istemi, Yarg\u0131tay 4. Hukuk Dairesinin 3\/6\/2013 tarihli karar\u0131yla reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucu, g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 \u00fczerine AY\u0130M’de dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 21\/1\/2017 tarihli ve 6771 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 17. maddesi ile Anayasa’ya ge\u00e7ici 21. madde eklenmi\u015f; ge\u00e7ici 21. maddenin (E) f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n birinci c\u00fcmlesine g\u00f6re Asker\u00ee Yarg\u0131tay, AY\u0130M ve asker\u00ee mahkemelerin kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Ayn\u0131 f\u0131kran\u0131n son paragraf\u0131na g\u00f6re kald\u0131r\u0131lan asker\u00ee yarg\u0131 mercilerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmekte olan dosyalardan kanun yolu incelemesi a\u015famas\u0131nda olanlar\u0131n ilgisine g\u00f6re Yarg\u0131tay veya Dan\u0131\u015ftaya; di\u011fer dosyalar\u0131n ise ilgilisine g\u00f6re g\u00f6revli ve yetkili adli veya idari yarg\u0131 mercilerine d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde g\u00f6nderilece\u011fi \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
13. AY\u0130M’in kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131ndan sonra dosya Manisa 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 31\/5\/2019 tarihli kararla davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar gerek\u00e7esinde; ba\u015fvurucunun 2\/2\/2011 tarihli “Askerli\u011fe elveri\u015fli de\u011fildir.” raporu \u00fczerine ya da en ge\u00e7 terhis tarihi olan 16\/6\/2011 tarihinden itibaren altm\u0131\u015f g\u00fcnl\u00fck dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde dava a\u00e7mas\u0131 ya da idareye ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 gerekirken 23\/1\/2012 tarihinde Ankara 18. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf istemi, \u0130zmir B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi Alt\u0131nc\u0131 \u0130dare Dava Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan 3\/10\/2019 tarihinde reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvurucuya nihai karar 31\/10\/2019 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu 27\/11\/2019 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
16. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un Anayasa Mahkemesi karar\u0131yla iptal edilen 3. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Her t\u00fcrl\u00fc idar\u00ee eylem ve i\u015flemler ile idarenin sorumlu oldu\u011fu di\u011fer sebeplerin yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 v\u00fccut b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn k\u0131smen veya tamamen yitirilmesine yahut ki\u015finin \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcne ba\u011fl\u0131 madd\u00ee ve manev\u00ee zararlar\u0131n tazminine ili\u015fkin davalara asliye hukuk mahkemeleri bakar. \u0130darenin sorumlulu\u011fu d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan sebeplerden do\u011fan ayn\u0131 t\u00fcr zararlar\u0131n tazminine ili\u015fkin davalarda dahi bu h\u00fck\u00fcm uygulan\u0131r. 30\/1\/1950 tarihli ve 5521 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015f Mahkemeleri Kanunu h\u00fck\u00fcmleri sakl\u0131d\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
17. 11\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu\u2019nun 55. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Destekten yoksun kalma zararlar\u0131 ile bedensel zararlar, bu Kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine ve sorumluluk hukuku ilkelerine g\u00f6re hesaplan\u0131r. K\u0131smen veya tamamen r\u00fccu edilemeyen sosyal g\u00fcvenlik \u00f6demeleri ile ifa amac\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mayan \u00f6demeler, bu t\u00fcr zararlar\u0131n belirlenmesinde g\u00f6zetilemez; zarar veya tazminattan indirilemez. Hesaplanan tazminat, miktar esas al\u0131narak hakkaniyet d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesi ile art\u0131r\u0131lamaz veya azalt\u0131lamaz.<\/p>\n
Bu Kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, her t\u00fcrl\u00fc idari eylem ve i\u015flemler ile idarenin sorumlu oldu\u011fu di\u011fer sebeplerin yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 v\u00fccut b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn k\u0131smen veya tamamen yitirilmesine ya da ki\u015finin \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcne ba\u011fl\u0131 zararlara ili\u015fkin istem ve davalarda da uygulan\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
18. 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 72. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Tazminat istemi, zarar g\u00f6renin zarar\u0131 ve tazminat y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fc \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fi tarihten ba\u015flayarak iki y\u0131l\u0131n ve her h\u00e2lde fiilin i\u015flendi\u011fi tarihten ba\u015flayarak on y\u0131l\u0131n ge\u00e7mesiyle zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011frar. Ancak, tazminat ceza kanunlar\u0131n\u0131n daha uzun bir zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc cezay\u0131 gerektiren bir fiilden do\u011fmu\u015fsa, bu zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 uygulan\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
19. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 24\/10\/2024 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. Mahkemeye Eri\u015fim Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia <\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130ddialar\u0131 <\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvurucu; dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 3. maddesi gere\u011fince g\u00f6revli mahkemenin asliye hukuk mahkemeleri oldu\u011funu, 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 72. maddesi gere\u011fince zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin 2 y\u0131l, her h\u00e2l\u00fck\u00e2rda 10 y\u0131l oldu\u011funu, Mahkemenin kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc yanl\u0131\u015f uygulad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00fcresinde dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
2. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
21. Anayasa’n\u0131n iddian\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesinde dayanak al\u0131nacak “Hak arama h\u00fcrriyeti” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Herkes, me\u015fru vas\u0131ta ve yollardan faydalanmak suretiyle yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddia ve savunma ile adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na sahiptir.”<\/p>\n
22. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olaylar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan hukuki nitelendirmesi ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olmay\u0131p olay ve olgular\u0131n hukuki tavsifini kendisi takdir eder. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin \u00f6z\u00fc, maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar\u0131n tazmini istemiyle a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesi nedeniyle uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmemesidir. Bu itibarla ihlal iddialar\u0131 adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvencelerinden biri olan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
a. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
23. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
b. Esas Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
i. M\u00fcdahalenin Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve Hakk\u0131n Kapsam\u0131<\/p>\n
24. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, herkesin yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddiada bulunma ve savunma hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bir unsurudur. Di\u011fer yandan Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesine “adil yarg\u0131lanma” ibaresinin eklenmesine ili\u015fkin gerek\u00e7ede, taraf oldu\u011fumuz uluslararas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerce de g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n madde metnine d\u00e2hil edildi\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’ni (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) yorumlayan Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi, S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011fini belirtmektedir (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2014\/13156, 20\/4\/2017, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
25. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcne ta\u015f\u0131yabilmek ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n etkili bir \u015fekilde karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilmek anlam\u0131na gelmektedir (\u00d6zkan \u015een, B. No: 2012\/791, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
26. Ba\u015fvuruya konu davada, s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle ret karar\u0131 verilmek suretiyle davan\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmemesinin ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
ii. M\u00fcdahalenin \u0130hlal Olu\u015fturup Olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
27. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n ”Temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetlerin s\u0131n\u0131rlanmas\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 13. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201cTemel 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
28. Yukar\u0131da an\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinde belirtilen ko\u015fullara uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 m\u00fcddet\u00e7e Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinin ihlalini te\u015fkil edecektir. Bu sebeple m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ve somut ba\u015fvuruya uygun d\u00fc\u015fen, kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme, hakl\u0131 bir sebebe dayanma, \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmama ko\u015fullar\u0131na uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
29. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan ret karar\u0131 verilmek suretiyle davan\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmemesiyle ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fimine getirilen s\u0131n\u0131rlaman\u0131n kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131lay\u0131p kar\u015f\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
\u00a0(1) Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
30. Hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin, bunlara yap\u0131lacak m\u00fcdahalelerin ve s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rmalar\u0131n kanunla d\u00fczenlenmesi bu haklara ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere keyf\u00ee m\u00fcdahaleyi engelleyen, hukuk g\u00fcvenli\u011fini sa\u011flayan demokratik hukuk devletinin en \u00f6nemli unsurlar\u0131ndan biridir (Tahsin Erdo\u011fan, B. No: 2012\/1246, 6\/2\/2014, \u00a7 60). M\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131 \u00f6ncelikle \u015fekl\u00ee manada bir kanunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 zorunlu k\u0131lar. T\u00fcrkiye B\u00fcy\u00fck Millet Meclisi taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan \u015fekl\u00ee anlamda bir kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmamas\u0131 hakka yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyi anayasal temelden yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131r (Ali H\u0131d\u0131r Akyol ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2015\/17510, 18\/10\/2017, \u00a7 56).<\/p>\n
31. Kanunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kadar kanun metninin ve uygulamas\u0131n\u0131n da bireylerin davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n sonucunu \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilece\u011fi kadar hukuki belirlilik ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131 gerekir (Necmiye \u00c7ift\u00e7i ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/1301, 30\/12\/2014, \u00a7 55). M\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131, i\u00e7 hukukta m\u00fcdahaleye ili\u015fkin yeterince ula\u015f\u0131labilir ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir kurallar\u0131n bulunmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirmektedir (T\u00fcrkiye \u0130\u015f Bankas\u0131 A.\u015e. [GK], B. No: 2014\/6192, 12\/11\/2014, \u00a7 44). Kanunilik unsuru y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131l\u0131rken yarg\u0131 mercilerince m\u00fcdahaleye imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin yorumu ve bu h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin olaya uygulanmas\u0131 bariz takdir hatas\u0131 ya da a\u00e7\u0131k keyf\u00eelik i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi s\u00fcrece bu alanda bir inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvurunun amac\u0131yla ba\u011fda\u015fmaz. Ancak yarg\u0131 mercilerinin m\u00fcdahaleye imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131k bir bi\u00e7imde hatal\u0131 yorumlad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n ve uygulad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n tespiti h\u00e2linde m\u00fcdahalenin kanunilik temelinden yoksun oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131labilir (Ramazan Atay, B. No: 2017\/26048, 29\/1\/2020, \u00a7 29).<\/p>\n
\u00a0(2) \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/p>\n
32. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu; askerlik hizmetini yaparken ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 e\u011fitim s\u0131ras\u0131nda sakatlanmas\u0131 nedeniyle 1.000 TL maddi, 10.000 TL manevi tazminat talebiyle dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f ve bu dava s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
33. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ba\u015fvuruya konu dava tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan 3. maddesinde, her t\u00fcrl\u00fc idari eylem ve i\u015flemler ile idarenin sorumlu oldu\u011fu v\u00fccut b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne, \u00f6l\u00fcme ba\u011fl\u0131 maddi ve manevi zararlar\u0131n tazminine ili\u015fkin davalarda asliye hukuk mahkemelerinin g\u00f6revli oldu\u011fu d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
34. S\u00f6z konusu kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcyle ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak da 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 55. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda an\u0131lan konuya ili\u015fkin olarak (bkz. \u00a7 17) a\u00e7\u0131lacak maddi ve manevi tazminat davalar\u0131nda 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin uygulanaca\u011f\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
35. 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’daki zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcrelerine bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ise 72. maddede, zarar g\u00f6renin zarar\u0131 ve tazminat y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fc \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fi tarihten ba\u015flayarak 2 y\u0131l ve her h\u00e2lde fiilin i\u015flendi\u011fi tarihten ba\u015flayarak 10y\u0131l oldu\u011fu kanun koyucu taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
36. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olay, askerlik hizmeti yerine getirilirken meydana geldi\u011finden idari eylem veya i\u015flemden kaynaklan bir durum oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Mevcut yasal d\u00fczenlemelere g\u00f6re idari yarg\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6rev alan\u0131na giren bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k olsa da zarar\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi tarihte (2\/2\/2011 tarihli “Askerli\u011fe elveri\u015fli de\u011fildir.” raporu ya da en ge\u00e7 terhis tarihi olan 16\/6\/2011’de) an\u0131lan uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar i\u00e7in g\u00f6revli mahkeme asliye hukuk mahkemeleridir. Nitekim ba\u015fvurucu da Ankara 18. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde davas\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
37. Anayasa Mahkemesince 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 3. maddesinin iptal edilmesiyle g\u00f6revli yarg\u0131 yeri tekrar idare mahkemeleri olmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvuruya konu olay, askerlik hizmeti s\u0131ras\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011finden AY\u0130M’in g\u00f6rev alan\u0131na girmi\u015f; asker\u00ee mahkemelerin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131yla dosya nihai olarak Manisa 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesince incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
38. Manisa 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesi ise zarar\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi tarihte g\u00f6revli yarg\u0131 yerinin asliye hukuk mahkemeleri oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015f ve nitekim dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresini hesaplarken de zarar\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi tarih ile Ankara 18. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n tarihini dikkate alarak de\u011ferlendirme yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu k\u0131sma kadar yap\u0131lan incelemede bir teredd\u00fct bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Fakat de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131l\u0131rken dava tarihinde g\u00f6revli yarg\u0131 yerinin asliye hukuk mahkemeleri oldu\u011fu vurgulanm\u0131\u015fken neden dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin hesaplanmas\u0131nda 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu’nda belirtilen s\u00fcrelerin dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kald\u0131 ki 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a g\u00f6re de de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olsa da ba\u015fvurucu terhis edilmesini dava konusu etmemi\u015f, yaralanma nedeniyle tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu durumda idari eylem ve ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan zarar ile aralar\u0131ndaki illiyet ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihten itibaren bir y\u0131l i\u00e7inde dava a\u00e7\u0131l\u0131p a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekirken altm\u0131\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde dava a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan dava s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmi\u015ftir. Nitekim zarar\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi tarih itibar\u0131yla asliye hukuk mahkemelerinde an\u0131lan dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin 2 ve 10 y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresine tabi oldu\u011fu 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
39. A\u00e7\u0131klanan hususlar dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda zarar\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi tarihte g\u00f6revli yarg\u0131 yerinin asliye hukuk mahkemesi oldu\u011fu, dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin de 2 ve 10 y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na tabi oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131k olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen ba\u015fvuruya konu davada \u0130dare Mahkemesinin 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da belirtilen s\u00fcreleri dikkate alarak davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddine ili\u015fkin de\u011ferlendirmesinin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemez nitelikte oldu\u011fu, bu \u015fekilde karar verilmek suretiyle ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fimine yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanunilik unsurunu ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
40. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
41. Ba\u015fvurucu davan\u0131n reddedilmesi nedeniyle tazminat alamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia ederek m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015fse de mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar vermekle bu \u015fik\u00e2yetin ayr\u0131ca incelenmesine gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B. Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
42. Ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesinden \u015fik\u00e2yet etmektedir.<\/p>\n
43. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olay ve olgular\u0131 somut ba\u015fvuru ile benzer nitelikte olan Veysi Ado ([GK], B. No: 2022\/100837, 27\/4\/2023) karar\u0131nda uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede Anayasa Mahkemesi 9\/1\/2013 tarihli ve 6384 say\u0131l\u0131 Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesine Yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Baz\u0131 Ba\u015fvurular\u0131n Tazminat \u00d6denmek Suretiyle \u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne Dair Kanun’un ge\u00e7ici 2. maddesinde 28\/3\/2023 tarihli ve 7445 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 40. maddesi ile yap\u0131lan de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fe g\u00f6re 9\/3\/2023 tarihi (bu tarih d\u00e2hil) itibar\u0131yla derdest olan, yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddialar\u0131yla yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurulara ili\u015fkin olarak Tazminat Komisyonuna ba\u015fvuru yolu t\u00fcketilmeden yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun incelenmesinin bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincil niteli\u011fi ile ba\u011fda\u015fmayaca\u011f\u0131 neticesine varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Somut ba\u015fvuruda da an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
44. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VI. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
45. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ile 50.000 TL manevi tazminata karar verilmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
46. 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 mahkemece 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
47. \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
VII. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Manisa 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2018\/1183, K.2019\/488) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 364,60 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.364,60 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \u00d6demelerin 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, \u00a0<\/p>\n
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 24\/10\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 24\/10\/2024 tarihli ve 2019\/38607 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 TUNCAY \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/38607) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 24\/10\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 7\/3\/2025 – 32834 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : Tu\u011fba YILDIZ Ba\u015fvurucu : Tuncay \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK Vekili : Av. B\u00fclent \u0130LG\u00dc \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru; idari eylemden do\u011fan zarar\u0131n tazmini istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n, davan\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle de makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 27\/11\/2019 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. 4. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 5. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir: 6. Ba\u015fvurucu, zorunlu askerlik hizmetini yapmak \u00fczere 9\/3\/2010 tarihinde 1. Piyade E\u011fitim Tugay Komutanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Manisa) emrine sevk edilmi\u015ftir. 7. 9\/3\/2010 tarihli askerlik muayenesinde G\u00fclhane Asker\u00ee T\u0131p Akademisi (GATA) Haydarpa\u015fa E\u011fitim Hastanesi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen raporda, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda eski sol kal\u00e7a k\u0131r\u0131\u011f\u0131, eklem hareketleri tam oldu\u011fundan “Ortopedik a\u00e7\u0131dan askerli\u011fe elveri\u015flidir. Komando olamaz.” …<\/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-34993","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n