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
N. D. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/2616)<\/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
Ay\u015fenur TUNCER<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Mustafa Berk ULU\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, e\u015f durumu mazeret kuras\u0131na d\u00e2hil edilmeyerek atamas\u0131 yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucunun aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Doktor olan ba\u015fvurucu, uzmanl\u0131k e\u011fitimini bitirdikten sonra zorunlu hizmet y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kapsam\u0131nda atamaya tabi tutulmu\u015ftur. Bu atama d\u00f6neminde ba\u015fvurucu, devlet hizmeti y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc mazeret durumu (e\u015f ve sa\u011fl\u0131k) kuras\u0131 \u00f6n ba\u015fvuru formuyla e\u015finin s\u00f6zle\u015fmeli personel oldu\u011funu bildirerek e\u015f durumundan Kocaeli il merkezine ve il\u00e7elerine tayin talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
3. An\u0131lan talep, internet \u00fczerinden yap\u0131lan ilan arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla reddedilmi\u015ftir. Akabinde ba\u015fvurucunun atamas\u0131 Mardin’e yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. Bunun \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu, e\u015f durumu mazeret kuras\u0131 ba\u015fvurusunun reddi i\u015fleminin iptali i\u00e7in Kocaeli 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dava dilek\u00e7esinde; ba\u015fvurucunun e\u015finin 27\/5\/2019 tarihinden itibaren s\u00f6zle\u015fmeli personel olarak Kur’an kursu \u00f6\u011freticili\u011fine ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131, Kocaeli’nin Kartepe il\u00e7esinde g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, mevzuatta s\u00f6zle\u015fmeli personelin \u00fc\u00e7 y\u0131l s\u00fcreyle ba\u015fka bir yere atanamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi, ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucunun e\u015finin il d\u0131\u015f\u0131na naklen atanmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Sonu\u00e7 olarak ba\u015fvurucu, aile birli\u011finin sa\u011flanabilmesi i\u00e7in e\u015f durumu mazeret kuras\u0131na d\u00e2hil edilmesi gerekti\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Mahkeme; ba\u015fvurucunun e\u015finin s\u00f6zle\u015fmeli olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00fc\u00e7 y\u0131ll\u0131k \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma s\u00fcresini tamamlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fka bir ile atanamayaca\u011f\u0131, bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucunun e\u015f durumu atama talebinin 26\/3\/2013 tarihli ve 28599 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazetede yay\u0131mlanan Sa\u011fl\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve Ba\u011fl\u0131 Kurulu\u015flar\u0131 Atama ve Yer De\u011fi\u015ftirme Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fi’nin (Y\u00f6netmelik) 20. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle dava konusu i\u015flemin iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. An\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 Sa\u011fl\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131, istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. \u0130stinaf dilek\u00e7esinde, Diyanet \u0130\u015fleri Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile Sa\u011fl\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 aras\u0131nda atamalara ili\u015fkin bir protokol bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanarak ba\u015fvurucunun uzman doktor ve e\u015finin Kur’an kursu \u00f6\u011freticisi olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda sa\u011fl\u0131k hizmetinin niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi kamu menfaatinin \u00f6n planda tutulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca Anayasa Mahkemesinin i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131nda da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere ba\u015fvurucunun mesle\u011fe girerken zorunlu hizmetten haberdar oldu\u011fu, kamu g\u00f6revlisi olman\u0131n ki\u015fiye birtak\u0131m k\u00fclfetler y\u00fckledi\u011fi, zorunlu hizmet s\u00fcresi boyunca aile birlikteli\u011finin sa\u011flanamamas\u0131n\u0131n hak ihlali olu\u015fturmayaca\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 1. \u0130dare Dava Dairesi (B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi) 19\/11\/2020 tarihinde Sa\u011fl\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun kabul\u00fcne karar vermi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131nda zorunlu g\u00f6rev kapsam\u0131nda, e\u015f durumu mazeretine dayal\u0131 atanma talebinin reddi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde kurulan i\u015flemin ba\u015fvurucunun aile hayat\u0131na etkisi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00e7ekilmez bir a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131k ve yo\u011funluk derecesine ula\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, zorunlu g\u00f6rev s\u00fcresinin bitiminde aile birli\u011finin tekrar sa\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclmekte olan davaya konu i\u015flemin mevzuata, kamu yarar\u0131na ve hukuka uygun oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00f6ylelikle hukuka uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine var\u0131lan mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle davan\u0131n reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 8\/12\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 6\/1\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
9. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu, e\u015finin 27\/5\/2019 tarihinde T.C. Cumhurba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Diyanet \u0130\u015fleri Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kartepe M\u00fcft\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ba\u011fl\u0131 Kur\u2019an kursu \u00f6\u011freticisi \u00fcnvan\u0131yla i\u015fe ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve \u00fc\u00e7 y\u0131ll\u0131k g\u00f6rev s\u00fcresi dolmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan mevzuat gere\u011fi il d\u0131\u015f\u0131na naklen atanmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek e\u015f mazeret kuras\u0131na d\u00e2hil edilmemesi nedeniyle ailenin korunmas\u0131 hakk\u0131 ile \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ayr\u0131ca konular\u0131 ayn\u0131 olan davalar hakk\u0131nda farkl\u0131 kararlar\u0131n verilmesi nedeniyle e\u015fitlik ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011finden de yak\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
11. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; ba\u015fvuruya konu idari i\u015flemin hukuka uygunlu\u011funun kapsaml\u0131 olarak de\u011ferlendirildi\u011fi, kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu, ba\u015fvurucunun aile hayat\u0131na y\u00f6nelik s\u00f6z konusu m\u00fcdahalenin kamu d\u00fczeninin korunmas\u0131 ve kamu hizmetinin gere\u011fi gibi y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesinin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 amac\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131, b\u00f6ylelikle me\u015fru amac\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu, stratejik personel olarak devlet hizmeti g\u00f6revi kapsam\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun e\u015f mazereti talebinin reddi ile yap\u0131lan ataman\u0131n ba\u015fvurucunun aile ya\u015fam\u0131na etkisi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00e7ekilmez bir a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131k ve yo\u011funluk derecesine ula\u015f\u0131p ula\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvuru aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. 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 ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
14. Aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 20. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 41. maddesinin ise Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcnselli\u011fi ilkesi gere\u011fi, aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerin de\u011ferlendirilmesi ba\u011flam\u0131nda g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmas\u0131 gerekmektedir (Murat At\u0131lgan, B. No: 2013\/9047, 7\/5\/2015, \u00a7 22; Marcus Frank Cerny [GK], B. No: 2013\/5126, 2\/7\/2015, \u00a7 36).<\/p>\n
15. \u00d6te yandan \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131na kamu g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn i\u015flem, eylem veya ihmali nedeniyle bir m\u00fcdahalenin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilirse bu m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13., 20. ve 41. maddelerinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen \u015fartlara uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmelidir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede m\u00fcdahalenin hukuki dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve me\u015fru bir amac\u0131n\u0131n olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc ve demokratik bir toplumda gerekli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususlar\u0131n\u0131n tart\u0131\u015f\u0131larak ihlal iddias\u0131 hakk\u0131nda bir sonuca var\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekir (Salih Karako\u00e7, B. No: 2013\/2954, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
16. Ba\u015fvurucunun e\u015f mazeret kuras\u0131 kapsam\u0131na al\u0131nmay\u0131p e\u015fi Kocaeli’nde ya\u015farken hakk\u0131nda Mardin’e atama i\u015flemi tesis edilmesiyle kamusal bir makam taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131na bir m\u00fcdahalede bulunuldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmektedir.<\/p>\n
17. Somut olaya konu olan m\u00fcdahalenin 7\/5\/1987 tarihli ve 3359 say\u0131l\u0131 Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hizmetleri Temel Kanunu ile Y\u00f6netmelik’in stratejik personele ve devlet hizmeti y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmleri dayanak al\u0131narak ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131 bulunmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. Bunun yan\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun aile hayat\u0131na s\u00f6z konusu m\u00fcdahalenin kamu d\u00fczeninin korunmas\u0131 ve kamu hizmetinin gere\u011fi gibi y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesinin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 amac\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131, bunun da Anayasa’n\u0131n 5. ve 20. maddeleri \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde me\u015fru bir ama\u00e7 oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (benzer y\u00f6ndeki de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. Raziye Ko\u00e7a\u015f, B. No: 2014\/16794, 12\/1\/2017, \u00a7 42).<\/p>\n
19. Bundan sonra m\u00fcdahalenin temelini olu\u015fturan me\u015fru ama\u00e7 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, bireye d\u00fc\u015fen fedak\u00e2rl\u0131\u011f\u0131n a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmas\u0131 gerekmektedir. Bu noktada kamu hizmetlerinin s\u00fcreklili\u011fi ve d\u00fczenlili\u011fi ilkesi ile kamu g\u00f6revlilerinin \u00f6zel hayat\u0131 ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 haklar\u0131 aras\u0131nda adil bir dengenin g\u00f6zetilmesi gerekir (Z.K., B. No: 2015\/1550, 26\/12\/2018, \u00a7 23; Raziye Ko\u00e7a\u015f, \u00a7 43).<\/p>\n
20. Ki\u015finin kamu g\u00f6revlisi olmas\u0131, kendisine sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 birtak\u0131m ayr\u0131cal\u0131klar ve avantajlar\u0131n yan\u0131nda birtak\u0131m k\u00fclfet ve sorumluluklara katlanmay\u0131, di\u011fer ki\u015filerin tabi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 birtak\u0131m s\u0131n\u0131rlamalara tabi olmay\u0131 gerektirmektedir. Ki\u015fi, kamu g\u00f6revine kendi iste\u011fi ile girmekle bu stat\u00fcn\u00fcn gerektirdi\u011fi ayr\u0131cal\u0131klardan yararlanmay\u0131 ve k\u00fclfetlere katlanmay\u0131 kabul etmi\u015f say\u0131lmakta olup kamu hizmetinin kendine has \u00f6zellikleri, bu avantaj ve s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar\u0131 zorunlu k\u0131lmaktad\u0131r (\u0130hsan Asutay, B. No: 2012\/606, 20\/2\/2014, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
21. Kamu hizmetlerinin s\u00fcreklili\u011fini ve aksamadan y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesini temin etmek idarenin anayasal y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerindendir. \u0130darenin bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ifa etmek amac\u0131yla kamu g\u00f6revlilerinin \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 yer ve alanlar\u0131n de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesine ili\u015fkin tasarruflarda bulunmas\u0131 tabiidir. Bu a\u00e7\u0131dan -kamu hizmetleri y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcl\u00fcrken- baz\u0131 alanlarda ve yerlerde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan personel ihtiyac\u0131n\u0131n giderilmesi veya hizmetin daha iyi y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesinin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla kamu g\u00f6revlilerinin g\u00f6rev yerinin de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesi hususunda idarenin takdir yetkisinin oldu\u011fu kabul edilmelidir. Bununla birlikte kamu g\u00f6revlilerinin g\u00f6rev yerlerinin de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesindeki takdir yetkisi kullan\u0131l\u0131rken Anayasa’n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n devlete y\u00fckledi\u011fi pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler de dikkate al\u0131nmal\u0131, g\u00f6rev yeri de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fine tabi tutulan kamu g\u00f6revlisinin menfaatleri ile idarenin ihtiya\u00e7lar\u0131 aras\u0131nda makul bir denge g\u00f6zetilmelidir. Bu dengenin kurulup kurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n denetiminde yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131n\u0131n ortaya koydu\u011fu gerek\u00e7eler b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131maktad\u0131r (Nurbani Fikri, B. No: 2014\/2502, 11\/10\/2018, \u00a7 53).<\/p>\n
22. Bu ba\u011flamda pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler kapsam\u0131nda, kamu g\u00f6revlilerinin atanmas\u0131 veya nakil i\u015flemlerinde g\u00f6zetilen kamusal yarar ile bireyin aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131ndan yararlanmas\u0131ndaki bireysel \u00e7\u0131kar aras\u0131nda makul bir dengenin kurulmas\u0131 gereklidir. Elbette ki her atama veya g\u00f6revlendirme i\u015fleminde olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6zetilmesi gerekir. Ancak devletin s\u00f6z konusu dengeyi sa\u011flayamamas\u0131 durumunda aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fcn zedelenebilece\u011fi g\u00f6zden ka\u00e7\u0131r\u0131lmamal\u0131d\u0131r (Nurbani Fikri, \u00a7 48). Ancak atama i\u015flemlerinde, aile birlikteli\u011fini bozmayacak ya da birlikteli\u011fin s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclebilmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde ki\u015filere a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklemeyecek \u015fekilde hareket edilmesi gerekir (Ay\u015fe Nort\u00e7u, B. No: 2019\/39998, 8\/12\/2022, \u00a7 30).<\/p>\n
23. B\u00f6ylece yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131nca yap\u0131lacak de\u011ferlendirmede \u00f6ncelikle bireye d\u00fc\u015fen fedak\u00e2rl\u0131\u011f\u0131n a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmas\u0131 ve g\u00f6zetilen kamu yarar\u0131n\u0131n gerekleri ile bireyin temel hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 aras\u0131nda adil bir dengenin kurulup kurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi gerekti\u011fi vurgulanmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bu kapsamda somut olayda, e\u015f durumundan mazeret kuras\u0131na d\u00e2hil edilmeme i\u015fleminin ba\u015fvurucunun aile hayat\u0131 \u00fczerinde meydana getirdi\u011fi olumsuz etkiler ile kamu hizmetinin etkin sunulmas\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda kamu d\u00fczeninin ve ba\u015fkalar\u0131n\u0131n hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerinin korunmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik genel yarar aras\u0131nda adil bir bir dengenin g\u00f6zetilip g\u00f6zetilmedi\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmelidir (benzer y\u00f6ndeki de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. Nurbani Fikri, \u00a7 55).<\/p>\n
24. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda uzmanl\u0131k e\u011fitimini tamamlam\u0131\u015f bir doktor olan ba\u015fvurucunun zorunlu hizmet y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bulundu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bu zorunlu hizmet y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kapsam\u0131ndaki atamada ba\u015fvurucu; e\u015finin ba\u015fka ile naklen atanmas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre \u015fart\u0131 nedeniyle m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6stererek e\u015f durumu mazeret kuras\u0131na d\u00e2hil edilmeyi talep etmi\u015ftir. Bu talebin reddedilmesi \u00fczerine a\u00e7\u0131lan iptal davas\u0131nda \u0130dare Mahkemesi ba\u015fvurucunun e\u015finin s\u00f6zle\u015fmeli olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve s\u00fcre \u015fart\u0131 nedeniyle ba\u015fka bir ile atanamayaca\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle i\u015flemin iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi ise an\u0131lan i\u015flemin iptali karar\u0131n\u0131n hukuka uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesinin karar\u0131nda e\u015f durumu mazeretine dayal\u0131 atanma talebinin reddi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde kurulan i\u015flemin ba\u015fvurucunun aile hayat\u0131na etkisi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00e7ekilmez bir a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131k ve yo\u011funluk derecesine ula\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve zorunlu g\u00f6rev s\u00fcresinin bitiminde aile birli\u011finin tekrar sa\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/p>\n
25. E\u015f durumu mazeretine ba\u011fl\u0131 atama taleplerinde devletin bir yandan kamu hizmetinin devaml\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flama di\u011fer yandan aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc oldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenebilir. Bu ba\u011flamda atama taleplerinde kamu hizmetinin devaml\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flama y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc\/amac\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda g\u00f6revin \u00f6neminin ve niteli\u011finin g\u00f6zetilmesi ola\u011fand\u0131r. Bununla birlikte devletin aile birlikteli\u011fini sa\u011flama \u015feklinde pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc oldu\u011fu da g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde karar makamlar\u0131n\u0131n bu kapsamda kamusal yarar ile bireysel yarar aras\u0131nda adil bir denge kuruldu\u011funu yeterli gerek\u00e7eyle ortaya koymalar\u0131 beklenir.<\/p>\n
26. Somut olayda e\u015f durumundan mazeret kuras\u0131na d\u00e2hil edilme talebinin reddinde doktorluk mesle\u011finin niteli\u011fi ile zorunlu hizmetin kamu hizmetinin devaml\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamadaki \u00f6nemine vurgu yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bunun yan\u0131nda kararlarda kamu hizmetlerinin s\u00fcreklili\u011fi \u00f6nc\u00fclenirken ba\u015fvurucunun e\u015finin tayin olabilmesi i\u00e7in gerekli \u015fartlar\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki mazeretine y\u00f6nelik olarak hi\u00e7bir de\u011ferlendirme, a\u00e7\u0131klama ve tart\u0131\u015fmada bulunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Bu durumda ba\u015fvurucunun talebinin reddine ili\u015fkin kararlarda ba\u015fvurucunun aile hayat\u0131na ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131 da g\u00f6zetilerek kamusal yarar ile bireysel yarar aras\u0131nda adil bir denge kuruldu\u011funun ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7eyle ortaya konuldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenemez.<\/p>\n
27. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR ve Metin KIRATLI bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
28. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti, ihlalin t\u00fcm sonu\u00e7lar\u0131yla giderilmesi ile 500.000 TL maddi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
29. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen anayasal hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar ve zorunluluk bulunmaktad\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n 148. ve 153. maddeleri ile 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. ve 66. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flat\u0131p Anayasa Mahkemesinin ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere ve gerek\u00e7elere uygun bi\u00e7imde y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclecek yarg\u0131lama sonunda hak ihlalinin nedenlerini gidererek yeni bir karar vermektir (yeniden yarg\u0131lama konusunda bkz. Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2), B. No: 2016\/12506, 7\/11\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 53-60, 66; Kadri Enis Berbero\u011flu (3) [GK], B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n
30. \u00d6te yandan hak ihlali karar\u0131ndan Anayasa Mahkemesinin davan\u0131n sonucuyla ilgili olarak bir tutum sergiledi\u011fi sonucu \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmamal\u0131d\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesince verilen hak ihlali karar\u0131 uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sonu\u00e7lar\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olup davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, reddine ya da beraate veya mahk\u00fbmiyete karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi anlam\u0131na gelmemektedir. Kural olarak, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n her a\u015famas\u0131nda oldu\u011fu gibi ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 gidermek \u00fczere yeniden yap\u0131lacak yarg\u0131lama sonunda da delillerin dava ile ili\u015fkisini kurma ve bunlar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirip sonu\u00e7 \u00e7\u0131karma yetkisi ilgili mahkemelere aittir.<\/p>\n
31. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucu, maddi zarara ili\u015fkin olarak bilgi\/belge sunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan maddi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR ve Metin KIRATLI’n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 1. \u0130dari Dava Dairesine iletilmek \u00fczere (E.2020\/1267, K.2020\/1558) Kocaeli 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2019\/1207, K.2020\/492) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 487,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.487,90 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,<\/p>\n
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 11\/12\/2024 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu, e\u015f durumu mazeret kuras\u0131na dahil edilmeyerek atama yap\u0131lmamas\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa\u2019da g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 ile e\u015fitlik ilkelerini ihlal etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f, Say\u0131n Mahkemece, \u00e7o\u011funluk taraf\u0131ndan Ba\u015fvurucunun hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. A\u015fa\u011f\u0131da belirtti\u011fimiz gerek\u00e7eler ile \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lm\u0131yoruz.<\/p>\n
\u015e\u00f6yle ki;<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu t\u0131p doktoru olup, uzmanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bitirdikten sonra zorunlu atamaya tabi tutulmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu, e\u015finin Kocaeli Kartepe \u0130l\u00e7esinde Kur\u2019an Kursu \u00f6\u011freticisi oldu\u011funu, \u00fc\u00e7 y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00f6zle\u015fme s\u00fcresini bitirmedi\u011fini bu nedenle il d\u0131\u015f\u0131na tayininin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek Kocaeli s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7erisinde bir yere atama talebinde bulunmu\u015f, ancak bu talebi yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmeyerek Mardin\u2019e atanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130dare Mahkemesinde a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 dava yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclerek i\u015flem iptal edilmi\u015f ise de istinaf incelemesi yapan B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan yerel mahkeme karar\u0131 kald\u0131r\u0131larak davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Bunun \u00fczerine Ba\u015fvurucu Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019ne bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 20. maddesinde herkesin \u00f6zel hayat\u0131na ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterilmesini isteme hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu, \u00f6zel hayat\u0131n ve aile hayat\u0131n\u0131n gizlili\u011fine dokunulamayaca\u011f\u0131 d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa\u2019ya uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirlenirken, m\u00fcdahalenin hukuki dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve me\u015fru bir amac\u0131n\u0131n olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, yine \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc ve demokratik bir toplumda gerekli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususlar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir. Ba\u015fvurucu\u2019ya ili\u015fkin atama i\u015fleminin dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 3359 say\u0131l\u0131 Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hizmetleri Temel Kanunu ve bu Kanun uyar\u0131nca \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan Sa\u011fl\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Atama ve Yer De\u011fi\u015ftirme Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fi olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r. 3359 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun ek 3. maddesinde ilgili mevzuata g\u00f6re yurt i\u00e7inde veya yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda \u00f6\u011frenimlerini tamamlayarak tabip, uzman tabip ve yan dal uzmanl\u0131k e\u011fitimini tamamlayarak uzman tabip unvan\u0131n\u0131 kazananlar\u0131n her e\u011fitimleri i\u00e7in ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 olmak kayd\u0131 ile Devlet Planlama Te\u015fkilat\u0131 M\u00fcste\u015farl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan \u0130l\u00e7elerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Geli\u015fmi\u015flik S\u0131ralamas\u0131nda yer alan grup il\u00e7elerde Kanunda belirtilen g\u00fcn say\u0131s\u0131 kadar, sa\u011fl\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya Sa\u011fl\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nca uygun g\u00f6r\u00fclen Milli Savunma Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve di\u011fer kurulu\u015flarda Devlet memuru olarak Devlet hizmeti yapmakla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc oldu\u011fu d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Yine Kanunun ek-4. maddesinde t\u0131p fak\u00fclteleri dekanl\u0131klar\u0131 ve e\u011fitim hastaneleri ba\u015ftabiplikleri mezun olan veya uzmanl\u0131k ve yan dal uzmanl\u0131k \u00f6\u011frenimini tamamlayan tabip ve uzman tabiplerin isim ve adreslerini onbe\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde Sa\u011fl\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na bildirmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc oldu\u011fu, diploma ve uzmanl\u0131k belgelerinin Sa\u011fl\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nca tescil i\u015flemlerini m\u00fcteakip en ge\u00e7 iki ay i\u00e7erisinde, Devlet hizmeti y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc olan personelin atama yerleri ve atama i\u015flemine ili\u015fkin s\u00fcre\u00e7 internet sayfas\u0131nda il\u00e2n edilece\u011fi, bu il\u00e2n\u0131n tebligat yerine ge\u00e7ece\u011fi, e\u015f durumu ve sa\u011fl\u0131k mazereti nedeniyle yap\u0131lacak atamalar hari\u00e7 personelin g\u00f6rev yerleri, tercih hakk\u0131 verilmek sureti ile kurayla belirlenece\u011fi, Kanunun ek-1. maddesinde ise,kuraya ili\u015fkin usul ve esaslar ile bunlar\u0131n Sa\u011fl\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndaki atamalar\u0131na ili\u015fkin usul ve esaslar\u0131n Sa\u011fl\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nca \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lacak y\u00f6netmelikle belirlenece\u011fi d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Atama ve Yer De\u011fi\u015ftirme Y\u00f6netmeli\u011finin 20. maddesinde aile birli\u011fi mazeretine dayal\u0131 yer de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f olup, s\u00f6z konusu maddenin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, e\u015flerin farkl\u0131 kamu kurum ve kurulu\u015flar\u0131nda kamu personeli olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 halinde varsa e\u015finin kurumuyla yap\u0131lan protokol h\u00fck\u00fcmleri uygulanaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015f, ayr\u0131ca e\u015fleri, mevzuat\u0131 uyar\u0131nca zorunlu yer de\u011fi\u015ftirmeye t\u00e2bi olan m\u00fclki idare amirli\u011fi, milli istihbarat, emniyet hizmetleri s\u0131n\u0131flar\u0131ndan birinde g\u00f6rev yapanlar ile h\u00e2kim, savc\u0131 veya T\u00fcrk Silahl\u0131 Kuvvetlerinde subay, astsubay, uzman jandarma, uzman erba\u015f veya uzman er olarak g\u00f6rev yapan personelin e\u015finin g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yere atamas\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Yine ayn\u0131 f\u0131krada 2547 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131nda kurulan Devlet \u00fcniversitelerinde \u00f6\u011fretim \u00fcyesi ve \u00f6\u011fretim g\u00f6revlisi olanlar ile vak\u0131f y\u00fcksek\u00f6\u011fretim kurumlar\u0131nda tam zamanl\u0131 profes\u00f6r ve do\u00e7ent olarak g\u00f6rev yapanlar\u0131n atamas\u0131 e\u015finin g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yere yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131, e\u015fi milletvekili, belediye ba\u015fkan\u0131, muhtar veya noter olanlar\u0131n e\u015flerinin bulundu\u011fu yere yer de\u011fi\u015ftirme suretiyle atamas\u0131 yap\u0131labilece\u011fi d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
G\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fczere t\u0131pta uzmanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bitiren Ba\u015fvurucunun devlet hizmet y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kapsam\u0131nda aile birli\u011fi mazeretinin kabul edilmeyerek zorunlu hizmet s\u00fcresince kura ile ba\u015fka bir yere atanmas\u0131n\u0131n yasal dayana\u011f\u0131 mevcuttur. 3359 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun uyar\u0131nca \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan Y\u00f6netmelik\u2019te Diyanet \u0130\u015fleri Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 personeli say\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, s\u00f6z konusu Kurum ile Sa\u011fl\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 aras\u0131nda protokolde mevcut de\u011fildir. Y\u00f6netmelik t\u0131pta uzmanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bitiren personeli stratejik personel olarak tan\u0131mlam\u0131\u015f olup, bu personel i\u00e7in, sa\u011fl\u0131k alan\u0131nda kamu hizmetinin \u00fclkenin her taraf\u0131na ula\u015fmas\u0131 amac\u0131 ile il\u00e7e gruplar\u0131na g\u00f6re de\u011fi\u015fen belirli s\u00fcrelerde zorunlu hizmet \u00f6ng\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Kamu hizmetinin gere\u011fi gibi y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesi ad\u0131na yap\u0131lan bu d\u00fczenlemenin me\u015fru bir amac\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fc gerekir.<\/p>\n
Kamu hizmetinin sa\u011fl\u0131kl\u0131 ve aksamadan y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesi ad\u0131na idarenin kamu g\u00f6revlilerinin \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 yer ve alanlar\u0131 de\u011fi\u015ftirmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olup bu hususta \u0130darenin takdir hakk\u0131 vard\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesi M\u00fcrsel Ulu\u00e7ay ba\u015fvurusunda (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/14045, K. Tarihi; 16.11.2023) \u201c31. Baz\u0131 kamu g\u00f6revlilerinin hizmetin niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi belirli aral\u0131klarla ba\u015fka yerlere atanmalar\u0131, baz\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n ise ba\u015fka yer veya kurumlara atanmamalar\u0131 zorunlu olabilece\u011fi, bu konuda idareye, belirli bir takdir alan\u0131 tan\u0131nmas\u0131 makul kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, ki\u015filerin birtak\u0131m mazeretler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ba\u015fka yere atanma konusunda talep haklar\u0131 var ise de atamaya ili\u015fkin mazeretlerini de\u011ferlendirip karara ba\u011flayacak olan idarenin kendi mevzuat\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ifa edilen kamu hizmetinin gerekleri, insan kaynaklar\u0131n\u0131n verimli kullan\u0131lmas\u0131, te\u015fkilat yap\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n elveri\u015flili\u011fi ve benzeri fakt\u00f6rleri dikkate almas\u0131 ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz oldu\u011fu, zira kamu hizmetinin sa\u011fl\u0131kl\u0131 ve kesintisiz bir \u015fekilde yerine getirilmesi i\u00e7in gerekli tedbirleri almak, ilgili idarenin \u00f6ncelikli g\u00f6revi ve sorumlulu\u011funda oldu\u011funu, (\u0130hsan Asutay, \u00a7 39; Raziye Ko\u00e7a\u015f, \u00a7 45)\u201d belirterek, idarenin kamu hizmetlerini y\u00fcr\u00fctmek ad\u0131na atama ve yer de\u011fi\u015ftirme hususunda sahip oldu\u011fu takdir hakk\u0131na vurgu yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u0130stinaf incelemesi yapan B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131nda da, atama talebinin reddine ili\u015fkin i\u015flemin Ba\u015fvurucunun aile hayat\u0131na etki bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00e7ekilmez olacak \u015fekilde a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131k ve yo\u011funlu\u011fa ula\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, zorunlu hizmet s\u00fcresinin tamamlanmas\u0131 sonras\u0131nda aile birli\u011finin tekrar kurulabilece\u011fine vurgu yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re, Ba\u015fvurucunun, aile birli\u011finin sa\u011flanmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik atama talebinin idare taraf\u0131ndan ilgili mevzuat \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde reddedilmesinin idarenin \u00fczerine d\u00fc\u015fen pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ihlal etmedi\u011fi, aile birli\u011finin korunmas\u0131 ile kamu hizmetinin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 aras\u0131nda adil bir denge kuruldu\u011fu, Ba\u015fvurucunun aile birli\u011finin korunmas\u0131 hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc oldu\u011fu ve demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerini kar\u015f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc gerekir.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucunun talebi Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n e\u015fitlik ilkesini d\u00fczenleyen 10. maddesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde e\u015fitlik ilkesinin ihlal edilmedi\u011fi kabul edilmelidir. Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00e7e\u015fitli kararlar\u0131nda Anayasa’n\u0131n 10. maddesinde yer verilen e\u015fitlik ilkesi ile eylemli de\u011fil, hukuksal e\u015fitlik \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, e\u015fitlik ilkesinin amac\u0131n\u0131n ayn\u0131 durumda bulunan ki\u015filerin kanunla ayn\u0131 i\u015fleme ba\u011fl\u0131 tutulmalar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamak ve ki\u015filere kanunlar kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda ayr\u0131m yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 ve ayr\u0131cal\u0131k tan\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nlemek oldu\u011funu, bu ilkeyle, ayn\u0131 durumda bulunan kimi ki\u015fi ve topluluklara ayr\u0131 kurallar uygulanarak kanun kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda e\u015fitli\u011fin ihlali yasakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Yine Anayasa Mahkemesi, Kanun \u00f6n\u00fcnde e\u015fitlik ilkesinin herkesin her y\u00f6nden ayn\u0131 kurallara ba\u011fl\u0131 tutulaca\u011f\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelmedi\u011fini, durum ve konumlardaki \u00f6zellikler nedeniyle kimi ki\u015filer ya da topluluklar\u0131n de\u011fi\u015fik kurallara ba\u011fl\u0131 tutulmas\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa’n\u0131n \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc e\u015fitlik ilkesini ihlal etmeyece\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. (Bkz. AYM, 2013\/23 E., 2013\/123 K., Tarih 31.10.2013, R.G.;15.03.2014-28942). Somut olay\u0131m\u0131zda da t\u0131pta uzmanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tamamlayan herkese ayn\u0131 kurallar\u0131n uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131, Y\u00f6netmelikte baz\u0131 meslek gruplar\u0131 i\u00e7in aile birli\u011fi mazereti kabul edilirken Ba\u015fvurucunun e\u015finin bu mesleklerde olmamas\u0131 nedeniyle mazeretinin kabul edilmemesinin durum ve konumlardaki \u00f6zelliklerden kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131, sonu\u00e7 olarak e\u015fitlik ilkesinin de ihlal edilmedi\u011finin kabul\u00fc gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
Bu nedenlerle Ba\u015fvurucunun e\u015fitlik ilkesi ya da aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 ihlal edilmedi\u011finden, aksi y\u00f6ndeki \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lm\u0131yoruz.<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 11\/12\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/2616 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 N. D. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/2616) \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 : Ay\u015fenur TUNCER Ba\u015fvurucu Vekili : Av. Mustafa Berk ULU\u00c7 \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, e\u015f durumu mazeret kuras\u0131na d\u00e2hil edilmeyerek atamas\u0131 yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucunun aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Doktor olan ba\u015fvurucu, uzmanl\u0131k e\u011fitimini bitirdikten sonra zorunlu hizmet y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kapsam\u0131nda atamaya tabi tutulmu\u015ftur. Bu atama d\u00f6neminde ba\u015fvurucu, devlet hizmeti y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc mazeret durumu (e\u015f ve sa\u011fl\u0131k) kuras\u0131 \u00f6n ba\u015fvuru formuyla e\u015finin s\u00f6zle\u015fmeli personel oldu\u011funu bildirerek e\u015f durumundan Kocaeli il merkezine ve il\u00e7elerine tayin talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. 3. An\u0131lan talep, internet \u00fczerinden yap\u0131lan ilan arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla reddedilmi\u015ftir. Akabinde ba\u015fvurucunun atamas\u0131 Mardin’e yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 4. Bunun \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu, e\u015f durumu mazeret kuras\u0131 ba\u015fvurusunun reddi i\u015fleminin iptali i\u00e7in Kocaeli 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dava dilek\u00e7esinde; ba\u015fvurucunun e\u015finin 27\/5\/2019 tarihinden itibaren s\u00f6zle\u015fmeli personel olarak Kur’an kursu \u00f6\u011freticili\u011fine ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131, Kocaeli’nin Kartepe il\u00e7esinde g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, mevzuatta s\u00f6zle\u015fmeli personelin \u00fc\u00e7 y\u0131l s\u00fcreyle ba\u015fka bir yere atanamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi, ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucunun e\u015finin il d\u0131\u015f\u0131na naklen atanmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36775","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n