T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
GENEL KURUL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
AL\u0130YE YE\u015e\u0130L VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU (7)<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/28016)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 23\/1\/2025<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 5\/5\/2025 – 32891<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
GENEL KURUL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Kadir \u00d6ZKAYA<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkanvekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkanvekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Recai AKYEL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/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
\u00d6zge ULUKAYA<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1. Aliye YE\u015e\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
2. Bozbeyli YE\u015e\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
3. Cihan YE\u015e\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
4. Engin YE\u015e\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
5. Haci YE\u015e\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
6. Kemal YE\u015e\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
7. Mehmet YE\u015e\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
8. Mehmet YE\u015e\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
9. Murat YE\u015e\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
10. Orhan YE\u015e\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
11. Seyyit Ahmet YE\u015e\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
12. Vahdettin YE\u015e\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
13. Ziya Yusuf YE\u015e\u0130L<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Ali \u0130smet G\u0130RG\u0130N<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck belirlenmesi 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 14\/8\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyon ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. \u0130kinci B\u00f6l\u00fcm ba\u015fvurunun Genel Kurul taraf\u0131ndan incelenmesine karar vermi\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. T\u00fcrkiye Petrolleri A.O. Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (\u0130dare) Diyarbak\u0131r’\u0131n Kayap\u0131nar il\u00e7esi Devedura\u011f\u0131 k\u00f6y\u00fcnde olup ba\u015fvuruculara ait olan 16 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 609.125 m\u00b2 y\u00fcz \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcml\u00fc ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 47.535,42 m\u00b2lik k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n petrol \u00fcretim faaliyetlerinin y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesi amac\u0131yla acele kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Acele kamula\u015ft\u0131rma karar\u0131 sonras\u0131nda \u0130darenin ba\u015fvurusu \u00fczerine Diyarbak\u0131r 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan 16\/5\/2009 tarihinde al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporu do\u011frultusunda kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011feri 1.275.375,32 TL olarak tespit edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. \u0130dare, uzla\u015fman\u0131n sa\u011flanamamas\u0131 \u00fczerine 15\/3\/2011 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucular aleyhine Diyarbak\u0131r 3. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedel tespiti ve tescil davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Mahkemece 19\/10\/2011 tarihinde ke\u015fif yap\u0131larak bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131 al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f, 14\/2\/2012 tarihli ek bilirki\u015fi raporunda kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli 1.552.069,49 TL olarak tespit edilmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan raporda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sulu tar\u0131m arazisi niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015f; bu\u011fday, m\u0131s\u0131r, pamuk m\u00fcnavebesi dikkate al\u0131narak hesaplama yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ta\u015f\u0131nmazda ileri sulama tekni\u011fi olan damlaman\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle \u00fcr\u00fcnlerde verim art\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n, maliyetlerde ise d\u00fc\u015f\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn ya\u015fand\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Pamuk kg\/birim fiyat\u0131n\u0131n Diyarbak\u0131r Ticaret Borsas\u0131ndan al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu\u011fday kg\/birim fiyat\u0131n\u0131n Toprak Mahsulleri Ofisi (TMO) \u015eube M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden, silajl\u0131k m\u0131s\u0131r bitkisinin kg\/birim fiyat\u0131n\u0131n ise piyasada yap\u0131lan ara\u015ft\u0131rma sonucunda tespit edildi\u011fi beyan edilmi\u015ftir. Ek bilirki\u015fi raporunda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n merkeze uzakl\u0131\u011f\u0131, topo\u011frafik \u015fekli, \u00e7ok say\u0131da \u00fcr\u00fcn yeti\u015fmeye uygun toprak yap\u0131s\u0131, sulanma \u015fartlar\u0131 ve ta\u015f\u0131nmazda damlama sulama sistemi kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 dikkate al\u0131narak kapitalizasyon faiz oran\u0131n\u0131n %5 olarak tespit edildi\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n makineli tar\u0131ma uygun olu\u015fu, ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ya\u011f\u0131\u015f miktar\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmazda yeti\u015ftirilen \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin maliyet durumu, ayr\u0131ca ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n toprak verimlili\u011fi ve e\u011fimi ile k\u00f6y yoluna, \u015fehirleraras\u0131 ana yola ve organize sanayi b\u00f6lgesine yak\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131 sebebiyle %38 oran\u0131nda objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131 uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Mahkeme 23\/2\/2012 tarihinde \u0130dareye 141.731,61 TL bedeli bloke etmek \u00fczere s\u00fcre vermi\u015ftir. Bu bedelin depo edilmesi \u00fczerine Mahkeme 15\/3\/2012 tarihinde kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelini 1.417.106,93 TL olarak tespit ederek davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptaline ve \u0130dare ad\u0131na tesciline karar vermi\u015ftir. Kararda ek bilirki\u015fi raporunun h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015f ancak dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n il merkezine ve kara yoluna olan yak\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00fcr\u00fcn paylar\u0131ndaki kolayl\u0131k, topra\u011f\u0131n verimlili\u011fi ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n makineli tar\u0131ma uygun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131n\u0131n resen %26 olarak belirlendi\u011fini ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Mahkeme karar\u0131 taraflarca temyiz edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n \u00f6zelliklerinin bilirki\u015filerce tespit edilerek kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin belirlendi\u011fini ancak Mahkemenin bilirki\u015fi raporunda yer alan tespitleri dikkate almaks\u0131z\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelini resen d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck tespit etti\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca \u0130dare lehine vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmetmesinin hakkaniyete ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Mahkeme karar\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay 5. Hukuk Dairesinin (Daire) 25\/3\/2014 tarihli karar\u0131yla bozulmu\u015ftur. Bozma karar\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131klanan hususlar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
i. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tar\u0131m arazisi niteli\u011finde oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fcyle bu h\u00e2liyle kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 durumunda getirece\u011fi net gelir \u00fczerinden bilimsel yolla de\u011ferinin tespit edilmesi y\u00f6ntem olarak isabetlidir.<\/p>\n
ii. \u0130l\u00e7e Tar\u0131m M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn dosya i\u00e7indeki resm\u00ee verilerine g\u00f6re de\u011ferlendirmede esas al\u0131nan pamuk, bu\u011fday ve silajl\u0131k m\u0131s\u0131r\u0131n de\u011ferlendirme tarihi itibar\u0131 ile hasat zaman\u0131 ortalama sat\u0131\u015f fiyat\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131ras\u0131yla 1,6 TL, 0,6 TL ve 0,18 TL oldu\u011fu h\u00e2lde bu rakamlardan daha y\u00fcksek; dekar ba\u015f\u0131na ortalama masraf\u0131n ise yine s\u0131ras\u0131yla 361 TL, 188 TL ve 338 TL oldu\u011fu h\u00e2lde bu rakamlardan daha d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck kabul edilerek ta\u015f\u0131nmaz bedelinin belirlenmesi do\u011fru de\u011fildir. Belirtilen resm\u00ee verilere g\u00f6re ta\u015f\u0131nmaz bedeli tekrar tespit edilip sonucuna g\u00f6re karar verilmesi i\u00e7in Bilirki\u015fi Kurulundan ek rapor al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
iii. Kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kullanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130dareye, m\u00fclkiyetinin ise Maliye Hazinesine ait olmas\u0131 sebebiyle ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n Maliye Hazinesi ad\u0131na tesciline karar verilmelidir.<\/p>\n
iv. Davan\u0131n d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeline, bu s\u00fcrenin bitimi tarihinden karar tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal faiz y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
13. Kayap\u0131nar \u0130l\u00e7e G\u0131da, Tar\u0131m ve Hayvanc\u0131l\u0131k M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucu Murat Ye\u015fil’e hitaben g\u00f6nderilen 30\/10\/2014 tarihli yaz\u0131da damlama sulama sistemiyle yap\u0131lan tar\u0131msal faaliyetlerde genellikle %20-25 oran\u0131nda verim art\u0131\u015f\u0131 ya\u015fand\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Benzer \u015fekilde Kralk\u0131z\u0131 Dicle Pompajl\u0131 Sulama Birli\u011fi 3\/11\/2014 tarihli yaz\u0131yla damlama sulama sisteminin di\u011fer sistemlere g\u00f6re bir\u00e7ok a\u00e7\u0131dan avantajl\u0131 oldu\u011funu bildirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. Mahkeme, bozma karar\u0131na uyarak ek bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131nmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Ek bilirki\u015fi raporunda 14\/2\/2012 tarihli ek raporda yer alan tespitler tekrar edilmi\u015f, Dairenin bozma karar\u0131nda belirtilen \u0130l\u00e7e Tar\u0131m M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn resm\u00ee verileri dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin 840.321,65 TL oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
15. Mahkemece 27\/1\/2016 tarihinde davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptaliyle Maliye Hazinesi ad\u0131na tesciline karar verilmi\u015ftir. Kararda; bozma karar\u0131ndan sonra al\u0131nan ek bilirki\u015fi raporuna g\u00f6re karar verildi\u011fi, buna g\u00f6re 840.321,65 TL olarak tespit edilen kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeline 16\/7\/2011 tarihinden ilk karar tarihi olan 15\/3\/2012 tarihine kadar yasal faiz i\u015fletilmesi gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli g\u00f6zetilerek \u0130darece depo edilen 1.417.106,93 TL’den kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin mahsubuyla fazla \u00f6denen 576.785,30 TL’nin hisseleri oran\u0131nda ba\u015fvuruculardan tahsiline, belirtilen bedelin ba\u015fvuruculara \u00f6denmedi\u011finin anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde ise fazladan bloke edilen bedelin \u0130dareye iadesi i\u00e7in ilgili bankaya m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. Mahkeme karar\u0131 taraflarca temyiz edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvuru formunda belirttikleri \u015fik\u00e2yetleri dile getirdi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
17. Daire 20\/6\/2019 tarihinde mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fczeltilerek onanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Kararda, bozma karar\u0131ndan \u00f6nce dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131n\u0131n %26 olarak belirlendi\u011fi ve bu hususun bozma sebebi yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 \u00fczerine \u0130dare lehine usule ili\u015fkin kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hak olu\u015ftu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkemenin a\u00e7\u0131klanan hususu g\u00f6zard\u0131 ederek %38 oran\u0131nda objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131 uygulamak suretiyle fazla bedel tespitinin hatal\u0131 oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca nihai olarak tespit edilen kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin acele elkoyma bedelinden fazla oldu\u011fu ve acele elkoyma bedelinin tamam\u0131n\u0131n dava tarihinden \u00f6nce \u00f6dendi\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda tespit edilen bedele faiz i\u015fletilmesinin do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Son olarak Dairece a\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli 767.250,20 TL olarak belirlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n karar d\u00fczeltme talebi Dairenin 9\/6\/2020 tarihli karar\u0131yla reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. Nihai karar, ba\u015fvurucular vekili taraf\u0131ndan 1\/8\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frenilmi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucular 14\/8\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
A. Ulusal Hukuk<\/p>\n
1. \u0130lgili Mevzuat<\/p>\n
20. 4\/11\/1983 tarihli ve 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma Kanunu’nun \u201cKamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin mahkemece tespiti ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n idare ad\u0131na tescili\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 10. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Kamula\u015ft\u0131rman\u0131n sat\u0131n alma usul\u00fc ile yap\u0131lamamas\u0131 halinde idare, \u2026 asliye hukuk mahkemesine m\u00fcracaat eder ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespitiyle, \u2026 idare ad\u0131na tesciline karar verilmesini ister.<\/p>\n
Mahkeme, idarenin ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren en ge\u00e7 otuz g\u00fcn sonras\u0131 i\u00e7in belirledi\u011fi duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fc, \u2026 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n malikine \u2026 bildirerek duru\u015fmaya kat\u0131lmaya \u00e7a\u011f\u0131r\u0131r. Duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fc idareye de tebli\u011f olunur.<\/p>\n
\u2026<\/p>\n
Mahkemece yap\u0131lan duru\u015fmada taraflar\u0131n bedelde anla\u015famamalar\u0131 halinde hakim, en ge\u00e7 on g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde ke\u015fif ve otuz g\u00fcn sonras\u0131 i\u00e7in de duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fc tayin ederek, 15 inci maddede say\u0131lan bilirki\u015filer marifetiyle ve t\u00fcm ilgililerin huzurunda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n de\u011ferini tespit i\u00e7in mahallinde ke\u015fif yapar\u2026 <\/p>\n
Bilirki\u015filer, taraflar ve di\u011fer ilgililerin beyan\u0131n\u0131 da dikkate alarak, 11 inci maddedeki esaslar do\u011frultusunda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n de\u011ferini belirten raporlar\u0131n\u0131 onbe\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde mahkemeye verirler. Mahkeme bu raporu, duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fc beklenmeksizin taraflara tebli\u011f eder. Yap\u0131lacak duru\u015fmaya hakim, taraflar veya vekillerini ve bilirki\u015fileri \u00e7a\u011f\u0131r\u0131r. Bu duru\u015fmada taraflar\u0131n bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131na varsa itirazlar\u0131 dinlenir ve bilirki\u015filerin bu itirazlara kar\u015f\u0131 beyanlar\u0131 al\u0131n\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Taraflar\u0131n bedelde anla\u015famamalar\u0131 halinde gerekti\u011finde h\u00e2kim taraf\u0131ndan onbe\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmak \u00fczere yeni bir bilirki\u015fi kurulu tayin edilir ve h\u00e2kim, taraflar\u0131n ve bilirki\u015filerin rapor veya raporlar\u0131 ile beyanlar\u0131ndan yararlanarak adil ve hakkaniyete uygun bir kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli tespit eder. Mahkemece tespit edilen bu bedel, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal, kaynak veya irtifak hakk\u0131n\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma bedelidir…” <\/p>\n
21. 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un \u201cKamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti esaslar\u0131\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 11. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“15 inci madde uyar\u0131nca olu\u015fturulacak bilirki\u015fi kurulu, kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lacak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal veya kayna\u011f\u0131n bulundu\u011fu yere mahkeme heyeti ile birlikte giderek, haz\u0131r bulunan ilgilileri de dinledikten sonra ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal veya kayna\u011f\u0131n;<\/p>\n
a) Cins ve nevini,<\/p>\n
b) Y\u00fcz\u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc.<\/p>\n
c) K\u0131ymetini etkileyebilecek b\u00fct\u00fcn nitelik ve unsurlar\u0131n\u0131 ve her unsurun ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 de\u011ferini,<\/p>\n
d) Varsa vergi beyan\u0131n\u0131,<\/p>\n
e) Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma tarihindeki resmi makamlarca yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f k\u0131ymet takdirlerini,<\/p>\n
f) Arazilerde, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal veya kayna\u011f\u0131n mevkii ve \u015fartlar\u0131na g\u00f6re ve oldu\u011fu gibi kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 halinde getirece\u011fi net gelirini.<\/p>\n
g) Arsalarda, kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma g\u00fcn\u00fcnden \u00f6nceki \u00f6zel amac\u0131 olmayan emsal sat\u0131\u015flara g\u00f6re sat\u0131\u015f de\u011ferini,<\/p>\n
h) Yap\u0131larda, resmi birim fiyatlar\u0131 ve yap\u0131 maliyet hesaplar\u0131n\u0131 ve y\u0131pranma pay\u0131n\u0131,<\/p>\n
\u0131) her bir \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcn\u00fcn etkisi a\u00e7\u0131klanmak kayd\u0131yla bedelin tespitinde etkili olacak di\u011fer objektif \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcleri,<\/p>\n
Esas tutarak d\u00fczenleyecekleri raporda b\u00fct\u00fcn bu unsurlar\u0131n cevaplar\u0131n\u0131 ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 belirtmek suretiyle ve ilgililerin beyan\u0131n\u0131 da dikkate alarak Sermaye Piyasas\u0131 Kurulu taraf\u0131ndan kabul edilen de\u011ferleme standartlar\u0131na uygun, gerek\u00e7eli bir de\u011ferlendirme raporuna dayal\u0131 olarak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n de\u011ferini tespit ederler.<\/p>\n
…”<\/p>\n
2. Anayasa Mahkemesi Karar\u0131 <\/p>\n
22. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 10\/4\/2019 tarihli ve E.2018\/156, K.2019\/22 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“…<\/p>\n
I. \u0130PTAL\u0130 \u0130STENEN KANUN H\u00dcKM\u00dc<\/p>\n
Kanun\u2019un itiraz konusu kural\u0131n da yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 4650 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 6. maddesiyle ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131yla birlikte de\u011fi\u015ftirilen 11. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir: <\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201cKamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti esaslar\u0131<\/p>\n
Madde 11- (De\u011fi\u015fik: 24\/4\/2001 – 4650\/6 md.)<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
\u0131) (De\u011fi\u015fik: 19\/4\/2018-7139\/27 md.) Bu f\u0131krada belirtilen unsurlara g\u00f6re tespit edilen arazi bedelinin yar\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 ge\u00e7memek ve her bir \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcn\u00fcn etkisi a\u00e7\u0131klanmak kayd\u0131yla bedelin tespitinde etkili olacak di\u011fer objektif \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcleri,<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
IV. ESASIN \u0130NCELENMES\u0130<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
18. S\u00f6z konusu maddenin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (\u0131) bendinde, bedel tespitinde etkili olacak di\u011fer objektif \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fclerin de baz\u0131 \u015fartlarla kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin belirlenmesinde esas al\u0131naca\u011f\u0131 h\u00fckme ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu kapsamda kamula\u015ft\u0131rmaya konu arazinin emsallerine g\u00f6re pazarlama veya ula\u015f\u0131m kolayl\u0131klar\u0131, ana yollara, il merkezlerine, yerle\u015fim alanlar\u0131na yak\u0131nl\u0131k gibi de\u011ferini olumlu y\u00f6nde etkileyecek birtak\u0131m \u00f6zelliklerinin g\u00f6zard\u0131 edilmemesi ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferinin tespiti bak\u0131m\u0131ndan bilimsel y\u00f6ntemle belirlenen bedelin an\u0131lan f\u0131kran\u0131n (\u0131) bendi uyar\u0131nca belirli bir oranda art\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olabilmektedir.<\/p>\n
19. Bu itibarla bedelin tespitinde etkili olacak di\u011fer objektif \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcler bak\u0131m\u0131ndan her bir \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcn\u00fcn de\u011fere etkisinin a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi Kanun\u2019da ifade edildi\u011fi gibi bu \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fclerin somut, araziye getirdi\u011fi katk\u0131 ve de\u011fer y\u00f6n\u00fcnden a\u00e7\u0131k, objektif, gerek\u00e7eli, makul, arazi bedelinin belirlenmesinde etkili olabilecek di\u011fer bir unsur i\u00e7inde g\u00f6zetilmemi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n da uygulamada yarg\u0131 i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131yla kabul edildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. <\/p>\n
20. \u0130tiraz konusu kural\u0131n yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 madde gerek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zellikle kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan tar\u0131m arazilerinin de\u011fer takdirinde y\u00f6ntemine g\u00f6re hesap edilen bedeli anlams\u0131z k\u0131lacak objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, objektif \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcler gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek \u00e7o\u011fu kez %50-200, hatta %300 oran\u0131nda art\u0131\u015f uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Bu kapsamda kural arazilerde di\u011fer objektif \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fclerin uygulanmas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan oransal bir s\u0131n\u0131rlama \u00f6ng\u00f6rmektedir.<\/p>\n
21. Kuralla di\u011fer objektif \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcler sebebiyle uygulanacak olan art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 11. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda belirtilen unsurlara g\u00f6re tespit edilen arazi bedelinin %50\u2019si ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olup bu oran\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n \u00f6zelliklerine g\u00f6re %50 ve daha az oranda uygulanmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn iken %50\u2019nin \u00fczerinde uygulamas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmayacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
C. Anayasa\u2019ya Ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k Sorunu<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
33. Arazilerde kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli, Kanun\u2019un 11. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (f) bendi uyar\u0131nca ve an\u0131lan f\u0131krada belirtilen bedel tespitine ili\u015fkin di\u011fer unsurlar da esas al\u0131nmak suretiyle belirlenmektedir. Bu kapsamda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal veya kayna\u011f\u0131n mevkiine ve \u015fartlar\u0131na g\u00f6re ve oldu\u011fu gibi kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde getirece\u011fi net gelir \u00fczerinden bilimsel y\u00f6ntemle hesaplama yap\u0131lmakta; bu a\u015famaya kadar de\u011ferlendirmeye al\u0131nmam\u0131\u015f, arazinin de\u011ferini olumlu veya olumsuz y\u00f6nde etkileyebilecek somut ve objektif birtak\u0131m \u00f6zelliklerin bulunmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde ise \u00f6zellikle an\u0131lan f\u0131kran\u0131n (\u0131) bendi kapsam\u0131nda bunlar da dikkate al\u0131narak kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli tespit edilmektedir.<\/p>\n
34. \u0130tiraz konusu kural, kamula\u015ft\u0131rmaya konu arazinin de\u011feri \u00fczerinde olumlu etkileri bulunan birtak\u0131m \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcler sebebiyle uygulanacak objektif de\u011fer art\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 unsur oran\u0131n\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 11. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda belirtilen unsurlara g\u00f6re tespit edilen arazi bedelinin %50\u2019si ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rmaktad\u0131r. Bu kapsamda kural do\u011frudan kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti ile ilgili olup kuralla getirilen s\u0131n\u0131rlama tespit edilecek kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tutar\u0131n\u0131 do\u011frudan etkileyecek niteliktedir.<\/p>\n
35. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesi uyar\u0131nca m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ancak kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131yla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir. Kamu yarar\u0131 kavram\u0131, devlet organlar\u0131n\u0131n takdir yetkisini de 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. Arazilerde kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespitinde di\u011fer objektif \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcler sebebiyle uygulanacak olan objektif de\u011fer art\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 unsur oran\u0131n\u0131 %50 ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131ran kural\u0131n kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131yla ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen projelerde kamula\u015ft\u0131rma maliyetlerinin azalt\u0131lmas\u0131, yat\u0131r\u0131m bedellerinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmesi ve bu suretle idarenin kaynaklar\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi ve kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131na d\u00f6n\u00fck oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
36. Arazilerde kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespitinde asli de\u011fer bi\u00e7me y\u00f6nteminin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal veya kayna\u011f\u0131n mevkiine ve \u015fartlar\u0131na g\u00f6re ve oldu\u011fu gibi kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde getirece\u011fi net gelir \u00fczerinden bilimsel olarak hesaplama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 oldu\u011fu g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde bu \u015fekilde belirlenecek bedel \u00fczerinden di\u011fer objektif \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcler sebebiyle uygulanacak art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131n\u0131n makul, belirli ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir bir seviyede tutulabilmesi ile kamula\u015ft\u0131rma maliyetlerinin azalt\u0131lmas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan di\u011fer objektif \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcler sebebiyle uygulanacak art\u0131r\u0131m oran\u0131na oransal bir \u00fcst s\u0131n\u0131r getirilmesinin itiraz konusu kural\u0131n amac\u0131n\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenemez.<\/p>\n
37. \u00d6te yandan itiraz konusu kuralla m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi kapsam\u0131nda gerekli ve orant\u0131l\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da incelenmelidir. Kural, kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan arazilerde de\u011fer art\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 unsurlar sebebiyle uygulanacak objektif de\u011fer art\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 unsur oran\u0131na bir \u00fcst s\u0131n\u0131r getirmek suretiyle bu oran\u0131 %50 ile s\u0131n\u0131rlamaktad\u0131r. 7139 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un genel gerek\u00e7esinde ve itiraz konusu kural\u0131n yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 madde gerek\u00e7esinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u00fczere objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131 uygulamas\u0131yla ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011ferinde %100, %200 ve hatta %300\u2019lere varan oranlarda art\u0131\u015f yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektiren durumlara uygulamada s\u0131kl\u0131kla rastland\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Bu durumda uygulanacak objektif de\u011fer art\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 unsur oran\u0131n\u0131n %50 ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 kamula\u015ft\u0131rmaya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n somut olarak sahip oldu\u011fu, daha \u00f6nce arazi bedelinin belirlenmesinde etkili olabilecek di\u011fer bir unsur i\u00e7inde veya kapitalizasyon faiz oran\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi s\u0131ras\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmemi\u015f, ta\u015f\u0131nmaza olumlu y\u00f6nde katk\u0131 ve de\u011fer sa\u011flayan unsurlar\u0131n olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi oranda ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespitinde dikkate al\u0131nmamas\u0131 sonucunu do\u011furacakt\u0131r. Kamula\u015ft\u0131rmada ger\u00e7ek kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n malike \u00f6denmesi gereklili\u011fi kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda araziyi emsallerine g\u00f6re daha de\u011ferli k\u0131lan olumlu \u00f6zelliklerinin \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde bedele yans\u0131t\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 engelleyebilecek \u015fekilde oransal s\u0131n\u0131rlama \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin gerekli oldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenemeyece\u011fi gibi \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen s\u0131n\u0131rlama ola\u011fan ko\u015fullarda %50\u2019nin \u00fczerinde objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131 uygulanmas\u0131 gereken ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kamula\u015ft\u0131rmada ger\u00e7ek bedelin tam olarak tespitini ve malike \u00f6denmesini engelleyece\u011finden kamu yarar\u0131 ile malikin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 aras\u0131nda g\u00f6zetilmesi gereken adil dengeyi malik aleyhine bozmaktad\u0131r. Bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle kural \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
38. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 46. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen anayasal \u00f6gelerden birinin bulunmamas\u0131 kamula\u015ft\u0131rma i\u015flemini Anayasa\u2019ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 h\u00e2le getirece\u011fi gibi Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesi ile korunan ve s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 belirtilen m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na da ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olu\u015fturur. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespitinde kamula\u015ft\u0131rman\u0131n anayasal \u00f6gelerinden biri olan ger\u00e7ek kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011fa ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 engelleyen, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz bi\u00e7imde s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na neden olan kural Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13., 35. ve 46. maddelerine ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
39. A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle kural, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13., 35. ve 46. maddelerine ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r. \u0130ptali gerekir. <\/p>\n
Kural, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13., 35. ve 46. maddelerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclerek iptal edildi\u011finden ayr\u0131ca Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 2. ve 10. maddeleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmesine gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
…”<\/p>\n
B. Uluslararas\u0131 Hukuk<\/p>\n
23. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’ne (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) ek 1 No.lu Protokol’\u00fcn “M\u00fclkiyetin korunmas\u0131” 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
24. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi (A\u0130HM) ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011ferine uygun makul bir bedel \u00f6denmeksizin m\u00fclkiyetten yoksun b\u0131rakman\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz k\u0131laca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Y\u0131lta\u015f Y\u0131ld\u0131z Turistik Tesisleri A.\u015e.\/T\u00fcrkiye, B. No: 30502\/96, 24\/4\/2003, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
25. Kahyao\u011flu ve di\u011ferleri\/T\u00fcrkiye (B. No: 37203\/05, 31\/5\/2016, \u00a7\u00a7 4-19) karar\u0131nda A\u0130HM, bilirki\u015fi raporunda ta\u015f\u0131nmazda olu\u015fan de\u011fer kayb\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferinin %9’u olarak tespit edildi\u011fi h\u00e2lde mahkemenin Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihad\u0131ndan hareketle zarar miktar\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz de\u011ferinin %2’si ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131na i\u015faret etmi\u015ftir. A\u0130HM, Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n farkl\u0131 durumlar\u0131n g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmas\u0131n\u0131 d\u0131\u015flayan kat\u0131 yorumu nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz de\u011ferinin %7’sine tekab\u00fcl eden zararlar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca \u00f6zellikle ulusal mahkemelerin ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n iddialar\u0131n\u0131 hangi sebeplerle reddettiklerini ve tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011ferinin %2\u2019si ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rmalar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7elerini a\u00e7\u0131klamad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu sebeple m\u00fcdahalenin kamu yarar\u0131 ile m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki adil dengeyi bozdu\u011funu ifade ederek m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Kahyao\u011flu ve di\u011ferleri\/T\u00fcrkiye, \u00a7\u00a7 33-40).<\/p>\n
26. Halil G\u00f6\u00e7men\/T\u00fcrkiye (B. No: 24883\/07, 12\/11\/2013) karar\u0131nda ise kamula\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131z el atma nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar veren A\u0130HM, yarg\u0131 mercilerince h\u00fckmedilen tazminat\u0131n yeterlili\u011fini de \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ba\u011flam\u0131nda tart\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.Bu ba\u011flamda \u00f6ncelikle ulusal mahkemelerin yerine ge\u00e7erek kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelini belirleme gibi bir g\u00f6revinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak mahkemelerin adil veya makul kararlar verilmesini sa\u011flamakla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. A\u0130HM somut olayda kamula\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131z el atma tazminat\u0131na ili\u015fkin iki ayr\u0131 bilirki\u015fi raporu bulundu\u011funa dikkat \u00e7ekmi\u015f ve yarg\u0131 mercilerince yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilmeden daha az bir bedel \u00f6ng\u00f6ren raporun h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcdahaleyi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir (Halil G\u00f6\u00e7men\/T\u00fcrkiye, \u00a7\u00a7 37-43).<\/p>\n
27. Son alarak bu ba\u011flamda Kutlu ve di\u011ferleri\/T\u00fcrkiye (B. No: 51861\/11, 13\/12\/2016) karar\u0131na da de\u011finmek gerekir. Somut olayda bilirki\u015filerin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 etkileyen k\u0131s\u0131tlamalar\u0131 dikkate alarak de\u011fer kayb\u0131 oran\u0131n\u0131 %40 olarak belirlediklerini ifade eden A\u0130HM, bilirki\u015fi raporunun yarg\u0131 mercilerini ba\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmi\u015f ancak bilirki\u015fi raporunun sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n bertaraf edilmesi nedenlerinin mahkemelerce a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. A\u0130HM, mahkemelerce g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctlerin basit bir anlat\u0131m\u0131yla de\u011fer d\u00fc\u015f\u00fckl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn %25 ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n ise yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e olarak kabul edilemeyece\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Bu sebeple tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n belirlenme \u015fekli nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz oldu\u011funa karar vermi\u015ftir (Kutlu ve di\u011ferleri\/T\u00fcrkiye,\u00a7\u00a7 70-76).<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
28. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 23\/1\/2025 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u0130ddialar\u0131 ve Bakanl\u0131k G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc <\/p>\n
29. Ba\u015fvurucular, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespitinde bu\u011fday al\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n TMO taraf\u0131ndan ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011fini belirterek tar\u0131m m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fcklerinin tahmine dayal\u0131 verileri yerine ger\u00e7ek de\u011fer ve maliyetlerin belirlendi\u011fi TMO verilerinin esas al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Yine ayn\u0131 gerek\u00e7eyle pamukla ilgili olarak [S.S. \u00c7ukurova Pamuk, Yer F\u0131st\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve Ya\u011fl\u0131 Tohumlar Tar\u0131m Sat\u0131\u015f Kooperatifler Birli\u011fi (\u00c7UKOB\u0130RL\u0130K)] verilerinin, silajl\u0131k m\u0131s\u0131r al\u0131m\u0131nda ise -sadece hayvan yeti\u015ftiricileri taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klanarak- dava tarihindeki reel piyasa verilerinin dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini iddia etmi\u015f; bu verilerin bozma kararlar\u0131nda belirtilen rakamlar\u0131n \u00e7ok \u00fczerinde oldu\u011funa i\u015faret etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
30. Bununla birlikte ba\u015fvurucular; ta\u015f\u0131nmazda bulunan damlama sulama sisteminin verimi %25 art\u0131r\u0131rken maliyetlerin %50 oran\u0131nda azalmas\u0131na yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu hususun Diyarbak\u0131r \u0130l Tar\u0131m M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve Kralk\u0131z\u0131 Dicle Pompajl\u0131 Sulama Birli\u011fi yaz\u0131lar\u0131yla ortaya konuldu\u011funu zikretmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re \u00f6zellikle damlama sulama sistemi sayesinde ba\u015fvuru konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n emsal ta\u015f\u0131nmazlara nispetle en az %25 oran\u0131nda daha verimli oldu\u011funu beyan etmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca bilirki\u015fi raporunda da masraflar\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcren nedenlerin tespit edildi\u011fini ancak Mahkemece bu hususlar\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
31. Ba\u015fvurucular, ba\u015fvuru konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaza kom\u015fu olan ve ayn\u0131 b\u00f6lgede bulunan ta\u015f\u0131nmazlara ili\u015fkin kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli hesab\u0131nda %100 oran\u0131nda objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131 uygulanmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen ba\u015fvuru konusu davada objektif de\u011fer oran\u0131n\u0131n %26 olarak kabul edilmesiyle kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin ger\u00e7ek bedelin alt\u0131nda tespit edilmesinden yak\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvuruculara g\u00f6re \u00f6zel ve teknik bilgi gerektiren objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131n\u0131n h\u00e2kim taraf\u0131ndan %26 olarak belirlenmesi dayanaks\u0131z ve keyf\u00ee bir de\u011ferlendirmedir. Ba\u015fvurucular, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n alt\u0131nda bulunan petrol yataklar\u0131 ve di\u011fer \u00f6zellikleri nedeniyle objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131n\u0131n en az %200-300 aras\u0131nda olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
32. Sonu\u00e7 olarak ba\u015fvurucular; belirtilen gerek\u00e7elerle kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck belirlendi\u011fini, hukuki belirlilik ve e\u015fitlik ilkeleriyle gerek\u00e7eli karar, adil yarg\u0131lanma ve m\u00fclkiyet haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
33. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin \u00f6denmesi nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ma\u011fdur s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131n devam edip etmedi\u011fi hususunun de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin bilirki\u015fi raporu do\u011frultusunda hesapland\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc iddialar\u0131n kanun yolu \u015fik\u00e2yeti niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvuruya ili\u015fkin yap\u0131lacak incelemede Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 ve somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n da dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
34. Ba\u015fvurucular, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
B. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
35. Anayasa’n\u0131n “M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 35. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Herkes, 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.”<\/p>\n
36. Anayasa’n\u0131n ”Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 46. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Devlet ve kamu t\u00fczelki\u015fileri; kamu yarar\u0131n\u0131n gerektirdi\u011fi hallerde, ger\u00e7ek kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 pe\u015fin \u00f6demek \u015fart\u0131yla, \u00f6zel m\u00fclkiyette bulunan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mallar\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131 veya bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131, kanunla g\u00f6sterilen esas ve usullere g\u00f6re, kamula\u015ft\u0131rmaya ve bunlar \u00fczerinde idar\u00ee irtifaklar kurmaya yetkilidir. <\/p>\n
Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli ile kesin h\u00fckme ba\u011flanan art\u0131r\u0131m bedeli nakden ve pe\u015fin olarak \u00f6denir. Ancak, tar\u0131m reformunun uygulanmas\u0131, b\u00fcy\u00fck enerji ve sulama projeleri ile isk\u00e2n projelerinin ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi, yeni ormanlar\u0131n yeti\u015ftirilmesi, k\u0131y\u0131lar\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve turizm amac\u0131yla kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan topraklar\u0131n bedellerinin \u00f6denme \u015fekli kanunla g\u00f6sterilir. Kanunun taksitle \u00f6demeyi \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilece\u011fi bu hallerde, taksitlendirme s\u00fcresi be\u015f y\u0131l\u0131 a\u015famaz; bu takdirde taksitler e\u015fit olarak \u00f6denir. <\/p>\n
Kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan topraktan, o topra\u011f\u0131 do\u011frudan do\u011fruya i\u015fleten k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck \u00e7ift\u00e7iye ait olanlar\u0131n\u0131n bedeli, her halde pe\u015fin \u00f6denir. <\/p>\n
\u0130kinci f\u0131krada \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen taksitlendirmelerde ve herhangi bir sebeple \u00f6denmemi\u015f kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedellerinde kamu alacaklar\u0131 i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen en y\u00fcksek faiz uygulan\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
1. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden <\/p>\n
37. 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
38. Kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n m\u00fclkiyetinde bulundu\u011fundan m\u00fclk\u00fcn varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda tart\u0131\u015fma bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
b. M\u00fcdahalenin Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile T\u00fcr\u00fc<\/p>\n
39. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve \u0130dare ad\u0131na tescil edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etti\u011fi tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131zd\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca Anayasa Mahkemesinin \u00e7ok say\u0131da karar\u0131nda da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fclkten yoksun b\u0131rakma niteli\u011findedir (Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 32; AYM, E.1988\/34, K.1989\/26, 21\/6\/1989; E.2011\/58, K.2012\/70, 17\/5\/2012).<\/p>\n
c. M\u00fcdahalenin \u0130hlal Olu\u015fturup Olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
40. 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
41. An\u0131lan madde uyar\u0131nca temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckler, demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n, Anayasa’n\u0131n ilgili maddelerinde belirtilen sebeplere ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ve ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’ya uygun d\u00fc\u015febilmesi i\u00e7in m\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayanmas\u0131, kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131 ve ayr\u0131ca \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi g\u00f6zetilerek yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
i. Kanunilik<\/p>\n
42. Kamula\u015ft\u0131rman\u0131n usul ve esaslar\u0131 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n\u0131n petrol lokasyonunda kalmas\u0131 sebebiyle kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kamula\u015ft\u0131rma s\u00fcrecinin 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019a g\u00f6re s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclerek tamamland\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bu durumda m\u00fclkten yoksun b\u0131rakman\u0131n kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
ii. Me\u015fru Ama\u00e7<\/p>\n
43. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 petrol kaynaklar\u0131n\u0131n aranmas\u0131, geli\u015ftirilmesi ve \u00fcretilmesi amac\u0131yla kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Petrol kaynaklar\u0131n\u0131n \u00fclke menfaatlerine uygun \u015fekilde kullan\u0131lmas\u0131nda kamu yarar\u0131 oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
iii. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck<\/p>\n
\u00a0(1) Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
44. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi elveri\u015flilik, gereklilik ve orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k olmak \u00fczere \u00fc\u00e7 alt ilkeden olu\u015fmaktad\u0131r. 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 bir m\u00fcdahale ile 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 etmektedir (AYM, E.2011\/111, K.2012\/56, 11\/4\/2012; E.2012\/102, K.2012\/207, 27\/12\/2012; E.2012\/149, K.2013\/63, 22\/5\/2013; E.2013\/32, K.2013\/112, 10\/10\/2013; E.2016\/16, K.2016\/37, 5\/5\/2016; E.2016\/13, K.2016\/127, 22\/6\/2016; Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
45. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131ndan yoksun b\u0131rakma bi\u00e7imindeki m\u00fcdahalelerde, hedeflenen kamu yarar\u0131 ile malikin bireysel yarar\u0131 aras\u0131nda g\u00f6zetilmesi gereken adil denge ancak malike tazminat \u00f6denmek suretiyle sa\u011flanabilir. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle m\u00fclkten yoksun b\u0131rakmalarda malike tazminat \u00f6denmesi, m\u00fcdahaleyle malike y\u00fcklenen a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 k\u00fclfetin telafi edilmesini temin eden temel bir ara\u00e7t\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n 46. maddesi uyar\u0131nca kamula\u015ft\u0131rma yoluyla malikin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n sona erdirildi\u011fi h\u00e2llerde malike \u00f6denmesi gereken tazminat ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek bedelidir. Bu itibarla ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek bedelinin \u00f6denmedi\u011fi durumlarda somut olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131 da g\u00f6zetilerek m\u00fcdahalenin orant\u0131l\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131labilir (Cevat Ayd\u0131n, B. No: 2014\/13886, 4\/10\/2017, \u00a7 48).<\/p>\n
46. \u00c7ok say\u0131da al\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 ve sat\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 bulunmayan ve sat\u0131\u015fa konu olan mallar\u0131n ayn\u0131 nitelikte (homojen) olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 emlak piyasas\u0131nda bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n herkes i\u00e7in ge\u00e7erli tek, de\u011fi\u015fmez ve kolay hesaplanabilir bir fiyat\u0131n\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmal\u0131d\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n korumas\u0131 alt\u0131nda bulunan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6nemli olan, kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan veya \u00fczerinde irtifak hakk\u0131 kurulan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferinin 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a g\u00f6re belirlenmesi, irtifak hakk\u0131 kurulan ta\u015f\u0131nmazda meydana gelen de\u011fer d\u00fc\u015f\u00fckl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n objektif kriterlere g\u00f6re tespit edilmesi ve ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen kamu yarar\u0131 ile orant\u0131l\u0131 bir bedelin ba\u015fvuruculara \u00f6denmesidir (Mukadder Sa\u011flam ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/2511, 22\/1\/2015, \u00a7 48).<\/p>\n
47. Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma yoluyla malikin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n sona erdirildi\u011fi h\u00e2llerde ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek bedelinin malike \u00f6denmesi orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k ilkesinin gere\u011fidir. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz bedelinin tespiti teknik ve uzmanl\u0131k gerektiren bir konudur. Bu nedenle kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n bedelinin tespiti uzman mahkemelerin ve Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n bu konudaki uzman dairelerinin yetkisi ve g\u00f6revindedir. Anayasa Mahkemesi bu konuda uzmanla\u015fm\u0131\u015f bir mahkeme olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi Anayasa Mahkemesinin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lan bireysel ba\u015fvurularda bedel veya de\u011fer d\u00fc\u015f\u00fckl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 hesaplamak gibi bir g\u00f6revi de bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesinin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale ile \u00f6denen bedel aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fki y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yapaca\u011f\u0131 tespit, orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k incelemesinden ibarettir (Mukadder Sa\u011flam ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 49; Abd\u00fclkerim \u00c7akmak ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2014\/1964, 23\/2\/2017, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
48. 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 konu ile 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 bir \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirilerek kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirmektedir (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
49. Somut olayda dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin \u0130l\u00e7e Tar\u0131m M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn verileri dikkate al\u0131narak tespit edildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular \u0130l\u00e7e Tar\u0131m M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn verileri yerine TMO, Ticaret Borsas\u0131 ve \u00c7UKOB\u0130RL\u0130K’in verilerine g\u00f6re hesaplama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
50. 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 11. maddesinin (f) bendinde araziler i\u00e7in kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli tespitinin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rma tarihindeki mevkii ile \u015fartlar\u0131na g\u00f6re ve oldu\u011fu gibi kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde getirece\u011fi net kazan\u00e7 esas al\u0131narak belirlenmesi \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. D\u00fczenli ve s\u00fcrekli tar\u0131msal getiri istatistikleri ise \u00fclkemizde il ve il\u00e7e tar\u0131m m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fckleri taraf\u0131ndan il merkezi ve il\u00e7eler d\u00fczeyinde tutulmaktad\u0131r. Bu nedenle mahkemeler ve mahkemelerin atad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bilirki\u015filer, Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda \u00f6zel bir durum olmad\u0131k\u00e7a kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespitinde resm\u00ee birer kurum olan il ve il\u00e7e tar\u0131m m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fcklerinin verilerini kullanmaktad\u0131r (Tahsin Erdo\u011fan, B. No: 2012\/1246, 6\/2\/2014, \u00a7 63). Bununla birlikte kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek bedelinin belirlenmesini sa\u011flayacak tar\u0131msal \u00fcretim verilerinin bilimsel tekni\u011fe uygun olarak tutulmas\u0131 kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n sorumlulu\u011fundad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
51. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n TMO, Ticaret Borsas\u0131 ve \u00c7UKOB\u0130RL\u0130K’in verileri \u00fczerinden kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespit edilmesini talep etti\u011fi ancak \u0130l\u00e7e Tar\u0131m M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn verilerinin dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131yla tespit edilen kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferini yans\u0131tmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik somut veri sunamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bu ba\u011flamda \u0130l\u00e7e Tar\u0131m M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn tahmin\u00ee verilerinin ger\u00e7ek bedeli yans\u0131tmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmesi Mahkemenin ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatin keyf\u00ee oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fc i\u00e7in yeterli de\u011fildir. Mahkemenin kanaatinin sorgulanabilmesi i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n bundan daha \u00f6te dayanaklar g\u00f6stermesi -\u0130l\u00e7e Tar\u0131m M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn tahmin\u00ee verilerinin ger\u00e7e\u011fi yans\u0131tmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ortaya koymas\u0131- beklenir.<\/p>\n
52. Di\u011fer yandan ba\u015fvurucular, kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmazda damlama sulama sisteminin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131yla verimin artt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve maliyetin azald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131klanan \u00f6zelli\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nmadan de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck belirlendi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazda kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilen damlama sulama sisteminin kapitalizasyon faiz oran\u0131 belirlenirken dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (bkz. \u00a7 9). Ba\u015fvurucular taraf\u0131ndan damlama sulama sisteminin avantajlar\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klar mahiyette baz\u0131 belgeler sunularak (bkz. \u00a7 13) ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n verimine olan etkisinin daha fazla oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f ise de belirtilen sistemin ta\u015f\u0131nmazda ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen \u00fcretim faaliyetlerine olan etkisi somut olarak ortaya konamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda Anayasa Mahkemesinin bireysel ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131ndaki inceleme yetkisinin s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 ve niteli\u011fi g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle damlama sulama sistemi kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011ferini artt\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131na y\u00f6nelik daha \u00f6te bir inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na yetecek verilerin temin edilmedi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
53. Somut olayda Mahkeme, bilirki\u015fi raporunda %38 olarak hesaplanan objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131n\u0131 %26 olarak kabul ederek kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelini tespit etmi\u015f; bozma karar\u0131ndan sonra %38 objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131 uygulayan bilirki\u015fi raporu do\u011frultusunda davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar vermi\u015ftir. Daire ise objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131n\u0131n bozma sebebi yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 sebebiyle \u0130dare lehine usule ili\u015fkin kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hak olu\u015ftu\u011funu a\u00e7\u0131klayarak bozma karar\u0131ndan \u00f6nce belirlenen %26 objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131 \u00fczerinden kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelini belirlemi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck belirlenmesi nedeniyle kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin ger\u00e7ek bedelden d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck tespit edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
54. Anayasa’n\u0131n 46. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda kamula\u015ft\u0131rman\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesi \u015fart\u0131yla kullan\u0131labilecek bir yetki oldu\u011fu h\u00fckme ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ger\u00e7ek kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesi Anayasa’n\u0131n 46. maddesiyle maliklerin lehine getirilen \u00f6zel bir g\u00fcvence mahiyetindedir. Ba\u015fka bir anlat\u0131mla ger\u00e7ek kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n kural olarak pe\u015fin ve nakden \u00f6denmesi; devlet ve kamu t\u00fczel ki\u015fileri taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131labilmesi, kamu yarar\u0131n\u0131n bulunmas\u0131, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma karar\u0131na ili\u015fkin kanunda g\u00f6sterilen esas ve usullere uyulmas\u0131yla birlikte kamula\u015ft\u0131rman\u0131n anayasal \u00f6geleridir (baz\u0131 farklarla birlikte bkz. AYM, E.2018\/156, K.2019\/22, 10\/4\/2019, \u00a7 29).<\/p>\n
55. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011ferini etkileyen objektif unsurlar da de\u011ferin belirlenmesinde hesaba kat\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bu unsurlar\u0131n tahdid\u00ee olarak say\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fil ise de ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n yola ve yerle\u015fim yerine yak\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131, ticari ve i\u015f kapasitesi, deniz, g\u00f6l, nehir gibi tabii g\u00fczelliklere uzakl\u0131\u011f\u0131, imarl\u0131 b\u00f6lgelere yak\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi \u00f6zellikler buna \u00f6rnek g\u00f6sterilebilir (Cevat Ayd\u0131n, B. No: 2014\/13886, 4\/10\/2017, \u00a7 58). Nihayetinde kamula\u015ft\u0131rma suretiyle ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n bedelsiz olarak veya de\u011ferinin alt\u0131ndaki bir bedelle ki\u015finin mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn bulunmamas\u0131, kamula\u015ft\u0131rmaya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespitini etkileyebilecek nitelik ve \u00f6zellikleri ile bunlar\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeline katk\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6zetilmesini zorunlu k\u0131lmaktad\u0131r (AYM, E.2018\/156, K.2019\/22, 10\/4\/2019, \u00a7 32).<\/p>\n
56. Anayasa Mahkemesi Saadet Esin (B. No: 2014\/18103, 26\/10\/2017) ile Celal Af\u015fin ve di\u011ferleri (B. No: 2015\/18943, 19\/9\/2018) ve Ahmet Koca ve di\u011ferleri (B. No: 2018\/17345, 19\/10\/2021) kararlar\u0131nda kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespitinde kamula\u015ft\u0131rman\u0131n anayasal \u00f6gelerinden biri olan ger\u00e7ek kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011fa ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak bilirki\u015fi raporundaki somut tespitlere y\u00f6nelik herhangi bir ele\u015ftiri getirilmeden, soyut olarak objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n belli bir oran\u0131 ge\u00e7emeyece\u011finin kabul edilmesinin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferinin belirlenmesini engelledi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
57. Nitekim objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131 oran\u0131na ili\u015fkin benzer bir \u00fcst s\u0131n\u0131rlama getiren 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 11. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (\u0131) bendinde yer alan \u201c\u2026arazi bedelinin yar\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 ge\u00e7memek ve\u2026\u201d ibaresi, Anayasa Mahkemesince Anayasa\u2019ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulunarak 10\/4\/2019 tarihli ve E.2018\/156, K.2019\/22 say\u0131l\u0131 kararla iptal edilmi\u015ftir. Kararda esasen objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131 uygulamas\u0131yla ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011ferinde %50’yi a\u015fan oranlarda art\u0131\u015f yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektiren durumlara uygulamada s\u0131kl\u0131kla rastlanmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen bu oran\u0131n %50 ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ek kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tam olarak tespitini ve malike \u00f6denmesini engelleyece\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7 22).<\/p>\n
58. Bilirki\u015fi, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc etkileyen ve h\u00e2kimin hukuki bilgisiyle ayd\u0131nlat\u0131lamayan bilimsel ve teknik meseleleri a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131\u011fa kavu\u015fturmak, bu t\u00fcr meselelerde mahkemeyi bilgilendirmek amac\u0131yla g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne ba\u015fvurulan uzman ki\u015fi olup bilirki\u015finin g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcn mahkemeyi ba\u011flamayaca\u011f\u0131 muhakkakt\u0131r. Bilirki\u015fi raporu, h\u00e2kimin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7\u00f6zerken dikkate alaca\u011f\u0131 takdir\u00ee bir delilden ibarettir. H\u00e2kim; bilirki\u015fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc i\u00e7eren raporun yeterlili\u011fini, raporda a\u00e7\u0131klanan g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f ve kanaatin itibar edilebilirli\u011fini, dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 olgular\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurarak h\u00fckme esas al\u0131n\u0131p al\u0131nmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 serbest\u00e7e de\u011ferlendirir ve takdir eder. Bu ba\u011flamda h\u00e2kim, bilimsel ve teknik bak\u0131mdan yetersiz ve \u00e7eli\u015fkili buldu\u011fu bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131n\u0131 h\u00fckme esas almak zorunda de\u011fildir. Bu durum, karar verme ve h\u00fck\u00fcm kurma yetkisinin h\u00e2kime ait olmas\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fal bir sonucudur. Aksi takdirde \u015fekil olarak h\u00fckm\u00fc kuran h\u00e2kim olsa da ger\u00e7ekte h\u00fck\u00fcm bilirki\u015fi taraf\u0131ndan verilmi\u015f olur ki bu durum yarg\u0131 yetkisinin devri anlam\u0131na gelir.<\/p>\n
59. Bununla birlikte bilirki\u015finin bilimsel veya teknik uzmanl\u0131k gerektiren ve objektif olarak bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda mahkemenin v\u00e2k\u0131f olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 meselelerde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f beyan etti\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda mahkemenin bilirki\u015fi raporunu yetersiz g\u00f6rmesi durumunda bunun gerek\u00e7esini ortaya koymas\u0131 gerekir. Mahkemenin gerek\u00e7esini a\u00e7\u0131klamadan bilirki\u015fi raporunu h\u00fckme esas al\u0131namaz bulmas\u0131, raporun lehine oldu\u011fu ki\u015fi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan yarg\u0131lama adaletini olumsuz y\u00f6nde etkileyebilece\u011fi gibi kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespit edildi\u011fi davalarda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek bedelinin veya ta\u015f\u0131nmazda meydana gelen de\u011fer kayb\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ek miktar\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmesini de engelleyebilir.<\/p>\n
60. Somut olayda 14\/2\/2012 tarihli bilirki\u015fi raporunda objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131, bu oran\u0131 etkileyen unsurlara yer verilerek %38 olarak tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k Mahkeme; bilirki\u015fi raporunda yer alan tespitlere somut herhangi bir ele\u015ftiri getirmeksizin, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n il merkezine ve kara yoluna olan yak\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00fcr\u00fcn paylar\u0131ndaki kolayl\u0131k, topra\u011f\u0131n verimlili\u011fi ile ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n makineli tar\u0131ma uygun olmas\u0131n\u0131 gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6stererek objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131n\u0131 %26 olarak belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu orana g\u00f6re tespit edilen kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeline ili\u015fkin mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n Daire taraf\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 gerek\u00e7elerle bozulmas\u0131 \u00fczerine Mahkemece h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan ek bilirki\u015fi raporunda kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli %38 objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131 uygulanarak belirlenmi\u015f, buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k Daire objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131n\u0131n bozma kapsam\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle usule ili\u015fkin kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hak olu\u015ftu\u011funu gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6stererek %26 oran\u0131nda objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131 uygulayarak kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelini tespit etmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6ylece bilirki\u015fi raporunda objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131 hesab\u0131nda dikkate al\u0131nan unsurlar\u0131n neden dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n sebepleri g\u00f6sterilmeden ve objektif art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131n\u0131n bilirki\u015fi raporunda belirlenen orandan farkl\u0131 belirlenmesinin nedenleri a\u00e7\u0131klanmadan sonuca gidilerek kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespit edildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
61. Sonu\u00e7 olarak objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131n\u0131n bilirki\u015fi raporunda belirlenen orandan daha d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck tespit edilmesinin nedenleri somut olarak ortaya konulmadan ve bu kapsamdaki itirazlar hakk\u0131nda ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7eyle de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmadan karar verildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Buna g\u00f6re yarg\u0131sal s\u00fcrecin b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcne bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131nda usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencelerin somut olayda yerine getirilmedi\u011fi, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n bu g\u00fcvencelerden yararland\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Anayasa’n\u0131n 46. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda yer alan ger\u00e7ek kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k g\u00fcvencesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ve Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. ile 35. maddelerinin gerektirdi\u011fi m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 gereklili\u011fi ile m\u00fcdahalenin dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 kamu yarar\u0131 aras\u0131nda olmas\u0131 gereken adil denge ba\u015fvurucular aleyhine bozulmu\u015f olup m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fczd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
62. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin hesaplanmas\u0131nda objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VI. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
63. Ba\u015fvurucular; ihlalin tespiti ile yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
64. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu kapsamda karar\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flatmak ve Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gideren, ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun yeni bir karar vermektir (Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2), B. No: 2016\/12506, 7\/11\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 53-60, 66; Kadri Enis Berbero\u011flu (3) [GK], B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n
VII. 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\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Diyarbak\u0131r 3. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesine (E.2014\/1040, K.2016\/241) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.446,90 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvuruculara M\u00dc\u015eTEREKEN \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. \u00d6demelerin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n 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
F. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 23\/1\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 23\/1\/2025 tarihli ve 2020\/28016 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 GENEL KURUL \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 AL\u0130YE YE\u015e\u0130L VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU (7) (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/28016) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 23\/1\/2025 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 5\/5\/2025 – 32891 \u00a0 GENEL KURUL \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Kadir \u00d6ZKAYA Ba\u015fkanvekili : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN Ba\u015fkanvekili : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 Recai AKYEL \u00a0 \u00a0 Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU \u00a0 \u00a0 Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Muhterem \u0130NCE \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : \u00d6zge ULUKAYA Ba\u015fvurucular : 1. Aliye YE\u015e\u0130L \u00a0 \u00a0 2. Bozbeyli YE\u015e\u0130L \u00a0 \u00a0 3. Cihan YE\u015e\u0130L \u00a0 \u00a0 4. Engin YE\u015e\u0130L \u00a0 \u00a0 5. Haci YE\u015e\u0130L \u00a0 \u00a0 6. Kemal YE\u015e\u0130L \u00a0 \u00a0 7. Mehmet YE\u015e\u0130L \u00a0 \u00a0 8. Mehmet YE\u015e\u0130L \u00a0 \u00a0 9. Murat YE\u015e\u0130L \u00a0 \u00a0 10. Orhan YE\u015e\u0130L \u00a0 \u00a0 11. Seyyit Ahmet YE\u015e\u0130L \u00a0 \u00a0 12. Vahdettin YE\u015e\u0130L \u00a0 \u00a0 13. Ziya Yusuf YE\u015e\u0130L Vekili : Av. Ali \u0130smet G\u0130RG\u0130N \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck belirlenmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 14\/8\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyon ba\u015fvurunun kabul …<\/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-76594","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n