T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
ESRA ERTAN BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/4717)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 28\/5\/2025<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Ay\u015fenur TUNCER<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Esra ERTAN<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Ali \u0130hsan G\u00dcZEL<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, bo\u015fanma davas\u0131 sonras\u0131nda \u00e7ocu\u011fun soyad\u0131n\u0131 de\u011fi\u015ftirme talebiyle velayet hakk\u0131 sahibi anne taraf\u0131ndan a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddedilmesi nedeniyle aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k yasa\u011f\u0131 ile makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, Ankara 5. Aile Mahkemesinin 24\/2\/2009 kesinle\u015fme tarihli karar\u0131 ile bo\u015fanm\u0131\u015f ve 9\/6\/2007 do\u011fumlu m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuk E.H.A.n\u0131n velayeti kendisine verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu 4\/4\/2012 tarihinde Ankara 11. Aile Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu davada velayeti kendisine verilen k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn soyad\u0131n\u0131n de\u011fi\u015ftirilerek kendi soyad\u0131n\u0131n verilmesine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme 4\/9\/2012 tarihli karar\u0131 ile davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn soyad\u0131n\u0131n de\u011fi\u015ftirilerek ba\u015fvurucunun soyad\u0131 olan Ertan olarak n\u00fcfusa tesciline karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. N\u00fcfus M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc temsilcisi karara kar\u015f\u0131 temyiz kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Yarg\u0131tay 18. Hukuk Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan davan\u0131n asliye hukuk mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi kapsam\u0131nda oldu\u011fu kanaatine var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00f6ylelikle g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 verilmesi yerine i\u015fin esas\u0131na girilerek davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir. H\u00fckm\u00fcn bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmesi akabinde yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamada Mahkeme direnme karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n N\u00fcfus M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc temsilcisi taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine ise Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesi h\u00fckm\u00fcn bozulmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; bo\u015fanma sonucunda anneye verilen velayet hakk\u0131n\u0131n anneye \u00e7ocu\u011fun soyad\u0131n\u0131 de\u011fi\u015ftirme davas\u0131 a\u00e7ma hakk\u0131 vermeyece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca soyad\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011finin \u00e7ocu\u011fun evlilik i\u00e7inde do\u011fmakla kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131 me\u015fru stat\u00fcye ve onun y\u00fcksek yarar\u0131na zarar verece\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. An\u0131lan bozma karar\u0131 sonras\u0131nda 11\/10\/2017 tarihinde Mahkemece, Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesinin karar\u0131nda yer alan ayn\u0131 gerek\u00e7elerle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Davan\u0131n reddi karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucunun temyiz kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 neticesinde h\u00fckm\u00fcn onanmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun karar d\u00fczeltme talebi de 23\/11\/2021 tarihli kararla reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 27\/12\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 19\/1\/2022 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
A. Aile Hayat\u0131na Sayg\u0131 Hakk\u0131yla Ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 Olarak Ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k Yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu; yarg\u0131lamada \u00e7ocu\u011fun i\u00e7inde bulundu\u011fu sosyal ve psikolojik durumun irdelenmedi\u011fini, soyad\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011finin \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131na uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davan\u0131n reddine ili\u015fkin karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esiz oldu\u011funu, bunun yan\u0131nda velayeti kendisine b\u0131rak\u0131lan \u00e7ocu\u011fun soyad\u0131n\u0131n de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesi davas\u0131n\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi nedeniyle ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
9. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; ba\u015fvurucunun aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi konusunda yap\u0131lacak incelemede Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ile somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
10. Somut ba\u015fvuruda oldu\u011fu gibi velayet hakk\u0131 tevdi edilen \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n soyad\u0131n\u0131n annenin kendi soyad\u0131 ile de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki talebi, velayet hakk\u0131 ve bu kapsamdaki yetkilerin kullan\u0131m\u0131 ile ilgili oldu\u011fundan Anayasa’n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda ele al\u0131nmas\u0131 gereken bir hukuki de\u011ferdir. Bu ba\u011flamda, e\u015fitlik ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131 da bulundu\u011fundan somut ba\u015fvurunun Anayasa’n\u0131n 20. maddesiyle ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak Anayasa’n\u0131n 10. maddesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir (benzer y\u00f6ndeki de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. Nurcan Yolcu [GK], B. No: 2013\/9880, 11\/11\/2015; G\u00fclbu \u00d6zg\u00fcler [GK], B. No: 2013\/7979, 11\/11\/2015; Deniz Alt\u0131nba\u015f ve di\u011ferleri [2. B.], B. No: 2014\/2033, 26\/10\/2017; E.\u00c7. [2. B.], B. No: 2018\/6565, 10\/6\/2020).<\/p>\n
11. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
12. Anayasa Mahkemesi, Nurcan Yolcu ve G\u00fclbu \u00d6zg\u00fcler kararlar\u0131nda bo\u015fanm\u0131\u015f e\u015flerin \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n\u0131n soyad\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi noktas\u0131nda velayet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan kad\u0131n ve erkek aras\u0131nda farkl\u0131 \u015fekilde ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen i\u015flemlere y\u00f6nelik uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n konu edildi\u011fi ba\u015fvurular\u0131 detayl\u0131 \u015fekilde ele alm\u0131\u015f ve genel ilkeleri belirleyerek bir sonuca ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Nurcan Yolcu, \u00a7\u00a7 19-52; G\u00fclbu \u00d6zg\u00fcler, \u00a7\u00a7 26-59).<\/p>\n
13. S\u00f6z konusu kararlarda, \u00e7ocu\u011fun soyad\u0131na ili\u015fkin belirlemelerde yaln\u0131zca baban\u0131n soyad\u0131n\u0131n esas al\u0131nmas\u0131 ve bunun s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclmesi suretiyle \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen farkl\u0131l\u0131k kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, annenin soyad\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7ocu\u011fa verilmesinin s\u00f6z konusu menfaatlerin tesisine nas\u0131l bir olumsuz etkide bulunaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n yarg\u0131sal makamlarca a\u00e7\u0131klanmamas\u0131 ve cinsiyete dayal\u0131 farkl\u0131 bir muameleyi hakl\u0131 k\u0131lacak \u00f6nemli nedenlerin ortaya konulmamas\u0131 nedenleriyle ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Nurcan Yolcu, \u00a7 52; G\u00fclbu \u00d6zg\u00fcler, \u00a7 59; Deniz Alt\u0131nba\u015f ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 31; E.\u00c7., \u00a7 20).<\/p>\n
14. Somut olayda Mahkeme karar\u0131nda bo\u015fanma sonucunda anneye verilen velayet hakk\u0131n\u0131n anneye \u00e7ocu\u011fun soyad\u0131n\u0131 de\u011fi\u015ftirme davas\u0131 a\u00e7ma hakk\u0131 vermeyece\u011fi belirtilerek davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Bunun yan\u0131nda soyad\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011finin \u00e7ocu\u011fun evlilik i\u00e7inde do\u011fmakla kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131 me\u015fru stat\u00fcye zarar verece\u011fi kanaatine ula\u015f\u0131l\u0131rken \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131n\u0131 koruyacak \u015fekilde ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7e sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015fmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Ayr\u0131ca kararda \u00f6zellikle belirtilen velayet hakk\u0131 sahibi annenin \u00e7ocu\u011fun soyad\u0131n\u0131n de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesi davas\u0131 a\u00e7ma hakk\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki tespit, cinsiyete dayal\u0131 farkl\u0131 bir muamelenin s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011funu ve bu farkl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 hakl\u0131 k\u0131lacak \u00f6nemli nedenlerin ortaya konulmas\u0131 gere\u011fine ra\u011fmen belirtilen muamele farkl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 hakl\u0131 g\u00f6sterecek nitelik ve kapsamda bir gerek\u00e7eye yer verilmedi\u011fini ortaya koymaktad\u0131r (benzer de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. Nurcan Yolcu, \u00a7\u00a7 46, 50; G\u00fclbu \u00d6zg\u00fcler, \u00a7\u00a7 53, 57; Deniz Alt\u0131nba\u015f ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 31; E.\u00c7., \u00a7 20). T\u00fcm bu a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda somut olayda an\u0131lan kararlardaki de\u011ferlendirmelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektirecek bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
15. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
16. Ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n 9 y\u0131l 8 ayda tamamland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
17. 9\/1\/2013 tarihli ve 6384 say\u0131l\u0131 Tazminat Komisyonunun G\u00f6revleri ile \u00c7al\u0131\u015fma Usul ve Esaslar\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’da de\u011fi\u015fiklik yapan 2\/3\/2024 tarihli ve 7499 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun uyar\u0131nca \u00fc\u00e7 ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lacak m\u00fcracaat \u00fczerine makul s\u00fcre \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin Tazminat Komisyonu taraf\u0131ndan incelenece\u011fi d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Nitekim Anayasa Mahkemesi Ahmet Kartalku\u015f karar\u0131nda ilk bak\u0131\u015fta ula\u015f\u0131labilir olan ve ihlal iddialar\u0131yla ilgili ba\u015far\u0131 \u015fans\u0131 sunma ve yeterli giderim sa\u011flama kapasitesi oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclen Tazminat Komisyonuna ba\u015fvuru yolu t\u00fcketilmeden yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun incelenmesinin bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincil niteli\u011fi ile ba\u011fda\u015fmayaca\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Ahmet Kartalku\u015f [2. B.], B. No: 2019\/39635, 19\/3\/2024). Somut ba\u015fvuruda da, an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti, yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ve 100.000 TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
20. 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) [1. B.], 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
21. \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
22. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. Aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak Anayasa’n\u0131n 10. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Ankara 11. Aile Mahkemesine (E.2017\/1011, K.2017\/1631) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 664,10 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.664,10 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 28\/5\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 28\/5\/2025 tarihli ve 2022\/4717 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 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR ESRA ERTAN BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/4717) Karar Tarihi: 28\/5\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Ay\u015fenur TUNCER Ba\u015fvurucu : Esra ERTAN Vekili : Av. Ali \u0130hsan G\u00dcZEL I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, bo\u015fanma davas\u0131 sonras\u0131nda \u00e7ocu\u011fun soyad\u0131n\u0131 de\u011fi\u015ftirme talebiyle velayet hakk\u0131 sahibi anne taraf\u0131ndan a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddedilmesi nedeniyle aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k yasa\u011f\u0131 ile makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, Ankara 5. Aile Mahkemesinin 24\/2\/2009 kesinle\u015fme tarihli karar\u0131 ile bo\u015fanm\u0131\u015f ve 9\/6\/2007 do\u011fumlu m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuk E.H.A.n\u0131n velayeti kendisine verilmi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu 4\/4\/2012 tarihinde Ankara 11. Aile Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu davada velayeti kendisine verilen k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn soyad\u0131n\u0131n de\u011fi\u015ftirilerek kendi soyad\u0131n\u0131n verilmesine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme 4\/9\/2012 tarihli karar\u0131 ile davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn soyad\u0131n\u0131n de\u011fi\u015ftirilerek ba\u015fvurucunun soyad\u0131 olan Ertan olarak n\u00fcfusa tesciline karar vermi\u015ftir. 4. N\u00fcfus M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc temsilcisi karara kar\u015f\u0131 temyiz kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Yarg\u0131tay 18. Hukuk Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan davan\u0131n asliye hukuk mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi kapsam\u0131nda oldu\u011fu kanaatine var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00f6ylelikle g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 verilmesi yerine i\u015fin esas\u0131na girilerek davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir. H\u00fckm\u00fcn bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmesi akabinde yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamada Mahkeme direnme karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Direnme …<\/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-148751","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n