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
EM\u0130NE N\u0130L\u00dcFER YE\u015e\u0130LKAYA BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/35055)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 24\/10\/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
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Osman KODAL<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Emine Nil\u00fcfer YE\u015e\u0130LKAYA<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. H\u00fcseyin \u00c7IVKIN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, tapu iptali ve tescil talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131na etkili iddian\u0131n kararda kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, murisi ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ge\u00e7erli olmayan vek\u00e2letname ile devredildi\u011fini belirterek \u00c7e\u015fme1. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) tapu iptali ve tescil davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu dava dilek\u00e7esinde murisinin fiil ehliyetinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bu nedenle vesayet alt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair M\u00fcnih yerel mahkemesinin karar\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011funu iddia etmi\u015f, s\u00f6z konusu belgeyi Mahkemeye sunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
3. M\u00fcnih Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesinin “Tasdikli Suret” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u01319\/3\/2005 tarihli belgesinde; S.Y.nin M.Y.nin ge\u00e7ici bak\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011fu, s\u00fcresinin 4\/9\/2009 tarihiyle s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131\u011f\u0131, g\u00f6rev alan\u0131n\u0131n her t\u00fcrl\u00fc konularda posta yaz\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131 ahzu kabz ve telekom\u00fcnikasyon i\u015flemleri, ilgili ki\u015fiyi g\u00f6rev kapsam\u0131nda mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcnde ve d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda temsile yetkili bulundu\u011fu, di\u011fer bak\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n A.Y. oldu\u011fu, bak\u0131c\u0131lar\u0131n ilgili ki\u015finin i\u015flerini tek ba\u015f\u0131na ve m\u00fcnferiden yerine getirme yetkisine sahip bulundu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Mahkeme davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“…<\/p>\n
\u00a0Davac\u0131 murise ait gayrimenkul\u00fcn sat\u0131\u015f\u0131na dayanak vekaletnamenin murisin ehliyetsizli\u011fi nedeniyle ge\u00e7erli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015flerdir. Hukuki ehliyet durumunun doktor raporu ile kan\u0131tlanmas\u0131 esast\u0131r. Mahkememiz taraf\u0131ndan murisin vekaletname tarihindeki sa\u011fl\u0131k durumunu g\u00f6sterir raporu, di\u011fer sa\u011fl\u0131k raporu gibi deliller ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, tan\u0131klar dinlenmi\u015f, vekaletnamenin tanziminin de al\u0131nan Sa\u011fl\u0131k Oca\u011f\u0131 raporu da celp edildikten sonra, vekaletnamenin tanzim tarihinde murisin hukuki ehliyete sahip olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda Adli T\u0131p Kurumundan rapor al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f, murisin vekaletnameyi tanzim etti\u011fi 23\/09\/2005 tarihinde fiil ehliyetine haiz oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. ( HGK. 18.07.2007 tarih ve 583-556 ve 3.H.D. 22.06.2009 tarih ve 7669-10711) Davac\u0131 vekili muris taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen vekaletnameye dayan\u0131larak yap\u0131lan murisin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131na ili\u015fkin i\u015flemin iptalini talep etmi\u015f ise de dosya kapsam\u0131nda dinlenilen tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131, murise ait sa\u011fl\u0131k belgeleri, ATK raporu hep birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde vekaletnamenin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi tarihte murisin fiil ehliyetine haiz oldu\u011fu, tapunun iptalini gerektirecek herhangi bir yasal neden bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, murisin yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flemin hukuki sonu\u00e7 do\u011furaca\u011f\u0131, ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davac\u0131n\u0131n tapunun iptaline y\u00f6nelik iddialar\u0131n\u0131n ispatlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine var\u0131larak davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n
\u00a0…”<\/p>\n
5. An\u0131lan karar\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu temyiz etmi\u015f, Yarg\u0131tay 1. Hukuk Dairesi karar\u0131 onam\u0131\u015f, karar d\u00fczeltme talebini de reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Nihai karar ba\u015fvurucuya 18\/10\/2020 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu 16\/11\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
7. Komisyon, kabul edilebilirlik konusunda oybirli\u011fi sa\u011flanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu; murisinin fiil ehliyetinin olmamas\u0131 nedeniyle vesayet alt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin M\u00fcnih yerel mahkemesinin karar\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011funu, muris taraf\u0131ndan verilen vek\u00e2letnamenin ge\u00e7erli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tapuda yap\u0131lan i\u015flemin de ge\u00e7erli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bu iddialar\u0131n\u0131n Mahkemece dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ayr\u0131ca davan\u0131n ret ile sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131yla miras hakk\u0131ndan do\u011fan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na kavu\u015famad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma ve m\u00fclkiyet haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
9. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen iddialar\u0131n kanun yolu \u015fik\u00e2yeti niteli\u011finde olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lacak kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinde dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n faydal\u0131 olaca\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan sunulan delillerin de\u011ferlendirildi\u011fi, adli t\u0131p kurumundan rapor temin edildi\u011fi, ba\u015fvurucunun karar d\u00fczeltme yolu d\u00e2hil kanun yollar\u0131ndan faydalanabildi\u011fi bildirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olaylar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan hukuki nitelendirmesi ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olmay\u0131p olay ve olgular\u0131n hukuki tavsifini kendisi takdir eder. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fcn murisin fiil ehliyetinin olmamas\u0131 nedeniyle vesayet alt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin M\u00fcnih yerel mahkemesinin karar\u0131n\u0131n kararda kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olmas\u0131 nedeniyle ba\u015fvuru, gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/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 gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
12. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 g\u00fcvencesini de kapsamaktad\u0131r (daha geni\u015f de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. Abdullah Top\u00e7u, B. No: 2014\/8868, 19\/4\/2017, \u00a7 75). Nitekim Anayasa’n\u0131n 141. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131nda \u201cB\u00fct\u00fcn mahkemelerin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc kararlar\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli olarak yaz\u0131l\u0131r.\u201d denilerek mahkemelere kararlar\u0131n\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli yazma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc y\u00fcklenmi\u015ftir. Mahkemelerin an\u0131lan y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, yarg\u0131lamada ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen her t\u00fcrl\u00fc iddia ve savunmaya karar gerek\u00e7esinde ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 yan\u0131t vermesi gerekti\u011fi \u015feklinde anla\u015f\u0131lamaz. Ancak mahkemeler, kendilerine sunulan t\u00fcm iddialara yan\u0131t vermek zorunda de\u011filse de (Yasemin Ek\u015fi, B. No: 2013\/5486, 4\/12\/2013, \u00a7 56) mahkemelerin davan\u0131n esas sorunlar\u0131n\u0131 inceledikleri gerek\u00e7eli karardan anla\u015f\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bir kararda tam olarak hangi unsurlar\u0131n bulunmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi davan\u0131n niteli\u011fine ve \u015fartlar\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. Muhakeme s\u0131ras\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k ve somut bir bi\u00e7imde \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclen iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili, ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle davan\u0131n sonucunu de\u011fi\u015ftirebilecek nitelikte olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde davayla do\u011frudan ilgili olan bu hususlara mahkemelerce makul bir gerek\u00e7e ile yan\u0131t verilmesi gerekir (Sencer Ba\u015fat ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2013\/7800, 18\/6\/2014, \u00a7 35). Aksi bir tutumla mahkemenin davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili oldu\u011funu kabul etti\u011fi bir husus hakk\u0131nda ilgili ve yeterli bir yan\u0131t vermemesi veya yan\u0131t vermeyi gerektiren usul veya esasa dair iddialar\u0131 cevaps\u0131z b\u0131rakmas\u0131 hak ihlaline neden olabilecektir (Sencer Ba\u015fat ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 39).<\/p>\n
13. Yukar\u0131da belirtilen ilkeler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda somut olay de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde; ba\u015fvurucu, murisinin fiil ehliyetinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bu nedenle vesayet alt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair M\u00fcnih yerel mahkemesinin karar\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011funu ancak bu karar\u0131n g\u00f6zetilmedi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Dosya i\u00e7erisinde bulunan M\u00fcnih Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesinin “Tasdikli Suret” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u01319\/3\/2005 tarihli belgesinde; S.Y.nin ge\u00e7ici olarak M.Y.nin bak\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011fu, s\u00fcresinin 4\/9\/2009 tarihiyle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 oldu\u011fu, g\u00f6rev alan\u0131n\u0131n her t\u00fcrl\u00fc konularda posta yaz\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131 ahzu kabz ve telekom\u00fcnikasyon i\u015flemleri, ilgili ki\u015fiyi g\u00f6rev kapsam\u0131nda mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcnde ve d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda temsil oldu\u011fu, di\u011fer bak\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n A.Y. oldu\u011fu, bak\u0131c\u0131lar\u0131n ilgili ki\u015finin i\u015flerini tek ba\u015f\u0131na ve m\u00fcnferiden yerine getirme yetkisine sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte ba\u015fvurucunun murisinin, M\u00fcnih Yerel Mahkemesi Vesayet Dairesinin 5\/3\/2009 tarihli karar\u0131yla Alzheimer tipi bunakl\u0131k (Demans) rahats\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 nedeniyle kendi i\u015flerini g\u00f6rebilecek durumda olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan vesayet alt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme; ba\u015fvurucunun murisinin vek\u00e2letnamenin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi 23\/9\/2005 tarihinde fiil ehliyeti bulundu\u011funu, yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yarg\u0131lama ve toplanan delillere g\u00f6re kabul ederek davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. H\u00e2lbuki ba\u015fvurucu, M\u00fcnih yerel mahkemesinin karar\u0131 oldu\u011funu ve murisinin bu nedenle temyiz kudretine sahip olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ilk derece mahkemesinde ve Yarg\u0131tay temyiz ba\u015fvurusunda ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bu iddia ile ilgili olarak mahkeme ve Yarg\u0131tay karar\u0131nda herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu itibarla s\u00f6z konusu iddia hakk\u0131nda herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmadan h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
15. Di\u011fer taraftan bu ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n davan\u0131n esas\u0131yla ilgili herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi vurgulanmal\u0131d\u0131r. Zira gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131, taraflara yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fckleri iddialar\u0131n\u0131n kurallara uygun bi\u00e7imde incelenip incelenmedi\u011fini bilmelerine imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayan bir hak olup yarg\u0131laman\u0131n sonucuna y\u00f6nelik bir teminat sa\u011flamaz. Bu itibarla Anayasa Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtti\u011fi ihlal gerek\u00e7elerini g\u00f6zeterek ve s\u00f6z konusu iddiayla ilgili olarak yeniden bir de\u011ferlendirme yaparak gereken karar\u0131 vermek yine yarg\u0131lama mercilerinin takdirindedir.<\/p>\n
16. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti ile yeniden yarg\u0131lama talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
18. 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
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasan\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere \u00c7e\u015fme 1. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesine (E.2011\/119, K.2015\/117) 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\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. \u00d6demenin 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
F. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 24\/10\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 24\/10\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/35055 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 EM\u0130NE N\u0130L\u00dcFER YE\u015e\u0130LKAYA BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/35055) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 24\/10\/2024 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : Osman KODAL Ba\u015fvurucu : Emine Nil\u00fcfer YE\u015e\u0130LKAYA Vekili : Av. H\u00fcseyin \u00c7IVKIN \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, tapu iptali ve tescil talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131na etkili iddian\u0131n kararda kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, murisi ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ge\u00e7erli olmayan vek\u00e2letname ile devredildi\u011fini belirterek \u00c7e\u015fme1. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) tapu iptali ve tescil davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu dava dilek\u00e7esinde murisinin fiil ehliyetinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bu nedenle vesayet alt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair M\u00fcnih yerel mahkemesinin karar\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011funu iddia etmi\u015f, s\u00f6z konusu belgeyi Mahkemeye sunmu\u015ftur. 3. M\u00fcnih Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesinin “Tasdikli Suret” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u01319\/3\/2005 tarihli belgesinde; S.Y.nin M.Y.nin ge\u00e7ici bak\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011fu, s\u00fcresinin 4\/9\/2009 tarihiyle s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131\u011f\u0131, g\u00f6rev alan\u0131n\u0131n her t\u00fcrl\u00fc konularda posta yaz\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131 ahzu kabz ve telekom\u00fcnikasyon i\u015flemleri, ilgili ki\u015fiyi g\u00f6rev kapsam\u0131nda mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcnde ve d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda temsile yetkili bulundu\u011fu, di\u011fer bak\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n A.Y. oldu\u011fu, bak\u0131c\u0131lar\u0131n ilgili ki\u015finin i\u015flerini tek ba\u015f\u0131na ve m\u00fcnferiden yerine getirme yetkisine sahip …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,535],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20539","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n