T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
OSMAN ALPHAN BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/34170)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 17\/9\/2024<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\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
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/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
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Murat AZAKLI<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Osman ALPHAN<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Reh\u015fan BATARAY SAMAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, g\u00fcven ili\u015fkisinin bozuldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esine dayan\u0131larak i\u015f akdine son verilmesi \u00fczerine a\u00e7\u0131lan i\u015fe iade davas\u0131nda adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, \u00e7e\u015fitli alt i\u015fveren \u015firketler nezdinde Diyarbak\u0131r Kayap\u0131nar Belediyesi (Belediye) b\u00fcnyesinde 2010 y\u0131l\u0131nda i\u015f\u00e7i stat\u00fcs\u00fcnde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya ba\u015flam\u0131\u015f; mill\u00ee g\u00fcvenli\u011fi tehdit eden yap\u0131larla irtibatl\u0131 veya iltisakl\u0131 olabilece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle 28\/2\/2017 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015f akdi feshedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu, feshin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011finin tespitine ve i\u015fe iadesine karar verilmesi talebiyle Belediye ve \u00c7evre Kat\u0131 At\u0131k Y\u00f6netimi Sosyal Hizmetler Turizm Limitet \u015eirketi aleyhine 23\/3\/2017 tarihinde dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Diyarbak\u0131r 4. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesine (Mahkeme) sundu\u011fu dava dilek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucu; feshin usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, feshe dayanak hi\u00e7bir somut bilgi\/belge sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendisine savunma yapma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Hi\u00e7bir \u00f6rg\u00fctle irtibat\u0131n\u0131n ve iltisak\u0131n\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcren ba\u015fvurucu, hakk\u0131nda idari yahut adli bir soru\u015fturma\/kovu\u015fturma olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde keyf\u00ee \u015fekilde i\u015f akdinin feshedildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
4. Mahkeme 27\/11\/2017 tarihinde davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Kayap\u0131nar Belediyesi taraf\u0131ndan dosyaya delil olarak sunulan \u0130l\u00e7e Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0130nsan Kaynaklar\u0131 ve E\u011fitim M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015f akdinin 667 ve 678 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK lar gere\u011fifeshedildi\u011fine dair yaz\u0131 ve yaz\u0131ya ekli listeden, davac\u0131n\u0131n 667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine dayan\u0131larak fesih i\u015flemi ile i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 sabit olup, 667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 4. Maddesinin 2. F\u0131kras\u0131nda, ‘Birinci f\u0131kra uyar\u0131nca g\u00f6revine son verilenler bir daha kamu hizmetinde istihdam edilemez, do\u011frudan veya dolayl\u0131 olarak g\u00f6revlendirilemezler’ denilmekle, dolayl\u0131 g\u00f6revlendirmenin alt i\u015fveren i\u015f\u00e7ilerini kapsad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilerek davac\u0131n\u0131n da alt i\u015fveren i\u015f\u00e7isi oldu\u011fu ve davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015fe iadesinin yasal olarak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na, 667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n i\u00e7erik denetimi yap\u0131labilece\u011fi kabul edildi\u011finde dahi Yarg\u0131tay 22. Hukuk Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan kamu as\u0131l i\u015fverenince 667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK kapsam\u0131nda alt i\u015fveren i\u015f\u00e7isinin i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 istenmesi durumunda bu durumun alt i\u015fveren bak\u0131m\u0131ndan zorunluluk olu\u015fturdu\u011fu ve alt i\u015fverence yap\u0131lan feshin ge\u00e7erli olaca\u011f\u0131 belirtildi\u011finden (Yarg. 22. Hukuk Dairesi, 2017\/5151-4850 E. K. Say\u0131l\u0131 karar) a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle i\u015fverence yap\u0131lan feshin ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011funa ve davan\u0131n reddine karar verilerek a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmu\u015ftur.”<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf talebinde bulunmu\u015f; yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc hususlar\u0131 tekrar etmek suretiyle karar\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 ve davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcn\u00fc talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Gaziantep B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 9. Hukuk Dairesi 9\/5\/2018 tarihli karar\u0131 ile istinaf talebinin kabul\u00fcne, ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na, dosyan\u0131n mahkemesine iadesine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar gerek\u00e7esinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015fu \u015fekildedir:<\/p>\n
“\u015eu halde dava alt i\u015fveren y\u00f6n\u00fcnden her ne kadar \u015firket y\u00f6n\u00fcnden vekaletnemade iki \u015firketinde vekili olsa da dosyaya sunulan cevap dilek\u00e7esinde sadece \u00c7evre Kat\u0131 At\u0131k y\u00f6n\u00fcnden cevap verildi\u011fi di\u011fer \u015firketin ise davaya dahil edilmedi\u011fi karar ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda da tek alt i\u015fveren g\u00f6r\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bu sebeple husumetin eksik y\u00f6neltildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkemece yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f davan\u0131n mahiyetinin i\u015fe iade davas\u0131 olmas\u0131 sebebiyle alt ve \u00fcst i\u015fverenler y\u00f6n\u00fcnden zorunlu dava arkada\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 bulundu\u011fu, bu sebeple as\u0131l alt i\u015fveren olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcnen ortak giri\u015fimden dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 kalan Sur Peyzaj Oto Tem.San.Ltd.\u015eti (Ortak Giri\u015fimi) davaya dahilinin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 sunulan delilleri topland\u0131ktan sonra esas hakk\u0131nda bir karar verilmesi gerekirken yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisi isabetli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile karar\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131larak g\u00f6nderilmesine karar vermek gerekmi\u015ftir.” <\/p>\n
7. Mahkeme tekrar yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yarg\u0131lamada Sur Peyzaj Plastik Ambalaj \u00dcr\u00fcnleri Tic. Ltd. \u015eti.ni davaya d\u00e2hil ederek 27\/2\/2019 tarihinde tekrar davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Mahkememizce yeniden yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda Sur Peyzaj Oto Tem.San.Ltd.\u015eti davaya dahil edilerek yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olup, \u00f6nceki gerek\u00e7elerle davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015f akdinin ge\u00e7erli nedenle feshedildi\u011fine ve davan\u0131n reddine karar verilerek a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmu\u015ftur.”<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf talebi \u00fczerine Gaziantep B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 9. Hukuk Dairesi 27\/6\/2019 tarihinde istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015f akdinin feshinin 667 ve 678 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK dan kaynaklanan yetki ile yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, dosyada feshe ili\u015fkin daval\u0131 belediyenin yaz\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n ve ek listenin yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay 22. Hukuk Dairesinin 07\/02\/2019 tarihli 2019\/542 esas ve2019\/2751 karar nolu ilam\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda, ge\u00e7erli nedenin bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015fvereni olan alt i\u015fveren a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan gerekmekte olup, davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin feshi, as\u0131l i\u015fveren belediyenin yaz\u0131s\u0131 ile667 ve 678 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’lar kapsam\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n milli g\u00fcvenli\u011fi tehdit eden yap\u0131lar ile irtibat\u0131 ve iltisak\u0131 olabilece\u011finin de\u011ferlendirildi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle istenilmekle, fesih dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n Ohal d\u00f6neminde \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan KHK olmas\u0131 ve as\u0131l i\u015f verence alt i\u015fverenden fesih hususunda talepte bulunulmas\u0131 durumunda bunun alt i\u015fveren y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u0130leride a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 muhtemel alacak davas\u0131nda hakl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ayr\u0131ca de\u011ferlendirilmek \u00fczere en az\u0131ndan ge\u00e7erli sebep olu\u015fturdu\u011fu, kararda bir isabetsizlik g\u00f6r\u00fclmemesine g\u00f6re yerinde bulunmayan b\u00fct\u00fcn istinaf itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n reddi ile usul ve esas y\u00f6n\u00fcnden hukuka uygun oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.” <\/p>\n
9. Nihai karar 8\/10\/2019 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucu vekiline tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 9\/10\/2019 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
10. Komisyonca, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ile esas incelemelerinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu; feshin usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak savunmas\u0131 dahi al\u0131nmadan yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, hem idari hem de yarg\u0131sal s\u00fcre\u00e7 boyunca ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc ile iltisak\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6sterir somut bir bilgi yahut belge ortaya konulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yaln\u0131zca kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcnde kararname (KHK) h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin gerek\u00e7e olarak g\u00f6sterildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Hi\u00e7bir \u00f6rg\u00fctle irtibat ve iltisak\u0131n\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcren ba\u015fvurucu, hakk\u0131nda idari yahut adli bir soru\u015fturma\/kovu\u015fturma olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde keyf\u00ee \u015fekilde i\u015f akdinin feshedildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015f ve adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
12. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin feshine ili\u015fkin karar\u0131n dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2l d\u00f6neminde \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan 22\/7\/2016 tarihli ve 667 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Al\u0131nan Tedbirlere \u0130li\u015fkin Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname (667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) oldu\u011funu, bu kapsamda Anayasa’n\u0131n 15. maddesinin dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k ayr\u0131ca somut ba\u015fvuruya ili\u015fkin olarak Kayap\u0131nar Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan temin edilen g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri i\u00e7eren \u00fcst yaz\u0131 ve eklerinin ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetlerine ili\u015fkin olarak yap\u0131lacak incelemede dikkate al\u0131narak ba\u015fvurucunun adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi konusunda somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucu; Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lma gerek\u00e7esinin, su\u00e7 isnad\u0131 niteli\u011findeki ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctleriyle iltisak ve ili\u015fki oldu\u011funu, bu gerek\u00e7enin do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. 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 (Tahir Canan, B. No: 2012\/969, 18\/9\/2013, \u00a7 16). Ba\u015fvurucunun yukar\u0131da belirtilen \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin \u00f6z\u00fc, i\u015fe iade davas\u0131nda yarg\u0131 merciince uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmak suretiyle nihai bir \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme kavu\u015fturulmam\u0131\u015f ve karara ba\u011flanmam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131d\u0131r. Bu sebeple belirtilen iddialar mahiyeti itibar\u0131yla karar hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
16. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda hi\u00e7bir mahkemenin g\u00f6rev ve yetkisi i\u00e7indeki davaya bakmaktan ka\u00e7\u0131namayaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu ba\u011flamda Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131, ki\u015filere davan\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc mahkemeden uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011fa ili\u015fkin bir karar verilmesini isteme g\u00fcvencesini de sa\u011flar. \u00d6te yandan Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’ni (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) yorumlayan Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi de S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n mahkeme hakk\u0131 \u015feklinde genel bir hakk\u0131 d\u00fczenledi\u011fini kabul etmekte ve bu hakk\u0131n karar hakk\u0131n\u0131 da i\u00e7erdi\u011fini ifade etmektedir (\u0130brahim Demiro\u011flu, B. No: 2017\/15698, 26\/7\/2019, \u00a7 50).<\/p>\n
17. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvencelerinden biri olan mahkeme hakk\u0131; mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, karar hakk\u0131 ve karar\u0131n icras\u0131 haklar\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7erir. Karar hakk\u0131 genel itibar\u0131yla mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcne getirilen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 isteme hakk\u0131n\u0131 ifade eder. Zira dava hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanan bireyin as\u0131l amac\u0131 davan\u0131n sonunda, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu etti\u011fi talebinin esas\u0131yla ilgili olarak bir karar elde edebilmektir. Bir ba\u015fka ifadeyle dava sonucunda \u015fayet bir karar elde edilemiyorsa dava a\u00e7man\u0131n da bir anlam\u0131 kalmayacakt\u0131r. \u00d6te yandan karar hakk\u0131 bireylerin sadece yarg\u0131lama sonucunda \u015fekl\u00ee anlamda bir karar elde etmelerini g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na almaz. Bu hak ayn\u0131 zamanda dava konusu edilen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011fa ili\u015fkin esasl\u0131 taleplerin yarg\u0131 merciince bir sonuca ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 da gerektirir (\u0130brahim Demiro\u011flu, \u00a7 51).<\/p>\n
18. Ku\u015fkusuz s\u00f6z konusu dava, yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fc kurallar\u0131 gere\u011fince uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenemedi\u011fi birtak\u0131m kararlarla da neticelenmi\u015f olabilir (d\u00fc\u015fme\/a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lma\/karar verilmesine yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131\/s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 vb.). Bu durum kural olarak karar hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bir sorun te\u015fkil etmez. Zira s\u00f6z konusu hakk\u0131n sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00fcvence bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00f6nemli olan husus; a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131rada davan\u0131n -usule ili\u015fkin sorunlar hari\u00e7- uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme kavu\u015fturma potansiyeline sahip, bir ba\u015fka ifadeyle dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131ndaki as\u0131l amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli olmas\u0131d\u0131r. Ancak bu nitelikleri ta\u015f\u0131yan bir davada yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hen\u00fcz devam etti\u011fi bir s\u00fcre\u00e7te taraflardan birinin aleyhine olacak ve yarg\u0131 merciinin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu talep hakk\u0131nda karar vermesini engelleyecek \u015fekilde davay\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131ran ya da davan\u0131n incelenmesini durdurarak karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131na m\u00e2ni olan yasalar \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131 karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlaline yol a\u00e7abilir (\u0130brahim Demiro\u011flu, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
19. Somut olayda Belediyede i\u015f\u00e7i olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmakta olan ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015f akdi, darbe te\u015febb\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn akabinde mill\u00ee g\u00fcvenlik kapsam\u0131nda, ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctleriyle irtibatl\u0131 olan personelin ili\u015fi\u011finin kesilmesine karar verildi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle feshedilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, i\u015f akdinin ge\u00e7erli bir nedene dayanmadan feshedildi\u011fini belirterek i\u015fveren aleyhine i\u015fe iade talebiyle dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. Diyarbak\u0131r 4. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi 667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK ve Yarg\u0131tay 22. Hukuk Dairesinin kararlar\u0131na dayal\u0131 olarak davan\u0131n reddine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7 4). Karar\u0131n usuli y\u00f6nden Gaziantep B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 \u00fczerine Mahkeme kald\u0131rma karar\u0131nda belirtilen usuli eksikli\u011fi gidererek ilgili \u015firketi davaya d\u00e2hil etmi\u015f, ilk karardaki gerek\u00e7elere at\u0131f yaparak tekrar davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 6, 7). \u0130stinaf istemi Gaziantep B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince reddedilerek karar kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7 8).<\/p>\n
21. \u015e\u00fcphe feshinin mahiyeti gere\u011fi ispat\u0131 beklenemese de Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihad\u0131nda da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere \u015f\u00fcphenin i\u015f\u00e7inin ki\u015fili\u011finde bulunan bir sebebe dayanmas\u0131, bu sebebin de ciddi, \u00f6nemli ve somut nitelikte objektif olay ve vak\u0131alar ile desteklenmesi gerekmektedir. Aksi h\u00e2lde hukuk devletinin bir gere\u011fi olan hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir \u015fekilde keyf\u00ee uygulamalar\u0131n g\u00fcndeme gelmesi s\u00f6z konusu olabilecektir.<\/p>\n
22. Hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ilkesi hukuk normlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir olmas\u0131n\u0131, bireylerin t\u00fcm eylem ve i\u015flemlerinde devlete g\u00fcven duyabilmesini, devletin de yasal d\u00fczenlemelerde bu g\u00fcven duygusunu zedeleyici y\u00f6ntemlerden ka\u00e7\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 gerekli k\u0131lar. Belirlilik ilkesi ise yasal d\u00fczenlemelerin hem ki\u015filer hem de idare y\u00f6n\u00fcnden herhangi bir duraksamaya ve ku\u015fkuya yer vermeyecek \u015fekilde a\u00e7\u0131k, net, anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r ve uygulanabilir olmas\u0131n\u0131, ayr\u0131ca kamu otoritelerinin keyf\u00ee uygulamalar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 koruyucu \u00f6nlem i\u00e7ermesini ifade etmektedir (AYM, E.2013\/39, K.2013\/65, 22\/5\/2013).<\/p>\n
23. Derece mahkemelerince ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen ara\u015ft\u0131rma ve incelemeler neticesinde tespit edilen hususlar\u0131n hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ve belirlilik ilkelerini temin edecek ve keyf\u00ee uygulamalar\u0131n \u00f6n\u00fcne ge\u00e7ecek \u015fekilde somut olay\u0131n \u00f6zelli\u011fi dikkate al\u0131narak gerek\u00e7eli kararda ortaya konulmas\u0131 gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
24. Yarg\u0131tay, \u015f\u00fcphe feshi kapsam\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lacak davalarda taraflarca haz\u0131rlama ilkesine \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fck tan\u0131namayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Bu itibarla \u015f\u00fcphe feshi kapsam\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan i\u015fe iade davalar\u0131nda, taraflarca haz\u0131rlama ilkesi yerine istisnai nitelikteki kendili\u011finden ara\u015ft\u0131rma ilkesi uygulanmaktad\u0131r. Yani derece mahkemelerinin taraflar\u0131n ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc yahut ortaya koydu\u011fu tespitlerden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olarak ara\u015ft\u0131rma yapmas\u0131, yine taraflar\u0131n iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 bu kapsamda de\u011ferlendirerek bir sonuca varmas\u0131 gerekir.<\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015f akdinin sonland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na sebep olan, ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcyle irtibatl\u0131 oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131d\u0131r. \u0130\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan sunulan belgelerden hangi sebebe istinaden bu kanaate var\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda da bu husus ortaya konulmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
26. Bu kapsamda derece mahkemelerinden beklenen, ba\u015fvurucu ile ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fctleri aras\u0131ndaki ba\u011flant\u0131y\u0131 g\u00f6steren somut, ki\u015fisel ve g\u00fcncel sebepleri gerek\u00e7eli kararda ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 bir \u015fekilde ortaya koymak, kendisini davan\u0131n reddi sonucuna g\u00f6t\u00fcren sebepleri net bir \u015fekilde karara yans\u0131tmakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
27. Somut olayda Mahkemece, i\u015fveren y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurucu ile i\u015fveren aras\u0131ndaki g\u00fcven ili\u015fkisinin sars\u0131lmas\u0131na neden olan olay ve olgulara dair hi\u00e7bir inceleme ve ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, yaln\u0131zca 667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ile Yarg\u0131tay 22. Hukuk Dairesinin karar\u0131na at\u0131f yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u015fekilci bir yakla\u015f\u0131mla hareket edilerek davan\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmedi\u011fi, ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle davaya konu tasarrufun esas\u0131 hakk\u0131nda karar verilmedi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bu nedenle yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcreci bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucunun karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
28. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
29. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ile yeniden yarg\u0131lama ve tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
30. 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 (30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen bireysel ba\u015fvuruya \u00f6zg\u00fc yeniden yarg\u0131lama kurumunun \u00f6zelliklerine ili\u015fkin kapsaml\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamalar i\u00e7in bkz. Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2), B. No: 2016\/12506, 7\/11\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 53-60, 66; Kadri Enis Berbero\u011flu (3) [GK], B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n
31. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Diyarbak\u0131r 4. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesine (E.2018\/301, K.2019\/92) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 364,60 TL ba\u015fvuru harc\u0131 ile 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 19.164,60 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \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
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 17\/9\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 17\/9\/2024 tarihli ve 2019\/34170 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 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 OSMAN ALPHAN BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/34170) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 17\/9\/2024 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u00a0 \u00a0 Muhterem \u0130NCE \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Murat AZAKLI Ba\u015fvurucu : Osman ALPHAN Vekili : Av. Reh\u015fan BATARAY SAMAN \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, g\u00fcven ili\u015fkisinin bozuldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esine dayan\u0131larak i\u015f akdine son verilmesi \u00fczerine a\u00e7\u0131lan i\u015fe iade davas\u0131nda adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, \u00e7e\u015fitli alt i\u015fveren \u015firketler nezdinde Diyarbak\u0131r Kayap\u0131nar Belediyesi (Belediye) b\u00fcnyesinde 2010 y\u0131l\u0131nda i\u015f\u00e7i stat\u00fcs\u00fcnde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya ba\u015flam\u0131\u015f; mill\u00ee g\u00fcvenli\u011fi tehdit eden yap\u0131larla irtibatl\u0131 veya iltisakl\u0131 olabilece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle 28\/2\/2017 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015f akdi feshedilmi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu, feshin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011finin tespitine ve i\u015fe iadesine karar verilmesi talebiyle Belediye ve \u00c7evre Kat\u0131 At\u0131k Y\u00f6netimi Sosyal Hizmetler Turizm Limitet \u015eirketi aleyhine 23\/3\/2017 tarihinde dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Diyarbak\u0131r 4. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesine (Mahkeme) sundu\u011fu dava dilek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucu; feshin usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, feshe dayanak hi\u00e7bir somut bilgi\/belge sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendisine savunma yapma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Hi\u00e7bir \u00f6rg\u00fctle irtibat\u0131n\u0131n ve iltisak\u0131n\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcren ba\u015fvurucu, hakk\u0131nda idari yahut adli bir soru\u015fturma\/kovu\u015fturma olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde keyf\u00ee \u015fekilde …<\/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-21012","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n