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
R. D. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/57445)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 30\/4\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 23\/12\/2024 – 32761<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Recai AKYEL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Ay\u015fenur TUNCER<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. O\u011fuz \u00d6ZDEM\u0130R<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuk ile baba aras\u0131ndaki ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n reddedilmesi nedeniyle aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucunun A.K. ile yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 evlilikten 2004 y\u0131l\u0131nda m\u00fc\u015fterek bir k\u0131z \u00e7ocu\u011fu d\u00fcnyaya gelmi\u015ftir. 2009 y\u0131l\u0131nda A.K.n\u0131n a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 bo\u015fanma davas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k ba\u015fvurucu, tedbir nafakas\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bo\u015fanma davas\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun kusuru ispatlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davan\u0131n reddine, ba\u015fvurucunun a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tedbir nafakas\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n ise ayr\u0131 ya\u015famakta hakl\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmesi nedeniyle k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu kararlar temyiz edilmeksizin 1\/7\/2010 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir. 2012 y\u0131l\u0131nda ise A.K. m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocukla ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki kurulmas\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilerek baba ile m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuk aras\u0131nda her ay\u0131n 1. ve 3. haftas\u0131n\u0131n cumartesi g\u00fcn\u00fc ve din\u00ee bayramlar\u0131n 2. g\u00fcnleri yat\u0131l\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n ve her y\u0131l\u0131n temmuz ay\u0131 boyunca yat\u0131l\u0131 olacak \u015fekilde ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki kurulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tayca onama karar\u0131 verildi\u011finden karar 20\/6\/2013 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. An\u0131lan davalardan sonra A.K. 29\/8\/2013 tarihinde yeniden bo\u015fanma davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu da kar\u015f\u0131 bo\u015fanma davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda verilen h\u00fck\u00fcm; bo\u015fanma, velayet, ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki ve maddi tazminat y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 10\/2\/2015 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Bu bo\u015fanma davas\u0131ndaki ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki h\u00fckm\u00fc kesinle\u015ftikten sonra ba\u015fvurucu 11\/7\/2017 tarihinde S\u00f6\u011f\u00fct Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) A.K. ile m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuk aras\u0131ndaki ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle davay\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu; dava dilek\u00e7esinde zaman i\u00e7inde A.K.n\u0131n m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocukla g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmek i\u00e7in hemen hemen hi\u00e7bir giri\u015fimde bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, en son icra yoluyla m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocu\u011fu g\u00f6rmek istedi\u011fini, ancak m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocu\u011fun babas\u0131yla g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmek istemedi\u011fini, bu nedenle a\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek \u00f6ncelikle ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin tedbiren durdurulmas\u0131n\u0131, sonu\u00e7 olarak ise ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir. Cevap dilek\u00e7esinde ise A.K. k\u0131z\u0131n\u0131 uzun s\u00fcredir g\u00f6remedi\u011fini, icra yoluyla g\u00f6rmek istedi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucunun zorluk \u00e7\u0131kard\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Aile mahkemesi s\u0131fat\u0131yla g\u00f6r\u00fclen davada Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7ocuk bizzat dinlenmi\u015ftir. \u00c7ocuk, babas\u0131yla uzun s\u00fcredir g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmedi\u011fini ve g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmek de istemedi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Dosya kapsam\u0131ndaki sosyal inceleme raporunda ise \u00e7ocu\u011fun hat\u0131rlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir ya\u015ftayken babas\u0131n\u0131n kendisinin bo\u011faz\u0131na sar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015feklindeki beyan\u0131ndan ba\u015fka babayla ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirecek somutlukta bir risk unsuru tespit edilemedi\u011fi belirtilmekle birlikte mevcut durumda \u00e7ocu\u011fun babas\u0131n\u0131 bir yabanc\u0131dan \u00f6te kendisine zarar verebilecek birisi olarak g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ifade edilmi\u015ftir. \u00c7ocu\u011fun babas\u0131na gitmesi durumunda \u00f6zellikle babaannesinde kalmaktan \u00e7ekindi\u011fi ve bu duygu h\u00e2linde babas\u0131yla g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeyi kesinlikle istemedi\u011fi tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Buradan hareketle \u00e7ocu\u011fun bu deneyime haz\u0131r olmamas\u0131 sebebiyle babas\u0131yla yat\u0131l\u0131 ve uzun s\u00fcreli bir zaman ge\u00e7irme mecburiyetinin \u00e7ocu\u011fu olumsuz y\u00f6nde etkileyece\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Sonu\u00e7 olarak \u00e7ocu\u011fun mevcut durumunda baba ile g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmek istemedi\u011fini beyan etmesi nedeniyle \u00e7ocu\u011fun babas\u0131 ile aras\u0131ndaki yat\u0131l\u0131 ve uzun s\u00fcreli ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin devam etmesinin uygun olmayaca\u011f\u0131 kanaati bildirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Mahkemece t\u00fcm dosya kapsam\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilerek 22\/10\/2019 tarihinde davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocukla babas\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin tamamen kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na, ayr\u0131ca ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki tesisinin h\u00fckm\u00fcn kesinle\u015fti\u011fi tarihe kadar tedbiren durdurulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Karar gerek\u00e7esinde; ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin i\u00e7eri\u011finin belirlenmesinde \u00e7ocu\u011fun iste\u011fi ve g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcn de dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, bu nedenle ay\u0131rt etme g\u00fcc\u00fcne sahip k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn kural olarak dinlenmesi gerekti\u011fi, dosyadaki sosyal inceleme raporlar\u0131ndan k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn babas\u0131 ile g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmek istemedi\u011fini beyan etti\u011finin anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn duru\u015fmadaki beyanlar\u0131nda da babas\u0131 ile ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki kurmay\u0131, onunla bir araya gelerek g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeyi \u015fiddetle ve \u0131srarla reddetti\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131ndan da bo\u015fanmadan sonraki s\u00fcre\u00e7te baban\u0131n \u00e7ocu\u011fu ile uzun s\u00fcre g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmedi\u011fi, bu konuda ciddi bir \u00e7aba ve istek g\u00f6stermedi\u011fi, \u00e7ocu\u011fun bak\u0131m ve g\u00f6zetimi ile yeterince ilgilenmedi\u011finin anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Kararda; bu davadan \u00f6nce ya\u015fanan s\u00fcre\u00e7te \u00e7ocuk teslimi i\u00e7in A.K.n\u0131n icra yoluna ba\u015fvurdu\u011fu, \u00e7ocuk teslimi i\u00e7in gidildi\u011finde \u00e7ocu\u011fun babas\u0131 ile g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmek istemedi\u011fi ve bu nedenle \u00e7ocu\u011fun teslim edilemedi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu hususun da dosyada yer alan CD i\u00e7eri\u011fi, \u00e7ocuk teslimine muhalefet su\u00e7una ili\u015fkin dava dosyalar\u0131 ve \u00e7ocu\u011fun duru\u015fmadaki beyanlar\u0131 ile sabit oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Sonu\u00e7 olarak babas\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6rmek ve babas\u0131yla kar\u015f\u0131la\u015fmak istemeyen, babas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 yabanc\u0131l\u0131k hisseden \u00e7ocuk ile babas\u0131 aras\u0131nda zorla ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki kurulmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu durumun \u00e7ocu\u011fun ki\u015filik hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalini olu\u015fturabilece\u011fi, \u00e7ocuk ile babas\u0131 aras\u0131nda ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin kurulmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde \u00e7ocu\u011fun ve velayet hakk\u0131na sahip ba\u015fvurucunun huzurunun bozulaca\u011f\u0131, \u00e7ocu\u011fun beden ve psikolojik geli\u015fiminin olumsuz etkilenece\u011fi kanaati a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu kanaat do\u011frultusunda mahkeme karar\u0131yla m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuk ile baba aras\u0131ndaki ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki tamamen kald\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olup \u00e7ocuk ile baba aras\u0131nda ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki tesisine yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Karar\u0131n A.K. taraf\u0131ndan istinaf edilmesi \u00fczerine Bursa B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 2. Hukuk Dairesi (B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi) 20\/1\/2022 tarihinde mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Kararda baba ile \u00e7ocuk aras\u0131nda \u00f6nceden kurulan ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirecek herhangi bir durum bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesinin de gerekmedi\u011fini vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunun yan\u0131nda \u00e7ocuk ile baba aras\u0131ndaki duygusal ba\u011f\u0131n tamamen kopmamas\u0131 ve \u00e7ocu\u011fun y\u00fcksek yarar\u0131 gere\u011fince davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekirken kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Bu karar\u0131 ba\u015fvurucunun temyiz etmesi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi (Daire) 14\/4\/2022 tarihinde B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince verilen karar\u0131n onanmas\u0131na kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 28\/4\/2022 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 24\/5\/2022 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. Komisyon ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
10. \u00d6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucunun adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu; ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 davas\u0131nda ilk derece mahkemesinin toplanan delilleri de\u011ferlendirerek ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin neden kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131k ve net olarak belirledi\u011fini ve sonu\u00e7ta \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131 gere\u011fince karar verdi\u011fini, buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince mahkeme karar\u0131 kald\u0131r\u0131l\u0131rken deliller ve \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131 g\u00f6zetilmeksizin karar verildi\u011fini belirterek aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihad\u0131 ve somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda bireysel ba\u015fvuru formundaki a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Velayet hakk\u0131na ve ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki kurulmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar, adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlali iddialar\u0131na s\u0131kl\u0131kla konu olmakla birlikte s\u00fcrecin ivedi olarak y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesi de d\u00e2hil olmak \u00fczere -ilgili prosed\u00fcrlere ili\u015fkin i\u015flem ve eylemlerin aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda meydana getirdi\u011fi sonu\u00e7lar dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda- s\u00f6z konusu iddialar\u0131n aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda ele al\u0131nmas\u0131 uygundur (Marcus Frank Cerny [GK], B. No: 2013\/5126, 2\/7\/2015, \u00a7 82; M.M.E. ve T.E., B. No: 2013\/2910, 5\/11\/2015, \u00a7 137). Bu nedenle ba\u015fvuru, aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
14. Anayasan\u0131n 41. maddesinde ifade edilen \u00e7ocu\u011fun y\u00fcksek yarar\u0131 mahkemeler, idari makamlar ve yasama organ\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan ve \u00e7ocuklar\u0131 ilgilendiren b\u00fct\u00fcn faaliyetlerde g\u00f6zetilmesi gereken bir ilkedir. Bu ba\u011flamda \u00e7ocuklar \u00fczerinde etki do\u011furacak bir i\u015flem yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 zaman bu i\u015flemin \u00e7ocu\u011fun yarar\u0131na uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerin yerine getirilmesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan olduk\u00e7a \u00f6nemlidir (\u015e\u00fckran \u0130rge, B. No: 2016\/8660, 7\/11\/2019, \u00a7 33).<\/p>\n
15. \u015e\u00fcphesiz \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131n\u0131n ne oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin tespit, bu t\u00fcr davalarda dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gereken en \u00f6nemli unsurdur. Derece mahkemelerinin takdirlerinin gerek\u00e7elerini ebeveynin kanun yoluna m\u00fcracaat imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131 da etkili \u015fekilde kullanabilmelerini sa\u011flayacak surette ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 olarak ortaya koymalar\u0131 ve ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 yeterli a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131ktaki bilimsel g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f, rapor gibi yeterli ve objektif verilere dayand\u0131rmas\u0131 gerekmektedir (Murat At\u0131lgan, B. No: 2013\/9047, 7\/5\/2015, \u00a7 45; Marcus Frank Cerny, \u00a7 84; N.\u00d6., B. No: 2014\/19725, 19\/11\/2015, \u00a7 56).<\/p>\n
16. Ba\u015fvuru konusu yarg\u0131sal s\u00fcre\u00e7te ilk derece mahkemesi bildirilen tan\u0131klar\u0131 ve \u00e7ocu\u011fu dinlemi\u015f olup konuyla ilgili uzman bilirki\u015filerden raporlar alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme, \u00e7ocu\u011fun babas\u0131 ile aras\u0131ndaki ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin devam etmesinin \u00e7ocu\u011fun y\u00fcksek yarar\u0131na uygun olmayaca\u011f\u0131 kanaatine ula\u015farak ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin tamamen kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Ancak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n a\u015famalar\u0131nda her ne kadar \u00e7ocuk babayla kesinlikle g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmek istemedi\u011fini beyan etse de al\u0131nan raporlarda sonu\u00e7 olarak mevcut durumda yat\u0131l\u0131 ve uzun olacak \u015fekilde ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki tesisinin \u00e7ocu\u011fun psikolojik geli\u015fimine uygun olmayaca\u011f\u0131 kanaatine ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, ayr\u0131ca raporlarda \u00e7ocuk ile baba aras\u0131ndaki ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin tamamen kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6ylece somut olayda \u00e7ocu\u011fun babas\u0131yla g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmekten dolay\u0131 ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 huzursuzluk ve rahats\u0131zl\u0131k uzmanlarca g\u00f6zetilerek yat\u0131l\u0131 ve uzun s\u00fcreli ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin devam\u0131n\u0131n uygun olmayaca\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc sunulmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen ilk derece mahkemesinin gerek\u00e7esini ve gereklili\u011fini ortaya koymayarak ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkiyi tamamen kald\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle ilk derece mahkemesinin baba ile \u00e7ocuk aras\u0131ndaki ba\u011f\u0131 tamamen koparacak nitelikte bir karar vermesinin \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131na uygun bir \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm oldu\u011funu s\u00f6ylemek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Ancak \u00e7ok ciddi sebeplerin ve \u00e7ocukla ilgili ciddi risklerin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2linde ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin tamamen kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131nda \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ciddi tehdit olu\u015fturacak nitelikte risklerin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ortaya konulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. \u00d6te yandan al\u0131nan uzman raporlar\u0131, taraflar\u0131n \u015fartlar\u0131, \u00e7ocu\u011fun maruz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 olaylar\/riskler g\u00f6zetilerek \u00e7ocu\u011fun fiziksel ve ruhsal geli\u015fimine en uygun \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcn tercih edilmesi ve bunun \u00e7ocu\u011fun yarar\u0131na oldu\u011funun yeterli gerek\u00e7eyle a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 gerekir. Ancak ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda istinaf incelemesinde verilen ret karar\u0131nda tan\u0131klar\u0131n ve \u00e7ocu\u011fun beyanlar\u0131 ile bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131nda belirtilen kanaatler gibi davay\u0131 etkileyebilecek nitelikteki incelemelere ni\u00e7in itibar edilmedi\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir gerek\u00e7e sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi raporlarda belirtilen kanaatlerin aleyhine karar verirken somut verilere dayanan yeterli ve ilgili gerek\u00e7eye de yer verilmedi\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin karar\u0131nda ilk derece mahkemesinin karar\u0131na dayanak te\u015fkil eden deliller hakk\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmayarak baba ile \u00e7ocuk aras\u0131nda \u00f6nceden kurulan ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirecek herhangi bir durum bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesinin de gerekmedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7e olarak belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
18. Bununla birlikte istinaf mercii \u00e7ocuk ile baba aras\u0131ndaki duygusal ba\u011f\u0131n tamamen kopmamas\u0131 ve m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocu\u011fun y\u00fcksek yarar\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 i\u00e7in ilk derece mahkemesinin karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Ancak an\u0131lan kararda yat\u0131l\u0131 ve uzun s\u00fcreli ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin devam\u0131n\u0131n gereklili\u011fine dair yeterli bir a\u00e7\u0131klama yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi ilk derece mahkemesinin tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131, taraflar\u0131n ifadelerini ve \u00f6zel \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6zeterek ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucun neden \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131na uymad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair bir de\u011ferlendirme de yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunun yan\u0131nda istinaf merciinin \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131na uygun olabilecek ba\u015fkaca alternatif tedbirleri de de\u011ferlendirmedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yap\u0131lan a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda istinaf mercii taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7ocu\u011fun i\u00e7inde bulundu\u011fu \u015fartlar\u0131n ve ya\u015fad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n tam olarak ortaya konulmak suretiyle \u00e7ocu\u011fun sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve geli\u015fimi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131na olan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k \u015fekilde tespit edildi\u011fi s\u00f6ylenemez.<\/p>\n
19. Sonu\u00e7 olarak yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcreci bir b\u00fct\u00fcn h\u00e2linde de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde uzman g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde taraflar\u0131n sosyal ve ekonomik \u015fartlar\u0131 da g\u00f6zetilmek suretiyle \u00e7ocuk ile ebeveynler aras\u0131nda aile birlikteli\u011finin devaml\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve taraflar\u0131n hukuki menfaatleri aras\u0131nda dengelemeyi sa\u011flayacak \u015fekilde \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131na uygun olan bir \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu durumda ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki konusunda yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yeterli ve ilgili gerek\u00e7e sunularak karar verilmedi\u011finden ba\u015fvurucunun aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda devlete ait pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerin gere\u011fi gibi yerine getirildi\u011finden s\u00f6z edilemez.<\/p>\n
20. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN ve Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
21. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti, yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile 1.000.000 TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
22. Taraflar\u0131n m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocu\u011funun 2004 do\u011fumlu olmas\u0131 nedeniyle -karar tarihinde re\u015fit oldu\u011fu dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda- ba\u015fvuruya konu davan\u0131n niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi tespit edilen hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
23. \u0130hlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucuya manevi zararlar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda net 50.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Adli yard\u0131m talebinin KABUL\u00dcNE,<\/p>\n
B. Aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
C. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN ve Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L’in kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucuya net 50.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE, tazminata ili\u015fkin di\u011fer taleplerin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan 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 bilgi i\u00e7in S\u00f6\u011f\u00fct Asliye Hukuk (Aile) Mahkemesi (E.2017\/108, K.2019\/106) ve Bursa B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 2. Hukuk Dairesi (E.2021\/328, K.2022\/64) ile Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 30\/4\/2024 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY GEREK\u00c7ES\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvurucunun A.K. ile yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 evlilikten 2004 y\u0131l\u0131nda m\u00fc\u015fterek bir k\u0131z \u00e7ocu\u011fu d\u00fcnyaya gelmi\u015ftir. 2009 y\u0131l\u0131nda A.K. taraf\u0131ndan a\u00e7\u0131lan (ilk) bo\u015fanma davas\u0131 reddedilmi\u015f ve an\u0131lan karar temyiz edilmeksizin 1\/7\/2010 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. 2012 y\u0131l\u0131nda ise A.K. (baba) taraf\u0131ndan m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocukla ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki kurulmas\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilerek baba ile m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuk aras\u0131nda her ay\u0131n 1. ve 3. haftas\u0131n\u0131n cumartesi g\u00fcn\u00fc ve din\u00ee bayramlar\u0131n 2. g\u00fcnleri yat\u0131l\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n ve her y\u0131l\u0131n temmuz ay\u0131 boyunca yat\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki kurulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tayca onama karar\u0131 verilerek karar 20\/6\/2013 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. An\u0131lan davalardan sonra A.K. taraf\u0131ndan 29\/8\/2013 tarihinde (ikinci) bo\u015fanma davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu da kar\u015f\u0131 bo\u015fanma davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda; (11\/12\/2004 do\u011fumlu taraflar\u0131n m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocu\u011funun velayetinin ba\u015fvurucu anneye b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na ve \u00e7ocuk ile baba A.K. aras\u0131nda ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki kurulmas\u0131na \u015feklinde) verilen h\u00fck\u00fcm bo\u015fanma, velayet, maddi tazminat ve ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Yarg\u0131tay denetiminden ge\u00e7erek 10\/2\/2015 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Bu bo\u015fanma davas\u0131ndaki ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki h\u00fckm\u00fc kesinle\u015ftikten sonra ba\u015fvurucu (anne) 11\/7\/2017 tarihinde S\u00f6\u011f\u00fct Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) A.K. ile m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuk aras\u0131ndaki ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talepli davay\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. Mahkemece 22\/10\/2019 tarihinde davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocukla babas\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin tamamen kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na, ayr\u0131ca ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki tesisinin h\u00fckm\u00fcn kesinle\u015fti\u011fi tarihe kadar tedbiren durdurulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn duru\u015fmadaki beyan\u0131na g\u00f6re babas\u0131 ile g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmek istemedi\u011fi ve babas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 yabanc\u0131l\u0131k hissetti\u011finden \u00e7ocuk ile babas\u0131 aras\u0131nda zorla ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki kurulmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131; sosyal inceleme raporunda babas\u0131yla yat\u0131l\u0131 ve uzun s\u00fcreli bir zaman ge\u00e7irme mecburiyetinin \u00e7ocu\u011fu olumsuz etkileyece\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde bulunuldu\u011fu ve ayr\u0131ca tan\u0131k ifadelerinden de bo\u015fanmadan sonraki s\u00fcre\u00e7te baban\u0131n \u00e7ocu\u011fu ile uzun s\u00fcre g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmedi\u011fi, bu konuda ciddi bir \u00e7aba ve istek g\u00f6stermedi\u011fi nedenleriyle m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuk ile baba aras\u0131ndaki ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin tamamen kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Karar\u0131n A.K. taraf\u0131ndan istinaf edilmesi \u00fczerine Bursa B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 2. Hukuk Dairesi (B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi) 20\/1\/2022 tarihinde mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde \u201c\u2026t\u00fcm dosya kapsam\u0131 ve toplanan delillerden, baba ile \u00e7ocuk aras\u0131nda \u00f6nceden kurulan ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirecek herhangi bir durum bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesinin de gerekmedi\u011fi, \u00e7ocuk ile baba aras\u0131ndaki duygusal ba\u011f\u0131n tamamen kopmamas\u0131 ve m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocu\u011fun y\u00fcksek yarar\u0131 gere\u011fi davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekirken, kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131\u2026\u201d belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu karar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi (Daire) 14\/4\/2022 tarihinde B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince verilen karar\u0131n onanmas\u0131na kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu, ilk derece mahkemesinin toplanan delilleri de\u011ferlendirerek ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin neden kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131k ve net olarak belirledi\u011fini ve sonu\u00e7ta \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131 gere\u011fince karar verdi\u011fini ne var ki B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi ve Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131nda Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n aksine deliller ve \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131 g\u00f6zetilmeksizin yeterli gerek\u00e7e olmadan karar verildi\u011finden \u015fik\u00e2yet etmektedir.<\/p>\n
9. 22\/11\/2001 tarihli ve 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu\u2019nun;<\/p>\n
182. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Velayetin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 kendisine verilmeyen e\u015fin \u00e7ocuk ile ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkisinin d\u00fczenlenmesinde, \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00f6zellikle sa\u011fl\u0131k, e\u011fitim ve ahlak bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yararlar\u0131 esas tutulur.”<\/p>\n
323. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Ana ve babadan her biri, velayeti alt\u0131nda bulunmayan veya kendisine b\u0131rak\u0131lmayan \u00e7ocuk ile uygun ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki kurulmas\u0131n\u0131 isteme hakk\u0131na sahiptir.”<\/p>\n
324. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Ana ve babadan her biri, di\u011ferinin \u00e7ocuk ile ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkisini zedelemekten, \u00e7ocu\u011fun e\u011fitilmesi ve yeti\u015ftirilmesini engellemekten ka\u00e7\u0131nmakla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
Ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki sebebiyle \u00e7ocu\u011fun huzuru tehlikeye girer veya ana ve baba bu haklar\u0131n\u0131 birinci f\u0131krada \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak kullan\u0131rlar veya \u00e7ocuk ile cidd\u00ee olarak ilgilenmezler ya da di\u011fer \u00f6nemli sebepler varsa, ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki kurma hakk\u0131 reddedilebilir veya kendilerinden al\u0131nabilir.<\/p>\n
Velayet kendisine b\u0131rak\u0131lan ana veya baba, ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki d\u00fczenlemesinin gereklerini yerine getirmezse \u00e7ocu\u011fun menfaatine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmamak kayd\u0131yla velayet de\u011fi\u015ftirilebilir. Bu husus ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki kurulmas\u0131na dair kararda taraflara ihtar edilir. “<\/p>\n
10. Somut olayda Mahkeme karar\u0131na dayanak 26\/6\/2018 tarihli sosyal inceleme raporunda \u00f6zetle; \u201c\u2026 Davac\u0131 annenin anlat\u0131mlar\u0131ndan k\u0131z\u0131na da zarar verebilecek seviyede sapk\u0131n bir baba profili anla\u015f\u0131lmakla birlikte yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmeler sonucunda s\u00f6z konusu ithamlar\u0131 somutla\u015ft\u0131racak bir g\u00f6zlem edinilememi\u015f, dosyada buna dair bir delil g\u00f6r\u00fclememi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 baban\u0131n; konu\u015fma s\u00fcrecinde ileti\u015fime ve rehberli\u011fe a\u00e7\u0131k oldu\u011fu, \u00f6zele\u015ftiri yapabildi\u011fi, \u00f6yk\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn genel olarak anlam b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc i\u00e7inde ve anlat\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n duygulan\u0131m\u0131yla uyumlu oldu\u011fu g\u00f6zlenmi\u015ftir. \u2026 daval\u0131 baban\u0131n; kendisiyle gelmek istemeyen \u00e7ocu\u011funu zorlamayarak ve duygular\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmesine imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yarak uygun davrand\u0131\u011f\u0131, esasen anne ve yak\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n isteklerle gerekliliklerin uyu\u015fmamas\u0131 durumunda g\u00f6sterilecek sa\u011fl\u0131kl\u0131 davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131 g\u00f6stermemi\u015f olduklar\u0131, bu sebeple ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki s\u00fcre\u00e7lerinin olmas\u0131 gerekenden daha sanc\u0131l\u0131 bir s\u00fcrece d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kanaati olu\u015fmu\u015ftur. \u2026 \u00e7ocukla baba aras\u0131ndaki ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkiye y\u00f6nelik dayan\u0131kl\u0131 bir risk unsuru tespit edilememi\u015f, \u00e7ocuk her ne kadar babas\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6rmek istemedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015fse de babas\u0131n\u0131n kendisine y\u00f6nelik duygu ve fikirlerine ilgi ve merakla yakla\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u2026 Annenin s\u0131k\u0131nt\u0131 ve kayg\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7ocu\u011funa yans\u0131tt\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00e7ocu\u011fun bu durumdan da olumsuz etkilendi\u011fi, annenin bu tutumunun da \u00e7ocu\u011fa y\u00f6nelik duygusal \u015fiddet s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131na girdi\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclmektedir. Sonu\u00e7 olarak \u00e7ocu\u011fun hat\u0131rlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir ya\u015ftayken babas\u0131n\u0131n kendisinin bo\u011faz\u0131na sar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6yleminden \u00f6te babayla ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirecek somutlukta bir risk unsuru tespit edilememi\u015fse de mevcut durumda \u00e7ocu\u011fun; babas\u0131n\u0131 bir yabanc\u0131dan \u00f6te kendisine zarar verebilecek birisi olarak g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, \u015fu halde babas\u0131na gitmesi durumunda \u00f6zellikle babaannesinde kalmaktan \u00e7ekindi\u011fi, mevcut duygu h\u00e2linde babas\u0131yla g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeyi kesinlikle istemedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmakta, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u00e7ocu\u011fun bu deneyime haz\u0131r olmamas\u0131 sebebiyle babas\u0131yla yat\u0131l\u0131 ve uzun s\u00fcreli bir zaman ge\u00e7irme mecburiyetinin \u00e7ocu\u011fu olumsuz y\u00f6nde etkileyece\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclmektedir. \u2026\u201d \u015feklindedir.<\/p>\n
11. \u00c7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde de kabul edildi\u011fi \u00fczere; ilk derece mahkemesi gerek\u00e7esini ve gereklili\u011fini ortaya koymadan \u00e7ocuk ile baba aras\u0131ndaki ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkiyi tamamen kald\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. M\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuk babayla kesinlikle g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmek istemedi\u011fini beyan etse de al\u0131nan sosyal inceleme raporunda sonu\u00e7 olarak \u00e7ocu\u011fun bu deneyime haz\u0131r olmamas\u0131 sebebiyle babas\u0131yla yat\u0131l\u0131 ve uzun s\u00fcreli bir zaman ge\u00e7irme mecburiyetinin \u00e7ocu\u011fu olumsuz y\u00f6nde etkileyece\u011fi kanaati bildirilmi\u015ftir. Bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle ilk derece mahkemesinin baba ile \u00e7ocuk aras\u0131ndaki ba\u011f\u0131 tamamen koparacak nitelikte bir karar vermesinin \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131na uygun bir \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm oldu\u011funu s\u00f6ylemek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Ancak \u00e7ok ciddi sebeplerin ve \u00e7ocukla ilgili ciddi risklerin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2linde ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin tamamen kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131nda \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ciddi tehdit olu\u015fturacak nitelikte risklerin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ortaya konulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. \u00c7o\u011funlu\u011fun bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc taraf\u0131m\u0131zca da kabul edilmektedir.<\/p>\n
12. \u00d6te yandan \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; istinaf incelemesinde verilen ret karar\u0131nda tan\u0131klar\u0131n ve \u00e7ocu\u011fun beyanlar\u0131 ile bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131nda belirtilen kanaatler gibi davay\u0131 etkileyebilecek nitelikteki incelemelere ni\u00e7in itibar edilmedi\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir gerek\u00e7e sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi raporlarda belirtilen kanaatlerin aksine karar verirken somut verilere dayanan yeterli ve ilgili gerek\u00e7eye yer verilmedi\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. \u00c7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc aksine; B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin \u201c\u2026t\u00fcm dosya kapsam\u0131 ve toplanan delillerden, baba ile \u00e7ocuk aras\u0131nda \u00f6nceden kurulan ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirecek herhangi bir durum bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesinin de gerekmedi\u011fi, \u00e7ocuk ile baba aras\u0131ndaki duygusal ba\u011f\u0131n tamamen kopmamas\u0131 ve m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocu\u011fun y\u00fcksek yarar\u0131 gere\u011fi davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekirken, kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131\u2026\u201d \u015feklindeki gerek\u00e7esinin; Mahkemenin 22\/10\/2019 tarihli karar\u0131 ile B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin 20\/1\/2022 tarihli karar\u0131na kadar yakla\u015f\u0131k 2 y\u0131l 3 ayl\u0131k s\u00fcrede baba ile \u00e7ocuk aras\u0131ndaki ba\u011f\u0131n tamamen kopar\u0131lmas\u0131, Yarg\u0131tay denetiminden ge\u00e7erek 20\/6\/2013 ve 10\/2\/2015 tarihlerinde kesinle\u015fen \u00f6nceden kurulan ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki kararlar\u0131 ile \u00e7ocu\u011fun \u00fcst\u00fcn yarar\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ciddi tehdit olu\u015fturacak nitelikte risklerin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ortaya konulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi ve bu karar\u0131 onayan Yarg\u0131tay karar gerek\u00e7elerinin aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda ilgili ve yeterli oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi toplanan delilleri ve \u00f6zellikle sosyal inceleme raporunu da de\u011ferlendirerek karar verirken \u00f6nceden kurulan ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki karar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda h\u00fck\u00fcm vermi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan kararda baba ile \u00e7ocuk aras\u0131nda her ay\u0131n 1. ve 3. haftas\u0131n\u0131n cumartesi g\u00fcn\u00fc saat 09.00 \u2013 17.00 saatleri aras\u0131 ile din\u00ee bayramlar\u0131n 2. g\u00fcnleri saat 09.00 \u2013 17.00 saatleri aras\u0131 bilirki\u015fi raporundaki kanaate itibar edilerek \u00e7ocu\u011fun babas\u0131yla yat\u0131l\u0131 ve uzun s\u00fcreli bir zaman ge\u00e7irmeksizin (yat\u0131l\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n) ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki kuruldu\u011fu dikkatten ka\u00e7\u0131r\u0131lmamal\u0131d\u0131r. Kald\u0131 ki B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin 20\/1\/2022 ve Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n 14\/4\/2022 tarihli kararlar\u0131 sonras\u0131nda baba ile \u00e7ocuk aras\u0131nda kurulan ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkide \u00e7ocu\u011fun y\u00fcksek yarar\u0131n\u0131n olumsuz etkilendi\u011fine dair ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan bir beyanda bulunulmam\u0131\u015f, buna ili\u015fkin somut bir delil de sunulmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
15. Di\u011fer yandan 2 y\u0131l\u0131 a\u015fk\u0131n bir s\u00fcre baba ile \u00e7ocuk aras\u0131ndaki ba\u011f\u0131n tamamen kopar\u0131lmas\u0131na neden olan Mahkeme karar\u0131 sonras\u0131nda B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi ve Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131yla -11\/12\/2022 tarihinde re\u015fit olacak \u00e7ocuk ile babas\u0131n\u0131n sadece 1\/7\/2022 tarihinden itibaren temmuz ay\u0131 boyunca yat\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki kurulmas\u0131na karar verilmesinin- \u00e7ocu\u011fun, annenin, baban\u0131n ve kamu d\u00fczeninin yar\u0131\u015fan menfaatleri aras\u0131nda, olay\u0131n \u00f6zel \u015fartlar\u0131 ve kendisine tan\u0131nan takdir alan\u0131 i\u00e7inde adil dengenin kuruldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
16. Yine davada avukat taraf\u0131ndan temsil edilen ba\u015fvurucunun, dava s\u00fcre\u00e7lerinde iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131, bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131 hakk\u0131ndaki talep ve iddialar\u0131 ile delillerini yaz\u0131l\u0131 ve s\u00f6zl\u00fc olarak yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda sunabildi\u011fi, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 temyiz kanun yoluna ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanabildi\u011fi ve bu suretle me\u015fru \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 i\u00e7in s\u00f6z konusu davaya gerekli oldu\u011fu \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde etkili kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
17. Neticede, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 20. ve 41. maddelerindeki aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n usule ili\u015fkin gereklerine riayet edilerek yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamalar sonucunda B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin ve Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n takdirleri ve karar gerek\u00e7eleri aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda ilgili ve yeterli oldu\u011fundan ba\u015fvurucunun aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilmedi\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesiyle \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lm\u0131yoruz.<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 30\/4\/2024 tarihli ve 2022\/57445 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 R. D. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/57445) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 30\/4\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 23\/12\/2024 – 32761 \u00a0 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL \u00a0 \u00a0 Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Ay\u015fenur TUNCER Ba\u015fvurucu : Vekili : Av. O\u011fuz \u00d6ZDEM\u0130R \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuk ile baba aras\u0131ndaki ki\u015fisel ili\u015fkinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n reddedilmesi nedeniyle aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucunun A.K. ile yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 evlilikten 2004 y\u0131l\u0131nda m\u00fc\u015fterek bir k\u0131z \u00e7ocu\u011fu d\u00fcnyaya gelmi\u015ftir. 2009 y\u0131l\u0131nda A.K.n\u0131n a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 bo\u015fanma davas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k ba\u015fvurucu, tedbir nafakas\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bo\u015fanma davas\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun kusuru ispatlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davan\u0131n reddine, ba\u015fvurucunun a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tedbir nafakas\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n ise ayr\u0131 ya\u015famakta hakl\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmesi nedeniyle k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu kararlar temyiz edilmeksizin 1\/7\/2010 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir. 2012 y\u0131l\u0131nda ise A.K. m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocukla ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki kurulmas\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilerek baba ile m\u00fc\u015fterek \u00e7ocuk aras\u0131nda her ay\u0131n 1. ve 3. haftas\u0131n\u0131n cumartesi g\u00fcn\u00fc ve din\u00ee bayramlar\u0131n 2. g\u00fcnleri yat\u0131l\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n ve her y\u0131l\u0131n temmuz ay\u0131 boyunca yat\u0131l\u0131 olacak \u015fekilde ki\u015fisel ili\u015fki kurulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tayca onama …<\/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-21822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n