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
\u0130BRAH\u0130M KALKAN VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/19783)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 30\/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
G\u00fcls\u00fcm Gizem G\u00dcRSOY<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1. \u0130brahim KALKAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
2. Sel\u00e7uk O\u011eUZ<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. G\u00f6ksel \u00d6ZERKAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
3. \u0130smail SOYLU<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Yusuf \u0130smail ERTAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
4. Mehmet BULUT<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. El\u00e7in DEV\u0130REN NASIR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
5. Umut \u00d6ZKAN<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Jan Aras ARSLAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi feshedilen ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n sendikal tazminat taleplerinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle sendika hakk\u0131n\u0131n; yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle de makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n iddias\u0131na g\u00f6re i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri sendikal nedenlerle sonland\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular, bu kapsamda i\u015fe iade ve sendikal tazminat talepli dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015flard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. A\u00e7\u0131lan davalar\u0131n birinde ilk derece mahkemesi davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne ve ba\u015fvurucu lehine sendikal tazminata h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Buna kar\u015f\u0131n B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi, sendikal fesih olgusunun ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle bu y\u00f6nden davay\u0131 kesin olarak reddetmi\u015ftir. Di\u011fer davalarda ise ilk derece mahkemeleri, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n sendikal fesih iddias\u0131n\u0131 ispatlayamad\u0131klar\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015f ve bu kararlar\u0131 B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemeleri veya Yarg\u0131tay da uygun bularak kesin olarak reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Nihai kararlar\u0131n tebli\u011fi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucular, s\u00fcresinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
5. Konu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden hukuki irtibat nedeniyle 2022\/23713, 2022\/35673, 2022\/43749 ve 2023\/19797 nolu bireysel ba\u015fvurular\u0131n, 2021\/19783 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvuru dosyas\u0131 ile birle\u015ftirilmesine ve incelemenin bu dosya \u00fczerinde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
A. Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucular, makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olay ve olgular\u0131 somut ba\u015fvuru ile benzer nitelikte olan Veysi Ado ([GK] B. No: 2022\/100837, 27\/4\/2023) karar\u0131nda uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede Anayasa Mahkemesi 9\/1\/2013 tarihli ve 6384 say\u0131l\u0131 Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesine Yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Baz\u0131 Ba\u015fvurular\u0131n Tazminat \u00d6denmek Suretiyle \u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne Dair Kanun’un ge\u00e7ici 2. maddesinde 28\/3\/2023 tarihli ve 7445 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 40. maddesi ile yap\u0131lan de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fe g\u00f6re 9\/3\/2023 tarihi (bu tarih d\u00e2hil) itibar\u0131yla derdest olan, yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddialar\u0131yla yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurulara ili\u015fkin olarak Tazminat Komisyonuna ba\u015fvuru yolu t\u00fcketilmeden yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun incelenmesinin bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincil niteli\u011fi ile ba\u011fda\u015fmayaca\u011f\u0131 neticesine varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Somut ba\u015fvuruda, an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7. 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
B. Sendika Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucular; i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin sendikal nedenlerle feshedildi\u011fini, eksik inceleme sonucu verilen ret kararlar\u0131n\u0131n sendika hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
9. 18\/10\/2012 tarihli ve 6356 say\u0131l\u0131 Sendikalar ve Toplu \u0130\u015f S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi Kanunu\u2019nun “Sendika \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn g\u00fcvencesi” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 25. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“(1) \u0130\u015f\u00e7ilerin i\u015fe al\u0131nmalar\u0131; belli bir sendikaya girmeleri veya girmemeleri, belli bir sendikadaki \u00fcyeli\u011fi s\u00fcrd\u00fcrmeleri veya \u00fcyelikten \u00e7ekilmeleri veya herhangi bir sendikaya \u00fcye olmalar\u0131 veya olmamalar\u0131 \u015fart\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 tutulamaz. <\/p>\n
\u00a0(2) \u0130\u015fveren, bir sendikaya \u00fcye olan i\u015f\u00e7ilerle sendika \u00fcyesi olmayan i\u015f\u00e7iler veya ayr\u0131 sendikalara \u00fcye olan i\u015f\u00e7iler aras\u0131nda, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u015fartlar\u0131 veya \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131rmaya son verilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan herhangi bir ayr\u0131m yapamaz. \u00dccret, ikramiye, prim ve paraya ili\u015fkin sosyal yard\u0131m konular\u0131nda toplu i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi h\u00fck\u00fcmleri sakl\u0131d\u0131r. <\/p>\n
\u00a0(3) \u0130\u015f\u00e7iler, sendikaya \u00fcye olmalar\u0131 veya olmamalar\u0131, i\u015f saatleri d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda veya i\u015fverenin izni ile i\u015f saatleri i\u00e7inde i\u015f\u00e7i kurulu\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n faaliyetlerine kat\u0131lmalar\u0131 veya sendikal faaliyette bulunmalar\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lamaz veya farkl\u0131 i\u015fleme tabi tutulamaz. <\/p>\n
\u00a0(4) \u0130\u015fverenin \u2026 yukar\u0131daki f\u0131kralara ayk\u0131r\u0131 hareket etmesi h\u00e2linde i\u015f\u00e7inin bir y\u0131ll\u0131k \u00fccret tutar\u0131ndan az olmamak \u00fczere sendikal tazminata h\u00fckmedilir. <\/p>\n
\u00a0(5) Sendikal bir nedenle i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin feshi h\u00e2linde i\u015f\u00e7i, 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun \u2026, 20 ve 21 inci madde h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re dava a\u00e7ma hakk\u0131na sahiptir. \u0130\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin sendikal nedenle feshedildi\u011finin tespit edilmesi h\u00e2linde, 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun 21 inci maddesine g\u00f6re i\u015f\u00e7inin ba\u015fvurusu, i\u015fverenin i\u015fe ba\u015flatmas\u0131 veya ba\u015flatmamas\u0131 \u015fart\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n sendikal tazminata karar verilir. Ancak i\u015f\u00e7inin i\u015fe ba\u015flat\u0131lmamas\u0131 h\u00e2linde, ayr\u0131ca 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun 21 inci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda belirtilen tazminata h\u00fckmedilmez. \u0130\u015f\u00e7inin 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun yukar\u0131daki h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re dava a\u00e7mamas\u0131 ayr\u0131ca sendikal tazminat talebini engellemez. <\/p>\n
\u00a0(6) \u0130\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin sendikal nedenle feshedildi\u011fi iddias\u0131 ile a\u00e7\u0131lacak davada, feshin nedenini ispat y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc i\u015fverene aittir. Feshin i\u015fverenin ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc nedene dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia eden i\u015f\u00e7i, feshin sendikal nedene dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispatla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. <\/p>\n
\u00a0(7) Fesih d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda i\u015fverenin sendikal ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131n\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7i ispat etmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. Ancak i\u015f\u00e7i sendikal ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc bi\u00e7imde g\u00f6steren bir durumu ortaya koydu\u011funda, i\u015fveren davran\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n nedenini ispat etmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc olur. ..\u201d<\/p>\n
10. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulunun sendikal fesih iddias\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ortaya koydu\u011fu kriterlerle ilgili 7\/10\/2009 tarihli ve E.2009\/9-372, K.2009\/416 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“… fesih tarihine yak\u0131n tarihlerde i\u015fyerinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan i\u015f\u00e7i say\u0131s\u0131, i\u015fyerinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan sendikaya \u00fcye olan ve olmayan i\u015f\u00e7ilerin say\u0131s\u0131, hangi tarihlerde \u00fcye olduklar\u0131, \u00fcyelikten \u00e7ekilen, \u00e7ekilme sonras\u0131 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya devam eden i\u015f\u00e7ilerin olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan i\u015f\u00e7ilerin ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n sendikal\u0131 oldu\u011fu, yeni i\u015f\u00e7i al\u0131n\u0131p al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve al\u0131nm\u0131\u015fsa yeni i\u015f\u00e7ilerin sendikal\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, toplu i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi prosed\u00fcr\u00fc uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, i\u015fverence ekonomik veya teknolojik nedenlere dayal\u0131 bir fesih yoluna gidilmesi halinde teknik y\u00f6nden bu hususlar\u0131n ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131, feshin son \u00e7are olarak kullan\u0131l\u0131p kullan\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gereklidir”<\/p>\n
11. Anayasa Mahkemesi, benzer ba\u015fvurularda mahkemelerin sendikal nedenlerle i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin feshinin sendika hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fi iddialar\u0131n\u0131 incelemi\u015ftir (bkz. Emine Ya\u015far Kaya ve Melike G\u00f6k, B. No: 2020\/32802, 19\/7\/2013, Ayd\u0131n Okutucu ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2020\/11279, 24\/5\/2023, Ayhan Aky\u00fcz ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2018\/6851, 10\/5\/2023; Refiye \u015eent\u00fcrk Varl\u0131, B. No: 2021\/10518, 20\/7\/2023; Emrah \u00dczeg\u00fcl ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2020\/22386, 7\/6\/2023; Muharrem \u00c7imen [GK], B. No: 2016\/5002, 23\/3\/2023). Anayasa Mahkemesi, bu ba\u015fvurularda bir i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin salt sendikal nedenlerle feshedilip feshedilmedi\u011finin tespit edilebilmesi i\u00e7in -Yarg\u0131tay ve A\u0130HM i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131nda vurgulanan hususlar\u0131 da g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne alarak- baz\u0131 kriterler belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu kriterler, dava konusu olaylara g\u00f6re geni\u015fletilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmakla birlikte \u015f\u00f6yle s\u0131ralanabilir;<\/p>\n
– Fesih tarihine yak\u0131n tarihlerde i\u015fyerinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan i\u015f\u00e7i say\u0131s\u0131, i\u015fyerinde sendikaya \u00fcye olan ve olmayan i\u015f\u00e7ilerin say\u0131s\u0131, hangi tarihlerde \u00fcye olduklar\u0131, \u00fcyelikten istifa eden\/istifa sonras\u0131 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya devam eden i\u015f\u00e7ilerin olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan i\u015f\u00e7ilerin ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n sendikal\u0131 oldu\u011fu, yeni i\u015f\u00e7i al\u0131n\u0131p al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve al\u0131nm\u0131\u015fsa yeni i\u015f\u00e7ilerin sendikal\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131,<\/p>\n
– Sendikal neden kavram\u0131n\u0131n, bir fiilin sendikal olarak de\u011ferlendirilebilmesi i\u00e7in sadece kurulu bir sendika taraf\u0131ndan yahut sendika \u00fcyeleri taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n zorunlu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nmas\u0131, sendika \u00fcyesi olmayan bir i\u015f\u00e7inin hen\u00fcz kurulmam\u0131\u015f bir sendikan\u0131n \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmesi i\u00e7in veya kurulmu\u015f bir sendikan\u0131n propagandas\u0131n\u0131 yapmak \u00fczere organizasyon d\u00fczenlenmesi ya da d\u00fczenlenen bir faaliyete kat\u0131lmas\u0131 veya destekleyici eylemlerde bulunmas\u0131 (sendikaya \u00fcye toplama, sendikal konu\u015fmalar yapma, bro\u015f\u00fcr da\u011f\u0131tma vb.) gibi faaliyetlerin de sendikal faaliyet kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmesi, bunun sonucunda an\u0131lan hususlar\u0131n i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin feshinde etkili olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi,<\/p>\n
– \u0130\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi feshedilenlerin sendikal faaliyette \u00f6nc\u00fc olup olmad\u0131klar\u0131,<\/p>\n
– Toplu i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi prosed\u00fcr\u00fc uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131,<\/p>\n
– \u00d6zellikle sendika \u00fcyesi olan ve\/veya sendikal faaliyet i\u00e7erisinde bulunan i\u015f\u00e7ilerin benzer gerek\u00e7elerle ve\/veya yak\u0131n tarihlerde i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131l\u0131p \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131,<\/p>\n
– \u0130\u015fyerinde ba\u015fka sendikalara \u00fcye olan i\u015f\u00e7ilerin olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, mensubu oldu\u011fu sendikadan istifa edenlerin ba\u015fka bir sendikaya \u00fcye olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, t\u00fcm sendikal\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7ilerin toplam i\u015f\u00e7i say\u0131s\u0131na oran\u0131 (i\u015fyerinin varsa ba\u015fka \u015fubelerinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan say\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n da dikkate al\u0131narak bu oran\u0131n belirlenmesi), bu oran\u0131n dava konusu fesih tarihinden \u00f6nceki ve sonraki d\u00f6nemlerde ne \u015fekilde de\u011fi\u015fti\u011fi (\u00f6rne\u011fin alt\u0131\u015far ayl\u0131k ya da birer y\u0131ll\u0131k \u00f6nceki ve sonraki dilimlerin esas al\u0131nmas\u0131),<\/p>\n
– H\u00e2len sendikal\u0131 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan varsa say\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n sembolik olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu ki\u015filerin \u00fcye oldu\u011fu sendikalar\u0131n i\u015fyerinde toplu i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi imzalayabilmek i\u00e7in yetkili sendika olma ihtimallerinin bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131,<\/p>\n
– Sendikal fesih iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkin tan\u0131k dinlenip dinlenmedi\u011fi, bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131n\u0131p al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131; bu delillerin ne \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirildi\u011fi, an\u0131lan delillere itibar edilmemi\u015fse nedenlerinin ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7e ile a\u00e7\u0131klan\u0131p a\u00e7\u0131klanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131,<\/p>\n
– Sendikal\u0131 olanlar\u0131n veya sendikal faaliyette bulunanlar\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma alanlar\u0131nda bask\u0131ya u\u011fray\u0131p u\u011framad\u0131\u011f\u0131 (bilmedikleri i\u015flerde \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131rma, i\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan bizzat yahut di\u011fer \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla s\u00f6zl\u00fc bask\u0131 yap\u0131lmas\u0131, sosyal medya hesaplar\u0131n\u0131n takip edilmesi, gerek olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde fazla i\u015f y\u00fckleme\/fazla mesaiye b\u0131rakma, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck \u00fccretle \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131rma, \u00f6zl\u00fck haklar\u0131ndan yararland\u0131rmama veya az yararland\u0131rma vb.),<\/p>\n
– Sendikal faaliyetlerin i\u015f g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc etkileyip etkilemedi\u011fi ve bunun i\u015fverence ortaya konulup konulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131,<\/p>\n
– \u0130\u015fletmesel nedenlerle i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131karmalarda \u00f6ncelikle sendikal\u0131 veya sendikal faaliyette bulunan i\u015f\u00e7ilerin \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131l\u0131p \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131,<\/p>\n
– Performans nedeniyle i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131karmalarda objektif kriterler belirlenip belirlenmedi\u011fi, bu kriterlerin sendikal\u0131 veya sendikal faaliyette bulunanlarla di\u011fer i\u015f\u00e7ilere ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde uygulan\u0131p uygulanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131,<\/p>\n
– Ayn\u0131 ya da benzer gerek\u00e7elerle i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan i\u015f\u00e7ilerin ba\u015fka mahkemelerde g\u00f6r\u00fclen davalar\u0131n\u0131n farkl\u0131 sonu\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin iddialar varsa bu iddialar\u0131n dikkate al\u0131n\u0131p al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, varsa bu kararlardan neden ayr\u0131\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n izah edilip edilmedi\u011fi kriterlerin mahkemelerce somut olaya uydu\u011fu \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde uygulanmas\u0131 gerekir (Ahmet Yavuz, B. No: 2019\/28133, 14\/12\/2023; \u00a7 28).<\/p>\n
12. Bu kapsamda eldeki ba\u015fvuruda oldu\u011fu gibi sendikal nedenlerle bir i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin sonland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddia edildi\u011finde mevzuat\u0131n gerektirdi\u011fi hususlar\u0131n ve ispat \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fip ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fini de\u011ferlendirmek \u00f6ncelikle yarg\u0131 mercilerinin g\u00f6revidir. Yarg\u0131 mercilerinin olay\u0131n \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmek a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan daha avantajl\u0131 konumda bulundu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesinin rol\u00fc ise bu kurallar\u0131n yorumunun Anayasa\u2019ya uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirlemekle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131d\u0131r. \u00d6nemle de\u011finmek gerekir ki yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcndeki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k ne kadar Anayasa\u2019da yer alan temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetleri ilgilendirirse Anayasa Mahkemesinin bireysel ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131nda bu hak veya h\u00fcrriyete ili\u015fkin s\u0131n\u0131rlama \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctlerini ve g\u00fcvencelerini denetleme yetkisi o kadar artar. Anayasa Mahkemesinin temel g\u00f6revi Anayasa\u2019da yer alan h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin yeknesak ve do\u011fru bir bi\u00e7imde uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamakt\u0131r. Bu nedenle Anayasa Mahkemesi, yarg\u0131 mercileri taraf\u0131ndan izlenen usul\u00fc denetlemek ve \u00f6zellikle mahkemelerin Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 51. maddesindeki g\u00fcvenceleri g\u00f6zetip g\u00f6zetmedi\u011fini belirlemekle yetinmektedir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla yap\u0131lan incelemede yarg\u0131 mercilerinin yeri al\u0131nmamakta, kamusal makamlar\u0131n s\u00fcre\u00e7 i\u00e7indeki tutumlar\u0131 sendika hakk\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131ndaki usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvenceler a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan de\u011ferlendirilmektedir (benzer y\u00f6ndeki de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. T\u00fcrkiye G\u0131da ve \u015eeker Sanayi \u0130\u015f\u00e7ileri Sendikas\u0131, B. No: 2016\/13328, 19\/11\/2020, \u00a7 40; T\u00fcrkiye Petrol, Kimya ve Lastik Sanayi \u0130\u015f\u00e7ileri Sendikas\u0131, B. No: 2016\/13351, 15\/12\/2020, \u00a7 40; Ahmet Sefa Topuz ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2016\/16056, 21\/4\/2021, \u00a757; Muharrem \u00c7imen, \u00a7 42; Ayd\u0131n Okutucu ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2020\/11279, 24\/5\/2023, \u00a7 39). Bu noktada Anayasa Mahkemesinin yapaca\u011f\u0131 inceleme, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n sendikal nedenlerle i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131klar\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131 davalarda devletin pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn gerektirdi\u011fi \u015fekilde yarg\u0131sal bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131l\u0131p yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na, \u00f6zellikle yarg\u0131 mercilerinin kararlar\u0131n\u0131n konuyla ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7e i\u00e7erip i\u00e7ermedi\u011fine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
C. Somut Olay\u0131n De\u011ferlendirilmesi<\/p>\n
1-\u00a0 Ba\u015fvurucular \u0130brahim Kalkan ve Sel\u00e7uk O\u011fuz Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
13. \u0130lk derece mahkemesi; ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n 18\/4\/2017 tarihinden itibaren sendikaya \u00fcye oldu\u011funu ve 6\/6\/2018 tarihinde i\u015fverene T\u0130S’ten yararlanmak istediklerini bildirdi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme; davac\u0131 tan\u0131klar\u0131 her ne kadar i\u015f akdinin sendikal nedenlerle feshedildi\u011fini beyan etmi\u015flerse de sendikal bask\u0131 olarak ba\u015fvuruculara \u00f6zel olarak ne uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda a\u00e7\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n sendika \u00fcyeliklerinin de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve di\u011fer sendikal\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7iler ile ayn\u0131 \u015fartlara sahip olmak i\u00e7in ba\u015fvuru yapt\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n T\u0130S h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden yararlanmas\u0131n\u0131n yasal \u015fartlar\u0131 olmamas\u0131na ra\u011fmen bu y\u00f6nde taleplerinin i\u015fyerinde mevcut sendika haklar\u0131ndan yararland\u0131r\u0131lmaya zorlama anlam\u0131na gelece\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Mahkemeye g\u00f6re bu talep i\u015fverene bask\u0131ya, i\u015fyerinde olumsuzluklara yol a\u00e7acak ve i\u015fverende endi\u015fe yaratacakt\u0131r. Mahkeme bu nedenle i\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan katlan\u0131l\u0131p kabul edilebilecek bir durum olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7eleriyle sendikal fesih olgusunun ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi de ilk derece mahkemesi gerek\u00e7elerini tekrarlayarak, daval\u0131 i\u015fyerinde T\u0130S’in fesihten be\u015f ay \u00f6nce imzaland\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde sendikal nedenle fesih iddias\u0131n\u0131n soyut kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvuruda 1\/1\/2018-31\/12\/2019 y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fck s\u00fcreli T\u0130S 30\/4\/2018 tarihinde taraflarca ba\u011f\u0131tlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular 18\/4\/2017 tarihinden itibaren sendika \u00fcyesi olup 6\/6\/2018 tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckteki T\u0130S’ten faydalanmak istediklerini i\u015fverene bildirmi\u015ftir. Mahkemeler taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n T\u0130S’ten yararlanma hakk\u0131 olmamas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n b\u00f6yle bir talepte bulunmu\u015f olmalar\u0131 i\u015fverende bask\u0131 olu\u015fturaca\u011f\u0131 \u015feklinde yorumlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n T\u0130S’ten neden yararlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ortaya konulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, sendikal fesih iddias\u0131n\u0131n T\u0130S’ten yararlanma ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve gerek ilk derece gerek B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin Anayasa Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da ortaya koydu\u011fu kriterleri (bkz.\u00a7 11) uygulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu \u0130smail Soylu Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden <\/p>\n
16. \u0130lk derece mahkemesi ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015f akdinin feshi tarihinde daval\u0131 i\u015fyerinde sendikaya \u00fcye be\u015f i\u015f\u00e7i bulundu\u011funu, fesihten yakla\u015f\u0131k be\u015f-alt\u0131 ay sonra daval\u0131 i\u015fyerinde sendika \u00fcyesi yirmi bir i\u015f\u00e7i oldu\u011funu, bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015f akdinin sendikal nedenlerle feshedildi\u011finin ispat edilemedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015f, karar Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan onanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu itibarla ilk derece mahkemesi ve Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n salt sendika \u00fcyesinin art\u0131\u015f g\u00f6stermesi nedeniyle sendikal fesih olgusunun ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fi sonucuna vard\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla gerek ilk derece mahkemesinin gerek Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n Anayasa Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da ortaya koydu\u011fu kriterleri (bkz.\u00a7 11) uygulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu Umut \u00d6zkan Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden <\/p>\n
17. \u0130lk derece mahkemesi, ba\u015fvurucunun sendikal fesih iddias\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi ise fesih tarihinden sonra daval\u0131 i\u015fyerinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan sendika \u00fcyesi i\u015f\u00e7ilerden 20’sinin istifa etti\u011fini 24’\u00fcn\u00fcn ise \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131na devam etti\u011fini tespit etmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi, ayr\u0131ca sendikan\u0131n yetki tespiti ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve daval\u0131 \u015firket hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan sendikal tazminat talepli ba\u015fka bir dava olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek sendikal fesih olgusunun ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla gerek ilk derece mahkemesinin gerek B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin Anayasa Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da ortaya koydu\u011fu kriterleri (bkz.\u00a7 11) uygulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu Mehmet Bulut Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden <\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu P. Sendikas\u0131 \u00fcyesiyken i\u015f akdi sonland\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130lk derece mahkemesi de\u011ferlendirmesinde 129 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131n oldu\u011fu i\u015fyerinde 1\/1\/2018-1\/6\/2018 tarihleri aras\u0131nda P. Sendikas\u0131na yakla\u015f\u0131k 100 ki\u015finin \u00fcye oldu\u011funu, 1\/7\/2018 tarihinde d\u00fc\u015f\u00fc\u015f ya\u015fanmaya ba\u015fland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 1\/9\/2018 tarihinden itibaren \u00d6.P. Sendikas\u0131 \u00fcyesinin art\u0131\u015f g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini, d\u00f6rt ayl\u0131k s\u00fcre\u00e7te P. Sendikas\u0131 \u00fcyelerinin oran\u0131nda yakla\u015f\u0131k %60 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fc\u015f ya\u015fand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme ayr\u0131ca i\u015f\u00e7i \u00fccretlerinde d\u00fc\u015f\u00fc\u015f yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, uygulanan de\u011fi\u015fimin P. Sendikas\u0131 \u00fcye say\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fckseldi\u011fi s\u00fcre\u00e7te al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011funu ve yap\u0131lan de\u011fi\u015fiklik nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun gelir kayb\u0131 oran\u0131 ve tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131 birlikte d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde; sendika \u00fcyeli\u011finden istifa etmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bask\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme ayr\u0131ca sendikal faaliyetler nedeniyle i\u015f akitleri sonland\u0131r\u0131lan ba\u015fka \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar oldu\u011funu, tan\u0131klar\u0131n i\u015fverenin \u00d6.P Sendikas\u0131n\u0131 destekledi\u011fini beyan ettiklerini vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkemeye g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ko\u015fullar\u0131nda yap\u0131lan de\u011fi\u015fikler, P. Sendikas\u0131 \u00fcyesi olmas\u0131ndand\u0131r ve i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi sendikal nedenlerle sonland\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
19. Buna kar\u015f\u0131n B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131nda sendikal nedenle bask\u0131 yap\u0131lmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik dosya i\u00e7erisinde somut bir delil bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun fesih tarihi itibar\u0131yla daval\u0131 i\u015fveren aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f i\u015fe iade davalar\u0131nda sendikal fesihlerin oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015fse de ba\u015fvurucunun sendikal faaliyetlerde bulundu\u011funa ve \u00f6nc\u00fc oldu\u011funa dair tan\u0131k beyan\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu nedenle sendikal fesih iddias\u0131n\u0131n ispatlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. Bu durumda ilk derece mahkemesinin detayl\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmeleri sonucunda sendikal fesih olgusunun ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fine kanaat getirdi\u011fi, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin bu de\u011ferlendirmeleri dikkate almaks\u0131z\u0131n sendikal feshin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fi sonucuna vard\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin Anayasa Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da ortaya koydu\u011fu kriterleri (bkz.\u00a7 11) uygulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
21. Neticede somut ba\u015fvurulara konu davalarda, mahkemelerin ulusal ve uluslararas\u0131 hukuk \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde Anayasa Mahkemesince geli\u015ftirilen ve benimsenen kriterleri dikkate almad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda sendika hakk\u0131n\u0131n gerektirdi\u011fi d\u00fczeyde yeterli bir yarg\u0131sal inceleme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, gerek\u00e7elerinin ilgili ve yeterli oldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenemez. Anlat\u0131lan nedenlerle devletin pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerini yerine getiremedi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
22. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 51. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan sendika hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
23. Ba\u015fvurucular ihlalin tespiti ile yeniden yarg\u0131lama talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvuruculardan \u0130brahim Kalkan ve Sel\u00e7uk O\u011fuz 100.000 TL manevi; \u0130smail Soylu 50.000 TL maddi 50.000 TL manevi; Umut \u00d6zkan 50.000 TL manevi, 43.501,70 TL maddi tazminat \u00f6denmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
24. 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
25. \u00d6te yandan sendika hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilmesi nedeniyle yaln\u0131zca yeniden yarg\u0131lamaya karar verilmesiyle giderilemeyecek olan manevi zararlar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucular \u0130brahim Kalkan, Sel\u00e7uk O\u011fuz, \u0130smail Soylu ve Umut \u00d6zkan ‘a ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 net 30.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi gerekir. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n u\u011frad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 iddia ettikleri maddi zarar talebi yeniden yarg\u0131lama kapsam\u0131nda giderilebilece\u011finden maddi tazminat taleplerinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurular\u0131n B\u0130RLE\u015eT\u0130R\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
B. 1. 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
2. Sendika hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
C. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 51. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan sendika hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin sendika hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak amac\u0131yla Sakarya B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 11. Hukuk Dairesine (E. 2021\/155, K.2022\/2464) iletilmek \u00fczere Gebze 7. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesine (E.2018\/304, K.2020\/270), \u0130stanbul Anadolu 27. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesine (E.2018\/331, K.2020\/262), Bursa 4. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesine (E.2018\/447, K.2019\/588; E.2018\/448, K.2019\/589), Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y 6. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesine (E.2021\/228, K.2021\/260) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. Ba\u015fvuruculardan \u0130brahim Kalkan, Sel\u00e7uk O\u011fuz, \u0130smail Soylu ve Umut \u00d6zkan’a ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 net 30.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE, tazminata ili\u015fkin di\u011fer taleplerin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. 487,60 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.487,60 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucular \u0130brahim Kalkan ve Sel\u00e7uk O\u011fuz’a m\u00fc\u015ftereken \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE, 664,10 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.664,10 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucu \u0130smail Soylu’ya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE, 664,10 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.664,10 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucu Umut \u00d6zkan’a \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE, 1.480,40 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 31.480,40 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucu Mehmet Bulut’a \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. \u00d6demenin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
H. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 30\/10\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 30\/10\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/19783 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 \u0130BRAH\u0130M KALKAN VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/19783) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 30\/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 : G\u00fcls\u00fcm Gizem G\u00dcRSOY Ba\u015fvurucular : 1. \u0130brahim KALKAN \u00a0 \u00a0 2. Sel\u00e7uk O\u011eUZ Vekili : Av. G\u00f6ksel \u00d6ZERKAN \u00a0 \u00a0 3. \u0130smail SOYLU Vekili : Av. Yusuf \u0130smail ERTAN \u00a0 \u00a0 4. Mehmet BULUT Vekili : Av. El\u00e7in DEV\u0130REN NASIR \u00a0 \u00a0 5. Umut \u00d6ZKAN Vekili : Av. Jan Aras ARSLAN \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi feshedilen ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n sendikal tazminat taleplerinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle sendika hakk\u0131n\u0131n; yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle de makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n iddias\u0131na g\u00f6re i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri sendikal nedenlerle sonland\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular, bu kapsamda i\u015fe iade ve sendikal tazminat talepli dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015flard\u0131r. 3. A\u00e7\u0131lan davalar\u0131n birinde ilk derece mahkemesi davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne ve ba\u015fvurucu lehine sendikal tazminata h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Buna kar\u015f\u0131n B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi, sendikal fesih olgusunun ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle bu y\u00f6nden davay\u0131 kesin olarak reddetmi\u015ftir. Di\u011fer davalarda ise ilk derece mahkemeleri, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n sendikal fesih iddias\u0131n\u0131 ispatlayamad\u0131klar\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015f ve bu kararlar\u0131 B\u00f6lge …<\/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-23682","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n