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
ZEK\u0130 KILI\u00c7\u00c7I BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/40233)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 19\/11\/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
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
Ferhat YILDIZ<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Zeki KILI\u00c7\u00c7I<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Arzu PAMUK\u00c7U Y\u00d6RDEM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, ter\u00f6r olay\u0131 nedeniyle u\u011fran\u0131lan manevi zarar\u0131n tazmini amac\u0131yla a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddedilmesi nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Bireysel ba\u015fvuru formu ekinde yer alan belgelere g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucu olay tarihinde Diyarbak\u0131r’\u0131n Sur il\u00e7esinde ikamet etmektedir. Ba\u015fvurucu soka\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kma yasa\u011f\u0131 ilan\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011fu d\u00f6nemde e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131 geride b\u0131rakarak evini terk edebilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, evinin bo\u015falt\u0131larak y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131 ve i\u00e7indeki e\u015fyalar\u0131n zarar g\u00f6rmesinden kaynakl\u0131 olarak olu\u015fan zararlar\u0131n\u0131n giderilmesi amac\u0131yla 9\/6\/2016 tarihinde Diyarbak\u0131r Valili\u011fi Zarar Tespit Komisyonuna (Komisyon) ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. Komisyon taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6nerilen 110.000 TL tazminat, ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan kabul edilerek taraflar aras\u0131nda sulhname imzalanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Di\u011fer taraf\u0131ndan 10\/7\/2018 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucu; evini terk etmesi, evinin y\u0131k\u0131larak e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131n enkaz alt\u0131nda kalmas\u0131 nedeniyle u\u011fran\u0131lan maddi ve manevi zararlar\u0131n\u0131n tazmini amac\u0131yla Diyarbak\u0131r Valili\u011fine yeni bir ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. An\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun z\u0131mnen reddi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu 3\/10\/2018 tarihinde Diyarbak\u0131r 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) manevi tazminat istemli dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme 28\/2\/2019 tarihinde davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6r eylemleri sonucunda de\u011filsoka\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kma yasa\u011f\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc zorluk ve k\u00fclfetlerden kaynaklanan manevi zararlar\u0131n\u0131n tazminini talep etti\u011fi, bu anlamda iddia edilen manevi zararlar\u0131n tazmininde sosyal risk ilkesinin uygulanmas\u0131na olanak bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lgede ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen operasyonlara ve soka\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kma yasa\u011f\u0131 ilan edilmesine ili\u015fkin s\u00fcre\u00e7te hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilen kararda, ba\u015fvurucunun zarar\u0131n\u0131n hizmet kusuru ba\u011flam\u0131nda tazminine olanak bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Kararda ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucunun u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etti\u011fi zararlar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan idarenin kusurunun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, somut olayda idarenin tazmin sorumlulu\u011funu gerektiren, kamu k\u00fclfeti olmaktan \u00e7\u0131kan, hizmetten yararlanan ba\u015fvurucu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u00f6zel ve ola\u011fand\u0131\u015f\u0131 niteli\u011fe d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fen bir manevi zarar\u0131n mevcut olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucunun an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf ba\u015fvurusu, Gaziantep B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 3. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi (Daire) taraf\u0131ndan 30\/10\/2020 tarihinde reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai karar\u0131 5\/12\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 18\/12\/2020 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
6. Ba\u015fvurucu; hi\u00e7bir e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7\u0131karamadan evini terk etmek zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, evinin tamamen y\u0131k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve b\u00fct\u00fcn e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131 kaybetti\u011fini, bu nedenle sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bozuldu\u011funu, \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n\u0131n okula gidemedi\u011fini, bu nedenle telafisi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmayan a\u011f\u0131r \u00fcz\u00fcnt\u00fcler ya\u015fad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. A\u011f\u0131r \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma ortam\u0131nda evde \u00e7ocuklar\u0131yla mahsur kald\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, a\u011f\u0131r silahlarla evinin tarand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve g\u00fcvenlik g\u00fc\u00e7leri taraf\u0131ndan kurtar\u0131ld\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 belirten ba\u015fvurucu; \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n\u0131n ve kendisinin psikolojisinin bozuldu\u011funu, ba\u015fkalar\u0131n\u0131n evine s\u0131\u011f\u0131nmak zorunda kald\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenlerle adil yarg\u0131lanma, ya\u015fam, \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131, etkili hukuk yoluna ba\u015fvurma haklar\u0131n\u0131n ve e\u015fitlik ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde \u00f6ncelikle ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetinin temelinin kanun yolunda g\u00f6zetilmesi gereken hususlara ili\u015fkin kanun yolu \u015fik\u00e2yeti olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ele al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fte ayr\u0131ca adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi konusunda Anayasa Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lacak incelemede, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fte belirtilen mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin, Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 ile somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131narak de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Ter\u00f6r olaylar\u0131ndan kaynaklanan tazminat taleplerinin konu oldu\u011fu ba\u015fvurularda usul g\u00fcvencelerine ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin \u00f6ne \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131 nedeniyle bu t\u00fcr ba\u015fvurular adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir (Abbas Emre, B. No: 2014\/5005, 6\/1\/2016; Hayri \u00d6nal, B.No: 2019\/27955, 4\/10\/2023). Somut ba\u015fvuruda da usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencelerin \u00f6ncelikle de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvuru, adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvencelerinden olan gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. 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
10. Anayasa Mahkemesinin Nurten Esen (B. No: 2013\/7970, 10\/6\/2015) ba\u015fvurusunda belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere; bir mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esi; o davaya konu maddi olgular\u0131n mahkemece nas\u0131l nitelendirildi\u011fini, kurulan h\u00fckm\u00fcn hangi nedenlere ve hukuksal d\u00fczenlemelere dayand\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ortaya koymal\u0131 ve maddi olgular ile h\u00fck\u00fcm aras\u0131ndaki mant\u0131ksal ba\u011flant\u0131y\u0131 g\u00f6stermelidir. Taraflar\u0131n, hangi nedenle hakl\u0131 veya haks\u0131z g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fcklerini anlay\u0131p de\u011ferlendirebilmeleri ve hukuka uygunluk denetimini yapabilmeleri i\u00e7in ortada, usul\u00fcne uygun \u015fekilde olu\u015fturulmu\u015f, h\u00fckm\u00fcn hangi nedenle o i\u00e7erik ve kapsamda verildi\u011fini ku\u015fkuya yer vermeyecek a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131kta g\u00f6steren bir gerek\u00e7e b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmas\u0131 zorunludur (Nurten Esen, \u00a7 57). Ter\u00f6r olaylar\u0131ndan kaynaklanan manevi tazminat istemi ile 17\/7\/2004 tarihli ve 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Ter\u00f6r Ve Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadeleden Do\u011fan Zararlar\u0131n Kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lan bir ba\u015fvuruda Anayasa Mahkemesi, manevi tazminat talebi derece mahkemeleri \u00f6n\u00fcnde ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmesine ra\u011fmen verilen kararda iddialar\u0131n tam olarak kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Abbas Emre, \u00a7\u00a7 67-85; Hayri \u00d6nal, \u00a7 16).<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu; \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmalar s\u0131ras\u0131nda evde mahsur kalan ailesi ile psikolojilerinin olumsuz olarak etkilendi\u011fini, sonras\u0131nda da ya\u015fad\u0131klar\u0131 evden b\u00fct\u00fcn e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131 da b\u0131rakarak ayr\u0131lmak zorunda kald\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, aile d\u00fczenlerinin bozuldu\u011funu ve \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n\u0131n e\u011fitim hayat\u0131n\u0131n aksad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek manevi tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Somut olayda Mahkemece idarenin hizmet kusurunun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, sosyal risk ilkesinin ve kusursuz sorumlulu\u011fun \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n mevcut olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte ba\u015fvurucunun yak\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususlara sosyal risk ilkesi ve kusursuz sorumluluk kapsam\u0131nda genel gerek\u00e7elerle de\u011finilmi\u015fse de ba\u015fvurucunun manevi \u015fahs\u0131nda meydana geldi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc etkilere ve ba\u015fvurucunun bulundu\u011fu ko\u015fullara y\u00f6nelik bir ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, somut olaya \u00f6zg\u00fc hi\u00e7bir de\u011ferlendirmede bulunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bu nedenlerle, yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcreci bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucunun gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
12. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucu ihlalin tespiti, yeniden yarg\u0131lama ile maddi ve manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
14. 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\u2019un 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
15. \u00d6te yandan ihlalin niteli\u011fine g\u00f6re yeniden yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak amac\u0131yla Diyarbak\u0131r 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2018\/1614, K.2019\/493) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.446,90 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \u00d6demelerin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 19\/11\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 19\/11\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/40233 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 ZEK\u0130 KILI\u00c7\u00c7I BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/40233) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 19\/11\/2024 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \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 : Ferhat YILDIZ Ba\u015fvurucu : Zeki KILI\u00c7\u00c7I Vekili : Av. Arzu PAMUK\u00c7U Y\u00d6RDEM \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, ter\u00f6r olay\u0131 nedeniyle u\u011fran\u0131lan manevi zarar\u0131n tazmini amac\u0131yla a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddedilmesi nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Bireysel ba\u015fvuru formu ekinde yer alan belgelere g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucu olay tarihinde Diyarbak\u0131r’\u0131n Sur il\u00e7esinde ikamet etmektedir. Ba\u015fvurucu soka\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kma yasa\u011f\u0131 ilan\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011fu d\u00f6nemde e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131 geride b\u0131rakarak evini terk edebilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, evinin bo\u015falt\u0131larak y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131 ve i\u00e7indeki e\u015fyalar\u0131n zarar g\u00f6rmesinden kaynakl\u0131 olarak olu\u015fan zararlar\u0131n\u0131n giderilmesi amac\u0131yla 9\/6\/2016 tarihinde Diyarbak\u0131r Valili\u011fi Zarar Tespit Komisyonuna (Komisyon) ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. Komisyon taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6nerilen 110.000 TL tazminat, ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan kabul edilerek taraflar aras\u0131nda sulhname imzalanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Di\u011fer taraf\u0131ndan 10\/7\/2018 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucu; evini terk etmesi, evinin y\u0131k\u0131larak e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131n enkaz alt\u0131nda kalmas\u0131 nedeniyle u\u011fran\u0131lan maddi ve manevi zararlar\u0131n\u0131n tazmini amac\u0131yla Diyarbak\u0131r Valili\u011fine yeni bir ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. An\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun z\u0131mnen reddi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu 3\/10\/2018 tarihinde Diyarbak\u0131r 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28855","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n