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
UFUK S\u00dc\u011e\u00dcRT\u0130N BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/39903)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 28\/11\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 26\/3\/2025 – 32853<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/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
Mehmet Yavuz YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Ufuk S\u00dc\u011e\u00dcRT\u0130N<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, yarg\u0131 karar\u0131yla iptal edilen idari i\u015flemden do\u011fan zarar\u0131n tazmini istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, \u00c7evre ve \u015eehircilik Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda memur olarak g\u00f6rev yapmaktayken Kamu Personeli Se\u00e7me S\u0131nav\u0131 (KPSS) 2016\/1 merkez\u00ee yerle\u015ftirme ile s\u00f6zle\u015fmeli personel olarak T\u00fcrkiye Elektrik \u00dcretim Anonim \u015eirketi (TE\u0130A\u015e) Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne 14\/7\/2016 tarihinde yerle\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. T\u00fcrkiye 15 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde asker\u00ee darbe te\u015febb\u00fcs\u00fcyle kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya kalm\u0131\u015f ve bu nedenle 21\/7\/2016 tarihinde \u00fclke genelinde ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2l (OHAL) ilan edilmi\u015ftir. OHAL 19\/7\/2018 tarihinde son bulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucunun atamas\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla g\u00f6revinden ayr\u0131lma talebiyle yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurusu, \u00c7evre ve \u015eehircilik Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nca OHAL nedeniyle kabul edilmemi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, bunun \u00fczerine TE\u0130A\u015e Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden OHAL boyunca haklar\u0131n\u0131n sakl\u0131 kalmas\u0131n\u0131 4\/11\/2016 tarihli dilek\u00e7e ile talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucunun bu talebi kabul g\u00f6rmeyerek atama karar\u0131 TE\u0130A\u015e taraf\u0131ndan 26\/12\/2016 tarihli Y\u00f6netim Kurulu karar\u0131 ile iptal edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu, s\u00f6z konusu karar\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebiyle Kamu Denet\u00e7ili\u011fi Kurumuna 11\/1\/2017 tarihinde ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Kamu Denet\u00e7ili\u011fi Kurumu 11\/7\/2017 tarihinde ba\u015fvurunun kabul\u00fc ile OHAL’in m\u00fccbir sebep olarak de\u011ferlendirilerek ba\u015fvuran\u0131n i\u015fe ba\u015flamaya ili\u015fkin yasal s\u00fcresinin yeniden de\u011ferlendirilmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde T\u00fcrkiye Elektrik \u0130letim A.\u015e. Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne, TE\u0130A\u015e Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan i\u015fe ba\u015flama onay\u0131n\u0131n verilmesi h\u00e2linde ma\u011fduriyetin do\u011fmamas\u0131 ad\u0131na ba\u015fvuran\u0131n \u00e7ekilme talebinin ivedilikle yeniden de\u011ferlendirilmesi hususunda da \u00c7evre ve \u015eehircilik Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na tavsiyede bulunulmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucunun bunun \u00fczerine TE\u0130A\u015e Y\u00f6netim Kurulunca al\u0131nan atama karar\u0131n\u0131n iptali i\u015flemine kar\u015f\u0131 11\/9\/2017 tarihinde a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 dava, Ankara 17. \u0130dare Mahkemesince (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) 26\/12\/2018 tarihli kararla iptal edilmi\u015ftir. \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131nda, \u00fclke genelinde ilan edilen OHAL’in kamusal d\u00fczeni korumak amac\u0131yla al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f m\u00fccbir bir sebep oldu\u011fu, ba\u015fvurucunun da OHAL’e ra\u011fmen g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 kurumdan ayr\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bir daha devlet memurlu\u011funa al\u0131nmama riski ile kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya bulundu\u011fu vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130dare Mahkemesi, dava konusu i\u015flemle ba\u015fvurucunun d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015f olan m\u00fccbir sebebin t\u00fcm k\u00fclfetinin ba\u015fvurucuya y\u00fckletilmesi sonucunun do\u011faca\u011f\u0131 kabul\u00fcyle tesis olunan dava konusu atama karar\u0131n\u0131n iptaline ili\u015fkin i\u015flemde hukuka uyarl\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna varm\u0131\u015f ve ba\u015fvurucunun durumunun yeniden de\u011ferlendirilmek suretiyle yap\u0131lacak en yak\u0131n yerle\u015ftirmede s\u00fcre verilmek suretiyle atamas\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 TE\u0130A\u015e taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan istinaf ba\u015fvurusunu inceleyen Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 1. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi 30\/1\/2020 tarihli karar\u0131yla istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun kesin olarak reddine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Bu karar ba\u015fvurucuya 2\/7\/2020 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, bu kesin karar \u00fczerine 20\/7\/2020 tarihinde Kamu Denet\u00e7ili\u011fi Kurumuna bir kez daha ba\u015fvuru yapm\u0131\u015f ve kesinle\u015fen yarg\u0131 karar\u0131 \u00fczerine hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu tespit edilen atamas\u0131n\u0131n iptaline ili\u015fkin i\u015flem nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zararlara kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k 5.000 TL’nin tazminat olarak kendisine \u00f6denmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Kamu Denet\u00e7ili\u011fi Kurumu, yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun menfaat ihlali \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle 10\/9\/2020 tarihinde incelenemezlik karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu, bunun \u00fczerine hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu tespit edilen i\u015flem nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zararlara kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k 5.000 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n kendisine istemiyle 9\/10\/2020 tarihinde Ankara 23. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme 10\/1\/2020 tarihli karar\u0131yla davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir. Mahkeme gerek\u00e7esinde, i\u015flemin iptali yolundaki Ankara 17. \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 1. Dava Dairesince onanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin karar\u0131n davac\u0131ya tebli\u011f edildi\u011fi 2\/7\/2020 tarihinden itibaren altm\u0131\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde parasal haklara ili\u015fkin tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 ya da ayn\u0131 altm\u0131\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde en ge\u00e7 3\/9\/2020 tarihinde daval\u0131 idareye m\u00fcracaat edilmesi gerekti\u011fini vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme bu tespitten hareketle belirtti\u011fi s\u00fcre ka\u00e7\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra 9\/10\/2020 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai karar\u0131 24\/11\/2020 tarihinde tebell\u00fc\u011f etmesinin ard\u0131ndan 16\/12\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
13. 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu’nun 11. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“1. \u0130lgililer taraf\u0131ndan idari dava a\u00e7\u0131lmadan \u00f6nce, idari i\u015flemin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131, geri al\u0131nmas\u0131 de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesi veya yeni bir i\u015flem yap\u0131lmas\u0131 \u00fcst makamdan, \u00fcst makam yoksa i\u015flemi yapm\u0131\u015f olan makamdan, idari dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde istenebilir. Bu ba\u015fvurma, i\u015flemeye ba\u015flam\u0131\u015f olan idari dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresini durdurur.<\/p>\n
2. Altm\u0131\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde bir cevap verilmezse istek reddedilmi\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. \u0130ste\u011fin reddedilmesi veya reddedilmi\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131 halinde dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi yeniden i\u015flemeye ba\u015flar ve ba\u015fvurma tarihine kadar ge\u00e7mi\u015f s\u00fcre de hesaba kat\u0131l\u0131r. “<\/p>\n
14. 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “\u0130ptal ve tam yarg\u0131 davalar\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 12. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“\u0130lgililer haklar\u0131n\u0131 ihlal eden bir idari i\u015flem dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Dan\u0131\u015ftaya ve idare ve vergi mahkemelerine do\u011frudan do\u011fruya tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 veya iptal ve tam yarg\u0131 davalar\u0131n\u0131 birlikte a\u00e7abilecekleri gibi ilk \u00f6nce iptal davas\u0131 a\u00e7arak bu davan\u0131n karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131 \u00fczerine, bu husustaki karar\u0131n veya kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvurulmas\u0131 halinde verilecek karar\u0131n tebli\u011fi veya bir i\u015flemin icras\u0131 sebebiyle do\u011fan zararlardan dolay\u0131 icra tarihinden itibaren dava s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7abilirler. Bu halde de ilgililerin 11 nci madde uyar\u0131nca idareye ba\u015fvurma haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131d\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
15. 14\/6\/2012 tarihli ve 6328 say\u0131l\u0131 Kamu Denet\u00e7ili\u011fi Kurumu Kanunu’nun “Ama\u00e7” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 1. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Bu Kanunun amac\u0131; kamu hizmetlerinin i\u015fleyi\u015finde ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z ve etkin bir \u015fik\u00e2yet mekanizmas\u0131 olu\u015fturmak suretiyle, idarenin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc eylem ve i\u015flemleri ile tutum ve davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131; insan haklar\u0131na dayal\u0131 adalet anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 i\u00e7inde, hukuka ve hakkaniyete uygunluk y\u00f6nlerinden incelemek, ara\u015ft\u0131rmak ve \u00f6nerilerde bulunmak \u00fczere Kamu Denet\u00e7ili\u011fi Kurumunu olu\u015fturmakt\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
16. 6328 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Ba\u015fvuru ve usul\u00fc” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 17. maddesinin d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Kuruma ba\u015fvuruda bulunulabilmesi i\u00e7in, 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanununda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen idari ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131 ile \u00f6zel kanunlarda yer alan zorunlu idari ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmesi gereklidir. \u0130dari ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131 t\u00fcketilmeden yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurular ilgili kuruma g\u00f6nderilir. Ancak Kurum, telafisi g\u00fc\u00e7 veya imk\u00e2ns\u0131z zararlar\u0131n do\u011fmas\u0131 ihtimali bulunan h\u00e2llerde, idari ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131 t\u00fcketilmese dahi ba\u015fvurular\u0131 kabul edebilir.”<\/p>\n
17. 6328 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Ba\u015fvuru ve usul\u00fc” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 17. maddesinin sekizinci f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvuru, i\u015flemeye ba\u015flam\u0131\u015f olan dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresini durdurur.”<\/p>\n
III. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu; nihai karar\u0131n 2\/7\/2020 tarihinde tebli\u011f edildi\u011fini, 20\/7\/2020 tarihinde Kamu Denet\u00e7ili\u011fi Kurumuna ba\u015fvuru yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 10\/9\/2020 tarihinde Kurum taraf\u0131ndan incelenmeksizin ret karar\u0131 verildi\u011fini ve bu karar \u00fczerine s\u00fcresinde davas\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu ayr\u0131ca 6328 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun i\u015flemeye ba\u015flam\u0131\u015f olan dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresini durduraca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
19. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi konusunda inceleme yap\u0131l\u0131rken Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihad\u0131 ve somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n da dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olaylar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan hukuki nitelendirmesi ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olmay\u0131p olay ve olgular\u0131n hukuki tavsifini kendisi takdir eder (Tahir Canan, B. No: 2012\/969, 18\/9\/2013, \u00a7 16). Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak de\u011ferlendirilmesi sonucunda iddialar\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. 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 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
22. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, herkesin yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddiada bulunma ve savunma hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bir unsurudur (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2014\/13156, 20\/4\/2017, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
23. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcmlerinden biri olan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, mutlak bir hak olmay\u0131p bu hakk\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Ancak mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalede bulunulurken Anayasa’n\u0131n temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin genel ilkeleri d\u00fczenleyen 13. maddesinin g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmas\u0131 gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
24. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetler, … yaln\u0131zca Anayasan\u0131n ilgili maddelerinde belirtilen sebeplere ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ve ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir. Bu s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar, … \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamaz.”<\/p>\n
25. Yukar\u0131da an\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinde belirtilen ko\u015fullara uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinin ihlalini te\u015fkil edecektir.<\/p>\n
26. Bu sebeple m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ve somut ba\u015fvuruya uygun d\u00fc\u015fen, kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme, hakl\u0131 bir sebebe dayanma, \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmama ko\u015fullar\u0131na uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
27. Bu bak\u0131mdan \u00f6ncelikle ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
28. Hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin, bunlara yap\u0131lacak m\u00fcdahalelerin ve s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rmalar\u0131n kanunla d\u00fczenlenmesi bu haklara ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere keyf\u00ee m\u00fcdahaleyi engelleyen, hukuk g\u00fcvenli\u011fini sa\u011flayan demokratik hukuk devletinin en \u00f6nemli unsurlar\u0131ndan biridir (Tahsin Erdo\u011fan, B. No: 2012\/1246, 6\/2\/2014, \u00a7 60).<\/p>\n
29. M\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131 \u00f6ncelikle \u015fekl\u00ee manada bir kanunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 zorunlu k\u0131lar. \u015eekl\u00ee manada kanun, T\u00fcrkiye B\u00fcy\u00fck Millet Meclisi (TBMM) taraf\u0131ndan Anayasa’da belirtilen usule uygun olarak kanun ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan d\u00fczenleyici yasama i\u015flemidir. Hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere m\u00fcdahale edilmesi ancak yasama organ\u0131nca kanun ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan d\u00fczenleyici i\u015flemlerde m\u00fcdahaleye imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan bir h\u00fckm\u00fcn bulunmas\u0131 \u015fart\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. TBMM taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan \u015fekl\u00ee anlamda bir kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmamas\u0131 hakka yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyi anayasal temelden yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131r (Ali H\u0131d\u0131r Akyol ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2015\/17510, 18\/10\/2017, \u00a7 56).<\/p>\n
30. Kanunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kadar kanun metni ve uygulamas\u0131 da bireylerin davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n sonucunu \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilece\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde hukuki belirlilik ta\u015f\u0131mal\u0131d\u0131r. Bir di\u011fer ifadeyle kanunun kalitesi de kanunilik ko\u015fulunun sa\u011flan\u0131p sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespitinde \u00f6nemlidir. (Necmiye \u00c7ift\u00e7i ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/1301, 30\/12\/2014, \u00a7 55). M\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131, i\u00e7 hukukta m\u00fcdahaleye ili\u015fkin yeterince ula\u015f\u0131labilir ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir kurallar\u0131n bulunmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir. (T\u00fcrkiye \u0130\u015f Bankas\u0131 A.\u015e. [GK], B. No: 2014\/6192, 12\/11\/2014, \u00a7 44).<\/p>\n
31. Bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta uygulanacak hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n ve \u00f6zellikle m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturan kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin yorumlanmas\u0131 derece mahkemelerinin takdirindedir. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturdu\u011fu ifade edilen h\u00fck\u00fcmlerle ilgili olarak derece mahkemelerince geli\u015ftirilen yorumlar\u0131n isabetli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 denetlemek Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi de\u011fildir. Bununla birlikte derece mahkemelerinin yorumlar\u0131n\u0131n kanunun a\u00e7\u0131k lafz\u0131yla \u00e7eli\u015fkili oldu\u011fu veya kanun metni dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda bireyler taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2llerde mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine var\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr (Ziya \u00d6zden, B. No: 2016\/67737, 19\/11\/2019, \u00a7 59).<\/p>\n
32. Somut yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde Mahkeme; ret gerek\u00e7esini, nihai karar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya tebli\u011f edildi\u011fi 2\/7\/2020 tarihinden itibaren altm\u0131\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde parasal haklara ili\u015fkin tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ya da ayn\u0131 altm\u0131\u015f g\u00fcn s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde en ge\u00e7 3\/9\/2020 tarihine kadar daval\u0131 idareye m\u00fcracaat edilmedi\u011fi yorumu \u00fczerine kurmu\u015ftur. Bununla birlikte Mahkeme, Kamu Denet\u00e7ili\u011fi Kurumuna yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun dava s\u00fcresine etkisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 z\u0131mnen ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
33. Olayda ba\u015fvurucu, idare mahkemesinde tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde Kamu Denet\u00e7ili\u011fi Kurumuna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Yukar\u0131da de\u011finilen 6328 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 17\/8. Maddesinde dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde Kamu Denet\u00e7ili\u011fi Kurumuna ba\u015fvuru yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ise s\u00fcrenin duraca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Kamu Denet\u00e7ili\u011fi Kurumuna yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvuru ile ba\u015fvurucunun idari dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi durmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
34. Dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131na ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131k bir kanun h\u00fckm\u00fc bulunmaktad\u0131r ve bu h\u00fckme verilecek ola\u011fan anlam bellidir (bkz. \u00a7 18). Buna g\u00f6re Kamu Denet\u00e7ili\u011fi Kurumunun 10\/9\/2020 tarihli incelenemezlik karar\u0131yla yeniden s\u00fcre i\u015flemeye ba\u015flam\u0131\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu da 9\/10\/2020 tarihinde altm\u0131\u015f g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde davas\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu h\u00e2le g\u00f6re ba\u015fvuruya konu davada, \u0130dare Mahkemesi yorumunun kanunun a\u00e7\u0131k lafz\u0131na g\u00f6re \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
35. Bu durumda a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemez bir bi\u00e7imde yorumlanarak s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddedilmesi suretiyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanunilik unsurunu ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
36. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
37. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ile yeniden yarg\u0131lama ve tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
38. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 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 (6216 say\u0131l\u0131 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
39. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
V. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim 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 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Ankara 23. \u0130dare Mahkemesine(E.2020\/1736, K.2020\/1718) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 446,90 TL har\u00e7tan 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 Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 28\/11\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 28\/11\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/39903 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 UFUK S\u00dc\u011e\u00dcRT\u0130N BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/39903) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 28\/11\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 26\/3\/2025 – 32853 \u00a0 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR 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 : Mehmet Yavuz YA\u015eAR Ba\u015fvurucu : Ufuk S\u00dc\u011e\u00dcRT\u0130N \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, yarg\u0131 karar\u0131yla iptal edilen idari i\u015flemden do\u011fan zarar\u0131n tazmini istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, \u00c7evre ve \u015eehircilik Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda memur olarak g\u00f6rev yapmaktayken Kamu Personeli Se\u00e7me S\u0131nav\u0131 (KPSS) 2016\/1 merkez\u00ee yerle\u015ftirme ile s\u00f6zle\u015fmeli personel olarak T\u00fcrkiye Elektrik \u00dcretim Anonim \u015eirketi (TE\u0130A\u015e) Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne 14\/7\/2016 tarihinde yerle\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir. 3. T\u00fcrkiye 15 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde asker\u00ee darbe te\u015febb\u00fcs\u00fcyle kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya kalm\u0131\u015f ve bu nedenle 21\/7\/2016 tarihinde \u00fclke genelinde ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2l (OHAL) ilan edilmi\u015ftir. OHAL 19\/7\/2018 tarihinde son bulmu\u015ftur. 4. Ba\u015fvurucunun atamas\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla g\u00f6revinden ayr\u0131lma talebiyle yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurusu, \u00c7evre ve \u015eehircilik Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nca OHAL nedeniyle kabul edilmemi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, bunun \u00fczerine TE\u0130A\u015e Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden OHAL boyunca haklar\u0131n\u0131n sakl\u0131 kalmas\u0131n\u0131 4\/11\/2016 tarihli dilek\u00e7e ile talep etmi\u015ftir. 5. Ba\u015fvurucunun bu talebi kabul g\u00f6rmeyerek atama …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37098","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n