T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Z.G. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/92131)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 13\/3\/2025<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 16\/5\/2025 – 32902<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/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
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Eren Can BENAKAY<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Taylan G\u00d6KMEN<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, yarg\u0131sal kesinlik kazanan vak\u0131an\u0131n ba\u015fka bir mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan dikkate al\u0131nmamas\u0131 nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru 7\/10\/2022 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvuru, ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinin idari y\u00f6nden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n incelemesinden sonra Komisyona sunulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
4. Komisyonca di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. B\u00f6l\u00fcm Ba\u015fkan\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin birlikte yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda beyanda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR<\/p>\n
7. \u0130stanbul ili Ey\u00fcpsultan il\u00e7esi G\u00f6kt\u00fcrk Mahallesi’nde k\u00e2in 930 ve davaya konu 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n 1956 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan kadastro \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda haz\u0131rlanan 8\/5\/1956 tarihli Tapulama Tutana\u011f\u0131’nda 26 sene \u00f6nce H.A. taraf\u0131ndan ormandan a\u00e7\u0131larak tarla h\u00e2line getirildi\u011fi ve o g\u00fcnden beri nizas\u0131z kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilmi\u015ftir. 930 ve 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar 9\/12\/1974 tarihinde H.A.n\u0131n miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan R.U.ya sat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Maliye Hazinesi (Hazine) 8\/5\/1956 tarihli kadastro tespitine 16\/6\/2000 tarihinde itiraz etmi\u015ftir. Ey\u00fcp 1. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi 12\/3\/2002 tarihinde davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015f ve kararda, R.U. lehine zilyetlikle iktisap \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015ftu\u011funu ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde R.U.dan ba\u015fkas\u0131n\u0131n hakk\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Yarg\u0131tay 17. Hukuk Dairesi 1\/5\/2003 tarihinde karar\u0131 bozmu\u015ftur. Kararda, 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n gerek 1940 ve gerekse 1988 y\u0131llar\u0131nda yap\u0131lan orman tahdit \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda orman s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n zilyetlik ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015fup olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 930 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazla birlikte de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Ey\u00fcp 1. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi 28\/4\/2005 tarihinde davay\u0131 kabul ederek 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tespitinin iptaline ve zilyetlik \u015fartlar\u0131 olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle arazinin Hazine ad\u0131na tesciline karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Yarg\u0131tay 17. Hukuk Dairesinin 30\/3\/2006 tarihli karar\u0131yla mahkeme karar\u0131 onanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kararda 30\/11\/2001 tarihli kroki ve ekindeki uzman bilirki\u015fi heyeti raporlar\u0131na g\u00f6re ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 1956 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan genel kadastro s\u0131ras\u0131nda tespit harici b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, daha sonra 1988 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan ve kesinle\u015fen 2\/B uygulamas\u0131yla da orman s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu tarih ile kadastro tespit tarihi aras\u0131nda 20 y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcrenin ge\u00e7medi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Yarg\u0131tay 17. Hukuk Dairesince 31\/6\/2006 tarihinde karar d\u00fczeltme talebi reddedilmi\u015ftir. Kararda, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 1988 tarihinde yap\u0131lan 31\/8\/1956 tarihli ve 6831 say\u0131l\u0131 Orman Kanunu’nun 5\/6\/1986 tarihli ve 3302 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun ile de\u011fi\u015fik 2\/B maddesinin uygulamas\u0131ndan \u00f6nce orman say\u0131lan yerlerden kabul edilmesinde hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucu, 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2\/B arazisi olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 netle\u015ftirmek amac\u0131yla Orman ve Su \u0130\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn 8\/12\/2011 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131nda, 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131n 2\/B alan\u0131 oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Yaz\u0131 ekinde g\u00f6nderilen g\u00fcncelleme tespit cetvelinde 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz 2\/B alan\u0131 olarak yer alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunun \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu 5\/11\/2012 tarihli noter tasdikli muvafakatname ile R.U.nun 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerini devralm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurucu 21\/2\/2013 tarihinde, 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 19\/4\/2012 tarihli ve 6292 say\u0131l\u0131 Hazine Ad\u0131na Orman S\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 D\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00c7\u0131kar\u0131lan Yerlerin De\u011ferlendirilmesine \u0130li\u015fkin Kanun kapsam\u0131nda do\u011frudan sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Avrupa Yakas\u0131 Mill\u00ee Emlak Dairesince 30\/4\/2013 tarihinde ba\u015fvuru reddedilmi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7e olarak 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2\/B arazisi olmamas\u0131 g\u00f6sterilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvurucu ret i\u015fleminin iptali istemiyle 1\/7\/2013 tarihinde dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130stanbul 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesi (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) 27\/10\/2015 tarihinde davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. Kararda, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu arsan\u0131n \u00f6teden beri orman say\u0131lan yerlerden olmay\u0131p orman vasf\u0131 ve niteli\u011finin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bu nedenle 6831 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 2\/B maddesi kapsam\u0131nda olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Sekizinci Dairesi (Dan\u0131\u015ftay) 10\/4\/2018 tarihinde karar\u0131 onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
16. Ba\u015fvurucu gerek Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131nda gerekse Maliye ile Orman Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve Kadastro M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fckleri belgelerinde ve araziyle ilgili Kadastro Tutana\u011f\u0131’nda dava konusu arazinin 2\/B arazisi olarak kesinle\u015fti\u011fini belirterek arazinin tapuya 2\/B \u015ferhinin i\u015flenmesi ile sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi i\u00e7in tedbir konulmas\u0131 istemiyle 10\/12\/2018 tarihinde dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. \u0130stanbul Kadastro Mahkemesi (Kadastro Mahkemesi) 26\/11\/2019 tarihinde davay\u0131 kabul etmi\u015ftir. \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 6. Hukuk Dairesi (B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi) 2\/7\/2020 tarihinde karar\u0131 kald\u0131rarak g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 verilmek \u00fczere dosyay\u0131 iade etmi\u015ftir. Kararda, kadastro tespit g\u00fcn\u00fcnden sonra do\u011fan haklara dair istekler ile mahkemeden yenilik do\u011furucu h\u00fck\u00fcm almay\u0131 gerektiren isteklerin kadastro mahkemelerinin g\u00f6revi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Bu karar uyar\u0131nca Kadastro Mahkemesi 15\/9\/2020 tarihinde g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu 20\/10\/2020 tarihinde \u0130stanbul 1. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesine (Mahkeme) davas\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
19. Mahkemece 12\/2\/2021 tarihinde davay\u0131 kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Kararda; konuya ili\u015fkin al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporunda, 1956 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan genel kadastro \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131nda dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ge\u00e7mi\u015fte orman olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kadastro harici b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu nedenle dava konusu orman ve orman topra\u011f\u0131n\u0131n zilyetlikle kazan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n olanaks\u0131z oldu\u011funun tespit edildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Dava konusu araziyle ilgili olarak \u00f6nceden a\u00e7\u0131lan davalar neticesinde \u00fc\u00e7 Yarg\u0131tay karar\u0131nda arazinin ge\u00e7mi\u015fte orman oldu\u011fu ve ormandan a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle araziye zilyetlikle sahip olunamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n net \u015fekilde h\u00fckme ba\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Son olarak dosya kapsam\u0131nda bulunan Orman ve Su \u0130\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 8\/11\/2012 tarihli yaz\u0131 ve ekinde yer alan g\u00fcncelleme listesinde dava konusu 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131n 2\/B alan\u0131nda oldu\u011funun g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kararda yer alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. Hazine 17\/3\/2021 tarihinde kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
21. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince 10\/6\/2021 tarihinde istinaf ba\u015fvurusu kabul edilerek mahkeme karar\u0131 kald\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve dava reddedilmi\u015ftir. Kararda;<\/p>\n
i. Ba\u015fvurucunun 6292 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a g\u00f6re do\u011frudan sat\u0131\u015f i\u00e7in yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurusunun ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2\/B kapsam\u0131nda olmamas\u0131 nedeniyle reddedildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ret i\u015flemine kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n idari yarg\u0131 mercilerince reddedildi\u011fi ve karar gerek\u00e7esinde ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n orman vasf\u0131 ve niteli\u011finin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu nedenle 6831 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 2\/B maddesi kapsam\u0131nda olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirtildi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
ii. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ilk kez 1940 y\u0131l\u0131nda 3116 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a g\u00f6re yap\u0131l\u0131p kesinle\u015fen orman kadastrosu i\u00e7inde yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131, daha sonra 1985 ve 1987 y\u0131llar\u0131nda 2\/B’ye g\u00f6re \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kesinle\u015fmi\u015f orman tahdit \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131nda orman s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ilk tahdit \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131nda orman say\u0131lmayan yerlerden oldu\u011funun belirlendi\u011fi, bu nedenle 2\/B madde uygulamalar\u0131na da konu edilmedi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n h\u00fckmen belirlenen ve kesinle\u015fen niteli\u011fine g\u00f6re \u00f6ncesi itibar\u0131yla orman say\u0131lan yerlerden oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
iii. Son olarak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2\/B kapsam\u0131nda olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit i\u015flemlerinin orman kadastro komisyonlar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6revi d\u00e2hilinde olmas\u0131 nedeniyle ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n2\/B arazisi oldu\u011funun tespiti y\u00f6n\u00fcnde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131n\u0131n da do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaati bildirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
22. Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesince (Yarg\u0131tay) 22\/6\/2022 tarihinde B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131 onanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kararda, (kapat\u0131lan) Yarg\u0131tay17. Hukuk Dairesinin karar\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 1988 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan 2\/B \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131nda orman d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair ibare bulunmakta ise de hi\u00e7bir zaman orman s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7ine al\u0131nmayan bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n orman s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n hukuken m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmamas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda bu ibarenin taraflar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 6292 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a g\u00f6re sat\u0131\u015fa konu edilmemesi i\u015flemine kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ormanla ve 2\/B uygulamas\u0131yla ilgisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle \u0130dare Mahkemesince reddedildi\u011fi ve bu karar\u0131n Dan\u0131\u015ftay taraf\u0131ndan onand\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Son olarak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2\/B alan\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6steren g\u00fcncelleme listesinin dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilemedi\u011fi ve kullan\u0131m kadastrosu yap\u0131lmayan bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaza 2\/B s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7inde kald\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve kullan\u0131ma dair \u015ferh d\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 aktar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
23. Nihai karar, ba\u015fvurucuya 20\/9\/2022 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 7\/10\/2022 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
A. Ulusal Hukuk<\/p>\n
24. 22\/11\/2001 tarihli ve 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun ”Tescil” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 705. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz m\u00fclkiyetinin kazan\u0131lmas\u0131, tescille olur.<\/p>\n
Miras, mahkeme karar\u0131, cebr\u00ee icra, i\u015fgal, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma h\u00e2lleri ile kanunda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen di\u011fer h\u00e2llerde, m\u00fclkiyet tescilden \u00f6nce kazan\u0131l\u0131r. Ancak, bu h\u00e2llerde malikin tasarruf i\u015flemleri yapabilmesi, m\u00fclkiyetin tapu k\u00fct\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne tescil edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r.” <\/p>\n
25. 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ”Genel olarak” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 997. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar \u00fczerindeki haklar\u0131 g\u00f6stermek \u00fczere tapu sicili tutulur.<\/p>\n
Tapu sicili, tapu k\u00fct\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve kat m\u00fclkiyeti k\u00fct\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ile bunlar\u0131 tamamlayan yevmiye defteri ve belgeler ile pl\u00e2nlardan olu\u015fur.<\/p>\n
Sicilin \u00f6rne\u011fi, nas\u0131l tutulaca\u011f\u0131 ve yard\u0131mc\u0131 siciller Cumhurba\u015fkan\u0131nca \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan y\u00f6netmelikle belirlenir.”<\/p>\n
26. 6831 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 2. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u201cOrman say\u0131lan yerlerden:<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
B) 31\/12\/1981 tarihinden \u00f6nce bilim ve fen bak\u0131m\u0131ndan orman niteli\u011fini tam olarak kaybetmi\u015f yerlerden; tarla, ba\u011f, bah\u00e7e, meyvelik, zeytinlik, f\u0131nd\u0131kl\u0131k, f\u0131st\u0131kl\u0131k (antep f\u0131st\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00e7am f\u0131st\u0131\u011f\u0131) gibi \u00e7e\u015fitli tar\u0131m alanlar\u0131 veya otlak, k\u0131\u015flak, yaylak gibi hayvanc\u0131l\u0131kta kullan\u0131lmas\u0131nda yarar oldu\u011fu tespit edilen araziler ile \u015fehir, kasaba ve k\u00f6y yap\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n toplu olarak bulundu\u011fu yerle\u015fim alanlar\u0131, <\/p>\n
Orman s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131l\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Orman s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lan bu yerler Devlete ait ise Hazine ad\u0131na, h\u00fckmi \u015fahsiyeti haiz amme m\u00fcesseselerine ait ise bu m\u00fcesseseler ad\u0131na, hususi orman ise sahipleri ad\u0131na orman s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131l\u0131r. Uygulama kesinle\u015ftikten sonra tapuda kesin tashih ve tescil i\u015flemi yap\u0131l\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
B. Uluslararas\u0131 Hukuk<\/p>\n
27. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’nin (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Herkes davas\u0131n\u0131n medeni hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri ile ilgili uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar[\u0131n] … esas\u0131 konusunda karar verecek olan … bir mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan … g\u00f6r\u00fclmesini isteme hakk\u0131na sahiptir…”<\/p>\n
28. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi (A\u0130HM) adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n demokratik toplumda \u00f6nemli bir yere; oldu\u011funu vurgulamaktad\u0131r (Airey\/\u0130rlanda, B. No: 6289\/73, 9\/10\/1979, \u00a7 24). A\u0130HM’e g\u00f6re hukuk devletinin temel ilkelerinden biri olan hukuki belirlilik S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin b\u00fct\u00fcn maddelerinde m\u00fcndemi\u00e7tir (Iordan Iordanov\/Bulgaristan, B. No: 23530\/02, 2\/7\/2009, \u00a7 47). Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 hukukun kabul edilmi\u015f evrensel ilkelerine uygun olarak yorumlanmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda hakk\u0131n tesliminden ka\u00e7\u0131nma (denial of justice) yasa\u011f\u0131 bu ilkelerin ba\u015f\u0131nda gelmektedir (Golder\/Birle\u015fik Krall\u0131k, B. No: 4451\/70, 21\/2\/1975, \u00a7 35).<\/p>\n
29. A\u0130HM i\u00e7 hukukun yorumlanmas\u0131nda \u00f6ncelikli g\u00f6revin ulusal otoritelere ait oldu\u011funu vurgulamaktad\u0131r. A\u0130HM\u2019in g\u00f6revi ulusal hukuk mercilerinin yorumlar\u0131n\u0131n etkilerinin S\u00f6zle\u015fme ile uyumlu olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit etmekle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131d\u0131r (Waite ve Kennedy\/Almanya, B. No: 26083\/94, 18\/2\/1999, \u00a7 54). A\u0130HM; kural olarak kendisinin ulusal mahkemelerin yerine ge\u00e7erek de\u011ferlendirme yapma g\u00f6revinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ulusal hukukun yorumlanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin sorunlar\u0131 \u00e7\u00f6zmenin \u00f6ncelikli olarak ulusal otoritelerin -\u00f6zellikle ulusal mahkemelerin- yetkisinde oldu\u011funu ifade etmektedir. A\u0130HM, bu sebeple ulusal mahkemelerin i\u00e7 hukukun yorumuna ili\u015fkin tart\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131na kar\u0131\u015fmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmektedir. Ancak A\u0130HM; keyf\u00eeli\u011fin bulundu\u011fu, di\u011fer bir ifadeyle ulusal mahkemelerin i\u00e7 hukuku a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a hatal\u0131 veya keyf\u00ee ya da adaleti hi\u00e7e sayacak \u015fekilde uygulad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6zlemledi\u011fi h\u00e2llerde bunu sorgulayabilece\u011fine i\u015faret etmektedir (An\u0111elkov\u0131\u0107\/S\u0131rbistan, B. No: 1401\/08, 9\/4\/2013, \u00a7 24).<\/p>\n
30. A\u0130HM objektif bir temelde bireyleri koruyan bir insan haklar\u0131 antla\u015fmas\u0131 olarak S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin amac\u0131n\u0131n ve hedeflerinin S\u00f6zle\u015fme h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin onu i\u015flevsel ve etkili k\u0131lacak \u015fekilde yorumlanmas\u0131n\u0131 ve uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirdi\u011fini vurgulamaktad\u0131r. A\u0130HM\u2019e g\u00f6re taraf devletler, S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019ye uyumun en az\u0131ndan Avrupa kamu d\u00fczeninin temelini koruyacak d\u00fczeyde denetlenmesini sa\u011flama y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcndedir. Avrupa kamu d\u00fczeninin temel unsurlar\u0131ndan biri hukukun \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ilkesidir ve keyf\u00eelik ise bu ilkeyi izale eder. A\u0130HM, ulusal hukukun yorumlanmas\u0131 ve uygulanmas\u0131 gibi ulusal otoritelerin geni\u015f takdir yetkisine sahip oldu\u011fu alanlarda bile keyf\u00eelik yasa\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden denetim yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmektedir (El-Dulimi ve Montana Management \u0130nc.\/\u0130svi\u00e7re, B. No: 5809\/08, 21\/6\/2016, \u00a7 145).<\/p>\n
31. A\u0130HM B\u00fcy\u00fck Dairesi Bochan\/Ukrayna ([BD], B. No: 22251\/08, 5\/2\/2015) karar\u0131nda, A\u0130HM’in daha \u00f6nce verdi\u011fi ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131 Y\u00fcksek Mahkemenin gerek\u00e7esinde a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 derecede yanl\u0131\u015f sunmas\u0131, bu kapsamda belirtti\u011fi hususlar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a yanl\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla gerek\u00e7esinin a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 keyf\u00ee (grossly arbitrary) ve adaleti hi\u00e7e sayacak (denial of justice) \u015fekilde olmas\u0131 nedeniyle hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir (Bochan\/Ukrayna, \u00a7 64).<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
32. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 13\/3\/2025 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130ddialar\u0131 ve Bakanl\u0131k G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/p>\n
33. Ba\u015fvurucu; ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2\/B kapsam\u0131nda oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin olarak Yarg\u0131tay 17. Dairesince verilen kararlar\u0131n Yarg\u0131tay 8. Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan yok say\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, neden kabul edilmedi\u011finin makul ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7eyle ortaya konulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle usule ili\u015fkin kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hakk\u0131n\u0131n elinden al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan kesin h\u00fckme sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterilmedi\u011fini, kesinle\u015fen kararda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz orman olarak kabul edilmesine ra\u011fmen Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesince bu karar\u0131n yok say\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir. Orman ve Su \u0130\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 8\/11\/2012 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2\/B arazisi oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ifade edilmesine ve yaz\u0131 ekinde yer alan g\u00fcncelleme listesinde de bu durum ortaya konulmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen haks\u0131z ve hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak belgenin kabul edilmedi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
34. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, ba\u015fvuruya ili\u015fkin olarak ilgili Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Ba\u015fhukuk M\u00fc\u015favirli\u011fi ve Muhakemat Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden temin edilen g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f ve ilgili belgelerin yap\u0131lacak incelemede dikkate al\u0131nmak \u00fczere g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetlerinin ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi konusunda yap\u0131lacak incelemede Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ile somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
35. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda bireysel ba\u015fvuru formunda belirtti\u011fi hususlar\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
36. Anayasa’n\u0131n iddian\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesinde dayanak al\u0131nacak “Hak arama h\u00fcrriyeti” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Herkes, me\u015fru vas\u0131ta ve yollardan faydalanmak suretiyle yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddia ve savunma ile adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na sahiptir.”<\/p>\n
37. 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 [1. B.] , B. No: 2012\/969, 18\/9\/2013, \u00a7 16). Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetinin adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvencelerinden biri olan hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmesi uygun g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
1. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
38. 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 hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
2. Esas Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
a. Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
39. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 maddi adaleti de\u011fil \u015fekl\u00ee adaleti temin etmeye y\u00f6nelik g\u00fcvenceler i\u00e7ermektedir. Bu bak\u0131mdan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 davan\u0131n taraflardan biri lehine sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131n\u0131 garanti etmemektedir. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 temel olarak yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinin ve usul\u00fcn\u00fcn hakkaniyete uygun olarak y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesini teminat alt\u0131na almaktad\u0131r (M.B. [GK], B. No: 2018\/37392, 23\/7\/2020, \u00a7 80).<\/p>\n
40. Anayasa’n\u0131n 148. maddesinin d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131nda, kanun yolunda g\u00f6zetilmesi gereken hususlara ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetlerin bireysel ba\u015fvuruda incelenemeyece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu kapsamda ilke olarak mahkemeler \u00f6n\u00fcnde dava konusu yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f maddi olay ve olgular\u0131n kan\u0131tlanmas\u0131, delillerin de\u011ferlendirilmesi, hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131 ve uygulanmas\u0131 ile uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusunda var\u0131lan sonucun adil olup olmamas\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvuru konusu olamaz. Ancak bireysel ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131ndaki hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil eden, bariz takdir hatas\u0131 veya a\u00e7\u0131k bir keyf\u00eelik i\u00e7eren tespit ve sonu\u00e7lar bu kapsamda de\u011fildir (konuya ili\u015fkin bir\u00e7ok karar aras\u0131ndan bkz. Ahmet Sa\u011flam [2. B.], B. No: 2013\/3351, 18\/9\/2013).<\/p>\n
41. Ancak temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere m\u00fcdahalenin s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011fu durumlarda derece mahkemelerinin takdir ve de\u011ferlendirmelerinin Anayasa’daki g\u00fcvencelere etkisini nihai olarak de\u011ferlendirecek merci, Anayasa Mahkemesidir. Bu itibarla Anayasa’da \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen g\u00fcvenceler dikkate al\u0131narak bireysel ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131ndaki temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fine ili\u015fkin herhangi bir inceleme kanun yolunda g\u00f6zetilmesi gereken hususun incelenmesi olarak nitelendirilemez (\u015eahin Alpay (2) [GK], B. No: 2018\/3007, 15\/3\/2018, \u00a7 53).<\/p>\n
42. Di\u011fer taraftan Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00e7ok istisnai durumlarda temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerden biri ile do\u011frudan ilgili olmayan bir \u015fik\u00e2yeti kanun yolunda g\u00f6zetilmesi gereken hususlara ili\u015fkin yasak kapsam\u0131na girmeden inceleyebilir. A\u00e7\u0131k bir keyf\u00eelik nedeniyle yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetinin temelden sars\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve adil yarg\u0131lama hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencelerin anlams\u0131z h\u00e2le geldi\u011fi \u00e7ok istisnai h\u00e2llerde asl\u0131nda yarg\u0131laman\u0131n sonucuna ili\u015fkin olan bu durumun bizatihi kendisi usule ili\u015fkin bir g\u00fcvenceye d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015f olur. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Anayasa Mahkemesinin derece mahkemelerinin de\u011ferlendirmelerinin usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvenceleri anlams\u0131z h\u00e2le getirip getirmedi\u011fini ve a\u00e7\u0131k bir keyf\u00eelik nedeniyle yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetinin temelden sars\u0131l\u0131p sars\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 incelemesi yarg\u0131laman\u0131n sonucunu de\u011ferlendirdi\u011fi anlam\u0131na gelmez. Sonu\u00e7 olarak Anayasa Mahkemesi derece mahkemelerinin delillerle ilgili de\u011ferlendirmelerine ancak a\u00e7\u0131k bir keyf\u00eelik ve adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvenceleri anlams\u0131z h\u00e2le getiren bir uygulama varsa m\u00fcdahale edebilecektir (Ferhat Kara [GK], B. No: 2018\/15231, 4\/6\/2020, \u00a7 149; M.B., \u00a7 83).<\/p>\n
43. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131, hukuk kural\u0131n\u0131n davan\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu lehine sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131n\u0131 temin eden yorumunun esas al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na almamaktad\u0131r. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011fa uygulanacak hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131 yukar\u0131da belirtildi\u011fi gibi derece mahkemelerinin takdirindedir. Bununla birlikte derece mahkemelerinin hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131 yorumlarken Anayasa’n\u0131n 2. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen ve Cumhuriyet’in nitelikleri aras\u0131nda say\u0131lan hukuk devleti ilkesini g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurmalar\u0131 gerekir. Esasen hukuk devleti ilkesi Anayasa’n\u0131n t\u00fcm maddelerinin yorumlanmas\u0131nda dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 zorunlu olan bir ilkedir. Bu ba\u011flamda Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n kapsam ve i\u00e7eri\u011finin yorumlanmas\u0131nda da hukuk devletinin gerekleri g\u00f6zetilmelidir (M.B., \u00a7 84).<\/p>\n
44. Bu noktada hukuk devletinin gereklerinden birini de hukuk g\u00fcvenli\u011fi ilkesi olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r (AYM, E.2008\/50, K.2010\/84, 24\/6\/2010 ve E.2012\/65, K.2012\/128, 20\/9\/2012). Ki\u015filerin hukuki g\u00fcvenli\u011fini sa\u011flamay\u0131 ama\u00e7layan hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ilkesi; hukuk normlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir olmas\u0131n\u0131, bireylerin t\u00fcm eylem ve i\u015flemlerinde devlete g\u00fcven duyabilmesini, devletin de yasal d\u00fczenlemelerinde bu g\u00fcven duygusunu zedeleyici y\u00f6ntemlerden ka\u00e7\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 gerekli k\u0131lar. Belirlilik ilkesi ise yasal d\u00fczenlemelerin hem ki\u015filer hem de idare y\u00f6n\u00fcnden herhangi bir duraksamaya ve ku\u015fkuya yer vermeyecek \u015fekilde a\u00e7\u0131k, net, anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r ve uygulanabilir olmas\u0131n\u0131, ayr\u0131ca kamu otoritelerinin keyf\u00ee uygulamalar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 koruyucu \u00f6nlem i\u00e7ermesini ifade etmektedir (AYM, E.2013\/39, K.2013\/65, 22\/5\/2013).<\/p>\n
45. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n medeni haklar\u0131yla ilgili uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klarda uygulanan hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a keyf\u00ee veya hakk\u0131n tesliminden ka\u00e7\u0131nacak (adaleti hi\u00e7e sayacak) bi\u00e7imde yorumlanmas\u0131 usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvenceleri anlams\u0131z h\u00e2le getirece\u011finden adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011finden s\u00f6z edilebilir. Zira bu h\u00e2lde derece mahkemesinin yorumunun ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmay\u0131p hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemez bi\u00e7imde yorumlanmas\u0131 hukuk devleti ilkesini \u00f6rseler. \u00d6zellikle hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckleri k\u0131s\u0131tlay\u0131c\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin geni\u015f yoruma tabi tutulmas\u0131 keyf\u00eeli\u011fe ve bireylerin kendilerini hukuk kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda g\u00fcvensiz hissetmelerine yol a\u00e7ar (M.B., \u00a7 86).<\/p>\n
b. \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/p>\n
46. Somut olayda dava konusu 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 930 say\u0131l\u0131 parsel ile birlikte 1956 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan kadastro \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131nda 8\/5\/1956 tarihli Tapulama Tutana\u011f\u0131’nda \u201c26 sene \u00f6nce H.A. taraf\u0131ndan ormandan a\u00e7\u0131larak tarla haline getirildi\u011fi o g\u00fcnden beri nizas\u0131z kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131” belirtilmi\u015ftir. Hazine taraf\u0131ndan Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde a\u00e7\u0131lan tespite itiraz davas\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n evveliyatta orman oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle Hazine ad\u0131na tesciline karar verilmi\u015ftir. Kararda 1988 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan ve kesinle\u015fen 2\/B uygulamas\u0131yla ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n orman s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kadastro tespit tarihi itibar\u0131yla 20 y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcrenin ge\u00e7medi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tay 17. Hukuk Dairesi 30\/3\/2006 tarihli karar\u0131yla mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kararda 30\/11\/2001 tarihli kroki ve ekindeki uzman bilirki\u015fi heyeti raporlar\u0131na g\u00f6re ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 1956 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan genel kadastro s\u0131ras\u0131nda tespit harici b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daha sonra 1988 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan ve kesinle\u015fen 2\/B uygulamas\u0131yla da orman s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tay 17. Hukuk Dairesi 31\/6\/2006 tarihinde karar d\u00fczeltme talebini de reddetmi\u015ftir. Kararda, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 1988 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan 6831 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 3302 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun ile de\u011fi\u015fik 2\/B maddesinin uygulamas\u0131ndan \u00f6nce orman say\u0131lan yerlerden kabul edilmesinde hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
47. Ba\u015fvurucu, dava konusu 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazla ilgili olarak Orman ve Su \u0130\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ba\u015fvurmu\u015f M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fck 8\/12\/2021 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131yla 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131n 2\/B alan\u0131 oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015f, s\u00f6z konusu yaz\u0131 ekinde g\u00f6nderilen g\u00fcncelleme tespit cetvelinde de 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz 2\/B alan\u0131 olarak yer alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, idarenin verdi\u011fi bu resm\u00ee yaz\u0131ya ve Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ge\u00e7mi\u015fte 2\/B arazisi oldu\u011funu belirten kararlar\u0131na g\u00fcvenerek 5\/11\/2012 tarihli ve noter tasdikli muvafakatname ile R.U.nun 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerini noter senedi ile devralm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
48. Ba\u015fvurucu -ta\u015f\u0131nmaza ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 devrald\u0131ktan sonra- 6292 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131nda 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n do\u011frudan sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 i\u00e7in idareye ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Bu ba\u015fvurunun ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2\/B arazisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu; daha \u00f6nce a\u00e7\u0131lan ve Yarg\u0131taydan ge\u00e7erek kesinle\u015fen, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2\/B arazisi oldu\u011funun belirtildi\u011fi kararlara ve idarenin verdi\u011fi resm\u00ee belgeye g\u00fcvenerek ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tapu kayd\u0131na 2\/B \u015ferhinin i\u015flenmesiyle sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi i\u00e7in ta\u015f\u0131nmaza tedbir konulmas\u0131 istemiyle dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme; ba\u015fvurucunun davas\u0131n\u0131 dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2\/B arazisi oldu\u011funun belirtildi\u011fi mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131, Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131n\u0131, ayr\u0131ca idare taraf\u0131ndan daha \u00f6nce verilen ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2\/B arazisi oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin resm\u00ee belge niteli\u011findeki yaz\u0131lar\u0131 ve idare vekillerinin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2\/B arazisi oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin beyanlar\u0131n\u0131 dikkate alarak davay\u0131 kabul etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme \u00f6zellikle dava konusu 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2\/B arazisi oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin maddi olgunun Mahkemenin ve Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n kararlar\u0131yla kesinle\u015fti\u011fini vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
49. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi ise mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 kald\u0131rm\u0131\u015f ve davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. Kararda, davaya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2\/B uygulamalar\u0131na konu edilmedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesi ise B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin verdi\u011fi karar\u0131 onarken Yarg\u0131tay 17. Hukuk Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan verilen kararlar\u0131 tekrar de\u011ferlendirmi\u015f ve Yarg\u0131tay 17. Hukuk Dairesin taraf\u0131ndan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 1988 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan 2\/B \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131nda orman d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lsa da bunun do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n orman s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131na al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
50. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu, dava konusu 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2\/B arazisi oldu\u011fu hususunun Yarg\u0131tay 17. Hukuk Dairesinin kararlar\u0131 ve mahkeme karar\u0131 ile kesinle\u015fti\u011fi ve idarenin vermi\u015f resm\u00ee belgede dahi ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2\/B arazisi oldu\u011fu g\u00f6sterildi\u011fi h\u00e2lde daha sonra a\u00e7\u0131lan davada B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi ve Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan ayn\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz ile ilgili kesinlik kazanan 2\/B arazisi oldu\u011fu hususunun tekrar de\u011ferlendirmeye a\u00e7\u0131larak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 2\/B arazisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde de\u011ferlendirilmesinin hukuki belirlilik ve g\u00fcvenlik ilkeleriyle ba\u011fda\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan yak\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
51. \u00d6ncelikle Ey\u00fcp 1. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin 28\/4\/2005 tarihli, Yarg\u0131tay 17. Hukuk Dairesinin 1\/5\/2003, 30\/3\/2006 ve 31\/6\/2006 tarihli kararlar\u0131yla dava konusu 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n \u00f6ncesinde orman oldu\u011fu, daha sonra orman tahdit \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131nda orman s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve 2\/B arazisi oldu\u011fu maddi vak\u0131as\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fti\u011fi not edilmelidir. Anayasa Mahkemesinin \u00f6n\u00fcndeki mesele, bu vak\u0131an\u0131n daha sonra a\u00e7\u0131lan davalarda dikkate al\u0131nmamas\u0131n\u0131n bariz takdir hatas\u0131 veya a\u00e7\u0131k bir keyf\u00eelik i\u00e7erip i\u00e7ermedi\u011finin ve bunun bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetini zedeleyip zedelemedi\u011finin tespit edilmesidir.<\/p>\n
52. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle olaydaki sorun, Ey\u00fcp 1. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin 28\/4\/2005 tarihli, Yarg\u0131tay 17. Hukuk Dairesinin 1\/5\/2003, 30\/3\/2006 ve 31\/6\/2006 tarihli kararlar\u0131yla tespit edilen ve kesinle\u015fen dava konusu 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n \u00f6ncesinde orman oldu\u011fu, daha sonra orman tahdit \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131nda orman s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve 2\/B arazisi oldu\u011fu vak\u0131as\u0131n\u0131 Mahkemenin yeniden tart\u0131\u015fmaya a\u00e7mas\u0131n\u0131n bariz takdir hatas\u0131 veya keyf\u00eelik olarak de\u011ferlendirilmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
53. Mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131n sadece karar\u0131 uygulamakla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc olan kamu otoritesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n alt\u0131 \u00e7izilmelidir. Mahkeme karar\u0131nda tespit edilen ve hukuki manada kesinle\u015ferek vak\u0131a h\u00e2lini alan olgular\u0131n ayn\u0131 maddi olaydan kaynaklanan, taraflar\u0131 ve sebebi ayn\u0131 olan di\u011fer yarg\u0131lamalarda da dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekir. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle taraflar aras\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131ktaki bir olgu, yarg\u0131 karar\u0131yla kesinli\u011fe kavu\u015fturulmu\u015fsa ayn\u0131 taraflar aras\u0131nda ve ayn\u0131 maddi sebepten kaynaklanan ba\u015fka bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta bu olgunun yeniden tart\u0131\u015fmaya a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 -yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi gibi istisnai baz\u0131 durumlar hari\u00e7- mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131n kesinli\u011fi ve ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ilkesini zedeleyebilir. Bir mahkemece belli taraflar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kesin h\u00fckme ba\u011flanan bir olgunun ayn\u0131 ki\u015filerin taraf oldu\u011fu ve ayn\u0131 maddi sebepten kaynaklanan di\u011fer bir davada dikkate al\u0131nmamas\u0131 hukuki belirlilik ve mahkeme karar\u0131na g\u00fcven ilkelerini t\u00f6rp\u00fcler (Erhas Demir \u00c7elik Oto Yedek Par\u00e7alar\u0131 \u0130thalat ve Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti. [2. B.], B. No: 2018\/21083, 14\/9\/2021, \u00a7 55).<\/p>\n
54. Mahkemeler, yarg\u0131 karar\u0131na sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden muaf de\u011fildir. Bir mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n yanl\u0131\u015f oldu\u011funun d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclmesi o kararla kesinle\u015fen olgular\u0131n yeniden tart\u0131\u015fmaya a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131na hakl\u0131l\u0131k kazand\u0131rmaz. Maddi adalet ile \u015fekl\u00ee adaletin \u00e7at\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu gibi durumlarda Anayasa, tercihini \u015fekl\u00ee adaletten yana koymu\u015f ve ayn\u0131 taraflar aras\u0131nda yarg\u0131 karar\u0131yla kesinle\u015fen vak\u0131alar\u0131n yeniden m\u00fcnaka\u015fa edilmesine ve ba\u015fka bir mahkemece g\u00f6rmezden gelinmesine izin vermemi\u015ftir. \u00d6nceki mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n hukuken hatal\u0131 oldu\u011fu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesiyle ayn\u0131 taraflar aras\u0131nda yeniden tart\u0131\u015fmaya a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131n kesinli\u011fini anlams\u0131z h\u00e2le getirir ve yarg\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n toplum nezdindeki de\u011ferini ve manevi g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc zay\u0131flat\u0131r (Erhas Demir \u00c7elik Oto Yedek Par\u00e7alar\u0131 \u0130thalat ve Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti., \u00a7 56).<\/p>\n
55. Somut olayda B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi ile Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesi, yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yorumla Yarg\u0131tay 17. Hukuk Dairesince kesinle\u015ftirilen olgular\u0131 g\u00f6rmezden gelmi\u015ftir. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta uygulanacak hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131 yorumlamak mahkemelerin g\u00f6revinde olmakla birlikte bu durum, yarg\u0131 karar\u0131yla kesinle\u015fen bir vak\u0131an\u0131n g\u00f6rmezden gelinmesini gerektirmez. Kesinle\u015fen yarg\u0131 kararlar\u0131na sayg\u0131 duyma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc mahkemelerin hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131 yorumlama yetkisinin s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturur. Bu sebeple ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n \u00f6ncesinde orman oldu\u011fu, daha sonra orman tahdit \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131nda orman s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 vak\u0131alar\u0131n\u0131n yarg\u0131 kararlar\u0131yla kesinle\u015fmesine ra\u011fmen bireysel ba\u015fvuru konusu yarg\u0131lamada dikkate al\u0131nmamas\u0131 yarg\u0131 kararlar\u0131n\u0131n ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve hukuk g\u00fcvenli\u011fi ilkelerini zedelemenin yan\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun medeni hakk\u0131yla ilgili olarak a\u00e7\u0131lan davada usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvenceleri de anlams\u0131z h\u00e2le getirmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi ile Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesi s\u00f6z konusu yarg\u0131 karar\u0131na sayg\u0131 g\u00f6stermekten uzak ve bariz takdir hatas\u0131 te\u015fkil eden tutumlar\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine karar verilmesinde belirleyici olmu\u015ftur. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla bunlar\u0131n bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetini zedeledi\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
56. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
VI. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
57. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ile yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
58. 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 ve zorunluluk bulunmaktad\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n 148. ve 153. maddeleri ile 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. ve 66. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flat\u0131p Anayasa Mahkemesinin ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere ve gerek\u00e7elere uygun bi\u00e7imde y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclecek yarg\u0131lama sonunda hak ihlalinin nedenlerini gidererek yeni bir karar vermektir (yeniden yarg\u0131lama konusunda 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
VII. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma 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 hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 6. Hukuk Dairesine (E.2021\/1081, K.2021\/1397) iletilmek \u00fczere \u0130stanbul 1. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesine (E.2020\/811, K.2021\/119) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. 664,10 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.664,10 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. \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
F. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 13\/3\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 13\/3\/2025 tarihli ve 2022\/92131 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 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Z.G. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/92131) Karar Tarihi: 13\/3\/2025 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 16\/5\/2025 – 32902 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Eren Can BENAKAY Ba\u015fvurucu : Vekili : Av. Taylan G\u00d6KMEN I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru, yarg\u0131sal kesinlik kazanan vak\u0131an\u0131n ba\u015fka bir mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan dikkate al\u0131nmamas\u0131 nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 7\/10\/2022 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Ba\u015fvuru, ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinin idari y\u00f6nden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n incelemesinden sonra Komisyona sunulmu\u015ftur. 4. Komisyonca di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. 5. B\u00f6l\u00fcm Ba\u015fkan\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin birlikte yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. 6. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda beyanda bulunmu\u015ftur. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 7. \u0130stanbul ili Ey\u00fcpsultan il\u00e7esi G\u00f6kt\u00fcrk Mahallesi’nde k\u00e2in 930 ve davaya konu 1016 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n 1956 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan kadastro \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda haz\u0131rlanan 8\/5\/1956 tarihli Tapulama Tutana\u011f\u0131’nda 26 sene \u00f6nce H.A. taraf\u0131ndan ormandan a\u00e7\u0131larak tarla h\u00e2line getirildi\u011fi ve o g\u00fcnden beri nizas\u0131z kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilmi\u015ftir. 930 …<\/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-88296","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n