T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay<\/p>\n
Hukuk Genel Kurulu<\/p>\n
2018\/14 E., 2021\/1723 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 : \u0130cra Hukuk Mahkemesi<\/p>\n
1. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki “\u015fik\u00e2yet” isteminden dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan inceleme sonunda, Bismil \u0130cra (Hukuk) Mahkemesince verilen \u015fik\u00e2yetin reddine ili\u015fkin karar alacakl\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 12. Hukuk Dairesince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda bozulmu\u015f, Mahkemece \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na direnilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. Direnme karar\u0131 alacakl\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Hukuk Genel Kurulunca dosyadaki belgeler incelendikten sonra gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
I. \u0130NCELEME S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
Alacakl\u0131 \u0130stemi:<\/p>\n
4. Alacakl\u0131 vekili \u015fik\u00e2yet dilek\u00e7esinde; Bismil \u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 2012\/55 E. say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda ba\u015flatt\u0131klar\u0131 (kambiyo senetlerine \u00f6zg\u00fc haciz yolu ile) icra takibinde sat\u0131\u015f talepleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnde i\u015flemler devam ederken sat\u0131\u015f (talebinin) ve haczin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 sebeplerle d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, yenileme talebinin de reddine karar verildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn sat\u0131\u015f ve hacizlerin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmesine, haciz yenileme talebinin reddine ili\u015fkin karar\u0131n\u0131n ve tespit edilecek hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 i\u015flemlerin (talepleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnde) d\u00fczeltilmesine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mahkeme Karar\u0131:
\n5. Bismil \u0130cra (Hukuk) Mahkemesinin 08.05.2015 tarihli ve 2015\/25 E., 2015\/35 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; dosya \u00fczerinden yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda, istemin yenileme talebinin reddedilmesi ve yeniden haciz konulmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu, i\u015flemde bir hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esi ile davan\u0131n (\u015fik\u00e2yetin) reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6zel Daire Bozma Karar\u0131:
\n6. Mahkemenin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde alacakl\u0131 vekili temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
7. Yarg\u0131tay 12. Hukuk Dairesince 12.01.2016 tarihli ve 2015\/23275 E., 2016\/504 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile;<\/p>\n
“… Sair temyiz itirazlar\u0131 yerinde de\u011fil ise de;<\/p>\n
Alacakl\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan bor\u00e7lu hakk\u0131nda ba\u015flat\u0131lan \u00e7eke dayal\u0131 kambiyo senetlerine mahsus haciz yolu ile icra takibinde, alacakl\u0131 icra mahkemesine ba\u015fvurusunda, icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce haks\u0131z olarak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz haczinin ve sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, ayr\u0131ca haciz yenileme talebinin de reddedildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek bu i\u015flemlerin iptalini istemi\u015f, mahkemece \u015fik\u00e2yetin reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Somut olayda, bor\u00e7lu hakk\u0131nda ihtiyati haciz karar\u0131na dayal\u0131 olarak takip ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve 01.02.2012 tarihinde ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tapu kayd\u0131na ihtiyati haciz \u015ferhinin konuldu\u011fu, \u00f6deme emrinin ise 08.03.2012 tarihinde bor\u00e7luya tebli\u011f edildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Sat\u0131\u015f isteme s\u00fcresi, \u0130cra \u0130flas Kanunu’nun 264\/son maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ihtiyati haczin kesin hacze d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc tarihten itibaren ba\u015flar. Somut olayda ihtiyati haciz 13.3.2012 tarihinde kesin hacze d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015f olup, haciz tarihi itibariyle uygulanmas\u0131 gereken \u0130\u0130K’nun 106. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca; sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n talep edildi\u011fi 06.02.2014 tarihinde hen\u00fcz (2) y\u0131ll\u0131k sat\u0131\u015f isteme s\u00fcresinin ge\u00e7medi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/p>\n
O halde mahkemece, alacakl\u0131n\u0131n \u015fik\u00e2yetinin, haczin ve sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmesine ili\u015fkin icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik k\u0131sm\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekirken yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisi isabetsizdir\u2026\u201d gerek\u00e7esi ile karar bozulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Direnme Karar\u0131:
\n8. Bismil \u0130cra (Hukuk) Mahkemesinin 16.05.2016 tarihli ve 2016\/38 E., 2016\/38 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; istemin yenileme talebinin reddedilmesi ve yeniden haciz konulmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu, iyi niyetli \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc i\u015finin iyi niyetinin korunmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle direnme karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Direnme Karar\u0131n\u0131n Temyizi:
\n9. Direnme karar\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde alacakl\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. UYU\u015eMAZLIK<\/p>\n
10. Direnme yolu ile Hukuk Genel Kurulu \u00f6n\u00fcne gelen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; haczin ve sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmesine ili\u015fkin memurluk i\u015fleminin yerinde olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. \u00d6N SORUN<\/p>\n
11. \u0130cra memur muamelesinin iptali istemine ili\u015fkin kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131 icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc g\u00f6sterilen \u015fik\u00e2yette, alacakl\u0131 vekilinin \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na uyulmas\u0131n\u0131 istemi\u015f olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda mahkemece direnme karar\u0131 verilip verilemeyece\u011fi, \u015fik\u00e2yet konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 22.03.2013 tarihinde sat\u0131n alan \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi Servet Temiz\u2019in \u015fik\u00e2yetin kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, buna g\u00f6re \u015fik\u00e2yet dilek\u00e7esinin, \u00d6zel Dairenin bozma karar\u0131n\u0131n, direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n ve alacakl\u0131 vekilinin temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi Servet Temiz\u2019e tebli\u011fi i\u00e7in dosyan\u0131n geri \u00e7evrilmesinin gerekip gerekmedi\u011fi hususu \u00f6n sorun olarak tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, \u00f6n sorunun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na oy birli\u011fi ile karar verilerek i\u015fin esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesine ge\u00e7ilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
IV. GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
12. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in ilgili yasal d\u00fczenlemelerin irdelenmesi gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
13. 2004 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130cra ve \u0130flas Kanunu\u2019nun (\u0130\u0130K) 106. maddesi \u201c\u2026 Alacakl\u0131 haczolunun mal ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131r ise hacizden nihayet bir sene ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz ise nihayet iki sene i\u00e7inde sat\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilir.<\/p>\n
Bor\u00e7lunun \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc \u015fah\u0131slardaki alaca\u011f\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131r h\u00fckm\u00fcndedir\u2026\u201d h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc,<\/p>\n
Ayn\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 110. maddesi ise \u201c\u2026Bir mal\u0131n sat\u0131lmas\u0131 kanuni m\u00fcddet i\u00e7inde istenmez veya talep geri al\u0131n\u0131pta bu m\u00fcddet i\u00e7inde yenilenmezse o mal \u00fczerindeki haciz kalkar\u2026\u201d h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc i\u00e7ermektedir.<\/p>\n
14. Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme B\u00fcy\u00fck Genel Kurulunun 29.06.2018 tarihli ve 30463 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete\u2019de yay\u0131mlanan 2016\/4 E., 2018\/1 K. say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131nda; sat\u0131\u015f isteme s\u00fcresinin kesin haciz tarihinden ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u0130\u0130K’n\u0131n 59. maddesi uyar\u0131nca bir i\u015flemin yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 isteyen tarafca o i\u015flemin yap\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in gerekli masraflar\u0131n avans olarak yat\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131, \u0130cra ve \u0130flas Kanunu Y\u00f6netmeli\u011finin 6. maddesine g\u00f6re bu masraflar\u0131n tahsilat makbuzu kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda para olarak al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, aksi takdirde talebin yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131, sat\u0131\u015f talebinde bulunan alacakl\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f giderlerini pe\u015fin yat\u0131rmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde sat\u0131\u015f istenmesine ra\u011fmen sat\u0131\u015f avans\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcresinde yat\u0131r\u0131lmamas\u0131 h\u00e2linde sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n s\u00fcresinde istenmemi\u015f say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 ve haczin kalkaca\u011f\u0131, az da olsa sat\u0131\u015f avans\u0131n\u0131n yat\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n usul\u00fcne uygun bir sat\u0131\u015f talebinin bulundu\u011fu anlam\u0131na gelece\u011fi, yat\u0131r\u0131lan masraf\u0131n yetmeyece\u011finin sonradan anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bunun tamamlanmas\u0131 istenebilirse de, masraf\u0131n hi\u00e7 yat\u0131r\u0131lmamas\u0131 h\u00e2linde ge\u00e7erli bir talebin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00f6z edilemeyece\u011fi, alacakl\u0131 kanuni s\u00fcreler i\u00e7erisinde hacizli mal\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015f ve gerekli giderleri pe\u015fin olarak \u00f6demi\u015fse veya gerekli giderleri s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde depo etmi\u015fse, art\u0131k icra m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn usul\u00fcne uygun olarak yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bu talebi kabul etme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn oldu\u011fu, icra m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn k\u0131ymet takdirinin yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle veya di\u011fer sebeplerle sat\u0131\u015f talebini reddedemeyece\u011fi, alacakl\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan s\u00fcresinde sat\u0131\u015f talebinde bulunulmu\u015f ve avans\u0131 da yat\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ise sat\u0131\u015f talebine ili\u015fkin ret karar\u0131n\u0131n, \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 106. maddesine uygun olan sat\u0131\u015f talebindeki hakl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131ran bir karar niteli\u011finde bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, sadece sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n fiilen yap\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir tespitten ibaret oldu\u011fu, sat\u0131\u015f masraflar\u0131n\u0131n alacakl\u0131dan tahsil edilmesi h\u00e2linde sat\u0131\u015f talebinin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011finden bahsedilemeyece\u011fi, icra m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc sat\u0131\u015f talebini reddetmi\u015f olsa dahi ret karar\u0131n\u0131n yasal bir dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmamas\u0131 nedeniyle ge\u00e7erli bir sat\u0131\u015f talebinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 korudu\u011fu ve haczin kalkmayaca\u011f\u0131, sat\u0131\u015f talebi reddedilmi\u015f olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen bu i\u015flemin iptali i\u00e7in \u015fik\u00e2yet yoluna gidilmedi\u011finden bahisle, ge\u00e7erli bir sat\u0131\u015f talebinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00f6z edilemeyece\u011fi kabul edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. Sat\u0131\u015f isteme s\u00fcreleri \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 106. maddesinde belirtilmi\u015f olup, bu h\u00fck\u00fcmde a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a yaz\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu gibi, (kesin) hacizden itibaren i\u015flemeye ba\u015flar. \u0130htiyat\u00ee haciz sahibi alacakl\u0131lar, hacizleri kesin hacze d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fmedik\u00e7e sat\u0131\u015f isteyemeyeceklerinden, bunlar hakk\u0131nda \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 106. maddesindeki sat\u0131\u015f isteme s\u00fcreleri i\u015flemez. Bu h\u00e2lde sat\u0131\u015f isteme s\u00fcreleri ihtiyat\u00ee haczin kesin hacze d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc tarihten itibaren i\u015flemeye ba\u015flar (Kuru, Baki: \u0130cra ve \u0130flas Hukuku El Kitab\u0131, Ankara 2013, s. 604, 606).<\/p>\n
16. Alacakl\u0131, bir kambiyo senedine dayanarak ihtiyat\u00ee haciz karar\u0131 alm\u0131\u015f ise, (ihtiyat\u00ee haczin konulmas\u0131ndan, ihtiyat\u00ee haciz yoklu\u011funda yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015fsa ihtiyat\u00ee haciz tutana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kendisine tebli\u011finden itibaren) yedi g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde, kambiyo senetlerine \u00f6zg\u00fc haciz yolu ile takip yapabilir (\u0130\u0130K m. 264\/1). Bunun \u00fczerine icra dairesi, bor\u00e7luya kambiyo senetlerine \u00f6zg\u00fc haciz (10 \u00f6rnek nolu) \u00f6deme emri g\u00f6nderir (\u0130\u0130K m. 168). Bor\u00e7lu, be\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde \u00f6deme emrine itiraz etmezse, kambiyo senetlerine \u00f6zg\u00fc haciz yolu ile takip kesinle\u015fir. Fakat, ihtiyat\u00ee haciz on g\u00fcnl\u00fck \u00f6deme s\u00fcresinin (\u0130\u0130K m. 168\/2) \u00f6demesiz ge\u00e7mesi \u00fczerine (kendili\u011finden) kesin hacze d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr (\u0130\u0130K m. 264\/5) (Kuru, s. 1069-1070).<\/p>\n
17. Somut olayda; alacakl\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan Bismil Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin 01.02.2012 tarihli 2012\/6 D. \u0130\u015f say\u0131l\u0131 ihtiyat\u00ee haciz karar\u0131na dayal\u0131 olarak 07.02.2012 tarihinde bor\u00e7lu aleyhine kambiyo senetlerine \u00f6zg\u00fc haciz yolu ile takip ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, alacakl\u0131 vekilinin 01.02.2012 tarihinde ihtiyat\u00ee haciz karar\u0131 gere\u011fince bor\u00e7lu ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n tespiti ile ihtiyat\u00ee haczi i\u00e7in gere\u011finin yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etti\u011fi, 01.02.2012 tarihinde icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce talebin kabul\u00fc ile talep gibi i\u015flem yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fi, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tapu kayd\u0131na 01.02.2012 tarihinde haciz \u015ferhi i\u015flendi\u011fi, bor\u00e7luya 08.03.2012 tarihinde \u00f6deme emri tebli\u011f edildi\u011fi, alacakl\u0131 vekilinin 05.02.2014 tarihinde \u201cBor\u00e7lu \u015firketin hacizli ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 talep ediyoruz. Gerekli i\u015flemlerin ifas\u0131 i\u00e7in laz\u0131m gelen masraf\u0131 yat\u0131rmam\u0131z i\u00e7in yeteri kadar masraf\u0131n hesaplanmas\u0131n\u0131, ayr\u0131ca sat\u0131\u015fa esas olmak \u00fczere son takyidatlar\u0131n sorulmas\u0131n\u0131\u201d \u015feklinde talepte bulundu\u011fu, icra m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn 06.02.2014 tarihli i\u015fleminde \u201cTa\u015f\u0131nmaz haczinin 01.02.2012 tarihinde \u015ferh edilmi\u015f oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f olup haciz 2 y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcreye tabi olmakla haczin 01.02.2014 tarihinde d\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015f oldu\u011fu tespit olunmu\u015ftur. Ayr\u0131ca dosyada yap\u0131lan k\u0131ymet takdiri yeni kanun d\u00f6neminde yap\u0131lmakla 27.02.2013 tarihli k\u0131ymet takdirinin de dolmas\u0131na 22 g\u00fcnl\u00fck bir s\u00fcre kalm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu tespit olunmu\u015ftur. Ancak birinci sat\u0131\u015f g\u00fcn\u00fc itibariyle k\u0131ymet takdirinin s\u00fcresinin dolmam\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu gerekmekle talebin reddine\u201d karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.
\n18. Alacakl\u0131 vekilinin 09.04.2014 tarihinde \u201cBor\u00e7lu \u0130ska\u2026Ltd. \u015eti.\u2019nin hacizli olan ve k\u0131ymet takdiri yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in laz\u0131m gelen masraf\u0131n hesaplanmas\u0131n\u0131 ve son takyidatlar\u0131n sorulmas\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7eren 05.02.2014 tarihli talebimizin gere\u011fi yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan sat\u0131\u015f masraflar\u0131n\u0131 yat\u0131ramad\u0131k. Haklar\u0131m\u0131z sakl\u0131 kalmak \u00fczere 05.02.2014 tarihli talebimizi yeniliyoruz. Bor\u00e7lu \u0130ska \u2026 Ltd. \u015eti.\u2019nin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in gerekli t\u00fcm masraflar\u0131n hesaplanmas\u0131n\u0131 ayr\u0131ca haczin yenilenmesi i\u00e7in gerekli yaz\u0131\u015fman\u0131n yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki son takyidatlar\u0131n da sorulmas\u0131n\u0131, haczin yenilenmesi i\u015fleminin hemen ard\u0131ndan yat\u0131raca\u011f\u0131m\u0131z masraflar (dosyada hesaplanacak oranda) kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin ifas\u0131 gere\u011finin yap\u0131lmas\u0131\u201d \u015feklinde talepte bulundu\u011fu, icra m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn 10.04.2014 tarihli i\u015flemiyle \u201cAlacakl\u0131 vekilinin 05.02.2014 tarihli talebinin gere\u011finin yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f olup bu tarihteki talebinin al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu ve taleple ilgili karar verilmi\u015f oldu\u011fu ancak karar\u0131n dosya \u00fczerinden verildi\u011fi ve UYAP sistemine i\u015flenilmedi\u011fi i\u00e7in alacakl\u0131 vekilince \u00f6\u011frenilememi\u015f oldu\u011fu tespit olunmu\u015ftur. Belirtilen tarihli talebin reddedilmi\u015f oldu\u011fu, red gerek\u00e7esi olarak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz haczinin 01.02.2012 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu eski Kanun d\u00f6neminde yap\u0131lmakla 2 y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcreye tabi oldu\u011fu ve s\u00fcrenin 01.02.2014 tarihinde dolmu\u015f oldu\u011fu ve haczin yenilenmedi\u011fi i\u00e7in d\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015f oldu\u011fundan ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz k\u0131ymet takdirinin ise 27.02.2013 tarihinde raporlanm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu ve yeni Kanun d\u00f6neminde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in 1 y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcreye tabi oldu\u011fu tespit edilmi\u015f olup birinci sat\u0131\u015f g\u00fcn\u00fc itibariyle k\u0131ymet takdirinin ge\u00e7erli durumda olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi i\u00e7in talebin reddine karar verilmi\u015f oldu\u011fu dosyadan tespit olunmu\u015ftur. Alacakl\u0131 vekilinin 09.04.2014 tarihli talebi gere\u011fi haczin yenilenmesi i\u00e7in tapu sicil m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015f olup k\u0131ymet takdirinin yenilenmesi ve dosyan\u0131n sat\u0131\u015fa haz\u0131r hale gelmesinden sonra 2500TL masraf yat\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde sat\u0131\u015f i\u015flemine ba\u015flan\u0131lmas\u0131na\u201d karar verildi\u011fi, icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce 10.04.2014 tarihinde ta\u015f\u0131nmaza haciz konulmas\u0131 i\u00e7in tapu m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne yaz\u0131 yaz\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, Bismil Tapu M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 10.04.2014 tarihli cevab\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 22.03.2013 tarihli ve 1342 yevmiye ile ba\u015fka \u015fahsa sat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, bor\u00e7lu ad\u0131na ta\u015f\u0131nmaz kayd\u0131na rastlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan TMK\u2019n\u0131n 1016. maddesi ile Tapu Sicil T\u00fcz\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 26. maddesi gere\u011fince reddedildi\u011finin bildirildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.
\n19. Alacakl\u0131 vekilinin 27.04.2014 tarihli talebinde \u201ctapu kayd\u0131na haczin yenilenmesi talepli yaz\u0131n\u0131za verilen cevabi yaz\u0131ya g\u00f6re bor\u00e7luya ait ta\u015f\u0131nmaz 22.03.2013 tarihinde sat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan haciz yenilenememi\u015ftir. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu tarihte ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n \u00fczerinde haczin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 sabittir. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz hacizli olarak sat\u0131n al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bu sat\u0131\u015ftan dosyaya ve taraf\u0131m\u0131za da bilgi verilmeli iken bilgi verilmedi\u011finden, sat\u0131n alana hacizden kaynakl\u0131 sorumluluklar da aktar\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki haczin yenilenmesi, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131n alan \u015fahsa hacizli ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 sat\u0131n almas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz de\u011ferince bor\u00e7lu say\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihbar\u0131 i\u00e7in gere\u011fini\u201d \u015feklinde talepte bulundu\u011fu, icra m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn 28.04.2014 tarihli i\u015flemiyle \u201cDosyam\u0131zdan haciz \u015ferhi i\u015flenilmi\u015f, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n Bismil Tapu Sicil M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden gelen yaz\u0131 cevab\u0131 ile 22.03.2013 tarihinde ba\u015fka bir \u015fahsa sat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu tespit olunmu\u015ftur. Alacakl\u0131 vekili talebinde dosyadaki haczin d\u00fc\u015fmesi nedeniyle yeniden ba\u015fka bir \u015fahsa devrolmu\u015f olsa da ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerine dosyam\u0131z alaca\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in haciz \u015ferhinin i\u015flenilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tay 12. Hukuk Dairesinin 24.06.2013 tarihli ve 2013\/15310 E., 2013\/23437 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda belirtildi\u011fi gibi haciz tarihinden itibaren \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 106. maddesinde belirtilen kanuni m\u00fcddet olan 2 y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcrede sat\u0131\u015f istenmemekle haciz d\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Haczin d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc tarih itibariyle art\u0131k ta\u015f\u0131nmazda malik bor\u00e7lu olmamakla ayn\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerine bor\u00e7lunun borcundan dolay\u0131 yeniden haciz konulamaz. Alacakl\u0131 vekilinin yeniden haciz \u015ferhi talebinin ve \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc \u015fahs\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz de\u011ferince bor\u00e7lu say\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin ihbar talebinin reddine\u201d karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. 16.05.2014 tarihinde \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi Servet Temiz\u2019in icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ba\u015fvurarak \u201cDosyan\u0131z bor\u00e7lusuna ait ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 sat\u0131n ald\u0131m. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz benim \u00fczerime kay\u0131tl\u0131 olup m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcz\u00fcn yukar\u0131da numaras\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131ndan hacizliydi. Konulan dosyan\u0131z haczinin \u00fczerinden \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 106 ve 110. maddeleri gere\u011fi yasal s\u00fcre ge\u00e7mi\u015f ve haciz d\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. \u015eu an ad\u0131ma kay\u0131tl\u0131 olan Diyarbak\u0131r ili, Bismil il\u00e7esi, \u015eaklatiz k\u00f6y\u00fc 126 ada 19 parselde ki ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131m \u00fczerindeki m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcz\u00fcn d\u00fc\u015fen 01.02.2012 tarihli haczinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep ederim\u201d \u015feklinde talepte bulundu\u011fu, icra m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn 20.05.2014 tarihli i\u015flemiyle \u201cDosyam\u0131zdan hacizli bulunan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki haczimizin \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 106 ve 110. maddeleri gere\u011fince d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc g\u00f6r\u00fclmekle ta\u015f\u0131nmaz malikinin talebinin kabul\u00fc ile ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki dosyam\u0131z\u0131n d\u00fc\u015fen haczinin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na, bu hususta Bismil Tapu M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131lmas\u0131na\u201d karar verildi\u011fi, icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce 20.05.2014 tarihinde Bismil Tapu M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne yaz\u0131 yaz\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, Bismil Tapu M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 20.05.2014 tarihli cevab\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n Servet Temiz ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 olup haciz terkin i\u015flemi yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bildirildi\u011fi, alacakl\u0131 vekilinin 02.02.2015 tarihli talebinde \u201cM\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fczde derdest 2012\/55 E. say\u0131l\u0131 takip dosyas\u0131nda bor\u00e7lunun usul\u00fcne g\u00f6re haczedilen ve sat\u0131\u015f i\u015flemleri yap\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 \u00fczerinde hacizli iken yap\u0131lan tasarruflar\u0131n taraf\u0131m\u0131za bildirilmedi\u011fi bor\u00e7lunun hacizli mal\u0131n\u0131 sat\u0131n alan kimsenin taraf\u0131m\u0131za bildirilmesi ve takip bor\u00e7lusu olarak (sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 hacizli ta\u015f\u0131nmazdan dolay\u0131) sat\u0131\u015f i\u015flemlerinin devam\u0131 gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki haczin yenilenmesi ve sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 i\u015flemlerine y\u00f6nelik taleplerimiz hakk\u0131nda herhangi bir bildirimde bulunulmad\u0131. Haklar\u0131m\u0131z sakl\u0131 kalmak \u00fczere haczin yenilenmesi talebimizi yeniliyoruz. Ayr\u0131ca talebimiz hakk\u0131nda karar\u0131n da tebli\u011fi i\u00e7in gere\u011fini talep ediyoruz\u201d \u015feklinde talepte bulundu\u011fu, icra m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn 04.02.2015 tarihli i\u015flemiyle \u201cAlacakl\u0131 vekilinin talebi ve dosya incelenmi\u015f olup, alacakl\u0131 vekilinin yeniden haciz \u015ferhi i\u015flenilmesine y\u00f6nelik talebinin daha \u00f6nce reddedildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmekle yeniden karar verilmesine yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na\u201d karar verildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/p>\n
21. \u00d6deme emri tebli\u011finden itibaren on g\u00fcnl\u00fck \u00f6deme s\u00fcresinin, \u00f6demesiz ge\u00e7mesi \u00fczerine ihtiyat\u00ee haciz kendili\u011finden kesin hacze d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fece\u011finden somut olayda ihtiyat\u00ee haciz 18.03.2012 tarihinde kesin hacze d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 106. maddesinde belirtilen sat\u0131\u015f isteme s\u00fcresi ise ayn\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 264. maddesinin son f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fince ihtiyat\u00ee haczin kesin hacze d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc tarihten itibaren ba\u015flar. Buna g\u00f6re alacakl\u0131 vekili 2 y\u0131ll\u0131k sat\u0131\u015f isteme s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde 05.02.2014 tarihinde sat\u0131\u015f talebinde bulunmu\u015f ise de \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 59. maddesi gere\u011fince az da olsa sat\u0131\u015f avans\u0131 pe\u015finen \u00f6denmemi\u015f oldu\u011fundan ge\u00e7erli bir sat\u0131\u015f talebinden s\u00f6z edilemez. \u0130cra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce sat\u0131\u015f masraf\u0131n\u0131n hesaplanarak alacakl\u0131 vekiline bildirilmemi\u015f olmas\u0131, \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 59. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn uygulanmayaca\u011f\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelmez.<\/p>\n
22. O h\u00e2lde \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 59. maddesi uyar\u0131nca az bir miktar olsa da sat\u0131\u015f avans\u0131 pe\u015finen \u00f6denmemi\u015f olup, ge\u00e7erli bir sat\u0131\u015f talebi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, s\u00fcresinde sat\u0131\u015f istenememesi nedeniyle \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 106 ve 110. maddeleri gere\u011fince haczin kalkt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc gerekir.<\/p>\n
23. Ayr\u0131ca; mahkemece bozma karar\u0131ndan sonra 16.05.2016 tarihli duru\u015fmada \u201c12\/01\/2016 tarih 2015\/23275 Esas 2016\/504 karar say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay 12. Hukuk Dairesinin bozma ilam\u0131na direnilmesine\u201d dair ara karar verilerek, direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde \u201cbozma ilam\u0131na uyulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir\u201d \u015feklinde a\u00e7\u0131klamaya yer verilmi\u015f ise de bu hususun mahallinde d\u00fczeltilebilir maddi hata te\u015fkil etti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015f ve i\u015fin esas\u0131na etkili g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
24. O h\u00e2lde direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan de\u011fi\u015fik gerek\u00e7e ve nedenlerle onanmas\u0131 gerekmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
V. SONU\u00c7:<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle;<\/p>\n
Alacakl\u0131 vekilinin temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n reddi ile direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011fi\u015fik gerek\u00e7e ve nedenlerle ONANMASINA,<\/p>\n
Har\u00e7 pe\u015fin al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan har\u00e7 al\u0131nmas\u0131na yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na,<\/p>\n
2004 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130cra ve \u0130flas Kanunu\u2019na 5311 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 29. maddesi ile eklenen Ge\u00e7ici 7. maddesinin g\u00f6ndermesi ile uygulanmas\u0131 gereken \u0130\u0130K\u2019n\u0131n 366\/III. maddesi uyar\u0131nca karar\u0131n tebli\u011fden itibaren on g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde karar d\u00fczeltme yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere 21.12.2021 tarihinde oy birli\u011fi ile karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bYarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu’nun 21.12.2021 tarihli, 2018\/14 E., 2021\/1723 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu 2018\/14 E., 2021\/1723 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” MAHKEMES\u0130 : \u0130cra Hukuk Mahkemesi 1. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki “\u015fik\u00e2yet” isteminden dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan inceleme sonunda, Bismil \u0130cra (Hukuk) Mahkemesince verilen \u015fik\u00e2yetin reddine ili\u015fkin karar alacakl\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 12. Hukuk Dairesince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda bozulmu\u015f, Mahkemece \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na direnilmi\u015ftir. 2. Direnme karar\u0131 alacakl\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir. 3. Hukuk Genel Kurulunca dosyadaki belgeler incelendikten sonra gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc: I. \u0130NCELEME S\u00dcREC\u0130 Alacakl\u0131 \u0130stemi: 4. Alacakl\u0131 vekili \u015fik\u00e2yet dilek\u00e7esinde; Bismil \u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 2012\/55 E. say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda ba\u015flatt\u0131klar\u0131 (kambiyo senetlerine \u00f6zg\u00fc haciz yolu ile) icra takibinde sat\u0131\u015f talepleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnde i\u015flemler devam ederken sat\u0131\u015f (talebinin) ve haczin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 sebeplerle d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, yenileme talebinin de reddine karar verildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn sat\u0131\u015f ve hacizlerin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmesine, haciz yenileme talebinin reddine ili\u015fkin karar\u0131n\u0131n ve tespit edilecek hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 i\u015flemlerin (talepleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnde) d\u00fczeltilmesine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme Karar\u0131: 5. Bismil \u0130cra (Hukuk) Mahkemesinin 08.05.2015 tarihli ve 2015\/25 E., 2015\/35 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; dosya \u00fczerinden yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda, istemin yenileme talebinin reddedilmesi ve yeniden haciz konulmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu, i\u015flemde bir hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esi ile davan\u0131n (\u015fik\u00e2yetin) reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. \u00d6zel Daire Bozma Karar\u0131: 6. Mahkemenin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi …<\/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-102507","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n