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
MEHMET EM\u0130N TEK\u0130N VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/13258)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 25\/3\/2025<\/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
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Mehmet ALTUND\u0130\u015e<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Mehmet Emin TEK\u0130N ve di\u011ferleri (ekli listenin (D) s\u00fctunu)<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Seyfettin TA\u015e<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvurular, m\u00fclke ula\u015f\u0131lamamas\u0131ndan kaynaklanan zararlar\u0131n tazmini i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan davalar\u0131n reddedilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet ve adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na y\u00f6neliktir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurular, muhtelif tarihlerde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ekli listenin (B) s\u00fctununda g\u00f6sterilen dosyalar konu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden hukuki irtibat olmas\u0131 nedeniyle 2021\/13258 numaral\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvuru dosyas\u0131 ile birle\u015ftirilmi\u015f ve inceleme 2021\/13258 numaral\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvuru dosyas\u0131 \u00fczerinden y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
3. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. 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 bildirmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR <\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ve Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi (UYAP) arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla ula\u015f\u0131lan bilgi ve belgelere g\u00f6re ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
6. Ekli listenin (D) s\u00fctununda yer alan ba\u015fvurucular Batman \u0130li, Sason \u0130l\u00e7esi, Yakaba\u011f\u0131 K\u00f6y\u00fc’nde ikamet etmekteyken ya\u015fanan ter\u00f6r olaylar\u0131 nedeniyle 1994 y\u0131l\u0131nda k\u00f6ylerini bo\u015faltmak durumunda kald\u0131klar\u0131ndan bahisle u\u011fran\u0131lan zararlar\u0131n 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Ter\u00f6r ve Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadeleden Do\u011fan Zararlar\u0131n Kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun kapsam\u0131nda kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 istemiyle 2\/9\/2004 tarihinde Batman Valili\u011fi Ter\u00f6r ve Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadeleden Do\u011fan Zarar Tespit Komisyon Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131’na (Komisyon) ba\u015fvurmu\u015flar ve taraflar aras\u0131nda 4\/10\/2006 tarihinde sulhname imzalanmak suretiyle ge\u00e7mi\u015f d\u00f6neme ait uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar sona erdirilmi\u015ftir. Ard\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucular halen k\u00f6ylerine geri d\u00f6nemediklerinden bahisle 2000 y\u0131l\u0131 ve sonras\u0131nda olu\u015fan zararlar\u0131n\u0131n 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131nda tazmini istemiyle muhtelif tarihlerde yeniden Komisyon’a ba\u015fvurmu\u015flard\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurular Komisyon taraf\u0131ndan muhtelif tarihlerde reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucular Komisyon kararlar\u0131n\u0131n iptali istemiyle Batman \u0130dare Mahkemesinde iptal davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015flard\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular dava dilek\u00e7esinde 1994-2000 y\u0131llar\u0131na ait zararlar\u0131n tazmin edildi\u011fini ancak 2000 y\u0131l\u0131 sonras\u0131 zararlar\u0131n\u0131n tazmin edilmedi\u011fini, m\u00fclklerine ula\u015famad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015flerdir. Mahkemeler muhtelif tarihlerde davalar\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. Mahkemeler gerek\u00e7eli kararlar\u0131nda; davac\u0131lar\u0131n 30\/05\/2007 tarihinden \u00f6nceki d\u00f6nemde u\u011fran\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen zararlar\u0131n tazmini istemi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Yasa’n\u0131n Ge\u00e7ici 4. maddesi uyar\u0131nca en son 30\/05\/2008 tarihine kadar ba\u015fvuruda bulunmas\u0131 gerekirken, bu tarihten \u00e7ok sonra yap\u0131lan -9\/10\/2018 tarihinde- kayda giren ba\u015fvurunun s\u00fcresinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden dava konusu i\u015flemin bu k\u0131sm\u0131nda hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015flard\u0131r. Kararlarda davac\u0131lar\u0131n, 30\/5\/2007 tarihinden ba\u015fvuru tarihi olan 9\/10\/2018 tarihine kadarki d\u00f6nemde u\u011fran\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen zararlar\u0131n tazmini istemi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden; Yakaba\u011f K\u00f6y\u00fc’n\u00fcn 1994-2004 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda ter\u00f6r olaylar\u0131 nedeniyle bo\u015f kald\u0131\u011f\u0131, kesin olarak 2004 y\u0131l\u0131 Ocak ve \u015eubat aylar\u0131nda k\u00f6ye d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015flerin tekrardan ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131, k\u00f6ye d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f yapmayan vatanda\u015flar\u0131n k\u00f6y\u00fcn ula\u015f\u0131m, e\u011fitim ve sosyal \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131s\u0131tl\u0131 olmas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 d\u00f6nmek istemedikleri, hali haz\u0131rda k\u00f6yde 60 kadar ki\u015finin ikamet etti\u011fi, toplamda 21 hanenin bulundu\u011fu, bu hanelerden 6 tanesinin daimi olarak ikamet etti\u011fi, geriye kalan hanelerin ise yaz aylar\u0131nda (3 ay) gelip tekrardan ayr\u0131ld\u0131klar\u0131, daimi olarak ikamet eden 6 hanenin tamam\u0131nda en az bir g\u00fcvenlik korucusu veya ge\u00e7ici k\u00f6y korucusunun bulundu\u011fu, 1994 y\u0131l\u0131nda k\u00f6y bo\u015falt\u0131lmadan \u00f6nce korucu olmayan hane say\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n 20 oldu\u011fu, \u015fu an i\u00e7in korucu olmayan hane olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, 2004 y\u0131l\u0131ndan bu yana herhangi bir ter\u00f6r olay\u0131n\u0131n meydana gelmedi\u011fi, bu durumda; ki\u015fisel g\u00fcvenlik kayg\u0131lar\u0131 veya e\u011fitim, ula\u015f\u0131m, sa\u011fl\u0131k ve sosyal imkans\u0131zl\u0131klar sonucu ya\u015fad\u0131klar\u0131 k\u00f6y\u00fc terk edenlerin\/geri d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f yapmayanlar\u0131n u\u011frad\u0131klar\u0131 zararlar\u0131n 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Yasa kapsam\u0131nda kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131n\u0131n olanakl\u0131 olmamas\u0131 nedeniyle, davac\u0131lar\u0131n 30\/5\/2007 tarihinden ba\u015fvuru tarihi olan 9\/10\/2018 tarihine kadarki d\u00f6nemde u\u011fran\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen zararlar\u0131n tazmini isteminin reddine ili\u015fkin dava konusu i\u015flemin bu k\u0131sm\u0131nda da hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucular davalar\u0131n reddine y\u00f6nelik kararlara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015flard\u0131r. Gaziantep B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi; ba\u015fvuru tarihinden geriye do\u011fru 30.05.2007 – 09.10.2017 tarihleri aras\u0131ndaki bir y\u0131ll\u0131k d\u00f6nemi a\u015fan k\u0131sm\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden; 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girdi\u011fi 27\/07\/2004 tarihinden sonra meydana gelen zararlar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan Kanun\u2019un 6. maddesinde belirlenen s\u00fcreler i\u00e7inde, 19\/07\/1987 ile 27\/07\/2004 tarihleri aras\u0131nda meydana gelen zararlar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ise 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ge\u00e7ici 4. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde idareye ba\u015fvurulabilece\u011fi, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan, k\u00f6yden g\u00f6\u00e7 etmenin sadece sosyal ve ekonomik ko\u015fullarla a\u00e7\u0131klanamayaca\u011f\u0131, g\u00fcvenlik sorunlar\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu, Yakaba\u011f\u0131 K\u00f6y\u00fc’n\u00fcn mezralar\u0131na ili\u015fkin ara\u015ft\u0131rman\u0131n yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclerek ba\u015fvuru tarihinden geriye d\u00f6n\u00fck 2000 y\u0131l\u0131ndan sonraki t\u00fcm zararlar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 istenilmi\u015fse de davac\u0131n\u0131n iddia etti\u011fi s\u00fcregelen zararlar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvuru tarihinden geriye do\u011fru 1 y\u0131ll\u0131k d\u00f6nemi kapsayan zararlar\u0131na ili\u015fkin isteminin kabul edilebilece\u011fi bu tarihten geriye do\u011fru 1 y\u0131l\u0131 a\u015fan d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin tazmin isteminin ise hukuken kabul edilemeyece\u011fi sonucuna varm\u0131\u015f ve 30.05.2007 tarihinden \u00f6nceki k\u0131sm\u0131 ve ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren geriye do\u011fru bir y\u0131ll\u0131k d\u00f6nem olan 09.10.2017 – 09.10.2018 tarihleri aras\u0131ndaki k\u0131sm\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 30.05.2007-09.10.2017 tarihleri aras\u0131ndaki k\u0131sm\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131 sonucu itibariyle hukuka uygun oldu\u011fundan istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucular, nihai karardan sonra s\u00fcresinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurunun incelenmesi s\u0131ras\u0131nda ba\u015fvuruculardan Tevfik Bulut vefat etmi\u015ftir. Tevfik Bulut’un miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 Naif Bulut, \u015eemsettin Bulut, Fahrettin Bulut, Y\u0131lmaz Bulut, Cahit Bulut, Necati Bulut, Cemile Bulut 18\/2\/2025 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruya devam etmek istediklerini bildirmi\u015flerdir.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
11. \u0130lgili ulusal ve uluslararas\u0131 mevzuat, i\u00e7tihat ve belgeler i\u00e7in bkz. Osman K\u0131z\u0131lcan [GK], B. No: 2021\/11655, 28\/7\/2022, \u00a7\u00a7 18-25; Abdurrahman G\u00fcltekin ve Sadullah Doysak, [2 B], B. No: 2013\/3528, 24\/3\/2016, \u00a7 16.<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
12. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 25\/3\/2025 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. Adli Yard\u0131m Talebi Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
13. Ekli listenin (D) s\u00fctununda adli yard\u0131m talebinde bulundu\u011fu belirtilen ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ba\u015fvuru giderlerini kar\u015f\u0131layabilecek \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve taleplerinin dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olup adli yard\u0131m taleplerinin kabul\u00fc ile yarg\u0131lama giderini \u00f6demekten ge\u00e7ici olarak muaf tutulmas\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. 30\/5\/2007- 9\/10\/2017 Tarihleri Aras\u0131ndaki D\u00f6neme \u0130li\u015fkin Tazminat \u0130steminin Reddedilmesi Nedeniyle M\u00fclkiyet Hakk\u0131yla Ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 Olarak Etkili Ba\u015fvuru Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia <\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u0130ddialar\u0131 <\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurucular ikamet ettikleri Batman \u0130li, Sason \u0130l\u00e7esi, Yakaba\u011f\u0131 K\u00f6y\u00fc’nde ya\u015fanan ter\u00f6r olaylar\u0131 nedeniyle bu yerleri terk etmek durumunda kald\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 ve burada bulunan mal varl\u0131klar\u0131 ile ge\u00e7im kaynaklar\u0131n\u0131 kullanmaktan mahrum kald\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131,k\u00f6yde ter\u00f6r riski hala bulundu\u011fundan zararlar\u0131n devam etti\u011fini, zararlar\u0131n ge\u00e7mi\u015fe d\u00f6n\u00fck 1 y\u0131l\u0131 a\u015fan k\u0131s\u0131mlar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddedilmesinin adil yarg\u0131lanma ve m\u00fclkiyethakk\u0131n\u0131nihlal etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015fler ve tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015flard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
2. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
15. 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. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n, ikamet ettikleri yerde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen ter\u00f6r olaylar\u0131 nedeniyle 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131nda yapt\u0131klar\u0131 taleplerin ve akabinde a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131 davalar\u0131n reddedildi\u011fini s\u00fcre gelen zararlar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Mahkemenin ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucun hakkaniyete ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funa y\u00f6nelik iddialar\u0131n temel olarak m\u00fclke ula\u015famamaktan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
16. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girdi\u011fi 27\/7\/2004 tarihinden sonra meydana gelen zararlar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan Kanun\u2019un 6. maddesinde belirlenen s\u00fcreler i\u00e7inde, 19\/7\/1987 ile 27\/7\/2004 tarihleri aras\u0131nda meydana gelen zararlar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ise 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ge\u00e7ici 4. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde idareye ba\u015fvurulabilece\u011fi, 2000 y\u0131l\u0131ndan sonraki s\u00fcregelen zararlar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvuru tarihinden geriye do\u011fru 1 y\u0131ll\u0131k d\u00f6nemi kapsayan zararlar\u0131na ili\u015fkin isteminin kabul edilebilece\u011fi bu tarihten geriye do\u011fru 1 y\u0131l\u0131 a\u015fan d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin tazmin isteminin ise hukuken kabul edilemeyece\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olay ve olgular\u0131 somut ba\u015fvuru ile benzer nitelikte olan Osman K\u0131z\u0131lcan ([GK], B. No: 2021\/11655, 28\/7\/2022) karar\u0131nda uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede evvela s\u00fcregelen m\u00fcdahalelerde zarar konusu olay i\u00e7in somut bir tarih belirlenemeyece\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ard\u0131ndan 17\/7\/2004 tarihli ve 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Ter\u00f6r ve Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadeleden Do\u011fan Zararlar\u0131n Kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 6. maddesinde belirtilen s\u00fcrelerin m\u00fcdahalenin kesildi\u011fi tarihten itibaren ba\u015flat\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine aksi yorumun ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fcdahalenin ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n altm\u0131\u015f\u0131nc\u0131 g\u00fcn\u00fcnden sonra her g\u00fcn Zarar Tespit Komisyonuna ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 sonucunu do\u011furaca\u011f\u0131na i\u015faret etmi\u015ftir. Sonu\u00e7 olarak Zarar Tespit Komisyonuna ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcresine ili\u015fkin yorumun makul olmayan, zarar konusu olay\u0131n \u00e2deta her y\u0131l kesintiye u\u011frayarak tekrarland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabul eden, a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 \u015fekilci ve ba\u015fvurucunun 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’la getirilen tazminat imk\u00e2n\u0131ndan yararlanmas\u0131n\u0131 zorla\u015ft\u0131racak kadar kat\u0131 oldu\u011funu de\u011ferlendirerek Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
18. Somut ba\u015fvuruda da an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bu do\u011frultuda 30\/5\/2007- 9\/10\/2017 tarihleri aras\u0131ndaki d\u00f6nem y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurular\u0131n s\u00fcreden reddedilmesi nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
C. 9\/10\/2017-9\/10\/2018 Tarihleri Aras\u0131ndaki D\u00f6nemde U\u011fran\u0131lan Zararlar Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Tazminat \u0130steminin Reddedilmesi Nedeniyle M\u00fclkiyet Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia <\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u0130ddialar\u0131<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucular tazminat taleplerinin reddine y\u00f6nelik “k\u00f6y\u00fcn tamamen bo\u015falt\u0131lmas\u0131 ya da bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n bo\u015falt\u0131lmas\u0131” gibi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctlerin 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un amac\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctler oldu\u011funu, k\u00f6y koruculu\u011fu sisteminin devam etti\u011fini bu ba\u011flamda Mahkemece verilen ret kararlar\u0131n\u0131n yeterli ara\u015ft\u0131rmaya dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kararlar\u0131n tek tarafl\u0131 ve hakkaniyete ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, zararlar\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015ftu\u011funu iddia ettikleri yerlerde ke\u015fif yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, k\u00f6yde ter\u00f6r riski hala da bulundu\u011fundan zararlar\u0131n devam etti\u011fi belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma ve m\u00fclkiyet haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015fler ve tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015flard\u0131r. <\/p>\n
2. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
20. 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 2. maddesinde, ter\u00f6r d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki ekonomik ve sosyal sebeplerle u\u011fran\u0131lan zararlar ile g\u00fcvenlik kayg\u0131lar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kendi istekleriyle bulunduklar\u0131 yerleri terk edenlerin bu sebeple u\u011frad\u0131klar\u0131 zararlar\u0131n kapsam d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirtilmi\u015ftir. 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un uygulanmas\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda daha \u00f6nce bireysel ba\u015fvuru konusu yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan bu taleplere ili\u015fkin olarak Anayasa Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmeler neticesinde de belirtilen hususlara ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n maddi olay\u0131n ve hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131 ve uygulanmas\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda mahkemelerce de\u011ferlendirilmesi gereken hususlara ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu belirtilerek a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Sabri \u00c7etin, [1.B.] B.No: 2013\/3007, 6\/2\/2014, \u00a7\u00a7 45-50; benzer y\u00f6ndeki karar i\u00e7in bkz. Akbay\u0131r\/T\u00fcrkiye, B. No: 30415\/08, 28\/6\/2011, \u00a7 88). Bu konudaki takdir mahkemelere ait olmakla beraber mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131n bariz takdir hatas\u0131 i\u00e7ermesi durumunda anayasal bir temel hak veya \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011finin tespiti noktas\u0131nda farkl\u0131 bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekebilir (Mesude Ya\u015far, [2.B.], B. No: 2013\/2738, 16\/7\/2014, \u00a7 93; Cahit Tekin, [1.B.], B. No: 2013\/2744, 16\/7\/2014, \u00a7 88).<\/p>\n
21. Somut ba\u015fvuruda ba\u015fvurucular taraf\u0131ndan a\u00e7\u0131lan davalar Yakaba\u011f K\u00f6y\u00fc’nde 2004 y\u0131l\u0131ndan bu yana herhangi bir ter\u00f6r olay\u0131n\u0131n meydana gelmedi\u011fi, ki\u015fisel g\u00fcvenlik kayg\u0131lar\u0131 veya e\u011fitim, ula\u015f\u0131m, sa\u011fl\u0131k ve sosyal imkans\u0131zl\u0131klar sonucu ya\u015fad\u0131klar\u0131 k\u00f6y\u00fc terk edenlerin\/geri d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f yapmayanlar\u0131n u\u011frad\u0131klar\u0131 zararlar\u0131n 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Yasa kapsam\u0131nda kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131n\u0131n olanakl\u0131 olmamas\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle Mahkemelerce reddedilmi\u015f ve bu kararlar istinaf incelemesinden ge\u00e7erek kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7 7, 8).<\/p>\n
22. Anayasa Mahkemesi Abdurrahman G\u00fcltekin ve Sadullah Doysak karar\u0131nda 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 2. maddesinin yorumu kapsam\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n zarar\u0131n\u0131n tazmin edilebilmesi i\u00e7in k\u00f6y\u00fcn ya da mezran\u0131n tamamen bo\u015falm\u0131\u015f\/bo\u015falt\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 veya Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u0131n an\u0131lan yerle\u015fim yerlerinde sadece ge\u00e7ici k\u00f6y korucular\u0131n\u0131n kalmas\u0131 \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 arayan yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131n\u0131n keyf\u00eelik i\u00e7ermedi\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir (Abdurrahman G\u00fcltekin ve Sadullah Doysak, [2.B.], B. No: 2013\/3528, 24\/3\/2016, \u00a7 28). Somut ba\u015fvurularda da Anayasa Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da an\u0131lan kararda var\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir y\u00f6n bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
23. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle 9\/10\/2017-9\/10\/2018 d\u00f6neminde u\u011fran\u0131lan zararlar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tazminat isteminin kabul edilmemesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik iddian\u0131n di\u011fer kabul edilebilirlik ko\u015fullar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmeksizin a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VI. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
24. Ba\u015fvurucular; ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama ile 100.000 TL manevi tazminat taleplerinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu kapsamda karar\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flatmak ve Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gideren, ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun yeni bir karar vermektir (Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2), [1.B.], 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
26. \u00d6te yandan hak ihlali karar\u0131ndan Anayasa Mahkemesinin davan\u0131n sonucuyla ilgili olarak bir tutum sergiledi\u011fi sonucu \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmamal\u0131d\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesince verilen hak ihlali karar\u0131 uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sonu\u00e7lar\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olup davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, reddine ya da ba\u015fka bir karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi anlam\u0131na gelmemektedir. Kural olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n her a\u015famas\u0131nda oldu\u011fu gibi ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 gidermek \u00fczere yeniden yap\u0131lacak yarg\u0131lama sonunda da delillerin dava ile ili\u015fkisini kurma ve bunlar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirip sonu\u00e7 \u00e7\u0131karma yetkisi ilgili mahkemelere aittir.<\/p>\n
27. \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 ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VII. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurular\u0131n B\u0130RLE\u015eT\u0130R\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
B. Adli yard\u0131m taleplerinin KABUL\u00dcNE,<\/p>\n
C. 9\/10\/2017-9\/10\/2018 d\u00f6neminde u\u011fran\u0131lan zararlar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tazminat isteminin kabul edilmemesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
D. 30\/5\/2007- 9\/10\/2017 tarihleri aras\u0131ndaki d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin tazminat isteminin reddedilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
E. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere ekli listenin (E) s\u00fctununda g\u00f6sterilen mahkemelere G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
H. 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvuruculara M\u00dc\u015eTEREKEN \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
\u0130. \u00d6demelerin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
J. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 25\/3\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 25\/3\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/13258 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 MEHMET EM\u0130N TEK\u0130N VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/13258) Karar Tarihi: 25\/3\/2025 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN Raport\u00f6r : Mehmet ALTUND\u0130\u015e Ba\u015fvurucular : Mehmet Emin TEK\u0130N ve di\u011ferleri (ekli listenin (D) s\u00fctunu) Vekili : Av. Seyfettin TA\u015e I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvurular, m\u00fclke ula\u015f\u0131lamamas\u0131ndan kaynaklanan zararlar\u0131n tazmini i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan davalar\u0131n reddedilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet ve adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na y\u00f6neliktir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvurular, muhtelif tarihlerde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ekli listenin (B) s\u00fctununda g\u00f6sterilen dosyalar konu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden hukuki irtibat olmas\u0131 nedeniyle 2021\/13258 numaral\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvuru dosyas\u0131 ile birle\u015ftirilmi\u015f ve inceleme 2021\/13258 numaral\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvuru dosyas\u0131 \u00fczerinden y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. 3. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. 4. 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 bildirmemi\u015ftir. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 5. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ve Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi (UYAP) arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla ula\u015f\u0131lan bilgi ve belgelere g\u00f6re ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir: 6. Ekli listenin (D) s\u00fctununda yer alan ba\u015fvurucular Batman \u0130li, Sason \u0130l\u00e7esi, Yakaba\u011f\u0131 K\u00f6y\u00fc’nde ikamet etmekteyken ya\u015fanan ter\u00f6r olaylar\u0131 nedeniyle 1994 y\u0131l\u0131nda k\u00f6ylerini bo\u015faltmak durumunda kald\u0131klar\u0131ndan bahisle u\u011fran\u0131lan …<\/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-120114","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n