T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
ADNAN \u00d6ZG\u00dcN VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/8289)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 16\/5\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 7\/11\/2024 – 32715<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u00d6zge ULUKAYA<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1. Adnan \u00d6ZG\u00dcN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
2. Nuri SEYHAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
3. Mehmet RANA<\/p>\n
Vekilleri<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Ertan G\u00dcND\u00dcZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Av. Ekrem HOROZO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesi davas\u0131na konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki ihtiyati tedbirin uzun s\u00fcre devam etmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle de makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Melikgazi Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (\u0130dare) taraf\u0131ndan 14\/7\/2008 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisinin de aralar\u0131nda oldu\u011fu daval\u0131lara kar\u015f\u0131 ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesi davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkemece 24\/4\/2009 tarihinde dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerine ihtiyati tedbir \u015ferhi konulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
3. Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan 13\/7\/2010 tarihli celsede ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisinin vefat etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n da d\u00e2hil oldu\u011fu miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 davaya d\u00e2hil etmek \u00fczere \u0130darenin vekiline s\u00fcre verilmi\u015f, 17\/4\/2012 tarihli celsede bahsi ge\u00e7en t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n davaya d\u00e2hil edildi\u011fi ve ilgili tebligatlar\u0131n yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular, yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde talepte bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. Mahkeme 27\/3\/2014 tarihinde davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcyle ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f suretiyle giderilmesine karar vermi\u015f, karar temyiz edilmeksizin 18\/5\/2017 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucular 21\/2\/2020, 2\/3\/2020 ve 15\/1\/2021 tarihlerinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. \u0130dare 25\/1\/2023 tarihinde ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015f, Mahkeme ilgili Tapu M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne g\u00f6nderdi\u011fi 16\/2\/2023 tarihli yaz\u0131yla ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n terkin edilmesi gerekti\u011fini bildirmi\u015ftir. Tapu M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ise Mahkemeye g\u00f6nderdi\u011fi ayn\u0131 tarihli yaz\u0131yla, mahkeme karar\u0131 g\u00f6nderilmedi\u011fi i\u00e7in tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130dare 3\/3\/2023 tarihinde ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 tekrar talep etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme talebin gere\u011finin 16\/2\/2023 tarihli yaz\u0131yla yerine getirilmesi sebebiyle ba\u015fka bir i\u015flem yap\u0131lmas\u0131na yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi (UYAP) \u00fczerinden yap\u0131lan incelemede ihtiyati tedbirin devam etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7. Komisyonca 22\/11\/2023 tarihinde 2021\/5096 numaral\u0131 ba\u015fvuruda makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa, ba\u015fvurunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik \u015fik\u00e2yete ili\u015fkin k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Komisyon 2020\/8289 ve 2020\/9684 numaral\u0131 ba\u015fvurular\u0131n kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
9. Aralar\u0131nda konu bak\u0131m\u0131nda hukuki irtibat bulunmas\u0131 nedeniyle 2020\/9684 ve 2021\/5096 numaral\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvuru dosyalar\u0131n\u0131n 2020\/8289 numaral\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvuru dosyas\u0131 ile birle\u015ftirilmesine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
A. M\u00fclkiyet Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucular, dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n uzun s\u00fcre devam etti\u011fini belirterek m\u00fclkiyet haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011finden yak\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurular, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
13. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olay ve olgular\u0131 somut ba\u015fvuru ile benzer nitelikte olan Hesna Funda Baltal\u0131 ve Baltal\u0131 G\u0131da Hayvanc\u0131l\u0131k San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. ([GK], B. No: 2014\/17196, 25\/10\/2018), \u0130hsan Metin (B. No: 2015\/7044, 23\/1\/2019), \u0130brahim Ge\u00e7er (B. No: 2014\/19056, 19\/2\/2019) ve \u015eeyhmus Terece ([GK], B. No: 2017\/26532, 23\/7\/2020) kararlar\u0131nda uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131ran bir tedbirin uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olabilmesi i\u00e7in kapsam\u0131 ve s\u00fcresi itibar\u0131yla orant\u0131l\u0131 olarak uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ve tedbirin makul olmayan bir s\u00fcre devam etmesinin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 yetkilerin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n belirsiz olacak \u015fekilde \u00f6telenmesi suretiyle m\u00fclk sahibine orant\u0131s\u0131z bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckledi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Somut ba\u015fvuruda 24\/4\/2009 tarihli mahkeme karar\u0131yla konulan ihtiyati tedbirin devam etti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Yakla\u015f\u0131k on d\u00f6rt y\u0131l\u0131 a\u015fk\u0131n s\u00fcredir devam eden ihtiyati tedbirin s\u00fcresi itibar\u0131yla orant\u0131l\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan an\u0131lan kararlarda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurular\u0131n bu k\u0131sm\u0131 hakk\u0131nda Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurucular 2020\/8289 ve 2020\/9684 numaral\u0131 ba\u015fvurularda yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
15. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olay ve olgular\u0131 somut ba\u015fvuru ile benzer nitelikte olan Veysi Ado ([GK], B. No: 2022\/100837, 27\/4\/2023) karar\u0131nda uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede Anayasa Mahkemesi 9\/1\/2013 tarihli ve 6384 say\u0131l\u0131 Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesine Yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Baz\u0131 Ba\u015fvurular\u0131n Tazminat \u00d6denmek Suretiyle \u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne Dair Kanun’un ge\u00e7ici 2. maddesinde 28\/3\/2023 tarihli ve 7445 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 40. maddesi ile yap\u0131lan de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fe g\u00f6re 9\/3\/2023 tarihi (bu tarih d\u00e2hil) itibar\u0131yla derdest olan, yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddialar\u0131yla yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurulara ili\u015fkin olarak Tazminat Komisyonuna ba\u015fvuru yolu t\u00fcketilmeden yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun incelenmesinin bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincil niteli\u011fi ile ba\u011fda\u015fmayaca\u011f\u0131 neticesine varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
16. Somut ba\u015fvurularda, an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddia y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 2020\/8289 ve 2020\/9684 numaral\u0131 ba\u015fvurular\u0131n bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer kabul edilebilirlik nedenleri incelenmeksizin ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvurucular; ihlalin tespiti ile maddi ve manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Anayasa Mahkemesi, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz k\u0131lan tedbirin uzun s\u00fcrmesine ili\u015fkin olarak tedbir s\u00fcrecinde m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n gerektirdi\u011fi ivedili\u011fin ve \u00f6zenin g\u00f6sterilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yarg\u0131sal makamlar\u0131n sorumlulu\u011fu oldu\u011funa dikkati \u00e7ekmektedir (benzer de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. Hamit Alihansoy ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2017\/35581, 29\/9\/2020, \u00a7 66). Buna g\u00f6re ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda ihlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Olayda ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan etkin giderim yolu, tazminat olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Eski h\u00e2le getirme kural\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in ba\u015fvuruculara manevi zararlar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden net 40.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi gerekir. Ba\u015fvurucular u\u011frad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 iddia etti\u011fi maddi zarar ile ilgili yeterli bilgi ve belge sunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan maddi tazminat taleplerinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. 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. 1. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L’in kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
2. 2020\/8289 ve 2020\/9684 numaral\u0131 ba\u015fvurular y\u00f6n\u00fcnden makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
C. Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L’in kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvuruculara net 40.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n AYRI AYRI \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE, tazminata ili\u015fkin di\u011fer taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 446,90 TL harc\u0131n ba\u015fvurucular Nuri Seyhan ve Mehmet Rana’ya AYRI AYRI \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE, 487,60 TL harc\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu Adnan \u00d6zg\u00fcn’e \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE, 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinin Av. Ertan G\u00fcnd\u00fcz taraf\u0131ndan temsil edilen ba\u015fvurucular Nuri Seyhan ve Mehmet Rana’ya M\u00dc\u015eTEREKEN \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE, 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinin ba\u015fvurucu Adnan \u00d6zg\u00fcn’e \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \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 faiz UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin bilgi i\u00e7in Kayseri 1. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesine (E.2008\/1293, K.2014\/371) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
H. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 16\/5\/2024 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY GEREK\u00c7ES\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvurucu dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n uzun s\u00fcre devam etti\u011fini belirterek m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru konusu ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n verildi\u011fi tarihte y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan 18\/6\/1927 tarihli ve 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 108 ve 111. maddelerine g\u00f6re ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131na itiraz edilebilece\u011fi gibi ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n talep edilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Nitekim ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 benzer m\u00fcesseselere 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 394. ve 395. maddelerinde de yer verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Anayasa Mahkemesince \u0130smail Bu\u011fra \u0130\u015flek (B. No: 2013\/1177, 26\/3\/2013) karar\u0131nda bireysel ba\u015fvuru yolunun ikincil niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunabilmek i\u00e7in \u00f6ncelikle ola\u011fan kanun yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmesinin zorunlu oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun bireysel ba\u015fvuru konusu \u015fik\u00e2yetini \u00f6ncelikle ve s\u00fcresinde yetkili idari ve yarg\u0131sal mercilere usul\u00fcne uygun olarak iletmesi, bu konuda sahip oldu\u011fu bilgi ve delilleri zaman\u0131nda bu makamlara sunmas\u0131, bu s\u00fcre\u00e7te dava ve ba\u015fvurusunu takip etmek i\u00e7in gerekli \u00f6zeni g\u00f6stermi\u015f olmas\u0131 gerekir.<\/p>\n
4. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131 verildi\u011fi tarihten itibaren yarg\u0131lama boyunca ve Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesinden sonra dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin herhangi bir giri\u015fimde bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. Bu bilgiler do\u011frultusunda ba\u015fvurucular yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda ihlale neden oldu\u011fu iddia edilen tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmeyerek yarg\u0131sal yollar\u0131 usul\u00fcnce t\u00fcketmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Bu gerek\u00e7elerle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finden \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fun aksi y\u00f6ndeki karar\u0131na i\u015ftirak edilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u00dcye Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 16\/5\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/8289 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u00a0 \u00a0 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 ADNAN \u00d6ZG\u00dcN VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/8289) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 16\/5\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 7\/11\/2024 – 32715 \u00a0 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : \u00d6zge ULUKAYA Ba\u015fvurucular : 1. Adnan \u00d6ZG\u00dcN \u00a0 \u00a0 2. Nuri SEYHAN \u00a0 \u00a0 3. Mehmet RANA Vekilleri : Av. Ertan G\u00dcND\u00dcZ \u00a0 \u00a0 Av. Ekrem HOROZO\u011eLU \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru; ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesi davas\u0131na konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki ihtiyati tedbirin uzun s\u00fcre devam etmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle de makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Melikgazi Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (\u0130dare) taraf\u0131ndan 14\/7\/2008 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisinin de aralar\u0131nda oldu\u011fu daval\u0131lara kar\u015f\u0131 ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesi davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkemece 24\/4\/2009 tarihinde dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerine ihtiyati tedbir \u015ferhi konulmu\u015ftur. 3. Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan 13\/7\/2010 tarihli celsede ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisinin vefat etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n da d\u00e2hil oldu\u011fu miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 davaya d\u00e2hil etmek \u00fczere \u0130darenin vekiline s\u00fcre verilmi\u015f, 17\/4\/2012 tarihli celsede bahsi ge\u00e7en t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n davaya d\u00e2hil edildi\u011fi ve ilgili tebligatlar\u0131n yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular, yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde talepte bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 4. …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,535],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14479","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n