T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00c7A\u00c7AN S\u0130REK VE TRKO S\u0130REK BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/58761)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 26\/3\/2025<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Mehmet Yavuz YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1. \u00c7a\u00e7an S\u0130REK<\/p>\n
2. Trko S\u0130REK<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Ercan KARAN<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, adli yard\u0131m talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
A. Bireysel Ba\u015fvuru S\u00fcreci<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n adli yard\u0131m talepli olarak a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 babal\u0131\u011f\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131 davas\u0131nda Diyarbak\u0131r 2. Aile Mahkemesi (Aile Mahkemesi) 29\/9\/2021 tarihli ara karar\u0131 ile adli yard\u0131m talebinin reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Ara karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n kendilerini ve ailelerinin ge\u00e7imini \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde zor duruma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrmeksizin, gereken yarg\u0131lama giderlerini k\u0131smen veya tamamen \u00f6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun oldu\u011funa kanaat getirecek nitelikte mali durumuna ili\u015fkin belgeleri tam olarak sunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, davan\u0131n niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi har\u00e7 ve yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin miktar itibar\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ailesinin ge\u00e7imini zora d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrecek bir miktar olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucular, s\u00f6z konusu karara itiraz etmi\u015ftir. 25\/10\/2021 tarihli itiraz dilek\u00e7elerine ilk davay\u0131 a\u00e7arken dilek\u00e7elerine ekledikleri fakirlik ilm\u00fchaberi, tapu ve Sosyal G\u00fcvenlik Kurumu (SGK) kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin belgeleri yeniden eklemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. \u0130tiraz\u0131 inceleyen Diyarbak\u0131r 3. Aile Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) 3\/11\/2021 tarihli kesin karar\u0131 ile itiraz\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde, ba\u015fvurucular taraf\u0131ndan sadece SGK belgesi sunuldu\u011funu, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u00f6zel vekil ile temsil edildi\u011fini, yeterli bilgi ve belge sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve davan\u0131n niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi de har\u00e7 ve yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin miktar itibar\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ailesinin ge\u00e7imini zora d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrecek bir miktar olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucular, adli yard\u0131ma ili\u015fkin nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 9\/11\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 15\/11\/2021 tarihinde yarg\u0131lama har\u00e7lar\u0131 ve gider avans\u0131n\u0131 (toplamda 237,20 TL mahkeme harc\u0131 ve 1.300 TL gider avans\u0131) Aile Mahkemesi veznesine yat\u0131rm\u0131\u015f ve 7\/12\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B. Bireysel Ba\u015fvuru Tarihinden Sonraki S\u00fcre\u00e7<\/p>\n
7. Aile Mahkemesi 18\/4\/2022 tarihli karar\u0131 ile g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7esinde; uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta soyba\u011f\u0131ndan kaynaklanan bir ihtilaf\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davan\u0131n niteli\u011fi itibar\u0131yla n\u00fcfus kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fczeltilmesi talebine ili\u015fkin oldu\u011funu, n\u00fcfus kayd\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fczeltilmesi davalar\u0131n\u0131n asliye hukuk mahkemelerinde bak\u0131laca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Aile Mahkemesi ayr\u0131ca har\u00e7, vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti ve yarg\u0131lama masraf\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6revli mahkemece de\u011ferlendirilmesine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. G\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 sonras\u0131 uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 inceleyen Diyarbak\u0131r 5. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) 18\/1\/2023 tarihli karar\u0131 ile ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n davas\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmi\u015f ve yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin ba\u015fvurucular \u00fczerinde b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan karar 25\/4\/2023 tarihinde istinaf edilmeksizin kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucu \u00c7a\u00e7an S\u0130REK Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
9. Anayasa Mahkemesi \u0130\u00e7t\u00fcz\u00fc\u011f\u00fc’n\u00fcn (\u0130\u00e7t\u00fcz\u00fck) 80. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (\u00e7) bendine g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurunun incelenmesinin s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclmesini hakl\u0131 k\u0131lan bir sebep olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine var\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde ba\u015fvurunun d\u00fc\u015fmesine karar verilebilir. Bununla birlikte \u0130\u00e7t\u00fcz\u00fck’\u00fcn 80. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fi Anayasa’n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131 ve yorumlanmas\u0131, temel haklar\u0131n kapsam\u0131n\u0131n ve s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi ya da insan haklar\u0131na sayg\u0131n\u0131n gerekli k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2llerde ba\u015fvurunun incelenmesine devam edilebilece\u011fi \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
10. Somut olayda ba\u015fvuruculardan \u00c7a\u00e7an S\u0130REK, ba\u015fvuru sonras\u0131 \u00f6lm\u00fc\u015f; ba\u015fvuruya miras\u00e7\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan devam edilip edilmeyece\u011finin bildirilmesi i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucunun vekiline g\u00f6nderilen bildirime ili\u015fkin tebligat, vekile 10\/12\/2024 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015f ancak ba\u015fvurucunun vekili veya miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 verilen s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde ba\u015fvuruya devam etme y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki iradelerini Anayasa Mahkemesine bildirmemi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurunun incelenmesine devam etmeyi gerekli k\u0131lan ve \u0130\u00e7t\u00fcz\u00fck’\u00fcn 80. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen nedenlerden biri de bulunmamaktad\u0131r (benzer y\u00f6ndeki kararlar i\u00e7in bkz. Emin K\u0131rm\u0131z\u0131g\u00fcl [1. B.], B. No: 2023\/13689, 18\/12\/2024; Enver Karabey [2. B.], B. No: 2021\/36984, 22\/1\/2025).<\/p>\n
11. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun \u00c7a\u00e7an S\u0130REK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden d\u00fc\u015fmesine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Di\u011fer Ba\u015fvurucu Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
1. Adli Yard\u0131m Talebi Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucu, bireysel ba\u015fvuru har\u00e7 ve masraflar\u0131n\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131layacak geliri olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan ederek adli yard\u0131m talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Anayasa Mahkemesinin Mehmet \u015eerif Ay ([2. B.], B. No: 2012\/1181, 17\/9\/2013) karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkeler dikkate al\u0131narak ge\u00e7imini \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde g\u00fc\u00e7le\u015ftirmeksizin yarg\u0131lama giderlerini \u00f6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucunun a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmayan adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
2. Mahkemeye Eri\u015fim Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucu, dava masraflar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6deme g\u00fcc\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00f6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair her t\u00fcrl\u00fc belgeyi sunmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen yarg\u0131 mercilerince kabul edilebilir bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmadan taleplerinin reddedilmesinin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ve gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
14. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; Diyarbak\u0131r 2. Aile Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan verilen karar\u0131n itiraz mercii olan Diyarbak\u0131r 3. Aile Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan incelendi\u011fi ve dava konusu maddi olay\u0131n hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131 ve uygulanmas\u0131 sonucu ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n adli yard\u0131m taleplerinin reddi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde karar verildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k ayr\u0131ca, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde devam etti\u011fini, har\u00e7 ve masraflar\u0131n Aile Mahkemesi veznesine yat\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, buna g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi konusunda Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvurucunun adli yard\u0131m talebinin reddedilmesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde dile getirdi\u011fi ihlal iddialar\u0131 adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 alt\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. Ba\u015fvurucu, adli yard\u0131m talebinin Aile Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan reddedilmesi \u00fczerine 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u015fekilde itiraz yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015f; itiraz\u0131n\u0131n reddedilmesi \u00fczerine Anayasa Mahkemesine bireysel ba\u015fvuru yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu talep edilen yarg\u0131lama giderlerini bireysel ba\u015fvurudan hemen \u00f6nce \u00f6demi\u015f olup inceleme tarihi itibar\u0131yla esas yarg\u0131lamas\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu lehine sona erdi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. Anayasa Mahkemesi, Tacettin Ceylan ([GK], B. No: 2017\/39062, 10\/11\/2021) karar\u0131nda adli yard\u0131m talebinin reddi nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun ba\u015fta mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 olmak \u00fczere temel haklar\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleye kar\u015f\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunamamas\u0131n\u0131n yarg\u0131laman\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fc adil olmaktan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131p \u00e7\u0131karmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya m\u00fcdahalenin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n a\u011f\u0131rla\u015fmas\u0131na yol a\u00e7\u0131p a\u00e7mad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunu incelemi\u015f ve devam eden yarg\u0131lamada yarg\u0131lama safahat\u0131nda verilen adli yard\u0131m talebinin reddine ili\u015fkin ara karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesinin ard\u0131ndan salt bu karara y\u00f6nelik ba\u015fvuru yap\u0131labilece\u011fi sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Tacettin Ceylan, \u00a7\u00a7 41-43).<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvuru formu ile eklerinin incelenmesi neticesinde a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
19. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 334. ila 340. maddelerinde ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 olarak d\u00fczenlenen adli yard\u0131m kurumu yarg\u0131lama masraflar\u0131ndan ge\u00e7ici muafiyet sa\u011flamaktad\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu talebin kabul edilmesi h\u00e2linde yarg\u0131lama masraflar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesi davan\u0131n sonuna kadar ertelenmektedir. Davan\u0131n adli yard\u0131mdan yararlanan taraf lehine sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde tahsili ertelenen yarg\u0131lama giderleri kural olarak kar\u015f\u0131 tarafa y\u00fcklenmektedir. Adli yard\u0131mdan yararlanan taraf\u0131n davay\u0131 kaybetmesi h\u00e2linde ise mahkemeler tahsilini erteledikleri yarg\u0131lama masraflar\u0131n\u0131n adli yard\u0131mdan yararlanan taraftan al\u0131nmas\u0131na karar verebilecektir. Bu a\u015famada s\u00f6z konusu \u00f6demenin taksitler h\u00e2linde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilebilece\u011fi gibi \u015fartlar\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2linde tamamen veya k\u0131smen \u00f6demeden muaf tutulmas\u0131na da karar verilebilmektedir (Famiye Be\u011fim ve Mehmet Tahir Be\u011fim [1. B.], B. No: 2017\/21882, 10\/2\/2021, \u00a7 32).<\/p>\n
20. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, herkesin yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddiada bulunma ve savunma hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bir unsurudur. Di\u011fer yandan Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesine “adil yarg\u0131lanma” ibaresinin eklenmesine ili\u015fkin gerek\u00e7ede, T\u00fcrkiye’nin taraf oldu\u011fu uluslararas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerce de g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n madde metnine d\u00e2hil edildi\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’ni (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) yorumlayan Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi, S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011fini belirtmektedir (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. [2. B.], B. No: 2014\/13156, 20\/4\/2017, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
21. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcne ta\u015f\u0131yabilmek ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n etkili bir \u015fekilde karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilmek anlam\u0131na gelmektedir. Ki\u015finin mahkemeye ba\u015fvurmas\u0131n\u0131 engelleyen veya mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 anlams\u0131z h\u00e2le getiren, bir ba\u015fka ifadeyle mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde etkisizle\u015ftiren s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilir (\u00d6zkan \u015een [2. B.], B. No: 2012\/791, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
22. Ba\u015fvurucunun adli yard\u0131m talebinin reddedilmesi sonucu masraflar\u0131 \u00f6demek zorunda b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalede bulunuldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
23. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda adli yard\u0131m talebinin 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 334. ve devam\u0131 maddelerinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen \u015fartlar\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle Aile Mahkemesince reddedildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
24. Aile Mahkemesinin 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 334. madde h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc esas alarak verdi\u011fi ret karar\u0131na g\u00f6re yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
25. Yarg\u0131 har\u00e7lar\u0131, yarg\u0131 hizmetinden yararlan\u0131lmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda devlete \u00f6denen katk\u0131 pay\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmektedir. Yarg\u0131 harc\u0131 \u00f6deme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc getirilmesiyle, b\u00f6l\u00fcnebilen bir kamu hizmeti olan yarg\u0131 hizmetinden yararlananlar\u0131n bu hizmetin maliyetinin bir k\u0131sm\u0131na katlanmas\u0131 hedeflenmektedir. Bunun yan\u0131nda yarg\u0131 harc\u0131n\u0131n abart\u0131l\u0131, zorlama veya ciddiyetten yoksun taleplerin disipline edilmesi ve gereksiz ba\u015fvurular\u0131n \u00f6n\u00fcne ge\u00e7ilerek mahkemelerin me\u015fgul edilmesinin \u00f6nlenmesi amac\u0131na hizmet etti\u011fi de a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. \u00d6te yandan ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n har\u00e7 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki yarg\u0131lama giderleri kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda avans yat\u0131rmakla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc k\u0131l\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n amac\u0131 ise yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda yap\u0131lmas\u0131 zorunlu giderleri finanse etmektir. Bu giderlerin yarg\u0131 hizmeti talep eden ki\u015fi taraf\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 i\u015fin do\u011fas\u0131 gere\u011fidir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n har\u00e7 ve di\u011fer yarg\u0131lama giderlerini \u00f6demekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc k\u0131l\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fas\u0131ndan kaynaklanan ve anayasal a\u00e7\u0131dan me\u015fru ama\u00e7lara dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Famiye Be\u011fim ve Mehmet Tahir Be\u011fim, \u00a7 45).<\/p>\n
26. Adli yard\u0131m talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fimine getirilen s\u0131n\u0131rlaman\u0131n \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucuya a\u011f\u0131r bir y\u00fck getirip getirmedi\u011fi hususlar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
27. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesi uyar\u0131nca hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131nda dikkate al\u0131nacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctlerden biri olan \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck, hukuk devleti ilkesinden do\u011fmaktad\u0131r. Hukuk devletinde hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 istisnai bir yetki oldu\u011fundan bu yetki ancak durumun gerektirdi\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 ko\u015fuluyla hakl\u0131 bir temele oturabilir. Bireylerin hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerinin somut ko\u015fullar\u0131n gerektirdi\u011finden daha fazla s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 kamu otoritelerine tan\u0131nan yetkinin a\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelece\u011finden hukuk devletiyle ba\u011fda\u015fmaz (AYM, E.2013\/95, K.2014\/176, 13\/11\/2014).<\/p>\n
28. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde yer alan \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi elveri\u015flilik, gereklilik ve orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k olmak \u00fczere \u00fc\u00e7 alt ilkeden olu\u015fmaktad\u0131r. Elveri\u015flilik \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen m\u00fcdahalenin amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli olmas\u0131n\u0131, gereklilik ama\u00e7 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan m\u00fcdahalenin zorunlu olmas\u0131n\u0131 yani ayn\u0131 amaca daha hafif bir m\u00fcdahale ile ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmamas\u0131n\u0131, orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k ise bireyin hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale ile ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 aras\u0131nda makul bir dengenin g\u00f6zetilmesi gereklili\u011fini ifade etmektedir (AYM, E.2011\/111, K.2012\/56, 11\/4\/2012; E.2016\/16, K.2016\/37, 5\/5\/2016; Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri [1. B.], B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 38; Emrah Yayla [GK], B. No: 2017\/38732, 6\/2\/2020, \u00a7 68).<\/p>\n
29. Gereksiz ba\u015fvurular\u0131n \u00f6nlenerek dava say\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n azalt\u0131lmas\u0131 ve mahkemelerin gereksiz yere me\u015fgul edilmeksizin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede bitirebilmesi amac\u0131yla belli y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir. Bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerin kapsam\u0131n\u0131 belirlemek kamu otoritelerinin takdir yetkisi i\u00e7indedir. \u00d6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler dava a\u00e7may\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z k\u0131lmad\u0131k\u00e7a ya da a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 derecede zorla\u015ft\u0131rmad\u0131k\u00e7a mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi s\u00f6ylenemez (Serkan Acar [1. B.], B. No: 2013\/1613, 2\/10\/2013, \u00a7 39).<\/p>\n
30. \u00d6te yandan temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckleri korumak \u00f6ncelikle yarg\u0131 mercilerinin g\u00f6revi oldu\u011fundan ve maddi olgular\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmek noktas\u0131nda Anayasa Mahkemesine g\u00f6re daha elveri\u015fli konumda bulunduklar\u0131ndan yarg\u0131 mercilerinin kararlar\u0131nda g\u00f6sterdikleri gerek\u00e7eler \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck incelemesinde b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131r.<\/p>\n
31. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u011flam\u0131nda ilk de\u011ferlendirilmesi gereken husus elveri\u015flilik kriteridir. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n har\u00e7 ve yarg\u0131lama gideri \u00f6demekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc k\u0131l\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n gereksiz yere dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nleme amac\u0131na ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden elveri\u015fli bir ara\u00e7 oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r (Famiye Be\u011fim ve Mehmet Tahir Be\u011fim, \u00a7 50).<\/p>\n
32. Ekonomik ve sosyal durumlar\u0131 itibar\u0131yla yarg\u0131lama giderlerini \u00f6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun olan ki\u015filerin s\u00f6z\u00fc edilen masraflar\u0131 davan\u0131n ba\u015f\u0131nda veya herhangi bir a\u015famas\u0131nda \u00f6demekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc tutulmalar\u0131 mahkemeye eri\u015fimlerini imk\u00e2ns\u0131z h\u00e2le getirebilir veya \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde zorla\u015ft\u0131rabilir. Yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi adli yard\u0131m kurumunun taraflar\u0131n talep ve delillerini ileri s\u00fcrme, iddialar\u0131n\u0131 ispat etme imk\u00e2nlar\u0131n\u0131 kolayla\u015ft\u0131rarak bu suretle yarg\u0131sal s\u00fcrece etkili bir \u015fekilde kat\u0131l\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131, b\u00f6ylece mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyi daha dengeli h\u00e2le getirdi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bunun yan\u0131nda kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvurma a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6deme g\u00fcc\u00fc olmayan ki\u015filerin gerekli har\u00e7 ve masraflardan muaf tutulmalar\u0131 kanun yollar\u0131n\u0131n etkin bir \u015fekilde kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6nemlidir (\u0130smail U\u011fur [1. B.], B. No: 2019\/14623, 16\/11\/2022, \u00a7 61).<\/p>\n
33. Dava a\u00e7\u0131l\u0131rken veya yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda taraflardan birine y\u00fckletilen har\u00e7 ve di\u011fer yarg\u0131lama masraflar\u0131n\u0131n miktar\u0131, ilgilinin \u00f6deme kabiliyeti ve k\u0131s\u0131tlaman\u0131n getirildi\u011fi dava a\u015famas\u0131 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gereken hususlard\u0131r. Bu a\u00e7\u0131dan somut olay ko\u015fullar\u0131nda \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck incelemesi yap\u0131l\u0131rken mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6denmesi istenen har\u00e7 ve yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin ba\u015fvurucuya a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckleyip y\u00fcklemedi\u011fi, bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yolu olan adli yard\u0131mla ilgili verilen ret karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinin yeterli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n da de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r (\u0130smail U\u011fur, \u00a7 62).<\/p>\n
34. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 336. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda adli yard\u0131m talebinde bulunan ki\u015finin yarg\u0131lama giderlerini kar\u015f\u0131layabilecek durumda olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6steren mali durumuna ili\u015fkin belgeleri mahkemeye sunmak zorunda oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ancak 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 334. maddesinde de adli yard\u0131m talebinde bulunanlar i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen s\u00f6z konusu zorunlulu\u011fun temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckler ba\u011flam\u0131nda her somut olay\u0131n \u00f6zelinde ki\u015filerin durumu dikkate al\u0131narak de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Kuralda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen bu \u015fart\u0131n bahsedilen durumlar dikkate al\u0131nmadan kategorik olarak uygulanmas\u0131 ki\u015filerin mahkemeye eri\u015fimlerine \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz bir s\u0131n\u0131rlama getirebilir (\u0130smail U\u011fur, \u00a7 63).<\/p>\n
35. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu mali g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek adli yard\u0131m talebinde bulunmu\u015f, fakirlik durumunu tevsik etme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ifa etmek amac\u0131yla baz\u0131 belgeleri Aile Mahkemesine sunmu\u015ftur. Ancak Aile Mahkemesi fakirlik durumunun ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir \u00e7abaya girmeden har\u00e7 ve yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin miktar itibar\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun ailesinin ge\u00e7imini zora d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrecek bir miktar olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 (237,20 TL har\u00e7 ve 1.300 TL gider avans\u0131) yorumuyla adli yard\u0131m talebini reddetmi\u015ftir. \u0130tiraz \u00fczerine de Mahkemenin o tarihte avukatlar\u0131 olmamas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n ba\u015fvurucunun davay\u0131 avukat arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla takip etmesini mali g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn bir g\u00f6stergesi olarak yorumlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
36. T\u00fcm bu hususlar birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde istenilen har\u00e7 ve gider avans\u0131n\u0131n hi\u00e7bir geliri bulunmayan ki\u015filer a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan dava a\u00e7mas\u0131n\u0131 zorla\u015ft\u0131racak nitelikte bir miktar oldu\u011fu kabul edilmelidir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla somut olay\u0131n \u00f6zelli\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ekonomik ve sosyal durumuna ili\u015fkin belge ibraz etmedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle ba\u015fvurucunun adli yard\u0131m talebi reddedilerek dava a\u00e7ma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin g\u00f6zetilen me\u015fru amaca ula\u015fma bak\u0131m\u0131ndan orant\u0131l\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun \u00fczerinde a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir y\u00fck olu\u015fturdu\u011fu, bu a\u00e7\u0131dan m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
37. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
38. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ihlal sonucuna var\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI ve \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR bu sonuca kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
39. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ile miktar belirtmeksizin maddi ve manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
40. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Zira yarg\u0131lama, kabul karar\u0131 ile sonu\u00e7lanm\u0131\u015ft\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\u015fvurucuya maddi zarar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda net 10.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi gerekir. Belirtilen tazminat miktar\u0131 yeterli giderim sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan manevi tazminata ili\u015fkin talebin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle; <\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucu \u00c7a\u00e7an S\u0130REK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurunun ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc nedeniyle D\u00dc\u015eMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
B. Ba\u015fvurucu Trko S\u0130REK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden adli yard\u0131m talebinin KABUL\u00dcNE,<\/p>\n
C. Ba\u015fvurucu Trko S\u0130REK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
D. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE Basri BA\u011eCI ve \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR’\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
E. Ba\u015fvurucuya net 10.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE, tazminata ili\u015fkin di\u011fer taleplerin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. \u00d6demelerin 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
H. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin bilgi i\u00e7in Diyarbak\u0131r 2. Aile Mahkemesine (E.2021\/1203) ve Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 26\/3\/2025 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY<\/p>\n
1. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucular soy ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fczeltilmesi talebiyle Diyarbak\u0131r 2. Aile Mahkemesi nezdinde bir hukuk davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015flard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
2. S\u00f6z konusu dava nedeniyle \u00f6denmesi gereken har\u00e7 ve gider avanslar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun olduklar\u0131ndan bahisle adli yard\u0131m talebinde bulunmu\u015flard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Aile Mahkemesi dava nedeniyle \u00f6denmesi gereken har\u00e7 miktar\u0131n\u0131n 237,20 TL, gider avans\u0131n\u0131n ise 1300,00 TL oldu\u011fundan bahisle ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkemelerine sunmu\u015f olduklar\u0131 belgelerden ve \u00f6denmesi gereken tutardan hareketle s\u00f6z konusu mebla\u011f\u0131n \u00f6denmesi durumunda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ge\u00e7imini \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde zor duruma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrece\u011fi konusunda yeterli kanaate ula\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan talebin reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Bu karara ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n yapm\u0131\u015f olduklar\u0131 itiraz\u0131n reddi \u00fczerine s\u00f6z konusu mebla\u011flar ilgililer taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6denmi\u015ftir. Devam\u0131nda Aile Mahkemesi dava konusunun kendi g\u00f6rev alan\u0131na girmedi\u011fini ve dosyan\u0131n asliye hukuk mahkemesinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmesi gerekti\u011finden bahisle davay\u0131 bu mahkemeye y\u00f6nlendirmi\u015f ve asliye hukuk mahkemesinde dava ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n lehine sonu\u00e7lanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. Bireysel ba\u015fvuru dosyas\u0131nda \u00e7o\u011funluk taraf\u0131ndan, mahkemece adli yard\u0131m talebi konusunda karar verilmeden \u00f6nce yeterince ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle ihlal sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. \u00d6ncelikli olarak adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fc noktas\u0131nda yap\u0131lacak ara\u015ft\u0131rman\u0131n niteli\u011fi konusunda 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanununun 336. maddesinde ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmakta olup buradaki d\u00fczenlemeye g\u00f6re, talep sahibinin mali durumuna ili\u015fkin belgeleri mahkemeye sunmas\u0131 gerekmektedir. S\u00f6z konusu d\u00fczenlemeyle; mahkemenin sunulan belgeler \u00fczerinden duru\u015fma a\u00e7maks\u0131z\u0131n karar verece\u011fi, ihtiya\u00e7 halinde duru\u015fma a\u00e7aca\u011f\u0131 ayr\u0131ca verdi\u011fi karar\u0131n itiraza tabi oldu\u011fu hususlar\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcm at\u0131na al\u0131nmaktad\u0131r (HMK. 337.md.).<\/p>\n
7. Bu kanuni d\u00fczenleme \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde \u00f6ncelikli olarak talep sahibinin kendi iddias\u0131n\u0131 ispatlamas\u0131 gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
8. Somut olay\u0131m\u0131zda mahkeme adli yard\u0131m talebini reddederken iki unsura dayanmaktad\u0131r. \u0130lki talep sahiplerinin sunmu\u015f oldu\u011fu belgelerin mahkemeyi ikna edecek mahiyette olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ikinci olarak da \u00f6denmesi gereken toplam miktar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucular a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet do\u011furmayaca\u011f\u0131 hususlar\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Mahkemenin ilk elden yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu bu de\u011ferlendirmenin \u00f6tesine ge\u00e7ilerek kanunda olmamas\u0131na ra\u011fmen mahkemeye resen ara\u015ft\u0131rma k\u00fclfeti y\u00fckleyen \u00e7o\u011funluk yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131na kat\u0131lm\u0131yoruz.<\/p>\n
10. Di\u011fer taraftan konunun bireysel ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131nda incelenmesini gerektirecek kadar anayasal ve bireysel \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda da teredd\u00fctler bulunmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
11. 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un \u201cBireysel ba\u015fvurular\u0131n kabul edilebilirlik \u015fartlar\u0131 ve incelenmesi\u201d kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 48. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda: “Mahkeme, Anayasan\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131 ve yorumlanmas\u0131 veya temel haklar\u0131n kapsam\u0131n\u0131n ve s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131mayan ve ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6nemli bir zarara u\u011framad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvurular ile a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun ba\u015fvurular\u0131n kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verebilir” denilmek suretiyle inceleme konusu yap\u0131lacak hususun ki\u015filer a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan belirli bir a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131k de\u011ferini a\u015fmas\u0131 ve anayasal \u00f6neminin bulunmas\u0131 \u015fartlar\u0131 aranmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
12. Bu iki unsurdan birinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 halinde bireysel ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar vermek gerekmektedir (K.V. [GK], B. No: 2014\/2293, 1\/12\/2016 prg. 66).<\/p>\n
13. Somut olay\u0131m\u0131zda ise 2021 y\u0131l\u0131 itibari ile \u00f6denmesi gereken miktar\u0131n o y\u0131l ge\u00e7erli olan asgari \u00fccretin alt\u0131nda olmas\u0131, ayr\u0131ca konunun anayasal \u00f6nem a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan farkl\u0131la\u015fan bir y\u00f6n\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmamas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fun ihlal y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne i\u015ftirak edilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 26\/3\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/58761 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 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR \u00c7A\u00c7AN S\u0130REK VE TRKO S\u0130REK BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/58761) Karar Tarihi: 26\/3\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : Mehmet Yavuz YA\u015eAR Ba\u015fvurucular : 1. \u00c7a\u00e7an S\u0130REK 2. Trko S\u0130REK Vekili : Av. Ercan KARAN I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, adli yard\u0131m talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. A. Bireysel Ba\u015fvuru S\u00fcreci 2. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n adli yard\u0131m talepli olarak a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 babal\u0131\u011f\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131 davas\u0131nda Diyarbak\u0131r 2. Aile Mahkemesi (Aile Mahkemesi) 29\/9\/2021 tarihli ara karar\u0131 ile adli yard\u0131m talebinin reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Ara karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n kendilerini ve ailelerinin ge\u00e7imini \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde zor duruma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrmeksizin, gereken yarg\u0131lama giderlerini k\u0131smen veya tamamen \u00f6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun oldu\u011funa kanaat getirecek nitelikte mali durumuna ili\u015fkin belgeleri tam olarak sunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, davan\u0131n niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi har\u00e7 ve yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin miktar itibar\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ailesinin ge\u00e7imini zora d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrecek bir miktar olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvurucular, s\u00f6z konusu karara itiraz etmi\u015ftir. 25\/10\/2021 tarihli itiraz dilek\u00e7elerine ilk davay\u0131 a\u00e7arken dilek\u00e7elerine ekledikleri fakirlik ilm\u00fchaberi, tapu ve Sosyal G\u00fcvenlik Kurumu (SGK) kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin belgeleri yeniden eklemi\u015ftir. 4. \u0130tiraz\u0131 inceleyen Diyarbak\u0131r 3. Aile Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) 3\/11\/2021 tarihli kesin karar\u0131 ile itiraz\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. …<\/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-148756","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n