T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
AG\u0130T DEM\u0130R BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/9274)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 30\/10\/2024<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Volkan \u00c7AKMAK<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Agit DEM\u0130R<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Veysel VESEK<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, kamuya a\u00e7\u0131k alanda bulunarak \u00f6zel konutun bah\u00e7esine getirilen paket i\u00e7inde bulunan patlay\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n infilak etmesi sonucu meydana gelen ciddi yaralanma ve bu olay temelinde a\u00e7\u0131lan manevi tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131smen reddi nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, orta \u00f6\u011fretim 11. s\u0131n\u0131fa devam etti\u011fi d\u00f6nemde 17\/12\/2014 tarihinde \u015e\u0131rnak’\u0131n Cizre il\u00e7esinde okul \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131 eve d\u00f6nerken yol \u00fczerinde buldu\u011fu, \u00fczeri koli bantlar\u0131yla sar\u0131lm\u0131\u015f paketi cebine koyarak evine g\u00f6t\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Evlerinin bah\u00e7esinde paketi a\u00e7maya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan ba\u015fvurucu, paketin infilak etmesi sonucu a\u011f\u0131r \u015fekilde yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yakla\u015f\u0131k yirmi g\u00fcn s\u00fcren tedavisinin ard\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun sol eline bilek k\u0131sm\u0131ndan amp\u00fctasyon i\u015flemi uygulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Daha sonra s\u00f6z konusu paketin el yap\u0131m\u0131 bomba oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu, Mardin 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) nezdinde olay nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 manevi zarar\u0131n tazmini i\u00e7in tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, dava dilek\u00e7esinde kusur sorumlulu\u011fu ba\u011flam\u0131nda bir iddia da bulunmam\u0131\u015f ise de idarenin savunmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 verdi\u011fi dilek\u00e7eyle idarenin kusuru oldu\u011fu, kamu g\u00fcvenli\u011finin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in gereken \u00f6nlemlerin al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde a\u00e7\u0131klamalar yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme 22\/2\/2019 tarihli karar\u0131yla olayda eylem ve zarar aras\u0131nda illiyet ba\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmesine kar\u015f\u0131n kusur y\u00f6n\u00fcnden a\u00e7\u0131k bir belirleme yapmadan sosyal risk ilkesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ba\u015fvurucuya 30.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, istinaf talebinde bulunurken idarenin kusuruna dair iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir. Gaziantep B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc \u0130dari Dava Dairesi 31\/12\/2020 tarihinde h\u00fckm\u00fcn hukuka ve usule uygun oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle istinaf istemini reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai karar\u0131 29\/1\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frenmesinin ard\u0131ndan 26\/2\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
5. Komisyon ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemelerinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucunun adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
A. Ya\u015fam Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia <\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu; yaralanman\u0131n ya\u015fam\u0131 korumaya ili\u015fkin pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn yerine getirilmemesinden ve g\u00fcvenlik \u00f6nlemi al\u0131nmamas\u0131ndan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, tazminat\u0131n yetersiz oldu\u011funu belirterek anayasal haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, somut s\u00fcre\u00e7, ilgili mevzuat ve insan haklar\u0131 yarg\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7tihad\u0131 detayl\u0131 olarak aktar\u0131lm\u0131\u015f; adli makamlar\u0131n ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131l\u0131rken bu hususlar\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi bildirilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Anayasa Mahkemesinin yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihad\u0131na g\u00f6re bir olayda ya\u015fam hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin ilkelerin uygulanabilmesi i\u00e7in gerekli \u015fartlardan biri do\u011fal olmayan bir \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesi olmakla birlikte baz\u0131 durumlarda \u00f6l\u00fcm ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmese dahi olay\u0131n ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenebilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olup bu inceleme yap\u0131l\u0131rken eylemin potansiyel olarak \u00f6ld\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc nitelikte olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, maruz kal\u0131nan eylemin ma\u011fdurun fiziki b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fczerindeki sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir (Mehmet Karada\u011f, B. No: 2013\/2030, 26\/6\/2014, \u00a7 20; Yasin A\u011fca, B. No: 2014\/13163, 11\/5\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 10, 109). Uygulanabilirlik ve incelemenin kapsam\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu, hayatta olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen ba\u015fvuruya konu olay\u0131n ciddi bir yaralanmaya sebep olmas\u0131, hayati risk ta\u015f\u0131yan bir patlama olmas\u0131, tazminat davas\u0131nda da sosyal risk ilkesi kapsam\u0131nda h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 nedeniyle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n ya\u015fam hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (benzer de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. Ali H\u0131d\u0131r Tekin, B. No: 2018\/35243, 15\/9\/2021; Murat Or\u00e7un \u00c7al\u0131\u015f, B. No: 2018\/24472, 7\/10\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 32-40; Mustafa \u00c7etin, B. No: 2019\/3290, 17\/11\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 22-31).<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvuru, kabul edilebilirlik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ele al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlaline kasten sebebiyet verilmedi\u011fi h\u00e2llerde -baz\u0131 istisnalar\u0131 bulunsa da- idari makamlar veya yarg\u0131 mercileri taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6z itibar\u0131yla ihlalin tespit edilmesi ve tazminat olarak \u00f6denmesine karar verilen mebla\u011f\u0131n Anayasa Mahkemesinin benzer ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 ihlallerinde h\u00fckmetti\u011fi mebla\u011flarla uyumlu olmas\u0131 gerekir (Hasan K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7, \u00a7 42). \u0130dare mahkemesi belirli bir miktar tazminata h\u00fckmetse de ya\u015fam\u0131 koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir tespitte bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu nedenle \u0130dare Mahkemesinin sosyal risk ilkesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ba\u015fvurucu lehine h\u00fckmetti\u011fi manevi tazminat, incelemeye konu ihlal iddias\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurucunun ma\u011fdur s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131rmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvuruda herhangi bir kabul edilemezlik nedeni tespit edilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
11. Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131 anayasal bir hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcren herkese hakk\u0131n niteli\u011fine uygun olarak iddialar\u0131n\u0131 inceletebilece\u011fi makul, eri\u015filebilir, ihlalin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesini veya s\u00fcrmesini engellemeye ya da sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131rmaya (yeterli giderim sa\u011flamaya) elveri\u015fli idari ve yarg\u0131sal yollara ba\u015fvuruda bulunabilme imk\u00e2n\u0131 sa\u011flar. Bunun i\u00e7in s\u00f6z\u00fc edilen ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n sadece hukuken mevcut olmas\u0131 yeterli olmay\u0131p uygulamada da etkili olmas\u0131, e\u015f ifadeyle ba\u015far\u0131 \u015fans\u0131 sunmas\u0131 gerekir. Toplumun genelinin ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131 tehdit eden ger\u00e7ek ve yak\u0131n bir tehlikenin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bilindi\u011fi ya da bilinmesi gerekti\u011fi bir durumda kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n makul \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ve bu tehlikenin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesini \u00f6nleyebilecek \u015fekilde \u00f6nlemler almad\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131yla a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131nda olay\u0131n kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n kusuruyla meydana geldi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik iddia konusunda herhangi bir inceleme yap\u0131lmadan meselenin kusursuz sorumluluk \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ele al\u0131nmas\u0131, ya\u015fam hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlaline neden olabilir. Zira genel anlamda kusura dayanan ihlali tespit edip buna g\u00f6re giderim sa\u011flayabilecek ve benzer olaylarda idari mercilerce al\u0131nabilecek tedbirlerin neler oldu\u011funu ortaya koyabilecek nitelikte oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in etkili olan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 yolu, kusur de\u011ferlendirilmesi yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in bir olayda etkili olmam\u0131\u015f ve davac\u0131ya ba\u015far\u0131 \u015fans\u0131 sunmam\u0131\u015f olur (Yusuf Ahmed Abdelaz\u0131m Elsayad, B. No: 2016\/5604, 24\/5\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 60, 61; Ali H\u0131d\u0131r Tekin, \u00a7 49).<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucu; a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131nda ya\u015fam\u0131 korumaya ili\u015fkin pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn yerine getirilmemesinden, g\u00fcvenlik \u00f6nlemi al\u0131nmamas\u0131ndan ve sivillerin uyar\u0131lmamas\u0131ndan yak\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.\u0130dare Mahkemesi, olayda zarar ile eylem aras\u0131nda illiyet olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmesine kar\u015f\u0131n genel koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi (idarenin kusurunun bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131) y\u00f6n\u00fcnde herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmadan sosyal risk ilkesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ba\u015fvurucu lehine tazminata h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, istinaf talebine ili\u015fkin dilek\u00e7esinde idarenin hizmet kusuru oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015f ise de hizmet kusuruna dair bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmadan istinaf talebi reddedilmi\u015ftir. Olay\u0131n somut ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n idarenin g\u00fcvenlik hizmetinin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir idari kusuru olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmas\u0131na engel te\u015fkil etmedi\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
13. \u0130dari yarg\u0131 mercileri ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden teoride ve uygulamada etkili olan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 yolunu, meseleyi yaln\u0131zca sosyal risk ilkesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ele almak kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n kusurunun\/ya\u015fam\u0131 koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u011flam\u0131nda bir ihmalinin bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir ara\u015ft\u0131rma\/de\u011ferlendirme yapmamak suretiyle etkisiz k\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve bunun bir sonucu olarak ya\u015fam\u0131 koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011finin tespit edilebilmesi ad\u0131naba\u015fvurucuya makul bir ba\u015far\u0131 \u015fans\u0131 sunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ula\u015f\u0131lan bu sonu\u00e7 nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun lehine h\u00fckmedilen manevi tazminat\u0131n yetersiz oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin iddias\u0131 hakk\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. Di\u011fer taraftan ula\u015f\u0131lan bu sonu\u00e7 olayda idarenin bir kusurunun\/ihmalinin bulundu\u011fu anlam\u0131na gelmemekte olup bu husustakide\u011ferlendirme ve takdir olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131 ve ilgili hukuk \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde yarg\u0131 mercilerine aittir.<\/p>\n
15. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 17. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131yla 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
B. Adil Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131 Kapsam\u0131nda Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
16. Ba\u015fvurucu, tazminata ili\u015fkin ilk ba\u015fvuru dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda s\u00fcrecin be\u015f y\u0131ldan uzun s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, somut s\u00fcre\u00e7, ilgili mevzuat ve insan haklar\u0131 yarg\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7tihad\u0131 detayl\u0131 olarak aktar\u0131lm\u0131\u015f; de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131l\u0131rken bu hususlar\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. 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
18. Somut ba\u015fvuruda, 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 ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer kabul edilebilirlik \u015fartlar\u0131 incelenmeksizin ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ile birlikte toplamda 360.000 TL tazminat \u00f6denmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
20. 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), 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
21. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131yla 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\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Adli yard\u0131m talebinin KABUL\u00dcNE,<\/p>\n
B. 1. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131yla 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
2. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA, <\/p>\n
C. Anayasa’n\u0131n 17. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 40. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin ya\u015fam hakk\u0131yla 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 Mardin 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2018\/189, K.2019\/148) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. \u00d6demenin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
H. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 30\/10\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 30\/10\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/9274 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 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 AG\u0130T DEM\u0130R BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/9274) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 30\/10\/2024 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : Volkan \u00c7AKMAK Ba\u015fvurucu : Agit DEM\u0130R Vekili : Av. Veysel VESEK \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru, kamuya a\u00e7\u0131k alanda bulunarak \u00f6zel konutun bah\u00e7esine getirilen paket i\u00e7inde bulunan patlay\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n infilak etmesi sonucu meydana gelen ciddi yaralanma ve bu olay temelinde a\u00e7\u0131lan manevi tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131smen reddi nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, orta \u00f6\u011fretim 11. s\u0131n\u0131fa devam etti\u011fi d\u00f6nemde 17\/12\/2014 tarihinde \u015e\u0131rnak’\u0131n Cizre il\u00e7esinde okul \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131 eve d\u00f6nerken yol \u00fczerinde buldu\u011fu, \u00fczeri koli bantlar\u0131yla sar\u0131lm\u0131\u015f paketi cebine koyarak evine g\u00f6t\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Evlerinin bah\u00e7esinde paketi a\u00e7maya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan ba\u015fvurucu, paketin infilak etmesi sonucu a\u011f\u0131r \u015fekilde yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yakla\u015f\u0131k yirmi g\u00fcn s\u00fcren tedavisinin ard\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun sol eline bilek k\u0131sm\u0131ndan amp\u00fctasyon i\u015flemi uygulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Daha sonra s\u00f6z konusu paketin el yap\u0131m\u0131 bomba oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu, Mardin 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) nezdinde olay nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 manevi zarar\u0131n tazmini i\u00e7in tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, dava dilek\u00e7esinde kusur sorumlulu\u011fu ba\u011flam\u0131nda bir …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25886","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n