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
D. U. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/33722)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 17\/12\/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
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Duygu KALUK\u00c7U<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Nergis TET\u0130K G\u00d6KMEN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, davan\u0131n husumet yoklu\u011fundan reddine karar verilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Yeralt\u0131 nakliyat i\u015f\u00e7isi olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmakta iken 3\/4\/2015 tarihinde i\u015f akdi feshedilen ba\u015fvurucu, T\u00fcrkiye K\u00f6m\u00fcr \u0130\u015fletmeleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (TTK) ile Arslanlar Maden \u0130n\u015faat Turizm G\u0131da Haz\u0131r Yemek Zirai \u00dcr\u00fcnler \u00d6\u011frenci Yurtlar\u0131 Ticaret Limited \u015eirketi (\u015eirket) aleyhine Zonguldak 2. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) nezdinde i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n tazmini talebiyle dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu; dava dilek\u00e7esinde TTK’ya ait maden ruhsat sahas\u0131nda, TTK ile birlikte faaliyet y\u00fcr\u00fcten \u015firketler nezdinde 28\/3\/2000-2\/3\/2004 tarihleri aras\u0131nda \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, en son daval\u0131 \u015eirket nezdinde ise 12\/3\/2004-3\/4\/2015 tarihleri aras\u0131nda g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, i\u015f akdinin haks\u0131z ve ihbar \u00f6nellerine uyulmaks\u0131z\u0131n feshedildi\u011fini, TTK ile daval\u0131 \u015eirket aras\u0131nda imzalanm\u0131\u015f olan s\u00f6zle\u015fmeler ile kurulan ili\u015fkinin r\u00f6dovans olmay\u0131p as\u0131l i\u015fveren-alt i\u015fveren ili\u015fkisi oldu\u011funu ve bunun da muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f; her iki daval\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131ndan sorumlu oldu\u011funu iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Mahkeme 26\/12\/2018 tarihli karar\u0131 ile TTK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n husumet yoklu\u011fu nedeniyle reddine, \u015eirket y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. \u0130stinaf dilek\u00e7esinde 4\/6\/1985 tarihli ve 3213 say\u0131l\u0131 Maden Kanunu’na 10\/6\/2010 tarihli ve 5995 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 17. maddesi ile eklenen ek 7. maddesi ile r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerine ili\u015fkin d\u00fczenleme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00f6ncesinde ise bu tip s\u00f6zle\u015fmeler ile \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen tarzda maden i\u015fletmeye izin verilmedi\u011fini, zira Kanun’un 5. maddesinde madenlerin b\u00f6l\u00fcnmezli\u011fi ilkesinin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla sahalar\u0131n ancak bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak devredilebilece\u011fini, bu tarihten \u00f6nce ruhsatlar\u0131 b\u00f6lme yetkisinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131 \u015eirkete maden i\u015fletme hak ve yetkisi veren s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin de bu d\u00fczenlemeden \u00f6nce imzaland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu kapsamda s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin usul\u00fcne uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ayr\u0131ca Maden Petrol \u0130\u015fleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden izin al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi h\u00e2lde bu iznin de al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, TTK ile \u015eirket aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkinin muvazaal\u0131 bir alt i\u015fveren ili\u015fkisi oldu\u011funu ve talep edilen alacaklardan m\u00fc\u015ftereken sorumlu olduklar\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
6. Sakarya B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 11. Hukuk Dairesi (B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi) 26\/3\/2021 tarihli karar\u0131 ile temyiz kanun yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun esastan reddine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucunun ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc iddialar tek tek incelenmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re;<\/p>\n
i. R\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin 3213 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 5. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda yer alan maden haklar\u0131n\u0131n b\u00f6l\u00fcnmezli\u011fi ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki iddiaya yer verilmi\u015f; ayn\u0131 maddenin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda maden ruhsatlar\u0131 ve buluculuk hakk\u0131n\u0131n devredilebilece\u011fi hususunun d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi, r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin de bu kapsamdamaden ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n devrini de\u011fil, bu hakk\u0131n bir ba\u015fkas\u0131na belirli bir s\u00fcreyle kulland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
ii. 3213 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ek 7. maddesine g\u00f6re r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin Enerji ve Tabi Kaynaklar Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n (Bakanl\u0131k) iznine tabi oldu\u011fu, izin al\u0131nmaks\u0131z\u0131n d\u00fczenlenen s\u00f6zle\u015fmelere istinaden y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen madencilik faaliyetlerinin durdurulaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ruhsat sahibinin 3213 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’dan do\u011fan sorumluluklar\u0131 nedeniyle denetim yetkisine ili\u015fkin s\u00f6zle\u015fmede bir tak\u0131m h\u00fck\u00fcmlere yer verilmesinin s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fine zarar vermeyece\u011fi; ayr\u0131ca ruhsat sahibinin i\u015fletme hakk\u0131n\u0131 devrederken i\u015fletmede bulunan ara\u00e7 gere\u00e7leri de kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in b\u0131rakabilece\u011fi ve sadece kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda r\u00f6dovans bedeli ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc denetlemek, teslim almak ve \u00fcretime y\u00f6nelik olmayan i\u015f\u00e7i bulundurmak yetkilerine sahip oldu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
iii. R\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin, r\u00f6dovans\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve inisiyatifini tamamen ortadan kald\u0131racak \u015fekilde d\u00fczenlenemeyece\u011fine dikkat \u00e7eken B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi, r\u00f6dovans\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n istedi\u011fi kadar i\u015f\u00e7i al\u0131p \u00e7\u0131kartabilece\u011fini, kanunlara ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmamak \u015fart\u0131yla \u00fcretim s\u00fcrecini istedi\u011fi gibi y\u00f6netebilece\u011fini, vardiyalar olu\u015fturabilece\u011fini, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131 belirleyebilece\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi, ba\u015fvurucunun 12\/2\/2004-31\/12\/2014 tarihleri aras\u0131nda daval\u0131 \u015eirkette \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00f6ncesinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015firketler ile daval\u0131 \u015eirket aras\u0131nda i\u015f yeri devri yahut organik ba\u011f bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu sebeple sadece daval\u0131 \u015eirket nezdindeki \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n esas al\u0131naca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f; dosyada yer alan 27\/12\/2004 tarih 25553 yevmiye No.lu r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine g\u00f6re 17 No.lu sahan\u0131n i\u015fletilme hakk\u0131n\u0131n 10 y\u0131ll\u0131\u011f\u0131na daval\u0131 \u015eirkete b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun da daval\u0131 \u015eirket nezdindeki \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n r\u00f6dovansl\u0131 sahada ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fini tespit etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun muvazaa iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak Mahkeme, ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn ba\u015fvurucuda oldu\u011funu belirterek dosya kapsam\u0131nda dinlenen ba\u015fvurucu tan\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n beyanlar\u0131ndan \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131lan maden oca\u011f\u0131nda TTK i\u015f\u00e7ilerinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, sadece \u015eirket \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu, kulland\u0131klar\u0131 ara\u00e7 ve gere\u00e7lerin \u015eirkete ait oldu\u011fu, maden oca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n giri\u015finde veya \u00e7evresinde TTK’ya ait bina ya da tesis bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, TTK’dan denetime gelindi\u011fini belirtmeleri nedenleriyle TTK ile \u015eirket aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkinin muvazaal\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Nihai olarak B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi, TTK ile \u015eirket aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkinin en ba\u015f\u0131ndan bu yana ge\u00e7erli bir r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, as\u0131l i\u015fveren-alt i\u015fveren ili\u015fkisinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 10\/6\/2010 tarihi \u00f6ncesi ve sonras\u0131 \u015feklinde bir ayr\u0131m yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmesi ile TTK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden husumet nedeniyle davan\u0131n reddi karar\u0131nda usul ve kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir durum bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 temyiz talebinde bulunmu\u015fsa de Yarg\u0131tay 9. Hukuk Dairesinin 10\/6\/2021 tarihli karar\u0131 ile temyiz konusu miktar\u0131n kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 alt\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle talebi reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Nihai karar ba\u015fvurucu vekiline 1\/7\/2021 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu 28\/7\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
10. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
12. \u00d6deme 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
13. Ba\u015fvurucu; davan\u0131n adil bir \u015fekilde y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmedi\u011fini, somut olay\u0131n ve ilgili hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n hatal\u0131 de\u011ferlendirildi\u011fini, TTK ile daval\u0131 \u015eirket aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkinin as\u0131l i\u015fveren-alt i\u015fveren ili\u015fkisi oldu\u011funu ve bu ili\u015fkinin de muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011funu, zira 10\/6\/2010 tarihinden \u00f6nce 3213 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri ile maden sahas\u0131 i\u015fletmeye izin vermedi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f; ispata elveri\u015fli deliller toplanmaks\u0131z\u0131n yarg\u0131laman\u0131n neticelendirildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, ayr\u0131ca bu y\u00f6nde i\u00e7tihadi anlamda birli\u011fin de sa\u011flanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, iddialar\u0131n\u0131 do\u011frular nitelikte Yarg\u0131tay 21. ve 22. Hukuk dairelerinin emsal kararlar\u0131 oldu\u011fu h\u00e2lde herhangi bir gerek\u00e7eye yer verilmeksizin aksi y\u00f6nde kararlar verildi\u011fini, bu durumun ayn\u0131 i\u015fyerinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan di\u011fer i\u015f\u00e7iler y\u00f6n\u00fcnden TTK’n\u0131n sorumlulu\u011fu kabul ediliyorken taraf\u0131na y\u00f6nelik farkl\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131na neden oldu\u011funu iddia etmi\u015f ve adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n, gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 ile e\u015fitlik ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
14. 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\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fcn TTK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n husumet yoklu\u011fu nedeniyle reddinin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu hususuna ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finden ba\u015fvuru mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. 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
16. 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\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bir unsurudur (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2014\/13156, 20\/4\/2017, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvurucunun muvazaa iddias\u0131na dayal\u0131 olarak TTK ve \u015eirket’e kar\u015f\u0131 m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen sorumlu olduklar\u0131 iddias\u0131yla a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n TTK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden husumet nedeniyle reddinin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, kural olarak mutlak bir hak olmay\u0131p s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131labilen bir hakt\u0131r. Bununla birlikte s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rman\u0131n kanuna dayanmas\u0131, me\u015fru amac\u0131n\u0131n bulunmas\u0131 ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmas\u0131 gerekir (Serkan Acar, B. No: 2013\/1613, 2\/10\/2013, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucunun davas\u0131n\u0131n husumetten reddine dair karar\u0131n 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun “Dava \u015fartlar\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 114. maddesi ile “Dava \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesi” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 115. maddelerine dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Buna g\u00f6re taraflar\u0131n, taraf ve dava ehliyetine sahip olmalar\u0131 bir dava \u015fart\u0131 olarak say\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve dava \u015fart\u0131 yoklu\u011fu halinde davan\u0131n usulden reddine karar verilece\u011fi d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Bu itibarla somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n mevcut oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. Davan\u0131n husumetten reddine ili\u015fkin kural\u0131n amac\u0131, davan\u0131n do\u011fru has\u0131ma a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamak ve bu suretle yarg\u0131laman\u0131n gereksiz yere s\u00fcr\u00fcncemede kalmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nlemektir. Davan\u0131n husumetten reddine ili\u015fkin bu d\u00fczenlemenin yarg\u0131laman\u0131n makul s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde tamamlanmas\u0131n\u0131 temine y\u00f6nelik bir \u00e7are oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla somut olaydaki m\u00fcdahalenin me\u015fru bir amaca dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r (Halil G\u00fcler, B. No: 2015\/11002, 3\/7\/2018, \u00a7 37).<\/p>\n
21. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da incelenmelidir. \u00d6l\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 ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli olmas\u0131n\u0131, gereklilik ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen 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.2014\/176, K.2015\/53, 27\/5\/2015; E.2016\/13, K.2016\/127, 22\/6\/2016; Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
22. Dava hakk\u0131n\u0131n ba\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 usul kurallar\u0131na uyulmamas\u0131 nedeniyle uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n esas\u0131 hakk\u0131nda karar verilmemesi suretiyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin usul ekonomisi ile iyi adalet y\u00f6netimi ilkesinin sa\u011flanarak kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan elveri\u015fli ve gerekli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenemez (Ahmet Erdem, B. No: 2018\/34944, 6\/10\/2021, \u00a7 63). Somut olaydaki m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn de\u011ferlendirilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan as\u0131l \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131yan \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct ise orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu itibarla uygulanan tedbirle ba\u015fvurucuya a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 ve orant\u0131s\u0131z bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklenip y\u00fcklenmedi\u011finin tespiti gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
23. Hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n ne \u015fekilde yorumlanaca\u011f\u0131 veya birden fazla yorumunun m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fu durumlarda bu yorumlardan hangisinin benimsenece\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerinin yetkisinde olan bir husustur. Anayasa Mahkemesinin bireysel ba\u015fvuruda yarg\u0131 mercilerince benimsenen yorumlardan birine \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fck tan\u0131mas\u0131 veya yarg\u0131 mercilerinin yerine ge\u00e7erek hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131 yorumlamas\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvurunun amac\u0131yla ba\u011fda\u015fmaz. Anayasa Mahkemesinin kanunilik ilkesi ba\u011flam\u0131ndaki g\u00f6revi, hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n birden fazla yorumunun hukuki belirlilik ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilirli\u011fi etkileyip etkilemedi\u011fini tespit etmektir (Mehmet Arif Madenci, B. No: 2014\/13916, 12\/1\/2017, \u00a7 81).<\/p>\n
24. 3213 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a 10\/6\/2010 tarihinde eklenen ek madde 7 ile “Ruhsat sahipleri ile \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filer aras\u0131nda r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn iznine tabidir. \u0130zin al\u0131nmaks\u0131z\u0131n yap\u0131lan r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen madencilik faaliyetleri durdurulur.” h\u00fckm\u00fc getirilmi\u015ftir. 5995 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun ile getirilen d\u00fczenlemenin taslaktaki h\u00e2li ise \u015fu \u015fekildedir: “Maden ruhsat sahiplerinin, ruhsat sahalar\u0131n\u0131n bir k\u0131sm\u0131nda veya tamam\u0131nda \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerle yapm\u0131\u015f olduklar\u0131 r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde, bu alanlarda yap\u0131lacak madencilik faaliyetlerinden do\u011facak \u0130\u015f Kanunu, i\u015f sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi ile ilgili idari, mali ve hukuki sorumluluklar r\u00f6dovans\u00e7\u0131ya aittir. Ancak bu durum ruhsat sahibinin Maden Kanunundan do\u011fan sorumluluklar\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131rmaz.\u201dBu d\u00fczenleme daha sonra 4\/2\/2015 tarihli ve 6592 say\u0131l\u0131 Maden Kanunu ile Baz\u0131 Kanunlarda De\u011fi\u015fiklik Yap\u0131lmas\u0131na Dair Kanun’un 22. maddesi ile ek 7. maddenin d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131 olarak 3213 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a eklenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
25. An\u0131lan kanuni d\u00fczenlenmenin yorumlanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin ba\u015fvurucu, Yarg\u0131tay 22. Hukuk Dairesinin 16\/6\/2018 tarihli ve E. 2017\/14086, K. 2018\/15806 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile 20\/12\/2018 tarihli E.2017\/21666, K.2018\/27957 say\u0131l\u0131 onama kararlar\u0131na i\u015faret etmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan kararlarda Daire, ilk derece mahkemelerinin, 10\/6\/2010 tarihinde r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile i\u015fletilen madenlere y\u00f6nelik yeni bir d\u00fczenleme getirilmi\u015f ise de i\u015f\u00e7inin \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma s\u00fcresi de\u011fi\u015fiklik \u00f6ncesi d\u00f6neme denk geldi\u011finde TTK Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn i\u015fcilik alacaklar\u0131ndan -r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesindeki h\u00fck\u00fcmler gere\u011fi kontrol yetkisi oldu\u011fundan- as\u0131l i\u015fveren olarak sorumlu tutulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki de\u011ferlendirmelerini isabetli bulmu\u015ftur. \u00d6te yandan, Mahkeme ise yine Yarg\u0131tay 22. Hukuk Dairesine ait 19\/6\/2018 tarihli ve E. 2018\/6969, K. 2018\/15130 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6zeterek davan\u0131n TTK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden husumet yoklu\u011fu nedeniyle reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan kararda Daire; somut olayda imzalanan s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin h\u00fck\u00fcmlerini incelemi\u015f, bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131rm\u0131\u015f; bu kapsamda TTK taraf\u0131ndan \u015firket i\u015f\u00e7ileri \u00fczerinde y\u00f6netim hakk\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yap\u0131lan i\u015fte kullan\u0131lan ara\u00e7 gere\u00e7lerin TTK’ya ait olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, TTK taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan denetimlerin s\u00fcrekli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi yap\u0131lan \u00fcretime y\u00f6nelik bir denetim de olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, TTK’ya tan\u0131nan yetkilerin denetim ve koordinasyon s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131 a\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit ederek TTK ile \u015firket aras\u0131ndaki s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi oldu\u011funu, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ge\u00e7erli bir r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumunda 10\/6\/2010 tarihi \u00f6ncesi ve sonras\u0131 \u015feklinde bir ayr\u0131m yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n ruhsat sahibinin, r\u00f6dovans\u00e7\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7ilerinin i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131ndan sorumlu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilmesi gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
26. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, 2022 y\u0131l\u0131 May\u0131s ay\u0131nda \u00f6n\u00fcne gelen pek \u00e7ok uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta, as\u0131l i\u015fveren-alt i\u015fveren ili\u015fkisi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 22\/5\/2003 tarihli ve 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015f Kanunu’nda yer alan genel d\u00fczenlemelerin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra bu h\u00fck\u00fcmlere istisna te\u015fkil eder \u015fekilde daha \u00f6zel bir kanun h\u00fckm\u00fc bulundu\u011fu takdirde bu ili\u015fkinin ko\u015fullar\u0131 ve kurulmu\u015f say\u0131l\u0131p say\u0131lmayaca\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden istisna te\u015fkil eden \u00f6zel kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn uygulama \u00f6nceli\u011fine sahip olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f; bu kapsamda 24\/6\/2010 tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren de\u011fi\u015fiklikle 3213 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ek 7. maddesi ile y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerine de\u011finmi\u015ftir. Kanun\u00ee bir altyap\u0131ya kavu\u015fturulmu\u015f ve maden ruhsat sahiplerinin, ruhsat sahalar\u0131n\u0131n bir k\u0131sm\u0131nda veya tamam\u0131nda \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerle yapt\u0131klar\u0131 r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde, bu alanlarda yap\u0131lacak madencilik faaliyetlerinden do\u011facak \u0130\u015f Kanunu, i\u015f sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi ile ilgili idari, mal\u00ee ve hukuk\u00ee sorumluluklar\u0131n r\u00f6dovans\u00e7\u0131ya ait oldu\u011funu, ancak bu durumun ruhsat sahibinin Maden Kanunu’ndan do\u011fan sorumluluklar\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131rmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir (\u00e7ok say\u0131da karar aras\u0131ndan bkz. 31\/5\/2022 tarihli ve E.2022\/439, K.2022\/781 say\u0131l\u0131 karar; 24\/5\/2022 tarihli ve E.2022\/431, 2022\/713 say\u0131l\u0131 karar; 17\/5\/2022 tarihli ve E.2022\/321, K.2022\/650 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131).<\/p>\n
27. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu i\u00e7tihad\u0131na g\u00f6re ge\u00e7erli bir r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi mevcut ise art\u0131k as\u0131l i\u015fveren-alt i\u015fveren ili\u015fkisinden bahsedilemeyecektir. Somut olayda da yarg\u0131lama mercilerince ba\u015fvurucunun uhdesinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015eirket ile TTK aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkinin r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, gelen m\u00fczekkere cevaplar\u0131n\u0131, dinlenen tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131, bilirki\u015fi raporu ve SGK kay\u0131tlar\u0131 ile daval\u0131 TTK ile ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7ti\u011fi daval\u0131 ve dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u015firketler ile yap\u0131lan r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerini ve kapsam\u0131 sair taraf delillerini dosyaya getirerek belirtilen kanaate varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun aksi y\u00f6nde ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc itirazlar, hem ilk derece mahkemesince hem de B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 incelenmi\u015f veher bir iddiaya cevap verilmek suretiyle davan\u0131n husumet yoklu\u011fundan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 4-6). Ba\u015fvurucunun bu kapsamdaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131n somut olay\u0131n ve hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu, gerek\u00e7eli kararlarda ise bariz takdir hatas\u0131 yahut keyf\u00eelik te\u015fkil eden bir durumun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
28. Ba\u015fvurucunun uhdesinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015eirket aleyhine dava a\u00e7ma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu, nitekim bu kapsamda a\u00e7\u0131lan davalar\u0131n da kabul edildi\u011fi, TTK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden husumet nedeniyle davan\u0131n reddine dair karar\u0131n ise kat\u0131 ve \u015fekilci bir de\u011ferlendirmeye dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilirlik s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7inde oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla husumet yoklu\u011fundan davan\u0131n reddedilmesi suretiyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin, elde edilmek istenen kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 ile kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucuya orant\u0131s\u0131z bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklemedi\u011fi, bu itibarla ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
29. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucunun 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 edilmedi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Adli yard\u0131m talebinin KABUL\u00dcNE,<\/p>\n
B. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
C. 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\u0130LMED\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 339. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca tahsil edilmesi ma\u011fduriyetine neden olaca\u011f\u0131ndan adli yard\u0131m talebi kabul edilen ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131lama giderlerini \u00f6demekten TAMAMEN MUAF TUTULMASINA,<\/p>\n
E. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 17\/12\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 17\/12\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/33722 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 D. U. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/33722) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 17\/12\/2024 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Duygu KALUK\u00c7U Ba\u015fvurucu : Vekili : Av. Nergis TET\u0130K G\u00d6KMEN \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, davan\u0131n husumet yoklu\u011fundan reddine karar verilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Yeralt\u0131 nakliyat i\u015f\u00e7isi olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmakta iken 3\/4\/2015 tarihinde i\u015f akdi feshedilen ba\u015fvurucu, T\u00fcrkiye K\u00f6m\u00fcr \u0130\u015fletmeleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (TTK) ile Arslanlar Maden \u0130n\u015faat Turizm G\u0131da Haz\u0131r Yemek Zirai \u00dcr\u00fcnler \u00d6\u011frenci Yurtlar\u0131 Ticaret Limited \u015eirketi (\u015eirket) aleyhine Zonguldak 2. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) nezdinde i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n tazmini talebiyle dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu; dava dilek\u00e7esinde TTK’ya ait maden ruhsat sahas\u0131nda, TTK ile birlikte faaliyet y\u00fcr\u00fcten \u015firketler nezdinde 28\/3\/2000-2\/3\/2004 tarihleri aras\u0131nda \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, en son daval\u0131 \u015eirket nezdinde ise 12\/3\/2004-3\/4\/2015 tarihleri aras\u0131nda g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, i\u015f akdinin haks\u0131z ve ihbar \u00f6nellerine uyulmaks\u0131z\u0131n feshedildi\u011fini, TTK ile daval\u0131 \u015eirket aras\u0131nda imzalanm\u0131\u015f olan s\u00f6zle\u015fmeler ile kurulan ili\u015fkinin r\u00f6dovans olmay\u0131p as\u0131l i\u015fveren-alt i\u015fveren ili\u015fkisi oldu\u011funu ve bunun da muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f; her iki daval\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131ndan sorumlu …<\/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-30944","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n