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
KEREM DO\u011eAN BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/40248)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 11\/12\/2024<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/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
Eren Can BENAKAY<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Kerem DO\u011eAN<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Cengiz ATAYILMAZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; i\u015f kazas\u0131ndan kaynaklanan tazminat davas\u0131nda \u0131slah talebinin zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, i\u015f\u00e7i olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktayken 29\/4\/2000 tarihinde i\u015f kazas\u0131 ge\u00e7irmi\u015f ve yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu, i\u015f kazas\u0131n\u0131n \u00fczerinden d\u00f6rt y\u0131l ge\u00e7tikten sonra 28\/6\/2004 tarihinde i\u015f kazas\u0131 nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zararlar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla i\u015fverene kar\u015f\u0131 \u0130stanbul Anadolu 2. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak \u00fczere tedavi ve ameliyat masraflar\u0131 i\u00e7in 1.000 TL, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 aylara ait kazan\u00e7 kayb\u0131 i\u00e7in 1.000 TL, i\u015f g\u00fcc\u00fc kayb\u0131ndan \u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fc 1.000 TL ve \u00e7ekti\u011fi ac\u0131lar sebebi ile manevi tazminat olarak 10.000 TL maddi ve manevi tazminat talepli dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 23\/2\/2011 tarihinde davas\u0131n\u0131 \u0131slah eden ba\u015fvurucu 71.585 TL’nin daval\u0131dan tahsilini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Mahkeme 20\/10\/2011 tarihli kararla tazminat taleplerini k\u0131smen kabul etmi\u015f; 48.989 TL maddi tazminat ile takdiren 5.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde olaya ili\u015fkin d\u00fczenlenen 13\/9\/2010 tarihli rapor ile davac\u0131n\u0131n %20, daval\u0131 i\u015fverenin %80 oran\u0131nda kusurlu oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131n\u0131n maluliyetinin ise SGK raporuna g\u00f6re %11,2 oran\u0131nda oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. 21\/1\/2011 tarihli hesap bilirki\u015fisinden al\u0131nan raporda ise davac\u0131n\u0131n maddi zarar\u0131n\u0131n 90.021,95 TL oldu\u011fu, bu zarardan SGK taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6denen son pe\u015fin sermaye de\u011feri d\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmesi ve yine bu rakam \u00fczerinden de davac\u0131n\u0131n olayda %11,2 oran\u0131nda maluliyetinin olmas\u0131 ve sonu\u00e7 \u00e7\u0131kan rakamdan %30 oran\u0131nda hakkaniyet indirimine gidilerek \u00f6denmesi gereken maddi tazminat\u0131n 48.989 TL olarak hesapland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir. Son olarak davac\u0131n\u0131n kaza nedeniyle duydu\u011fu \u00fcz\u00fcnt\u00fc nedeniyle 5.000 TL manevi tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesi gerekti\u011fini aktarm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. Temyiz \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 21. Hukuk Dairesi 19\/11\/2012 tarihinde bozma karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Kararda; davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan 23\/2\/2011 tarihinde maddi tazminatt\u0131n \u0131slahen art\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik talebine, s\u00fcresi i\u00e7erisinde daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 definin kabul edilerek \u0131slahen istenilen miktarlara ili\u015fkin tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekirken, \u0131slahen istenilen miktar\u0131 da kapsar bi\u00e7imde tazminat talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesinin usul ve kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Mahkeme 7\/3\/2013 tarihinde bozma karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 direnerek 48.989 TL maddi tazminat ile takdiren 5.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine yeniden karar vermi\u015ftir. Kararda, insana verilen zararlarda zarar\u0131 \u00f6\u011frenmenin manas\u0131 \u00fczerinde durulmas\u0131 gerekmesi nedeniyle davac\u0131n\u0131n zarar verici olay\u0131 sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 ve kesinle\u015fen durumu de\u011ferlendirebilecek bilgiye sahip olmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nemli oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Bu sebeplerle zarar\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenme tarihinin; i\u015f g\u00f6remezlik oran\u0131na ili\u015fkin raporun d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini ve bu raporun \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi tarihler, maluliyet oran\u0131n\u0131 tespit eden sa\u011fl\u0131k kurulu raporu, kesin maluliyetin belirlendi\u011fi tarih oldu\u011funu ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu 5\/2\/2019 tarihinde Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n bozulmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Kararda, dava konusu i\u015f kazas\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi 29\/4\/2000 tarihinde zarar ortaya \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015f olup sonras\u0131nda de\u011fi\u015fen ve geli\u015fen bir durum bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihinin i\u015f kazas\u0131n\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fi 29\/4\/2000 tarihi olarak kabul edilmesi gerekti\u011fini ve bu nedenle de davac\u0131 vekilinin 23\/2\/2011 tarihinde \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esiyle talep etti\u011fi tazminat miktar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011finden bu talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Mahkeme, bozma karar\u0131na uyarak davay\u0131 k\u0131smen kabul etmi\u015ftir. Kararda, dava dilek\u00e7esinde i\u015f kazas\u0131 sonucu u\u011fran\u0131lan maddi zarar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 olarak toplam 3.000 TL maddi tazminat talebinde bulunuldu\u011funu, dava tarihi itibar\u0131yla s\u00f6z konusu maddi tazminat tutar\u0131n\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011framad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Buradan hareketle maddi tazminat olarak 3.000 TL ve manevi tazminat olarak tayin ve takdir olunan5.000 TL’nin i\u015f kazas\u0131 tarihi olan 29\/4\/2000 tarihinden i\u015fleyecek ve hesaplanacak yasal faizi ile daval\u0131dan al\u0131narak davac\u0131ya verilmesi gerekti\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucunun temyiz istemi, Yarg\u0131tay 10. Hukuk Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan 11\/11\/2020 tarihinde reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucuya 25\/11\/2020 tarihinde karar tebli\u011f edilmi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu 9\/12\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
11. Komisyon taraf\u0131ndan 15\/12\/2023 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131n\u0131, ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez olarak de\u011ferlendirildikten sonra ba\u015fvurunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucu; ya\u015fan\u0131lan kazan\u0131n i\u015f kazas\u0131 olarak tespitinin olay tarihi itibar\u0131yla m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte dahi maluliyet ve i\u015f kazas\u0131na ili\u015fkin gerekli tespitlerin yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f oldu\u011funu, yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporu ile olay\u0131n i\u015f kazas\u0131 oldu\u011funun anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek \u0131slah talebinin zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddedilmesinin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
14. 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
15. 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. Di\u011fer yandan Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesine adil yarg\u0131lanma ibaresinin eklenmesine ili\u015fkin gerek\u00e7ede, T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin 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 (A\u0130HM), 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., \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
16. Anayasa Mahkemesi, bireysel ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131nda yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmelerde mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n 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 geldi\u011fini, ki\u015finin mahkemeye ba\u015fvurmas\u0131n\u0131 engelleyen veya mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 anlams\u0131z h\u00e2le getiren, bir ba\u015fka anlat\u0131mla mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde etkisizle\u015ftiren s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilece\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir (\u00d6zkan \u015een, B. No: 2012\/791, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
17. Dava a\u00e7may\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z k\u0131lacak ya da a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 zorla\u015ft\u0131racak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde k\u0131sa olmad\u0131k\u00e7a dava a\u00e7ma ya da kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvurma i\u00e7in belli s\u00fcrelerin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesi hukuki belirlilik ilkesinin bir gere\u011fidir ve tek ba\u015f\u0131na bu durum mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olu\u015fturmaz (Remzi Durmaz, B. No: 2013\/1718, 2\/10\/2013, \u00a7 27). Bu nedenle usul kurallar\u0131n\u0131 uygularken mahkemelerin yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetine zarar getirecek \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kat\u0131 \u015fekilcilikten ve kanunla \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f usul \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kalkmas\u0131na neden olacak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 esneklikten ka\u00e7\u0131nmalar\u0131 gerekir (Kamil Ko\u00e7, B. No: 2012\/660, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 65).<\/p>\n
18. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu 29\/4\/2000 tarihinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen i\u015f kazas\u0131ndan sonra 28\/6\/2004 tarihinde 3.000 TL maddi tazminat talepli dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f ve 23\/2\/2011 tarihli dilek\u00e7e ile bu talebini \u0131slah etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, i\u015f kazas\u0131n\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fi tarihten itibaren ba\u015flayan zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n \u0131slah tarihinde dolmu\u015f oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle ba\u015fvurucunun dava dilek\u00e7esindeki talebiyle ba\u011fl\u0131 kalarak 3.000 TL tazminat \u00f6denmesine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. Anayasa Mahkemesi, somut ba\u015fvuruya benzer nitelikteki iddialar\u0131 \u00c7etin Akbo\u011fa [GK] (B. No: 2019\/430, 23\/3\/2023) karar\u0131nda incelemi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan karara konu olayda 5\/1\/2005 tarihinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen i\u015f kazas\u0131ndan sonra 6\/8\/2007 tarihinde fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar sakl\u0131 tutulmak kayd\u0131yla 2.000 TL maddi tazminat talepli dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bilirki\u015fi incelemesi sonucu maddi zarar 121.312,31 TL olarak belirlenmi\u015f ve 8\/11\/2016 tarihli dilek\u00e7e ile maddi tazminat talebi bilirki\u015fi raporundaki tutar kadar art\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130lk derece mahkemesi de ba\u015fvurucunun davas\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmi\u015f ise de B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi, i\u015f kazas\u0131n\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fi 5\/1\/2005 tarihinden itibaren ba\u015flayan zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esinin sunuldu\u011fu 8\/11\/2016 tarihinde doldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle bilirki\u015fi raporu do\u011frultusunda art\u0131r\u0131lan maddi tazminat k\u0131sm\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20. An\u0131lan ba\u015fvuruda davan\u0131n \u0131slah ile art\u0131r\u0131lan k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n reddedilmesini mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda inceleyen Anayasa Mahkemesi, davaya konu zarar\u0131n tespit edilmesinin belli bir uzmanl\u0131k gerektirdi\u011fine bu nedenle zarar\u0131n boyutunun belirlenebilmesi i\u00e7in yarg\u0131 mercilerince bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131nmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fine dikkat \u00e7ekmi\u015f ve zarar\u0131n\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131 yarg\u0131laman\u0131n ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131nda bilmesinin ba\u015fvurucudan beklenemeyece\u011fini, bu sebeple ba\u015fvurucunun t\u00fcm zarar\u0131 i\u00e7in tazminat talep edemedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir (\u00c7etin Akbo\u011fa \u00a7 68).<\/p>\n
21. Anayasa Mahkemesi, an\u0131lan kararda yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmede zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte ba\u015fvurucunun zarar\u0131n miktar\u0131n\u0131 bilebilmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususu dikkate al\u0131nmadan karar verilmesinin ba\u015fvurucunun bilirki\u015fi raporuyla belirlenen tazminat tutar\u0131n\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131 talep edebilme imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131; ba\u015fvurucunun bilirki\u015fi raporundan sonra art\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 alacak talebinin zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesine ili\u015fkin yorumun ba\u015fvurucuya \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckledi\u011fi, ba\u015fvurucunun katlanmak zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 k\u00fclfetin hedeflenen me\u015fru ama\u00e7la kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda orant\u0131s\u0131z oldu\u011fu, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (\u00c7etin Akbo\u011fa \u00a7\u00a7 73, 74).<\/p>\n
22. An\u0131lan kararda ayr\u0131ca, T\u00fcrk hukukunda belirsiz alacak davas\u0131na ili\u015fkin d\u00fczenlemenin kabul\u00fcnden \u00f6nceki d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin olarak a\u00e7\u0131lan k\u0131smi davalarda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n zarar\u0131n miktar\u0131n\u0131 dava tarihi itibar\u0131yla \u00f6\u011frenebilmelerinin kendilerinden beklenemeyece\u011fine dair A\u0130HM’in ihlal kararlar\u0131na da dikkat \u00e7ekilmi\u015ftir (\u00c7etin Akbo\u011fa \u00a7 69).<\/p>\n
23. Somut olay yukar\u0131da yer verilen ilkeler bak\u0131m\u0131ndan de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015f kazas\u0131 nedeniyle olu\u015fan maluliyet durumunun ve u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar\u0131n davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte belirli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu hususlar\u0131n yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda olaya ili\u015fkin al\u0131nan 13\/9\/2010 tarihli ve 21\/1\/2011 tarihli bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131 neticesinde \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Nitekim ba\u015fvurucu da zarar\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenilmesinden sonra 23\/2\/2011 \u0131slah talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
24. Yukar\u0131da yer verilen tespitler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvuruya konu olay de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucunun \u0131slaha konu dava de\u011ferinin art\u0131r\u0131lan k\u0131sm\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesine ili\u015fkin uygulaman\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckledi\u011fi, ba\u015fvurucunun katlanmak zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 k\u00fclfetin hedeflenen me\u015fru ama\u00e7la kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda orant\u0131s\u0131z oldu\u011fu, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
25. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\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
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
26. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespitine, yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131na ve 45.989 TL maddi tazminata karar verilmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
27. 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
28. Yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesi mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yeterli bir giderim olu\u015fturdu\u011fundan ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. 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,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere \u0130stanbul Anadolu 2. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesine (E.2019\/283, K.2019\/339) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.446,90 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \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
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 11\/12\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 11\/12\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/40248 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 KEREM DO\u011eAN BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/40248) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 11\/12\/2024 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Eren Can BENAKAY Ba\u015fvurucu : Kerem DO\u011eAN Vekili : Av. Cengiz ATAYILMAZ \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru; i\u015f kazas\u0131ndan kaynaklanan tazminat davas\u0131nda \u0131slah talebinin zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, i\u015f\u00e7i olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktayken 29\/4\/2000 tarihinde i\u015f kazas\u0131 ge\u00e7irmi\u015f ve yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu, i\u015f kazas\u0131n\u0131n \u00fczerinden d\u00f6rt y\u0131l ge\u00e7tikten sonra 28\/6\/2004 tarihinde i\u015f kazas\u0131 nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zararlar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla i\u015fverene kar\u015f\u0131 \u0130stanbul Anadolu 2. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak \u00fczere tedavi ve ameliyat masraflar\u0131 i\u00e7in 1.000 TL, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 aylara ait kazan\u00e7 kayb\u0131 i\u00e7in 1.000 TL, i\u015f g\u00fcc\u00fc kayb\u0131ndan \u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fc 1.000 TL ve \u00e7ekti\u011fi ac\u0131lar sebebi ile manevi tazminat olarak 10.000 TL maddi ve manevi tazminat talepli dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 23\/2\/2011 tarihinde davas\u0131n\u0131 \u0131slah eden ba\u015fvurucu 71.585 TL’nin daval\u0131dan tahsilini talep etmi\u015ftir. 4. Mahkeme 20\/10\/2011 tarihli kararla tazminat taleplerini k\u0131smen kabul etmi\u015f; 48.989 TL maddi tazminat ile takdiren 5.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine …<\/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-33209","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n