T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
OSMAN TOP\u00c7U BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/32928)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 28\/11\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 7\/3\/2025 – 32834<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Recai AKYEL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Fatma G\u00fclbin \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Osman TOP\u00c7U<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Mehmet ERKAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n kesin olmas\u0131 nedeniyle h\u00fckm\u00fcn denetlenmesini talep etme hakk\u0131n\u0131n, \u0131slah edilen miktar\u0131n \u00fczerinde tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesi ve istinaf sebeplerinin d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131k\u0131larak inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle de makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru 11\/9\/2019 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvuru, ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinin idari y\u00f6nden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n incelemesinden sonra Komisyona sunulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
4. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi, bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresinde beyanda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, ge\u00e7imini g\u00fcnl\u00fc ki\u015flerle sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirten davac\u0131 ile bir kamyonda y\u00fckl\u00fc olan kiremidin indirilmesi i\u00e7in anla\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kamyon kapa\u011f\u0131ndaki deste\u011fin kaymas\u0131 sonucunda kapak, davac\u0131n\u0131n aya\u011f\u0131na \u00e7arpm\u0131\u015f ve aya\u011f\u0131 k\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Davac\u0131 22\/7\/2003 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucu aleyhinde Tekirda\u011f 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde, kamyon \u015fof\u00f6r\u00fc olan di\u011fer daval\u0131 Y.P. aleyhinde ise Tekirda\u011f \u0130\u015f Mahkemesinde tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucuya y\u00f6neltilen davan\u0131n dilek\u00e7esinde davac\u0131, aya\u011f\u0131nda olu\u015fan k\u0131r\u0131k sebebiyle bir ay \u00e7al\u0131\u015famad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kazan\u0131n kendisinde ac\u0131 ve \u0131zd\u0131raba sebep oldu\u011funu belirterek i\u015f g\u00f6remedi\u011fi otuz g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcre i\u00e7in g\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc 20.000.000 eski TL \u00fczerinden hesaplanmak kayd\u0131yla 600.000.000 eski TL maddi tazminat, 500.000.000 eski TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
8. Tekirda\u011f 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesince 7\/4\/2005 tarihinde g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 tesis etmi\u015ftir; gerek\u00e7eli kararda, meydana gelen olay\u0131n i\u015f kazas\u0131 oldu\u011fu tespitine yer vererek davaya bakmakla g\u00f6revli mahkemenin i\u015f mahkemesi oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Karar, temyiz edilmeksizin kesinle\u015fmi\u015f ve dosya, g\u00f6revli oldu\u011fu tayin edilen i\u015f mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Tekirda\u011f \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi Y.P. aleyhindeki dava ile ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131ndaki dava aras\u0131nda hukuki ve fiil\u00ee irtibat oldu\u011fu tespitiyle 27\/12\/2007 tarihinde her iki davay\u0131 birle\u015ftirerek g\u00f6rmeye karar vermi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, taraflar\u0131n bir y\u00fck\u00fcn ta\u015f\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in anla\u015ft\u0131klar\u0131 hamaliye i\u015finin yerle\u015fik Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihad\u0131 da dikkate al\u0131narak hizmet akdinin konusu olmayaca\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle 15\/10\/2010 tarihinde kar\u015f\u0131 g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Davac\u0131, karar\u0131 temyiz etmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tay 21. Hukuk Dairesi 7\/5\/2012 tarihli kararla Tekirda\u011f \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan verilen g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131n\u0131 onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
10. Yarg\u0131lamaya Tekirda\u011f 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) taraf\u0131ndan devam edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Yarg\u0131lamada kusur durumunun tespiti y\u00f6n\u00fcnden iki bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130\u015f sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi uzman\u0131 i\u015f m\u00fcfetti\u015fi olan O.G. taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan ilk raporda daval\u0131 ba\u015fvurucunun %40, davac\u0131n\u0131n ise %60 oran\u0131nda kusurlu oldu\u011fu tespit edilmi\u015ftir. \u0130kinci bilirki\u015fi raporunda ise Mahkeme, yarg\u0131lamada daha \u00f6nce al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi ve Adli T\u0131p Kurumu raporlar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirmeye al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 yeni bir rapor tanzim edilmesini istemi\u015ftir. 20\/3\/2018 tarihinde makine m\u00fchendisi ve i\u015f g\u00fcvenli\u011fi uzman\u0131 bilirki\u015fi heyeti taraf\u0131ndan tanzim edilen ikinci bilirki\u015fi raporunda; kazan\u0131n meydana gelmesinde davac\u0131n\u0131n %50, daval\u0131 kamyon s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fc Y.P.nin %50 oran\u0131nda kusurlu oldu\u011fu, ba\u015fvurucunun ise kusurunun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. 30\/3\/2018 tarihinde ise akt\u00fcerya bilirki\u015fisi taraf\u0131ndan tanzim edilen rapor dosyaya sunulmu\u015f ve davac\u0131 ilgili raporda yap\u0131lan belirlemeleri dikkate alarak 17\/4\/2018 tarihinde maddi tazminat i\u00e7in talep miktar\u0131n\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 33.813,49 TL, di\u011fer daval\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise 42.391,87 TL olarak \u0131slah etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. Mahkeme 17\/4\/2018 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n reddine, di\u011fer daval\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, k\u0131smen reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7eli kararda kusur tespiti y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 20\/3\/2018 havale tarihli raporda yap\u0131lan belirlemeyi esas ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirten Mahkeme, meydana gelen kazada ba\u015fvurucunun kusurunun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Kararda, istinaf kanun yolunun a\u00e7\u0131k oldu\u011funa i\u015faret etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. Davac\u0131 17\/4\/2018 tarihli karara kar\u015f\u0131 23\/5\/2018 havale tarihli dilek\u00e7esiyle istinaf talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Davac\u0131; istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde, ba\u015fvurucunun meydana gelen kaza y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kusurlu oldu\u011funun uzman bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131 ile tespit edildi\u011fini, bu sebeple daval\u0131 ba\u015fvurucunun kusuru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan hareketle ret karar\u0131 tesis edilmesinin hatal\u0131 oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131n\u0131n hakk\u0131ndaki ceza davas\u0131ndan beraat etmesinin kusursuz oldu\u011funu g\u00f6stermeyece\u011fini, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin hukuki nitelendirmesi ne olursa olsun i\u015fin sahibi oldu\u011fundan ba\u015fvurucunun kusurunun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 yolundaki tespitin kabul edilmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, davac\u0131n\u0131n istinaf dilek\u00e7esine kar\u015f\u0131 cevap sunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
15. \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 19. Hukuk Dairesi (istinaf mercii) taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan inceleme neticesinde ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve 42.391,87 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n daval\u0131lardan m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen al\u0131narak davac\u0131ya verilmesine miktar itibar\u0131yla kesin olarak karar verilmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan haks\u0131z fiil sorumlulu\u011funa dayal\u0131 olarak maddi ve manevi tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, Y.P. ile ba\u015fvurucu aras\u0131nda kurulan nakil s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden dolay\u0131 Y.P.nin ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131 oldu\u011fu ve bu ba\u011flamda ba\u015fvurucunun olaydaki sorumlulu\u011funun kusur sorumlulu\u011fu de\u011fil bir kusursuz sorumluluk h\u00e2li olan adam \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131ran\u0131n sorumlulu\u011fu oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. \u0130stinaf karar\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu vekiline 12\/8\/2019 tarihinde elektronik tebligat yoluyla tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 11\/9\/2019 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvurucu, kesin oldu\u011fu belirtilen karara kar\u015f\u0131 karar\u0131n hatal\u0131 olarak temyiz kanun yolu kapal\u0131 olarak verildi\u011fini belirterek temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur. \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 19. Hukuk Dairesi 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 361. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi Hukuk Daireleri taraf\u0131ndan verilen kararlar\u0131n kesin mahiyette oldu\u011funu belirterek temyiz isteminin reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, temyiz isteminin reddi karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 da temyiz talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesi 1\/12\/2020 tarihinde temyiz isteminin reddi karar\u0131n\u0131n onanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
18. 11\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu’nun “Sorumluluk” \u00fcst ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 “Genel olarak” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 49. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Kusurlu ve hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir fiille ba\u015fkas\u0131na zarar veren, bu zarar\u0131 gidermekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. <\/p>\n
Zarar verici fiili yasaklayan bir hukuk kural\u0131 bulunmasa bile, ahlaka ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir fiille ba\u015fkas\u0131na kasten zarar veren de, bu zarar\u0131 gidermekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr.”<\/p>\n
19. 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Zarar\u0131n ve kusurun ispat\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u013150. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Zarar g\u00f6ren, zarar\u0131n\u0131 ve zarar verenin kusurunu ispat y\u00fck\u00fc alt\u0131ndad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
U\u011fran\u0131lan zarar\u0131n miktar\u0131 tam olarak ispat edilemiyorsa h\u00e2kim, olaylar\u0131n ola\u011fan<\/p>\n
ak\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 ve zarar g\u00f6renin ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6nlemleri g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde tutarak, zarar\u0131n miktar\u0131n\u0131 hakkaniyete uygun olarak belirler.”<\/p>\n
20. 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Tazminat” \u00fcst ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 “Belirlenmesi” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 51. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“H\u00e2kim, tazminat\u0131n kapsam\u0131n\u0131 ve \u00f6denme bi\u00e7imini, durumun gere\u011fini ve \u00f6zellikle kusurun a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne alarak belirler.<\/p>\n
\u00a0Tazminat\u0131n irat bi\u00e7iminde \u00f6denmesine h\u00fckmedilirse, bor\u00e7lu g\u00fcvence g\u00f6stermekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr.”<\/p>\n
21. 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Sebeplerin yar\u0131\u015fmas\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 60. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
” Bir ki\u015finin sorumlulu\u011fu, birden \u00e7ok sebebe dayand\u0131r\u0131labiliyorsa h\u00e2kim, zarar g\u00f6ren aksini istemi\u015f olmad\u0131k\u00e7a veya kanunda aksi \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmedik\u00e7e, zarar g\u00f6rene en iyi giderim imk\u00e2n\u0131 sa\u011flayan sorumluluk sebebine g\u00f6re karar verir.”<\/p>\n
22. 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Adam \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131ran\u0131n sorumlulu\u011fu” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 66. maddesinin birinci ve ikinci f\u0131kralar\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
” Adam \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131ran, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131n, kendisine verilen i\u015fin yap\u0131lmas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda ba\u015fkalar\u0131na verdi\u011fi zarar\u0131 gidermekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
Adam \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131ran, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131n\u0131 se\u00e7erken, i\u015fiyle ilgili talimat verirken, g\u00f6zetim ve denetimde bulunurken, zarar\u0131n do\u011fmas\u0131n\u0131 engellemek i\u00e7in gerekli \u00f6zeni g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini ispat ederse, sorumlu olmaz. “<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
23. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 28\/11\/2024 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. H\u00fckm\u00fcn Denetlenmesini Talep Etme Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130ddialar\u0131<\/p>\n
24. Ba\u015fvurucu, hakk\u0131ndaki yarg\u0131lamaya 18\/6\/1927 tarihli ve m\u00fclga 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte oldu\u011fu d\u00f6nemde 22\/7\/2003 tarihinde Tekirda\u011f 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde ba\u015fland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve yarg\u0131lamada esasa ge\u00e7ilmesinin ard\u0131ndan Tekirda\u011f 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan i\u015f mahkemelerinin g\u00f6revli oldu\u011fundan bahisle g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 verildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Tekirda\u011f \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan da kar\u015f\u0131 g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 tesis edildi\u011fini ifade eden ba\u015fvurucu, Yarg\u0131tay 21. Hukuk Dairesince yap\u0131lan inceleme neticesinde kar\u015f\u0131 g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131n\u0131n onand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve yarg\u0131lamaya Tekirda\u011f 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan devam edilmesine karar verildi\u011fine i\u015faret etmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131lamaya m\u00fclga 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte oldu\u011fu tarihte ba\u015fland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yarg\u0131lamada esasa ge\u00e7ildikten sonra ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girmesinden \u00f6nce temyiz incelemesi yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcren ba\u015fvurucu, Tekirda\u011f 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesince verilen 17\/4\/2018 tarihli kararda kanun yolunun temyiz olarak g\u00f6sterilmesi gerekirken istinaf olarak g\u00f6sterilmesinin hatal\u0131 oldu\u011funu, istinaf karar\u0131n\u0131n -karar\u0131n \u00f6ncesinde Yarg\u0131tay denetiminden ge\u00e7ti\u011fi dikkate al\u0131narak- temyizi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn \u015fekilde verilmesi gerekirken kesin olarak verilmesi sebebi ile adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ayr\u0131ca 2003 y\u0131l\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan bir davada 2019 olan karar tarihine g\u00f6re temyiz s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 belirlenmesinin karar\u0131n temyiz s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n alt\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle kesin olarak verilmesinin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
25. 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 iki farkl\u0131 \u015fik\u00e2yeti bulunmaktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinden ilki, karara kar\u015f\u0131 do\u011frudan temyiz kanun yolunun a\u00e7\u0131k olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen karar\u0131n hatal\u0131 olarak istinafa tabi k\u0131l\u0131nmas\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. \u0130lk derece mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan tesis edilen 17\/4\/2018 tarihli karar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucunun lehine oldu\u011fu g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde kanun yolunun yanl\u0131\u015f g\u00f6sterilmesi sebebi ile ba\u015fvurucunun karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 beklenemez. Bununla birlikte an\u0131lan karar\u0131n davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvuruldu\u011fu ancak ba\u015fvurucunun davac\u0131n\u0131n istinaf dilek\u00e7esine cevap vermedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle ba\u015fvurucu, karara kar\u015f\u0131 do\u011frudan temyiz kanun yolunun a\u00e7\u0131k b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine y\u00f6nelik iddias\u0131n\u0131 istinaf a\u015famas\u0131nda ileri s\u00fcrmemi\u015ftir. Bu tespit \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun an\u0131lan imk\u00e2n\u0131 kullanmadan ilgili \u015fik\u00e2yeti do\u011frudan bireysel ba\u015fvuruya konu etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ilgili iddian\u0131n incelenmesine gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
26. Ba\u015fvurucu ayr\u0131ca 2013 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan bir davada yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle 2019 olan karar tarihine g\u00f6re temyiz s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesinden ve karar\u0131n temyiz s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n alt\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle kesin olarak verilmesinden \u015fik\u00e2yet etmektedir.<\/p>\n
27. Anayasa Mahkemesi, somut norm denetiminde verdi\u011fi 27\/12\/2018 tarihli ve E.2018\/71, K.2018\/118 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda h\u00fckm\u00fcn denetlenmesini talep etme hakk\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen hak arama h\u00fcrriyeti ile g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
28. Anayasa Mahkemesine yap\u0131lan bir bireysel ba\u015fvurunun esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenebilmesi i\u00e7in kamu g\u00fcc\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan ihlal edildi\u011fi iddia edilen hakk\u0131n Anayasa\u2019da g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u2019nin (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) ve T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin taraf oldu\u011fu ek protokollerin kapsam\u0131na da girmesi gerekir. Bir ba\u015fka ifadeyle Anayasa ve S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin ortak koruma alan\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan bir hak ihlali iddias\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7eren ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir (Onurhan Solmaz, B. No: 2012\/1049, 26\/3\/2013, \u00a7 18).<\/p>\n
29. Anayasa Mahkemesi, \u00d6mer \u015eanl\u0131 (B. No: 2015\/7304, 22\/1\/2019) karar\u0131nda h\u00fckm\u00fcn denetlenmesini talep etme hakk\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa’da g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olmakla birlikteS\u00f6zle\u015fme ve T\u00fcrkiye’nin taraf oldu\u011fu ek protokoller, medeni hak y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklere ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcre\u00e7leri (hukuk yarg\u0131s\u0131 ile idari yarg\u0131 alan\u0131) y\u00f6n\u00fcnden s\u00f6z konusu hakka dair bir g\u00fcvence i\u00e7ermedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla medeni hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklere ili\u015fkin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden h\u00fckm\u00fcn denetlenmesini talep etme hakk\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa ve S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin ortak koruma alan\u0131n\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu nedenle an\u0131lan hakka dair bir ihlal iddias\u0131n\u0131n incelenebilmesi i\u00e7in yarg\u0131laman\u0131n ceza hukuku alan\u0131na ili\u015fkin olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca kararda, bir yapt\u0131r\u0131m\u0131n veya hukuki bir tasarrufun\/i\u015flemin hangi ko\u015fullarla su\u00e7 isnad\u0131 niteli\u011finde say\u0131l\u0131p su\u00e7 ve cezalara ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvenceler kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilebilece\u011finin Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi (A\u0130HM) ve Anayasa Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ifade edildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir (Engel ve di\u011ferleri\/Hollanda [GK], B. No: 5100\/71, 5101\/71, 5102\/71, 5354\/72, 5370\/72, 8\/6\/1976; Benham\/Birle\u015fik Krall\u0131k [BD], B. No: 19380\/92, 10\/6\/1996; Anayasa Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131 i\u00e7in bkz. D.M.\u00c7, B. No: 2014\/16941, 24\/1\/2018; B.Y.\u00c7., B. No: 2013\/4554, 15\/12\/2015; Sel\u00e7uk \u00d6zb\u00f6l\u00fck, B. No: 2015\/7206, 14\/11\/2018).<\/p>\n
30. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ek 1. maddesinde temyizde kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan karar tarihinin esas al\u0131naca\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin d\u00fczenleme bulunmaktad\u0131r. Kanun koyucunun temyize tabi kararlarda miktar belirlemenin karar tarihine g\u00f6re yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131k d\u00fczenleme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve karar tarihi itibar\u0131yla temyize tabi uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden miktar s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n 47.530 TL olarak tespit edildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Su\u00e7 isnad\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan yarg\u0131lamalarda istinaf veya temyiz gibi kanun yollar\u0131na m\u00fcracaat hakk\u0131 ancak kanunlar taraf\u0131ndan a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc takdirde mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenebilir. Somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k kapsam\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu kendisine i\u00e7 hukuk taraf\u0131ndan tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olan kanun yoluna ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ortaya koyabilmi\u015f de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
31. Bu ba\u011flamda ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 temyiz kanun yolunun kapal\u0131 olmas\u0131na dair \u015fik\u00e2yetinin h\u00fckm\u00fcn denetlenmesini talep etme hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda oldu\u011fu, an\u0131lan hakk\u0131n ise Anayasa, S\u00f6zle\u015fme ve T\u00fcrkiye’nin taraf oldu\u011fu ek protokollerin ortak koruma alan\u0131 kapsam\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. T\u00fcm bu de\u011ferlendirme \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131ndabu hakka ili\u015fkin ihlal iddias\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesi Anayasa Mahkemesinin konu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetkisi d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
32. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer kabul edilebilirlik \u015fartlar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmeksizin konu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetkisizlik nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Silahlar\u0131n E\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00c7eli\u015fmeli Yarg\u0131lama \u0130lkelerinin \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130ddialar\u0131 ve Bakanl\u0131k G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/p>\n
33. Ba\u015fvurucu; dava dilek\u00e7esinde davac\u0131n\u0131n otuz g\u00fcnl\u00fck gelir kayb\u0131 sebebi ile 600 TL maddi, 500 TL manevi tazminat talep etti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. \u0130lk derece mahkemesinin taraflar aras\u0131ndaki hukuki ili\u015fkiyi istisna akdi olarak tespit etti\u011fini ve kusur sorumlulu\u011fu ilkelerinden yola \u00e7\u0131karak davan\u0131n reddine karar verdi\u011fini belirten ba\u015fvurucu, istinaf merciinin ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e ortaya koymadan ilk derece mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan kusur sorumlulu\u011funa dayan\u0131larak yap\u0131lan tespiti kusursuz sorumlulu\u011fa d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Davac\u0131n\u0131n dava dilek\u00e7esinde i\u015f g\u00f6remezlik tazminat\u0131 talep etmemesine ra\u011fmen istinaf mercii taraf\u0131ndan taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil edecek \u015fekilde aleyhinde 42.391,87 TL i\u015f g\u00f6remezlik tazminat\u0131na ve 500 TL manevi tazminata h\u00fckmedildi\u011fini belirten ba\u015fvurucu, bu tespit y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de istinaf mercii taraf\u0131ndan gerek\u00e7e sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu; tazminata konu kaza meydana geldi\u011fi s\u0131rada olay yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131, ceza mahkemesi karar\u0131 ve bilirki\u015fi raporu ile ortada oldu\u011funu belirterek t\u00fcm bu delillerin gerek\u00e7ede tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
34. Ba\u015fvurucu ayr\u0131ca Tekirda\u011f 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 tesis edilmeden \u00f6nce taraflara delillerini sunmak i\u00e7in s\u00fcre verildi\u011fini, davac\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131k listesi de d\u00e2hil olmak \u00fczere delillerini sundu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Tekirda\u011f 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin 7\/4\/2005 tarihli g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131n\u0131n ard\u0131ndan Tekirda\u011f \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan da davac\u0131ya delillerini sunmak i\u00e7in s\u00fcre verildi\u011fini, davac\u0131n\u0131n verilen bu s\u00fcrede ikinci tan\u0131k listesini sundu\u011funu ve tan\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n da dinlendi\u011fini belirten ba\u015fvurucu, bu durumun usul kurallar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil ederek silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ilkesini ihlal etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
35. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; istinaf mercii taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 66. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen “Adam \u00c7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131ran\u0131n Sorumlulu\u011fu” kapsam\u0131nda sorumlu tutulmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin yorumlan\u0131\u015f\u0131 ve uygulan\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n hak ihlaline sebebiyet verdi\u011finden \u015fik\u00e2yette bulundu\u011fu belirtilerek istinaf mercii taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan tespit ve de\u011ferlendirmeler y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurucunun bu \u015fik\u00e2yetinin \u00f6ncelikle kanun yolu \u015fik\u00e2yeti niteli\u011finde olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. \u0130lk derece mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan ayn\u0131 vak\u0131aya ili\u015fkin ceza davas\u0131 dosyalar\u0131n\u0131n celbedildi\u011fi, kusur ve yaralanma durumuna ili\u015fkin bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131n\u0131n ald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanm\u0131\u015f; toplanan deliller kapsam\u0131nda karar verildi\u011fi, istinaf merciinin ise yine ayn\u0131 delillerle fakat farkl\u0131 bir hukuki yorumla ba\u015fka y\u00f6nde karar verdi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda Anayasa Mahkemesinin yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihad\u0131 niteli\u011fini ta\u015f\u0131yan bir k\u0131s\u0131m karara at\u0131f yap\u0131lan Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, Anayasa h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin ilgili i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131n ve somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
36. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvuru formundaki ifadelerinden farkl\u0131 olarak davac\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131smi \u0131slahla talep sonucunu 33.813,49 TL olarak d\u00fczeltti\u011fini, bununla birlikte istinaf merciinin talep sonucunu a\u015farak 42.391,78 TL tazminata h\u00fckmetti\u011fini belirtmi\u015f ve taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k kural\u0131n\u0131n a\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu ayr\u0131ca \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esine kar\u015f\u0131 itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n da istinaf mercii taraf\u0131ndan dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f. Ba\u015fvurucu istinaf incelemesinde, istinaf sebepleri ile ba\u011fl\u0131 yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekirken istinaf sebeplerinin d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na da dikkat \u00e7ekerek delil de\u011ferlendirmesinde hata yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etmi\u015ftir. Hakk\u0131ndaki ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131nda beraat karar\u0131 verildi\u011fini belirterek, istinaf merciinin beraat karar\u0131 ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen karar\u0131 g\u00f6rmezden geldi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
37. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n “Hak arama h\u00fcrriyeti” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Herkes, me\u015fru vas\u0131ta ve yollardan faydalanmak suretiyle yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddia ve savunma ile adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na sahiptir.”<\/p>\n
38. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetinin \u00f6z\u00fcnde, davan\u0131n kusur sorumlulu\u011funa dayal\u0131 olarak a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen istinaf mercii taraf\u0131ndan kusursuz sorumluluk ilkesi i\u015fletilerek h\u00fck\u00fcm tesis edilmesi ve \u0131slahla d\u00fczeltilen talep miktar\u0131n\u0131n a\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bireysel ba\u015fvuruya konu karar\u0131n ilk elden istinaf mercii taraf\u0131ndan tesis edildi\u011fi, ba\u015fvurucuya ilgili itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrebilmesi i\u00e7in yarg\u0131lamada imk\u00e2n sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 dikkate al\u0131narak \u015fik\u00e2yetin silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkeleri kapsam\u0131nda incelenmesi uygun g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
a. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
39. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir nedeni de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
b. Esas Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
i. Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
40. Genel anlamda hakkaniyete uygun bir yarg\u0131laman\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclebilmesi i\u00e7in silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkeleri \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda taraflara iddialar\u0131n\u0131 sunma hususunda uygun imk\u00e2nlar\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 \u015fartt\u0131r (Y\u00fcksel Han\u00e7er, B. No: 2013\/2116, 23\/1\/2014, \u00a7 19). Yarg\u0131laman\u0131n t\u00fcm a\u015famalar\u0131nda silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131narak adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 hukuk devleti olman\u0131n bir gere\u011fidir (Mustafa Kupal, B. No: 2013\/7727, 4\/2\/2016, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
41. Silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ilkesi davan\u0131n taraflar\u0131n\u0131n usule ili\u015fkin haklar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ayn\u0131 ko\u015fullara tabi tutulmas\u0131, taraflardan birinin di\u011ferine g\u00f6re daha zay\u0131f bir duruma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmeksizin iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 makul \u015fekilde mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcnde dile getirme f\u0131rsat\u0131na sahip olmas\u0131 ve taraflar\u0131n yarg\u0131lamaya etkin kat\u0131l\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelir (Ya\u015fas\u0131n Aslan, B. No: 2013\/1134, 16\/5\/2013, \u00a7 32). Bu usul g\u00fcvencesi, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n her iki taraf\u0131na da savunmas\u0131n\u0131n temel dayana\u011f\u0131 olan delilleri sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 kapsamaktad\u0131r (Y\u00fcksel Han\u00e7er, \u00a7 18).<\/p>\n
42. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede Anayasa Mahkemesinin taraflar\u0131n \u00f6ne s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve esasa etkili olan iddialar\u0131n i\u015fin mahiyetinin gerektirdi\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde incelenip incelenmedi\u011fini ve \u00f6zellikle ispat k\u00fclfeti konusunda taraflardan birinin di\u011ferine nazaran dezavantajl\u0131 bir konuma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcl\u00fcp d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmedi\u011fini denetleme g\u00f6revi bulunmaktad\u0131r (Ahmet Korkmaz, B. No: 2014\/16232, 25\/1\/2018, \u00a7 29).<\/p>\n
ii. \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131 <\/p>\n
43. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu, kendisine kar\u015f\u0131 kusur sorumlulu\u011funa dayan\u0131larak dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen gerek\u00e7esiz olarak kusursuz sorumluluk ilkesine dayal\u0131 olarak karar verilmesinden, kendisine y\u00f6nelik a\u00e7\u0131lan davada istinaf mercii taraf\u0131ndan herhangi bir gerek\u00e7e ortaya konulmadan \u0131slah edilen miktar\u0131n a\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131yla taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k kural\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011finden ve davac\u0131ya usul kurallar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 \u015fekilde ikinci tan\u0131k listesi sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131 sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan \u015fik\u00e2yet etmektedir. \u0130lk derece mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan kusur sorumlulu\u011fu ilkeleri esas al\u0131narak ba\u015fvurucu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f, istinaf mercii ise ilk derece mahkemesinin karar\u0131n\u0131 kald\u0131rarak uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ilk elden karara ba\u011flam\u0131\u015f ve davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar vermi\u015ftir. Bu ba\u011flamda inceleme istinaf mercii karar\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
44. Ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131 olan davac\u0131ya usul kurallar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil edecek \u015fekilde ikinci tan\u0131k listesi sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131 sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Anayasa Mahkemesinin bireysel ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131ndaki g\u00f6revi, somut olay\u0131n usul kurallar\u0131na uygunlu\u011funu denetlemek de\u011fil adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki g\u00fcvencelerin somut olayda ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fini yarg\u0131laman\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fc \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda denetlemektir (Fazl\u0131 Celep, B. No: 2015\/1025, 21\/3\/2018, \u00a7 25).<\/p>\n
45. \u0130stinaf mercii taraf\u0131ndan ortaya konulan gerek\u00e7eye bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011fa konu olay\u0131n ayd\u0131nlat\u0131lmas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan tan\u0131k delilinden faydalan\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcnde esas unsur olarak rol oynamayan bir delil y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yarg\u0131lama makam\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan usul kural\u0131n\u0131n eksik ya da yanl\u0131\u015f uygulanmas\u0131 ba\u015fl\u0131 ba\u015f\u0131na silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil etmez. \u0130hlal sonucunun do\u011fabilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkesinin bir unsuru olan usule ili\u015fkin haklarda ba\u015fvurucunun davac\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda zay\u0131f duruma d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn de ortaya konulabilmesi gerekir. Bu de\u011ferlendirmeler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun davac\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda dezavantajl\u0131 bir duruma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmedi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
46. Ba\u015fvurucunun di\u011fer \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin ise istinaf mercii taraf\u0131ndan herhangi bir gerek\u00e7e ortaya konulmadan \u0131slah edilen miktar\u0131n a\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 vekusur sorumlulu\u011funa dayan\u0131larakdava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen gerek\u00e7esiz \u015fekilde kusursuz sorumluluk ilkesinden hareket edilerek taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 karar verilmesine y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
47. Dava dilek\u00e7esi incelendi\u011finde davac\u0131n\u0131n dava konusu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 dile getirirken kusur sorumlulu\u011fu yahut kusursuz sorumluluk h\u00e2llerine ili\u015fkin herhangi bir tercihte bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kaza nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar\u0131 dava konusu etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda ilk derece mahkemesi uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kusur sorumlulu\u011fu \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ele alm\u0131\u015f ve yap\u0131lan bilirki\u015fi incelemeleri ile kusur tespitine gitmi\u015ftir. \u00d6nemle belirtmek gerekir ki ilk derece mahkemesince bu tespit, taraf tercihlerine g\u00f6re de\u011fil h\u00e2kimin hukuku resen uygulamas\u0131 ilkesi kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olup uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n bu tespit kapsam\u0131nda \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme ula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
48. Zira 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 60. maddesi gere\u011fi h\u00e2kim, zarar g\u00f6ren aksini istemedik\u00e7e yahut kanunda aksi \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmedik\u00e7e zarar g\u00f6rene en iyi giderim imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan sorumluluk kural\u0131n\u0131 uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne tatbik etmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. Bu ba\u011flamda ilk derece a\u015famas\u0131nda yarg\u0131lama kusur sorumlulu\u011fu \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ele al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Davac\u0131, Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan bu de\u011ferlendirmeye y\u00f6nelik herhangi bir itirazda yahut se\u00e7imlik hak talebinde bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu kapsamda kusur ve akt\u00fcerya hesab\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden dosyaya sunulan bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131 dikkate al\u0131narak 17\/4\/2018 tarihli \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esi ile talep miktar\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 33.813,49 TL’ye, di\u011fer daval\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise 42.391,87 TL’ye y\u00fckseltilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
49. Ba\u015fvurucuya y\u00f6nelik a\u00e7\u0131lan dava y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ret karar\u0131 tesis edilmesi \u00fczerine karara kar\u015f\u0131 davac\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Davac\u0131 istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde, mahkemenin ba\u015fvurucu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu kusur tespitine itiraz etmi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucunun olay\u0131n meydana geli\u015fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kusurlu oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. \u0130stinaf mercii, davac\u0131n\u0131n istinaf isteminin kabul\u00fcne karar vererek ilk derece mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan tesis edilen karar\u0131 kald\u0131rm\u0131\u015f ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ilk elden \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme ba\u011flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130stinaf mercii, yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmede taraflar aras\u0131ndaki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn kusursuz sorumluluk h\u00e2llerinden olan adam \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131ran\u0131n sorumlulu\u011fu ilkelerine g\u00f6re karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini belirterek ba\u015fvurucuyu ve di\u011fer daval\u0131y\u0131 42.391,87 TL \u00fczerinden maddi tazminata m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen mahk\u00fbm etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
50. Somut olay ele al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda sundu\u011fu \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esinde belirtti\u011fi miktar ve istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc sebepler dikkate al\u0131nmaks\u0131z\u0131n istinaf mercii taraf\u0131ndan davan\u0131n -davac\u0131n\u0131n lehine olacak \u015fekilde- 42.391,87 TL \u00fczerinden kusursuz sorumlulu\u011funa dayal\u0131 olarak kabul edildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Karar\u0131n tesis edildi\u011fi a\u015fama itibar\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucu, gerek \u0131slahla talep edilen miktar\u0131n \u00fczerinde kabul karar\u0131 verildi\u011fini gerekse davac\u0131n\u0131n istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc istinaf nedenlerinin d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131k\u0131larak karar tesis edildi\u011fini istinaf mercii karar\u0131n\u0131n kendisine tebli\u011f edilmesiyle \u00f6\u011frenmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n kesin olmas\u0131 nedeniyle tebli\u011fden sonra iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 makul bir \u015fekilde mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcnde dile getirme f\u0131rsat\u0131na da sahip olamam\u0131\u015f, bu durum sonucunda ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan taraflar aras\u0131 dengesizlik ve adaletsizlik yarg\u0131lamada telafi edilememi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, davac\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda zay\u0131f bir duruma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
51. Bu ba\u011flamda istinaf mercii taraf\u0131ndan illiyet ba\u011f\u0131 ve tazminat miktar\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan belirlemeler y\u00f6n\u00fcnden -karar\u0131n kesin oldu\u011fu da dikkate al\u0131narak- ba\u015fvurucunun savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 makul bir \u015fekilde mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcnde dile getirme f\u0131rsat\u0131na sahip olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6zellikle illiyet ba\u011f\u0131 ve kusur tespitine y\u00f6nelik ispat k\u00fclfeti gibi yarg\u0131laman\u0131n esas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir konuda davac\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda dezavantajl\u0131 h\u00e2le getirildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Di\u011fer bir ifade ile ba\u015fvurucuya istinaf a\u015famas\u0131nda \u0131slah miktar\u0131 vekusursuz sorumlulu\u011fa y\u00f6nelik itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 sunma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nmam\u0131\u015f ve ba\u015fvurucunun istinafta hakk\u0131nda ilk elden tesis edilen karara kar\u015f\u0131 savunma hakk\u0131nda meydana gelen k\u0131s\u0131tlama telafi edilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
52. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
C. Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130ddialar\u0131 ve Bakanl\u0131k G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/p>\n
53. Ba\u015fvurucu, hakk\u0131nda 22\/7\/2003 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n 12\/7\/2019 tarihinde sona erdi\u011fini belirterek yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
54. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; makul s\u00fcre \u015fik\u00e2yeti y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131lamadaki tutumunun, davan\u0131n karma\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, toplanmas\u0131 ve de\u011ferlendirilmesi gereken delillerin \u00e7e\u015fitlili\u011finin, kapsam\u0131n\u0131n ve i\u00e7eri\u011finin dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gereken belirleyici unsurlar aras\u0131nda oldu\u011funa vurgu yap\u0131larak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n devam etti\u011fi s\u0131rada \u00fclke genelinde vuku bulan ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2l ve pandemi ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n da g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
55. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 verdi\u011fi cevapta yarg\u0131laman\u0131n on alt\u0131 y\u0131l\u0131 a\u015fk\u0131n s\u00fcredevam etti\u011fini, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi sebebi ile hak kay\u0131plar\u0131na u\u011frat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, COVID salg\u0131n\u0131n\u0131n yarg\u0131laman\u0131n bitmesinin ard\u0131ndan 2020 y\u0131l\u0131nda patlak verdi\u011fini, ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2l ilan\u0131ndan ise yarg\u0131laman\u0131n etkilenmedi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
56. Anayasa Mahkemesi, Veysi Ado ([GK], B. No: 2022\/100837, 27\/4\/2023) karar\u0131nda an\u0131lan \u015fik\u00e2yetle ilgili olarak 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. Somut ba\u015fvuruda, an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
57. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer kabul edilebilirlik \u015fartlar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmeksizin ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VI. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
58. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ile yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 ve 50.000 TL tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
59. 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 mahkemece 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
60. \u0130hlalin tespiti ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterligiderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat taleplerinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VII. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. H\u00fckm\u00fcn denetlenmesini talep etme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n konu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetkisizlik nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
3. 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
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 19. Hukuk Dairesine (E.2018\/1973, K.2019\/1692) iletilmek \u00fczere Tekirda\u011f 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesine (E.2013\/146, K.2018\/233) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 364,60 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.364,60 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 28\/11\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 28\/11\/2024 tarihli ve 2019\/32928 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u00a0 \u00a0 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 OSMAN TOP\u00c7U BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/32928) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 28\/11\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 7\/3\/2025 – 32834 \u00a0 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL \u00a0 \u00a0 Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Fatma G\u00fclbin \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK Ba\u015fvurucu : Osman TOP\u00c7U Vekili : Av. Mehmet ERKAN \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru; b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n kesin olmas\u0131 nedeniyle h\u00fckm\u00fcn denetlenmesini talep etme hakk\u0131n\u0131n, \u0131slah edilen miktar\u0131n \u00fczerinde tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesi ve istinaf sebeplerinin d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131k\u0131larak inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ve \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkelerinin, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle de makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 11\/9\/2019 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Ba\u015fvuru, ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinin idari y\u00f6nden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n incelemesinden sonra Komisyona sunulmu\u015ftur. 4. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. 5. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi, bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresinde beyanda bulunmu\u015ftur. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 6. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir: 7. Ba\u015fvurucu, ge\u00e7imini g\u00fcnl\u00fc ki\u015flerle sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirten …<\/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-34992","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n