T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
M\u00dcCAH\u0130T YA\u011eAN BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/23474)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 12\/3\/2025<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Mehmet Yavuz YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
M\u00fccahit YA\u011eAN<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Nilay HASANEFEND\u0130O\u011eLU \u015eENG\u00dcN<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, idari i\u015flemin iptaline y\u00f6nelik yarg\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle karar\u0131n icras\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
A. Bireysel Ba\u015fvurudan \u00d6nceki S\u00fcre\u00e7<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, Jandarma Genel Komutanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n (\u0130dare) uzman \u00e7avu\u015fluk al\u0131m\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 ve s\u00f6zl\u00fc s\u0131navlar\u0131 ba\u015far\u0131 ile ge\u00e7mi\u015f ve sa\u011fl\u0131k muayenesine tabi tutulmu\u015ftur. Muayenesi sonucunda Sa\u011fl\u0131k Bilimleri \u00dcniversitesi Mehmet Akif \u0130nan E\u011fitim ve Ara\u015ft\u0131rma Hastanesi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen 7\/3\/2018 tarihli rapor ile hakk\u0131nda komando uzman erba\u015f olabilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda t\u00fcm bu i\u015flemlerin sonucunda \u0130darece 12\/4\/2000 tarihli ve 24018 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanarak y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren G\u00fcvenlik Soru\u015fturmas\u0131 ve Ar\u015fiv Ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fi’nin (M\u00fclga Y\u00f6netmelik) 12. maddesi uyar\u0131nca g\u00fcvenlik soru\u015fturmas\u0131 ve ar\u015fiv ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 yapt\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Y\u00f6netmelik’in 15. maddesi uyar\u0131nca yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirme sonucunda ba\u015fvurucunun g\u00fcvenlik soru\u015fturmas\u0131n\u0131n olumsuz oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle atamas\u0131 yap\u0131lmayarak adayl\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonland\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu, s\u00f6z konusu i\u015flemin iptali istemiyle 5\/11\/2018 tarihinde dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ankara 4. \u0130dare Mahkemesi (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) 9\/5\/2019 tarihinde i\u015flemin iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, karar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun jandarma uzman erba\u015fl\u0131\u011fa kabul edilmeme i\u015fleminin Bolu 1. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesinin 15\/4\/2015 tarihli ve E.2015\/38, K.2015\/405 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile bina i\u00e7inde muhafaza alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olan e\u015fya hakk\u0131nda h\u0131rs\u0131zl\u0131k su\u00e7undan 2 y\u0131l 9 ay 10 g\u00fcn hapis cezas\u0131 ilecezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na dayand\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve bunun neticesinde g\u00fcvenlik soru\u015fturmas\u0131n\u0131n olumsuz sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131 \u00fczerine tesis edildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. \u0130dare Mahkemesi, bu tespitten hareketle Anayasa Mahkemesi Genel Kurulunun 27\/2\/2019 tarihli ve 2014\/7256 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda dava konusu i\u015flemde hukuka uygunluk bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. \u0130dare karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 1. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi (istinaf mercii) 26\/11\/2020 tarihinde istinaf talebini gerek\u00e7e eklemek suretiyle kesin olarak reddetmi\u015f; kararda, i\u015flemin dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturan 26\/10\/1994 tarihli ve 4045 say\u0131l\u0131 G\u00fcvenlik Soru\u015fturmas\u0131 Kanunu’nun 1. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n 28\/4\/2020 tarihli ve 31112 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan 19\/2\/2020 tarihli ve E.2018\/163, K.2020\/13 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesi karar\u0131yla Anayasa’ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulunarak iptal edildi\u011fini ve karar\u0131n yay\u0131mland\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girdi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u0130dari Dava Daireleri Kurulunun 29\/5\/2017 tarihli ve E.2016\/852, K.2017\/2326 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda da belirtildi\u011fi gibi Anayasa’ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulunarak iptal edildi\u011fi bilindi\u011fi h\u00e2lde g\u00f6r\u00fclmekte olan davalar\u0131n Anayasa’ya ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 saptanm\u0131\u015f h\u00fck\u00fcmler dikkate al\u0131narak \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmesinin Anayasa’n\u0131n \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve hukuk devleti ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Son olarak kanun koyucu bu konuda hen\u00fcz bir d\u00fczenleme de yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan Anayasa Mahkemesinin an\u0131lan iptal karar\u0131 ile ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan bu durum sonucunda yasal dayana\u011f\u0131 kalmayan dava konusu i\u015flemin bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle hukuka uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Kesinle\u015fen yarg\u0131 karar\u0131 \u00fczerine \u0130dare, i\u015flemlere devam etmi\u015ftir. Bu kapsamda daha \u00f6nce Sa\u011fl\u0131k Bilimleri \u00dcniversitesi Mehmet Akif \u0130nan E\u011fitim ve Ara\u015ft\u0131rma Hastanesinden al\u0131nan 7\/3\/2018 tarihli sa\u011fl\u0131k kurulu raporunun bir y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcresinin doldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle ba\u015fvurucu MSY 33-3 T\u00fcrk Silahl\u0131 Kuvvetleri Jandarma Genel Komutanl\u0131\u011f\u0131, Sahil G\u00fcvenlik Komutanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Personelinin Sa\u011fl\u0131k Muayene Y\u00f6nergesi (Y\u00f6nerge) uyar\u0131nca tekrar rapor almak \u00fczere hastaneye sevk edilmi\u015ftir. Bunun \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucunun sevk edildi\u011fi G\u00fclhane E\u011fitim ve Ara\u015ft\u0131rma Hastanesinden alm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu 24\/6\/2019 tarihli sa\u011fl\u0131k kurulu raporunda Miyopi ve Spina Bifida (Ayr\u0131k Omurga Hastal\u0131\u011f\u0131)tan\u0131s\u0131 ile uzman erba\u015f\/komando olamayaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. \u0130dare an\u0131lan ikinci rapor \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucunun adayl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 23\/9\/2019 tarihli i\u015flemle sonland\u0131rarak g\u00f6reve ba\u015flatmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
B. Bireysel Ba\u015fvuru S\u00fcreci<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, lehine kesinle\u015fen \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131 sonras\u0131 do\u011frudan uzman erba\u015fl\u0131\u011fa kabul edilmeyerek sa\u011fl\u0131k raporu ald\u0131r\u0131lmak \u00fczere tekrar hastaneye sevk edilmesine ili\u015fkin i\u015fleminin iptali istemiyle 14\/8\/2019 tarihinde dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Ankara 11. \u0130dare Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) 30\/1\/2020 tarihinde i\u015flemin iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir. Mahkeme kararda, yarg\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7mi\u015fe etkili olarak sonu\u00e7 do\u011furaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve s\u0131navlardan ba\u015far\u0131l\u0131 olup sa\u011fl\u0131k \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011fl\u0131k kurulu raporuyla ispat eden ba\u015fvurucunun g\u00fcvenlik soru\u015fturmas\u0131n\u0131n olumsuz oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle adayl\u0131kla ili\u015fi\u011finin kesilmesine ili\u015fkin i\u015flemi, tesis edildi\u011fi tarihten itibaren t\u00fcm hukuksal sonu\u00e7lar\u0131yla beraber ortadan kald\u0131raca\u011f\u0131na vurgu yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme; bu tespitten hareketle ba\u015fvurucunun adayl\u0131kla ili\u015fi\u011finin kesilmesi i\u015fleminden \u00f6nce, gerekli olan sa\u011fl\u0131k ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 usul\u00fcne uygun bir \u015fekilde ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 sa\u011fl\u0131k kurulu raporuyla ispatlad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve yarg\u0131 karar\u0131 sonras\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n adayl\u0131k i\u015flemlerinin kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 yerden devam etmesi gerekti\u011fini vurgulay\u0131p adayl\u0131k i\u015flemlerinin devam\u0131 i\u00e7in tekrar sa\u011fl\u0131k kurulu raporu al\u0131nmak \u00fczere hastaneye sevkine ili\u015fkin dava konusu i\u015flemde hukuka uygunluk bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. \u0130dare, karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 1. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi (B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi) 28\/1\/2021 tarihinde istinaf talebini kabul ederek mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 kald\u0131rm\u0131\u015f ve davay\u0131 kesin olarak reddetmi\u015ftir. Kararda; Y\u00f6nerge’de temin faaliyetleri i\u00e7in al\u0131nan sa\u011fl\u0131k raporunun ge\u00e7erlilik s\u00fcresinin 1 y\u0131l oldu\u011fu, bu raporun yarg\u0131 karar\u0131 gere\u011fince e\u011fitime ba\u015flat\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 tarih itibar\u0131yla ge\u00e7erlilik s\u00fcresinin doldu\u011fu ve ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda daha \u00f6nce sona erdirilmi\u015f olan adayl\u0131k i\u015flemlerinin yarg\u0131 karar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 yerden yeniden ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespiti yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi ayr\u0131ca ki\u015filerin adayl\u0131\u011fa kabul sonras\u0131nda her zaman sa\u011fl\u0131k \u015fart\u0131n\u0131n denetiminin idarece yap\u0131labilece\u011fini ve gerekti\u011finde adaylardan yeniden rapor al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n istenebilece\u011fini vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi bu tespitlerden hareketle aradan ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde ba\u015fvurucunun sa\u011fl\u0131k durumunun yeniden tespit edilerek sa\u011fl\u0131k durumunda bir de\u011fi\u015fiklik olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi i\u00e7in yeniden sa\u011fl\u0131k kurulu raporu almak \u00fczere sevkinin istenilmesinde mevzuata ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi; olayda yarg\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucunun do\u011fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, hen\u00fcz adayl\u0131k e\u011fitimine ba\u015flamadan i\u015flemleri sonland\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan ba\u015fvurucu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden verilmi\u015f olan yarg\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n bu h\u00e2liyle ba\u015fvurucunun do\u011frudan atanmas\u0131 sonucunu do\u011furmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Nihai karar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya 9\/4\/2021 tarihindetebli\u011fi \u00fczerine 4\/5\/2021 tarihinde s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde bireysel ba\u015fvuru yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. 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 beyanda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130ddialar\u0131 ve Bakanl\u0131k G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu, Ankara 4. \u0130dare Mahkemesinin 9\/5\/2019 tarihli lehine verilmi\u015f yarg\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n \u015feklen uygulanmak suretiyle etkisizle\u015ftirildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, tekrar rapor almak \u00fczere hastaneye sevkinin haks\u0131z oldu\u011funu oysaki s\u00fcrecin ba\u015f\u0131nda bu raporun al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; uzman erba\u015fl\u0131k s\u0131nav\u0131nda ba\u015far\u0131l\u0131 olan ba\u015fvurucunun adayl\u0131k s\u00fcrecinin, g\u00fcvenlik ve ar\u015fiv ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n olumsuz olmas\u0131 nedeniyle sona erdirildi\u011fini, bu i\u015flemin iptali istemiyle a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davada, dava konusu i\u015flemin iptaline karar verilmesi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucunun atamas\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in gerekli olan i\u015flemlerin yeniden ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla idarenin yarg\u0131 kararlar\u0131n\u0131 etkisiz k\u0131lmas\u0131 gibi bir durumdan bahsetmenin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucunun sa\u011fl\u0131k muayenesi i\u00e7in hastaneye tekrar sevk edilerek sonucuna g\u00f6re i\u015flem yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ilgili mevzuata g\u00f6re zorunlu oldu\u011fundan, hen\u00fcz adayl\u0131k e\u011fitimine ba\u015flamadan i\u015flemleri sonland\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan ba\u015fvurucu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden verilmi\u015f olan yarg\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n bu h\u00e2liyle ba\u015fvurucunun do\u011frudan atanmas\u0131 sonucunu do\u011furmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda ba\u015fvuru formundaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 tekrarlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
B. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvuru, adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki karar\u0131n icras\u0131 hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun\u2019un 48. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun ba\u015fvurular\u0131n Anayasa Mahkemesince kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilebilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu ba\u011flamda ba\u015fvurucunun ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131 temellendiremedi\u011fi, temel haklara y\u00f6nelik bir m\u00fcdahalenin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya m\u00fcdahalenin me\u015fru oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131k olan ba\u015fvurular ile karma\u015f\u0131k veya zorlama \u015fik\u00e2yetlerden ibaret ba\u015fvurular a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun kabul edilebilir (Hikmet Balabano\u011flu, B. No: 2012\/1334, 17\/9\/2013, \u00a7 24).<\/p>\n
16. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda; herkesin yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131na davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak ba\u015fvurabilme ve bunun do\u011fal sonucu olarak da iddia, savunma ve adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. An\u0131lan maddeyle g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131, kendisi bir temel hak niteli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6tesinde di\u011fer temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerden gereken \u015fekilde yararlan\u0131lmay\u0131 ve bunlar\u0131n korunmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan en etkili g\u00fcvencelerden biridir. Bu ba\u011flamda Anayasa’n\u0131n yasama ve y\u00fcr\u00fctme organlar\u0131 ile idarenin mahkeme kararlar\u0131na uyma zorunlulu\u011funu ve mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011fi\u015ftirilemeyece\u011fi ile uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131n geciktirilemeyece\u011fini ifade eden 138. maddesinin de adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n kapsam\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesinde g\u00f6zetilmesi gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r (Arman Mazman, B. No: 2013\/1752, 26\/6\/2014, \u00a7 57).<\/p>\n
17. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde ifade edilen hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131, sadece yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 ve daval\u0131 olarak iddia ve savunmada bulunma hakk\u0131n\u0131 de\u011fil yarg\u0131lama sonunda hakk\u0131 olan\u0131 elde etmeyi de kapsayan bir hakt\u0131r (AYM, E.2009\/27, K.2010\/9, 14\/1\/2010).<\/p>\n
18. Karar\u0131n icras\u0131 hakk\u0131, mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 ve karar hakk\u0131 ile birlikte adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvencelerinden olan mahkeme hakk\u0131n\u0131n bir unsurunu olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r. (Filiz F\u0131rat, B. No: 2014\/10305, 5\/12\/2017, \u00a7 29). Mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131 yarg\u0131laman\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda olmakla birlikte onu tamamlayan ve yarg\u0131laman\u0131n sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan bir unsurdur. Karar uygulanmazsa yarg\u0131laman\u0131n da bir anlam\u0131 olmayacakt\u0131r. Bu nedenle yarg\u0131 kararlar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131 mahkeme hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmektedir. Buna g\u00f6re yarg\u0131lama sonucunda mahkemenin bir karar vermi\u015f olmas\u0131 yeterli de\u011fildir, ayr\u0131ca bu karar\u0131n etkili bir \u015fekilde uygulanmas\u0131 da gerekir. Hukuk sisteminde, nihai mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131 taraflardan birinin aleyhine sonu\u00e7 do\u011furacak \u015fekilde uygulanamaz h\u00e2le getiren d\u00fczenlemeler bulunmas\u0131 veya mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131n icras\u0131n\u0131n herhangi bir \u015fekilde engellenmesi h\u00e2llerinde mahkeme hakk\u0131 da anlam\u0131n\u0131 yitirecektir (benzer y\u00f6ndeki de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in Ahmet Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m, B. No: 2012\/144, 2\/10\/2013, \u00a7 28).<\/p>\n
19. Kural olarak mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131, ilam zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 dolmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcrece her zaman talep edilebilir. Bu y\u00f6ndeki bir talebe ra\u011fmen mahkeme karar\u0131 uygulanmam\u0131\u015fsa olumsuz kamu g\u00fcc\u00fc i\u015fleminden kaynaklanan bir s\u00fcregelen ihlalden s\u00f6z edilebilir. Bu durumda ba\u015fvurucu, mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131 talebini m\u00fcteakiben makul bir s\u00fcre bekledikten sonra Anayasa Mahkemesine bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunabilir. Ba\u015fvurucunun talebinden vazge\u00e7ti\u011fi ya da takipsiz b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmad\u0131k\u00e7a bu t\u00fcr ba\u015fvurular\u0131n s\u00fcresinde yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmek gerekir (Ahmet Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m, \u00a7 29).<\/p>\n
20. Olayda, ba\u015fvurucunun e\u011fitim yerine atanmayarak i\u015flemlerinin sonland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin idari i\u015flem iptal edilmi\u015f ve h\u00fck\u00fcm kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir. Bu ilk mahkeme h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn uygulanmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla \u0130darece i\u015flemlere yeniden ba\u015fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilerek Y\u00f6nergeye g\u00f6re yenilenmesi gereken sa\u011fl\u0131k raporunun temini amac\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucu tekrar hastaneye sevk edilmi\u015ftir. Ancak al\u0131nan yeni raporda Miyopi ve Spina Bifida (Ayr\u0131k Omurga Hastal\u0131\u011f\u0131) tan\u0131s\u0131 ile uzman erba\u015f olamaz, komando olamaz, tespiti yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunun \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan do\u011frudan uzman erba\u015fl\u0131\u011fa kabul edilmeyerek sa\u011fl\u0131k raporu ald\u0131r\u0131lmak \u00fczere tekrar hastaneye sevk edilmesine ili\u015fkin i\u015fleminin iptali talebiyle yeniden dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130darece an\u0131lan ikinci rapor \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucunun adayl\u0131\u011f\u0131 23\/9\/2019 tarihli i\u015flemle sonland\u0131r\u0131larak ba\u015fvurucu g\u00f6reve ba\u015flat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. Karar\u0131n icras\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na konu edilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn uygulan\u0131p uygulanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n anla\u015f\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in h\u00fckm\u00fcn i\u00e7eri\u011finin saptanmas\u0131 gerekir. Bu ba\u011flamda h\u00fckm\u00fcn gerek\u00e7esinde yer alan hukuki de\u011ferlendirmenin belirleyici olaca\u011f\u0131 izahtan varestedir. Somut olayda uygulanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen mahkemenin 9\/5\/2019 tarihli iptal karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde \u00f6z olarak \u0130darece elde edilen tespitlerin g\u00fcvenlik soru\u015fturmas\u0131n\u0131 olumsuz k\u0131lacak a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131kta bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Yine bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan istinaf talebi \u00fczerine davay\u0131 inceleyen istinaf mercii taraf\u0131ndan verilen 26\/11\/2020 tarihli kararda da Anayasa Mahkemesinin belirtilen iptal karar\u0131 ile ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan durum sonucunda yasal dayana\u011f\u0131 kalmayan dava konusu i\u015flemin hukuka uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fka bir ifadeyle an\u0131lan iptal karar\u0131, Anayasa Mahkemesi karar\u0131 ile Anayasa’ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulunarak iptal edilen 4045 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 1. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131na dayan\u0131larak tesis edilen dava konusu i\u015flemin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit etmektedir. Bununla birlikte iptal karar\u0131nda g\u00fcvenlik soru\u015fturmas\u0131n\u0131n olumsuz sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na neden olan olguya dair bir irdeleme yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olup, esasa dair bir de\u011ferlendirme yer almamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
22. Bu h\u00e2le g\u00f6re idari i\u015flemi, tesis edilmesine ili\u015fkin usuli s\u00fcre\u00e7 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 bularak iptal eden h\u00fckm\u00fcn idareye ilk tesis edildi\u011fi andan itibaren i\u015flemin hukuki varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131rmak y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck y\u00fckledi\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131k ise de idarenin usule ili\u015fkin eksiklikleri gidererek yeni bir i\u015flem tesis etmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Nitekim somut vakada idarenin iptal karar\u0131na istinaden i\u015flemlere yeniden ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve Y\u00f6nergeye g\u00f6re yenilenmesi gereken sa\u011fl\u0131k raporunun temini amac\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun tekrar hastaneye sevk edildi\u011fi, raporun olumsuz olmas\u0131 \u00fczerine de yarg\u0131 denetimine a\u00e7\u0131k yeni bir idari i\u015flem tesis etti\u011fi dosya i\u00e7eri\u011finden anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. \u00d6te yandan yap\u0131lan Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi (UYAP) incelemesinde 24\/6\/2019 tarihli olumsuz rapor \u00fczerine adayl\u0131k i\u015flemleri sonland\u0131r\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan tesis edilen i\u015fleme kar\u015f\u0131 herhangi bir dava a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
23. Bu itibarla Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan verilen iptal karar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00f6z edilemeyece\u011finden karar\u0131n icras\u0131 hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir ihlalin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
24. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki karar\u0131n icras\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde BIRAKILMASINA 12\/3\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 12\/3\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/23474 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR M\u00dcCAH\u0130T YA\u011eAN BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/23474) Karar Tarihi: 12\/3\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : Mehmet Yavuz YA\u015eAR Ba\u015fvurucu : M\u00fccahit YA\u011eAN Vekili : Av. Nilay HASANEFEND\u0130O\u011eLU \u015eENG\u00dcN I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, idari i\u015flemin iptaline y\u00f6nelik yarg\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle karar\u0131n icras\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. A. Bireysel Ba\u015fvurudan \u00d6nceki S\u00fcre\u00e7 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, Jandarma Genel Komutanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n (\u0130dare) uzman \u00e7avu\u015fluk al\u0131m\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 ve s\u00f6zl\u00fc s\u0131navlar\u0131 ba\u015far\u0131 ile ge\u00e7mi\u015f ve sa\u011fl\u0131k muayenesine tabi tutulmu\u015ftur. Muayenesi sonucunda Sa\u011fl\u0131k Bilimleri \u00dcniversitesi Mehmet Akif \u0130nan E\u011fitim ve Ara\u015ft\u0131rma Hastanesi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen 7\/3\/2018 tarihli rapor ile hakk\u0131nda komando uzman erba\u015f olabilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda t\u00fcm bu i\u015flemlerin sonucunda \u0130darece 12\/4\/2000 tarihli ve 24018 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanarak y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren G\u00fcvenlik Soru\u015fturmas\u0131 ve Ar\u015fiv Ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fi’nin (M\u00fclga Y\u00f6netmelik) 12. maddesi uyar\u0131nca g\u00fcvenlik soru\u015fturmas\u0131 ve ar\u015fiv ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 yapt\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Y\u00f6netmelik’in 15. maddesi uyar\u0131nca yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirme sonucunda ba\u015fvurucunun g\u00fcvenlik soru\u015fturmas\u0131n\u0131n olumsuz oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle atamas\u0131 yap\u0131lmayarak adayl\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonland\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 4. Ba\u015fvurucu, s\u00f6z konusu i\u015flemin iptali istemiyle 5\/11\/2018 tarihinde dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ankara 4. \u0130dare Mahkemesi (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) 9\/5\/2019 tarihinde i\u015flemin iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, karar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-101756","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n