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
FEVZ\u0130YE BAYRAK VE RAMAZAN BAYRAK BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/1127)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 23\/10\/2024<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/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
Hasan SARA\u00c7<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1.Fevziye BAYRAK<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
2. Ramazan BAYRAK<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Muzaffer KILI\u00c7\u00d6REN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, idarenin hizmet kusurundan dolay\u0131 u\u011fran\u0131lan zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u00e7ocu\u011fu olan \u0130.B. 18\/9\/2013 tarihinde Devlet Su \u0130\u015fleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (\u0130dare) ile GAP Sulama Birli\u011finin sorumlulu\u011fu alt\u0131nda bulunan \u015eanl\u0131urfa’daki a\u00e7\u0131k su kanal\u0131na d\u00fc\u015ferek yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular, a\u011f\u0131r engelli h\u00e2le gelen \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n\u0131n ve kendilerinin u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia ettikleri maddi ve manevi zararlar\u0131n\u0131n tazmini i\u00e7in yapt\u0131klar\u0131 idari ba\u015fvurunun z\u0131mni retle sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131 \u00fczerine \u015eanl\u0131urfa 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) 13\/11\/2014 tarihinde tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda \u0130.B.nin sa\u011fl\u0131k durumu ile \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ve meslekte kazanma g\u00fcc\u00fc kayb\u0131 oran\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi i\u00e7in\u0130dare Mahkemesinin hakem hastane olarak belirlenen \u015eanl\u0131urfa Mehmet Akif \u0130nan E\u011fitim ve Ara\u015ft\u0131rma Hastanesiyle (Hastane) bir\u00e7ok kez yaz\u0131\u015fma yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Hastanenin d\u00fczenledi\u011fi 15\/11\/2016 tarihli raporda, \u0130.B. hakk\u0131nda “a\u011f\u0131r geli\u015fim gerili\u011fi, hipoksik beyin hasar\u0131, yard\u0131m, mekanin destek ve\/veya bir yard\u0131mc\u0131 cihaz olmaks\u0131z\u0131n aya\u011fa kalkam\u0131yor, ki\u015fi her iki ekstremiteyi kendine bak\u0131m veya g\u00fcnl\u00fck aktivitelerde kullanam\u0131yor” \u015feklinde tan\u0131 ile \u0130.B.nin hastal\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcreklilik arz etti\u011fi bildirilmi\u015ftir. Bu raporda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma g\u00fcc\u00fc ve meslekte kazanma g\u00fcc\u00fc kayb\u0131 oran\u0131n\u0131n belirtilmemesi \u00fczerine \u0130dare Mahkemesi, bu hususun netle\u015ftirilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Hastane %80 ve %90 olmak \u00fczere iki ayr\u0131 engellilik oran\u0131 sunmu\u015ftur. \u0130dare Mahkemesince, bu raporda da \u0130.B.nin \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ve meslekte kazanma g\u00fcc\u00fc kayb\u0131 oran\u0131n\u0131n yine belirtilmedi\u011finden bahisle yaz\u0131lan yaz\u0131ya, Hastane 29\/6\/2017 tarihinde \u0130.B.nin engellilik oran\u0131n\u0131n %65 oldu\u011funu bildirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. \u0130dare Mahkemesi, ilgili Hastane taraf\u0131ndan \u0130.B.nin \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma g\u00fcc\u00fc ve meslekte kazanma g\u00fcc\u00fc kayb\u0131 oran\u0131n\u0131n net ve teredd\u00fcte mahal b\u0131rakmayacak \u015fekilde ortaya konulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle bu husustaki raporunAdl\u00ee T\u0131p Kurumundan(ATK) al\u0131nmas\u0131na 17\/7\/2017 tarihinde karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. ATK’dan al\u0131nan 11\/6\/2019 tarihli raporun sonu\u00e7 k\u0131sm\u0131nda \u0130.B.nin %100 oran\u0131nda meslekte kazanma g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc kaybetti\u011fi ve engelli olarak ba\u015fkas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcrekli yard\u0131m\u0131na muhta\u00e7 oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan raporda \u0130.B.nin 18\/9\/2013 yat\u0131\u015f ve 28\/11\/2013 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f tarihli epikrizleri ile Hastane’nin 15\/11\/2016 tarihli raporunun, ayr\u0131ca Harran \u00dcniversitesi Hastanesinin 17\/10\/2018 tarihli tetkiklerinin incelendi\u011finin ve t\u00fcm bu t\u0131bbi verilere g\u00f6re \u0130.B.nin a\u011f\u0131r geli\u015fim gerili\u011finin, hipoksik beyin hasar\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011funun, mekanik destek veya bir yard\u0131mc\u0131 cihaz olmadan aya\u011fa kalkamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirtildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/p>\n
6. Yarg\u0131lama sonunda \u0130.B.ye 662.537,33-TL maddi tazminat\u0131n ba\u015fvuru ve \u0131slah dilek\u00e7elerinin tebli\u011fi tarihinden i\u015fleyecek yasal faiziyle \u00f6denmesine, yine \u0130.B. i\u00e7in 100.000 TL, ba\u015fvurucular i\u00e7inayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 25.000 TL ve \u0130.B.nin karde\u015fleri i\u00e7in ise toplam 80.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n \u00f6denmesine 25\/12\/2019 tarihinde karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucular, ATK’n\u0131n tesbitine istinaden bak\u0131c\u0131 gideri \u00f6denmesi i\u00e7in \u0130dareye 8\/7\/2019 tarihinde ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015flar, ret karar\u0131 \u00fczerine de bu kez fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak kayd\u0131yla 1.000,00-TL bak\u0131c\u0131 gideri tazminat\u0131n\u0131n olay tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faiziyle \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi talebiyle \u0130dare Mahkemesinde 30\/10\/2019 tarihinde dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular dava dilek\u00e7esinde, ATK raporuna atfen \u0130.B.nin ba\u015fka birisinin s\u00fcrekli yard\u0131m\u0131na muhta\u00e7 durumda oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin de\u011ferlendirmelerde bulunuldu\u011funu, \u0130.B.nin bundan sonraki hayat\u0131n\u0131n ancak ba\u015fkas\u0131n\u0131n yard\u0131m ile devam ettirebilece\u011fini, olayda idarenin kusurunun bulundu\u011funu iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. \u0130dare Mahkemesi, davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
”Olayda, Mahkememizin 2014\/519 say\u0131l\u0131 esas\u0131na kayden g\u00f6r\u00fclen davada yap\u0131lan bilirki\u015fi incelemesi sonucunda al\u0131nan ve 05.07.2019 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilen raporda davac\u0131 k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck [\u0130.B.nin] ‘ba\u015fka birisinin s\u00fcrekli yard\u0131m\u0131na muhta\u00e7 oldu\u011fu’ \u015feklindeki ibarenin ge\u00e7mesi \u00fczerine daval\u0131 idareye 08.07.2019 tarihli dilek\u00e7eyle taraflar\u0131na bak\u0131c\u0131 gideri \u00f6denmesi talebiyle ba\u015fvuruda bulunuldu\u011fu, ve s\u00f6z konusu ba\u015fvurunun z\u0131mnen reddedilmesi \u00fczerine bak\u0131lmakta olan davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, ancak dava konusu tazminat talebine dayanak te\u015fkil eden olay\u0131n 18.09.2013 tarihinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi ve bu olaya ili\u015fkin u\u011fran\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen zararlara kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k olarak maddi ve manevi tazminat istemiyle Mahkememiz2014\/519 say\u0131l\u0131 esas\u0131na kayden dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131k h\u00fckm\u00fcne yer verilen 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 yasan\u0131n 13. maddesi uyar\u0131nca davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n dava konusu tazminat talebine dayanak te\u015fkil eden olay\u0131 ve sorumlular\u0131n\u0131 en ge\u00e7 13.11.2014 tarihinde Mahkememize verilen dilek\u00e7eyle a\u00e7\u0131lan 2014\/519 esas say\u0131l\u0131 davayla \u00f6\u011frenmi\u015f olduklar\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc gerekti\u011finden, en ge\u00e7 13.11.2015 tarihine kadar dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekirken bu tarihten \u00e7ok sonra 30.10.2019 tarihinde kayda giren dilek\u00e7eyle a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclen i\u015fbu davan\u0131n, s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle esas\u0131n\u0131 inceleme olana\u011f\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucular, karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucular, zarar\u0131n kapsam\u0131n\u0131n ATK raporundan \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fini, \u0130.B.nin zarar\u0131n\u0131n geli\u015fen durumdan da kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, zarar g\u00f6renin zarar\u0131 \u00f6\u011frenmesinden amac\u0131n, zarar\u0131n mahiyeti(kapsam\u0131) ve esasl\u0131 unsurlar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda bir dava a\u00e7maya, davay\u0131 ciddi ve objektif \u015fekilde desteklemeye ve davan\u0131n gerek\u00e7elerini g\u00f6stermeye elveri\u015fli b\u00fct\u00fcn h\u00e2l ve \u015fartlar\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, v\u00fccut b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlalinden do\u011fan zarar\u0131n ancak hekim raporuyla belirli bir a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131\u011fa kavu\u015fabilece\u011fini, v\u00fccut b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlalinden do\u011fan zararlarda zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n olay tarihi ya da tazminat sorumlusu ile zarar\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenilme g\u00fcn\u00fc de\u011fil, s\u00fcrekli sakatl\u0131\u011fa ili\u015fkin kesin raporun ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi tarih oldu\u011funu, zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcrekli sakatl\u0131\u011fa ili\u015fkin kesin raporun \u00f6\u011frenilmesinden sonra i\u015flemeye ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ne s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
10. Gaziantep B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc \u0130dari Dava Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda istinaf ba\u015fvurusu 8\/10\/2020 tarihinde reddedilmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n 6\/12\/2020 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmesi \u00fczerine 29\/12\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuru yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
11. Komisyonca, adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fc ile ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucular, zarar\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi veya \u00f6\u011frenilmesi gerekti\u011fine ili\u015fkin olarak \u0130dare Mahkemesinin herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmaks\u0131z\u0131n davay\u0131 kategorik olarak reddetti\u011fini, zarar\u0131n ve zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesinin kendilerinden beklenemeyecek derecede g\u00fc\u00e7 oldu\u011funu, bu belirsizli\u011fin ise aleyhlerine de\u011ferlendirilerek davan\u0131n reddedilmesi nedeniyle hak arama h\u00fcrriyeti ile adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini \u00f6ne s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvuru, adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvencelerinden olan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. Somut olayda, o\u011fullar\u0131n\u0131n yaralanmas\u0131nda sorumluluklar\u0131 bulunan idare aleyhine bak\u0131c\u0131 masraf\u0131ndan kaynakl\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilerek davan\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmemesi nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim haklar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir m\u00fcdahalede bulunuldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
15. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bir m\u00fcdahalenin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilmesinden sonra bu m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde belirtilen ko\u015fullara uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n da de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir. Bu m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinde belirtilen ko\u015fullara uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinin ihlaline sebebiyet verece\u011finde herhangi bir \u015f\u00fcphe bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
16. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetler, … yaln\u0131zca Anayasan\u0131n ilgili maddelerinde belirtilen sebeplere ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ve ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir. Bu s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar, … \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamaz.”<\/p>\n
17. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bu m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ve somut ba\u015fvuruya uygun d\u00fc\u015fen, kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme, hakl\u0131 bir sebebe dayanma ve son olarak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmama ko\u015fullar\u0131na uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n idari eylemden do\u011fan zararlar\u0131n\u0131n tazmini istemiyle a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131 davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesine ili\u015fkin mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 13. maddesine dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla somut olayda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim haklar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131 mevcuttur.<\/p>\n
19. Kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131 bulunan bir m\u00fcdahalenin, ayr\u0131ca, hakl\u0131 bir sebebinin bir di\u011fer ifadeyle me\u015fru amac\u0131n\u0131n var olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi de gerekmektedir. Bu kapsamda, dava a\u00e7man\u0131n bir s\u00fcreye ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131n me\u015fru amac\u0131n\u0131n ne oldu\u011fu hususu benzer nitelikteki ba\u015fvurularda Anayasa Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan m\u00fcteaddit defa incelenmi\u015ftir. Anayasa Mahkemesi bu incelemelerinde idari i\u015flem ya da eylemlere kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lacak davalarda s\u00fcre ko\u015fulu \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin en genel ifadesiyle Anayasa’n\u0131n 2. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen hukuk devleti ilkesinin bir gere\u011fi olan idari istikrar\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 \u015feklinde bir me\u015fru amac\u0131 bulundu\u011funa i\u015faret etmi\u015ftir (daha ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. Ay\u015fe Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m, B. No: 2014\/5, 25\/10\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 54, 55; Fatma Altuner, B. No: 2014\/17714, 26\/10\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 48, 49; \u00c7\u00f6lbeyi Lojistik Nakliyat G\u00fcmr\u00fckleme Denizcilik \u0130n\u015faat Turizm Sanayii ve Ticaret Limitet \u015eirketi, B. No: 2014\/12354, 9\/11\/2017, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
20. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olarak kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131 ve me\u015fru amac\u0131 bulunan bir m\u00fcdahalenin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edildikten sonra son olarak bu m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n da de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
21. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi elveri\u015flilik, gereklilik ve orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k olmak \u00fczere \u00fc\u00e7 alt ilkeden olu\u015fmaktad\u0131r. Elveri\u015flilik \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen m\u00fcdahalenin ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli olmas\u0131n\u0131, gereklilik ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan m\u00fcdahalenin zorunlu olmas\u0131n\u0131 yani ayn\u0131 amaca daha hafif bir m\u00fcdahale ile ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmamas\u0131n\u0131, orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k ise bireyin hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale ile ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 aras\u0131nda makul bir dengenin g\u00f6zetilmesi gereklili\u011fini ifade etmektedir (AYM, E.2011\/111, K.2012\/56, 11\/4\/2012; E.2014\/176, K.2015\/53, 27\/5\/2015; E.2016\/13, K.2016\/127, 22\/6\/2016; Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
22. Somut olayda elveri\u015flilik ve gereklilik ilkeleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektirecek bir y\u00f6n bulunmamaktad\u0131r. As\u0131l \u00fczerinde durulmas\u0131 gereken, m\u00fcdahalenin orant\u0131l\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
23. Anayasa Mahkemesi bireysel ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131nda yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmelerde 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
24. Somut olayda, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n 2014 y\u0131l\u0131nda a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f olduklar\u0131 ilk davada kusura ve \u0130.B.nin \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma g\u00fcc\u00fc ve meslekte kazanma g\u00fcc\u00fc kayb\u0131 oran\u0131na dair birden \u00e7ok kez bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu raporlara bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u0130.B.nin ba\u015ftan itibaren a\u011f\u0131r engellilik durumu oldu\u011funa dair \u00e7e\u015fitli te\u015fhislerin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Hastanenin 15\/11\/2016 tarihli raporunda belirtilen bu duruma ili\u015fkin olarak 29\/6\/2017 tarihli ek cevab\u00ee yaz\u0131da da\u0130.B.nin %65 oran\u0131nda engelli oldu\u011fu ayr\u0131ca belirtilmi\u015ftir. ATK’dan 11\/6\/2019 tarihinde al\u0131nan raporun sonu\u00e7 k\u0131sm\u0131nda ise \u0130.B.nin %100 engelliolarak ba\u015fkas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcrekli yard\u0131m\u0131na muhta\u00e7 oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. \u0130dare Mahkemesi, t\u00fcm bu hususlardan sonra, 18\/9\/2013 tarihinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen olaya ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131lan mevcut davada tazminat talebine dayanak te\u015fkil eden olay ve kamu g\u00f6revlilerinin sorumlulu\u011funun bilinebilir durumda oldu\u011funu de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir. \u0130dare Mahkemesi, bu kabulden hareketle ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n en ge\u00e7 13\/11\/2014 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan dava ile mevcut durumu bilebilecek durumda oldu\u011funu da kabul etmi\u015ftir. \u0130dare Mahkemesi bu tespitler sonras\u0131nda 13\/11\/2014 tarihinde bilinebilir h\u00e2le gelen kamu g\u00f6revlilerinin ve idarenin sorumlulu\u011funa ili\u015fkin mevcut davan\u0131n 13\/11\/2015 tarihine kadar dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekirken 30\/10\/2019 tarihinde dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
25. \u0130dare Mahkemesinin gerek uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu olguyu gerekse bu olgudan hareketle dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin hesaplanma usul\u00fcn\u00fc, s\u00fcrenin ba\u015flat\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 tarihi belirlemesiyle ilgili yorumunun ve mevzuata dair de\u011ferlendirmesinin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemez nitelikte olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n dava a\u00e7mas\u0131n\u0131 a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 derecede zorla\u015ft\u0131racak ya da imk\u00e2ns\u0131z k\u0131lacak nitelikte kat\u0131 bir yakla\u015f\u0131m i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi, bu nedenle orant\u0131l\u0131 bir m\u00fcdahalenin bulundu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
26. Bu itibarla ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir ihlalin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
27. 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. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim 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. 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun 339. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca tahsil edilmesi ma\u011fduriyetine neden olaca\u011f\u0131ndan adli yard\u0131m talebi kabul edilen ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n yarg\u0131lama giderlerini \u00f6demekten TAMAMEN MUAF TUTULMASINA, 23\/10\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 23\/10\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/1127 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 FEVZ\u0130YE BAYRAK VE RAMAZAN BAYRAK BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/1127) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 23\/10\/2024 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Hasan SARA\u00c7 Ba\u015fvurucular : 1.Fevziye BAYRAK \u00a0 : 2. Ramazan BAYRAK Ba\u015fvurucular Vekili : Av. Muzaffer KILI\u00c7\u00d6REN \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, idarenin hizmet kusurundan dolay\u0131 u\u011fran\u0131lan zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u00e7ocu\u011fu olan \u0130.B. 18\/9\/2013 tarihinde Devlet Su \u0130\u015fleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (\u0130dare) ile GAP Sulama Birli\u011finin sorumlulu\u011fu alt\u0131nda bulunan \u015eanl\u0131urfa’daki a\u00e7\u0131k su kanal\u0131na d\u00fc\u015ferek yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular, a\u011f\u0131r engelli h\u00e2le gelen \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n\u0131n ve kendilerinin u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia ettikleri maddi ve manevi zararlar\u0131n\u0131n tazmini i\u00e7in yapt\u0131klar\u0131 idari ba\u015fvurunun z\u0131mni retle sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131 \u00fczerine \u015eanl\u0131urfa 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) 13\/11\/2014 tarihinde tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda \u0130.B.nin sa\u011fl\u0131k durumu ile \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ve meslekte kazanma g\u00fcc\u00fc kayb\u0131 oran\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi i\u00e7in\u0130dare Mahkemesinin hakem hastane olarak belirlenen \u015eanl\u0131urfa Mehmet Akif \u0130nan E\u011fitim ve Ara\u015ft\u0131rma Hastanesiyle (Hastane) bir\u00e7ok kez yaz\u0131\u015fma yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Hastanenin …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,535],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21130","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n