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
EM\u0130NE HANDE CELALYAN VE NAZLI N\u0130L\u00dcFER \u0130MRE BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/22729)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 31\/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
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Muhammed Cemil KANDEM\u0130R<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1. Emine Hande CELALYAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
2. Nazl\u0131 Nil\u00fcfer \u0130MRE<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Ey\u00fcp Seyfi \u00dcNAL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; emlak vergisine esas asgari \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde arsa ve arazi metrekare birim de\u011ferlerinin belirlenmesine ili\u015fkin Takdir Komisyonu karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan davada davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihteki hakl\u0131l\u0131k durumu de\u011ferlendirilmeden aleyhe yarg\u0131lama giderleri ile vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n, davan\u0131n yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcne dayal\u0131 olarak sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu kendi arazi, arsa ve binalar\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak 2017 y\u0131l\u0131 genel takdir d\u00f6neminde Takdir Komisyonlar\u0131nca 2018 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in takdir edilen asgari \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde arsa ve arazi metrekare birim de\u011ferlerinin iptali istemiyle \u0130stanbul 11. Vergi Mahkemesinde ve \u0130stanbul 6. Vergi Mahkemesinde (Vergi Mahkemeleri) iptal davalar\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. An\u0131lan iptal davalar\u0131nda, Takdir Komisyonlar\u0131n\u0131n 2018 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in belirledi\u011fi asgari \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde arsa ve arazi metrekare birim de\u011ferlerinin fahi\u015f oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. 28\/11\/2017 tarihli ve 7061 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 35. maddesiyle 29\/7\/1970 tarihli ve 1319 say\u0131l\u0131 Emlak Vergisi Kanunu’na eklenen ge\u00e7ici 23. maddeyle d\u00fczenleme yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu d\u00fczenlemeye g\u00f6re Takdir Komisyonlar\u0131nca 2017 y\u0131l\u0131 genel takdir d\u00f6neminde 2018 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in takdir edilen asgari \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde arsa ve arazi metrekare birim de\u011ferlerinin 2017 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in uygulanan birim de\u011ferlerinin %50\u2019sinden fazlas\u0131n\u0131 a\u015fmas\u0131 durumunda 2018 y\u0131l\u0131na ili\u015fkin bina ve arazi vergi de\u011ferlerinin hesab\u0131nda 2017 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in uygulanan asgari \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde arsa ve arazi metrekare birim de\u011ferlerinin %50 fazlas\u0131n\u0131n esas al\u0131nmas\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr (Hilmi Kocabey ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2018\/27686, 17\/11\/2021, \u00a7 14).<\/p>\n
4. Vergi Mahkemeleri mezk\u00fbr d\u00fczenlemeyi gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6stererek davalar hakk\u0131nda karar verilmesine yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Vergi Mahkemeleri davan\u0131n kanun h\u00fckm\u00fc gere\u011fince konusuz kalmas\u0131 dolay\u0131s\u0131yla taraflar\u0131n hakl\u0131l\u0131k durumuna ili\u015fkin bir inceleme ve de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek taraflar\u0131 yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin yar\u0131s\u0131ndan sorumlu tutmu\u015f ve her iki taraf lehine maktu vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmetmi\u015flerdir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan kararlara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi (B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi) istinaf ba\u015fvurular\u0131n\u0131 kesin olarak reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 temyiz yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi, dava konusu i\u015flemin temyize tabi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle temyiz ba\u015fvurular\u0131n\u0131n incelenmeksizin reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesinin bu kararlar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan temyiz ba\u015fvurular\u0131 Dan\u0131\u015ftay Dokuzuncu Dairesince reddedilmi\u015f ve B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131 onanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Nihai kararlar ba\u015fvurucuya 30\/5\/2019 ve 28\/6\/2019 tarihlerinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 1\/7\/2019 ve 19\/7\/2019 tarihlerinde bireysel ba\u015fvurularda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu Mahmut Do\u011fan \u015eahin 9\/1\/2022 tarihinde vefat etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu vekili 11\/4\/2022 tarihli beyan dilek\u00e7esiyle ba\u015fvurucunun yukar\u0131da ismi verilen miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n bireysel ba\u015fvuru dosyalar\u0131n\u0131 takip ettikleri bilgisini vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. 2019\/25675 numaral\u0131 ba\u015fvurunun ki\u015fi ve konu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden irtibat\u0131 nedeniyle 2019\/22729 numaral\u0131 ba\u015fvuru ile birle\u015ftirilmesine ve incelemenin 2019\/22729 numaral\u0131 ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerinden B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
A. Mahkemeye Eri\u015fim Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia <\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucular 7061 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 35. maddesiyle 1319 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a eklenen ge\u00e7ici 23. maddenin ihdas edilmesi gerek\u00e7esiyle a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131 davada kendilerinin hakl\u0131, idarenin ise haks\u0131z oldu\u011funu ortaya koymalar\u0131na ra\u011fmen aleyhlerine yarg\u0131lama giderlerine ve avukatl\u0131k \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma ve m\u00fclkiyet haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015flerdir. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucular B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesince ve Dan\u0131\u015ftayca temyize tabi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lan bir karara kar\u015f\u0131 temyiz yolunu t\u00fckettikten sonra bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015flard\u0131r. Bu durum g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurular\u0131n s\u00fcresinde olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmelidir. Anayasa Mahkemesince ba\u015fvurunun s\u00fcresine ili\u015fkin somut olayla ayn\u0131 mahiyetteki durumu Hayriye S\u0131rma Kefeli ve di\u011ferleri (B. No: 2019\/19733, 20\/9\/2023) karar\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir (ayn\u0131 kararda bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 25-39). An\u0131lan kararda, ba\u015fvurucular 4\/1\/1961 tarihli ve 213 say\u0131l\u0131 Vergi Usul Kanunu’nun m\u00fckerrer 49. maddesinde isitinaf isteminden sonra dahi -h\u00e2len- varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 devam ettiren “…Vergi mahkemelerince verilecek kararlar aleyhine onbe\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde Dan\u0131\u015ftaya ba\u015fvurulabilir.” kural\u0131na dayanarak ba\u015fvurusunun Dan\u0131\u015ftay taraf\u0131ndan incelenmesi gerekti\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca Emlak Takdir Komisyonu kararlar\u0131n\u0131n taalluk etti\u011fi i\u015flemlerin mebla\u011f olarak temyiz s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131 a\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve Emlak Takdir Komisyonu kararlar\u0131 d\u00fczenleyici i\u015flem mahiyetinde oldu\u011fundan temyiz incelemesi yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015flerdir (Hayriye S\u0131rma Kefeli ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 40). Kararda, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n temyiz yolunu t\u00fcketmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131ntamamen haks\u0131z ve dayanaks\u0131z olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131belirtilmi\u015ftir (Hayriye S\u0131rma Kefeli ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7\u00a7 41, 42). Temyiz ba\u015fvurular\u0131n\u0131n istinaf uygulamas\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girdi\u011fi 2016 y\u0131l\u0131ndan yakla\u015f\u0131k 2 y\u0131l sonra yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131, daha \u00f6nce Emlak Takdir Komisyonu kararlar\u0131n\u0131n kanun h\u00fckm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca do\u011frudan Dan\u0131\u015ftay incelemesine t\u00e2bi olmas\u0131 bir arada de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurular\u0131n s\u00fcresinde oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Hayriye S\u0131rma Kefeli ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 43). Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n benzer iddialarla temyiz yolunu t\u00fckettikten sonra bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden an\u0131lan kararda ula\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun s\u00fcresinde oldu\u011fu sonucundan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir neden bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n temel iddias\u0131n\u0131n aleyhlerine yarg\u0131lama giderlerine ve avukatl\u0131k \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurular bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede, mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
16. Anayasa Mahkemesi somut ba\u015fvuru ile ayn\u0131 nitelikteki ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131 Hilmi Kocabey ve di\u011ferleri karar\u0131nda incelemi\u015ftir. Kararda, yarg\u0131lama mercilerinin davan\u0131n konusuz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle taraflar\u0131n hakl\u0131l\u0131k durumuna ili\u015fkin inceleme yap\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabul etti\u011fi ancak kanun koyucunun kanun \u00e7\u0131karmas\u0131n\u0131n sebebini hesaba katmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kanun koyucunun m\u00fcdahalesinin vergilendirmeyle ilgili anayasal y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerin ihlalinin kabul\u00fc anlam\u0131na gelip gelmeyece\u011fini de\u011ferlendirmedikleri belirtilmi\u015ftir (Hilmi Kocabey ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 108).<\/p>\n
17. An\u0131lan kararda, 1319 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ge\u00e7ici 23. maddesinin ihdas edilmesinin temel sebebinin 2017 y\u0131l\u0131 genel takdir d\u00f6neminde Takdir Komisyonlar\u0131nca \u00f6nceki y\u0131la nazaran olduk\u00e7a y\u00fcksek oranlarda asgari \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde metrekare birim de\u011feri takdir edilmesi oldu\u011fu vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 2017 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in uygulanan birim de\u011ferlerin %50’sini a\u015fan orandaki de\u011ferler y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kamu otoritelerinin haks\u0131z oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fc gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan gerek\u00e7elerle vergi mahkemelerinin 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 331. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131 somut olaya uygularken bu hususu hesaba katmadan ula\u015ft\u0131klar\u0131 sonucun bariz takdir hatas\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011fi kanaatine var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kararda, bu nedenle yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin ba\u015fvurucular \u00fczerinde b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n ve ba\u015fvurucular aleyhine vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesinin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r(Hilmi Kocabey ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 109).<\/p>\n
18. Somut ba\u015fvuruda, mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddia y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Hilmi Kocabey ve di\u011ferleri karar\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
19. \u00d6te yandan ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n temyiz incelemesinin yap\u0131lmamas\u0131na ili\u015fkin ayr\u0131 bir iddialar\u0131n\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvurudaki as\u0131l iddialar\u0131n\u0131n yarg\u0131lama giderlerine ve vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. An\u0131lan iddia y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de ihlal sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n temyiz taleplerinin incelenmeksizin reddedilmesinin ayr\u0131ca incelenmesine gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Silahlar\u0131n E\u015fitli\u011fi \u0130lkesinin \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
21. Ba\u015fvurucular; Takdir Komisyonu kararlar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan davalar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131l\u0131\u015f sebeplerinin dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davan\u0131n devam etti\u011fi s\u0131rada y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren kanun h\u00fckm\u00fc gere\u011fince davan\u0131n konusuz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
22. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n bu iddialar\u0131n\u0131n silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ilkesi kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmesi uygun g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
23. Anayasa Mahkemesinin benzer iddialar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirdi\u011fi Hilmi Kocabey ve di\u011ferleri karar\u0131nda, her ne kadar ba\u015fvurucular taraf\u0131ndan a\u00e7\u0131lan davalar 1319 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un -davalar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131ndan sonra y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren- ge\u00e7ici 23. maddesine dayan\u0131larak sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ise de s\u00f6z\u00fc edilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131z say\u0131lmalar\u0131 neticesini husule getirmedi\u011finden yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetini zedelemedi\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Bu sebeple kanun koyucunun derdest olan davalara uygulanmak \u00fczere kural ihdas etmesinin silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ilkesini ihlal edecek boyuta ula\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
24. Somut olayda silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddia y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Hilmi Kocabey ve di\u011ferleri karar\u0131ndan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir husus bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
25. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurular\u0131n bu k\u0131s\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
26. Ba\u015fvurucular, yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu kapsamda karar\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flatmak ve Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gideren, ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun yeni bir karar vermektir (30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun\u2019un 50. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen bireysel ba\u015fvuruya \u00f6zg\u00fc yeniden yarg\u0131lama kurumunun \u00f6zelliklerine ili\u015fkin kapsaml\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamalar i\u00e7in bkz. 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
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM <\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 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 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere \u0130stanbul 11. Vergi Mahkemesine (E.2017\/2420, K.2018\/495) ve\u0130stanbul 6. Vergi Mahkemesine (E.2017\/2592, K.2017\/2542) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. 364,60 TL har\u00e7 tutarlar\u0131n\u0131n AYRI AYRI ve 30.000 TLvek\u00e2let \u00fccretininayn\u0131 avukatla temsil edilen ba\u015fvuruculara M\u00dc\u015eTEREKEN \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. \u00d6demelerin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n 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
F. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 31\/10\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 31\/10\/2024 tarihli ve 2019\/22729 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 EM\u0130NE HANDE CELALYAN VE NAZLI N\u0130L\u00dcFER \u0130MRE BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/22729) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 31\/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 \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN \u00a0 \u00a0 Muhterem \u0130NCE \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Muhammed Cemil KANDEM\u0130R Ba\u015fvurucular : 1. Emine Hande CELALYAN \u00a0 \u00a0 2. Nazl\u0131 Nil\u00fcfer \u0130MRE Ba\u015fvurucular Vekili : Av. Ey\u00fcp Seyfi \u00dcNAL \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru; emlak vergisine esas asgari \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde arsa ve arazi metrekare birim de\u011ferlerinin belirlenmesine ili\u015fkin Takdir Komisyonu karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan davada davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihteki hakl\u0131l\u0131k durumu de\u011ferlendirilmeden aleyhe yarg\u0131lama giderleri ile vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n, davan\u0131n yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcne dayal\u0131 olarak sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle silahlar\u0131n e\u015fitli\u011fi ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu kendi arazi, arsa ve binalar\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak 2017 y\u0131l\u0131 genel takdir d\u00f6neminde Takdir Komisyonlar\u0131nca 2018 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in takdir edilen asgari \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde arsa ve arazi metrekare birim de\u011ferlerinin iptali istemiyle \u0130stanbul 11. Vergi Mahkemesinde ve \u0130stanbul 6. Vergi Mahkemesinde (Vergi Mahkemeleri) iptal davalar\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. An\u0131lan iptal davalar\u0131nda, Takdir Komisyonlar\u0131n\u0131n 2018 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in belirledi\u011fi asgari \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde arsa ve arazi metrekare birim …<\/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-25123","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n