T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
SADIK YILMAZ VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/24134)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 30\/10\/2024<\/p>\n
\u0130K\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
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u00c7a\u011flar \u00d6NCEL<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1. Sad\u0131k YILMAZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
2. P\u0131nar BAH\u00c7EC\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
3. Umut Can YILMAZ<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. B\u00fclent MARAKLI<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; t\u0131bbi ihmal sonucu \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131n\u0131n meydana gelmesi, bu olaydan do\u011fan manevi zarar\u0131n tazmini istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcmle neticelenen olay\u0131n seyri ile sa\u011fl\u0131k \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131n\u0131n olas\u0131 sorumlulu\u011funu ayd\u0131nlatmaya imk\u00e2n vermemesi ve yarg\u0131laman\u0131n makul bir s\u00fcratle y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmemesi nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Birinci ba\u015fvurucunun e\u015fi, di\u011fer ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n annesi olan H.Y. 2\/5\/2012 tarihinde \u00c7ukurova A\u015fk\u0131m T\u00fcfek\u00e7i Devlet Hastanesinde (Hastane) morbid obezite nedeniyle mide k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fcltme ameliyat\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. An\u0131lan t\u0131bbi m\u00fcdahale sonras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan kontrollerde drenden ka\u00e7ak oldu\u011fu belirlenerek 21\/5\/2012 tarihinde yeniden ameliyata al\u0131nan H.Y., 29\/5\/2012 tarihinde \u00c7ukurova \u00dcniversitesi T\u0131p Fak\u00fcltesi Balcal\u0131 Hastanesine (\u00dcniversite Hastanesi) sevk edilmi\u015ftir. H.Y., \u00dcniversite Hastanesi yo\u011fun bak\u0131m servisindeki tedavisi s\u0131ras\u0131nda 7\/7\/2012 tarihinde vefat etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucular 7\/2\/2013 tarihinde Adana 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular dava dilek\u00e7esinde; \u00f6len yak\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n farkl\u0131 bir sa\u011fl\u0131k sorunu olmaks\u0131z\u0131n yaln\u0131zca a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 kilolu olmas\u0131 nedeniyle -hekim tavsiyesi \u00fczerine- ameliyat\u0131 kabul etti\u011fini beyan etmi\u015ftir. T\u0131bbi m\u00fcdahale s\u0131ras\u0131nda H.Y.nin yemek borusunun kesildi\u011fini ayr\u0131ca an\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleden sonraki tedavi s\u00fcrecinde s\u0131v\u0131 al\u0131m\u0131na izin verilmesi nedeniyle akci\u011ferinin zarar g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc belirten ba\u015fvurucular, meydana gelen neticenin ilgili hekimin kusurlu davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131ndan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek toplam 370.000 TL destekten yoksun kalma tazminat\u0131 ile manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
4. Mahkeme, dosyay\u0131 bilirki\u015fi incelemesi i\u00e7in Adli T\u0131p Kurumuna (ATK) g\u00f6ndermi\u015ftir. ATK 1. \u0130htisas Kurulu 26\/2\/2014 tarihli raporunda; H.Y.ye uygulanan tan\u0131 ve tedavinin t\u0131p kurallar\u0131na uygun oldu\u011funu, cerrahi operasyon sonras\u0131 geli\u015fen durumlar\u0131n olas\u0131 komplikasyonlar oldu\u011funu bildirmi\u015ftir. Raporda, ayr\u0131ca s\u00f6z konusu komplikasyonlar\u0131n fark edilerek an\u0131lan ki\u015fiye m\u00fcdahale edildi\u011fi ve sorunun devam\u0131 nedeniyle bir \u00fcst merkeze sevkinin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanarak daval\u0131 idareye y\u00f6nelik hizmet kusuru tespit edilemedi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular, rapora itiraz etmi\u015ftir. \u0130tiraz dilek\u00e7esinde; cerrahi m\u00fcdahale s\u0131ras\u0131nda H.Y.nin yemek borusunun kesilmesine ve akabindeki tedavi s\u00fcrecinde s\u0131v\u0131 almas\u0131na izin verilmesine ili\u015fkin bir a\u00e7\u0131klama yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucular, ayr\u0131ca hekimin t\u0131bbi m\u00fcdahale \u00f6ncesinde i\u015flemin olas\u0131 sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 bilgilendirme yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Mahkeme 30\/4\/2014 tarihinde davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; ATK raporuna at\u0131fla H.Y.ye uygulanan tan\u0131 ve tedavilerin t\u0131p kurallar\u0131na uygun oldu\u011fu, cerrahi operasyon sonras\u0131 geli\u015fen durumlar\u0131n olas\u0131 komplikasyon niteli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131 nedeniyle idareye atfedilebilecek bir hizmet kusurunun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucular, itiraz dilek\u00e7esinde ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fckleri hususlar\u0131 tekrar ederek temyiz talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Onuncu Dairesi 4\/11\/2019 tarihinde vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki temyiz taleplerinin reddine, h\u00fckm\u00fcn vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine ili\u015fkin k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fczeltilerek onanmas\u0131na oy\u00e7oklu\u011fuyla karar vermi\u015ftir. Kar\u015f\u0131oy gerek\u00e7esinde; ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n davaya konu t\u0131bbi m\u00fcdahaleden \u00f6nce i\u015flemin olas\u0131 sonu\u00e7lar\u0131na ili\u015fkin ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 bilgilendirme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fckleri nitekim hasta dosyas\u0131ndaki onam formunun matbu nitelikte olup somut olaya ili\u015fkin bilgilendirme i\u00e7ermedi\u011finin anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucular lehinde manevi tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesi gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucular, nihai karar\u0131 2\/6\/2020 tarihinde tebli\u011f ald\u0131ktan sonra 13\/7\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
8. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurucunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucular; yak\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc ile sonu\u00e7lanan t\u0131bbi m\u00fcdahale s\u00fcrecinde an\u0131lan i\u015flemin olas\u0131 sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda bilgilendirme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, hatal\u0131 m\u00fcdahalede bulunularak H.Y.nin yemek borusunun kesildi\u011fini ayr\u0131ca tedavisi s\u0131ras\u0131nda s\u0131v\u0131 al\u0131m\u0131na izin verilmesinin akci\u011ferlerinde hasar olu\u015fturdu\u011funu beyan etmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fckleri somut olgular\u0131 g\u00f6zard\u0131 eden bilirki\u015fi raporuna y\u00f6nelik itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n Mahkemece dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve yakla\u015f\u0131k yedi y\u0131l gibi uzun bir s\u00fcrede karar verilebildi\u011fini belirten ba\u015fvurucular, davan\u0131n haks\u0131z \u015fekilde reddedilmesinin sonucu olarak maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve geli\u015ftirilmesi hakk\u0131n\u0131n ve makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
10. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde konuya ili\u015fkin Anayasa Mahkemesi ve Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesinin kararlar\u0131 ile ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine yer verilerek mevcut ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131ndaki ihlal iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkin incelemede bu hususlar\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi bildirilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvuru, ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. 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 ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
13. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131 g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na alan Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesi, devletin temel ama\u00e7 ve g\u00f6revlerini d\u00fczenleyen Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 5. maddesiyle birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde devlete negatif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler yan\u0131nda egemenli\u011fi alt\u0131ndaki ki\u015filerin ya\u015famlar\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 i\u00e7in baz\u0131 pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler de y\u00fckler (Serpil Kerimo\u011flu ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2012\/752, 17\/9\/2013, \u00a7\u00a7 50, 51; Nafia Sevin Erg\u00fcn Sefada ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2014\/14844, 1\/12\/2016, \u00a7\u00a7 57, 58).<\/p>\n
14. An\u0131lan pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler, sa\u011fl\u0131k alan\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen faaliyetler i\u00e7in de ge\u00e7erlidir. Nitekim Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 56. maddesinde; herkesin sa\u011fl\u0131kl\u0131 ve dengeli bir \u00e7evrede ya\u015fama hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu, devletin \u201cherkesin hayat\u0131n\u0131 beden ve ruh sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7inde s\u00fcrd\u00fcrmesini sa\u011flamak \u2026 amac\u0131yla sa\u011fl\u0131k kurulu\u015flar\u0131n\u0131 tek elden planlay\u0131p hizmet vermesini\u201d d\u00fczenleyece\u011fi ve bu g\u00f6revini kamu kesimindeki ve \u00f6zel kesimdeki sa\u011fl\u0131k ve sosyal kurumlar\u0131ndan yararlanarak, onlar\u0131 denetleyerek yerine getirece\u011fi kurala ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu sebeple devlet; sa\u011fl\u0131k hizmetlerini, kamu veya \u00f6zel sa\u011fl\u0131k kurulu\u015flar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yerine getirildi\u011fine bakmadan hastalar\u0131n ya\u015famlar\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik gerekli tedbirlerin al\u0131nabilmesini sa\u011flayacak \u015fekilde d\u00fczenlemek zorundad\u0131r (Nail Artu\u00e7, B. No: 2013\/2839, 3\/4\/2014, \u00a7\u00a7 34, 35; Nafia Sevin Erg\u00fcn Sefada ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7\u00a7 59, 60). \u015e\u00fcphesiz an\u0131lan d\u00fczenlemeler, sa\u011fl\u0131k personellerinin sahip olmalar\u0131 gereken y\u00fcksek mesleki standartlar\u0131 da i\u00e7ermelidir (Ayhan Ke\u00e7eli ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2019\/24231, 23\/2\/2022, \u00a7 81).<\/p>\n
15. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri kapsam\u0131nda devlet, ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131 korumak i\u00e7in olu\u015fturulan yasal ve idari \u00e7er\u00e7evenin gere\u011fi gibi uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 ve bu hakka y\u00f6nelik ihlallerin durdurulup cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayacak etkili bir yarg\u0131sal sistem kurmakla da y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. Bu usul y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u015f\u00fcpheli her \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131n\u0131n sorumlular\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesini ve gerekiyorsa cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayabilecek etkili bir soru\u015fturma y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesini gerektirir (Serpil Kerimo\u011flu ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7\u00a7 52, 54; Nafia Sevin Erg\u00fcn Sefada ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 61).<\/p>\n
16. Kas\u0131tl\u0131 \u00f6ld\u00fcrme ya da sald\u0131r\u0131 veya k\u00f6t\u00fc muameleler sonucu meydana gelen \u00f6l\u00fcm olaylar\u0131nda Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesi gere\u011fince devletin sorumlular\u0131n tespitine ve cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmalar\u0131na imk\u00e2n verebilecek nitelikte cezai soru\u015fturmalar y\u00fcr\u00fctme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bulunsa da kas\u0131tl\u0131 olmayan eylemler a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 bir yakla\u015f\u0131m benimsenebilir. Bu bak\u0131mdan genel olarak ihmal suretiyle ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan di\u011fer \u00f6l\u00fcmlerde oldu\u011fu gibi t\u0131bbi ihmal sonucu ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddia edilen, bir ba\u015fka ifadeyle tedavinin kusurlu, yanl\u0131\u015f veya gecikmi\u015f olmas\u0131 ya da sa\u011fl\u0131k \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131n\u0131n tedavi s\u0131ras\u0131ndaki koordinasyon eksiklikleri sonucu meydana geldi\u011fi ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen \u00f6l\u00fcm olaylar\u0131nda da etkili bir yarg\u0131sal sistem kurma y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck; ma\u011fdurlara hukuki, idari ve hatta disiplinle ilgili hukuk yollar\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k olmas\u0131yla yerine getirilmi\u015f say\u0131labilir (Ayhan Ke\u00e7eli ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 84; baz\u0131 farkl\u0131l\u0131klarla birlikte bkz. Nail Artu\u00e7, \u00a7 37; Nafia Sevin Erg\u00fcn Sefada ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7\u00a7 62-64).<\/p>\n
17. \u00d6l\u00fcm\u00fcn t\u0131bbi ihmalden de\u011fil de sa\u011fl\u0131k durumunun ciddiyeti bilinen ya da bilinmesi gereken hastaya gerekli acil sa\u011fl\u0131k hizmetinin sunulmamas\u0131 sonucu meydana geldi\u011fi ya da sa\u011fl\u0131k hizmetlerinde var olan ve yetkililerce bilinen veya bilinmesi gereken ancak ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in gerekli \u00f6nlemlerin al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sistemsel veya yap\u0131sal bir i\u015flevsizli\u011fin hastan\u0131n sa\u011fl\u0131k hizmetlerinden yoksun kalarak \u00f6lmesine neden oldu\u011fu durumlarda, sorumlular aleyhine hi\u00e7bir su\u00e7lamada bulunulmamas\u0131 ya da bu ki\u015filerin yarg\u0131lanmamas\u0131 ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlaline neden olabilir (Ayhan Ke\u00e7eli ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 85; benzer y\u00f6ndeki de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in ayr\u0131ca bkz. Kenan Say\u0131n, B. No: 2013\/5376, 14\/10\/2015, \u00a7 47).<\/p>\n
18. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki sorumlulu\u011fu ortaya koymak ad\u0131na adli ve idari yarg\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131lan tazminat talepli davalarda makul derecede ivedilik ve \u00f6zen \u015fart\u0131n\u0131n yerine getirilmesi gerekmektedir (Perihan U\u00e7ar, B. No: 2013\/5860, 1\/12\/2015, \u00a7 52; Ayhan Ke\u00e7eli ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 86). T\u0131bbi ihmal iddias\u0131yla a\u00e7\u0131lan tazminat talepli davalar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden etkili soru\u015fturma y\u00fcr\u00fctme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, \u00f6zellikle yarg\u0131laman\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede tamamlanmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir. Bu gereklilik; ger\u00e7eklerin ve t\u0131bbi tedavinin uygulanmas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan muhtemel hatalar\u0131n bilinmesine, ilgili kurumlar\u0131n ve sa\u011fl\u0131k personelinin olas\u0131 eksikliklerini gidermesine ve benzer hatalar\u0131n \u00f6nlemesine, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla sa\u011fl\u0131k hizmetlerinden yararlanan herkesin g\u00fcvenli\u011finin sa\u011flanmas\u0131na hizmet etmektedir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla gecikme i\u00e7in inand\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 ve makul gerek\u00e7eler bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcrece yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131n uzunlu\u011fu, ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerin ihlaline neden olacakt\u0131r (Ay\u015fe Terzi ve Mustafa Terzi, B. No: 2020\/3325, 13\/2\/2024, \u00a7 12). \u00d6te yandan yarg\u0131 mercilerinin \u00f6zenli inceleme yapmay\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri, ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 ile ilgili her davada mutlaka ma\u011fdurlar lehine sonuca var\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 garanti etmez (Aysun Okumu\u015f ve Aytekin Okumu\u015f, B. No: 2013\/4086, 20\/4\/2016, \u00a7 73).<\/p>\n
19. Son olarak ifade etmek gerekir ki herhangi bir davada bilirki\u015fi incelemesine ba\u015fvurulmas\u0131n\u0131n gerekli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar vermek ya da ba\u015fvuru dosyas\u0131ndaki mevcut t\u0131bbi bilgilerden hareketle bir davada g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildiren bilirki\u015filerin vard\u0131klar\u0131 sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n veya sahip olduklar\u0131 bilimsel bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fru olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 irdelemek Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi de\u011fildir. Delillerin ve bilirki\u015fi incelemesi de d\u00e2hil olmak \u00fczere delillerin de\u011ferlendirilmesinde kullan\u0131lan ara\u00e7lar\u0131n kabul edilebilirli\u011fi ve de\u011ferlendirilmesi hususlar\u0131 kural olarak yarg\u0131 mercilerinin takdirinde olan bir husustur ve a\u00e7\u0131k hata veya keyf\u00eelik ihtiva etmemesi h\u00e2linde Anayasa Mahkemesinin bu takdire m\u00fcdahalesi s\u00f6z konusu olamaz. Bu bak\u0131mdan t\u0131bbi ihmal iddias\u0131yla yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurularda ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutunun incelenmesi s\u0131ras\u0131nda yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, ba\u015fvuruya konu edilen tam yarg\u0131 veya tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n, \u00f6l\u00fcmle neticelenen olay\u0131n seyrini ve sa\u011fl\u0131k personelinin olas\u0131 sorumlulu\u011funu ayd\u0131nlatmaya imk\u00e2n verip vermedi\u011fini belirlemektir (Ayhan Ke\u00e7eli ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 87; benzer y\u00f6ndeki de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in ayr\u0131ca bkz. Ba\u011f\u0131 Akay ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2014\/5101, 22\/6\/2017, \u00a7 56).<\/p>\n
20. Somut ba\u015fvuruda ba\u015fvurucular, yak\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n acil sa\u011fl\u0131k hizmetlerine eri\u015fimden mahrum b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 sonucu \u00f6ld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne dair bir iddia ileri s\u00fcrmemi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular, yetkililerin bildikleri veya bilmeleri gereken sistemsel veya yap\u0131sal bir eksiklik bulunmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen gerekli tedbirlerin al\u0131nmamas\u0131 ve\/veya yap\u0131sal eksiklik sonucu yak\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n acil sa\u011fl\u0131k hizmetlerine eri\u015fimden yoksun kalarak \u00f6ld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc de iddia etmemi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvuru dosyas\u0131ndaki bilgi ve belgeler de buna i\u015faret etmemektedir. Ba\u015fvurucular, yak\u0131nlar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik cerrahi m\u00fcdahale s\u0131ras\u0131nda ve m\u00fcdahaleden sonraki tedavi s\u00fcrecinde hatal\u0131 davran\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in \u00f6ld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc \u00f6ne s\u00fcrmektedir. Bu tespitler do\u011frultusunda ba\u015fvurunun t\u0131bbi ihmale ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu kabul edilmelidir.<\/p>\n
21. T\u0131bbi ihmal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011fu h\u00e2llerde devletin egemenli\u011fi alt\u0131ndaki ki\u015filerin ya\u015famlar\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki pozitif maddi y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, ister kamu hastanelerinin ister \u00f6zel hastanelerin hastalar\u0131n ya\u015famlar\u0131n\u0131 korumak i\u00e7in gerekli tedbirleri almalar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flay\u0131p sa\u011fl\u0131k \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fcksek mesleki standartlara sahip olmalar\u0131n\u0131 temin edecek etkili bir mevzuat olu\u015fturmaktan ibarettir. Olu\u015fturulan mevzuat, ki\u015filerin ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131sal bir eksik olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcrece sa\u011fl\u0131k \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131n\u0131n hastay\u0131 tedavi ederken yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme hatalar\u0131, tedavi s\u00fcrecindeki gecikmeler ya da tedavi s\u0131ras\u0131nda sa\u011fl\u0131k \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131 aras\u0131nda ya\u015fanan koordinasyon eksikleri devleti ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n maddi boyutunun ihlalinden dolay\u0131 sorumlu tutmak i\u00e7in yeterli de\u011fildir (Ayhan Ke\u00e7eli ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7\u00a7 89, 90). Olay tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckteki hukuki \u00e7er\u00e7evenin ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n yak\u0131n\u0131n\u0131n ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 konusunda herhangi bir eksiklik ihtiva etmedi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Dahas\u0131 ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n bu y\u00f6nde bir \u015fik\u00e2yeti de yoktur. Bu belirlemeler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ve tedavi s\u00fcrecindeki de\u011ferlendirme hatalar\u0131n\u0131n ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n maddi boyutunun ihlali i\u00e7in tek ba\u015f\u0131na yeterli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, somut ba\u015fvuruda ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n maddi boyutunun ihlal edilmedi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
22. An\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmenin ard\u0131ndan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutu kapsam\u0131nda ba\u015fvuruya konu edilen tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcmle neticelenen olay\u0131n seyri ile sa\u011fl\u0131k \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131n\u0131n olas\u0131 sorumlulu\u011funu ayd\u0131nlatmaya imk\u00e2n verip vermedi\u011fi, yarg\u0131lamada makul derecede ivedilik ve \u00f6zen \u015fart\u0131n\u0131n yerine getirilip getirilmedi\u011fi incelenmelidir.<\/p>\n
23. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n yak\u0131n\u0131 H.Y.nin vefat\u0131n\u0131n ayd\u0131nlat\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde ATK 1. \u0130htisas Kurulundan bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. An\u0131lan raporda; ba\u015fvurucuya yap\u0131lan cerrahi m\u00fcdahale sonras\u0131nda geli\u015fen durumlar\u0131n olas\u0131 komplikasyon niteli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131 nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun tedavisine kat\u0131lan hekimlere ve yard\u0131mc\u0131 personeline atf\u0131 kabil kusur bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bildirilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular taraf\u0131ndan yak\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n yemek borusunda olu\u015fan kesi ile ilgili bir a\u00e7\u0131klama yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, tedavi s\u00fcrecinde H.Y.nin s\u0131v\u0131 almas\u0131na izin verilmesi nedeniyle akci\u011ferlerinin zarar g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, ayr\u0131ca m\u00fcdahaleden \u00f6nce imzalat\u0131lan ayd\u0131nlat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f onam\u0131n yetersiz oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin itirazda bulunulmu\u015ftur ancak Mahkemenin ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n esasa etkili oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilen iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lamak \u00fczere an\u0131lan cerrahi m\u00fcdahale ve tedavi s\u00fcrecinde sa\u011fl\u0131k personeline neden kusur atfedilemeyece\u011fini objektif ve bilimsel veriler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ayd\u0131nlatabilecek bir ek rapor ya da yeni bir bilirki\u015fi raporu almaks\u0131z\u0131n karar verdi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
24. Bununla beraber 2013 y\u0131l\u0131nda ba\u015flayan tazminat talebine ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcreci 6 y\u0131l 8 ay 23 g\u00fcnde kesin olarak tamamlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yukar\u0131da da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere t\u0131bbi ihmal ba\u011flam\u0131nda ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki usul y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131n makul bir s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde tamamlanmas\u0131 g\u00fcvencesini de bar\u0131nd\u0131rmaktad\u0131r. T\u0131bbi ihmal davalar\u0131n\u0131n makul bir s\u00fcratle y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesi, hata\/ihmal tespit edildi\u011fi takdirde benzerlerinin \u00f6nlenmesi ba\u011flam\u0131nda sa\u011fl\u0131k hizmetinden faydalanan herkesin g\u00fcvenli\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6nem arz etmektedir. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n yak\u0131n\u0131n\u0131n 2012 y\u0131l\u0131nda vefat etti\u011fi, bilirki\u015fi incelemesine konu t\u0131bbi belgelerin dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte h\u00e2lihaz\u0131rda mevcut oldu\u011fu ve yarg\u0131laman\u0131n bu ba\u011flamda belirsizlik, bilgi\/belgeye ula\u015fmada g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fck ve\/veya ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc bir karma\u015f\u0131kl\u0131k i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Di\u011fer taraftan tazminat davas\u0131 s\u00fcrecinde mevcut olan t\u0131bbi belgeler \u00fczerinden bilirki\u015fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n dava s\u00fcrecini uzataca\u011f\u0131, bilimsel raporun yaz\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n zaman alaca\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k olmakla birlikte haz\u0131rlanma s\u00fcresi yakla\u015f\u0131k be\u015f aya [Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi (UYAP) kay\u0131tlar\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan tespitlere g\u00f6re] tekab\u00fcl etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lan raporun tek ba\u015f\u0131na yedi y\u0131la yakla\u015fan yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcresini hakl\u0131 ve makul k\u0131lacak bir sebep olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. T\u00fcm bu hususlar dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda yarg\u0131laman\u0131n makul bir s\u00fcratle y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden s\u00f6z edilemeyecektir. Bu itibarla tazminat davas\u0131na ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131sal s\u00fcrecin olay\u0131n seyrini ve sa\u011fl\u0131k personelinin olas\u0131 sorumlulu\u011funu ayd\u0131nlatmaya im\u00e2n vermedi\u011fi gibi s\u00f6z konusu s\u00fcrecin makul bir s\u00fcratle y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmemesi nedeniyle de ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutunun ihlal edildi\u011fi kanaatine ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
25. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler ba\u011flam\u0131nda usul y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
26. Ba\u015fvurucular ihlalin tespiti, yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ve 100.000 TL manevi tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
27. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu kapsamda karar\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flatmak ve Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gideren, ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun yeni bir karar vermektir (30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 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
28. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ihlalinin b\u00fct\u00fcn sonu\u00e7lar\u0131yla ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in ayr\u0131ca manevi zararlar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvuruculara -talepleriyle ba\u011fl\u0131 kal\u0131narak- net 100.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n m\u00fc\u015ftereken \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. 1. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n maddi boyutunun \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LMED\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
2. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutunun \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n usul boyutunun ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Adana 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2013\/298, K.2014\/963) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvuruculara net 100.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n M\u00dc\u015eTEREKEN \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.446,90 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvuruculara M\u00dc\u015eTEREKEN \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \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
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 30\/10\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 30\/10\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/24134 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 SADIK YILMAZ VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/24134) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 30\/10\/2024 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : \u00c7a\u011flar \u00d6NCEL Ba\u015fvurucular : 1. Sad\u0131k YILMAZ \u00a0 \u00a0 2. P\u0131nar BAH\u00c7EC\u0130 \u00a0 \u00a0 3. Umut Can YILMAZ Vekili : Av. B\u00fclent MARAKLI \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru; t\u0131bbi ihmal sonucu \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131n\u0131n meydana gelmesi, bu olaydan do\u011fan manevi zarar\u0131n tazmini istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcmle neticelenen olay\u0131n seyri ile sa\u011fl\u0131k \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131n\u0131n olas\u0131 sorumlulu\u011funu ayd\u0131nlatmaya imk\u00e2n vermemesi ve yarg\u0131laman\u0131n makul bir s\u00fcratle y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmemesi nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Birinci ba\u015fvurucunun e\u015fi, di\u011fer ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n annesi olan H.Y. 2\/5\/2012 tarihinde \u00c7ukurova A\u015fk\u0131m T\u00fcfek\u00e7i Devlet Hastanesinde (Hastane) morbid obezite nedeniyle mide k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fcltme ameliyat\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. An\u0131lan t\u0131bbi m\u00fcdahale sonras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan kontrollerde drenden ka\u00e7ak oldu\u011fu belirlenerek 21\/5\/2012 tarihinde yeniden ameliyata al\u0131nan H.Y., 29\/5\/2012 tarihinde \u00c7ukurova \u00dcniversitesi T\u0131p Fak\u00fcltesi Balcal\u0131 Hastanesine (\u00dcniversite Hastanesi) sevk edilmi\u015ftir. H.Y., \u00dcniversite Hastanesi yo\u011fun bak\u0131m servisindeki tedavisi s\u0131ras\u0131nda 7\/7\/2012 tarihinde vefat etmi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvurucular 7\/2\/2013 tarihinde Adana 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. …<\/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-25882","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n