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
HASAN \u00d6ZL\u00dcO\u011eLU BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/19132)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 11\/12\/2024<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/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
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Duygu KALUK\u00c7U<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan \u00d6ZL\u00dcO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Mustafa Ula\u015f KOCADAYI<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, davan\u0131n husumet yoklu\u011fundan reddine karar verilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, maden i\u015f\u00e7isi olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktayken 30\/3\/2015 tarihinde emeklilik nedeniyle i\u015f akdini feshetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. T\u00fcrkiye K\u00f6m\u00fcr \u0130\u015fletmeleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (TTK) ile Enka \u0130\u015f Makinalar\u0131 Maden Enerji \u0130n\u015faat G\u0131da Orman \u00dcretim Ticaret Limited \u015eirketi (\u015eirket) aleyhine Zonguldak 2. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) nezdinde i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n tazmini talebiyle dava a\u00e7an ba\u015fvurucu, 23\/2\/2005 tarihinden bu yana TTK nezdinde ve en son daval\u0131 \u015eirket uhdesinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek her iki daval\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131ndan sorumlu oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
4. Mahkeme 26\/4\/2018 tarihli karar\u0131 ile TTK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n husumet yoklu\u011fu nedeniyle reddine ve aleyhe 2.180 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti \u00f6denmesine; \u015eirket y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Daval\u0131 TTK Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve daval\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 zirve madencilik ve enka madencilik \u015firketleri aras\u0131nda alt i\u015fveren as\u0131l i\u015fveren hukuki ili\u015fkisinin bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda; Daval\u0131 TTK Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ile di\u011fer daval\u0131 \u015firket [T.] \u015firketi aras\u0131nda R\u00f6d\u00f6vans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin oldu\u011fu, daval\u0131 \u015firket aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f mahkememiz yarg\u0131 \u00e7evresinde devam edip sonu\u00e7lanan R\u00f6d\u00f6vans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile maden i\u015fleten i\u015fyerlerine kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lanbenzer nitelikteki dosyalarda al\u0131nan tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131ndadavac\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131i\u015fyeri olanyer alt\u0131 maden oca\u011f\u0131nda daval\u0131 \u015firketler i\u015f\u00e7ileriyle birlikte \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan TTK i\u015f\u00e7isin bulunmamas\u0131 , daval\u0131\u015firketler i\u015f\u00e7ileri \u00fczerindeki y\u00f6netim hakk\u0131n\u0131n TTK taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, TTK taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan denetimlerin s\u00fcrekli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bu itibarla yap\u0131lan \u00fcretime y\u00f6nelik bir denetim olmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tan\u0131nan yetkilerin denetim ve koordinasyon s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131 a\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u015fikard\u0131r. S\u00f6zle\u015fmenin i\u00e7eri\u011fine ve uygulamas\u0131na bak\u0131larak yap\u0131lan a\u00e7\u0131klamalar kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda daval\u0131lar aras\u0131nda r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi oldu\u011fu alt i\u015fveren as\u0131l i\u015fveren hukuki ili\u015fkisinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ,TTK Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc’ ne ka\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay 22 Hukuk Dairesi’nin2017\/42075 E. 2017\/24363 K . 08.11.2017 tarihli emsal kararar\u0131nda da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere husumet yoklu\u011fu nedeniyle reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.”<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu istinaf talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. \u0130stinaf dilek\u00e7esinde 4\/6\/1985 tarihli ve 3213 say\u0131l\u0131 Maden Kanunu’na 10\/6\/2010 tarihli ve 5995 Say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 17. maddesi ile eklenen ek 7. maddesi gere\u011fi 10\/6\/2010 tarihi \u00f6ncesi \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131ndan TTK’n\u0131n da sorumlu tutulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini hem Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n hem de B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemelerinin i\u00e7tihad\u0131n\u0131n bu y\u00f6nde oldu\u011funu, bu kapsamda davan\u0131n husumet yoklu\u011fundan reddedilmesinin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
6. Ankara B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 9. Hukuk Dairesi 20\/1\/2020 tarihli karar\u0131 ile istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun esastan reddine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde daval\u0131 \u015eirket’in r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine istinaden i\u015fletti\u011fi maden sahas\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucuyu \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 maden sahas\u0131nda TTK Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn i\u015f\u00e7isinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u015eirket i\u015f\u00e7ileri \u00fczerindeki y\u00f6netim hakk\u0131n\u0131n TTK Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00fcretime y\u00f6nelik denetim yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkinin alt i\u015fveren-as\u0131l i\u015fveren ili\u015fkisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle TTK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden husumet yoklu\u011fu nedeniyle davan\u0131n reddine ili\u015fkin verilen karar\u0131n usul ve kanuna uygun oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Nihai karar ba\u015fvurucu vekiline 27\/2\/2020 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu 17\/6\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu 10\/6\/2010 tarihinde 3213 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da de\u011fi\u015fiklik yap\u0131lana kadar i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131na ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131lan davalarda TTK’n\u0131n da m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen sorumlu oldu\u011funu, Yarg\u0131tay 7. Hukuk Dairesinin yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihad\u0131na g\u00f6re kanuni de\u011fi\u015fiklikten sonra dahi an\u0131lan tarihe kadar do\u011fan alacaklar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden TTK’n\u0131n sorumlulu\u011funun kabul edildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. \u0130lgili dosya t\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn Yarg\u0131tay 22. Hukuk Dairesine devredilmesinden sonra bir m\u00fcddet mevcut i\u00e7tihad\u0131n devam ettirildi\u011fini ancak sonras\u0131nda i\u00e7tihat de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fine gidildi\u011fini ve TTK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden a\u00e7\u0131lan davalar\u0131n husumet yoklu\u011fundan reddedildi\u011fini ifade eden ba\u015fvurucu, istinaf mahkemeleri a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra ise i\u00e7tihad\u0131n tamamen kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvuruya konu davay\u0131 yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihada g\u00fcvenerek a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade eden ba\u015fvurucu, davan\u0131n reddi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde kurulan h\u00fck\u00fcm nedeniyle alacaklar\u0131na kavu\u015fma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n yok edildi\u011fini, zira \u00f6zel \u015firketlerden alacaklar\u0131n tahsilinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ayr\u0131ca yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihada g\u00fcvenerek a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 dava sonunda aleyhine vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedildi\u011fini, bu durumun hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ilkesi ile adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
9. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olaylar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan hukuki nitelendirmesi ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olmay\u0131p olay ve olgular\u0131n hukuki tavsifini kendisi takdir eder. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetlerinin \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fcn TTK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n husumet yoklu\u011fu nedeniyle reddinin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu hususuna ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finden ba\u015fvuru mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. 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
11. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, herkesin yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddiada bulunma ve savunma hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bir unsurudur (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2014\/13156, 20\/4\/2017, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucunun muvazaa iddias\u0131na dayal\u0131 olarak TTK ve \u015eirket’e kar\u015f\u0131 m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen sorumlu olduklar\u0131 iddias\u0131yla a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n TTK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden husumet nedeniyle reddinin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
13. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, kural olarak mutlak bir hak olmay\u0131p s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131labilen bir hakt\u0131r. Bununla birlikte s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rman\u0131n kanuna dayanmas\u0131, me\u015fru amac\u0131n\u0131n bulunmas\u0131 ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmas\u0131 gerekir (Serkan Acar, B. No: 2013\/1613, 2\/10\/2013, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurucunun davas\u0131n\u0131n husumetten reddine dair karar\u0131n 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun “Dava \u015fartlar\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 114. maddesi ile “Dava \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesi” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 115. maddelerine dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Buna g\u00f6re taraflar\u0131n, taraf ve dava ehliyetine sahip olmalar\u0131 bir dava \u015fart\u0131 olarak say\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve dava \u015fart\u0131 yoklu\u011fu halinde davan\u0131n usulden reddine karar verilece\u011fi d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Bu itibarla somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n mevcut oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
15. Davan\u0131n husumetten reddine ili\u015fkin kural\u0131n amac\u0131, davan\u0131n do\u011fru has\u0131ma a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamak ve bu suretle yarg\u0131laman\u0131n gereksiz yere s\u00fcr\u00fcncemede kalmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nlemektir. Davan\u0131n husumetten reddine ili\u015fkin bu d\u00fczenlemenin yarg\u0131laman\u0131n makul s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde tamamlanmas\u0131n\u0131 temine y\u00f6nelik bir \u00e7are oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla somut olaydaki m\u00fcdahalenin me\u015fru bir amaca dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r (Halil G\u00fcler, B. No: 2015\/11002, 3\/7\/2018, \u00a7 37).<\/p>\n
16. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da incelenmelidir. \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
17. Dava hakk\u0131n\u0131n ba\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 usul kurallar\u0131na uyulmamas\u0131 nedeniyle uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n esas\u0131 hakk\u0131nda karar verilmemesi suretiyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin usul ekonomisi ile iyi adalet y\u00f6netimi ilkesinin sa\u011flanarak kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan elveri\u015fli ve gerekli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenemez (Ahmet Erdem, B. No: 2018\/34944, 6\/10\/2021, \u00a7 63). Somut olaydaki m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn de\u011ferlendirilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan as\u0131l \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131yan \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct ise orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu itibarla uygulanan tedbirle ba\u015fvurucuya a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 ve orant\u0131s\u0131z bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklenip y\u00fcklenmedi\u011finin tespiti gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
18. Hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n ne \u015fekilde yorumlanaca\u011f\u0131 veya birden fazla yorumunun m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fu durumlarda bu yorumlardan hangisinin benimsenece\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerinin yetkisinde olan bir husustur. Anayasa Mahkemesinin bireysel ba\u015fvuruda yarg\u0131 mercilerince benimsenen yorumlardan birine \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fck tan\u0131mas\u0131 veya yarg\u0131 mercilerinin yerine ge\u00e7erek hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131 yorumlamas\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvurunun amac\u0131yla ba\u011fda\u015fmaz. Anayasa Mahkemesinin kanunilik ilkesi ba\u011flam\u0131ndaki g\u00f6revi, hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n birden fazla yorumunun hukuki belirlilik ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilirli\u011fi etkileyip etkilemedi\u011fini tespit etmektir (Mehmet Arif Madenci, B. No: 2014\/13916, 12\/1\/2017, \u00a7 81).<\/p>\n
19. 3213 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a 10\/6\/2010 tarihinde eklenen ek madde 7 ile “Ruhsat sahipleri ile \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filer aras\u0131nda r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn iznine tabidir. \u0130zin al\u0131nmaks\u0131z\u0131n yap\u0131lan r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen madencilik faaliyetleri durdurulur.” h\u00fckm\u00fc getirilmi\u015ftir. 5995 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun ile getirilen d\u00fczenlemenin taslaktaki hali ise \u015fu \u015fekildedir: “Maden ruhsat sahiplerinin, ruhsat sahalar\u0131n\u0131n bir k\u0131sm\u0131nda veya tamam\u0131nda \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerle yapm\u0131\u015f olduklar\u0131 r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde, bu alanlarda yap\u0131lacak madencilik faaliyetlerinden do\u011facak \u0130\u015f Kanunu, i\u015f sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi ile ilgili idari, mali ve hukuki sorumluluklar r\u00f6dovans\u00e7\u0131ya aittir. Ancak bu durum ruhsat sahibinin Maden Kanunundan do\u011fan sorumluluklar\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131rmaz.\u201dBu d\u00fczenleme daha sonra 4\/2\/2015 tarihli ve 6592 say\u0131l\u0131 Maden Kanunu ile Baz\u0131 Kanunlarda De\u011fi\u015fiklik Yap\u0131lmas\u0131na Dair Kanun’un 22. maddesi ile ek 7. maddenin d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131 olarak 3213 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a eklenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20. An\u0131lan kanuni d\u00fczenlenmenin yorumlanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin ba\u015fvurucu, Yarg\u0131tay 22. Hukuk Dairesinin 16\/6\/2018 tarihli ve E. 2017\/14086, K. 2018\/15806 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile 20\/12\/2018 tarihli E.2017\/21666, K.2018\/27957 say\u0131l\u0131 onama kararlar\u0131na i\u015faret etmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan kararlarda Daire, ilk derece mahkemelerinin, 10\/6\/2010 tarihinde r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile i\u015fletilen madenlere y\u00f6nelik yeni bir d\u00fczenleme getirilmi\u015f ise de i\u015f\u00e7inin \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma s\u00fcresi de\u011fi\u015fiklik \u00f6ncesi d\u00f6neme denk geldi\u011finde TTK Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn i\u015fcilik alacaklar\u0131ndan -r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesindeki h\u00fck\u00fcmler gere\u011fi kontrol yetkisi oldu\u011fundan- as\u0131l i\u015fveren olarak sorumlu tutulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki de\u011ferlendirmelerini isabetli bulmu\u015ftur. \u00d6te yandan, Mahkeme ise yine Yarg\u0131tay 22. Hukuk Dairesine ait 19\/6\/2018 tarihli ve E. 2018\/6969, K. 2018\/15130 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6zeterek davan\u0131n TTK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden husumet yoklu\u011fu nedeniyle reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan kararda Daire, somut olayda imzalanan s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin h\u00fck\u00fcmlerini incelemi\u015f, bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131rm\u0131\u015f; bu kapsamda TTK taraf\u0131ndan \u015firket i\u015f\u00e7ileri \u00fczerinde y\u00f6netim hakk\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yap\u0131lan i\u015fte kullan\u0131lan ara\u00e7 gere\u00e7lerin TTK’ya ait olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, TTK taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan denetimlerin s\u00fcrekli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi yap\u0131lan \u00fcretime y\u00f6nelik bir denetim de olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, TTK’ya tan\u0131nan yetkilerin denetim ve koordinasyon s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131 a\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit ederek TTK ile \u015firket aras\u0131ndaki s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi oldu\u011funu, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ge\u00e7erli bir r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumunda, 10\/06\/2010 tarihi \u00f6ncesi ve sonras\u0131 \u015feklinde bir ayr\u0131m yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n, ruhsat sahibinin, r\u00f6dovans\u00e7\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7ilerinin i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131ndan sorumlu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilmesi gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
21. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, 2022 y\u0131l\u0131n\u0131n May\u0131s ay\u0131nda \u00f6n\u00fcne gelen pek \u00e7ok uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta, as\u0131l i\u015fveren-alt i\u015fveren ili\u015fkisi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 22\/5\/2003 tarihli ve 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015f Kanunu’nda yer alan genel d\u00fczenlemelerin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra bu h\u00fck\u00fcmlere istisna te\u015fkil eder \u015fekilde daha \u00f6zel bir kanun h\u00fckm\u00fc bulundu\u011fu takdirde bu ili\u015fkinin ko\u015fullar\u0131 ve kurulmu\u015f say\u0131l\u0131p say\u0131lmayaca\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden istisna te\u015fkil eden \u00f6zel kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn uygulama \u00f6nceli\u011fine sahip olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f; bu kapsamda 24\/6\/2010 tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren de\u011fi\u015fiklikle 3213 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ek 7. maddesi ile y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerine de\u011finmi\u015ftir. Kanun\u00ee bir altyap\u0131ya kavu\u015fturulmu\u015f ve maden ruhsat sahiplerinin, ruhsat sahalar\u0131n\u0131n bir k\u0131sm\u0131nda veya tamam\u0131nda \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerle yapm\u0131\u015f olduklar\u0131 r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde, bu alanlarda yap\u0131lacak madencilik faaliyetlerinden do\u011facak \u0130\u015f Kanunu, i\u015f sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fi ile ilgili idari, mal\u00ee ve hukuk\u00ee sorumluluklar\u0131n r\u00f6dovans\u00e7\u0131ya ait oldu\u011funu, ancak bu durumun ruhsat sahibinin Maden Kanunu’ndan do\u011fan sorumluluklar\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131rmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir (\u00e7ok say\u0131da karar aras\u0131ndan bkz. 31\/5\/2022 tarihli ve E.2022\/439, K.2022\/781 say\u0131l\u0131 karar; 24\/5\/2022 tarihli ve E.2022\/431, 2022\/713 say\u0131l\u0131 karar; 17\/5\/2022 tarihli ve E.2022\/321, K.2022\/650 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131).<\/p>\n
22. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu i\u00e7tihad\u0131na g\u00f6re ge\u00e7erli bir r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi mevcut ise art\u0131k as\u0131l i\u015fveren-alt i\u015fveren ili\u015fkisinden bahsedilemeyecektir. Somut olayda da yarg\u0131lama mercilerince ba\u015fvurucunun uhdesinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015eirket ile TTK aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkinin r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, gelen m\u00fczekkere cevaplar\u0131n\u0131, dinlenen tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131, bilirki\u015fi raporu ve SGK kay\u0131tlar\u0131 ile daval\u0131 TTK ile ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7ti\u011fi daval\u0131 ve dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u015firketler ile yap\u0131lan r\u00f6dovans s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerini ve kapsam\u0131 sair taraf delillerini dosyaya getirerek belirtilen kanaate varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun aksi y\u00f6nde ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc itirazlar, hem ilk derece mahkemesince hem de B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 incelenmi\u015f veher bir iddiaya cevap verilmek suretiyle davan\u0131n husumet yoklu\u011fundan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7\u00a7 4-6). Ba\u015fvurucunun bu kapsamdaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131n somut olay\u0131n ve hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu, gerek\u00e7eli kararlarda ise bariz takdir hatas\u0131 yahut keyfilik te\u015fkil eden bir durumun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
23. Ba\u015fvurucunun uhdesinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015eirket aleyhine dava a\u00e7ma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu, nitekim bu kapsamda a\u00e7\u0131lan davalar\u0131n da kabul edildi\u011fi, TTK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden husumet nedeniyle davan\u0131n reddine dair karar\u0131n ise kat\u0131 ve \u015fekilci bir de\u011ferlendirmeye dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilirlik s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7inde oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla husumet yoklu\u011fundan davan\u0131n reddedilmesi suretiyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin elde edilmek istenen kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 ile kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucuya orant\u0131s\u0131z bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklemedi\u011fi, bu itibarla ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
24. Ba\u015fvurucu, ayr\u0131ca aleyhe vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi nedeniyle de mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
25. Vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti bir yarg\u0131lama gideri olup, kural olarak bu t\u00fcr giderler mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil eder. Ancak gereksiz ba\u015fvurular\u0131n \u00f6nlenerek dava say\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n azalt\u0131lmas\u0131 ve b\u00f6ylece mahkemelerin fuzuli yere me\u015fgul edilmeksizin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131 makul s\u00fcrede bitirebilmesi amac\u0131yla ba\u015fvuruculara belli y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir. Bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerin kapsam\u0131n\u0131 belirlemek kamu otoritelerinin takdir yetkisi i\u00e7indedir. \u00d6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler dava a\u00e7may\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z hale getirmedik\u00e7e ya da a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 derece zorla\u015ft\u0131rmad\u0131k\u00e7a mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi s\u00f6ylenemez. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla davay\u0131 kaybetmesi halinde ba\u015fvurucuya y\u00fcklenecek olan vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede de\u011ferlendirilmelidir (Serkan Acar, B. No: 2013\/1613, 2\/10\/2013, \u00a7 39).<\/p>\n
26. Somut olayda, ba\u015fvurucunun a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 dava neticesinde \u015eirket y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne 22.598,61 TL k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 ile 9.734,63 TL y\u0131ll\u0131k izin \u00fccreti alaca\u011f\u0131na ve lehe 3.879,99 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmi\u015f; TTK y\u00f6n\u00fcnde ise davan\u0131n reddine ve AA\u00dcT uyar\u0131nca takdir ve tayin olunan 2.180 TL aleyhe vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
27. Vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti, davaya hukuki katk\u0131da bulunan ve davas\u0131 kabul edilen lehine h\u00fckmedilen bir \u00fccrettir. Dava a\u015famas\u0131nda kimin leh ya da aleyhine olaca\u011f\u0131 \u00f6nceden belli olmayan bu \u00fccret y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bir usul kural\u0131 olup mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 ile de ili\u015fkilidir. Y\u00fckletilen \u00fccretin, bu hakk\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fc zedeleyecek \u015fekilde k\u0131s\u0131tlamamas\u0131, me\u015fru bir ama\u00e7 izlemesi, a\u00e7\u0131k ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmas\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde a\u011f\u0131r bir y\u00fck olu\u015fturmamas\u0131 gerekir (Serkan Acar, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
28. Somut ba\u015fvuru bu ilkeler kapsam\u0131nda incelendi\u011finde, ba\u015fvurucunun davas\u0131n\u0131n reddedilmesi sonucunda daval\u0131 lehine vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti \u00f6demekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc tutulmas\u0131nda mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6ylenemeyece\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
29. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucunun 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 edilmedi\u011fine 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 KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LMED\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde BIRAKILMASINA,<\/p>\n
D. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 11\/12\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 11\/12\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/19132 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 HASAN \u00d6ZL\u00dcO\u011eLU BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/19132) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 11\/12\/2024 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Duygu KALUK\u00c7U Ba\u015fvurucu : Hasan \u00d6ZL\u00dcO\u011eLU Vekili : Av. Mustafa Ula\u015f KOCADAYI \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, davan\u0131n husumet yoklu\u011fundan reddine karar verilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, maden i\u015f\u00e7isi olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktayken 30\/3\/2015 tarihinde emeklilik nedeniyle i\u015f akdini feshetmi\u015ftir. 3. T\u00fcrkiye K\u00f6m\u00fcr \u0130\u015fletmeleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (TTK) ile Enka \u0130\u015f Makinalar\u0131 Maden Enerji \u0130n\u015faat G\u0131da Orman \u00dcretim Ticaret Limited \u015eirketi (\u015eirket) aleyhine Zonguldak 2. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi (Mahkeme) nezdinde i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n tazmini talebiyle dava a\u00e7an ba\u015fvurucu, 23\/2\/2005 tarihinden bu yana TTK nezdinde ve en son daval\u0131 \u015eirket uhdesinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek her iki daval\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131ndan sorumlu oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. 4. Mahkeme 26\/4\/2018 tarihli karar\u0131 ile TTK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n husumet yoklu\u011fu nedeniyle reddine ve aleyhe 2.180 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti \u00f6denmesine; \u015eirket y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir: “Daval\u0131 TTK Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve daval\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 zirve madencilik ve enka madencilik \u015firketleri aras\u0131nda alt …<\/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-33228","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n