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
SELAHATT\u0130N ALP VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/36551)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 23\/10\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 21\/2\/2025 – 32820<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/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
Ali Erdem \u015eAH\u0130N<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1. Selahattin ALP<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
2. Arzu KO\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
3. Hikmet KORKMAZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
4. Nihat KIRATLI<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
5. Y\u0131lmaz G\u00dcNE\u015e<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. \u0130brahim AV\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, sendika karar\u0131na istinaden i\u015ftirak edilen n\u00f6bet tutma eyleminden dolay\u0131 disiplin cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131rma nedeniyle toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc d\u00fczenleme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucular, ba\u015fvuruya konu olaylar\u0131n ya\u015fand\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte Diyarbak\u0131r’da \u00f6\u011fretmen olarak g\u00f6rev yapmaktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular ayn\u0131 zamanda E\u011fitim ve Bilim Emek\u00e7ileri Sendikas\u0131 (E\u011e\u0130T\u0130M SEN) \u00fcyesidir.<\/p>\n
3. Somut olay 2015 y\u0131l\u0131 Haziran ay\u0131ndan itibaren ya\u015fanan ter\u00f6r eylemleriyle m\u00fccadele kapsam\u0131nda baz\u0131 il\u00e7elerde soka\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kma yasa\u011f\u0131 ilan edilmesi ve e\u011fitim faaliyetlerine bir s\u00fcre ara verilmesi etraf\u0131nda \u015fekillenmi\u015ftir (arka plan bilgisi i\u00e7in bkz. Dilek Kaya, B. No: 2018\/14313, 17\/7\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 8-11). E\u011e\u0130T\u0130M SEN Diyarbak\u0131r \u015eubeleri, s\u00f6z konusu durumu protesto etmek maksad\u0131yla ald\u0131klar\u0131 kararlarla 21\/1\/2016 tarihinden itibaren Diyarbak\u0131r Konukevi \u00f6n\u00fcnde “\u00e7ocuklar\u0131m\u0131z\u0131n ya\u015fam ve e\u011fitim hakk\u0131” konulu n\u00f6bet tutma eylemleri organize etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Somut olayda idare, eyleme kat\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucular hakk\u0131nda disiplin soru\u015fturmas\u0131 ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular; ifadelerinde, \u00fcyesi olduklar\u0131 Sendikan\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 karara istinaden eyleme kat\u0131ld\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, ulusal ve uluslararas\u0131 mevzuata g\u00f6re eyleme kat\u0131lmalar\u0131nda hukuken bir sak\u0131nca bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Bunun yan\u0131nda s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclen operasyonlar nedeniyle ya\u015fanan olumsuzluklara, \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131na ve kesintiye u\u011frayan e\u011fitim haklar\u0131na eylem arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla dikkat \u00e7ekmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Soru\u015fturma neticesinde ba\u015fvurucu Selahattin Alp’in eylem alan\u0131nda yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 konu\u015fmada “Diyarbak\u0131r, Mardin ve \u015e\u0131rnak gibi b\u00f6lgelerde uygulanan sava\u015f konseptinin toplum \u00fczerinde travmaya yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve bu durumun sorumlusunun iktidar oldu\u011funu ve iktidar\u0131n ancak m\u00fczakere masas\u0131na tekrar d\u00f6nerek e\u011fitim ve ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131 g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na alabilece\u011fini” s\u00f6yleyerek olaylar\u0131n sorumlulu\u011funu h\u00fck\u00fbmete y\u00fckledi\u011fi, di\u011fer ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ise eyleme kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n sabit oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n 14\/7\/1965 tarihli ve 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Devlet Memurlar\u0131 Kanunu’nun 125. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (D) bendinin (\u0131) alt bendinde yer alan “G\u00f6revin yerine getirilmesinde dil, \u0131rk, cinsiyet, siyasi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce, felsefi inan\u00e7, din ve mezhep ayr\u0131m\u0131 yapmak, ki\u015filerin yarar ve zarar\u0131n\u0131 hedef tutan davran\u0131\u015flarda bulunmak” eylemi uyar\u0131nca kademe ilerlemesinin durdurulmas\u0131 cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmalar\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucular, haklar\u0131nda tesis edilen disiplin cezalar\u0131n\u0131n iptali talebiyle idare mahkemelerine ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Mahkemeler, somut olayda g\u00f6revin yerine getirilmesine ili\u015fkin eylemler y\u00f6n\u00fcnden uygulanabilecek bir kural \u00fczerinden ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n cezaland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak eylemlerin g\u00f6revin yerine getirilmesi s\u0131ras\u0131nda i\u015flenmedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015f; bu nedenle dava konusu i\u015flemlerin kanunilik ve tipiklik ilkelerine uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Daval\u0131 idare, iptal kararlar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. B\u00f6lge idare mahkemeleri, somut olaya konu n\u00f6bet eyleminin konusu itibar\u0131yla sendikan\u0131n \u00e7ekirdek faaliyet alan\u0131na girmemesi nedeniyle sendikal bir eylem olarak de\u011ferlendirilemeyece\u011fi, disiplin cezalar\u0131n\u0131n dayana\u011f\u0131 kural\u0131n ise 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 125. maddesinin d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131 olan “Yukar\u0131da say\u0131lan ve disiplin cezas\u0131 verilmesini gerektiren fiil ve hallere nitelik ve a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131klar\u0131 itibariyle benzer eylemlerde bulunanlara da ayn\u0131 neviden disiplin cezalar\u0131 verilir.” uyar\u0131nca somut olayda uygulanabilece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve davalar\u0131n reddine kesin olarak karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurular \u00e7e\u015fitli tarihlerde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Komisyonca 2021\/36583, 2021\/36589, 2021\/43082 ve 2021\/43094 numaral\u0131 ba\u015fvurular\u0131n 2021\/36551 numaral\u0131 ba\u015fvuru ile birle\u015ftirilmesine, 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
10. Ba\u015fvurucular; eyleme sendika karar\u0131 uyar\u0131nca kat\u0131ld\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, kolluk g\u00f6zetiminde ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen ve bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l nitelikteki eylemin \u00f6rg\u00fctsel ba\u011flam\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu y\u00f6nde pankart a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 veya slogan at\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ayr\u0131ca somut olayda uygulanan kural\u0131n kanunilik \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtilerek disiplin cezas\u0131 \u015feklindeki m\u00fcdahalelerin ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerini, sendika haklar\u0131n\u0131, toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc d\u00fczenleme haklar\u0131n\u0131 ve adil yarg\u0131lanma haklar\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; somut olayda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerinin ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi konusunda yap\u0131lacak incelemede ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ile somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu Arzu Ko\u00e7, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda bireysel ba\u015fvuru formunda ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc iddialar\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir. Di\u011fer ba\u015fvurucular Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
11. Anayasa Mahkemesi, \u00f6nceki kararlar\u0131nda kamu g\u00f6revlileri sendikalar\u0131n\u0131n faaliyet alanlar\u0131na ili\u015fkin olduk\u00e7a geni\u015f a\u00e7\u0131klamalarda bulunmu\u015ftur (Ahmet Parmaks\u0131z [GK], B. No: 2017\/29263, 22\/5\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 50,62; Ayfer Altunta\u015f ve \u0130kbal \u00dcnzile G\u00fcrsoy, B. No: 2018\/24874, 31\/3\/2022, \u00a7\u00a7 26,36). An\u0131lan kararlarda sendika \u00fcyelerinin \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ko\u015fullar\u0131, y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri, i\u015f g\u00fcvenlikleri ve sa\u011fl\u0131k ko\u015fullar\u0131 gibi konular\u0131n sendikalar\u0131n \u00e7ekirdek faaliyet alanlar\u0131ndan oldu\u011fu vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re somut olaya konu eylem \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n sendikan\u0131n \u00e7ekirdek faaliyet alan\u0131na ili\u015fkin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k oldu\u011fundan ba\u015fvurunun sendika hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda kalmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurunun toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc d\u00fczenleme hakk\u0131ndan incelenmesi gerekti\u011fine karar verilmi\u015ftir (benzer de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. Leyla Sezen, B. No: 2016\/15197, 29\/5\/2019, \u00a7 22; G\u00fclistan Atasoy ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2017\/15845, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7 39; G\u00fcven \u00c7elik ve Kadri Dursun, B. No: 2018\/5060, 8\/6\/2023, \u00a7 10).<\/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. Toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc d\u00fczenleme hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahaleler, 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 125. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (D) bendinin (\u0131) alt bendi uyar\u0131nca yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ancak ilk derece mahkemeleri an\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalelerin kanunilik ve tipiklik ilkelerine uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7eleriyle iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge idare mahkemesi ise ayn\u0131 Kanun maddesinin d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131nda yer alan “benzer eylemlere” ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcm \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde iptal kararlar\u0131n\u0131 kald\u0131rarak davalar\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re idarenin dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir kanun h\u00fckm\u00fc \u00fczerinden gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturan b\u00f6lge idare mahkemesinin ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n sonucunu \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilmesi i\u00e7in son derece \u00f6nemli olan hukuki belirlili\u011fe do\u011frudan etki etti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Ancak somut olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvuruda sadece kanunilik \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn de\u011ferlendirilmesi ile yetinilmesi, toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc d\u00fczenleme hakk\u0131n\u0131n kapsam\u0131na ili\u015fkin uygulamada ya\u015fanan anayasal sorunlar\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in tek ba\u015f\u0131na yeterli olmayacakt\u0131r.Bu nedenle m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n da belirlenmesine ihtiya\u00e7 bulundu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. Somut olayda ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin kamu hizmetlerinin tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve nesnelli\u011finin sa\u011flanmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik \u00f6nlemlerin bir par\u00e7as\u0131 oldu\u011fu ve Anayasa’n\u0131n 34. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda yer alan kamu d\u00fczeninin korunmas\u0131 me\u015fru amac\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc d\u00fczenleme hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine uygun kabul edilebilmesi i\u00e7in zorunlu bir toplumsal ihtiyac\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lamas\u0131 ve orant\u0131l\u0131 olmas\u0131 gerekir (Y\u0131lmaz G\u00fcne\u015f ve Yusuf Karada\u015f, B. No: 2015\/10676, 26\/12\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 36-40; G\u00fclistan Atasoy ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2017\/15845, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 59-63; Abdulkadir \u00d6zt\u00fcrk, B. No: 2019\/13420, 31\/3\/2022, \u00a7 36). Bu itibarla m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine uygunlu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden inceleme yap\u0131lacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
15. Somut olayda idare, n\u00f6bet tutma eylemine kat\u0131lan ve ayr\u0131ca bir konu\u015fma yapan ba\u015fvurucu Selahattin Alp’in ve yaln\u0131zca eyleme kat\u0131l\u0131m sa\u011flayan di\u011fer ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n bu fiillerini “g\u00f6revin yerine getirilmesinde dil, \u0131rk, cinsiyet, siyasi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce, felsefi inan\u00e7, din ve mezhep ayr\u0131m\u0131 yapmak, ki\u015filerin yarar ve zarar\u0131n\u0131 hedef tutan davran\u0131\u015flarda bulunmak” \u015feklinde de\u011ferlendirmi\u015f ve ba\u015fvurucular\u0131 s\u00f6z konusu kural kapsam\u0131nda cezaland\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fka bir ifadeyle idare, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n eylemlerinin an\u0131lan kuralla do\u011frudan \u00f6rt\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc de\u011ferlendirerek eylemlerin kanunda tam kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumlarda uygulanmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olan “benzer eylemlere” ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmden yararlanmaks\u0131z\u0131n disiplin cezalar\u0131n\u0131 uygulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
16. \u0130lk derece mahkemeleri ise ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ilgili kural kapsam\u0131nda cezaland\u0131r\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in eylemlerin g\u00f6revin yerine getirilmesi a\u015famas\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi gerekti\u011fini belirterek eylemler ile tesis edilen disiplin cezas\u0131 \u015feklindeki i\u015flemlerin yasal dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n uyu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle i\u015flemlerin kanunilik ve tipiklik \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ger\u00e7ekten de somut olayda toplant\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6rev mahallinin d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda yap\u0131lmas\u0131, konusunun kamu g\u00f6reviyle ili\u015fkili olmamas\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n toplant\u0131daki rollerinin kamu hizmetinin sunumuna ili\u015fkin oldu\u011funa y\u00f6nelik herhangi bir somut tespitin ba\u015fvuru dosyas\u0131na sunulmamas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda ba\u015fvuru konusu eylemlerin g\u00f6revin yerine getirilmesi s\u0131ras\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011fini kabul etmek son derece g\u00fc\u00e7t\u00fcr. \u00d6te yandan b\u00f6lge idare mahkemesi, somut olayda uygulanan kural\u0131n yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanun maddesinin “benzer eylemlere” ili\u015fkin farkl\u0131 bir h\u00fckm\u00fc \u00fczerinden eylemler ile uygulanan kural aras\u0131nda benzerlik kurarak ilk derece mahkemelerinin kanunilik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden verdi\u011fi kararlar\u0131 kald\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ancak b\u00f6lge idare mahkemesi s\u00f6z konusu kararlar\u0131nda “benzer eylemlere” ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcm ile eylemler aras\u0131nda nas\u0131l benzerlik kurdu\u011funu ve ne \u015fekilde somut olaya uygulad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. Anayasa Mahkemesi, \u00e7ok say\u0131daki karar\u0131nda toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc d\u00fczenleme hakk\u0131na gerek\u00e7esiz olarak veya Anayasa Mahkemesince ortaya konulan kriterleri kar\u015f\u0131lamayan bir gerek\u00e7e ile yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalelerin Anayasa’n\u0131n 34. maddesini ihlal edece\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Bu ba\u011flamda toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc d\u00fczenleme hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan bir m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine uygun kabul edilebilmesi i\u00e7in kamu makamlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ortaya konulan gerek\u00e7elerin ilgili ve yeterli olmas\u0131 gerekir (di\u011ferleri aras\u0131ndan bkz. Dilan \u00d6g\u00fcz Canan, B. No: 2014\/20411, 30\/11\/2017 \u00a7 53; Y\u0131lmaz G\u00fcne\u015f ve Yusuf Karada\u015f, \u00a7 48; Kenan G\u00fcven, B. No: 2018\/21657, 6\/10\/2022, \u00a7 13).<\/p>\n
18. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla istinaf kanun yolunda somut olaya konu eylemler ile uygulanan kural aras\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k, net, anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r nitelikte objektif bir ili\u015fkinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6sterilemedi\u011fi g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n disiplin cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmalar\u0131n\u0131n zorunlu toplumsal bir ihtiyaca kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k geldi\u011finin ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7eyle ortaya konulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunun yan\u0131nda m\u00fcdahalenin ba\u015fvurucunun toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc d\u00fczenleme hakk\u0131 \u00fczerinde cayd\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 bir etki olu\u015fturmas\u0131 nedeniyle orant\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu da s\u00f6ylenemez (orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k y\u00f6n\u00fcnden benzer de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. Hasan G\u00fcng\u00f6r, B. No: 2013\/6152, 24\/2\/2016, \u00a7 54).<\/p>\n
19. Son olarak somut olayda idarece ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmemesine ra\u011fmen b\u00f6lge idare mahkemesince saptanan farkl\u0131 bir kanun maddesine g\u00f6re eylemlerin de\u011ferlendirilerek sebep ikamesi yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 da g\u00f6zard\u0131 edilemez. Anayasa Mahkemesi bu gibi durumlarda \u00fcst mahkemelerin yeni durumu taraflara bildirmesi, bu ba\u011flamda g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f ve itirazlar\u0131 alarak \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkesine uygun hareket etmesi gerekti\u011fini vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ancak mevcut ba\u015fvuruda b\u00f6lge idare mahkemesince an\u0131lan gereksinimlerin kar\u015f\u0131lanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde istinaf yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7eli\u015fmeli yarg\u0131lama ilkesine uygun y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc de \u015fu h\u00e2lde kabul etmek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Koray Erdo\u011fan, B. No: 2013\/1989, 10\/3\/2016, \u00a7\u00a7 37-44).<\/p>\n
20. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvuruya konu demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine uygun olmayan m\u00fcdahale nedeniyle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 34. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc d\u00fczenleme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
21. Ba\u015fvurucular, ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 50.000 TL tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
22. 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). Eski h\u00e2le getirme kural\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in ba\u015fvuruculara manevi zararlar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 net 30.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc d\u00fczenleme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 34. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc d\u00fczenleme hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc d\u00fczenleme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Gaziantep B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 5. \u0130dari Dava Dairesine iletilmek \u00fczere (E.2019\/3764, K.2021\/448; E.2019\/4294, K.2021\/447; E.2019\/3776, K.2021\/446; E.2019\/3652, K.2021\/445; E.2019\/3648, K.2021\/444) Diyarbak\u0131r 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2018\/1494, K.2019\/437; E.2018\/1519, K.2019\/423), Diyarbak\u0131r 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2018\/1624, K.2019\/866; E.2018\/1567, K.2019\/611) ve Diyarbak\u0131r 3. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2018\/1565, K.2019\/1026) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvuruculara ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 net 30.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE, tazminata ili\u015fkin di\u011fer taleplerin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 2.438 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 32.438,00 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 23\/10\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 23\/10\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/36551 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 SELAHATT\u0130N ALP VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/36551) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 23\/10\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 21\/2\/2025 – 32820 \u00a0 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \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 : Ali Erdem \u015eAH\u0130N Ba\u015fvurucular : 1. Selahattin ALP \u00a0 \u00a0 2. Arzu KO\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 3. Hikmet KORKMAZ \u00a0 \u00a0 4. Nihat KIRATLI \u00a0 \u00a0 5. Y\u0131lmaz G\u00dcNE\u015e Vekili : Av. \u0130brahim AV\u015eAR \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, sendika karar\u0131na istinaden i\u015ftirak edilen n\u00f6bet tutma eyleminden dolay\u0131 disiplin cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131rma nedeniyle toplant\u0131 ve g\u00f6steri y\u00fcr\u00fcy\u00fc\u015f\u00fc d\u00fczenleme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucular, ba\u015fvuruya konu olaylar\u0131n ya\u015fand\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte Diyarbak\u0131r’da \u00f6\u011fretmen olarak g\u00f6rev yapmaktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular ayn\u0131 zamanda E\u011fitim ve Bilim Emek\u00e7ileri Sendikas\u0131 (E\u011e\u0130T\u0130M SEN) \u00fcyesidir. 3. Somut olay 2015 y\u0131l\u0131 Haziran ay\u0131ndan itibaren ya\u015fanan ter\u00f6r eylemleriyle m\u00fccadele kapsam\u0131nda baz\u0131 il\u00e7elerde soka\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kma yasa\u011f\u0131 ilan edilmesi ve e\u011fitim faaliyetlerine bir s\u00fcre ara verilmesi etraf\u0131nda \u015fekillenmi\u015ftir (arka plan bilgisi i\u00e7in bkz. Dilek Kaya, B. No: 2018\/14313, 17\/7\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 8-11). E\u011e\u0130T\u0130M SEN Diyarbak\u0131r \u015eubeleri, s\u00f6z konusu durumu protesto etmek maksad\u0131yla ald\u0131klar\u0131 kararlarla 21\/1\/2016 …<\/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-33765","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n