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
EL\u0130F \u00c7INAR VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/22950)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 17\/12\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 7\/3\/2025 – 32834<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/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
Olcay \u00d6ZCAN<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1. Elif \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
2. Hasan \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
3. H\u00fcseyin \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
4. Orhan \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
5. Sevim \u00c7INAR B\u0130RBEN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
6. \u015eennur \u00c7INAR \u00c7EPER<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Hikmet S\u00d6NMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, imar mevzuat\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle y\u0131k\u0131lan yap\u0131lar\u0131n yap\u0131 bedelinin \u00f6denmemesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ankara’n\u0131n Alt\u0131nda\u011f il\u00e7esi Yenido\u011fan Mahallesi’nde bulunan 6867 ada 7 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 363 m\u00b2 y\u00fcz \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcml\u00fc ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tamam\u0131 M.\u00c7. ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 iken 3\/4\/1987 tarihinde175\/726 hisseyi ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisi \u0130.\u00c7. sat\u0131n alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
A. H\u00fcseyin \u00c7\u0131nar ve di\u011ferleri B. No: 2014\/10248, 12\/1\/2017, Ba\u015fvurusuna \u0130li\u015fkin S\u00fcre\u00e7<\/p>\n
3. Ankara B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131(B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediyesi) ve Alt\u0131nda\u011f Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Belediye) taraf\u0131ndan kentsel d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm ve imar uygulamalar\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lan i\u015flemler i\u00e7in bkz. H\u00fcseyin \u00c7\u0131nar ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7\u00a7 8-18.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucular, hissedar\u0131 olduklar\u0131 6867 ada 7 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde bulunan ve konut amac\u0131yla kullan\u0131lan yap\u0131lar i\u00e7in 24\/2\/1984 tarihli ve 2981 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130mar ve Gecekondu Mevzuat\u0131na Ayk\u0131r\u0131 Yap\u0131lara Uygulanacak Baz\u0131 \u0130\u015flemler ve 6785 Say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130mar Kanununun Bir Maddesinin De\u011fi\u015ftirilmesi Hakk\u0131nda Kanun kapsam\u0131nda imar aff\u0131 ba\u015fvurusunda bulunduklar\u0131na ili\u015fkin tespit, m\u00fcracaat ve de\u011ferlendirme formlar\u0131, emlak vergisi \u00f6dendi\u011fine dair \u00f6deme makbuzlar\u0131 olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen yaln\u0131zca enkaz bedeli teklif edilerek y\u0131k\u0131m karar\u0131 al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yap\u0131lar\u0131n bedelinin \u00f6denmedi\u011fini belirterek yap\u0131lar\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131z el at\u0131larak y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle \u015fimdilik 10.000 TL yap\u0131 bedelinin faiziyle tahsili istemiyle Belediye aleyhine 2\/11\/2009 tarihinde Ankara 9. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu dava idari yarg\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6revli oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle yarg\u0131 yolu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddedilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular, ayn\u0131 gerek\u00e7elerle yap\u0131 bedelinden kaynaklanan 35.000 TL tazminat\u0131n yasal faiziyle tahsili istemiyle Belediye aleyhine 12\/12\/2011 tarihinde Ankara 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (2. \u0130dare Mahkemesi) tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 29\/6\/2012 tarihinde davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015f; karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde imar mevzuat\u0131na uygun olarak in\u015fa edilmi\u015f ruhsatl\u0131 yap\u0131lar\u0131n imar plan\u0131 uyar\u0131nca kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmalar\u0131 durumunda ilgililere 4\/11\/1983 tarihli ve 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma Kanunu’nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen \u015fekilde kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli \u00f6denece\u011fini, Hazine, belediye, il \u00f6zel idarelerine ait veya Vak\u0131flar Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn idaresinde olan ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar \u00fczerinde in\u015fa edilen ve 2981 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’dan yararlanan yap\u0131 sahiplerine ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n bulundu\u011fu yerde korunamamas\u0131 durumunda enkaz bedeli \u00f6denece\u011fini, bu iki husus d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ruhsats\u0131z olarak in\u015fa edilen veya imar aff\u0131ndan yararlanmayan yap\u0131lar i\u00e7in imar plan\u0131 uygulamas\u0131 durumunda bir bedel \u00f6denmesinin s\u00f6z konusu olmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvuruculara aitta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n toplu konut projesi i\u00e7inde kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00fczerindeki yap\u0131n\u0131n ka\u00e7ak ve ruhsats\u0131z oldu\u011funu, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131na ve yap\u0131 bedelinin \u00f6denmemesine ili\u015fkin i\u015flemde hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Yap\u0131lan temyiz talebini de\u011ferlendiren Dan\u0131\u015ftay Ond\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc Dairesi 12\/3\/2014 tarihinde davac\u0131lar\u0131n yap\u0131 bedelinin yasal faiziyle tazmini isteminin kabul\u00fcne hukuken olanak bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekirken 20\/7\/1966 tarihli ve 775 say\u0131l\u0131 Gecekondu Kanunu’nun 18. maddesi uyar\u0131nca yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131na ve yap\u0131 bedelinin \u00f6denmemesine ili\u015fkin olarak daval\u0131 idare taraf\u0131ndan tesis edilen i\u015flemde hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine \u015feklinde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131nda sonucu itibar\u0131yla isabetsizlik g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle karar\u0131 onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucular 25\/6\/2014 tarihinde Anayasa Mahkemesine bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. Bu ba\u015fvuruda ba\u015fvurucular, murislerinden intikal eden ve \u00fczerindeiki katl\u0131 bir adet, tek katl\u0131 bir adet konut olarak kullan\u0131lan yap\u0131lar bulunan tapulu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediyesince onaylanan kentsel d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm projesi imar planlar\u0131na dayan\u0131larak parselasyona tabi tutuldu\u011funu, yerinde korunmayarak ba\u015fka imar ada ve parsellerine \u015fuyuland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde bulunan yap\u0131lar\u0131n ise toplu konut alan\u0131nda kalmas\u0131 sebebiyle y\u0131k\u0131larak yerine Toplu Konut \u0130daresi Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (TOK\u0130) taraf\u0131ndan binalar in\u015fa edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Y\u0131k\u0131lan yap\u0131lar hakk\u0131nda imar aff\u0131 ba\u015fvurusunda bulunulmas\u0131na ve ba\u015fvuru yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6steren belgeler sunulmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen ilgisiz gerek\u00e7eyle yap\u0131 bedelinin \u00f6denmemesi nedeniyleadil yarg\u0131lanma ve m\u00fclkiyet haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir (H\u00fcseyin \u00c7\u0131nar ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
8. Anayasa Mahkemesi H\u00fcseyin \u00c7\u0131nar ve di\u011ferleri karar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n hisseli olarak malik bulunduklar\u0131 tapulu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde yer alan ancak imar mevzuat\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak in\u015fa edildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lan yap\u0131lar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden imar aff\u0131 ba\u015fvurusu yapt\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fcklerini, bu hususta bir k\u0131s\u0131m bilgi ve belge sunduklar\u0131n\u0131, bu durumun Belediye Enc\u00fcmeninin 28\/3\/2007 tarihli karar\u0131nda da belirtildi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. 2981 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131nda imar aff\u0131 ba\u015fvurusu kabul edilen yap\u0131lar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli \u00f6denmesini \u00f6ng\u00f6ren Belediye Enc\u00fcmeninin 26\/3\/2008 tarihli karar\u0131 ile imar mevzuat\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 yap\u0131 yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hisseli arsa ve araziler y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tapu verilmesini d\u00fczenleyen ve de\u011fer bi\u00e7me y\u00f6ntemi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a at\u0131f yapan 2981 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 10. maddesinin (c) bendi birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde ba\u015fvuruya konu y\u0131k\u0131lan yap\u0131lar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvuruculara \u00f6denmesi gereken bedelin belirlenmesinde yap\u0131lar\u0131n 2981 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131nda imar aff\u0131ndan yararlanm\u0131\u015f olup olmad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n tespitinin \u00f6nem arz etti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. \u0130mar aff\u0131ndan yararlanan yap\u0131lar\u0131n ruhsats\u0131z olarak de\u011ferlendirilmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (H\u00fcseyin \u00c7\u0131nar ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7\u00a7 58, 59).<\/p>\n
9. Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00f6te yandan 775 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 2. maddesindeki gecekondu deyimi ile imar ve yap\u0131 i\u015flerini d\u00fczenleyen mevzuata ve genel h\u00fck\u00fcmlere ba\u011fl\u0131 kal\u0131nmaks\u0131z\u0131n, kendisine ait olmayan arazi veya arsalar \u00fczerinde sahibinin r\u0131zas\u0131 al\u0131nmaks\u0131z\u0131n yap\u0131lan izinsiz yap\u0131lar\u0131n kastedildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n hisseli olarak malik bulunduklar\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz (arazi) \u00fczerinde imar mevzuat\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak in\u015fa ettikleri yap\u0131lar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 2981 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131nda imar aff\u0131 ba\u015fvurusunda bulunduklar\u0131 da dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvuruculara ait yap\u0131lar\u0131n gecekondu olarak nitelendirilip nitelendirilemeyece\u011fi hususunun mahkemece ayr\u0131ca tart\u0131\u015f\u0131larak gerek\u00e7elendirilmesinin yap\u0131lar\u0131n niteli\u011fi ve imar mevzuat\u0131na g\u00f6re durumlar\u0131n\u0131n ortaya konulmas\u0131ndan sonra uygulanacak mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin ayr\u0131ca irdelenmesi gerekti\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir (H\u00fcseyin \u00c7\u0131nar ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 60).<\/p>\n
10. Anayasa Mahkemesi, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ayr\u0131 ve a\u00e7\u0131k bir yan\u0131t verilmesini gerektiren ve y\u0131k\u0131lan yap\u0131lar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bu yap\u0131lar\u0131n niteli\u011finin belirlenmesi, uygulanabilecek mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ve ba\u015fvuruculara \u00f6denmesi gereken bedelin tespiti hususunu do\u011frudan etkileyecek esasl\u0131 unsur olan imar aff\u0131 ba\u015fvurusunun ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131na ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n mahkeme karar\u0131nda tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve kar\u015f\u0131lanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015f; gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (H\u00fcseyin \u00c7\u0131nar ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 61).<\/p>\n
B. Bireysel Ba\u015fvuruya \u0130li\u015fkin S\u00fcre\u00e7<\/p>\n
11. H\u00fcseyin \u00c7\u0131nar ve di\u011ferleri karar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlaline karar verilmesi \u00fczerine 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesi yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015f ve davac\u0131lar ile daval\u0131 Belediyeden davaya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaza ili\u015fkin belgelerin g\u00f6nderilmesini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Belediye 13\/3\/2018 tarihli cevab\u0131nda, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddedilerek kesinle\u015fti\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaza ili\u015fkin tapu tahsis belgesi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz hakk\u0131nda 2981 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 8. maddesi uyar\u0131nca yap\u0131lan imar aff\u0131 ba\u015fvurusuna ili\u015fkin form ve makbuz bulunmakla birlikte 9. maddede yer verilen di\u011fer hissedarlar\u0131n muvafakatine ili\u015fkin belgenin sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, har\u00e7lar\u0131n yat\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve 15. maddeye g\u00f6re al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekli yap\u0131 kullan\u0131m izni belgesinin al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucular 13\/3\/2018 tarihli cevab\u0131nda, ayn\u0131 yerde bulunanemsalba\u015fka ta\u015f\u0131nmaza ili\u015fkin bilirki\u015fi raporunun ve imar aff\u0131na ili\u015fkin belgelerin sunuldu\u011funu ifade etmi\u015ftir. Takdim edilen belgeler aras\u0131nda A.\u00d6. taraf\u0131ndan dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan ve ayn\u0131 mahalledeki gecekonduya ili\u015fkin olarak dava dosyas\u0131na sunulan bilirki\u015fi raporunun bulundu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu rapora g\u00f6re2007 y\u0131l\u0131nda enkaz bedeli olarak Belediye taraf\u0131ndan 20.000 TL belirlendi\u011fi, 250 m\u00b2 ve \u00fc\u00e7 katl\u0131 25-30 ya\u015f\u0131ndaki bir bina i\u00e7in 2009 y\u0131l\u0131birim fiyatlar\u0131na g\u00f6re enkaz bedelinin 7.247,50 TL, levaz\u0131m bedelinin 39.861,25 TL ve yap\u0131 bedelinin 72.475 TL oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n 1987, 1990, 1994 ve 2007 y\u0131llar\u0131nda Alt\u0131nda\u011f il\u00e7esinde bulunan yap\u0131larla ilgili emlak vergi beyannamelerini sundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
14. 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 28\/11\/2018 tarihinde davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. Karar gerek\u00e7esinde;<\/p>\n
i. \u0130mar uygulamalar\u0131 sonucunda 6867 ada 7 parseldeki ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n yeni olu\u015fturulan 23655, 23656 ve 23569 ada 1 parsellerde \u015fuyuland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 20\/5\/2005 tarihinde tapu d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini ve tapu d\u00fczenlenmesi i\u015flemine kar\u015f\u0131 herhangi bir davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 6867 ada 7 parseldeki ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ruhsats\u0131z olmas\u0131, kentsel d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm alan\u0131nda kalmas\u0131 sebebiyle tahliye edilmesi ve y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131na ili\u015fkin i\u015fleme kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddedildi\u011fini, s\u00f6z konusu karara kar\u015f\u0131 kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurulmayarak karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fti\u011fini,<\/p>\n
ii. 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131nda kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli \u00f6denebilmesi i\u00e7in imar mevzuat\u0131na uygun olarak in\u015fa edilmi\u015f ruhsatl\u0131 bir yap\u0131n\u0131n mevcut olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, bununla birlikte davac\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan dosyaya sunulan tapu tahsis belgesindeki parsel numaras\u0131n\u0131n 23 oldu\u011funu ve bu belgeye istinaden a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddedildi\u011fini, dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz i\u00e7in verilmi\u015f herhangi bir tapu tahsis belgesi de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan herhangi bir hak talep edilemeyece\u011fini,<\/p>\n
iii. Dava konusu 6867 ada 7 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaza dair tapu tahsis belgesinin, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla imar aff\u0131ndan yararland\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin herhangi bir bilgi ya da belge bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ruhsatl\u0131 olmayan yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131na ili\u015fkin tesis edilen i\u015flemin hukuka uygun oldu\u011funu, ruhsatl\u0131 olmayan yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131 i\u00e7in herhangi bir enkaz bedelinin \u00f6denmesinin de 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131nda hukuken imk\u00e2ns\u0131z oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n temyiz talebini inceleyen Dan\u0131\u015ftay Alt\u0131nc\u0131 Dairesi 12\/12\/2019 tarihinde karar\u0131 onam\u0131\u015f, 11\/6\/2020 tarihinde de karar d\u00fczeltme talebini reddetmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 18\/7\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 14\/8\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvuru, s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
16. 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
17. Ba\u015fvurucular; tapulu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde vergisi \u00f6denen iki katl\u0131 bir adet ve bir adet de tek katl\u0131 olan iki binadatoplam \u00fc\u00e7 konut oldu\u011funu, bu yap\u0131larla ilgili imar aff\u0131 ba\u015fvurusu yap\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle yap\u0131 bedelinin \u00f6denmesi gerekirken yaln\u0131zca enkaz bedelinin \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi nedeniyle adil yarg\u0131lanma ve m\u00fclkiyet haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvuru, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. 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 m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
20. Anayasa Mahkemesi olay ve olgular\u0131 somut ba\u015fvuru ile benzer nitelikte olan \u0130rfan \u00d6ztekin (B. No: 2014\/19140, 5\/12\/2017), Rifat Algan (B. No: 2014\/19138, 22\/2\/2018), Durali G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fba\u015f (B. No: 2015\/6427, 10\/10\/2018) ve Abbas \u00d6z\u00e7elik ve di\u011ferleri (B. No: 2016\/3193, 29\/5\/2019) kararlar\u0131nda uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede s\u00f6z konusu kararlarda \u015fehir planlamas\u0131 ile ilgili d\u00fczenlemelere ayk\u0131r\u0131 \u015fekilde in\u015fa edilmesi sebebiyle idari makamlarca yap\u0131n\u0131n her an y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen bu y\u00f6nde bir giri\u015fimde bulunulmamas\u0131 ve \u00f6nlem al\u0131nmamas\u0131, uzunca bir s\u00fcre bu duruma sessiz kal\u0131nmas\u0131, esasen yap\u0131 sebebiyle vergi tahsil edilmesi veya yap\u0131n\u0131n kamu hizmetlerinden yararland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle bu alanlarda sosyal ortam ve aile ortam\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015fturulmas\u0131na izin verilmesi h\u00e2linde in\u015fa edilen yap\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131ndan kaynaklanan ekonomik de\u011ferin m\u00fclk olu\u015fturdu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
21. Bireysel ba\u015fvuru dosyas\u0131 ve eklerinde uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011fa konu yap\u0131n\u0131n ne zaman in\u015fa edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir bilgi ve belgeye rastlanmamakla birlikte 1980’li y\u0131llardan sonra yap\u0131 hakk\u0131nda imar aff\u0131na ili\u015fkin belgelerin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi ve vergi \u00f6demelerinin bulundu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Belediye Enc\u00fcmeni 2007 y\u0131l\u0131ndaki karar\u0131nda muris \u0130.\u00c7.nin gecekondusunu y\u0131k\u0131p bo\u015faltmas\u0131 ve tapulu yerini Belediyeye devretmesi kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda enkaz bedelinin tahsis edilecek konutun bedelinden mahsup edilece\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca yap\u0131n\u0131n 2007 y\u0131l\u0131 \u00f6ncesinde y\u0131k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir tespit yoktur. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla 1980’li y\u0131llarda ba\u015flayan ve en az 2007 y\u0131l\u0131na kadar vergileri de \u00f6denmek suretiyle devam ettirilen uzun s\u00fcreli kullan\u0131m\u0131n ba\u015fvurucular a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ekonomik menfaat te\u015fkil etti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
22. Durali G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fba\u015f karar\u0131nda, ba\u015fvurucu ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 tapulu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki ruhsats\u0131z binan\u0131n Belediye taraf\u0131ndan y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen yol a\u00e7ma \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda y\u0131k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu nedenle kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n do\u011frudan y\u00fcr\u00fctmekte oldu\u011fu bir faaliyet s\u0131ras\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir m\u00fcdahale meydana geldi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu m\u00fcdahalenin niteli\u011fi sebebiyle m\u00fclkiyetten bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l yararlanmaya ili\u015fkin genel kural \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir (Durali G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fba\u015f, \u00a7\u00a7 40-42). Somut olayda da ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u015fik\u00e2yet ettikleri temel husus, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki yap\u0131n\u0131n bedeli yerine enkaz bedeli tutar\u0131nda tazminat \u00f6denmek suretiyle y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla bu ilkelerden ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015f ve ba\u015fvurunun m\u00fclkiyetten bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l yararlanma hakk\u0131na sayg\u0131ya ili\u015fkin genel kural \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenmesi uygun g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
23. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 \u00fczerindeki ruhsats\u0131z yap\u0131 3\/7\/2005 tarihli ve 5393 say\u0131l\u0131 Belediye Kanunu’nun 73. maddesi uyar\u0131nca y\u0131k\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131n kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu, s\u00f6z konusu alan\u0131n kentsel d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm uygulamas\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucuya ait yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n kamu yarar\u0131na dayal\u0131 me\u015fru bir amac\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
24. Anayasa Mahkemesi \u0130rfan \u00d6ztekin, Rifat Algan, Durali G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fba\u015f ve Abbas \u00d6z\u00e7elik ve di\u011ferleri kararlar\u0131nda yarg\u0131 mercilerinin sadece binan\u0131n ruhsats\u0131z oldu\u011fu olgusundan hareket edip olay\u0131n geli\u015fiminde kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n edilgen tutumunu dikkate almamalar\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn zarara tek ba\u015f\u0131na katlanmas\u0131 sonucuna yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvuruculara \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 ve ola\u011fan d\u0131\u015f\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklendi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n hissedar\u0131 oldu\u011fu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 da kapsayan alanda Alt\u0131nda\u011f Kentsel D\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm Projesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde yap\u0131lan imar uygulamas\u0131 ile parselasyon plan\u0131n\u0131n onayland\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n hissedar\u0131 bulundu\u011fu 6867 ada 7 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz 23651 ada 1 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 imar parseline isabet etmesine ra\u011fmen ba\u015fvuruculara ait 87,5 m\u00b2lik hisse ba\u015fka ada ve parsellere tahsis edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvuruculara ait yap\u0131n\u0131n da aralar\u0131nda oldu\u011fu yap\u0131lar y\u0131k\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve kentsel d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm projesi imar planlar\u0131na g\u00f6re toplu konut sahas\u0131nda kalan bu alanda Belediye ile TOK\u0130 aras\u0131nda akdedilen s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye istinaden konutlar in\u015fa edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
26. 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesinin yap\u0131n\u0131n hangi tarihte in\u015fa edildi\u011fi, y\u0131k\u0131m tarihine kadar kamu makamlar\u0131nca herhangi bir y\u0131k\u0131m karar\u0131 al\u0131n\u0131p al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n binan\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131na ili\u015fkin kamusal hizmetlerden istifade ettirilip ettirilmedikleri, bir ba\u015fka deyi\u015fle kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n bu s\u00fcre\u00e7te nas\u0131l bir tutum tak\u0131nd\u0131klar\u0131 hususunda herhangi bir inceleme ve de\u011ferlendirme yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Yap\u0131n\u0131n in\u015fa edildi\u011fi tarih tam olarak tespit edilememekle birlikte ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisi taraf\u0131ndan bu yap\u0131ya ili\u015fkin 1980’li y\u0131llarda yap\u0131lan imar aff\u0131 m\u00fcracaat\u0131 oldu\u011fu ve yap\u0131n\u0131n imar uygulamas\u0131 nedeniyle 2007 y\u0131l\u0131ndan sonra y\u0131k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda yirmi y\u0131l\u0131 a\u015fk\u0131n s\u00fcredir kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131 i\u00e7in uzun s\u00fcre hareketsiz kalmas\u0131, yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131l\u0131p y\u0131k\u0131lmayaca\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda belirsiz bir durumun olu\u015fmas\u0131na sebebiyet vermi\u015ftir. B\u00f6yle bir durumda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n uzun bir s\u00fcre boyunca devam eden edilgen tutumlar\u0131n\u0131n bir anda de\u011fi\u015febilece\u011fini \u00f6ng\u00f6rmelerini beklemek hakkaniyete ayk\u0131r\u0131 olaca\u011f\u0131 gibi bu kadar uzun bir s\u00fcre boyunca yap\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucular bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00f6nemli bir ekonomik menfaat te\u015fkil etti\u011fini ifade etmek gerekir.<\/p>\n
27. 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesi, yap\u0131n\u0131nimar mevzuat\u0131na uygun \u015fekilde in\u015fa edilmedi\u011fini ve imar aff\u0131ndan yararlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte kentsel d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm uygulamas\u0131na ili\u015fkin imar uygulamalar\u0131 \u00f6ncesinde yap\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucunun tapuda hissesi bulunan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerine in\u015fa edildi\u011fine de vurgu yapmak gerekir. \u015euyuland\u0131rma nedeniyle yap\u0131n\u0131n Belediyeye ait parsel \u00fczerinde kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Belediye, \u00fczerinde yap\u0131 bulunan ba\u015fvuruculara ait ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 kamula\u015ft\u0131rmak yerine imar uygulamas\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda \u015fuyuland\u0131rma yoluyla kendisi ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazda b\u0131rakm\u0131\u015f ve \u00fczerindeki yap\u0131y\u0131 y\u0131km\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
28. Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti esaslar\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fczenleyen 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 11. maddesi yap\u0131lar\u0131n de\u011fer tespitinderesm\u00ee birim fiyatlar\u0131, yap\u0131 maliyet hesaplar\u0131 ve y\u0131pranma pay\u0131n\u0131n esas al\u0131naca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirlemi\u015ftir. Bunun yan\u0131nda 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 19. maddesinin son f\u0131kras\u0131nda ba\u015fkas\u0131 ad\u0131na tapulu, sahipsiz ve\/veya zilyedi taraf\u0131ndan iktisap edilmemi\u015f yerin kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131nda binalar\u0131n asgari levaz\u0131m bedelinin zilyedine \u00f6denece\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n hissesi bulunan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n \u015fuyuland\u0131r\u0131lmay\u0131p kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 durumunda \u00fczerine in\u015fa edilen yap\u0131n\u0131n da kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeline d\u00e2hil edilece\u011fi ku\u015fkusuzdur. Bunun yerine yap\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu alan Belediye ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 olarak \u015fuyuland\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli \u00f6denmemi\u015f, yaln\u0131zca enkaz bedeli hesap edilmi\u015ftir. Bu durumda kamu makamlar\u0131 kentsel d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm ve imar uygulamalar\u0131 neticesinde ve ba\u015fvurucular aleyhine olacak \u015fekilde fayda elde etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
29. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n b\u00f6lgedeki ba\u015fka bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaza ili\u015fkin bilirki\u015fi raporunda 2009 y\u0131l\u0131 birim fiyatlar\u0131na g\u00f6re enkaz bedelinin 7.247,50 TL, levaz\u0131m bedelinin 39.861,25 TL ve yap\u0131 bedelinin 72.475 TL oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla enkaz bedelinin yap\u0131 bedeline oranla \u00e7ok d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
30. Sonu\u00e7 olarak tek ba\u015f\u0131na binan\u0131n ruhsats\u0131z oldu\u011fu olgusundan hareket edilip olay\u0131n geli\u015fiminde kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n edilgen tutumunun dikkate al\u0131nmamas\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 yolunun tercih edilmeyip \u015fuyuland\u0131rma yoluyla yap\u0131n\u0131n Belediye ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131nda b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 ve yap\u0131n\u0131n toplu konut alan\u0131nda kalmas\u0131 nedeniyle y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131 sonucunda yaln\u0131zca enkaz bedelinin \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n zarara u\u011framas\u0131na yol a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n m\u00fclk olarak kabul edilen yap\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan zarar\u0131n uygun bir tazminat \u00f6denerek kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 gerekir. Kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n bu yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131, ba\u015fvuruculara \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 ve ola\u011fan d\u0131\u015f\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklemi\u015f ve m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ile kamunun yarar\u0131 aras\u0131nda olmas\u0131 gereken adil dengeyi ba\u015fvurucular aleyhine bozmu\u015ftur. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
31. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
32. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespit edilmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
33. 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 vard\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 (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. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Ankara 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2017\/1340, K.2018\/2311) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. 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
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 faiz UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
F. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 17\/12\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 17\/12\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/22950 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 EL\u0130F \u00c7INAR VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/22950) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 17\/12\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 7\/3\/2025 – 32834 \u00a0 \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 : Olcay \u00d6ZCAN Ba\u015fvurucular : 1. Elif \u00c7INAR \u00a0 \u00a0 2. Hasan \u00c7INAR \u00a0 \u00a0 3. H\u00fcseyin \u00c7INAR \u00a0 \u00a0 4. Orhan \u00c7INAR \u00a0 \u00a0 5. Sevim \u00c7INAR B\u0130RBEN \u00a0 \u00a0 6. \u015eennur \u00c7INAR \u00c7EPER Vekili : Av. Hikmet S\u00d6NMEZ \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, imar mevzuat\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle y\u0131k\u0131lan yap\u0131lar\u0131n yap\u0131 bedelinin \u00f6denmemesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ankara’n\u0131n Alt\u0131nda\u011f il\u00e7esi Yenido\u011fan Mahallesi’nde bulunan 6867 ada 7 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 363 m\u00b2 y\u00fcz \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcml\u00fc ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tamam\u0131 M.\u00c7. ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 iken 3\/4\/1987 tarihinde175\/726 hisseyi ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisi \u0130.\u00c7. sat\u0131n alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. A. H\u00fcseyin \u00c7\u0131nar ve di\u011ferleri B. No: 2014\/10248, 12\/1\/2017, Ba\u015fvurusuna \u0130li\u015fkin S\u00fcre\u00e7 3. Ankara B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131(B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediyesi) ve Alt\u0131nda\u011f Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Belediye) taraf\u0131ndan kentsel d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm ve imar uygulamalar\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lan i\u015flemler i\u00e7in bkz. H\u00fcseyin \u00c7\u0131nar ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7\u00a7 8-18. 4. Ba\u015fvurucular, hissedar\u0131 olduklar\u0131 6867 ada 7 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz …<\/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-34995","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n