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 YAYLI BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/31465)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 22\/5\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 22\/10\/2024-32700<\/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
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
Osman KODAL<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Elif YAYLI<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. A\u015fk\u0131n AKT\u00dcRK<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesi davas\u0131nda dava dilek\u00e7esinde daval\u0131lar\u0131n g\u00f6sterilmeyen adreslerinin ve kimlik numaralar\u0131n\u0131n bildirilmesi i\u00e7in verilen kesin s\u00fcreye ra\u011fmen bu eksikli\u011fin tamamlanmamas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru 4\/3\/2022 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvuru, ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinin idari y\u00f6nden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n incelemesinden sonra Komisyona sunulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
4. Komisyonca ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin birlikte yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015f; ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne beyanda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR <\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, daval\u0131lar ile birlikte hissedar oldu\u011fu ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f suretiyle giderilmesi i\u00e7in G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fhane Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesinde 11\/9\/2021 tarihinde dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme daval\u0131lar\u0131n bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n T.C. kimlik numaralar\u0131n\u0131n ve adreslerinin dava dilek\u00e7esinde g\u00f6sterilmedi\u011finden bu eksikli\u011fin bir haftal\u0131k kesin s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde tamamlat\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucuya muht\u0131ra \u00e7\u0131karm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Muht\u0131ra 21\/9\/2021 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucuya tebli\u011f edilmi\u015f; ba\u015fvurucu vekili 20\/9\/2021 tarihli dilek\u00e7ede daval\u0131lar\u0131n T.C. kimlik numaralar\u0131n\u0131n bildirilmesi i\u00e7in kesin s\u00fcre verilemeyece\u011fini, daval\u0131lar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k adreslerinin tapu kayd\u0131nda bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131lar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k adreslerinin Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan tespit edilebilece\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme 30\/9\/2021 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun bir haftal\u0131k kesin s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde eksikli\u011fi tamamlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 119. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu; dava dilek\u00e7esinde daval\u0131lar\u0131n T.C. kimlik numaras\u0131n\u0131 bildirmesinin zorunlu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu hususta verilen kesin s\u00fcrenin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, ayr\u0131ca daval\u0131lar\u0131n belirli olmayan ve tespit edilemeyen a\u00e7\u0131k adreslerini tespit etmek amac\u0131yla Mahkemenin adres ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 yapabilece\u011fini belirterek istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
10. Trabzon B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 2. Hukuk Dairesi 5\/1\/2022 tarihli karar\u0131nda davac\u0131 vekilinin tapu kay\u0131tlar\u0131 \u00fczerinde inceleme yapmak suretiyle daval\u0131lar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k kimlik bilgilerine ve adreslerine ula\u015fabilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn iken ara karar\u0131 gere\u011fini yerine getirmedi\u011fini belirterek ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf talebinin esastan reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Bu karar 28\/2\/2022 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucuya tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 4\/3\/2022 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
12. 22\/11\/2001 tarihli ve 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun “Payla\u015fma istemi” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 698. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Hukuk\u00ee bir i\u015flem gere\u011fince veya payl\u0131 mal\u0131n s\u00fcrekli bir amaca \u00f6zg\u00fclenmi\u015f olmas\u0131 sebebiyle payl\u0131 m\u00fclkiyeti devam ettirme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a, payda\u015flardan her biri mal\u0131n payla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilir.<\/p>\n
Payla\u015fmay\u0131 isteme hakk\u0131, hukuk\u00ee bir i\u015flemle en \u00e7ok on y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcre ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131labilir. Ta\u015f\u0131nmazlarda payl\u0131 m\u00fclkiyetin devam\u0131na ili\u015fkin s\u00f6zle\u015fmeler, resm\u00ee \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r ve tapu k\u00fct\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne \u015ferh verilebilir.<\/p>\n
Uygun olmayan zamanda payla\u015fma isteminde bulunulamaz.”<\/p>\n
13. 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Payla\u015fma bi\u00e7imi” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 699. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Payla\u015fma, mal\u0131n aynen b\u00f6l\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmesi veya pazarl\u0131k ya da art\u0131rmayla sat\u0131larak bedelinin b\u00f6l\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmesi bi\u00e7iminde ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilir.<\/p>\n
Payla\u015fma bi\u00e7iminde uyu\u015fma sa\u011flanamazsa, payda\u015flardan birinin istemi \u00fczerine h\u00e2kim, mal\u0131n aynen b\u00f6l\u00fcnerek payla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na, b\u00f6l\u00fcnen par\u00e7alar\u0131n de\u011ferlerinin birbirine denk d\u00fc\u015fmemesi h\u00e2linde eksik de\u011ferdeki par\u00e7aya para eklenerek denkle\u015ftirme sa\u011flanmas\u0131na karar verir. <\/p>\n
B\u00f6lme istemi durum ve ko\u015fullara uygun g\u00f6r\u00fclmezse ve \u00f6zellikle payl\u0131 mal\u0131n \u00f6nemli bir de\u011fer kayb\u0131na u\u011framadan b\u00f6l\u00fcnmesine olanak yoksa, a\u00e7\u0131k art\u0131rmayla sat\u0131\u015fa h\u00fckmolunur. Sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n payda\u015flar aras\u0131nda art\u0131rmayla yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesi, b\u00fct\u00fcn payda\u015flar\u0131n r\u0131zas\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. “<\/p>\n
14. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Dava dilek\u00e7esinin i\u00e7eri\u011fi” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 119. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“(1) Dava dilek\u00e7esinde a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki hususlar bulunur:<\/p>\n
a) Mahkemenin ad\u0131.<\/p>\n
b) Davac\u0131 ile daval\u0131n\u0131n ad\u0131, soyad\u0131 ve adresleri.<\/p>\n
c) Davac\u0131n\u0131n T\u00fcrkiye Cumhuriyeti kimlik numaras\u0131.<\/p>\n
\u00e7) Varsa taraflar\u0131n kanuni temsilcilerinin ve davac\u0131 vekilinin ad\u0131, soyad\u0131 ve adresleri.<\/p>\n
d) Davan\u0131n konusu ve malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131 haklar\u0131na ili\u015fkin davalarda, dava konusunun de\u011feri.<\/p>\n
e) Davac\u0131n\u0131n iddias\u0131n\u0131n dayana\u011f\u0131 olan b\u00fct\u00fcn vak\u0131alar\u0131n s\u0131ra numaras\u0131 alt\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k \u00f6zetleri.<\/p>\n
f) \u0130ddia edilen her bir vak\u0131an\u0131n hangi delillerle ispat edilece\u011fi.<\/p>\n
g) Dayan\u0131lan hukuki sebepler.<\/p>\n
\u011f) A\u00e7\u0131k bir \u015fekilde talep sonucu.<\/p>\n
h) Davac\u0131n\u0131n, varsa kanuni temsilcisinin veya vekilinin imzas\u0131.<\/p>\n
\u00a0(2) Birinci f\u0131kran\u0131n (a), (d), (e), (f) ve (g) bentleri d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan hususlar\u0131n eksik olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde, h\u00e2kim davac\u0131ya eksikli\u011fi tamamlamas\u0131 i\u00e7in bir haftal\u0131k kesin s\u00fcre verir. Bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde eksikli\u011fin tamamlanmamas\u0131 h\u00e2linde dava a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
15. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 10\/6\/2015 tarihli ve E.2014\/11-266, K.2015\/1542 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“…<\/p>\n
Dava, ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesi istemine ili\u015fkindir. <\/p>\n
Davac\u0131lar, K\u0131r\u0131kkale \u0130li, Yah\u015fihan \u0130l\u00e7esi’ndeki, ada ve parsel numaralar\u0131 dava dilek\u00e7esinde a\u00e7\u0131klanan, taraflar\u0131n i\u015ftiraken malik bulunduklar\u0131 16 adet ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f suretiyle giderilmesine karar verilmesini istemi\u015flerdir. <\/p>\n
Bir k\u0131s\u0131m daval\u0131lar vekili, dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n aynen taksiminin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini belirterek, aynen taksimin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmas\u0131 halinde ortakl\u0131k taksim yoluyla giderilece\u011finden davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesini savunmu\u015ftur. <\/p>\n
Mahkeme, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n davada taraf g\u00f6sterilmeyen tapu kay\u0131t maliklerini kendisine tan\u0131nan kesin s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde davaya dahil ederek adreslerini bildirmedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esi ile 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun 119\/1-b,2. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc gere\u011fince davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015f; davac\u0131lar vekilinin temyizi \u00fczerine karar \u00d6zel Dairece, yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle bozulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Mahkeme, \u00f6nceki gerek\u00e7eleri geni\u015fletmek suretiyle ilk karar\u0131nda direnmi\u015f; h\u00fckm\u00fc davac\u0131lar vekili temyize getirmi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n
Direnme yoluyla Hukuk Genel Kurulu \u00f6n\u00fcne gelen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesi istemine ili\u015fkin davada, dava dilek\u00e7esinde bulunmas\u0131 zorunlu unsurlardan olan dahili daval\u0131lar\u0131n adres bilgilerinin, verilen kesin s\u00fcreye ra\u011fmen tamamlanamamas\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 119\/1-b,2. maddesi gere\u011fince davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lamam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilip verilemeyece\u011fi noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r. <\/p>\n
Taraflar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 iddia ve savunmalar\u0131na, dosyadaki tutanak ve kan\u0131tlara, bozma karar\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131klanan gerektirici nedenlere ve \u00f6zellikle 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 119\/1-2. maddesinde dava dilek\u00e7esinde eksiklik bulunmas\u0131 durumunda uygulanacak usul kurallar\u0131 d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f ise de, somut olayda davac\u0131lar vekilinin, dahili daval\u0131 tapu maliklerinin a\u00e7\u0131k adreslerini bilmedi\u011fini s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde belirtti\u011fi g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde; mahkemece, 7201 say\u0131l\u0131 Tebligat Kanunu’ndaki d\u00fczenlemeler dikkate al\u0131narak, \u00f6ncelikle 06.05.2013 tarihli dilek\u00e7ede isimleri bildirilmi\u015f olan dahili daval\u0131 tapu maliklerinin mernise kay\u0131tl\u0131 adreslerinin saptanmas\u0131, buradaki adreslerine tebligat yap\u0131lmas\u0131, mernis adresleri bulunamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde adres ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 yap\u0131larak, adres tesbiti yoluna gidilmesi gerekti\u011finden, an\u0131lan maddenin uygulama yeri bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kurul \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011funca benimsenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
…”<\/p>\n
16. Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesinin 4\/3\/2020 tarihli ve E.2018\/7988, K.2020\/2123 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“…<\/p>\n
Dava, dilek\u00e7esinde daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n ger\u00e7ek adresinin g\u00f6sterilmesi ve gerekli tebligat giderlerinin verilmesi davac\u0131 tarafa ait bir g\u00f6rev ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck ise de, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n adresinin davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan bilinmemesi veya bilinen adreste daval\u0131ya tebligat yap\u0131lamamas\u0131 halinde dosyadaki bilgi ve belgelerden de yararlan\u0131larak daval\u0131n\u0131n bilinen en son adresinin tespiti i\u00e7in zab\u0131ta ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131, kamu kurum ve kurulu\u015flar\u0131ndan adres sorulmas\u0131 ve bu yolla daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n tebligat adresinin bulunmas\u0131, dava dilek\u00e7esi ve duru\u015fma oturum g\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fcn daval\u0131 tarafa tebli\u011fe \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u015flemlerinin mahkemenin g\u00f6revi oldu\u011fu, mahkemenin kendi g\u00f6revine giren bu i\u015flemlerin yap\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in davac\u0131 tarafa s\u00fcre veya kesin s\u00fcre veremeyece\u011fi, ancak adres tespit edildikten sonra tebligat masraflar\u0131n\u0131 yat\u0131rmas\u0131 i\u00e7in s\u00fcre verebilece\u011fi ku\u015fkusuzdur.<\/p>\n
Tebligat\u0131n kimlere, nas\u0131l ve nerede yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 ise tamam\u0131yla \u015fekli ve emredici nitelikte h\u00fck\u00fcmler i\u00e7eren 7201 say\u0131l\u0131 Tebligat Kanunu ve Tebligat Y\u00f6netmeli\u011finde ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 olarak d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f, Tebligat Kanunu\u2019nun 25. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fcnde yabanc\u0131 \u00fclkelerde oturan ki\u015filere, 25\/a maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fcnde yabanc\u0131 \u00fclkede oturan T\u00fcrk Vatanda\u015flar\u0131na siyasi temsilcilik arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla, 26. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fcnde de yabanc\u0131 \u00fclke el\u00e7ilik veya konsolosluklar\u0131n\u0131n istemi \u00fczerine T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de oturan T\u00fcrk Vatanda\u015f\u0131 veya yabanc\u0131 uyruklu ki\u015filere yap\u0131lacak tebligat\u0131n usul\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. <\/p>\n
Somut olayda, mahkemece davac\u0131ya 06.04.2015 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilen yaz\u0131 ile daval\u0131 [H. K.]\u2019e g\u00f6nderilen tebligat\u0131n muhatab\u0131n yurtd\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bulunmas\u0131 nedeniyle iade edilmi\u015f oldu\u011fu belirtilerek, daval\u0131n\u0131n yurtd\u0131\u015f\u0131 adresinin bildirilmesi i\u00e7in bir hafta kesin s\u00fcre verildi\u011fi, bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde daval\u0131n\u0131n adresi bildirilmezse davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilece\u011fi ihtar edilmi\u015f ve davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a daval\u0131n\u0131n yurtd\u0131\u015f\u0131 adresinin bildirilmemi\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 HMK\u2019nin 119 maddesi uyar\u0131nca davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Az yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere daval\u0131n\u0131n tebligat i\u00e7in bilinen en son adreslerinin ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 ve dava dilek\u00e7esi ve duru\u015fma oturum g\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fcn daval\u0131ya tebli\u011fe \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n mahkemenin g\u00f6revi oldu\u011fu, bu konularda davac\u0131 tarafa s\u00fcre ve kesin s\u00fcre verilemeyece\u011fi g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde mahkemenin ihtar\u0131na uymaman\u0131n herhangi bir hukuki sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmayaca\u011f\u0131 ku\u015fkusuzdur. <\/p>\n
O halde mahkemece daval\u0131n\u0131n bilinen en son adreslerinden zab\u0131ta arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla adres ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 yapt\u0131r\u0131lmal\u0131, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan Silifke 3. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin 2016\/22 Esas say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda bulunan 01.09.2015 tarihli ve 11374 yevmiye numaral\u0131 vekaletnamedeki kimlik bilgileri ve pasaport kay\u0131tlar\u0131ndan yararlan\u0131larak daval\u0131n\u0131n T\u00fcrk Vatanda\u015f\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, nerede n\u00fcfusa kay\u0131tl\u0131 oldu\u011fu, halen yurti\u00e7inde mi yoksa yurtd\u0131\u015f\u0131nda m\u0131 oturdu\u011fu duraksamas\u0131z belirlenmeli, bu yolla daval\u0131n\u0131n en son adresinin tespitine \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131lmal\u0131, yurtd\u0131\u015f\u0131nda oturuyorsa Tebligat Kanununun az yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan h\u00fck\u00fcmleri de g\u00f6zetilerek T\u00fcrk Vatanda\u015f\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6re yurtd\u0131\u015f\u0131 tebligat\u0131n hangi usule g\u00f6re yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 belirlenmeli, adres ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 ve tebligat yapt\u0131rman\u0131n davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n de\u011fil, mahkemenin g\u00f6revi oldu\u011fu unutulmamal\u0131, adres ve daval\u0131n\u0131n hangi \u00fclke vatanda\u015f\u0131 olduklar\u0131 belirlendikten sonra tebligat i\u00e7in gerekli giderler belirlenmeli, bu giderlerin yat\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in davac\u0131 vekiline uygun bir s\u00fcre veya kesin s\u00fcre verilmeli, masraf yat\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 taktirde daval\u0131 ad\u0131na dava dilek\u00e7esi ve duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fc y\u00f6ntemine uygun bi\u00e7imde tebli\u011fe \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lmal\u0131, daval\u0131ya y\u00f6ntemine uygun bi\u00e7imde tebligat yap\u0131l\u0131p taraf te\u015fkili sa\u011fland\u0131ktan sonra davan\u0131n esas\u0131na girilmeli, bundan sonra toplanan ve toplanacak t\u00fcm deliller birlikte de\u011ferlendirilerek davan\u0131n esas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bir h\u00fck\u00fcm verilmelidir.<\/p>\n
…”<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
17. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 22\/5\/2024 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130ddialar\u0131 ve Bakanl\u0131k G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu; 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 119. maddesine g\u00f6re dava dilek\u00e7esinde daval\u0131lar\u0131n T.C. kimlik numaralar\u0131n\u0131n bildirilmesi zorunlulu\u011funun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu hususta verilen kesin s\u00fcrenin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131lar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k adreslerinin belli olmamas\u0131 durumunda Mahkemenin adres ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 yapabilece\u011fini, bu eksikli\u011fin Mahkemece tamamlanamamas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesinin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 ile gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; ba\u015fvurucunun mahkeme nezdinde avukat ile temsil edildi\u011fi ve 19\/3\/1969 tarihli ve 1136 say\u0131l\u0131 Avukatl\u0131k Kanunu’nun 2. maddesinin vekile, g\u00f6revi ile ilgili konularda kamu kurumlar\u0131ndan ara\u015ft\u0131rma yapma yetkisini tan\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususlar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne verdi\u011fi cevapta 1136 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 2. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda avukatlar\u0131n bilgi edinme hakk\u0131 mevcut ise de bu hak kapsam\u0131nda ancak tapu k\u00fct\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn incelenmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011funu, tapu k\u00fct\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde ise hissedarlar\u0131n T.C. kimlik numaralar\u0131 ile adres bilgilerinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yaz\u0131l\u0131 bilgi istendi\u011finde ise 24\/3\/2016 tarihli ve 6698 say\u0131l\u0131 Ki\u015fisel Verilerin Korunmas\u0131 Kanunu kapsam\u0131nda bilgi verilmedi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
20. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201cHerkes, me\u015fru vas\u0131ta ve yollardan faydalanmak suretiyle yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddia ve savunma ile adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na sahiptir.\u201d<\/p>\n
21. 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 (Tahir Canan, B. No: 2012\/969, 18\/9\/2013, \u00a7 16). Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetinin \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fcn bir k\u0131s\u0131m daval\u0131n\u0131n adreslerinin ve kimlik numaralar\u0131n\u0131n bildirilmemesi nedeniyle davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesine y\u00f6nelik olmas\u0131 dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvuru, adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenceleri aras\u0131nda yer alan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
1. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
22. 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
2. Esas Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
a. Hakk\u0131n Kapsam\u0131 ve M\u00fcdahalenin Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
23. 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. Di\u011fer yandan Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesine “adil yarg\u0131lanma” ibaresinin eklenmesine ili\u015fkin gerek\u00e7ede, T\u00fcrkiye’nin taraf oldu\u011fu uluslararas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerce de g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n madde metnine d\u00e2hil edildi\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’ni (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) yorumlayan Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi, S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011fini belirtmektedir (\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
24. Anayasa Mahkemesi bireysel ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131nda yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmelerde mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcne ta\u015f\u0131yabilmek ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n etkili bir \u015fekilde karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilmek anlam\u0131na geldi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir (\u00d6zkan \u015een, B. No: 2012\/791, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
25. Somut olayda daval\u0131lar\u0131n dava dilek\u00e7esinde eksik bildirilen T.C. kimlik numaralar\u0131n\u0131n ve adreslerinin verilen kesin s\u00fcreye ra\u011fmen bildirilmemesi nedeniyle davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesi, neticede uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmemesinin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na bir m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
b. M\u00fcdahalenin \u0130hlal Olu\u015fturup Olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
26. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n unsurlar\u0131ndan biri olan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, mutlak bir hak olmay\u0131p hakk\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Ancak mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalede bulunulurken Anayasa’n\u0131n temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin genel ilkeleri d\u00fczenleyen 13. maddesinin de g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmas\u0131 gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
27. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201cTemel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetler, \u00f6zlerine dokunulmaks\u0131z\u0131n yaln\u0131zca Anayasan\u0131n ilgili maddelerinde belirtilen sebeplere ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ve ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir. Bu s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar, Anayasan\u0131n s\u00f6z\u00fcne ve ruhuna, demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin ve l\u00e2ik Cumhuriyetin gereklerine ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamaz.\u201d<\/p>\n
28. Yukar\u0131da an\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale, Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde belirtilen ko\u015fullara uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin ihlalini te\u015fkil edecektir. Bu sebeple m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ve somut ba\u015fvuruya uygun d\u00fc\u015fen, kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme, hakl\u0131 bir sebebe dayanma ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmama ko\u015fullar\u0131na uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
i. Kanunilik<\/p>\n
29. Hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin, bunlara yap\u0131lacak m\u00fcdahalelerin ve s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rmalar\u0131n kanunla d\u00fczenlenmesi bu haklara ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere keyf\u00ee m\u00fcdahaleyi engelleyen, hukuk g\u00fcvenli\u011fini sa\u011flayan demokratik hukuk devletinin en \u00f6nemli unsurlar\u0131ndan biridir (Tahsin Erdo\u011fan, B. No: 2012\/1246, 6\/2\/2014, \u00a7 60).<\/p>\n
30. M\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131 \u00f6ncelikle \u015fekl\u00ee manada bir kanunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 zorunlu k\u0131lar. \u015eekl\u00ee manada kanun, T\u00fcrkiye B\u00fcy\u00fck Millet Meclisi (TBMM) taraf\u0131ndan Anayasa’da belirtilen usule uygun olarak kanun ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan d\u00fczenleyici yasama i\u015flemidir. Hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere m\u00fcdahale edilmesi ancak yasama organ\u0131nca kanun ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan d\u00fczenleyici i\u015flemlerde m\u00fcdahaleye imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan bir h\u00fckm\u00fcn bulunmas\u0131 \u015fart\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. TBMM taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan \u015fekl\u00ee anlamda bir kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmamas\u0131 hakka yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyi anayasal temelden yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131r (Ali H\u0131d\u0131r Akyol ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2015\/17510, 18\/10\/2017, \u00a7 56).<\/p>\n
31. Kanunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kadar kanun metninin ve uygulamas\u0131n\u0131n da bireylerin davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n sonucunu \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilece\u011fi kadar hukuki belirlilik ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131 gerekir. (Necmiye \u00c7ift\u00e7i ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/1301, 30\/12\/2014, \u00a7 55). M\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131, i\u00e7 hukukta m\u00fcdahaleye ili\u015fkin yeterince ula\u015f\u0131labilir ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir kurallar\u0131n bulunmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirmektedir (T\u00fcrkiye \u0130\u015f Bankas\u0131 A.\u015e. [GK], B. No: 2014\/6192, 12\/11\/2014, \u00a7 44). Kanunilik unsuru y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131l\u0131rken mahkemelerce m\u00fcdahaleye imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin yorumu ve bu h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin olaya uygulanmas\u0131 bariz takdir hatas\u0131 ya da a\u00e7\u0131k bir keyf\u00eelik i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi s\u00fcrece bu alanda bir inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvurunun amac\u0131yla ba\u011fda\u015fmaz. Ancak mahkemelerin m\u00fcdahaleye imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131k bir bi\u00e7imde hatal\u0131 yorumlad\u0131klar\u0131 ve uygulad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n tespiti h\u00e2linde m\u00fcdahalenin kanunilik temelinden yoksun oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131labilir (Ramazan Atay, B. No: 2017\/26048, 29\/1\/2020, \u00a7 29).<\/p>\n
32. Somut olayda Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucuya dava dilek\u00e7esinde daval\u0131lar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k adreslerinin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra T.C. kimlik numaralar\u0131n\u0131n da bildirilmesi i\u00e7in de s\u00fcre vermi\u015f; kesin s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde bu eksiklik tamamlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 119. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Ayn\u0131 Kanun’un 119. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda dava dilek\u00e7esinde bulunmas\u0131 gereken unsurlar belirtilmi\u015f olup daval\u0131lar\u0131n T.C. kimlik numaralar\u0131 bu unsurlar aras\u0131nda say\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda Mahkemenin 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 119. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda dava dilek\u00e7esinde bulunmas\u0131 zorunlu olmayan daval\u0131lar\u0131n T.C. kimlik numaralar\u0131n\u0131n tamamlat\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucuya kesin s\u00fcre verdi\u011fi, kesin s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde bu eksiklik tamamlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verdi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
33. \u00d6te yandan 6698 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 3. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (d) bendinde ki\u015fisel veri kimli\u011fi belirli veya belirlenebilir ger\u00e7ek ki\u015fiye ili\u015fkin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc bilgi olarak tan\u0131mlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayn\u0131 maddenin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n(e) bendinde ki\u015fisel verilerin i\u015flenmesinin ki\u015fisel verilerin tamamen veya k\u0131smen otomatik olan ya da herhangi bir veri kay\u0131t sisteminin par\u00e7as\u0131 olmak kayd\u0131yla otomatik olmayan yollarla elde edilmesi, kaydedilmesi, depolanmas\u0131, muhafaza edilmesi, de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesi, yeniden d\u00fczenlenmesi, a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131, aktar\u0131lmas\u0131, devral\u0131nmas\u0131, elde edilebilir h\u00e2le getirilmesi, s\u0131n\u0131fland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ya da kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n engellenmesi gibi veriler \u00fczerinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen her t\u00fcrl\u00fc i\u015flem oldu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
34. Anayasa Mahkemesinin kararlar\u0131nda da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere “…bu ba\u011flamda ad\u0131, soyad\u0131, do\u011fum tarihi ve do\u011fum yeri gibi bireyin sadece kimli\u011fini ortaya koyan bilgiler de\u011fil; telefon numaras\u0131, motorlu ta\u015f\u0131t plakas\u0131, sosyal g\u00fcvenlik numaras\u0131, pasaport numaras\u0131, \u00f6zge\u00e7mi\u015f, resim, g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc ve ses kay\u0131tlar\u0131, parmak izleri, IP adresi, e-posta adresi, hobiler, tercihler, etkile\u015fimde bulunulan ki\u015filer, grup \u00fcyelikleri, aile bilgileri, sa\u011fl\u0131k bilgileri gibi ki\u015fiyi do\u011frudan veya dolayl\u0131 olarak belirlenebilir k\u0131lan t\u00fcm veriler\u201d ki\u015fisel veri olarak kabul edilmektedir (E.2013\/122, K.2014\/74, 9\/4\/2014; E.2014\/149, K.2014\/151, 2\/10\/2014; E.2013\/84, K.2014\/183, 4\/12\/2014; E.2014\/74, K.2014\/201, 25\/12\/2014; E.2014\/180, K.2015\/30, 19\/32015; E.2015\/32, K.2015\/102, 12\/11\/2015; E.2016\/125, K.2017\/143, 28\/09\/2017, \u00a7 9).<\/p>\n
35. An\u0131lan bu hususlar birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 119. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca dava dilek\u00e7esinde bulunmas\u0131 zorunlu olmayan, buna ra\u011fmen ba\u015fvurucudan tamamlamas\u0131 istenen daval\u0131lar\u0131n T.C. kimlik numaralar\u0131 bilgisinin ki\u015fisel veri oldu\u011fu hususu tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131zd\u0131r.<\/p>\n
36. Bu itibarla Mahkemenin dava dilek\u00e7esinde bulunmas\u0131 zorunlu olmayan ve hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak ele ge\u00e7irilmesi h\u00e2linde su\u00e7 te\u015fkil eden daval\u0131lar\u0131n T.C. kimlik numaralar\u0131n\u0131n bildirilmesi i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucuya kesin s\u00fcre vermesi ve bu eksikli\u011fin tamamlanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermesinin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
37. Di\u011fer taraftan daval\u0131lar\u0131n dava dilek\u00e7esinde eksik bildirilen adreslerinin verilen kesin s\u00fcreye ra\u011fmen bildirilmemesi nedeniyle davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 119. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (b) bendi ile (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131na dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bu kapsamda somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
ii. Me\u015fru Ama\u00e7<\/p>\n
38. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesi temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 ilgili hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe ili\u015fkin Anayasa maddesinde g\u00f6sterilen \u00f6zel s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rma sebeplerinin bulunmas\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 k\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde \u00f6zel s\u0131n\u0131rlama nedeni d\u00fczenlenmemi\u015ftir. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 i\u00e7in herhangi bir s\u0131n\u0131rlama nedeni \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f olmakla birlikte bunun hi\u00e7bir \u015fekilde s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmayan mutlak bir hak oldu\u011fu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclemez. Anayasa Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131nda, Anayasa’n\u0131n ba\u015fka maddelerinde yer alan hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckler ile devlete y\u00fcklenen \u00f6devlerin \u00f6zel s\u0131n\u0131rlama sebebi g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015f hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere s\u0131n\u0131r te\u015fkil edebilece\u011fi kabul edilmi\u015ftir (AYM, E.2013\/95, K.2014\/176, 13\/11\/2014; AYM, E.2014\/177, K.2015\/49, 14\/5\/2015).<\/p>\n
39. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131, niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi devletin d\u00fczenleme yapmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektiren bir hakt\u0131r. Zira bu hakk\u0131n Anayasa’da zikredilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 kendi ba\u015f\u0131na bir anlam ifade etmemekte, bireylerin bu haktan yararlanabilmesi i\u00e7in devletin en az\u0131ndan yarg\u0131 te\u015fkilat\u0131n\u0131 kurmas\u0131 ve yarg\u0131lama usullerini belirlemesi gerekmektedir. Devletin d\u00fczenleme yetkisine sahip oldu\u011fu alanlarda belli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde takdir yetkisi oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fc gerekir. Bu sebeple adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar getirirken kanun koyucuyu ba\u011flayan belli bir me\u015fru ama\u00e7lar listesi bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Ancak kanun koyucunun bu takdir yetkisinin Anayasa Mahkemesinin denetimine tabi oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r (\u0130smail Avc\u0131, B. No: 2019\/12190, 22\/2\/2022, \u00a7 55).<\/p>\n
40. Somut olayda Mahkeme, daval\u0131lar\u0131n dava dilek\u00e7esinde adreslerinin verilen kesin s\u00fcreye ra\u011fmen tamamlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Kanun koyucu 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 119. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda dava dilek\u00e7esinde bulunmas\u0131 gereken unsurlar\u0131 tek tek belirtmi\u015f, ayn\u0131 maddenin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda ise belirtilen eksikliklerin verilen bir haftal\u0131k kesin s\u00fcr\u00fcye ra\u011fmen tamamlat\u0131lmamas\u0131 h\u00e2linde davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilece\u011fini \u00f6ng\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
41. An\u0131lan d\u00fczenleme uyar\u0131nca daval\u0131lar\u0131n adresleri dava dilek\u00e7esinde bulunmas\u0131 zorunlu unsurlardan olup bu eksikli\u011fin bir haftal\u0131k kesin s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde tamamlanmamas\u0131 h\u00e2linde davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmektedir. S\u00f6z konusu d\u00fczenlemenin usul\u00fcne uygun, eksiksiz \u015fekilde dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 ve b\u00f6ylece yarg\u0131laman\u0131n birtak\u0131m usule ili\u015fkin eksiklerin tamamlanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in zaman kaybedilmeden sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 amac\u0131na y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda taraflarca haz\u0131r edilme ilkesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ki\u015finin dava a\u00e7arken daval\u0131lar\u0131n adreslerini g\u00f6stermesinin istenmesi, Mahkemenin usuli eksiklikleri tamamlamak yerine uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131 ile ilgili etkili bir yarg\u0131lama yapmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131ndan m\u00fcdahalenin me\u015fru bir amac\u0131 bulunmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
iii. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck<\/p>\n
42. Mahkemenin daval\u0131lar\u0131n dava dilek\u00e7esinde tamam\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k adresininbildirilmesi i\u00e7in verilen bir haftal\u0131k kesin s\u00fcreye ra\u011fmen bu eksikli\u011fin tamamlanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermesi nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fimine getirilen s\u0131n\u0131rlaman\u0131n \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurucuya a\u011f\u0131r bir y\u00fck getirip getirmedi\u011fi hususlar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
43. \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 eder (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
44. Anayasa Mahkemesi bireysel ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131nda yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmelerde mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n kural olarak mutlak bir hak olmay\u0131p s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131labilece\u011fini, bu hususta devletlerin takdir haklar\u0131 gere\u011fi baz\u0131 d\u00fczenlemeler yapabilece\u011fini, bununla birlikte getirilecek s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rmalar\u0131n hakk\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fc zedeleyecek nitelikte olmamas\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 gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir (Mesut G\u00fczel, B. No: 2014\/5876, 22\/9\/2016, \u00a7 31).<\/p>\n
45. Di\u011fer taraftan temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckleri korumak \u00f6ncelikle mahkemelerin g\u00f6revi oldu\u011fundan ve maddi olgular\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmek noktas\u0131nda Anayasa Mahkemesine g\u00f6re daha elveri\u015fli konumda bulunduklar\u0131ndan mahkemelerin kararlar\u0131nda g\u00f6sterdikleri gerek\u00e7eler \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck incelemesinde b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131r.<\/p>\n
46. Ba\u015fvuru konusu davada verilen kesin s\u00fcreye ra\u011fmen daval\u0131lar\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131n adresinin dava dilek\u00e7esinde g\u00f6sterilmemesi nedeniyle davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
47. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ba\u011flam\u0131nda ilk de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekenler elveri\u015flilik ve gereklilik kriterleridir. Ba\u015fvurucunun dava dilek\u00e7esinde daval\u0131lar\u0131n adreslerinin g\u00f6sterilmesinin istenilmesine ra\u011fmen s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde bu eksikli\u011fin giderilmemesi nedeniyle davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesinin yarg\u0131laman\u0131n usuli eksikler nedeniyle gecikmesinin \u00f6n\u00fcne ge\u00e7ilmesi, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n usuli eksikliklerin tamamlanmas\u0131 yerine yarg\u0131laman\u0131n esas\u0131 ile ilgili etkili bir yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 amac\u0131na ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden elveri\u015fli ve gerekli bir ara\u00e7 oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
48. Bununla birlikte mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin orant\u0131l\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da incelenmelidir. Somut olayda Mahkeme, daval\u0131lar\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131n adresinin bildirilmesi i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucuya kesin s\u00fcre vermi\u015f; ba\u015fvurucu daval\u0131lar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k adreslerinin tapu kayd\u0131nda bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131lar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k adreslerini tespit edemedi\u011fini Mahkemeye bildirmi\u015ftir. Buna ra\u011fmen Mahkeme verilen kesin s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde ba\u015fvurucunun daval\u0131lar\u0131n adreslerini bildirmedi\u011finden davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
49. Ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesi davalar\u0131nda davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n yan\u0131nda daval\u0131lar\u0131n da menfaati oldu\u011fundan an\u0131lan dava, iki tarafl\u0131 dava olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bu ba\u011flamda bu davalar\u0131n niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi davac\u0131; dava a\u00e7t\u0131ktan sonra davadan feragat etse, davay\u0131 takip etmese bile di\u011fer daval\u0131lardan birisi dahi davaya devam edece\u011fini bildirdi\u011fi takdirde mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan davaya devam edilmekte ve karar verilmektedir. Bunun yan\u0131 s\u0131ra ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesi davas\u0131 kabul edildi\u011finde yarg\u0131lama giderlerine davac\u0131 da d\u00e2hil b\u00fct\u00fcn hissedarlar hisseleri oran\u0131nda katlanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
50. Her ne kadar hukuk yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131nda taraflarca haz\u0131rlanma ilkesi ge\u00e7erli ise de tapu kayd\u0131nda \u00e7ok fazla hissedar oldu\u011fu ve tapu kay\u0131tlar\u0131nda bu ki\u015filerin adreslerinin t\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumlarda davac\u0131 tarafa dava dilek\u00e7esinde hissedar olan t\u00fcm daval\u0131lar\u0131n adreslerini g\u00f6sterme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn y\u00fckletilmesi a\u011f\u0131r sonu\u00e7lar do\u011furabilmektedir. \u00d6zellikle ta\u015f\u0131nmazlardaki hissedarl\u0131\u011f\u0131n yap\u0131lan imar sonucu olu\u015ftu\u011fu baz\u0131 durumlarda ise hissedarlar, birbirlerini tan\u0131mamakta; sadece tapu kayd\u0131ndan birbirlerinin ad\u0131 ve soyad\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6\u011frenmektedir. \u00d6te yandan ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesi davas\u0131nda mahkemenin dava konusu tapu kayd\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen hissedarlar\u0131n adreslerini \u00e7e\u015fitli kurumlardan ara\u015ft\u0131rabilece\u011fi hususu ise tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131zd\u0131r.<\/p>\n
51. Bu ba\u011flamda tapu kay\u0131tlar\u0131nda yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ara\u015ft\u0131rma sonucu bir k\u0131s\u0131m daval\u0131n\u0131n adreslerini bildiren, di\u011fer bir k\u0131s\u0131m daval\u0131n\u0131n adreslerini tespit edemedi\u011finden bildiremeyen ba\u015fvurucuya davan\u0131n niteli\u011fi de g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde a\u011f\u0131r bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckletildi\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Bu itibarla ba\u015fvurucunun katlanmak zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 k\u00fclfetin hedeflenen me\u015fru ama\u00e7la orant\u0131s\u0131z oldu\u011fu, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
52. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VI. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
53. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ile tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Tespit edilen ihlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin usul ve esaslar 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. maddesinde yer almaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
54. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 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 (6216 say\u0131l\u0131 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). Di\u011fer taraftan ihlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat talebi kabul edilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
VII. 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\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak amac\u0131yla G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fhane Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesine (E.2021\/593, K.2021\/600) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 664,10 TL har\u00e7 ve 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 19.464,10 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \u00d6demenin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun 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 22\/5\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 22\/5\/2024 tarihli ve 2022\/31465 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/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 YAYLI BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2022\/31465) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 22\/5\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 22\/10\/2024-32700 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \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 : Osman KODAL Ba\u015fvurucu : Elif YAYLI Vekili : Av. A\u015fk\u0131n AKT\u00dcRK \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru, ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesi davas\u0131nda dava dilek\u00e7esinde daval\u0131lar\u0131n g\u00f6sterilmeyen adreslerinin ve kimlik numaralar\u0131n\u0131n bildirilmesi i\u00e7in verilen kesin s\u00fcreye ra\u011fmen bu eksikli\u011fin tamamlanmamas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 4\/3\/2022 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Ba\u015fvuru, ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinin idari y\u00f6nden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n incelemesinden sonra Komisyona sunulmu\u015ftur. 4. Komisyonca ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin birlikte yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. 5. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015f; ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne beyanda bulunmu\u015ftur. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 6. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir: 7. Ba\u015fvurucu, daval\u0131lar ile birlikte hissedar oldu\u011fu ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f suretiyle giderilmesi i\u00e7in G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fhane Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesinde 11\/9\/2021 tarihinde dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme daval\u0131lar\u0131n bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n T.C. …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,535],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6713","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n