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
S. K. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/20525)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 27\/2\/2025<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u015eahap KAYMAK<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Nur Banu ES\u0130RC\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 <\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, manevi zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir inceleme yap\u0131lmadan reddedilmesi nedeniyle maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve geli\u015ftirilmesi hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, D.A. Anadolu Lisesinde m\u00fcd\u00fcr ba\u015fyard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 olarak g\u00f6rev yapmaktayken Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fundan bahisle 12\/10\/2016 tarihinde g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, 2\/1\/2017 tarihli ve 686 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Baz\u0131 Tedbirler Al\u0131nmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname (686 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) uyar\u0131nca kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, bu i\u015fleme kar\u015f\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc H\u00e2l \u0130\u015flemleri \u0130nceleme Komisyonuna (Komisyon) ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7u nedeniyle D\u00fczce Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen soru\u015fturma sonucunda 12\/1\/2018 tarihinde kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair karar verilmi\u015f ve s\u00f6z konusu karar kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Komisyonun 16\/4\/2018 tarihli karar\u0131 ile g\u00f6reve iade edilen ba\u015fvurucu 8\/6\/2018 tarihli dilek\u00e7e ile g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarih ile g\u00f6reve iade edildi\u011fi tarih aras\u0131ndaki ge\u00e7en s\u00fcrede mahrum kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 mali ve sosyal haklar\u0131n\u0131n yasal faizi ile birlikte tazmini talebiyle D\u00fczce \u0130l Mill\u00ee E\u011fitim M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ba\u015fvurmu\u015f, ancak bu talebi Mill\u00ee E\u011fitim Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nca 16\/8\/2018 tarihinde reddedilmi\u015ftir. Bunun \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu 12\/10\/2016 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile ek ders \u00fccreti ve takviye kursu \u00fccreti kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 toplam 30.685 TL maddi ve 50.000 TL manevi zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle Bolu \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. Mahkeme davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, k\u0131smen reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; idarece dosyaya sunulan belgede ba\u015fvurucunun almas\u0131 gereken takviye kursu \u00fccretinin 104,40 TL, ek ders \u00fccretinin 30.076,10 TL oldu\u011fu, bu durumda toplam 30.180,50 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n idareye ba\u015fvuru tarihi olan 8\/6\/2018 tarihinden itibaren hesaplanacak yasal faizi ile birlikte ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun manevi tazminat talebi ise 7145 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 22. maddesiyle de\u011fi\u015ftirilen 1\/2\/2018 tarihli ve 7075 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal \u0130\u015flemleri \u0130nceleme Komisyonu Kurulmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararnamenin De\u011fi\u015ftirilerek Kabul Edilmesine Dair Kanun’un 10. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla KHK ile kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lanlardan Komisyon karar\u0131 ile kamu g\u00f6revine iadesine karar verilenlerin kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmalar\u0131ndan \u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fc herhangi bir tazminat talebinde bulunamayacaklar\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. Bu karara y\u00f6nelik taraflar\u0131n istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 \u00fczerine Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 7. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi (B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi) daval\u0131 idarelerin istinaf ba\u015fvurular\u0131n\u0131n reddine; ba\u015fvurucunun maddi tazminat talebinin k\u0131smen reddi ve manevi tazminat talebinin reddine y\u00f6nelik istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun k\u0131smen reddine, istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi, Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu lehine h\u00fckmedilen maddi tazminat miktar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik yasal faizin ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihi ile reddedilen maddi tazminat miktar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik daval\u0131 idare lehine h\u00fckmedilen vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine ili\u015fkin k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 kald\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re Mahkemece kabul edilen ek ders \u00fccreti ve takviye kursu \u00fccretine ba\u015fvurucu kamu g\u00f6revinden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f ve kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f olsa idi yap\u0131lacak \u00f6deme tarihlerinden itibaren yasal faiz i\u015fletilmesine, reddedilen maddi tazminat miktar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 464,50 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinin ba\u015fvurucudan al\u0131narak daval\u0131 idareye verilmesine h\u00fckmedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 3\/6\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 30\/6\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
8. 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
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, Anayasa’n\u0131n 125. maddesi gere\u011fince idarenin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc eylem ve i\u015flemlerine kar\u015f\u0131 yarg\u0131 yolunun a\u00e7\u0131k oldu\u011funu, ancak yarg\u0131 mercilerince 7075 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 10. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilip ba\u015fkaca bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmadan karar verildi\u011fini belirterek mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Hakk\u0131nda mahk\u00fbmiyet karar\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde toplum ve idari makamlar taraf\u0131ndan su\u00e7lu olarak kabul edildi\u011fini, etkin ve h\u0131zl\u0131 soru\u015fturma yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan aile ve sosyal hayat\u0131n\u0131n olumsuz etkilendi\u011fini belirterek masumiyet karinesinin ihlal edildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca \u015feref ve haysiyetinin zarar g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, a\u00e7\u0131k ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e ile cevap verme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc yerine getirilmeden karar verildi\u011fini ifade ederek \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 ile gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n da ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131nda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
10. 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\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f yaz\u0131s\u0131nda; 7075 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 10. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvuruyla ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa Mahkemesince iptal edilmekle birlikte iptal karar\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girdi\u011fi tarih itibar\u0131yla y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckten kalkaca\u011f\u0131 ve iptal kararlar\u0131 geriye y\u00fcr\u00fcmeyece\u011fi i\u00e7in bu kurala g\u00f6re tesis edilmi\u015f i\u015flemlerin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fini s\u00fcrd\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, ba\u015fvurucunun manevi tazminat talebine y\u00f6nelik \u015fik\u00e2yetinin kanun yolunda g\u00f6zetilmesi gereken hususlara ili\u015fkin olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesinin yararl\u0131 olaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucunun kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik karar\u0131n ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2l d\u00f6neminde al\u0131nmas\u0131 nedeniyle yap\u0131lacak incelemede Anayasa’n\u0131n 15. maddesinin de g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nem arz etti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Konuyla ilgili olarak Mill\u00ee E\u011fitim Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve D\u00fczce Valili\u011finden temin edilen g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f yaz\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lacak incelemede dikkate al\u0131nmak \u00fczere sunuldu\u011fu, mevcut ba\u015fvuruda ba\u015fvurucunun adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi konusunda inceleme yap\u0131l\u0131rken Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihad\u0131 ve somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru formundaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yineleyerek Anayasa Mahkemesinin iptal karar\u0131n\u0131n geriye y\u00fcr\u00fcmesi gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvuru, Anayasa’n\u0131n 17. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve geli\u015ftirilmesi hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve geli\u015ftirilmesi hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvuruya konu yarg\u0131lamada, manevi tazminat talebinin reddedilmesine gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilen 7075 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 10. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015fu \u015fekildeydi:<\/p>\n
“Kamu g\u00f6revinden, meslekten veya g\u00f6rev yap\u0131lan te\u015fkilattan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan ya da ili\u015fi\u011fi kesilenlere ili\u015fkin ba\u015fvurunun kabul\u00fc h\u00e2linde karar, kadro veya pozisyonunun bulundu\u011fu kuruma, y\u00fcksek\u00f6\u011fretim kurumlar\u0131nda kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan \u00f6\u011fretim elemanlar\u0131 i\u00e7in Y\u00fcksek\u00f6\u011fretim Kurulu Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na bildirilir. Kamu g\u00f6revine iade edilmesine karar verilenlerin eski kadro veya pozisyonuna atanmas\u0131 esast\u0131r. (\u0130ptal \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc c\u00fcmle: Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin 24\/12\/2019 tarihli ve E.2018\/159, K.2019\/93 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile) Y\u00fcksek\u00f6\u011fretim Kurulu Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na bildirilenlerin atama teklifleri; Ankara, \u0130stanbul, \u0130zmir illeri d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ve 2006 y\u0131l\u0131ndan sonra kurulan y\u00fcksek\u00f6\u011fretim kurumlar\u0131na \u00f6ncelik verilmek kayd\u0131yla, Y\u00fcksek\u00f6\u011fretim Kurulu Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00fcksek\u00f6\u011fretim kurumu haricinde tespit edilecek y\u00fcksek\u00f6\u011fretim kurumlar\u0131ndan birine \u00f6nceki kadro unvanlar\u0131na uygun olarak on be\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde yap\u0131l\u0131r. Kurumlar, bildirim veya atama teklif tarihini takip eden otuz g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde atama i\u015flemlerini tamamlar. Bu kapsamda yer alan personele ili\u015fkin kadro ve pozisyonlar, ilgililere ili\u015fkin atama onaylar\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarih itibar\u0131yla di\u011fer kanunlardaki h\u00fck\u00fcmlere bak\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n ve ba\u015fka bir i\u015fleme gerek kalmaks\u0131z\u0131n ilgili mevzuat\u0131 uyar\u0131nca ihdas, tahsis ve vize edilmi\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu kadro ve pozisyonlar, herhangi bir \u015fekilde bo\u015falmalar\u0131 h\u00e2linde ba\u015fka bir i\u015fleme gerek kalmaks\u0131z\u0131n iptal edilmi\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r. Atama emri, ilgili kamu kurum ve kurulu\u015fu taraf\u0131ndan 11\/2\/1959 tarihli ve 7201 say\u0131l\u0131 Tebligat Kanunu h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re ilgililere tebli\u011f edilir. Tebli\u011f tarihini takip eden on g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde g\u00f6reve ba\u015flamayanlar\u0131n bu maddeden do\u011fan atanma hakk\u0131 ile mali haklar\u0131 d\u00fc\u015fer. Kamu kurum ve kurulu\u015flar\u0131 atama ve g\u00f6reve ba\u015flatma i\u015flemlerinin sonucunu, i\u015flemlerin tamamlanmas\u0131n\u0131 takip eden on be\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde Devlet Personel Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na bildirirler. \u0130lgililerin kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcnde kararname h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, bu f\u0131krada belirtilen ki\u015filer bak\u0131m\u0131ndan t\u00fcm h\u00fck\u00fcm ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131yla birlikte ortadan kalkm\u0131\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r. Bu kapsamda g\u00f6reve ba\u015flayanlara, kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lma tarihlerini takip eden ayba\u015f\u0131ndan g\u00f6reve ba\u015flad\u0131klar\u0131 tarihe kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcreye tekab\u00fcl eden mali ve sosyal haklar\u0131 \u00f6denir. Bu ki\u015filer, kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmalar\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 herhangi bir tazminat talebinde bulunamaz.”<\/p>\n
14. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 30\/6\/2022 tarihli ve E.2018\/137, K.2022\/86 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile an\u0131lan f\u0131kran\u0131n son c\u00fcmlesinde yer alan ve manevi tazminat talebinin reddine de gerek\u00e7e yap\u0131lan “Bu ki\u015filer, kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmalar\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 herhangi bir tazminat talebinde bulunamaz.” kural\u0131, Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle iptal edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. Anayasa Mahkemesi, an\u0131lan iptal karar\u0131nda kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 fiilleri nedeniyle maddi ve manevi y\u00f6nden zarara u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia eden bireylere zararlar\u0131n giderilmesi i\u00e7in idari ve yarg\u0131sal mercilere ba\u015fvurma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinin gere\u011fi oldu\u011funu vurgulam\u0131\u015f, Komisyon karar\u0131yla kamu g\u00f6revine iade edilen ki\u015filerin tedbir s\u00fcreci nedeniyle maddi ve manevi y\u00f6nden zarara u\u011framalar\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu olabilece\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Bu nedenle OHAL kapsam\u0131nda hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir \u015fekilde haklar\u0131nda tedbir uygulanan ki\u015filerin u\u011frayabilecekleri maddi ya da manevi zararlar\u0131n giderilmesi i\u00e7in gerekli idari ve yarg\u0131sal yollara ba\u015fvurma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine i\u015faret edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. Bu ba\u011flamda s\u00f6z konusu kural kapsam\u0131nda g\u00f6reve iade edilenlerin kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmalar\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 herhangi bir tazminat talebinde bulunamayacaklar\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmekle bu ki\u015filerin tedbir i\u015fleminin haks\u0131z uygulanmas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 u\u011frayabilecekleri maddi ve manevi zararlar\u0131 giderme f\u0131rsat\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmesinde bulunulmu\u015f, kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 uygulamalar\u0131 nedeniyle zarara u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia eden ki\u015filere dava a\u00e7ma imk\u00e2n\u0131 verilmemesinin devletin ki\u015finin maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalelere kar\u015f\u0131 etkili giderim mekanizmas\u0131 sa\u011flama y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcyle ba\u011fda\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
17. Somut olayda, Mahkeme karar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun Komisyon karar\u0131 gere\u011fince kamu g\u00f6revine iade edildi\u011fi bilgisi verilmi\u015f, 7075 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 10. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n son c\u00fcmlesinde yer alan “Bu ki\u015filer, kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmalar\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 herhangi bir tazminat talebinde bulunamaz.” kural\u0131 gere\u011fince idarenin tazmin y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle manevi tazminat talebi reddedilmi\u015ftir. Anayasa Mahkemesi ilgili Kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcne y\u00f6nelik iptal karar\u0131nda, Komisyon karar\u0131yla g\u00f6revine iade edilenlerin tazminat talep edemeyece\u011fine dair d\u00fczenlemenin etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fczenleyen Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu saptam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Anayasa Mahkemesinin iptal karar\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun dava a\u00e7maktaki gayesiyle ba\u011fda\u015f\u0131r nitelikte ba\u015fvurucuya etkili bir giderim imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve geli\u015ftirilmesi hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
19. Maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve geli\u015ftirilmesi hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131 ile ilgili olarak bu a\u015famada bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti ve 100.000 TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
21. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen anayasal hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar ve zorunluluk bulunmaktad\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n 148. ve 153. maddeleri ile 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. ve 66. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flat\u0131p Anayasa Mahkemesinin ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere ve gerek\u00e7elere uygun bi\u00e7imde y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclecek yarg\u0131lama sonunda hak ihlalinin nedenlerini gidererek yeni bir karar vermektir (yeniden yarg\u0131lama konusunda bkz. Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2), B. No: 2016\/12506, 7\/11\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 53-60, 66; Kadri Enis Berbero\u011flu (3) [GK], B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n
22. \u00d6te yandan hak ihlali karar\u0131ndan Anayasa Mahkemesinin davan\u0131n sonucuyla ilgili olarak bir tutum sergiledi\u011fi sonucu \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmamal\u0131d\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesince verilen hak ihlali karar\u0131 uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sonu\u00e7lar\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olup davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, reddine ya da beraate veya mahk\u00fbmiyete karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi anlam\u0131na gelmemektedir. Kural olarak, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n her a\u015famas\u0131nda oldu\u011fu gibi ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 gidermek \u00fczere yeniden yap\u0131lacak yarg\u0131lama sonunda da delillerin dava ile ili\u015fkisini kurma ve bunlar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirip sonu\u00e7 \u00e7\u0131karma yetkisi ilgili mahkemelere aittir.<\/p>\n
23. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve geli\u015ftirilmesi hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 17. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve geli\u015ftirilmesi hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n \u0130NCELENMES\u0130NE GEREK OLMADI\u011eINA,<\/p>\n
D. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve geli\u015ftirilmesi hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Bolu \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2018\/829, K.2019\/425) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.446,90 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. \u00d6demelerin 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
H. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 27\/2\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 27\/2\/2025 tarihli ve 2020\/20525 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 S. K. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/20525) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 27\/2\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : \u015eahap KAYMAK Ba\u015fvurucu : Vekili : Av. Nur Banu ES\u0130RC\u0130 \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, manevi zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir inceleme yap\u0131lmadan reddedilmesi nedeniyle maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve geli\u015ftirilmesi hakk\u0131yla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, D.A. Anadolu Lisesinde m\u00fcd\u00fcr ba\u015fyard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 olarak g\u00f6rev yapmaktayken Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\/Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 (FET\u00d6\/PDY) \u00fcyesi oldu\u011fundan bahisle 12\/10\/2016 tarihinde g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, 2\/1\/2017 tarihli ve 686 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Baz\u0131 Tedbirler Al\u0131nmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname (686 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) uyar\u0131nca kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, bu i\u015fleme kar\u015f\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc H\u00e2l \u0130\u015flemleri \u0130nceleme Komisyonuna (Komisyon) ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. 3. Ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7u nedeniyle D\u00fczce Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen soru\u015fturma sonucunda 12\/1\/2018 tarihinde kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair karar verilmi\u015f ve s\u00f6z konusu karar kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir. 4. Komisyonun 16\/4\/2018 tarihli karar\u0131 ile g\u00f6reve iade edilen ba\u015fvurucu 8\/6\/2018 tarihli dilek\u00e7e ile g\u00f6revden uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarih ile …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-73501","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n