T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
FEYZA M\u00dcNEVVER G\u00dcNG\u00d6R BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/57081)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 26\/2\/2025<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Recai AKYEL<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Saliha AKSOY<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Feyza M\u00fcnevver G\u00dcNG\u00d6R<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Bilgehan UTKU<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, idari i\u015flemin iptali istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi yerine \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine ili\u015fkin kural uygulanarak davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddi 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 10\/12\/2021 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyon, mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetin kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, 2021 T\u0131pta Uzmanl\u0131k S\u0131nav\u0131 1. d\u00f6nem ek yerle\u015ftirmesi kapsam\u0131nda tercihte bulunmu\u015f, sonu\u00e7lar 22\/6\/2021 tarihinde internet sayfas\u0131 \u00fczerinden a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015f, sonu\u00e7 ekran\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun 14\/7\/2017 tarihli ve 692 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Baz\u0131 Tedbirler Al\u0131nmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname (692 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) ile kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle tercih ba\u015fvurusunun de\u011ferlendirmeye al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bilgisi yer alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu, tercih ba\u015fvurusunun de\u011ferlendirmeye al\u0131nmamas\u0131na ili\u015fkin i\u015flemin iptali istemiyle 5\/7\/2021 tarihinde Ankara 23. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7. Mahkeme 6\/7\/2021 tarihinde davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu’nun “Dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 7. maddesinin 1 ve 2. f\u0131kralar\u0131nda, dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin \u00f6zel kanunlar\u0131nda ayr\u0131 s\u00fcre g\u00f6sterilmeyen h\u00e2llerde Dan\u0131\u015ftayda ve idare mahkemelerinde 60 g\u00fcn oldu\u011fu, bu s\u00fcrenin idari uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klarda yaz\u0131l\u0131 bildirimin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihi izleyen g\u00fcnden itibaren ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirtildi\u011fi, ayn\u0131 Kanuna 11\/9\/2014 g\u00fcnl\u00fc, 29116 m\u00fckerrer say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanarak y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren 6552 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunla eklenen “Merkez\u00ee ve ortak s\u0131navlara ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fc” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 20\/B maddesinin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131nda; Mill\u00ee E\u011fitim Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile \u00d6l\u00e7me, Se\u00e7me ve Yerle\u015ftirme Merkezi taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan merkez\u00ee ve ortak s\u0131navlar, bu s\u0131navlara ili\u015fkin i\u015f ve i\u015flemler ile s\u0131nav sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan davalara ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fcnde dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin 10 g\u00fcn oldu\u011fu ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun 11. maddesi h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin uygulanmayaca\u011f\u0131 d\u00fczenlemesine yer verildi\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Di\u011fer yandan, Mahkemece 17\/2\/2011 tarihli ve 6114 say\u0131l\u0131 \u00d6l\u00e7me, Se\u00e7me ve Yerle\u015ftirme Merkezi Hizmetleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un “Temel ilkeler” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 7. maddesinin 5. f\u0131kras\u0131nda, “S\u0131navlarla ilgili her t\u00fcrl\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131klama, ba\u015fvuru ve s\u0131nav sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n adaylara duyurulmas\u0131, Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n internet sayfas\u0131nda yap\u0131l\u0131r. \u0130nternet sayfas\u0131ndaki duyurular adaylara tebli\u011f h\u00fckm\u00fcndedir.” d\u00fczenlemesine yer verildi\u011fi belirtilerek, yerle\u015ftirme sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131 idarece internet sayfas\u0131 \u00fczerinden ilan edildi\u011fi 22\/6\/2021 tarihini izleyen g\u00fcnden itibaren 10 g\u00fcnl\u00fck dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi i\u00e7erisinde en ge\u00e7 2\/7\/2021 tarihinde dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekirken, 5\/7\/2021 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenme olana\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Karar hakk\u0131nda temyiz talebinde bulunulmas\u0131 \u00fczerine Dan\u0131\u015ftay Sekizinci Dairesinin 19\/10\/2021 tarihli karar\u0131yla mahkeme h\u00fckm\u00fc kesin olmak \u00fczere onanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
11. Nihai karar\u0131n 17\/11\/2021 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucu vekiline tebli\u011fi \u00fczerine 10\/12\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
A. Ulusal Hukuk<\/p>\n
1. Anayasa ve Kanun Maddeleri<\/p>\n
12. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n “Temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetlerin korunmas\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 40. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Anayasa ile tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f hak ve h\u00fcrriyetleri ihlal edilen herkes, yetkili makama geciktirilmeden ba\u015fvurma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 isteme hakk\u0131na sahiptir.<\/p>\n
Devlet, i\u015flemlerinde, ilgili ki\u015filerin hangi kanun yollar\u0131 ve mercilere ba\u015fvuraca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve s\u00fcrelerini belirtmek zorundad\u0131r. (…)”<\/p>\n
13. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 125. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“\u0130dari i\u015flemlere kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lacak davalarda s\u00fcre, yaz\u0131l\u0131 bildirim tarihinden ba\u015flar.”<\/p>\n
14. 6114 say\u0131l\u0131 \u00d6l\u00e7me, Se\u00e7me ve Yerle\u015ftirme Merkezi Hizmetleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 7. maddesinin 5. f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“(5) S\u0131navlarla ilgili her t\u00fcrl\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131klama, ba\u015fvuru ve s\u0131nav sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n adaylara duyurulmas\u0131, Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n internet sayfas\u0131nda yap\u0131l\u0131r. \u0130nternet sayfas\u0131ndaki duyurular adaylara tebli\u011f h\u00fckm\u00fcndedir.”<\/p>\n
15. 6114 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 8. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
(4) (De\u011fi\u015fik birinci c\u00fcmle: 2\/12\/2016-6764\/70 md.) S\u0131nav sorular\u0131na ve s\u0131nav sonu\u00e7lar\u0131na itirazlar, 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanununun ivedi yarg\u0131lamaya ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmleri sakl\u0131 kalmak kayd\u0131yla ilgili k\u0131lavuzlarda belirtilen s\u00fcreler i\u00e7inde do\u011frudan Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011fa yap\u0131l\u0131r. \u0130tirazlarla ilgili i\u015flemlerin ve saklanan bilgilerin tespit ve tevsikinde Ba\u015fkanl\u0131k kay\u0131tlar\u0131 esas al\u0131n\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
16. 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu’nun “Dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 7. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“1. Dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi, \u00f6zel kanunlar\u0131nda ayr\u0131 s\u00fcre g\u00f6sterilmeyen hallerde Dan\u0131\u015ftayda ve idare mahkemelerinde altm\u0131\u015f ve vergi mahkemelerinde otuz g\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
2. Bu s\u00fcreler;<\/p>\n
a) \u0130dari uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klarda; yaz\u0131l\u0131 bildirimin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131,<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
Tarihi izleyen g\u00fcnden ba\u015flar.” <\/p>\n
17. 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un (olay tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckteki h\u00e2liyle) “\u00dcst makamlara ba\u015fvurma” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 11. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“1. \u0130lgililer taraf\u0131ndan idari dava a\u00e7\u0131lmadan \u00f6nce, idari i\u015flemin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131, geri al\u0131nmas\u0131 de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesi veya yeni bir i\u015flem yap\u0131lmas\u0131 \u00fcst makamdan, \u00fcst makam yoksa i\u015flemi yapm\u0131\u015f olan makamdan, idari dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde istenebilir. Bu ba\u015fvurma, i\u015flemeye ba\u015flam\u0131\u015f olan idari dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresini durdurur.<\/p>\n
2. Altm\u0131\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde bir cevap verilmezse istek reddedilmi\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r. <\/p>\n
3. \u0130ste\u011fin reddedilmesi veya reddedilmi\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131 halinde dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi yeniden i\u015flemeye ba\u015flar ve ba\u015fvurma tarihine kadar ge\u00e7mi\u015f s\u00fcre de hesaba kat\u0131l\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
18. 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a 11\/09\/2014 g\u00fcnl\u00fc, 29116 (M\u00fckerrer) say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanarak y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren 6552 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 96. maddesiyle, 20\/A maddesinden sonra gelmek \u00fczere eklenen ve “Merkez\u00ee ve ortak s\u0131navlara ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fc”n\u00fcn d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi 20\/B maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir;<\/p>\n
” (1) Mill\u00ee E\u011fitim Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile \u00d6l\u00e7me, Se\u00e7me ve Yerle\u015ftirme Merkezi taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan merkez\u00ee ve ortak s\u0131navlar, bu s\u0131navlara ili\u015fkin i\u015f ve i\u015flemler ile s\u0131nav sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan davalara ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fcnde:<\/p>\n
a) Dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi on g\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
b) Bu Kanunun 11 inci maddesi h\u00fck\u00fcmleri uygulanmaz.<\/p>\n
(…)”<\/p>\n
19. An\u0131lan Kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn gerek\u00e7esinde ise; “\u00d6nergeyle, Mill\u00ee E\u011fitim Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile \u00d6l\u00e7me, Se\u00e7me ve Yerle\u015ftirme Merkezi taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan merkez\u00ee ve ortak s\u0131navlar hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan davalarda, olas\u0131 ma\u011fduriyetlerin \u00f6n\u00fcne ge\u00e7ebilmek i\u00e7in h\u0131zl\u0131 yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcreci \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmekte ve s\u00f6z konusu davalara ili\u015fkin verilen kararlar\u0131n ilgili ki\u015filerin lehine sonu\u00e7 do\u011furacak \u015fekilde uygulanmas\u0131 h\u00fckme ba\u011flanmaktad\u0131r.\u201d ifadelerine yer verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. \u0130lgili Dan\u0131\u015ftay Kararlar\u0131<\/p>\n
20. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Onikinci Dairesinin 16\/10\/2023 tarihli ve E.2023\/4944, K.2023\/4984 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“\u0130dari i\u015flemlerin nitelikleri gere\u011fi, \u00f6zel kanunlarda genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcreleri d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ayr\u0131 dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcrelerinin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f olmas\u0131 halinde, idare taraf\u0131ndan idari i\u015flemlerin nitelikleri ve tabi olduklar\u0131 dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcreleri g\u00f6sterilmedik\u00e7e \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcrelerinin i\u015fletilmesine olanak bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca, \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine tabi olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen bu hususun idari i\u015flemde belirtilmemesi halinde, dava konusu idari i\u015flemin tebli\u011fi tarihinden itibaren \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin de\u011fil, 60 g\u00fcnl\u00fck genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin uygulanmas\u0131 gerekmektedir. (…) Bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta, \u00d6SYM Y\u00f6netim Kurulunun 23\/05\/2023 tarih ve 2023\/15.01 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n, 29\/05\/2023 tarih ve E.219817 say\u0131l\u0131 yaz\u0131 ile 01\/06\/2023 tarihinde davac\u0131ya tebli\u011f edildi\u011fi, ancak dava konusu i\u015flemde dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin 10 g\u00fcn oldu\u011funun davac\u0131ya bildirilmedi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmekte olup; genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine tabi olan ve bu kapsamda s\u00fcresinde a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan davada i\u015fin esas\u0131 hakk\u0131nda bir karar verilmesi gerekirken, davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131nda hukuki isabet bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u0130dari Dava Daireleri Kurulunun 4\/3\/2019 tarihli ve E.2017\/2905, K.2019\/857 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Ancak, idari i\u015flemlerin nitelikleri gere\u011fi \u00f6zel yasalarda, genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcreleri d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ayr\u0131 dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcrelerinin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f olmas\u0131 halinde, idare taraf\u0131ndan idari i\u015flemlerin nitelikleri ve tabi olduklar\u0131 dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcreleri g\u00f6sterilmedik\u00e7e \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcrelerinin i\u015fletilmesine olanak bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 40. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca, \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine tabi olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, bu hususun idari i\u015flemde a\u00e7\u0131klanmamas\u0131 halinde, dava konusu idari i\u015flemin tebli\u011fi tarihinden itibaren, \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin de\u011fil, 60 g\u00fcnl\u00fck genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
22. Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u0130dari Dava Daireleri Kurulunun 26\/10\/2020 tarih ve E.2020\/2208, K.2020\/1974 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“\u0130dari i\u015flemlerin nitelikleri gere\u011fi yasalarda, genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcreleri d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ayr\u0131 dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcrelerinin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f olmas\u0131 halinde, idare taraf\u0131ndan idari i\u015flemlerin nitelikleri ve tabi olduklar\u0131 dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcreleri g\u00f6sterilmedik\u00e7e \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcrelerinin i\u015fletilmesine olanak bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u00d6te yandan, davac\u0131lar\u0131n, kendilerine bir bildirim yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcrece 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 20\/A maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ve \u00f6zel bir yarg\u0131lama niteli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131yan ivedi yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fcn\u00fc ve bu usule t\u00e2bi i\u015flerde ge\u00e7erli olan dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresini bilmeleri m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ivedi yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fcne t\u00e2bi olan bir i\u015flemi \u00f6\u011frendiklerinde ka\u00e7 g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde hangi merciye ba\u015fvurulaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ya da do\u011frudan dava a\u00e7\u0131l\u0131p a\u00e7\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bilmeleri beklenemez.<\/p>\n
Bu do\u011frultuda, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 40. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca, \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine tabi olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, bu hususun idari i\u015flemde a\u00e7\u0131klanmamas\u0131 halinde, dava konusu idari i\u015flemin tebli\u011fi tarihinden itibaren, \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin de\u011fil, 60 g\u00fcnl\u00fck genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin uygulanmas\u0131 gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
(…)”<\/p>\n
23. Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u0130\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Kurulunun 15\/3\/2022 tarih ve E.2021\/2, K.2022\/1 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Yaz\u0131l\u0131 olarak bildirilen ve dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin belirtilmedi\u011fi idar\u00ee i\u015flemlerin iptali istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davalarda, dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi hesaplan\u0131rken \u00f6zel ve genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin i\u015fletilmesi ya da i\u015fletilmemesi konusunda farkl\u0131 yorumlar yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve Dan\u0131\u015ftay dava daireleri ile kurullar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan verilen kararlar aras\u0131nda ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131klar oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Yarg\u0131 kararlar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki bu yorum fark\u0131, her ge\u00e7en g\u00fcn hukuki belirsizliklerin artmas\u0131na neden olmaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla kararlar aras\u0131ndaki ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131n bir an \u00f6nce giderilmesi, ki\u015filerin mahkemeye eri\u015fim haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilmemesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi idar\u00ee istikrar ve hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ilkelerinin ihlal edilmemesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan da \u00f6nem kazanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bu itibarla, yaz\u0131l\u0131 olarak bildirilen idar\u00ee i\u015flemlerde dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin belirtilmedi\u011fi hallerde \u00f6zel ve genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin i\u015fletilmesi veya i\u015fletilmemesi konusunda, Dan\u0131\u015ftay dava daireleri ile kurullar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan verilen kararlar aras\u0131nda var olan ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131n 2575 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 39. maddesi uyar\u0131nca i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131n birle\u015ftirilmesi suretiyle giderilmesine oy\u00e7oklu\u011fuyla karar verilerek bu konu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden esas\u0131n incelenmesine ge\u00e7ildi.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu, 20\/01\/1982 tarih ve 17580 say\u0131l\u0131 Resmi Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanarak y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girmi\u015f olup, dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresini d\u00fczenleyen 7. maddesinde Kanun’un y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girdi\u011fi tarihten bu yana herhangi bir de\u011fi\u015fiklik yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla an\u0131lan maddede d\u00fczenlenen genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcrelerinin, yeterli a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131kta, anla\u015f\u0131labilir oldu\u011fu ve idari yarg\u0131da uzun s\u00fcredir uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, bilinirli\u011fi konusunda bir teredd\u00fct bulunmayan bu s\u00fcreler ile ilgili olarak mevzuatta bir kar\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131k ya\u015fand\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00f6z etmek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 7. maddesinde g\u00f6sterilen genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcrelerinden ba\u015fka, \u00f6zel d\u00fczenlemeler ile idari dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcreleri de belirlenmekte olup, idari yarg\u0131 d\u00fczeninde olduk\u00e7a fazla ve da\u011f\u0131n\u0131k olan bu s\u00fcreler nedeniyle mevzuat\u0131n yorumunda kar\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131k ya\u015fanabilmektedir. Mevzuatta ya\u015fanan bu da\u011f\u0131n\u0131kl\u0131ktan dolay\u0131, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine tabi olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususu, ancak somut olay\u0131n \u00f6zelli\u011fine g\u00f6re mevzuat\u0131 yorumlayan yarg\u0131 mercilerinin kararlar\u0131yla ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmaktad\u0131r. \u00d6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcreleri a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan mevzuatta var olan kar\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131n hangi s\u00fcrede hangi kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurulaca\u011f\u0131 konusunda ki\u015fileri yan\u0131ltmas\u0131 olas\u0131 bulundu\u011fundan, i\u015flemde ba\u015fvuru yolu ve s\u00fcresi belirtilmemi\u015fse, bu s\u00fcrelerin ilgililerce bilinmesinin beklenemeyece\u011fi de bir ger\u00e7ektir. <\/p>\n
Bu \u00e7er\u00e7eveden bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6nemli olan husus, hakk\u0131nda i\u015flem tesis edilen ilgililerin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 k\u0131s\u0131tlayan ya da engelleyen somut olgular\u0131n bulunmamas\u0131, \u015fayet bir tak\u0131m olgular var ise bu olgular\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcne zarar verecek seviyeye ula\u015fmamas\u0131d\u0131r. <\/p>\n
Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca idarenin \u00fcstlendi\u011fi y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc yerine getirmemesi durumunda yarg\u0131 organ\u0131na d\u00fc\u015fen g\u00f6rev, ilgililerin ba\u015fvuru yolu ve s\u00fcresinin g\u00f6sterilmemesi nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ma\u011fduriyetin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcne zarar verecek seviyeye ula\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nlemek olacakt\u0131r. Esas\u0131nda, ki\u015finin ma\u011fduriyetinin kayna\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvuru yolu ve s\u00fcresini i\u015flemde belirtmeyen ilgili idare olup, ki\u015finin yarg\u0131sal bir prosed\u00fcr\u00fcn uygulanmas\u0131 ya da eksik uygulanmas\u0131 sonucu olu\u015fan bir ma\u011fduriyeti s\u00f6z konusu de\u011fildir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ki\u015finin idareden kaynaklanan bu ma\u011fduriyetinin giderilmesi, yarg\u0131sal bir prosed\u00fcr\u00fcn hi\u00e7 uygulanmamas\u0131 \u015feklinde olmamal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
Bu itibarla, Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca, \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine t\u00e2bi olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, bu hususun i\u015flemde ya da yaz\u0131l\u0131 bildirimde a\u00e7\u0131klanmamas\u0131 h\u00e2linde, dava konusu i\u015flemin tebli\u011f tarihinden itibaren \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin de\u011fil, genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi yorumunun, hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ve idari istikrar ilkesi ile mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki hassas dengeyi sa\u011flayan bir \u00f6zellik ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131; ilgililere a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklemedi\u011fi, vergi mahkemelerinde 30 g\u00fcn, Dan\u0131\u015ftayda ve idare mahkemelerinde 60 g\u00fcn olan genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin ilgilinin dava a\u00e7mak i\u00e7in gerekli ara\u015ft\u0131rma ve haz\u0131rl\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 yapmas\u0131na, gerekiyorsa hukuki ve teknik yard\u0131m almas\u0131na yetecek d\u00fczeyde oldu\u011fu; a\u00e7\u0131k, anla\u015f\u0131labilir ve ula\u015f\u0131labilir olan genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcrelerinin mahkemeye eri\u015fimi zorla\u015ft\u0131ran ya da engelleyen k\u0131sa s\u00fcreler olarak nitelendirilemeyece\u011fi, \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi yerine genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin uygulanmas\u0131 sayesinde ilgilinin, i\u015flemde ba\u015fvuru yolu ve s\u00fcresinin g\u00f6sterilmemesinden dolay\u0131 u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ma\u011fduriyetin, mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcne zarar verecek seviyeye ula\u015fmadan \u00f6nlenece\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle, idar\u00ee i\u015flemlerde dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin belirtilmedi\u011fi hallerde \u00f6zel ve genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin i\u015fletilmesi veya i\u015fletilmemesi konusunda Dan\u0131\u015ftay dava daireleri ile kurullar\u0131n\u0131n kararlar\u0131 aras\u0131nda var olan i\u00e7tihat ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131n birle\u015ftirilmesi yoluyla ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 bir \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme kavu\u015fturulmas\u0131 ve i\u00e7tihad\u0131n, \u201c\u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine t\u00e2bi bir idar\u00ee i\u015flemde, dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015f olmas\u0131 durumunda, vergi mahkemelerinde 30, Dan\u0131\u015ftay ve idare mahkemelerinde 60 g\u00fcnl\u00fck genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin uygulanmas\u0131gerekti\u011fi; ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine t\u00e2bi bir idar\u00ee i\u015flemde dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015f olsa da, 30 ve 60 g\u00fcnl\u00fck genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi\u201d y\u00f6n\u00fcnde birle\u015ftirilmesi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
B. Uluslararas\u0131 Hukuk<\/p>\n
24. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u2019nin (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Herkes medeni hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri ile ilgili uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar … konusunda karar verecek olan,… bir mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan davas\u0131n\u0131n … g\u00f6r\u00fclmesini istemek hakk\u0131na sahiptir…”<\/p>\n
25. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi (A\u0130HM) S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k bir bi\u00e7imde mahkeme veya yarg\u0131 merciine eri\u015fim hakk\u0131ndan s\u00f6z etmese de -maddede kullan\u0131lan terimler bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak ba\u011flam\u0131yla birlikte dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda- mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 da g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir (Golder\/Birle\u015fik Krall\u0131k, B. No: 4451\/70, 21\/2\/1975, \u00a7\u00a7 28-36). A\u0130HM’e g\u00f6re mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda m\u00fcndemi\u00e7tir. Bu \u00e7\u0131karsama, S\u00f6zle\u015fmeci devletlere yeni y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck y\u00fckleyen geni\u015fletici bir yorum olmay\u0131p 6. maddenin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n birinci c\u00fcmlesinin lafz\u0131n\u0131n S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin ama\u00e7 ve hedefleri ile hukukun genel prensiplerinin g\u00f6zetilerek birlikte okunmas\u0131na dayanmaktad\u0131r. Sonu\u00e7 olarak S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131, herkesin medeni hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerle ilgili iddialar\u0131n\u0131 mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcne getirme hakk\u0131na sahip olmas\u0131n\u0131 kapsamaktad\u0131r (Golder\/Birle\u015fik Krall\u0131k, \u00a7 36).<\/p>\n
26. A\u0130HM; adil yarg\u0131lanman\u0131n bir unsurunu te\u015fkil eden mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n mutlak olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, do\u011fas\u0131 gere\u011fi devletin d\u00fczenleme yapmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektiren bu hakk\u0131n belli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilece\u011fini kabul etmektedir. Ancak A\u0130HM, bu s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar\u0131n ki\u015finin mahkemeye eri\u015fimini, hakk\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fc zedeleyecek \u015fekilde ve geni\u015flikte k\u0131s\u0131tlamamas\u0131, zay\u0131flatmamas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ifade etmektedir. A\u0130HM’e g\u00f6re me\u015fru bir ama\u00e7 ta\u015f\u0131mayan ya da uygulanan ara\u00e7 ile ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 aras\u0131nda makul bir orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k ili\u015fkisi kurmayan s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin 6. maddenin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131yla uyumlu olmaz (Sefer Y\u0131lmaz ve Meryem Y\u0131lmaz\/T\u00fcrkiye, B. No: 611\/12, 17\/11\/2015, \u00a7 59; E\u015fim\/T\u00fcrkiye, B. No: 59601\/09, 17\/9\/2013, \u00a7 19; Edificaciones March Gallego S.A.\/\u0130spanya, B. No: 28028\/95, 19\/2\/1998, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
27. A\u0130HM, yasal yollara ba\u015fvuru i\u00e7in s\u00fcre ve usul kurallar\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin amac\u0131n\u0131n adaletin iyi y\u00f6netimini g\u00fcvenceye ba\u011flamak ve hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ilkesini sa\u011flamak oldu\u011funu hat\u0131rlatmakta; bunun yan\u0131nda yarg\u0131sal ba\u015fvurulara ili\u015fkin usullerin, \u00f6zellikle tebligat sistemi \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda uyulmas\u0131 gereken ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcrelerinin hesaplanmas\u0131n\u0131n S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin 6. maddesinin gerektirdi\u011fi \u015fekilde mahkeme hakk\u0131n\u0131n etkilili\u011fini g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na alacak nitelikte olmas\u0131 zorunlulu\u011funa vurgu yapmaktad\u0131r. A\u0130HM’e g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun kamu otoritelerinin menfaati ile kendi menfaati aras\u0131nda adil denge tesis eden tutarl\u0131 bir sisteme g\u00fcvenebilme imk\u00e2n\u0131na ve \u00f6zellikle haklar\u0131na do\u011frudan m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil eden ilgili idari i\u015fleme itiraz edebilecek a\u00e7\u0131k, pratik ve etkili f\u0131rsatlara sahip olmas\u0131 \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131maktad\u0131r (Geffre\/Fransa (k.k.), B. No: 51307\/99, 23\/1\/2003).<\/p>\n
28. A\u0130HM, dava hakk\u0131n\u0131 s\u00fcre ve usul ko\u015fuluna ba\u011flayan i\u00e7 hukuk h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin yorumlanmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ncelikli olarak kamu otoritelerinin ve \u00f6zellikle mahkemelerin g\u00f6revi oldu\u011funu belirtmekte; kendi rol\u00fcn\u00fcn bu yorumun etkilerinin S\u00f6zle\u015fme ile uyumlu olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespitiyle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 oldu\u011funu ifade etmektedir. S\u00fcre s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 getiren kurallar\u0131n uygun adalet y\u00f6netiminin g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 amac\u0131na dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131na i\u015faret eden A\u0130HM, bu kurallar\u0131n veya bunlar\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131n ilgililerin ula\u015f\u0131labilir ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131na m\u00fcracaatlar\u0131n\u0131 engelleyecek mahiyette olmamas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini de\u011ferlendirmektedir. A\u0130HM, bu ba\u011flamda her bir olay\u0131n somut ba\u015fvuru yolunun \u00f6zellikleri \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ve S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin 6. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ama\u00e7 ve hedefleri \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011finin alt\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7izmektedir (E\u015fim\/T\u00fcrkiye, \u00a7 20).<\/p>\n
29. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 sadece ilk derece mahkemesine dava a\u00e7ma hakk\u0131n\u0131 de\u011fil e\u011fer i\u00e7 hukukta itiraz, istinaf veya temyiz gibi kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvurma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f ise \u00fcst mahkemelere ba\u015fvurma hakk\u0131n\u0131 da i\u00e7erir (Bayar ve G\u00fcrb\u00fcz\/T\u00fcrkiye, B. No: 37569\/06, 27\/11\/2012, \u00a7 42).<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
30. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 26\/2\/2025 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<\/p>\n
31. Ba\u015fvurucu; dava konusu i\u015flemin tebli\u011finin usule ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, idari i\u015flemlere kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcrelerinin karma\u015f\u0131k olmas\u0131 nedeniyle i\u015flemin \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine tabi oldu\u011funun kendisine bildirilmesi gerekti\u011fini, bu kapsamda \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi uygulanmas\u0131 suretiyle verilen s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 karar\u0131 nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ve e\u015fitlik ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
B. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
1. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
32. 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
33. 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 “…ile 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. S\u00f6zle\u015fme’yi yorumlayan A\u0130HM, 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
34. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, 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 gelmektedir (\u00d6zkan \u015een, B. No: 2012\/791, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
35. S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fczenleyen 6. maddesinde ve etkili ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fczenleyen 13. maddesinde, Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda yer alan “Devlet, i\u015flemlerinde, ilgili ki\u015filerin hangi kanun yollar\u0131 ve mercilere ba\u015fvuraca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve s\u00fcrelerini belirtmek zorundad\u0131r.” \u015feklinde bir g\u00fcvence \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan h\u00fck\u00fcmle devlete, i\u015flemlerinde ilgili ki\u015filerin hangi kanun yollar\u0131na ve mercilere ba\u015fvurma ve bunlar\u0131n s\u00fcrelerini belirtme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc y\u00fcklenmi\u015ftir. Bu itibarla Anayasa ve S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin ortak koruma alan\u0131n\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan s\u00f6z konusu g\u00fcvencenin bireysel ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131nda incelenemeyece\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131ndaki g\u00fcvence bireysel ba\u015fvuruda ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z bir g\u00fcvence olarak ele al\u0131namaz. Bununla birlikte bu durum, ba\u015fta mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 olmak \u00fczere di\u011fer haklar\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddialar incelenirken -Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ilkesi gere\u011fi- an\u0131lan h\u00fckm\u00fcn dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131na engel de\u011fildir (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., \u00a7 32).<\/p>\n
36. Somut olayda idari i\u015flemin iptali istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi yerine \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine ili\u015fkin kural uygulanarak davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir m\u00fcdahalede bulunuldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
b. M\u00fcdahalenin \u0130hlal Olu\u015fturup Olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
37. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Temel 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.”<\/p>\n
38. Yukar\u0131da an\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesinde belirtilen ko\u015fullara uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinin ihlalini te\u015fkil edecektir.<\/p>\n
39. Bu sebeple m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa\u2019n\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
40. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda, ba\u015fvurucunun a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 iptal davas\u0131n\u0131n 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 20\/B maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen s\u00fcrede yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan verilen s\u00fcreden ret karar\u0131 ile yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
ii. Me\u015fru Ama\u00e7<\/p>\n
41. Usul kurallar\u0131n\u0131n belirli bir s\u00fcreye ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131n me\u015fru amac\u0131n\u0131n ne oldu\u011fu hususu benzer nitelikteki ba\u015fvurularda Anayasa Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan incelenmi\u015ftir. Anayasa Mahkemesi bu incelemelerinde usul kurallar\u0131 i\u00e7in s\u00fcre ko\u015fulu \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin en genel ifadesiyle hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ve istikrar\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 \u015feklinde bir me\u015fru amac\u0131 bulundu\u011funa i\u015faret etmi\u015ftir (daha ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. Ertu\u011frul Dalba\u015f, B. No: 2014\/7805, 25\/10\/2017, \u00a7 59; S.K., B. No: 2015\/2438, 19\/4\/2018, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
iii. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck<\/p>\n
42. \u0130dari i\u015flemin iptaline ili\u015fkin davan\u0131n s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddi 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 y\u00fcklenip y\u00fcklenmedi\u011fi hususlar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
(1) Genel \u0130lkeler<\/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 etmektedir (AYM, E.2011\/111, K.2012\/56, 11\/4\/2012; E.2014\/176, K.2015\/53, 27\/5\/2015; E.2016\/13, K.2016\/127, 22\/6\/2016; Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
44. Somut olayda elveri\u015flilik ve gereklilik ilkeleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektirecek bir y\u00f6n bulunmamaktad\u0131r. As\u0131l \u00fczerinde durulmas\u0131 gereken, m\u00fcdahalenin orant\u0131l\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
45. Orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k s\u0131n\u0131rlamayla ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 ile ba\u015fvurulan s\u0131n\u0131rlama tedbiri aras\u0131nda a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir dengesizlik bulunmamas\u0131na i\u015faret etmektedir. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k, ama\u00e7 ile ara\u00e7 aras\u0131nda adil bir denge kurulmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirmektedir. Buna g\u00f6re mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na getirilen s\u0131n\u0131rlamayla ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen me\u015fru ama\u00e7 ve ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131ndan yararlanmas\u0131ndaki bireysel yarar aras\u0131nda makul bir orant\u0131 kurulmal\u0131d\u0131r. Hedeflenen amaca ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda elde edilecek kamusal yararla k\u0131yasland\u0131\u011f\u0131nda s\u0131n\u0131rlama ile ki\u015fiye y\u00fcklenen k\u00fclfetin a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 ve orant\u0131s\u0131z olmamas\u0131 gerekir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte \u015eehmus Altu\u011frul, B. No: 2017\/38317, 13\/1\/2021, \u00a7 51).<\/p>\n
46. Dava a\u00e7ma ya da kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvuru i\u00e7in belli s\u00fcrelerin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesi, bu s\u00fcreler dava a\u00e7may\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131zla\u015ft\u0131rmad\u0131k\u00e7a -hukuki belirlilik ilkesinin gere\u011fi olarak- mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olu\u015fturmaz. Ancak mevzuatta \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen s\u00fcre kurallar\u0131n\u0131n hukuka a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak yanl\u0131\u015f uygulanmas\u0131 veya bu s\u00fcrelerin hatal\u0131 hesaplanmas\u0131 nedenleriyle ki\u015filerin dava a\u00e7ma ya da kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvuru haklar\u0131n\u0131 kullanmas\u0131na engel olunmas\u0131 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilir (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
47. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 40. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda devletin i\u015flemlerinde ilgili ki\u015filerin hangi kanun yollar\u0131na ve mercilere ba\u015fvuraca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve s\u00fcrelerini belirtmek zorunda oldu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Kanun koyucu, devlet organlar\u0131n\u0131n tesis etti\u011fi i\u015flemlere kar\u015f\u0131 kanun yollar\u0131 ve hangi mercilere ba\u015fvuraca\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcresi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan taraflar\u0131n do\u011fru bilgi sahibi olmalar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayarak da\u011f\u0131n\u0131k mevzuat kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda hangi yola m\u00fcracaat edece\u011fini bilmeyen yahut teredd\u00fct eden bireylerin hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc etkin ve sa\u011fl\u0131kl\u0131 bir \u015fekilde kullanmalar\u0131n\u0131 ama\u00e7lam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Kommersan Kombassan Mermer Maden \u0130\u015fletmeleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.\u015e. ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/7114, 20\/1\/2016, \u00a7 50).<\/p>\n
(2) \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/p>\n
48. Ba\u015fvurucu, kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131nav\u0131n hi\u00e7bir a\u015famas\u0131nda kendisine bilgi verilmeksizin kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek kendisine tercih hakk\u0131 verilmedi\u011fini, bu nedenle e\u011fitim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ve e\u015fitlik ilkesinin ihlal edildi\u011fini; idari i\u015flemlere kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcrelerinin karma\u015f\u0131k olmas\u0131 nedeniyle dava konusu i\u015flemin \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine tabi oldu\u011funun kendisine bildirilmesi gerekti\u011fini, bu kapsamda \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi uygulanmas\u0131 suretiyle verilen s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 karar\u0131 nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
49. Bireysel ba\u015fvuru yolunun ikincil niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi, mevzuat\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131 ve uygulanmas\u0131 derece mahkemelerinin g\u00f6revi olmakla birlikte bu yorum ve uygulamalar\u0131n etkilerinin Anayasa ve S\u00f6zle\u015fme\u2019nin ortak koruma alan\u0131nda bulunan hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerle ba\u011fda\u015f\u0131p ba\u011fda\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa Mahkemesince incelenebilece\u011fi tabiidir. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lacak b\u00f6yle bir inceleme, somut olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde yap\u0131lacakt\u0131r (Kemal \u0130nan, B. No: 2013\/1524, 6\/10\/2015, \u00a7 49). Somut ba\u015fvuruda da Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi, usul kurallar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131 konusunda derece mahkemelerinin takdir ve de\u011ferlendirmelerini denetlemek olmay\u0131p usule ili\u015fkin uygulaman\u0131n ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 Anayasa’ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak k\u0131s\u0131tlay\u0131p k\u0131s\u0131tlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 denetlemektir.<\/p>\n
50. Somut olayda de\u011ferlendirilmesi gereken mesele, ba\u015fvurucunun a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 iptal davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre ko\u015fulu gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek incelenmemesinin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na orant\u0131s\u0131z bir m\u00fcdahale olu\u015fturup olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
51. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayla ilgili hususlar 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 20\/B maddesinde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. \u0130lgili maddede “Mill\u00ee E\u011fitim Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile \u00d6l\u00e7me, Se\u00e7me ve Yerle\u015ftirme Merkezi taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan merkez\u00ee ve ortak s\u0131navlar, bu s\u0131navlara ili\u015fkin i\u015f ve i\u015flemler ile s\u0131nav sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan davalara ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fcnde dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin on oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn gerek\u00e7esinde yap\u0131lan merkez\u00ee ve ortak s\u0131navlar hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan davalarda, olas\u0131 ma\u011fduriyetlerin \u00f6n\u00fcne ge\u00e7ebilmek i\u00e7in h\u0131zl\u0131 yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcreci \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmekte ve s\u00f6z konusu davalara ili\u015fkin verilen kararlar\u0131n ilgili ki\u015filerin lehine sonu\u00e7 do\u011furacak \u015fekilde uygulanmas\u0131 h\u00fckme ba\u011flanmaktad\u0131r.\u201d denilmektedir.<\/p>\n
52. 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 7. maddesinde g\u00f6sterilen genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcrelerinden ba\u015fka, \u00f6zel d\u00fczenlemeler ile idari dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcreleri de belirlenmekte olup, idari yarg\u0131 d\u00fczeninde olduk\u00e7a fazla ve da\u011f\u0131n\u0131k olan bu s\u00fcreler nedeniyle mevzuat\u0131n yorumunda kar\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131k ya\u015fanabilmektedir. Mevzuatta ya\u015fanan bu da\u011f\u0131n\u0131kl\u0131ktan dolay\u0131, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine tabi olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususu, ancak somut olay\u0131n \u00f6zelli\u011fine g\u00f6re mevzuat\u0131 yorumlayan yarg\u0131 mercilerinin kararlar\u0131yla ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
53. Bu ba\u011flamda bireysel ba\u015fvuruya konu karar\u0131n verildi\u011fi tarih itibar\u0131yla yarg\u0131sal uygulamalarda, i\u00e7tihat mahkemesi olan Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u0131n farkl\u0131 dairelerinin, \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin g\u00f6sterilmedi\u011fi h\u00e2llerde hangi dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi noktas\u0131nda farkl\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmelerde bulundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Nitekim Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u0130\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Kurulunca 2022 y\u0131l\u0131nda, farkl\u0131 yarg\u0131 kararlar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki bu yorum fark\u0131n\u0131n hukuki belirsizliklerin artmas\u0131na neden oldu\u011fundan kararlar aras\u0131ndaki bu ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131n bir an \u00f6nce giderilmesinin ki\u015filerin mahkemeye eri\u015fim haklar\u0131 ile idari istikrar ve hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ilkelerinin ihlal edilmemesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilerek, an\u0131lan hususta Dan\u0131\u015ftay dava daireleri ile kurullar\u0131n\u0131n kararlar\u0131 aras\u0131nda var olan i\u00e7tihat ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131n birle\u015ftirilmesi yoluyla \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme kavu\u015fturulmas\u0131 yoluna gidildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
54. Bu kapsamda, Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u0130\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Kurulunun 15\/3\/2022 tarih ve E.2021\/2, K.2022\/1 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcreleri a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan mevzuatta var olan kar\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131n hangi s\u00fcrede hangi kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurulaca\u011f\u0131 konusunda ki\u015fileri yan\u0131ltmas\u0131 olas\u0131 bulundu\u011fundan, i\u015flemde ba\u015fvuru yolu ve s\u00fcresi belirtilmemi\u015fse, bu s\u00fcrelerin ilgililerce bilinmesinin beklenemeyece\u011fine vurgu yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re; \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine tabi bir idari i\u015flemde, dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015f olmas\u0131 durumunda, vergi mahkemelerinde 30, Dan\u0131\u015ftay ve idare mahkemelerinde 60 g\u00fcnl\u00fck genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi; ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine tabi bir idari i\u015flemde dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015f olsa da 30 ve 60 g\u00fcnl\u00fck genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde i\u00e7tihad\u0131n birle\u015ftirilmesi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilmi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7 23).<\/p>\n
55. Olaydaki temel mesele, idari yarg\u0131daki genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinden daha k\u0131sa, \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine tabi bir idari i\u015flemde bu dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 \u00fczerindeki etkisinin de\u011ferlendirilmesidir.<\/p>\n
56. Yukar\u0131da belirtilen tespitler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda somut olaya bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan iptali istenen 2021 T\u0131pta Uzmanl\u0131k S\u0131nav\u0131 1. d\u00f6nem ek yerle\u015ftirmesi kapsam\u0131ndaki tercih sonucu 22\/6\/2021 tarihinde idarenin internet sayfas\u0131nda ilan edilmi\u015f, sonu\u00e7 ekran\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun 692 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK ile kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle tercih ba\u015fvurusunun de\u011ferlendirmeye al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bilgisi yer alm\u0131\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu 5\/7\/2021 tarihinde an\u0131lan i\u015flemin iptali istemiyle dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu’nun “merkez\u00ee ve ortak s\u0131navlara ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fc” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 20\/B maddesinde, Mill\u00ee E\u011fitim Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile \u00d6l\u00e7me, Se\u00e7me ve Yerle\u015ftirme Merkezi taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan merkez\u00ee ve ortak s\u0131navlar, bu s\u0131navlara ili\u015fkin i\u015f ve i\u015flemler ile s\u0131nav sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan davalara ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fcnde dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinden daha k\u0131sa olan on g\u00fcn oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
57. Bireysel ba\u015fvuruya konu karar\u0131n verildi\u011fi tarih itibar\u0131yla mevcut yarg\u0131sal uygulamalara bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Dan\u0131\u015ftay kararlar\u0131nda, \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcrelerinin i\u015flemde g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015f olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde hangi s\u00fcrenin esas al\u0131n\u0131p hesaplanaca\u011f\u0131 ve uygulanaca\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda bireylerin davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n sonucunu \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilmesine imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayacak \u015fekilde bir hukuki belirlili\u011fin\/ \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilirli\u011fin bulundu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenemeyecektir.<\/p>\n
58. Bu itibarla somut olayda yukar\u0131da yer verilen ilkeler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, Mahkemece verilen s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n sonu\u00e7lar\u0131na katlanmak zorunda b\u0131rak\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde Mahkemenin dava hakk\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131na ili\u015fkin k\u0131s\u0131tlay\u0131c\u0131 yorumunun a\u011f\u0131r bir y\u00fcke sebep oldu\u011fu, 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
59. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VI. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
60. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti ile yeniden yarg\u0131lama talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
61. 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
62. \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
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’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\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 amac\u0131yla yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in Ankara 23. \u0130dare Mahkemesine(E.2021\/1231, K.2021\/1122) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. 487,60 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.487,60 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. \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
F. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 26\/2\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 26\/2\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/57081 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 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR FEYZA M\u00dcNEVVER G\u00dcNG\u00d6R BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/57081) Karar Tarihi: 26\/2\/2025 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN Muhterem \u0130NCE Raport\u00f6r : Saliha AKSOY Ba\u015fvurucu : Feyza M\u00fcnevver G\u00dcNG\u00d6R Vekili : Av. Bilgehan UTKU I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, idari i\u015flemin iptali istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi yerine \u00f6zel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine ili\u015fkin kural uygulanarak davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 10\/12\/2021 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyon, mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetin kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 4. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir: 5. Ba\u015fvurucu, 2021 T\u0131pta Uzmanl\u0131k S\u0131nav\u0131 1. d\u00f6nem ek yerle\u015ftirmesi kapsam\u0131nda tercihte bulunmu\u015f, sonu\u00e7lar 22\/6\/2021 tarihinde internet sayfas\u0131 \u00fczerinden a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015f, sonu\u00e7 ekran\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun 14\/7\/2017 tarihli ve 692 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Baz\u0131 Tedbirler Al\u0131nmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname (692 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) ile kamu g\u00f6revinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle tercih ba\u015fvurusunun de\u011ferlendirmeye al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bilgisi yer alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 6. Ba\u015fvurucu, tercih ba\u015fvurusunun de\u011ferlendirmeye al\u0131nmamas\u0131na ili\u015fkin i\u015flemin iptali istemiyle 5\/7\/2021 tarihinde Ankara 23. …<\/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-105024","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n