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
SEY\u0130DE SER\u00c7E BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/4028)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 10\/7\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 3\/12\/2024-32741<\/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
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/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
\u015eehadet \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Seyide SER\u00c7E<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Soner \u00c7IVAK<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, trafik kazas\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131nda kusuru bulundu\u011fu iddia edilen kamu makamlar\u0131 aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 sonucunda manevi tazminat talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucunun o\u011flu A.S. 6\/7\/2015 tarihinde Zonguldak-Devrek kara yolu 9,5 km civar\u0131nda Karayollar\u0131 Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (KGM) taraf\u0131ndan y\u00fcklenici \u00d6… \u015eirketine verilmi\u015f olan ve bu \u015eirket taraf\u0131ndan ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen yol yap\u0131m \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu b\u00f6lgede ge\u00e7irdi\u011fi trafik kazas\u0131 sonucu hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybetmi\u015ftir. Bu kaza nedeniyle d\u00fczenlenen 6\/7\/2015 tarihli Trafik Kazas\u0131 Tespit Tutana\u011f\u0131’na g\u00f6re kaza, y\u00fcklenici \u015eirketin g\u00f6revlisi olan bayrak\u00e7\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan durdurulmas\u0131 nedeniyle trafikte bekleyen R.A.n\u0131n sevk ve idaresindeki 67 Y… plakal\u0131 t\u0131r\u0131n dorsesine A.S.nin sevk ve idaresindeki 67 D… plakal\u0131 kamyonun arkadan \u00e7arpmas\u0131 sonucu meydana gelmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Zonguldak Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 olay nedeniyle resen ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131 ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen bu soru\u015fturma kapsam\u0131nda kusur durumuna ili\u015fkin olarak Adli T\u0131p Kurumu Trafik \u0130htisas Dairesinden 4\/9\/2015 tarihli, trafik bilirki\u015fisinden 12\/10\/2015 tarihli, \u0130stanbul Teknik \u00dcniversitesi \u00f6\u011fretim \u00fcyelerinden olu\u015fan bilirki\u015fi heyetinden 29\/12\/2016 tarihli raporlar al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Zonguldak Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 7\/4\/2017 tarihli iddianamesiyle taksirle \u00f6l\u00fcme neden olma su\u00e7undan kazaya kar\u0131\u015fan t\u0131r \u015fof\u00f6r\u00fc R.A. ve y\u00fcklenici \u015eirketin \u015eantiye \u015eefi E.\u0130. hakk\u0131nda kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130ddianamede; soru\u015fturmaya konu trafik kazas\u0131 hakk\u0131nda haz\u0131rlanan raporlarda R.A.n\u0131n kusursuz, m\u00fcteveffa A.S.nin asli kusurlu, i\u015faretleme eksikli\u011finden sorumlu olan y\u00fcklenici \u015eirketin tali kusurlu oldu\u011funun tespit edildi\u011fi vurgulanarak \u015f\u00fcphelilerin \u00fczerilerine at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7u i\u015fledikleri belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Kovu\u015fturmay\u0131 y\u00fcr\u00fcten Zonguldak 1. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi (Ceza Mahkemesi) 26\/9\/2017 tarihli karar\u0131yla A.S.ye y\u00f6nelik taksirle \u00f6l\u00fcme neden olma eyleminin s\u00fcbuta erdi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle \u015eantiye \u015eefi E.\u0130.nin 12.100 TL adli para cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Di\u011fer san\u0131k R.A.n\u0131n olayda kusursuz oldu\u011funu de\u011ferlendirip beraatine karar veren Ceza Mahkemesi, gerek\u00e7esinde soru\u015fturma a\u015famas\u0131nda al\u0131nan kusur raporlar\u0131nda yap\u0131lan tespitlere dayanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yap\u0131lan istinaf ba\u015fvurular\u0131 Ankara B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 12. Ceza Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan 19\/11\/2018 tarihinde kesin olarak reddedilmi\u015f, karar b\u00f6ylece kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu 5\/2\/2018 tarihinde KGM’ye sundu\u011fu dilek\u00e7e ile idarenin yol-hizmet kusuru sonucu meydana gelen trafik kazas\u0131nda ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131 yitiren A.S.nin \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 maddi ve manevi zararlar\u0131n tazmini i\u00e7in talepte bulunmu\u015ftur. Talebin 19\/2\/2018 tarihli i\u015flemle reddi \u00fczerine 17\/4\/2018 tarihinde Zonguldak \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dava dilek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucu; daval\u0131 idarenin yol bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda trafik g\u00fcvenli\u011fini sa\u011flayacak tedbirleri almas\u0131 zorunlu oldu\u011fu h\u00e2lde gerekli \u00f6nlemleri almad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, g\u00fczerg\u00e2h boyunca yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken nizami i\u015faretlemeleri yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, olay\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesinde daval\u0131 idarenin hizmet kusuru bulundu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek 100 TL maddi tazminat (27\/5\/2019 tarihli \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esi ile talebini 16.657,86 TL’ye \u00e7\u0131karm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.) ile 30.000 TL manevi tazminat talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. \u0130dare Mahkemesi, R.A. ve E.\u0130.nin yarg\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 ceza davas\u0131 dosyas\u0131n\u0131n (bkz. \u00a7 4) bir \u00f6rne\u011fini temin etmi\u015f ve olay\u0131n meydana gelmesindeki kusur oranlar\u0131n\u0131n tespiti i\u00e7in bilirki\u015fi raporu alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130stanbul Teknik \u00dcniversitesinde g\u00f6revli \u00f6\u011fretim \u00fcyelerinden olu\u015fan bilirki\u015fi heyetinin d\u00fczenledi\u011fi 31\/1\/2019 tarihli raporun ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015fu \u015fekildedir:<\/p>\n
“…Dava konusu kazada \u00f6len s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc [A.S.], y\u00f6netimindeki arac\u0131yla mahal \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n gerektirdi\u011fi h\u0131zdan daha h\u0131zl\u0131 seyretmi\u015f, h\u0131z tahdit levhas\u0131na uymam\u0131\u015f, g\u00fcnd\u00fcz g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f a\u00e7\u0131kken \u00f6n\u00fcndeki trafi\u011fe dikkat etmemi\u015f, h\u0131zl\u0131 ve dikkatsiz ara\u00e7 kullanm\u0131\u015f ve fren tedbirinde ge\u00e7 kalarak 4 m sert fren izine ra\u011fmen \u00f6n\u00fcndeki araca \u015fiddetle arkadan \u00e7arpm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu nedenle dava konusu kazan\u0131n meydana geli\u015finde s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc [A.S.] % 75 oran\u0131nda asli kusurludur.<\/p>\n
Yolun yap\u0131m\u0131ndan sorumlu oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00d6… \u015firketinin \u015fantiye sorumlusu ise yolda gerekli i\u015faretlemeleri yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ve s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fclerin yap\u0131m alan\u0131na gelmeden \u00f6nce yolda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma oldu\u011funu anlamalar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan olayda % 25 oran\u0131nda tali kusurludur.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 Karayollar\u0131 Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ise kazan\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fi yol b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma yapan dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00d6… \u015firketi \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 s\u00fcrerken yoldaki \u00f6nlemlerin al\u0131n\u0131p al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bir denetleme g\u00f6revi olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan incelemede, daval\u0131 KGM taraf\u0131ndan yoldaki \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma 04.09.2009 tarih ve 083888 no.lu s\u00f6zle\u015fme gere\u011fince anahtar teslim olarak dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00d6… \u015firketine verilmi\u015f oldu\u011fundan ve daval\u0131 kurum sadece yolun \u015fartnameye uygun \u015fekilde yap\u0131l\u0131p yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 denetleyece\u011finden ve yolun yap\u0131m\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda trafik \u00f6nlemlerinin al\u0131n\u0131p uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 denetleme g\u00f6revi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan daval\u0131 kuruma y\u00fcklenebilecek bir kusur oran\u0131 yoktur.”<\/p>\n
7. Yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yarg\u0131lama sonunda hizmet kusurundan do\u011fan zarar\u0131n idarece ihale edilen hizmeti g\u00f6rmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc m\u00fcteahhit ve ta\u015feronlar\u0131n kusurlu davran\u0131\u015f\u0131ndan kaynaklanmas\u0131 h\u00e2linin idarenin sorumlulu\u011funu ve m\u00fckellefiyetini ortadan kald\u0131rmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabul eden \u0130dare Mahkemesi, kusur durumuna ili\u015fkin ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 s\u00fcrecinde al\u0131nan raporlar\u0131 ve 31\/1\/2019 tarihli raporu dikkate alarak idarenin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen kazada %25 oran\u0131nda kusurlu oldu\u011fu sonucuna varm\u0131\u015f; ba\u015fvurucunun u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 maddi zarar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 30\/4\/2019 tarihli hesap bilirki\u015fisi raporunu g\u00f6zeterek ba\u015fvurucu lehine 16.757,86 TL maddi tazminat ile 10.000 TL manevi tazminata h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a karara kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan istinaf talebi Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 10.\u0130dari Dava Dairesinin (Daire) 28\/10\/2020 tarihli kesin karar\u0131yla k\u0131smen kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Daire, karar\u0131nda \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n maddi tazminata ili\u015fkin k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 onam\u0131\u015f; manevi tazminata ili\u015fkin k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 ise kald\u0131rarak davac\u0131n\u0131n manevi tazminat talebini reddetmi\u015ftir. Daire; karar gerek\u00e7esinde, davac\u0131lar\u0131n sosyal ve ekonomik durumunu da dikkate alarak olay nedeniyle duyduklar\u0131 elem ve \u0131zd\u0131rab\u0131n k\u0131smen giderilmesini ifade edecek, idarenin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ortaya koyacak ve hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6zendirmeyecek bir miktar\u0131n belirlenmesi gerekti\u011fini vurgularken vefat eden A.S.nin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen kazada m\u00fcterafik kusuru bulunmas\u0131 nedeniyle davac\u0131ya \u00f6denecek manevi tazminat\u0131n sebepsiz zenginle\u015fmeye neden olacak nitelikte oldu\u011fundan hukuken gerekli ve kabul edilebilir olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 30\/12\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frenmesinin ard\u0131ndan 18\/1\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
10. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu; o\u011flunun \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcne neden olan trafik kazas\u0131nda idarenin hizmet kusuru oldu\u011fu tespit edilmi\u015f iken \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n manevi tazminata ili\u015fkin k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n Daire taraf\u0131ndan kald\u0131r\u0131l\u0131p manevi tazminat taleplerinin gerek\u00e7esiz \u015fekilde reddedilmesinin ya\u015fam, adil yarg\u0131lanma ve etkili ba\u015fvuru haklar\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, somut olay s\u00fcreci, insan haklar\u0131 yarg\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7tihad\u0131 ile mevzuat detayl\u0131 olarak aktar\u0131lm\u0131\u015f; yap\u0131lacak de\u011ferlendirmede Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihad\u0131 ve somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131nda ba\u015fvuru formundaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Olay\u0131n niteli\u011fi ve formdaki iddialar do\u011frultusunda inceleme, ya\u015fam hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
13. Daire, olay\u0131n idarenin kusuruyla meydana geldi\u011fini tespit etse de \u00f6lenin annesi olmas\u0131 nedeniyle dolayl\u0131 ma\u011fdur s\u0131fat\u0131 bulunan ba\u015fvurucunun manevi tazminat talebini reddetmi\u015ftir. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucunun ma\u011fdur s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kalkmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ba\u015fvuruda ki\u015fi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetkiye ili\u015fkin kabul edilebilirlik kriteri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden eksiklik bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
15. Anayasa’n\u0131n 17. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131, Anayasa’n\u0131n 5. maddesiyle birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde devlete pozitif ve negatif \u00f6devler y\u00fckler (Fatma Ak\u0131n ve Mehmet Eren [GK], B. No: 2017\/26636, 10\/11\/2021, \u00a7 82; Gazal Kolan\u00e7 ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2017\/37897, 5\/7\/2022, \u00a7 320).<\/p>\n
16. Devletin negatif bir y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck olarak yetki alan\u0131nda bulunan hi\u00e7bir bireyin ya\u015fam\u0131na kas\u0131tl\u0131 ve hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak son vermeme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn yan\u0131 s\u0131ra -pozitif bir y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck olarak- yine yetki alan\u0131nda bulunan t\u00fcm bireylerin ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131 gerek kamusal makamlar\u0131n gerek di\u011fer bireylerin gerekse ki\u015finin kendi eylemlerinden kaynaklanabilecek risklere kar\u015f\u0131 koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bulunmaktad\u0131r (Ali F\u0131nd\u0131k ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2018\/15233, 18\/5\/2021, \u00a7 36). Yol g\u00fcvenli\u011fi de d\u00e2hil olmak \u00fczere bir\u00e7ok ba\u011flamda ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan ya\u015fam\u0131 koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, halka a\u00e7\u0131k mek\u00e2nlarda insanlar\u0131n g\u00fcvenli\u011fini sa\u011flamak i\u00e7in d\u00fczenlemelerin hayata ge\u00e7irilmesinin ve yasal \u00e7er\u00e7evenin etkili bir \u015fekilde i\u015fletilmesinin sa\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir (benzer de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7eren Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi karar\u0131 i\u00e7in bkz. Fatih \u00c7ak\u0131r ve Merve Nisa \u00c7ak\u0131r\/T\u00fcrkiye, B. No: 54558\/11, 5\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 40, 41).<\/p>\n
17. Pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kapsam\u0131nda devletin ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131 korumak i\u00e7in olu\u015fturulan yasal ve idari \u00e7er\u00e7evenin gere\u011fi gibi uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 ve bu hakka y\u00f6nelik ihlallerin durdurulup cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayacak etkili bir yarg\u0131sal sistem kurma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc de bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck -kamusal olsun veya olmas\u0131n- ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n tehlikeye girebilece\u011fi her t\u00fcrl\u00fc faaliyet bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ge\u00e7erlidir (Gazal Kolan\u00e7 ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 326 ).<\/p>\n
18. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlaline kasten sebebiyet verilmemi\u015f ise etkili bir yarg\u0131sal sistem kurma y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck -istisnalar\u0131 bulunmakla birlikte- her olayda mutlaka ceza davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirmez. Ma\u011fdurlara hukuki, idari hatta disiplinle ilgili hukuk yollar\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k olmas\u0131 yeterli olabilir (Ahmet Canpolat ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2018\/10959, 27\/7\/2022, \u00a7 70).<\/p>\n
19. Bununla birlikte ma\u011fdurlar\u0131n ba\u015fvurabilecekleri tazminat yollar\u0131n\u0131n uygulamada da etkili olmas\u0131 gerekir. Bir ba\u015fvuru yolunun ancak hak ihlalini \u00f6nleyebilmesi, devam etmekteyse sonland\u0131rabilmesi veya sona ermi\u015f bir hak ihlalini karara ba\u011flayabilmesi, bunun i\u00e7in uygun bir giderim sunabilmesi h\u00e2linde etkilili\u011finden s\u00f6z etmek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olabilir (Tahir Canan, B. No: 2012\/969, 18\/9\/2013, \u00a7 26; Filiz Aka, B. No: 2013\/8365, 10\/6\/2015, \u00a7 39).<\/p>\n
20. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu, o\u011flunun \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc \u00fczerine ba\u015flat\u0131lan ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131 s\u00fcrecinde yol yap\u0131m hizmetinin kusurlu \u015fekilde yerine getirildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin tespitler sonras\u0131nda \u00f6l\u00fcmden kaynaklanan zararlar\u0131n\u0131n tazmini i\u00e7in tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamada A.S.nin \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcyle neticelenen trafik kazas\u0131nda yolun bak\u0131m, onar\u0131m ve temizli\u011finden sorumlu idarenin kusurlu oldu\u011fu al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131yla tespit edilmi\u015f; ilk derece mahkemesi ve istinaf mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan da bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131na dayan\u0131larak hizmet kusurunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131, o\u011flunun ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131 yitirmesinde idarenin hizmet kusuru oldu\u011fu, bir ba\u015fka ifadeyle ya\u015fam\u0131 koruma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fi tespit edilmesine ra\u011fmen manevi tazminat taleplerinin reddedilmesine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
21. \u0130dare Mahkemesi, kazada idarenin hizmet kusuru bulundu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle maddi ve manevi tazminata h\u00fckmetmi\u015fse de Daire yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 istinaf incelemesinde manevi tazminat talebini reddetmi\u015ftir. Daire, gerek\u00e7esinde idarenin olaydaki hizmet kusuruna ili\u015fkin tespite kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kmamas\u0131na ra\u011fmen vefat eden A.S.nin olayda m\u00fcterafik kusuru bulunmas\u0131 nedeniyle davac\u0131ya \u00f6denecek 10.000 TL’lik manevi tazminat\u0131n sebepsiz zenginle\u015fmeye yol a\u00e7acak nitelikte oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015f ve \u0130dare Mahkemesince h\u00fckmedilen manevi tazminat\u0131 kald\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Daire bu karar\u0131nda ayr\u0131ca davac\u0131n\u0131n olay nedeniyle duydu\u011fu elem ve \u0131zd\u0131rab\u0131n k\u0131smen giderilmesini ifade edecek, idarenin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ortaya koyacak ve hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6zendirmeyecek bir miktar\u0131n belirlenmesi gerekti\u011fine de dikkat \u00e7ekmi\u015f ancak davac\u0131n\u0131n manevi zarar\u0131n\u0131n tazminini sa\u011flamak amac\u0131yla uygun g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bir miktara h\u00fckmetmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
22. Eldeki ba\u015fvuru a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun o\u011flu A.S.nin vefat etti\u011fi trafik kazas\u0131n\u0131n meydana gelmesinde idarenin kusuru da g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucunun ya\u015fad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n etkisiyle manevi olarak y\u0131pranmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemek somut olaya uygun d\u00fc\u015fmeyecektir. Buna kar\u015f\u0131n yarg\u0131lama mercileri taraf\u0131ndan olay\u0131n meydana gelmesinde idarenin kusurlu oldu\u011fu tespit edilse de ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131n\u0131n dolayl\u0131 ma\u011fduru oldu\u011fu g\u00f6zetilmeden manevi tazminat talebi reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
23. Ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131nda idarenin var oldu\u011fu kabul edilen kusuru a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan uygun giderim sa\u011flanmayarak ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n devlete y\u00fckledi\u011fi pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerin uygulamada etkili bir \u015fekilde i\u015fletilmedi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (giderimin sa\u011flanamamas\u0131 meselesinin benzer \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirildi\u011fi karar i\u00e7in bkz. \u0130lbeyi Kemalo\u011flu ve Meriye Kemalo\u011flu\/T\u00fcrkiye, B. No: 19986\/06, 10\/4\/2012, \u00a7\u00a7 42-47; Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u2019nin 2. maddesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan adli a\u00e7\u0131dan verilmesi gereken cevapla ilgili Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi de\u011ferlendirmeleri i\u00e7in bkz. Cavit T\u0131narl\u0131o\u011flu\/T\u00fcrkiye, B. No: 3648\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 110-126, Neriman Yonat, B. No: 2018\/33554, 15\/6\/2021, \u00a7 106).<\/p>\n
24. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 17. maddesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ve Anayasa Mahkemesinin uygun g\u00f6rece\u011fi tutarda maddi ve manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
26. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu kapsamda karar\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flatmak ve Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gideren, ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun yeni bir karar vermektir (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). Yeniden yap\u0131lacak yarg\u0131lamada taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesi de g\u00f6zetilerek ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinden do\u011fan ma\u011fduriyetin ortadan kald\u0131rabilmesi i\u00e7in ihlalin a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a veya \u00f6z\u00fc itibar\u0131yla tespit edilmesi yan\u0131nda karar\u0131n verildi\u011fi tarihte Anayasa Mahkemesinin benzer ihlaller nedeniyle \u00f6denmesine karar verdi\u011fi tazminatlarla uyumlu olacak \u015fekilde tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesi gerekti\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r (ma\u011fdur s\u0131fat\u0131yla ilgili benzer de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. Hasan K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7, B. No: 2018\/22085, 27\/1\/2021, \u00a7 42).<\/p>\n
27. \u0130hlalin 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 talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak amac\u0131yla Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 10.\u0130dari Dava Dairesine (E.2020\/79, K.2020\/2001) iletilmek \u00fczere Zonguldak \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2018\/334, K.2019\/813) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 487,60 TL har\u00e7 ve 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 19.287,60 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 10\/7\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 10\/7\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/4028 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 SEY\u0130DE SER\u00c7E BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/4028) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 10\/7\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 3\/12\/2024-32741 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : \u015eehadet \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK Ba\u015fvurucu : Seyide SER\u00c7E Vekili : Av. Soner \u00c7IVAK \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, trafik kazas\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131nda kusuru bulundu\u011fu iddia edilen kamu makamlar\u0131 aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 sonucunda manevi tazminat talebinin reddedilmesi nedeniyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucunun o\u011flu A.S. 6\/7\/2015 tarihinde Zonguldak-Devrek kara yolu 9,5 km civar\u0131nda Karayollar\u0131 Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (KGM) taraf\u0131ndan y\u00fcklenici \u00d6… \u015eirketine verilmi\u015f olan ve bu \u015eirket taraf\u0131ndan ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen yol yap\u0131m \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu b\u00f6lgede ge\u00e7irdi\u011fi trafik kazas\u0131 sonucu hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybetmi\u015ftir. Bu kaza nedeniyle d\u00fczenlenen 6\/7\/2015 tarihli Trafik Kazas\u0131 Tespit Tutana\u011f\u0131’na g\u00f6re kaza, y\u00fcklenici \u015eirketin g\u00f6revlisi olan bayrak\u00e7\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan durdurulmas\u0131 nedeniyle trafikte bekleyen R.A.n\u0131n sevk ve idaresindeki 67 Y… plakal\u0131 t\u0131r\u0131n dorsesine A.S.nin sevk ve idaresindeki 67 D… plakal\u0131 kamyonun arkadan \u00e7arpmas\u0131 sonucu meydana gelmi\u015ftir. 3. Zonguldak Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 olay nedeniyle resen ceza soru\u015fturmas\u0131 ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen bu soru\u015fturma kapsam\u0131nda kusur durumuna ili\u015fkin …<\/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-18870","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n