T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
D\u0130LEK YAZICI VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/37041)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 7\/1\/2025<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\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
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Recai AKYEL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Olcay \u00d6ZCAN<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1. Dilek YAZICI<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
2. Elife YAZICI<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
3. Fahrinaz \u00c7\u0130F\u00c7\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
4. Fatma Sibel MERCAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
5. \u0130hsan YAZICI<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
6. Nesibe YAZICI<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
7. O\u011fuz Cem YAZICI<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
8. Ufuk YAZICI<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
9. Yavuz YAZICI<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
10. Y\u00fcksel Murat YAZICI<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Cevdet \u00c7\u0130FT\u00c7\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, imar mevzuat\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle y\u0131k\u0131lan yap\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131 bedeli ile kira kayb\u0131ndan kaynaklanan zarar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmemesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ankara’n\u0131n Alt\u0131nda\u011f il\u00e7esi Sakarya Mahallesi Gazeteci Kemal A\u015f\u0131k Caddesi’nde bulunan 619 ada 12 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ve ah\u015fap ev vas\u0131fl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisleri H.Y. ve M.Y. ad\u0131na tapuya kay\u0131tl\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
A. \u0130dari \u0130\u015flemlerin \u0130ptali Talebiyle A\u00e7\u0131lan Davalara \u0130li\u015fkin S\u00fcre\u00e7<\/p>\n
3. Ankara II Numaral\u0131 K\u00fclt\u00fcr Varl\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 Koruma B\u00f6lge Kurulu (Koruma Kurulu) 28\/12\/2012 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murislerine ait ta\u015f\u0131nmaza kom\u015fu 619 ada 10 ve 11 numaral\u0131 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlarda bulunan yap\u0131n\u0131n k\u00fclt\u00fcr varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6zelli\u011fi g\u00f6stermesi nedeniyle 21\/7\/1983 tarihli ve 2863 say\u0131l\u0131 K\u00fclt\u00fcr ve Tabiat Varl\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 Koruma Kanunu kapsam\u0131nda korunmas\u0131 gerekli ta\u015f\u0131nmaz k\u00fclt\u00fcr varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 olarak tesciline karar vermi\u015ftir, ayr\u0131ca tescilli yap\u0131 ile ayn\u0131 parselde ve kom\u015fu 12 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde bulunan isk\u00e2ns\u0131z ve ka\u00e7ak oldu\u011fu belirtilen yap\u0131lara ili\u015fkin olarak belediyesince imar mevzuat\u0131 do\u011frultusunda i\u015flem yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015f ve bu karar Alt\u0131nda\u011f Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Belediye) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Belediye \u0130mar ve \u015eehircilik M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc 18\/1\/2013 tarihinde 619 ada 12 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki yap\u0131n\u0131n on be\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde tahliye ve tasfiye edilmesi gerekti\u011fine ili\u015fkin ihtar d\u00fczenlemi\u015f ve aksi taktirde yap\u0131 hakk\u0131nda 3\/5\/1985 tarihli ve 3194 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130mar Kanunu’nun 32. ve 42. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca i\u015flem yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bildirmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca Belediye 15\/2\/2013 tarihinde yap\u0131 tatil zapt\u0131 d\u00fczenlemi\u015f ve isk\u00e2n h\u00e2linde oldu\u011fu tespit edilen 12 No.lu parsel \u00fczerindeki yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131 i\u00e7in yedi g\u00fcn s\u00fcre vermi\u015ftir. Yap\u0131 tatil zapt\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ada ve parsel numaras\u0131 yan\u0131nda adresinin Kemal A\u015fk\u0131 Caddesi No:16 oldu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015f, bundan ba\u015fka ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki yap\u0131n\u0131n nitelikleri hakk\u0131nda bir bilgiye yer verilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Belediye Enc\u00fcmeni 27\/2\/2013 tarihinde, Koruma Kurulunun 28\/12\/2012 tarihli karar\u0131na istinaden 12 No.lu parsel \u00fczerindeki yap\u0131n\u0131n 3194 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 32. maddesi uyar\u0131nca y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. H.Y. ve M.Y. miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131, Belediye ile K\u00fclt\u00fcr ve Turizm Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (K\u00fclt\u00fcr Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131) aleyhine 28\/12\/2012 ve 18\/1\/2013 tarihli i\u015flemlerin iptali istemiyle 1\/2\/2013 tarihinde Ankara 15. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde(15. \u0130dare Mahkemesi) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca ayn\u0131 daval\u0131lara kar\u015f\u0131 Ankara 6. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (6. \u0130dare Mahkemesi) 13\/3\/2013 tarihinde a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131 davada ise 28\/12\/2012 tarihli i\u015flem ile Belediye Enc\u00fcmeninin 27\/2\/2013 tarihli i\u015fleminin iptalini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. 15. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 12\/5\/2016 tarihinde y\u0131k\u0131m karar\u0131 al\u0131nmadan \u00f6nce 3194 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 32. maddesi uyar\u0131nca yap\u0131n\u0131n ruhsats\u0131z oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin usul\u00fcne uygun tespit yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, yap\u0131 tatil tutana\u011f\u0131 d\u00fczenlenerek yap\u0131n\u0131n mevzuata uygun h\u00e2le getirilmesi i\u00e7in s\u00fcre verilmedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle Belediye i\u015fleminin iptaline, 6. \u0130dare Mahkemesinin 7\/7\/2015 karar\u0131yla an\u0131lan i\u015flem iptal edildi\u011finden K\u00fclt\u00fcr Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lan dava hakk\u0131nda karar verilmesine yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n temyiz istemini inceleyen Dan\u0131\u015ftay Alt\u0131nc\u0131 Dairesi (Alt\u0131nc\u0131 Daire) 23\/9\/2020 tarihinde, Belediye i\u015fleminin usul\u00fcne uygun oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle karar\u0131n bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n bozulmas\u0131na di\u011fer k\u0131s\u0131m y\u00f6n\u00fcnden karar\u0131n onanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015f ve yap\u0131lan karar d\u00fczeltme talebini de 23\/9\/2021 tarihinde reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. 6. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 7\/7\/2015 tarihinde, y\u0131k\u0131m karar\u0131 al\u0131nmadan \u00f6nce 3194 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 32. maddesindeki prosed\u00fcre uyulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle i\u015flemleri iptal etmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n temyiz istemini inceleyen Alt\u0131nc\u0131 Daire ise 23\/9\/2020 tarihinde, ruhsats\u0131z yap\u0131ya ili\u015fkin i\u015flemlerin usul\u00fcne uygun oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle karar\u0131 bozmu\u015f ve yap\u0131lan karar d\u00fczeltme talebini de 26\/5\/2021 tarihinde reddetmi\u015ftir. Her iki karar sonras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan i\u015flemler hakk\u0131nda ba\u015fvuru dosyas\u0131 ve eklerinde herhangi bir bilgi ve belgeye rastlanmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
B. Bireysel Ba\u015fvuruya Konu Tam Yarg\u0131 Davas\u0131na \u0130li\u015fkin S\u00fcre\u00e7<\/p>\n
9. H.Y ve M.Y. miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 olan ba\u015fvurucular 2\/2\/2016 tarihinde K\u00fclt\u00fcr Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve Belediye aleyhine 6. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f ve bina bedeline kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k 300.000 TL ile kira kayb\u0131ndan kaynaklanan 122.500 TL’nin y\u0131k\u0131m tarihinden itibaren yasal faiziyle \u00f6denmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca bu davada ba\u015fvurucular, murislerinin 1981 y\u0131l\u0131nda tapusunu edindi\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131na ili\u015fkin i\u015flem aleyhine a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131 dava kabul edildi\u011fi h\u00e2lde kamula\u015ft\u0131rma i\u015flemi yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n binan\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek binan\u0131n de\u011feri ile kullanamamaktan kaynaklanan kira bedeli zararlar\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n dava dilek\u00e7esine ekledikleri kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi incelendi\u011finde kiraya verenin ba\u015fvuruculardan Yavuz Yaz\u0131c\u0131, kirac\u0131n\u0131n \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi \u015firket ve kira adresinin yap\u0131 tatil zapt\u0131ndaki adres ile ayn\u0131 oldu\u011fu, yap\u0131n\u0131n i\u015fyeri niteli\u011fiyle 1\/7\/2011 tarihinden itibaren be\u015f y\u0131l s\u00fcreyle kiraya verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
10. 6. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 17\/3\/2016 tarihinde ba\u011flant\u0131 nedeniyle 15. \u0130dare Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderme karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Davan\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi 15. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 26\/4\/2017 tarihinde idari i\u015flemler iptal edilmi\u015f olsa dahi binaya ait herhangi bir ruhsat bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131lar\u0131n ka\u00e7ak yap\u0131 in\u015fas\u0131 nedeniyle m\u00fcterafik kusurunun bulundu\u011fu, t\u00fcm sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 \u00fcstlendikleri, idarenin hizmet kusuru ile zarar aras\u0131ndaki illiyet ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kesildi\u011fi ve y\u0131k\u0131m nedeniyle tazmini gereken bir zarar\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00f6z edilemeyece\u011fi gerek\u00e7eleriyle davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n istinaf istemini inceleyen Ankara B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 6. \u0130dare Dava Dairesi (B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi) 26\/12\/2017 tarihinde farkl\u0131 gerek\u00e7eyle isinaf talebini reddetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde:<\/p>\n
i. Binan\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada tazminat isteminin kamula\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 ve hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 i\u015flem tesis edilmesi hususlar\u0131na dayand\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131,<\/p>\n
ii. 3194 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmleri kapsam\u0131nda ilgili idareden in\u015faat ruhsat\u0131 al\u0131nmadan yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan yap\u0131 nedeniyle hukuken korunmas\u0131 gereken bir hakk\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131,ruhsats\u0131z yap\u0131lar\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle yap\u0131 sahibine kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli \u00f6denece\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir d\u00fczenleme de \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011finden idarenin kamula\u015ft\u0131rma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc oldu\u011fundan s\u00f6z edilemeyece\u011fi,<\/p>\n
iii. Ruhsats\u0131z yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131na ili\u015fkin Belediye Enc\u00fcmeni karar\u0131n\u0131n yarg\u0131 karar\u0131 ile iptal edildi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle bina maliyet bedeli ile yoksun kal\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclen kira geliri y\u00f6nlerinden tazminat istemine gelindi\u011finde ise3194 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 32. maddesi gere\u011fi y\u0131k\u0131m i\u015flemi tesis edilmesi gerekti\u011fi ve Belediye Enc\u00fcmen karar\u0131n\u0131n da bu nedenle al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131, ayr\u0131ca ruhsats\u0131z yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131na ili\u015fkin Belediye Enc\u00fcmeni karar\u0131n\u0131n usul h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine uyulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle iptal edildi\u011fi ancak hizmet kusurunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan hareketle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada tazminat isteminin konusunu ruhsats\u0131z yap\u0131n\u0131n bina maliyet bedeli ile mahrum kal\u0131nan kira geliri olu\u015fturdu\u011fundan \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclen zarar unsurlar\u0131n\u0131n yasal dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131,<\/p>\n
iv. Dava dilek\u00e7esinde, hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak tesis edilen i\u015flem nedeniyle y\u0131k\u0131lan yap\u0131n\u0131n enkaz bedeli, e\u015fyalar, te\u00e7hizat vs. y\u00f6nlerinden olu\u015ftu\u011fu \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclen ba\u015fkaca bir zarar unsuruna da yer verilmedi\u011finden davan\u0131n reddi gerekti\u011fine i\u015faret edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n temyiz istemini inceleyen Alt\u0131nc\u0131 Daire 23\/9\/2020 tarihinde B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131 uygun bulmu\u015f ve karar\u0131 onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucular, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 4\/11\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 2\/12\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
14. 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
A. Ba\u015fvurucu Elife Yaz\u0131c\u0131’n\u0131n \u0130hlal \u0130ddialar\u0131<\/p>\n
15. 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun\u2019un 51. maddesi ile Anayasa Mahkemesi \u0130\u00e7t\u00fcz\u00fc\u011f\u00fc’n\u00fcn (\u0130\u00e7t\u00fcz\u00fck) 83. maddesi gere\u011fi ba\u015fvurucunun istismar edici, yan\u0131lt\u0131c\u0131 ve benzeri nitelikteki davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131yla bireysel ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a k\u00f6t\u00fcye kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmesi h\u00e2linde ba\u015fvuru reddedilir ve yarg\u0131lama giderleri d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ilgilinin 2.000 T\u00fcrk liras\u0131ndan fazla olmamak \u00fczere disiplin para cezas\u0131yla cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilir.<\/p>\n
16. An\u0131lan d\u00fczenlemelerde genel olarak bir hakk\u0131n \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ama\u00e7 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ve ba\u015fkalar\u0131n\u0131 zarara sokacak \u015fekilde kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n hukuk d\u00fczenince himaye edilmeyece\u011fini ifade eden hakk\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n bireysel ba\u015fvuru alan\u0131nda \u00f6zel olarak ele al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bu ba\u011flamda bireysel ba\u015fvuru usul\u00fcn\u00fcn amac\u0131na a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ayk\u0131r\u0131 olan ve Anayasa Mahkemesinin ba\u015fvuruyu gere\u011fi gibi de\u011ferlendirmesini engelleyen davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 olarak de\u011ferlendirilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr (S.\u00d6., B. No: 2013\/7087, 18\/9\/2014, \u00a7 28; Mehmet G\u00fcven Ulusoy [GK], B. No: 2013\/1013, 2\/7\/2015, \u00a7 31).<\/p>\n
17. Bu kapsamda \u00f6zellikle Anayasa Mahkemesini yan\u0131ltmak amac\u0131yla ger\u00e7ek olmayan maddi vak\u0131alara dayan\u0131lmas\u0131 veya bu nitelikte bilgi ve belge sunulmas\u0131, ba\u015fvurunun de\u011ferlendirilmesi noktas\u0131nda esasl\u0131 olan bir unsur hakk\u0131nda bilgi verilmemesi, ba\u015fvurunun de\u011ferlendirilmesi s\u00fcrecinde vuku bulan ve s\u00f6z konusu de\u011ferlendirmeyi etkileyecek nitelikte yeni ve \u00f6nemli geli\u015fmeler hakk\u0131nda Anayasa Mahkemesinin bilgilendirilmemesi suretiyle ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131nda do\u011fru bir kanaat olu\u015fturulmas\u0131n\u0131n engellenmesi, medeni ve me\u015fru ele\u015ftiri s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak kayd\u0131yla bireysel ba\u015fvuru amac\u0131yla ba\u011fda\u015fmayacak surette hakaret, tehdit veya tahrik edici bir \u00fcslup kullan\u0131lmas\u0131, s\u00f6z konusu ba\u015fvuru yolu kapsam\u0131nda ihlalin tespiti ile ihlal ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin ama\u00e7la ba\u011fda\u015fmayacak surette i\u00e7eriksiz bir ba\u015fvuruda bulunulmas\u0131 durumunda ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilebilecektir (S.\u00d6., \u00a7 29; Mehmet G\u00fcven Ulusoy, \u00a7 32; Osman Sand\u0131k\u00e7\u0131, B. No: 2013\/6297, 10\/3\/2016; Selman Kapan ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/7302, 20\/4\/2016).<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu Elife Yaz\u0131c\u0131 6\/5\/2017 tarihinde vefat etmi\u015ftir. Buna ra\u011fmen Av. Cevdet \u00c7ift\u00e7i 2\/12\/2020 tarihinde Elife Yaz\u0131c\u0131’n\u0131n anayasal haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131yla bireysel ba\u015fvuru yapm\u0131\u015f, ba\u015fvuru formunda da Elife Yaz\u0131c\u0131’n\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnden bahsetmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. Kamu g\u00fcc\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan hakk\u0131 ihlal edilen ki\u015finin bireysel ba\u015fvuru yapmadan \u00f6nce \u00f6lmesi durumunda \u00f6len ki\u015fi ad\u0131na bir ba\u015fkas\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan bireysel ba\u015fvuru yapma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r (Abdurrehman Uray, B. No: 2013\/6140, 5\/11\/2014, \u00a7 30).<\/p>\n
20. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvuru tarihinden \u00f6nce vefat eden ba\u015fvurucu ad\u0131na vek\u00e2let ili\u015fkisi sona ermi\u015f olan avukat taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
21. Bu durumda Av. Cevdet \u00c7ift\u00e7i hakk\u0131nda Anayasa Mahkemesini yan\u0131lt\u0131c\u0131 nitelikte ba\u015fvuru yapmas\u0131 nedeniyle 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 51. maddesi ve \u0130\u00e7t\u00fcz\u00fck\u2019\u00fcn 83. maddesi uyar\u0131nca takdiren 2.000 TL disiplin para cezas\u0131na h\u00fckmedilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Di\u011fer Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n M\u00fclkiyet Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fi \u0130ddialar\u0131<\/p>\n
22. Ba\u015fvurucular, murisleri taraf\u0131ndan 1981 y\u0131l\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131n al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ge\u00e7erli bir hukuki neden olmadan ve kamula\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, y\u0131k\u0131m nedeniyle yap\u0131 bedeli ile kira kayb\u0131na ili\u015fkin zararlar\u0131n\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fini ve bu zararlar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma ve m\u00fclkiyet haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131’na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
23. Ba\u015fvuru, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
24. Anayasa Mahkemesi, ruhsats\u0131z yap\u0131lar\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin Mehmet Memi\u015f (B. No: 2015\/5380, 30\/10\/2018) ve Beyhan Polat ve Mehmet Polat (B. No: 2016\/6635, 4\/4\/2019) kararlar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131lan yap\u0131lar\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesi uyar\u0131nca m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda korunmas\u0131 gereken bir menfaatlerinin oldu\u011funu kabul etmi\u015ftir (Mehmet Memi\u015f \u00a7 37; Beyhan Polat ve Mehmet Polat \u00a7 27). Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131lan yap\u0131 ve kullan\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesi uyar\u0131nca m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda korunmas\u0131 gereken menfaatlerinin oldu\u011fu kabul edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
25. Durali G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fba\u015f karar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 tapulu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki ruhsats\u0131z binan\u0131n Belediye taraf\u0131ndan y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen yol a\u00e7ma \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n do\u011frudan y\u00fcr\u00fctmekte oldu\u011fu bir faaliyet s\u0131ras\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir m\u00fcdahale meydana geldi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu m\u00fcdahalenin niteli\u011fi sebebiyle m\u00fclkiyetten bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l yararlanmaya ili\u015fkin genel kural \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir ( Durali G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fba\u015f,B. No: 2015\/6427, 10\/10\/2018 \u00a7\u00a7 40-42). Somut olayda da ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u015fik\u00e2yet ettikleri temel husus, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki yap\u0131n\u0131n bedeli ve kira kayb\u0131 \u00f6denmeden y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla bu ilkelerden ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015f ve ba\u015fvurunun m\u00fclkiyetten bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l yararlanma hakk\u0131na sayg\u0131ya ili\u015fkin genel kural \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenmesi uygun bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
26. Somut olayda yap\u0131 3194 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 32. maddesi uyar\u0131nca y\u0131k\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131n kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu ve ba\u015fvurucuya ait yap\u0131n\u0131n ruhsat\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n kamu yarar\u0131na dayal\u0131 me\u015fru bir amac\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
27. Son olarak kamu makamlar\u0131nca ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyle ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmek istenen ama\u00e7 ile bu amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmek i\u00e7in kullan\u0131lan ara\u00e7lar aras\u0131nda makul bir \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ili\u015fkisinin olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmelidir. \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, \u00a7 18; Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
28. Ruhsata ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen me\u015fru amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmek i\u00e7in elveri\u015fli ve gerekli oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Bu sebeple m\u00fcdahalenin orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
29. Anayasa Mahkemesi, ruhsata ayk\u0131r\u0131 ya da ka\u00e7ak nitelikteki yap\u0131lar\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131 ve herhangi bir tazminat \u00f6denmemesine ili\u015fkin Ay\u015fe \u00d6zt\u00fcrk (B. No: 2013\/6670, 10\/6\/2015), \u0130rfan \u00d6ztekin (B. No: 2014\/19140, 5\/12\/2017), Rifat Algan (B. No: 2014\/19138, 22\/2\/2018), Durali G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fba\u015f (B. No: 2015\/6427, 10\/10\/2018) ve Abbas \u00d6z\u00e7elik ve di\u011ferleri (B. No: 2016\/3193, 29\/5\/2019) kararlar\u0131nda uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede s\u00f6z konusu kararlarda; \u015fehir planlamas\u0131 ile ilgili d\u00fczenlemelere ayk\u0131r\u0131 \u015fekilde in\u015fa edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 sebebiyle idari makamlarca yap\u0131n\u0131n her an y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen bu y\u00f6nde bir giri\u015fimde bulunulmamas\u0131 ve \u00f6nlem al\u0131nmamas\u0131, uzunca bir s\u00fcre bu duruma sessiz kal\u0131nmas\u0131, esasen yap\u0131 sebebiyle vergi tahsil edilmesi veya yap\u0131n\u0131n kamu hizmetlerinden yararland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle bu alanlarda sosyal ortam ve aile ortam\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015fturulmas\u0131na izin verilmesi h\u00e2linde in\u015fa edilen yap\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131ndan kaynaklanan ekonomik de\u011ferin m\u00fclk olu\u015fturdu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015f, ayr\u0131ca yarg\u0131 mercilerinin sadece binan\u0131n ruhsats\u0131z oldu\u011fu olgusundan hareket edip olay\u0131n geli\u015fiminde kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n edilgen tutumunu dikkate almamalar\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn zarara tek ba\u015f\u0131na ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n katlanmas\u0131 sonucuna yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ba\u015fvuruculara \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 ve ola\u011fan d\u0131\u015f\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckledi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
30. Bununla birlikte Anayasa Mahkemesi, Beyhan Polat ve Mehmet Polat karar\u0131nda metruk h\u00e2le geldi\u011finin tespit edilmesi \u00fczerine y\u0131k\u0131m karar\u0131 verilmesi h\u00e2linde ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n yap\u0131lar\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131labilece\u011fini \u00f6ng\u00f6rmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015f ve metruk yap\u0131lar\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131n\u0131n a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin ba\u015fvuruculara a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklemedi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r(Beyhan Polat ve Mehmet Polat \u00a7\u00a7 38-41).<\/p>\n
31. Ba\u015fvurucular, a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131 davada murislerinin 1981 y\u0131l\u0131nda tapusunu edindi\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki yap\u0131n\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rma i\u015flemi yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek binan\u0131n bedeli ile kullanamamaktan kaynaklanan kira kayb\u0131na ili\u015fkin zararlar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fka bir ifadeyle ba\u015fvurucular, davay\u0131 yaln\u0131zca y\u0131k\u0131m i\u015fleminin hukuka uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131na dayand\u0131rm\u0131\u015f ve yarg\u0131lama mercileri de bu hukuki temel \u00fczerinden de\u011ferlendirmede bulunarak davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. Dava s\u0131ras\u0131nda ve bireysel ba\u015fvuru formunda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki yap\u0131n\u0131n uzun bir s\u00fcre \u00f6nce yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na, in\u015fas\u0131 sonras\u0131nda uzun s\u00fcre kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na, kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n vergi almak ve altyap\u0131 hizmetleri sa\u011flamak gibi i\u015flemlerle yap\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131na m\u00fcsaade ettiklerine veya m\u00fch\u00fcrleme ve y\u0131k\u0131m karar\u0131 almayarak kullan\u0131ma sessiz kald\u0131klar\u0131na ili\u015fkin herhangi bir iddiada bulunmad\u0131klar\u0131 ve bu y\u00f6nde bir delil sunmad\u0131klar\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n sundu\u011fu tapu kayd\u0131 incelendi\u011finde ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n vasf\u0131 ah\u015fap ev olarak ifade edilmi\u015f ise de ruhsat\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle y\u0131k\u0131lan yap\u0131n\u0131n tapu kayd\u0131nda belirtilen ah\u015fap ev olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da anla\u015f\u0131lamamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
32. Somut olay, ruhsats\u0131z oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle y\u0131k\u0131lan yap\u0131n\u0131n uzun s\u00fcre kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir iddian\u0131n ortaya konulmam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle Ay\u015fe \u00d6zt\u00fcrk, \u0130rfan \u00d6ztekin, Rifat Algan, Durali G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fba\u015f, Abbas \u00d6z\u00e7elik ve di\u011ferleri kararlar\u0131ndan farkl\u0131la\u015fmaktad\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re Koruma Kurulu taraf\u0131ndan ruhsats\u0131z oldu\u011fu tespit edilen yap\u0131ya ili\u015fkin i\u015flemlerin yap\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in 28\/12\/2012 tarihinde Belediyeye yaz\u0131 yaz\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Belediye 18\/1\/2013 tarihinde yap\u0131n\u0131n on be\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde tahliye ve tasfiye edilmesi gerekti\u011fine ili\u015fkin ihtar d\u00fczenlemi\u015f ve sonras\u0131nda da 15\/2\/2013 tarihinde yap\u0131 tatil zapt\u0131 d\u00fczenleyerek yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131 i\u00e7in yedi g\u00fcn s\u00fcre vermi\u015ftir. Son olarak Belediye Enc\u00fcmeni 27\/2\/2013 tarihinde yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131m tarihi tam olarak tespit edilememekle birlikte bireysel ba\u015fvuruya konu edilen tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131ndan evvel y\u0131k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, ayr\u0131ca bu i\u015flemlerin iptali i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan davalar\u0131n ilk derece mahkemelerince kabul edilmekle birlikte daha sonra kararlar\u0131n bozuldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucular lehine kesinle\u015fmi\u015f bir iptal karar\u0131ndan da s\u00f6z etmek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Son olarak ruhsats\u0131z yap\u0131n\u0131n uzun s\u00fcre kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir iddian\u0131n ortaya konulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, Koruma Kurulu taraf\u0131ndan g\u00f6nderilen yaz\u0131 sonras\u0131nda Belediyenin derhal harekete ge\u00e7erek y\u0131k\u0131ma y\u00f6nelik i\u015flemler yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve uzun bir s\u00fcre ge\u00e7meksizin 2\/2\/2016 tarihinden evvel yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucular a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan y\u0131k\u0131m i\u015fleminin uygulanabilece\u011fi \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir niteliktedir.<\/p>\n
33. Sonu\u00e7 olarak ruhsats\u0131z olarak in\u015fa edilen yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin belirtilen kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 ile ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet haklar\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 aras\u0131nda olmas\u0131 gereken adil dengeyi ba\u015fvurucular aleyhine bozmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
34. A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle ba\u015fvurunun a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. Ba\u015fvurucu Elife Yaz\u0131c\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurunun ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle REDD\u0130NE OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
2. Avukat Cevdet \u00c7ift\u00e7i’nin 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 51. maddesi ve Anayasa Mahkemesi \u0130\u00e7t\u00fcz\u00fc\u011f\u00fc’n\u00fcn 83. maddesi uyar\u0131nca 2.000,00 TL disiplin para cezas\u0131 ile CEZALANDIRILMASINA OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE,<\/p>\n
B. Di\u011fer ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA Selahaddin MENTE\u015e ‘in kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
C. Yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin ba\u015fvurucular \u00fczerinde BIRAKILMASINA 7\/1\/2025 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY<\/p>\n
1. Anayasa Mahkemesi, 2020\/37041 esas say\u0131l\u0131 dosyada, say\u0131n \u00e7o\u011funluk ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. A\u015fa\u011f\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klad\u0131\u011f\u0131m gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesiyle say\u0131n \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fun g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lmad\u0131m.<\/p>\n
3. Olay ve olgular, mahkemenin gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131nda \u00f6zetlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ankara ili, Alt\u0131nda\u011f il\u00e7esi, Sakarya Mahallesi, Gazeteci Kemal A\u015f\u0131k Caddesi’nde bulunan 149 metrekarelik ah\u015fap ev, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murislerince 1981 y\u0131l\u0131nda sat\u0131n al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Koruma Kurulu taraf\u0131ndan 2012 y\u0131l\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz, k\u00fclt\u00fcr varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 olarak tescil edilmi\u015f ve ba\u015fvuruculara, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki yap\u0131n\u0131n ka\u00e7ak oldu\u011fu belirtilerek belediyeden \u0130mar Kanunu h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re i\u015flem yap\u0131lmas\u0131 istenmi\u015ftir. Belediye taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan tahliye ve y\u0131k\u0131ma ili\u015fkin al\u0131nan kararlar, idare mahkemelerine a\u00e7\u0131lan davalar sonucunda iptal edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n, yarg\u0131 kararlar\u0131na ra\u011fmen yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle bina maliyet bedeli ile mahrum kald\u0131klar\u0131 kira gelirine kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131 dava, 3194 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a g\u00f6re ruhsatl\u0131 bulunmayan yap\u0131ya ili\u015fkin hukuken korunmas\u0131 gereken bir hakk\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ruhsats\u0131z yap\u0131lar\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle yap\u0131 sahibine kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli \u00f6denece\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir d\u00fczenleme \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi ve olu\u015fturdu\u011fu \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclen zarar unsurlar\u0131n\u0131n yasal dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131 davalar lehlerine sonu\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde ve ge\u00e7erli bir neden bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131, bu nedenle ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan yap\u0131 bedeli ve kira kayb\u0131na ili\u015fkin zararlar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131, yarg\u0131 makamlar\u0131n\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yarg\u0131lama sonucu \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme kavu\u015fturulmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. Anayasa’n\u0131n “M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 35. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir: “Herkes, m\u00fclkiyet ve miras haklar\u0131na sahiptir. Bu haklar ancak kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131yla, kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 toplum yarar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamaz.”<\/p>\n
7. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131, \u00f6zel hukukta veya idari yarg\u0131da kabul edilen m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kavramlar\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 bir anlam ve kapsama sahip olup, bu alanlarda kabul edilen m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131, yasal d\u00fczenlemeler ile yarg\u0131 i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olarak \u00f6zerk bir yorum ile ele al\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r (H\u00fcseyin Remzi Polge, B. No: 2013\/2166, 25\/6\/2015, \u00a7 31). Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesiyle g\u00fcvenceye ba\u011flanan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131, ekonomik de\u011fer ifade eden ve parayla de\u011ferlendirilebilen her t\u00fcrl\u00fc malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131 kapsamaktad\u0131r (AYM, E.2015\/39, K.2015\/62, 1\/7\/2015, \u00a7 20). Bu ba\u011flamda m\u00fclk olarak de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011finde ku\u015fku bulunmayan menkul ve gayrimenkul mallar ile bunlar\u0131n \u00fczerinde tesis edilen s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 ayni haklar ve fikr\u00ee haklar\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra icras\u0131 kabil olan her t\u00fcrl\u00fc alacak da m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kapsam\u0131na d\u00e2hildir (Mahmut Duran ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2014\/11441, 1\/2\/2017, \u00a7 60).<\/p>\n
8. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde bir temel hak olarak g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131, ki\u015fiye -ba\u015fkas\u0131n\u0131n hakk\u0131na zarar vermemek ve kanunlar\u0131n koydu\u011fu s\u0131n\u0131rlamalara uymak ko\u015fuluyla- sahibi oldu\u011fu \u015feyi diledi\u011fi gibi kullanma, onun \u00fczerinde tasarruf etme ve \u00fcr\u00fcnlerinden yararlanma imk\u00e2n\u0131 verir (Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 32). Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla malikin m\u00fclk\u00fcn\u00fc kullanma, m\u00fclk\u00fcn semerelerinden yararlanma ve m\u00fclk\u00fc \u00fczerinde tasarruf etme yetkilerinden herhangi birinin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil eder (Recep Tarhan ve Afife Tarhan, B. No: 2014\/1546, 2\/2\/2017, \u00a7 53). Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ba\u015fvurucular ad\u0131na tescil edilmesi h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc i\u00e7eren mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n icra edilmemesi, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etmektedir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n, yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131 nezdinde a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu davalar lehlerine sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen m\u00fclklerindeki yap\u0131 y\u0131k\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kamu makamlar\u0131, yarg\u0131 kararlar\u0131na ra\u011fmen yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 engellememi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n bina maliyet bedeli ve yoksun kald\u0131klar\u0131 kira bedeline ili\u015fkin a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f olduklar\u0131 davalarda, yarg\u0131 makamlar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7eleri, yukar\u0131da Anayasa\u2019da ortaya konulan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 g\u00fcvencelerini kar\u015f\u0131lamamaktad\u0131r. Bu nedenle ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesiyle say\u0131n \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fun g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lmad\u0131m.<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
\u00a0Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 7\/1\/2025 tarihli ve 2020\/37041 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 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 D\u0130LEK YAZICI VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/37041) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 7\/1\/2025 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL \u00a0 \u00a0 Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u00a0 \u00a0 Muhterem \u0130NCE \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Olcay \u00d6ZCAN Ba\u015fvurucular : 1. Dilek YAZICI \u00a0 \u00a0 2. Elife YAZICI \u00a0 \u00a0 3. Fahrinaz \u00c7\u0130F\u00c7\u0130 \u00a0 \u00a0 4. Fatma Sibel MERCAN \u00a0 \u00a0 5. \u0130hsan YAZICI \u00a0 \u00a0 6. Nesibe YAZICI \u00a0 \u00a0 7. O\u011fuz Cem YAZICI \u00a0 \u00a0 8. Ufuk YAZICI \u00a0 \u00a0 9. Yavuz YAZICI \u00a0 \u00a0 10. Y\u00fcksel Murat YAZICI Vekili : Av. Cevdet \u00c7\u0130FT\u00c7\u0130 \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, imar mevzuat\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle y\u0131k\u0131lan yap\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131 bedeli ile kira kayb\u0131ndan kaynaklanan zarar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmemesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ankara’n\u0131n Alt\u0131nda\u011f il\u00e7esi Sakarya Mahallesi Gazeteci Kemal A\u015f\u0131k Caddesi’nde bulunan 619 ada 12 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ve ah\u015fap ev vas\u0131fl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisleri H.Y. ve M.Y. ad\u0131na tapuya kay\u0131tl\u0131d\u0131r. A. \u0130dari \u0130\u015flemlerin \u0130ptali Talebiyle A\u00e7\u0131lan Davalara \u0130li\u015fkin S\u00fcre\u00e7 3. Ankara II Numaral\u0131 K\u00fclt\u00fcr Varl\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 Koruma B\u00f6lge Kurulu (Koruma Kurulu) 28\/12\/2012 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murislerine ait ta\u015f\u0131nmaza kom\u015fu 619 ada 10 ve …<\/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-49503","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n