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
VEYSEL D\u0130LE\u00c7 BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/43918)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 27\/2\/2025<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Saliha AKSOY<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Veysel D\u0130LE\u00c7<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Nurullah G\u00dcLER<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, fiil\u00ee hizmet s\u00fcresi zamm\u0131ndan yararland\u0131r\u0131lma talebiyle idareye yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun z\u0131mnen reddine ili\u015fkin i\u015flemin iptali istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddedilmesi 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 26\/4\/2021 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvuru, ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinin idari y\u00f6nden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n incelemesinden sonra Komisyona sunulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
4. Komisyonca ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, T\u00fcrkiye Cumhuriyeti Devlet Demir Yollar\u0131 (TCDD) 5. \u0130\u015fletme M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc Malatya Loko Bak\u0131m At\u00f6lye M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tekniker olarak g\u00f6rev yapmakta olup 11\/8\/1997 – 1\/10\/2008 tarihleri aras\u0131nda Loko Bak\u0131m At\u00f6lye M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde ge\u00e7en \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 nedeniyle 8\/6\/1949 tarihli ve 5434 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrkiye Cumhuriyeti Emekli Sand\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kanunu’nun 32\/d maddesi uyar\u0131nca fiil\u00ee hizmet s\u00fcresi zamm\u0131ndan yararland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 istemiyle 6\/3\/2020 tarihinde idareye ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucunun talebi, cevap verilmemek suretiyle z\u0131mnen reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan i\u015flemin iptali talebiyle 2\/10\/2020 tarihinde dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
10. Ankara 15. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 22\/10\/2020 tarihli karar\u0131yla davay\u0131 s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde, ba\u015fvurucunun 5434 say\u0131l\u0131 Emekli Sand\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kanunu’nun 32\/d maddesi uyar\u0131nca fiili hizmet s\u00fcresi zamm\u0131ndan yararland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 istemiyle6\/3\/2020 tarihinde idareye ba\u015fvuruda bulundu\u011fu, an\u0131lan ba\u015fvuruya cevap verilmedi\u011fi, bu nedenle talebinin 5\/5\/2020 tarihinde z\u0131mnen reddedilmi\u015f say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 ve dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin bu tarihten itibaren ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131 vurgulanm\u0131\u015f; 25\/3\/2020 tarihli ve 7226 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131nda dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcrelerinin 15\/6\/2020 tarihine kadar durdu\u011fu g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde en ge\u00e7 28\/9\/2020 tarihinde davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, bu s\u00fcreler ge\u00e7irildikten sonra 2\/10\/2020 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle incelenmesine imk\u00e2n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf talebinin de ayr\u0131 bir gerek\u00e7e belirtilmeksizin reddedilmesiyle birlikte karar kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucu, ba\u015fvuru konusu nihai karar\u0131n 25\/3\/2021 tarihinde tebli\u011fi \u00fczerine 26\/4\/2021 tarihinde s\u00fcresinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
A. Ulusal Hukuk<\/p>\n
1. \u0130lgili Mevzuat<\/p>\n
13. 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu’nun;<\/p>\n
i. “Dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 7. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“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
ii. “\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
14. 25\/3\/2020 tarihli ve 7226 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ge\u00e7ici 1. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (a) bendi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“(1) Covid-19 salg\u0131n hastal\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00fclkemizde g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f olmas\u0131 sebebiyle yarg\u0131 alan\u0131ndaki hak kay\u0131plar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi amac\u0131yla;<\/p>\n
a) Dava a\u00e7ma, icra takibi ba\u015flatma, ba\u015fvuru, \u015fik\u00e2yet, itiraz, ihtar, bildirim, ibraz ve zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcreleri, hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcreler ve zorunlu idari ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcreleri de d\u00e2hil olmak \u00fczere bir hakk\u0131n do\u011fumu, kullan\u0131m\u0131 veya sona ermesine ili\u015fkin t\u00fcm s\u00fcreler; 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu, 4\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu ve 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu ile usul h\u00fckm\u00fc i\u00e7eren di\u011fer kanunlarda taraflar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan belirlenen s\u00fcreler ve bu kapsamda h\u00e2kim taraf\u0131ndan tayin edilen s\u00fcreler ile arabuluculuk ve uzla\u015ft\u0131rma kurumlar\u0131ndaki s\u00fcreler 13\/3\/2020 (bu tarih d\u00e2hil) tarihinden,<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
itibaren 30\/4\/2020 (bu tarih d\u00e2hil) tarihine kadar durur. Bu s\u00fcreler, durma s\u00fcresinin sona erdi\u011fi g\u00fcn\u00fc takip eden g\u00fcnden itibaren i\u015flemeye ba\u015flar. Durma s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarih itibar\u0131yla, bitimine on be\u015f g\u00fcn ve daha az kalm\u0131\u015f olan s\u00fcreler, durma s\u00fcresinin sona erdi\u011fi g\u00fcn\u00fc takip eden g\u00fcnden ba\u015flamak \u00fczere on be\u015f g\u00fcn uzam\u0131\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r. Salg\u0131n\u0131n devam etmesi halinde Cumhurba\u015fkan\u0131 durma s\u00fcresini alt\u0131 ay\u0131 ge\u00e7memek \u00fczere bir kez uzatabilir ve bu d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin kapsam\u0131 daraltabilir. Bu kararlar Resm\u00ee Gazete\u2019de yay\u0131mlan\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
2. Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131<\/p>\n
15. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Sekizinci Dairesinin 23\/12\/2022 tarihli ve E.2022\/1297, K.2022\/8127 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir.<\/p>\n
“(…) davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izninin haks\u0131z olarak iptali nedeniyle kazanmaktan mahrum kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 t\u00fcm parasal haklar\u0131n\u0131n hesaplanarak \u00f6denmesi, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n engellendi\u011fi s\u00fcrenin prim g\u00fcn say\u0131s\u0131na eklenmesi ve mahrum kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 t\u00fcm mali ve sosyal haklar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesi istemiyle yap\u0131lan 23.03.2020 tarihli ba\u015fvuruya ili\u015fkin z\u0131mni ret s\u00fcresinin 15.06.2020 tarihinden itibaren i\u015flemeye ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Zira 7226 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun Ge\u00e7ici 1. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen istisnalar haricinde s\u00fcrelerin durmas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan herhangi bir ayr\u0131m yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. <\/p>\n
Bu durumda, davac\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurusu \u00fczerine 14.08.2020 tarihinde olu\u015fan z\u0131mni ret i\u015flemine kar\u015f\u0131 13.10.2020 tarihine kadar dava a\u00e7ma imkan\u0131 bulunmakta olup 30.09.2020 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan i\u015fbu davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. “<\/p>\n
16. Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u0130dari Dava Daireleri Kurulunun 29\/12\/2022 tarihli ve E.2022\/2587, K.2022\/4074 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir.<\/p>\n
“26\/03\/2020 tarih ve 31080 m\u00fckerrer say\u0131l\u0131 Resmi Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanarak y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren 7226 say\u0131l\u0131 Baz\u0131 Kanunlarda De\u011fi\u015fiklik Yap\u0131lmas\u0131na Dair Kanun’un Ge\u00e7ici 1. maddesi uyar\u0131nca, Covid-19 salg\u0131n hastal\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00fclkemizde g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f olmas\u0131 sebebiyle yarg\u0131 alan\u0131ndaki hak kay\u0131plar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi amac\u0131yla; dava a\u00e7ma, icra takibi ba\u015flatma, ba\u015fvuru, \u015fik\u00e2yet, itiraz, ihtar, bildirim, ibraz ve zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcreleri, hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcreler ve zorunlu idari ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcreleri de d\u00e2hil olmak \u00fczere bir hakk\u0131n do\u011fumu, kullan\u0131m\u0131 veya sona ermesine ili\u015fkin t\u00fcm s\u00fcrelerin; 06\/01\/1982 tarih ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu, 04\/12\/2004 tarih ve 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu ve 12\/01\/2011 tarih ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu ile usul h\u00fckm\u00fc i\u00e7eren di\u011fer kanunlarda taraflar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan belirlenen s\u00fcreler ve bu kapsamda h\u00e2kim taraf\u0131ndan tayin edilen s\u00fcreler ile arabuluculuk ve uzla\u015ft\u0131rma kurumlar\u0131ndaki s\u00fcrelerin 13\/03\/2020 (bu tarih d\u00e2hil) tarihinden itibaren 30\/04\/2020 (bu tarih d\u00e2hil) tarihine kadar durdu\u011fu, bu s\u00fcrelerin, durma s\u00fcresinin sona erdi\u011fi g\u00fcn\u00fc takip eden g\u00fcnden itibaren i\u015flemeye ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131, durma s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarih itibar\u0131yla, bitimine on be\u015f g\u00fcn ve daha az kalm\u0131\u015f olan s\u00fcrelerin, durma s\u00fcresinin sona erdi\u011fi g\u00fcn\u00fc takip eden g\u00fcnden ba\u015flamak \u00fczere on be\u015f g\u00fcn uzam\u0131\u015f say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131, salg\u0131n\u0131n devam etmesi halinde Cumhurba\u015fkan\u0131n\u0131n durma s\u00fcresini alt\u0131 ay\u0131 ge\u00e7memek \u00fczere bir kez uzatabilece\u011fi ve bu d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin kapsam\u0131 daraltabilece\u011fi kabul edilmi\u015f; 30\/04\/2020 tarih ve 31114 say\u0131l\u0131 Resmi Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanarak y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren 2480 say\u0131l\u0131 Cumhurba\u015fkan\u0131 Karar\u0131 uyar\u0131nca, 7226 say\u0131l\u0131 Baz\u0131 Kanunlarda De\u011fi\u015fiklik Yap\u0131lmas\u0131na Dair Kanunun Ge\u00e7ici 1. maddesinin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen durma s\u00fcresi 01\/05\/2020 (bu tarih dahil) tarihinden, 15\/06\/2020 (bu tarih dahil) tarihine kadar uzat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131lar\u0131n, 03\/02\/2020-04\/03\/2020 tarihleri aras\u0131nda ask\u0131ya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan imar planlar\u0131na ask\u0131da itirazlar\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin imar planlar\u0131n\u0131n ask\u0131dan indi\u011fi tarihten itibaren 60 g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde ve son olarak 03\/05\/2020 tarihinde doldu\u011fu, ancak yukar\u0131da yer verilen mevzuat gere\u011fi dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin 13\/03\/2020 tarihinden itibaren durdu\u011fu ve durma s\u00fcresinin 15\/06\/2020 tarihine kadar uzat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda 05\/08\/2020 tarihinde, yasal dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde alt \u00f6l\u00e7ekli imar planlar\u0131 ile birlikte 1\/100.000 \u00f6l\u00e7ekli \u00e7evre d\u00fczeni plan\u0131n\u0131n iptali istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
B. Uluslararas\u0131 Hukuk<\/p>\n
17. \u0130lgili uluslararas\u0131 hukuk i\u00e7in bkz. Cemil H\u0131rca, B. No: 2019\/8549, 23\/11\/2021, \u00a7 16-18.<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
18. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 27\/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
19. Ba\u015fvurucu; davada karar veren mahkemenin yetkisiz oldu\u011funu, davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde verilen kararda 7226 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’la pandemi nedeniyle duran s\u00fcrelerin dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan Kanun’daki d\u00fczenleme uyar\u0131nca 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 11. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda idarenin cevap verme s\u00fcresinin de durdu\u011funu, bu durum dikkate al\u0131nmadan karar verildi\u011fini belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ve gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
B. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
20. Anayasa’n\u0131n “Hak arama h\u00fcrriyeti” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Herkes, me\u015fru vas\u0131ta ve yollardan faydalanmak suretiyle yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddia ve savunma ile adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na sahiptir.”<\/p>\n
21. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olaylar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan hukuki nitelendirmesi ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olmay\u0131p olay ve olgular\u0131n hukuki tavsifini kendisi takdir eder. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetinin adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvencelerinden biri olan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
1. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
22. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
2. Esas Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
a. Hakk\u0131n Kapsam\u0131 ve M\u00fcdahalenin Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 <\/p>\n
23. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, herkesin yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddiada bulunma ve savunma hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bir unsurudur. Di\u011fer yandan Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesine “… 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. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’ni (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) yorumlayan Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi, S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011fini belirtmektedir (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2014\/13156, 20\/4\/2017, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
24. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, bir temel hak olman\u0131n yan\u0131nda di\u011fer temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerden gereken \u015fekilde yararlanmay\u0131 ve bunlar\u0131n korunmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan en etkili g\u00fcvencelerden biridir. Bu bak\u0131mdan davan\u0131n bir mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan g\u00f6r\u00fclebilmesi ve ki\u015finin adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131na giren g\u00fcvencelerden faydalanabilmesi i\u00e7in ilk olarak ki\u015fiye iddialar\u0131n\u0131 ortaya koyma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekir. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle dava yoksa adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00fcvencelerden yararlanmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmaz (Mohammed Aynosah, B. No: 2013\/8896, 23\/2\/2016, \u00a7 33).<\/p>\n
25. Anayasa Mahkemesi bireysel ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131nda yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmelerde mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcne ta\u015f\u0131yabilmek ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n etkili bir \u015fekilde karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilmek anlam\u0131na geldi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir (\u00d6zkan \u015een, B. No: 2012\/791, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
26. Somut olayda iptal davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilerek esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmemesi nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir m\u00fcdahalenin bulundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/p>\n
b. M\u00fcdahalenin \u0130hlal Olu\u015fturup Olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
27. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetler, … yaln\u0131zca Anayasan\u0131n ilgili maddelerinde belirtilen sebeplere ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ve ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir. Bu s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar, … \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamaz.”<\/p>\n
28. 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
29. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda, ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan iptal davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcresinde a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle, davan\u0131n esas\u0131na girilmeksizin s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle verilen ret h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn mahkemeye eri\u015fime getirilen m\u00fcdahalenin kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131lay\u0131p kar\u015f\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
i. Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
30. Hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin, bunlara yap\u0131lacak m\u00fcdahalelerin ve s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rmalar\u0131n kanunla d\u00fczenlenmesi bu haklara ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere keyf\u00ee m\u00fcdahaleyi engelleyen, hukuk g\u00fcvenli\u011fini sa\u011flayan demokratik hukuk devletinin en \u00f6nemli unsurlar\u0131ndan biridir (Tahsin Erdo\u011fan, B. No: 2012\/1246, 6\/2\/2014, \u00a7 60). M\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131 \u00f6ncelikle \u015fekl\u00ee manada bir kanunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 zorunlu k\u0131lar. T\u00fcrkiye B\u00fcy\u00fck Millet Meclisi (TBMM) taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan \u015fekl\u00ee anlamda bir kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmamas\u0131 hakka yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyi anayasal temelden yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131r (Ali H\u0131d\u0131r Akyol ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2015\/17510, 18\/10\/2017, \u00a7 56).<\/p>\n
31. Kanunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kadar kanun metninin ve uygulamas\u0131n\u0131n da bireylerin davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n sonucunu \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilece\u011fi kadar hukuki belirlilik ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131 gerekir (Necmiye \u00c7ift\u00e7i ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/1301, 30\/12\/2014, \u00a7 55). M\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131, i\u00e7 hukukta m\u00fcdahaleye ili\u015fkin yeterince ula\u015f\u0131labilir ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir kurallar\u0131n bulunmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirmektedir (T\u00fcrkiye \u0130\u015f Bankas\u0131 A.\u015e. [GK], B. No: 2014\/6192, 12\/11\/2014, \u00a7 44). Kanunilik unsuru y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131l\u0131rken yarg\u0131lama merilerince m\u00fcdahaleye imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin yorumu ve bu h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin olaya uygulanmas\u0131 bariz takdir hatas\u0131 ya da a\u00e7\u0131k bir keyf\u00eelik i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi s\u00fcrece bu alanda bir inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvurunun amac\u0131yla ba\u011fda\u015fmaz. Ancak yarg\u0131lama mercilerinin m\u00fcdahaleye imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131k bir bi\u00e7imde hatal\u0131 yorumlad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n ve uygulad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n tespiti h\u00e2linde m\u00fcdahalenin kanunilik temelinden yoksun oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131labilir (Ramazan Atay, B. No: 2017\/26048, 29\/1\/2020, \u00a7 29).<\/p>\n
ii. \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/p>\n
32. 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 11. maddesinde (olay tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckteki haliyle) ilgililer 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\u0131n\u0131n \u00fcst makamdan, \u00fcst makam yoksa i\u015flemi yapm\u0131\u015f olan makamdan idari dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde istenebilece\u011fi d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan maddede ayr\u0131ca, bu ba\u015fvurunun i\u015flemeye ba\u015flam\u0131\u015f olan idari dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresini durduraca\u011f\u0131, idari ba\u015fvuruya altm\u0131\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde bir cevap verilmezse iste\u011fin reddedilmi\u015f say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131, iste\u011fin reddedilmesi veya reddedilmi\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde ise dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin yeniden i\u015flemeye ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131 ve ba\u015fvurma tarihine kadar ge\u00e7mi\u015f s\u00fcreninde hesaba kat\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 kurala ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
33. Di\u011fer yandan Covid 19 salg\u0131n hastal\u0131\u011f\u0131 (pandemi) tedbirleri kapsam\u0131nda, 7226 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ge\u00e7ici 1. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (a) bendinde dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcreleri ile zorunlu idari ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcrelerinin 13\/3\/2020 tarihinden 30\/4\/2020 tarihine kadar durmas\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f, s\u00fcrelerin duraca\u011f\u0131 son tarih daha sonra, ayn\u0131 f\u0131krada tan\u0131nan yetkiye istinaden Cumhurba\u015fkan\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan 15\/6\/2020 olarak tespit edilmi\u015ftir (Senih \u00d6zay, B. No: 2020\/13969, 9\/6\/2020, \u00a7 32).<\/p>\n
34. Bu kapsamda, Covid 19 pandemi s\u00fcrecinde yarg\u0131lama faaliyetlerinde hak kayb\u0131 olu\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nlemeye matuf yasal d\u00fczenleme \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fcnde bir hakk\u0131n do\u011fumu, kullan\u0131m\u0131 veya sona ermesine ili\u015fkin t\u00fcm s\u00fcrelerin belirli d\u00f6nemler itibar\u0131yla durduruldu\u011fu, bununla birlikte 7226 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun ge\u00e7ici 1. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen istisnalar haricinde s\u00fcrelerin durmas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan herhangi bir ayr\u0131m yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
35. Somut olayda, ba\u015fvurucunun iptal davas\u0131 a\u00e7madan \u00f6nce 6\/3\/2020 tarihli dilek\u00e7e ile ilgili idareden fiil\u00ee hizmet s\u00fcresi zamm\u0131ndan yararland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinde bulundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. S\u00f6z konusu talebin cevap verilmemek suretiyle z\u0131mnen reddedildi\u011fi g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde z\u0131mni ret i\u015fleminin hangi tarihte olu\u015ftu\u011funun ve buna g\u00f6re dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin hangi tarihte sona erdi\u011finin belirlenmesi \u00f6nem arz etmektedir.<\/p>\n
36. 7226 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ge\u00e7ici 1. maddesi uyar\u0131nca Covid 19 tedbirleri kapsam\u0131nda bir hakk\u0131n do\u011fumu, kullan\u0131m\u0131 veya sona ermesine ili\u015fkin t\u00fcm s\u00fcrelerin 13\/3\/2020 tarihi itibar\u0131yla durdu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu durumda, \u0130YUK 11. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun talebine ili\u015fkin idarece cevap verilmesi i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen altm\u0131\u015f g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcre idareye ba\u015fvuru tarihi olan 6\/3\/2020 tarihinden itibaren 7 g\u00fcn sonra durmu\u015ftur. Ancak 15\/6\/2020 tarihinden itibaren an\u0131lan s\u00fcreler tekrar i\u015flemeye ba\u015flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu kapsamda yap\u0131lan incelemede, yarg\u0131 mercilerince s\u00fcrenin hesab\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k bir bi\u00e7imde hatal\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131larak ba\u015fvurucu a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemez \u015fekilde yarg\u0131 yollar\u0131na ula\u015f\u0131m\u0131n engellendi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/p>\n
37. Bu kapsamda, Mahkemece hatal\u0131 bir yorumla davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle ret karar\u0131 vermesi mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyi kanunilik unsurundan yoksun b\u0131rakmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
38. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VI. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
39. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131yla, 50.000 TL manevi tazminata karar verilmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
40. 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 (30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun\u2019un 50. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen bireysel ba\u015fvuruya \u00f6zg\u00fc yeniden yarg\u0131lama kurumunun \u00f6zelliklerine ili\u015fkin kapsaml\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamalar i\u00e7in bkz. Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2), B. No: 2016\/12506, 7\/11\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 53-60, 66; Kadri Enis Berbero\u011flu (3) [GK], B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n
41. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/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 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Ankara 15. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2020\/1847, K.2020\/1357) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 487,60 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
F. \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
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 27\/2\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 27\/2\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/43918 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 VEYSEL D\u0130LE\u00c7 BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/43918) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 27\/2\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Saliha AKSOY Ba\u015fvurucu : Veysel D\u0130LE\u00c7 Vekili : Av. Nurullah G\u00dcLER \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru, fiil\u00ee hizmet s\u00fcresi zamm\u0131ndan yararland\u0131r\u0131lma talebiyle idareye yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun z\u0131mnen reddine ili\u015fkin i\u015flemin iptali istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 26\/4\/2021 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Ba\u015fvuru, ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinin idari y\u00f6nden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n incelemesinden sonra Komisyona sunulmu\u015ftur. 4. Komisyonca ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. 5. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 6. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir: 7. Ba\u015fvurucu, T\u00fcrkiye Cumhuriyeti Devlet Demir Yollar\u0131 (TCDD) 5. \u0130\u015fletme M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc Malatya Loko Bak\u0131m At\u00f6lye M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tekniker olarak g\u00f6rev yapmakta olup 11\/8\/1997 – 1\/10\/2008 tarihleri aras\u0131nda Loko Bak\u0131m At\u00f6lye M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde ge\u00e7en \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 nedeniyle 8\/6\/1949 tarihli ve 5434 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrkiye Cumhuriyeti Emekli Sand\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kanunu’nun 32\/d …<\/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-73505","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n