T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
MUSTAFA ENDER \u00dcN\u00dcVAR BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/37354)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 8\/1\/2025<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 16\/5\/2025 – 32902<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Tu\u011fba YILDIZ<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Mustafa Ender \u00dcN\u00dcVAR<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Tuba Rana ANTEP<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, cismani zarardan kaynaklanan tazminat davas\u0131nda birle\u015fen davan\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu; g\u00f6zl\u00fck kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 b\u0131rakmak amac\u0131yla 19\/12\/2003 tarihinde ameliyat oldu\u011funu ancak g\u00f6z\u00fcndeki g\u00f6rme kayb\u0131n\u0131n giderilemedi\u011fini, ba\u015fka bir doktora muayene oldu\u011funda kendisine g\u00f6zde filep kopmas\u0131 ve k\u0131r\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131k g\u00f6zlendi\u011fini ve bunun hatal\u0131 operasyondan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirtildi\u011fini iddia ederek 23\/6\/2004 tarihinde Samsun 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) g\u00f6z doktorlar\u0131 ve sa\u011fl\u0131k kurulu\u015funa kar\u015f\u0131 200.000 TL manevi tazminat istemli 10.000 TL maddi tazminat istemli ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. An\u0131lan davalar birle\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme 16\/9\/2010 tarihinde maddi ve manevi tazminat taleplerinin reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucunun temyiz istemi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 13. Hukuk Dairesi 27\/4\/2012 tarihinde bozma karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Karar gerek\u00e7esinde; olaya ili\u015fkin ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131n\u0131n devam etti\u011fi belirtilerek ceza davas\u0131n\u0131n bekletici mesele kabul edilerek sonucuna g\u00f6re karar verilmesi gerekirken bu husus dikkate al\u0131nmadan karar verilmesinin bozma nedenini olu\u015fturdu\u011funu ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Mahkeme, Adli T\u0131p Kurumundan (ATK) rapor alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 4\/8\/2014 tarihli raporda ba\u015fvurucunun %29 oran\u0131nda meslekte kazanma g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc kaybetmi\u015f say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 ve iyile\u015fme s\u00fcresinin bir aya kadar uzayabilece\u011fi bildirilmi\u015ftir. 11\/1\/2016 tarihli hesap raporunda ise ba\u015fvurucunun zarar\u0131 210.868,65 TL olarak belirlenmi\u015ftir. Taraflar\u0131n itiraz\u0131 \u00fczerine 6\/9\/2016 tarihli ek rapor al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f, al\u0131nan raporda ba\u015fvurucunun zarar\u0131 421.737,29 TL olarak belirlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde 15\/3\/2011 tarihinde 90.000 TL maddi tazminat talebiyle, 25\/3\/2016 tarihinde de 321.737,29 TL maddi tazminat talebiyle ek davalar a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Sonradan a\u00e7\u0131lan bu davalar as\u0131l dava \u00fczerinde birle\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Mahkeme, 40.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n ve ilk davada talep edilen 10.000 TL ile 15\/3\/2011 tarihli ek davada talep edilen 90.000 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine; 25\/3\/2016 tarihli ek davada talep edilen maddi tazminat\u0131n ise 19\/12\/2003 tarihinde olay\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fini belirtilerek zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Temyiz istemi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 13. Hukuk Dairesi 17\/4\/2019 tarihli karar ile esasa ili\u015fkin talepler y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddine, yarg\u0131lama giderleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden d\u00fczeltilerek onama karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucunun karar d\u00fczeltme istemi 1\/10\/2020 tarihinde reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucuya karar 1\/11\/2020 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu 26\/11\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
10. Komisyon, k\u0131smi kabul edilemezlik karar\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucu; s\u00fcresinde fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131n\u0131 sakl\u0131 tutarak belirsiz alacak davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015fken Mahkemece bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7 al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bilirki\u015fi raporuyla zarar\u0131n kapsam\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fini, Mahkemenin ihmali nedeniyle alacak miktarlar\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7 belirlendi\u011fini bu nedenle a\u00e7\u0131lan ek davan\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddedilmesinin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
13. 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
14. 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 adil yarg\u0131lanma ibaresinin eklenmesine ili\u015fkin gerek\u00e7ede, T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin 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 (A\u0130HM) S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011fini belirtmektedir (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. [2. B.], B. No:2014\/13156, 20\/4\/2017, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
15. 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, ki\u015finin mahkemeye ba\u015fvurmas\u0131n\u0131 engelleyen veya mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 anlams\u0131z h\u00e2le getiren, bir ba\u015fka anlat\u0131mla mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde etkisizle\u015ftiren s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilece\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir (\u00d6zkan \u015een [2. B.], B. No: 2012\/791, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
16. Dava a\u00e7may\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z k\u0131lacak ya da a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 zorla\u015ft\u0131racak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde k\u0131sa olmad\u0131k\u00e7a dava a\u00e7ma ya da kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvurma i\u00e7in belli s\u00fcrelerin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesi hukuki belirlilik ilkesinin bir gere\u011fidir ve tek ba\u015f\u0131na bu durum mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olu\u015fturmaz (Remzi Durmaz [2. B.], B. No: 2013\/1718, 2\/10\/2013, \u00a7 27). Bu nedenle usul kurallar\u0131n\u0131 uygularken mahkemelerin yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetine zarar getirecek \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kat\u0131 \u015fekilcilikten ve kanunla \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f usul \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kalkmas\u0131na neden olacak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 esneklikten ka\u00e7\u0131nmalar\u0131 gerekir (Kamil Ko\u00e7 [1. B.], B. No: 2012\/660, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 65).<\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda ba\u015fvurucu 19\/12\/2003 tarihinde g\u00f6z\u00fcnden ameliyat olmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvurucu, cismani zarar nedeniyle fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131n\u0131 sakl\u0131 tutarak 23\/6\/2004 tarihinde tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme, ATK’dan 4\/8\/2014 tarihli rapor alm\u0131\u015f; raporda ba\u015fvurucunun %29 oran\u0131nda meslekte kazanma g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc kaybetti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca zarara ili\u015fkin 11\/1\/2016 tarihli ve 6\/9\/2016 tarihli hesap raporlar\u0131n\u0131 alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131nda belirlenen miktar\u0131 dikkate alarak 25\/3\/2016 tarihinde 321.737,29 TL maddi tazminat talepli ek dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme 19\/12\/2003 tarihinde olay\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fini belirtilerek 25\/3\/2016 tarihli ek davada talep edilen maddi tazminat talebinin on y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresi doldu\u011fundan reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Kanun yolu incelemesinden ge\u00e7en karar kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
18. Anayasa Mahkemesi, somut ba\u015fvuruya benzer nitelikteki iddialar\u0131 \u00c7etin Akbo\u011fa ([GK], B. No: 2019\/430, 23\/3\/2023) karar\u0131nda incelemi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan karara konu olayda 5\/1\/2005 tarihinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen i\u015f kazas\u0131ndan sonra 6\/8\/2007 tarihinde fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar sakl\u0131 tutulmak kayd\u0131yla 2.000 TL maddi tazminat talebiyle dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bilirki\u015fi incelemesi sonucu maddi zarar 121.312,31 TL olarak belirlenmi\u015f ve 8\/11\/2016 tarihli dilek\u00e7e ile maddi tazminat talebi bilirki\u015fi raporundaki tutar kadar art\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130lk derece mahkemesi ba\u015fvurucunun davas\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmi\u015f ise de B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi, i\u015f kazas\u0131n\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fi 5\/1\/2005 tarihinden itibaren ba\u015flayan zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esinin sunuldu\u011fu 8\/11\/2016 tarihinde doldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle bilirki\u015fi raporu do\u011frultusunda art\u0131r\u0131lan maddi tazminat k\u0131sm\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. An\u0131lan ba\u015fvuruda davan\u0131n \u0131slah ile art\u0131r\u0131lan k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n reddedilmesini mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda inceleyen Anayasa Mahkemesi davaya konu zarar\u0131n tespit edilmesinin belli bir uzmanl\u0131k gerektirdi\u011fine, bu nedenle zarar\u0131n boyutunun belirlenebilmesi i\u00e7in yarg\u0131 mercilerince bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131nmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fine dikkat \u00e7ekmi\u015f ve zarar\u0131n\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131 yarg\u0131laman\u0131n ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131nda bilmesinin ba\u015fvurucudan beklenemeyece\u011fini, bu sebeple ba\u015fvurucunun t\u00fcm zarar\u0131 i\u00e7in tazminat talep edemedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir (\u00c7etin Akbo\u011fa \u00a7 68).<\/p>\n
20. Anayasa Mahkemesi an\u0131lan kararda yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmede zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte ba\u015fvurucunun zarar\u0131n miktar\u0131n\u0131 bilebilmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususu dikkate al\u0131nmadan karar verilmesinin ba\u015fvurucunun bilirki\u015fi raporuyla belirlenen tazminat tutar\u0131n\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131 talep edebilme imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun bilirki\u015fi raporundan sonra art\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 alacak talebinin zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesine ili\u015fkin yorumun ba\u015fvurucuya \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckledi\u011fi, ba\u015fvurucunun katlanmak zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 k\u00fclfetin hedeflenen me\u015fru ama\u00e7la kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda orant\u0131s\u0131z oldu\u011fu, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (\u00c7etin Akbo\u011fa \u00a7\u00a7 73, 74).<\/p>\n
21. An\u0131lan kararda ayr\u0131ca T\u00fcrk hukukunda belirsiz alacak davas\u0131na ili\u015fkin d\u00fczenlemenin kabul\u00fcnden \u00f6nceki d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin olarak a\u00e7\u0131lan k\u0131smi davalarda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n zarar\u0131n miktar\u0131n\u0131 dava tarihi itibar\u0131yla \u00f6\u011frenebilmelerinin kendilerinden beklenemeyece\u011fine dair A\u0130HM ihlal kararlar\u0131na da dikkat \u00e7ekilmi\u015ftir (\u00c7etin Akbo\u011fa \u00a7 69).<\/p>\n
22. Somut olay yukar\u0131da yer verilen ilkeler bak\u0131m\u0131ndan de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucunun cismani zarar nedeniyle a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tazminat davas\u0131nda maddi zarar\u0131n\u0131n davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte belirli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu hususlar\u0131n yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda olaya ili\u015fkin al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131 neticesinde \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Nitekim ba\u015fvurucu da bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131ndan sonra zarar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6\u011frenip zarar\u0131n\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla ek dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
23. Yukar\u0131da yer verilen tespitler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvuruya konu olay de\u011ferlendirildi\u011findebilirki\u015fi raporu \u00fczerine zarar\u0131n miktar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6\u011frenen ba\u015fvurucunun a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 ek davan\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesine ili\u015fkin uygulaman\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckledi\u011fi, ba\u015fvurucunun katlanmak zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 k\u00fclfetin hedeflenen me\u015fru ama\u00e7la kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda orant\u0131s\u0131z oldu\u011fu, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
24. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle 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
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi ile maddi ve manevi tazminata karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/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).<\/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 manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
28. Ba\u015fvurucu, maddi zarara ili\u015fkin olarak bilgi\/belge sunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan maddi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. 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 amac\u0131yla Samsun 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesine (E.2012\/409, K.2017\/258) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.446,90 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
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 8\/1\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 8\/1\/2025 tarihli ve 2020\/37354 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 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR MUSTAFA ENDER \u00dcN\u00dcVAR BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/37354) Karar Tarihi: 8\/1\/2025 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 16\/5\/2025 – 32902 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Tu\u011fba YILDIZ Ba\u015fvurucu : Mustafa Ender \u00dcN\u00dcVAR Vekili : Av. Tuba Rana ANTEP I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, cismani zarardan kaynaklanan tazminat davas\u0131nda birle\u015fen davan\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu; g\u00f6zl\u00fck kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 b\u0131rakmak amac\u0131yla 19\/12\/2003 tarihinde ameliyat oldu\u011funu ancak g\u00f6z\u00fcndeki g\u00f6rme kayb\u0131n\u0131n giderilemedi\u011fini, ba\u015fka bir doktora muayene oldu\u011funda kendisine g\u00f6zde filep kopmas\u0131 ve k\u0131r\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131k g\u00f6zlendi\u011fini ve bunun hatal\u0131 operasyondan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirtildi\u011fini iddia ederek 23\/6\/2004 tarihinde Samsun 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) g\u00f6z doktorlar\u0131 ve sa\u011fl\u0131k kurulu\u015funa kar\u015f\u0131 200.000 TL manevi tazminat istemli 10.000 TL maddi tazminat istemli ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. An\u0131lan davalar birle\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme 16\/9\/2010 tarihinde maddi ve manevi tazminat taleplerinin reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvurucunun temyiz istemi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 13. Hukuk Dairesi 27\/4\/2012 tarihinde bozma karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Karar gerek\u00e7esinde; olaya ili\u015fkin ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131n\u0131n devam etti\u011fi belirtilerek ceza davas\u0131n\u0131n bekletici mesele kabul edilerek sonucuna g\u00f6re karar verilmesi gerekirken bu husus dikkate al\u0131nmadan karar verilmesinin bozma nedenini olu\u015fturdu\u011funu ifade …<\/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-88295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n