T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u0130. P. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/16311)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 15\/4\/2025<\/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
Ali KOZAN<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. G\u00f6rkem PEKER<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izninin iptal edilmesi ve yeniden \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izni d\u00fczenlenmesinin yasaklanmas\u0131 nedeniyle \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, 2010-2016 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda \u00f6zel bir e\u011fitim kurumunda \u00f6\u011fretmen olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2l (OHAL) tedbirleri kapsam\u0131nda 23\/7\/2016 tarihli ve 29779 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan 667 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Al\u0131nan Tedbirlere \u0130li\u015fkin Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin (667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) 2. maddesinde yer alan mill\u00ee g\u00fcvenli\u011fe tehdit olu\u015fturdu\u011fu tespit edilen Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc ve\/veya Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 (FET\u00d6\/PDY) aidiyeti veya bu \u00f6rg\u00fcte iltisak\u0131, irtibat\u0131 belirlenen KHK ekindeki listede yer alan \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011fretim kurum ve kurulu\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n kapat\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin d\u00fczenleme kapsam\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 kurum kapat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Mill\u00ee E\u011fitim Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 21\/7\/2016 tarihli ve 7783529 say\u0131l\u0131 Genelgesi (Genelge) ile de “Cumhuriyet Savc\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131nca haklar\u0131nda i\u015flem ba\u015flat\u0131lan \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011fretim kurumlar\u0131 ile \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011frenci yurtlar\u0131ndan y\u00f6netimine kayy\u0131m atanmayan kurumlar ve kayy\u0131m atanan kurumlarda kayy\u0131m atamas\u0131 yap\u0131lmadan \u00f6nce g\u00f6rev yapan y\u00f6netici, e\u011fitimci, \u00f6\u011fretmen, uzman \u00f6\u011fretici, usta \u00f6\u011fretici ve di\u011fer personelin Mill\u00ee E\u011fitim Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemleri (MEBB\u0130S) \u00fczerinden tespitleri yap\u0131larak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izinleri valiliklerce iptal edilecek, bu personele ba\u015fka bir \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011fretim kurumunda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izin onay\u0131 d\u00fczenlenmeyerek MEBB\u0130S \u00fczerinde gerekli bilgiler i\u015flenecektir” kural\u0131 getirilmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan genelge kapsam\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun da \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izni iptal edilerek MEBB\u0130S’e yasak i\u015flenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan i\u015flemin iptali talebiyle Bal\u0131kesir 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme)dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu dava dilek\u00e7esinde; i\u015f ba\u015fvurusunda bulundu\u011fu s\u0131rada \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izninin iptal edildi\u011fini \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fini ancak kendisinin daha \u00f6nce \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6zel e\u011fitim kurumundan 667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK ile kapat\u0131lmadan \u00f6nce istifa yoluyla ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f, hukuki stat\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn bu kapsamda de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Mahkeme 27\/2\/2019 tarihinde davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; ba\u015fvurucunun talep etti\u011fi \u015fekilde genel bir \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izni d\u00fczenlenemeyece\u011fine i\u015faret edilmi\u015ftir. \u00d6te yandan Genelge’nin \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izni iptal edilenlere ba\u015fka bir kurumda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izni verilmeyece\u011fine ili\u015fkin d\u00fczenlemesinin kesinlik arz etmedi\u011fi, her somut olayda de\u011fi\u015fen ko\u015fullara g\u00f6re idarenin de\u011ferlendirme yapabilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Belirli bir \u00f6zel e\u011fitim kurumunda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izni d\u00fczenlenmemesi durumunda ba\u015fvurucunun bu hususu dava konusu yapmas\u0131nda bir engel olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte Genelge’ye dayan\u0131larak yap\u0131lan i\u015flemin hukuka uygun oldu\u011fu vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur. \u0130zmir B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 5. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi temyiz yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere istinaf ba\u015fvurusunu 30\/5\/2019 tarihinde reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucunun temyiz ba\u015fvurusu, Dan\u0131\u015ftay 8. Dairesince an\u0131lan karar\u0131n istinaf a\u015famas\u0131nda kesinle\u015fen kararlardan olmas\u0131 sebebiyle incelenmeksizin 5\/9\/2019 tarihinde kesin olarak reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu vekili, nihai karar\u0131 10\/3\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 15\/6\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. 25\/3\/2020 tarihli ve 7226 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun ile COVID-19 pandemisi nedeniyle yarg\u0131 alan\u0131ndaki s\u00fcreler 13\/3\/2020 tarihinden 15\/6\/2020 tarihine kadar durduruldu\u011fundan ba\u015fvurunun s\u00fcresinde oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. 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
9. Ba\u015fvurucu, 667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK ile kapat\u0131lmas\u0131ndan \u00f6nce s\u00f6z konusu \u00f6zel e\u011fitim kurumundan istifa yoluyla ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu sebeple \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izni bak\u0131m\u0131ndan hukuki stat\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn farkl\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucu, bu husustaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yarg\u0131lama safahat\u0131nda da ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen yarg\u0131 mercilerince dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu on be\u015f y\u0131ll\u0131k \u00f6\u011fretmen oldu\u011funu, Genelge’ye dayan\u0131larak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izninin iptali ile \u00f6\u011fretmen olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n yasakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, Mill\u00ee E\u011fitim Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kay\u0131tlar\u0131nda yasakl\u0131 olarak g\u00f6z\u00fckt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc i\u00e7in \u00f6zel sekt\u00f6rde mesle\u011fini yapamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vurgulayarak adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 ve \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f ekinde yer alan Mill\u00ee E\u011fitim Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n somut olaya ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131nda ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2l ko\u015fullar\u0131 hat\u0131rlat\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra mill\u00ee g\u00fcvenli\u011fe tehdit olu\u015fturdu\u011fu tespit edilen FET\u00d6\/PDY’ye aidiyeti, bu \u00f6rg\u00fctle iltisak\u0131 veya irtibat\u0131 oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilen \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011fretim kurumlar\u0131n\u0131n kapat\u0131lmas\u0131 ve bu kurumlarda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan personelin resm\u00ee ya da \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011fretim kurumlar\u0131nda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131na ili\u015fkin \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izni verilmemesi \u015feklinde uygulama yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. \u00d6rg\u00fctle ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131 olmayanlar\u0131n valiliklerde kurulan inceleme komisyonlar\u0131na yeniden ba\u015fvurabilece\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca Dan\u0131\u015ftay 8. Dairesinin 6\/7\/2023 tarihli ve E.2017\/2147, K.2023\/3570 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131yla Genelge’nin “ba\u015fka bir \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011fretim kurumunda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izin onay\u0131 d\u00fczenlenmeyerek MEBB\u0130S \u00fczerinde gerekli bilgiler i\u015flenecektir” k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n iptal edilmesi nedeniyle 29\/8\/2023 tarihinden itibaren MEBB\u0130S kay\u0131tlar\u0131ndan yasakla ilgili kay\u0131tlar\u0131n silindi\u011fi, bu kapsamda ba\u015fvurucunun da MEBB\u0130S kayd\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fczeltildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
11. 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 \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
12. Anayasa Mahkemesi ba\u015fvuru konusunu de\u011ferlendirdi\u011fi karar\u0131nda, ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yet etti\u011fi idari i\u015flemin \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izninin iptali ve \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011fretim kurumlar\u0131nda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tek bir tedbir olarak kabul edip OHAL s\u00fcresini a\u015far \u015fekilde uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6zeterek mesle\u011fe ili\u015fkin an\u0131lan tedbirleri Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesi ba\u011flam\u0131nda incelemi\u015ftir (Ay\u015fe Ortak [GK], B. No: 2018\/25011, 6\/1\/2022, \u00a7\u00a7 34-38).<\/p>\n
13. An\u0131lan kararda mesleki hayata y\u00f6nelik s\u00f6z konusu m\u00fcdahalenin ki\u015finin \u00f6zel hayat\u0131na ciddi \u015fekilde etki etti\u011fi ve bu etkinin belirli bir a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131k d\u00fczeyine ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilerek ba\u015fvurunun \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenebilir nitelikte oldu\u011funa karar verilmi\u015ftir (Ay\u015fe Ortak, \u00a7\u00a7 56-59). Somut olayda da an\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektirir bir durum olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
14. Ayr\u0131ca Mill\u00ee E\u011fitim Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan kurulan komisyona ba\u015fvuru yolunun ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen hak ihlali iddialar\u0131n\u0131 esastan incelemek suretiyle gerekti\u011finde giderim sa\u011flayabilecek nitelikte t\u00fcketilmesi gereken etkili bir yol olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na i\u015faret edilmi\u015ftir (Ay\u015fe Ortak, \u00a7\u00a7 60-66).<\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izninin iptal edilmesi ve bir daha \u00f6zel e\u011fitim kurumlar\u0131nda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izni verilmemesi \u015feklinde tesis edilen idari i\u015flemin yarg\u0131 karar\u0131yla iptal edilmeyerek kesinle\u015fmesi, bu suretle mesle\u011fini yapma imk\u00e2n\u0131ndan mahrum b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalede bulunuldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Ay\u015fe Ortak, \u00a7 69).<\/p>\n
16. Somut olaya konu bu m\u00fcdahalenin kanunili\u011fi kapsam\u0131nda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izninin iptal edilme ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma yasa\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin g\u00f6zetilmesi gereken ilkeler Anayasa Mahkemesince daha \u00f6nce ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 olarak a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Ay\u015fe Ortak, \u00a7\u00a7 72-85). Buna g\u00f6re 667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK ile mill\u00ee g\u00fcvenli\u011fe tehdit olu\u015fturdu\u011fu veya ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcyle ili\u015fkili oldu\u011fu tespit edilen \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011fretim kurumlar\u0131n\u0131n kapat\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi, bu kurumlarda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izinlerinin iptal edilerek \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011fretim kurumlar\u0131nda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma yasa\u011f\u0131 getirilmesine y\u00f6nelik bir d\u00fczenlemenin yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu yasa\u011f\u0131n sadece Genelge ile belirlendi\u011fi, bir d\u00fczenleyici idari i\u015flemle temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n ise m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda mesle\u011fe yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin bir genelgeye dayand\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kanunlarda a\u00e7\u0131k bir d\u00fczenleme olmaks\u0131z\u0131n bir idari i\u015flem ile mesle\u011fi icra etmenin engellendi\u011fi, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilerek \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine h\u00fckmedilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvuruya konu m\u00fcdahalenin kanunilik \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesindeki di\u011fer g\u00fcvence \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctlerine riayet edilip edilmedi\u011finin de\u011ferlendirilmesine gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir. Mevcut ba\u015fvuruda da an\u0131lan kararda belirtilen tespitler ve sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir y\u00f6n bulunmamaktad\u0131r (benzer y\u00f6ndeki kararlar i\u00e7in bkz. Sel\u00e7uk Sinan [1. B.], B. No: 2018\/16395, 10\/5\/2022; Fadime \u00c7ulha [2. B.], B. No: 2018\/21757, 19\/1\/2022; Musa K\u0131rm\u0131z\u0131 [1. B.], B. No: 2018\/33255, 16\/6\/2022).<\/p>\n
17. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa’n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile 100.000 TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen anayasal hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar ve zorunluluk bulunmaktad\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n 148. ve 153. maddeleri ile 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. ve 66. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flat\u0131p Anayasa Mahkemesinin ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere ve gerek\u00e7elere uygun bi\u00e7imde y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclecek yarg\u0131lama sonunda hak ihlalinin nedenlerini gidererek yeni bir karar vermektir (yeniden yarg\u0131lama konusunda bkz. Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2), B. No: 2016\/12506, 7\/11\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 53-60, 66; Kadri Enis Berbero\u011flu (3) [GK], B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n
20. \u0130hlalin niteli\u011fi dikkate al\u0131narak ba\u015fvurucuya net 34.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. \u00d6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Bal\u0131kesir 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2018\/577, K.2019\/203) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucuya net 34.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE, tazminata ili\u015fkin di\u011fer taleplerin 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 15\/4\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 15\/4\/2025 tarihli ve 2020\/16311 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 \u0130. P. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/16311) Karar Tarihi: 15\/4\/2025 \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 : Ali KOZAN Ba\u015fvurucu : Vekili : Av. G\u00f6rkem PEKER I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izninin iptal edilmesi ve yeniden \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma izni d\u00fczenlenmesinin yasaklanmas\u0131 nedeniyle \u00f6zel hayata sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, 2010-2016 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda \u00f6zel bir e\u011fitim kurumunda \u00f6\u011fretmen olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc h\u00e2l (OHAL) tedbirleri kapsam\u0131nda 23\/7\/2016 tarihli ve 29779 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan 667 say\u0131l\u0131 Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal Kapsam\u0131nda Al\u0131nan Tedbirlere \u0130li\u015fkin Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararname’nin (667 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK) 2. maddesinde yer alan mill\u00ee g\u00fcvenli\u011fe tehdit olu\u015fturdu\u011fu tespit edilen Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc ve\/veya Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131 (FET\u00d6\/PDY) aidiyeti veya bu \u00f6rg\u00fcte iltisak\u0131, irtibat\u0131 belirlenen KHK ekindeki listede yer alan \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011fretim kurum ve kurulu\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n kapat\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin d\u00fczenleme kapsam\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 kurum kapat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Mill\u00ee E\u011fitim Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 21\/7\/2016 tarihli ve 7783529 say\u0131l\u0131 Genelgesi (Genelge) ile de “Cumhuriyet Savc\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131nca haklar\u0131nda i\u015flem ba\u015flat\u0131lan \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011fretim kurumlar\u0131 ile \u00f6zel \u00f6\u011frenci yurtlar\u0131ndan y\u00f6netimine kayy\u0131m atanmayan kurumlar ve kayy\u0131m atanan kurumlarda kayy\u0131m atamas\u0131 yap\u0131lmadan \u00f6nce g\u00f6rev yapan y\u00f6netici, e\u011fitimci, \u00f6\u011fretmen, uzman \u00f6\u011fretici, usta \u00f6\u011fretici ve di\u011fer personelin Mill\u00ee …<\/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-107299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n