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
H\u00dcSEY\u0130N BERAT \u015eENG\u00dcL BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/22031)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 10\/7\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 3\/12\/2024-32741<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Mehmet Sad\u0131k YAMLI<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
H\u00fcseyin Berat \u015eENG\u00dcL<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Hatice TEM\u0130ZKAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131na ili\u015fkin davan\u0131n \u0131slah ile art\u0131r\u0131lan k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n herhangi bir dayanak g\u00f6sterilmeksizin zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 gerek\u00e7esi ile reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle de makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru 24\/9\/2019 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. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. B\u00f6l\u00fcm Ba\u015fkan\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin birlikte yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015f akdi, i\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7ekilen 1\/10\/2010 tarihli ihtarname ile feshedilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 1\/2\/1999-7\/11\/2010 tarihleri aras\u0131nda kesintisiz \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek i\u015fvereni aleyhine 17\/1\/2011 tarihinde alacak davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu davas\u0131nda; k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131, ihbar tazminat\u0131, fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti, bayram tatili ve hafta sonu \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti, izin \u00fccreti ile anla\u015fma \u00fccreti olarak adland\u0131r\u0131lan alt\u0131 ayr\u0131 alacak kalemi i\u00e7in fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131n\u0131 sakl\u0131 tutarak yasal faizleriyle birlikte 2.450 TL’nin \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Davay\u0131 g\u00f6ren \u0130stanbul 5. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi (\u0130\u015f Mahkemesi) bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131 alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, son bilirki\u015fi raporunun ard\u0131ndan 28\/9\/2015 tarihli dilek\u00e7eyle talep miktar\u0131n\u0131 art\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi 29\/9\/2015 tarihli duru\u015fmada \u0131slah harc\u0131n\u0131n yat\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in bir haftal\u0131k s\u00fcre vermi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 2\/10\/2015 tarihinde \u0131slah harc\u0131n\u0131 yat\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Daval\u0131 i\u015fveren, bilirki\u015fi raporuna kar\u015f\u0131 verdi\u011fi dilek\u00e7ede di\u011fer iddialar\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011fram\u0131\u015f k\u0131s\u0131mlar\u0131n hesaplamadan d\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmesi gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi 11\/1\/2016 tarihinde davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, k\u0131smen reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Mahkeme; ba\u015fvurucunun art\u0131r\u0131m talebinin y\u0131ll\u0131k izin, fazla mesai ve anla\u015fma alaca\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddetmi\u015f ve bu \u00fc\u00e7 alacak kalemi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden dava dilek\u00e7esinde talep edilen tutar\u0131 esas alarak h\u00fck\u00fcm kurmu\u015ftur. K\u0131dem ve ihbar tazminatlar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik art\u0131r\u0131m talebinde ise zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden sorun g\u00f6rmemi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca bayram tatili ve hafta sonu \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti taleplerinin t\u00fcmden reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, karar\u0131nda gerek\u00e7eye dayanak bir kanun h\u00fckm\u00fc g\u00f6stermemi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7enin zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 ile ilgili olan k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
” Daval\u0131 vekilinin \u0131slah suretiyle zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 defi itiraz\u0131n\u0131n, dava dilek\u00e7esinin daval\u0131ya 26.01.2011 de tebli\u011f edildi\u011fi, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan s\u00fcresinde cevap dilek\u00e7esi verilmedi\u011fi, ilk celseye mazeretsiz gelmedi\u011fi, akabinde 05.07.2011 tarihinde cevap dilek\u00e7esi verdi\u011fi, s\u00fcresinden \u00e7ok sonra verilen cevap dilek\u00e7esinde de zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 definde bulunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u0131slah edilebilecek usul\u00fcne uygun bir cevap dilek\u00e7esinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan \u0131slah suretiyle zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 defi itiraz\u0131n\u0131n reddi gerekti\u011fi, daval\u0131 vekilinin bilirki\u015fi raporu ve \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esine kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmak i\u00e7in verilen s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisindeki dilek\u00e7esinde ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 definin yine dilek\u00e7esinde ‘Kabul anlam\u0131na gelmemekle birlikte zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011fram\u0131\u015f k\u0131s\u0131mlar\u0131n hesaplamadan d\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmesi gerekmektedir’ beyan\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda \u0131slaha kar\u015f\u0131 zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 defi itiraz\u0131 nedeni ile y\u0131ll\u0131k izin, fazla mesai ve anla\u015fma alaca\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ilk dava ile talep edilen k\u0131s\u0131m y\u00f6n\u00fcnden h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmu\u015ftur. “<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu, di\u011fer iddialar\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra \u00f6zellikle fesihten itibaren be\u015f y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcre ge\u00e7meden art\u0131r\u0131m talebinde bulundu\u011funu belirterek temyiz kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Dilek\u00e7esinde alaca\u011f\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011framad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve Mahkemenin bu konuda gerek\u00e7e belirtmedi\u011fini \u00f6zellikle dile getirmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca daval\u0131n\u0131n usul\u00fcne uygun oldu\u011funu ve s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 defi ileri s\u00fcrmedi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Yarg\u0131tay 9. Hukuk Dairesi 9\/4\/2019 tarihinde yaln\u0131zca k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden karar\u0131 d\u00fczelterek onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun ba\u015fta zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na dair olmak \u00fczere di\u011fer temyiz iddialar\u0131n\u0131 ayr\u0131 bir gerek\u00e7e belirtilmeksizin reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. Yarg\u0131tay karar\u0131 ba\u015fvurucuya 27\/5\/2019 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu 24\/6\/2019 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
14. Davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan 18\/6\/1927 tarihli ve 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 m\u00fclga Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 83. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
”\u0130ki taraftan her biri usule m\u00fctaallik olarak yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 muameleyi tamamen veya k\u0131smen \u0131slah edebilir. Ayn\u0131 davada her taraf ancak bir kere \u0131slah hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanabilir.” <\/p>\n
15. 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 m\u00fclga Kanun’un 84. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
”lslah, tahkikata tabi olan davalarda tahkikat bitinciye kadar ve tabi olm\u0131yanlarda muhakemenin hitam\u0131na kadar yap\u0131labilir.”<\/p>\n
16. 22\/5\/2003 tarihli ve 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015f Kanunu’nun 32. maddesinin son f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“\u00dccret alacaklar\u0131nda zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresi be\u015f y\u0131ld\u0131r.”<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
17. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 10\/7\/2024 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. Mahkemeye Eri\u015fim Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130ddialar\u0131<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu; fesih tarihinden itibaren be\u015f y\u0131l ge\u00e7meden talebini art\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde hem ilk derece mahkemesi hem de temyiz a\u015famas\u0131nda bu hususta bir gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilmeden talebinin zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddedilmesinin hukuki dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n anla\u015f\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kald\u0131 ki alacak tutar\u0131 bilirki\u015fi raporuyla tam olarak ortaya konmadan \u00f6nce talebini art\u0131rmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
2. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
19. Anayasa’n\u0131n iddian\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesinde dayanak al\u0131nacak “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
20. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131 \u00f6zellikle zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fundan ba\u015fvuru alacak davas\u0131n\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddine karar verilen k\u0131sm\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
a. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
21. 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
b. Esas Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
i. Hakk\u0131n Kapsam\u0131 ve M\u00fcdahalenin Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
22. 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’n\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’nin taraf oldu\u011fu uluslararas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerle 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\u015fme’sini 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
23. 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 yararlan\u0131lmay\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
24. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 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 gelmektedir (\u00d6zkan \u015een, B. No: 2012\/791, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvurucunun a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davada \u0131slah talebinin bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddedilmesi mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u00a0(1) M\u00fcdahalenin \u0130hlal Olu\u015fturup Olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
26. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetler, \u00f6zlerine dokunulmaks\u0131z\u0131n yaln\u0131zca Anayasan\u0131n ilgili maddelerinde belirtilen sebeplere ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ve ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir. Bu s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar, Anayasan\u0131n s\u00f6z\u00fcne ve ruhuna, demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin ve l\u00e2ik Cumhuriyetin gereklerine ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamaz.”<\/p>\n
27. Yukar\u0131da an\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale, Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde belirtilen ko\u015fullar\u0131 yerine getirmedi\u011fi m\u00fcddet\u00e7e Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 36. maddesinin ihlalini te\u015fkil edecektir. An\u0131lan madde uyar\u0131nca temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckler, demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n Anayasa’n\u0131n ilgili maddelerinde belirtilen sebeplere ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ve ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir.<\/p>\n
\u00a0(a) Kanunilik<\/p>\n
28. 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).<\/p>\n
29. M\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131 \u00f6ncelikle \u015fekl\u00ee manada bir kanunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 zorunlu k\u0131lar. \u015eekl\u00ee manada kanun, T\u00fcrkiye B\u00fcy\u00fck Millet Meclisi (TBMM) taraf\u0131ndan Anayasa’da belirtilen usule uygun olarak kanun ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan d\u00fczenleyici yasama i\u015flemidir. Hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere m\u00fcdahale edilmesi ancak yasama organ\u0131nca kanun ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan d\u00fczenleyici i\u015flemlerde m\u00fcdahaleye imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan bir h\u00fckm\u00fcn bulunmas\u0131 \u015fart\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. 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
30. Kanunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kadar kanun metni ve uygulamas\u0131 da bireylerin davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n sonucunu \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilece\u011fi kadar hukuki belirlilik ta\u015f\u0131mal\u0131d\u0131r (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 gerektirir (T\u00fcrkiye \u0130\u015f Bankas\u0131 A.\u015e. [GK], B. No: 2014\/6192, 12\/11\/2014, \u00a7 44).<\/p>\n
31. Somut olayda \u0130\u015f Mahkemesinin ba\u015fvurucunun k\u0131dem ve ihbar tazminat\u0131na dair \u0131slah talebinde zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bir sorun g\u00f6rmedi\u011fi, y\u0131ll\u0131k izin, fazla mesai ve anla\u015fma alaca\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u0131slah talebinin ise zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabul etti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilen y\u0131ll\u0131k izin, fazla mesai ve anla\u015fma alaca\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden gerek ilk derece mahkemesi gerekse temyiz kararlar\u0131nda zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na dayanak olarak herhangi bir kanun h\u00fckm\u00fc g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015f veya dayanak kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn incelendi\u011fi i\u00e7tihadi bir karara at\u0131f yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Di\u011fer taraftan 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 32. maddesinde \u00fccret alacaklar\u0131nda zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin be\u015f y\u0131l oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Her ne kadar olayda zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilen alacak kalemleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden a\u00e7\u0131k kanuni dayanak g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015f ise de bu husus “\u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck” ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda incelenece\u011finden burada daha \u00f6te bir inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekli g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u00a0(b) Me\u015fru Ama\u00e7<\/p>\n
32. Zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131, alacak hakk\u0131n\u0131n belli bir s\u00fcre kullan\u0131lmamas\u0131 y\u00fcz\u00fcnden dava edilebilme niteli\u011finden yoksun kalmas\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmektedir. Sonucu, alacak hakk\u0131na son verme de\u011fil onu eksik bor\u00e7 h\u00e2line getirme olarak ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmaktad\u0131r. Zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na ili\u015fkin d\u00fczenlemelerin temelinde iddia edilen alaca\u011f\u0131n aradan uzun zaman ge\u00e7mi\u015f olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen kullan\u0131lmamas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda bor\u00e7lunun olduk\u00e7a uzak ge\u00e7mi\u015fte kalan bir bor\u00e7tan do\u011fabilecek ihtilaflara kar\u015f\u0131 korunmas\u0131, kendi alaca\u011f\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 uzun s\u00fcre kay\u0131ts\u0131z kalan kimsenin bu hakk\u0131n\u0131n art\u0131k korunmaya lay\u0131k olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmi\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131 yatmaktad\u0131r (Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 12\/3\/2019 tarihli ve E.2015\/2925, K.2019\/277 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131).<\/p>\n
33. Di\u011fer taraftan hukuki i\u015flem ve kurallar\u0131n s\u00fcrekli dava tehdidi alt\u0131nda olmas\u0131 hukuk devletinin unsurlar\u0131 olan hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ve istikrar ilkeleriyle ba\u011fda\u015fmaz. Bu nedenle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 ile hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ve istikrar gerekleri aras\u0131nda makul bir denge g\u00f6zetilmelidir (AYM, E.2014\/177, K.2015\/49, 14\/5\/2015). Dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n belli bir s\u00fcre ko\u015fuluna ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131n hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ve istikrar\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 ile mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 aras\u0131nda makul bir denge kurulmas\u0131 amac\u0131na y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu sebeple dava hakk\u0131n\u0131n belli bir s\u00fcre ko\u015fuluyla s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n me\u015fru bir amaca y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (benzer y\u00f6ndeki karar i\u00e7in bkz. G\u00fclhan Dursun, B. No: 2016\/9312, 27\/11\/2019, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
\u00a0(c) \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck<\/p>\n
\u00a0(2) Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
34. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesi uyar\u0131nca hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131nda dikkate al\u0131nacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctlerden biri olan \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck, hukuk devleti ilkesinden do\u011fmaktad\u0131r. Hukuk devletinde hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 istisnai bir yetki oldu\u011fundan bu yetki ancak durumun gerektirdi\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 ko\u015fuluyla hakl\u0131 bir temele oturabilir. Bireylerin hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerinin somut ko\u015fullar\u0131n gerektirdi\u011finden daha fazla s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 kamu otoritelerine tan\u0131nan yetkinin a\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelece\u011finden hukuk devletiyle ba\u011fda\u015fmaz (AYM, E.2013\/95, K.2014\/176, 13\/11\/2014).<\/p>\n
35. \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.2013\/66, K.2014\/19, 29\/1\/2014; E.2016\/16, K.2016\/37, 5\/5\/2016; Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
36. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in se\u00e7ilen arac\u0131n \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen amaca ula\u015f\u0131labilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan elveri\u015fli olmas\u0131 gerekir. Ayr\u0131ca se\u00e7ilen ara\u00e7 bu hakk\u0131 en az zedeleyici nitelikte olmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bununla birlikte hakk\u0131 daha az zedeleyen arac\u0131n tercih edilmesi gerekti\u011finin s\u00f6ylenebilmesi i\u00e7in s\u00f6z konusu ara\u00e7 ayn\u0131 amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye uygun olmal\u0131d\u0131r. Daha hafif s\u0131n\u0131rlama te\u015fkil eden arac\u0131n tercih edilmesi h\u00e2linde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ama\u00e7 ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmeyecek ise daha a\u011f\u0131r m\u00fcdahale olu\u015fturan arac\u0131n se\u00e7imi hususundaki tercih, Anayasa\u2019ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmaz. Bunun d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda hangi m\u00fcdahale arac\u0131n\u0131n tercih edilece\u011fi hususunda kamu otoritelerinin belli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde takdir yetkisi bulunmaktad\u0131r (Mustafa Berbero\u011flu, B. No: 2015\/3324, 26\/2\/2020, \u00a7 48).<\/p>\n
37. \u00d6te yandan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahaleler orant\u0131l\u0131 olmal\u0131d\u0131r. Orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k, ama\u00e7 ile ara\u00e7 aras\u0131nda adil bir denge kurulmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir. Buna g\u00f6re mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na getirilen s\u0131n\u0131rlamayla ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen me\u015fru ama\u00e7 ve ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131ndan yararlanmas\u0131ndaki bireysel yarar aras\u0131nda makul bir orant\u0131 kurulmal\u0131d\u0131r. Hedeflenen amaca ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda elde edilecek kamusal yararla k\u0131yasland\u0131\u011f\u0131nda s\u0131n\u0131rlama ile ki\u015fiye y\u00fcklenen k\u00fclfetin a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 ve orant\u0131s\u0131z olmamas\u0131 gerekir (Mustafa Berbero\u011flu, \u00a7 49).<\/p>\n
38. Ba\u015fvurucu, \u0131slah ve zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 konusundaki mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin hatal\u0131 yorumland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrmekte ise de bireysel ba\u015fvuru yolunun ikincillik niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi ilgili mevzuat\u0131 yorumlamak ilk derece mahkemesi ve kanun yolu mercilerinin g\u00f6revi olup Anayasa Mahkemesinin bireysel ba\u015fvuruda inceledi\u011fi husus, an\u0131lan mahkemelerin gerek\u00e7elerine esas yorumun \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, Anayasa’da g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckleri ihlal edip etmedi\u011fidir (\u015eeyma Kayao\u011flu, B. No: 2014\/5491, 5\/7\/2017, \u00a7 53). Bu kapsamda ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda uygulanacak zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin hangi tarihte ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u0131slah ile art\u0131r\u0131lan k\u0131sm\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011fray\u0131p u\u011framad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirlemek Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi olmay\u0131p Anayasa Mahkemesi, yarg\u0131 mercilerinin yorumlar\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa’da g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edip etmedi\u011fini incelemektedir.<\/p>\n
39. \u015e\u00fcphesiz Anayasa Mahkemesi, bu g\u00f6revini en ba\u015fta ilk derece mahkemesi\/kanun yolu mercilerinin g\u00f6sterdikleri gerek\u00e7e \u00fczerinden yapmaktad\u0131r. Yarg\u0131lama mercilerinin Anayasa’n\u0131n bir gere\u011fi olarak g\u00f6stermek zorunda olduklar\u0131 gerek\u00e7eler, bireysel ba\u015fvuruda ihlal sonucuna var\u0131l\u0131p var\u0131lmamas\u0131 noktas\u0131nda olduk\u00e7a \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131maktad\u0131r. \u00d6zellikle, \u00f6zel bor\u00e7 ili\u015fkilerinden kaynaklanan uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klarda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n her iki taraf\u0131n\u0131n devletin e\u015fit ilgisine m\u00fcstahak oldu\u011fu ve devletin her iki taraf\u0131n menfaatini yeterince g\u00f6zetme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc alt\u0131nda bulundu\u011fu hat\u0131rda tutuldu\u011funda mahkemelerin taraflardan hangisinin iddias\u0131na neden \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fck tan\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ku\u015fkuya yer vermeyecek \u015fekilde gerek\u00e7ede g\u00f6sterme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc vard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
40. Yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k ve somut bir bi\u00e7imde \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclen iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili, ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle davan\u0131n sonucunu de\u011fi\u015ftirebilecek nitelikte olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde davayla do\u011frudan ilgili olan bu hususlara mahkemelerce makul bir gerek\u00e7e ile yan\u0131t verilmesi gerekir. Aksi bir tutumla mahkemenin davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili oldu\u011funu kabul etti\u011fi bir husus hakk\u0131nda ilgili ve yeterli bir yan\u0131t vermemesi veya yan\u0131t vermeyi gerektiren usul veya esasa dair iddialar\u0131 cevaps\u0131z b\u0131rakmas\u0131 hak ihlaline neden olabilecektir (Sencer Ba\u015fat ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2013\/7800, 18\/6\/2014, \u00a7\u00a7 35, 39).<\/p>\n
41. Bunun yan\u0131nda istinaf\/temyiz merciinin yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 yapan mahkemenin karar\u0131n\u0131 uygun bulmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bunu ya ayn\u0131 gerek\u00e7eyi kullanarak ya da bir at\u0131fla karar\u0131na yans\u0131tmas\u0131 yeterlidir. Burada \u00f6nemli olan husus, istinaf\/temyiz merciinin bir \u015fekilde istinafta\/temyizde dile getirilmi\u015f ana unsurlar\u0131 inceledi\u011fini, mahkemenin karar\u0131n\u0131 inceleyerek onad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ya da bozdu\u011funu g\u00f6stermesidir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Yasemin Ek\u015fi, \u00a7 57). Ancak istinaf\/temyiz incelemesi s\u0131ras\u0131nda ayr\u0131 ve a\u00e7\u0131k bir yan\u0131t verilmesini gerektiren usul veya esasa dair iddialar\u0131n istinaf\/temyiz mercilerince cevaps\u0131z b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlaline neden olabilir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Caner Kand\u0131rmaz, B. No: 2013\/3672, 30\/12\/2014, \u00a7 31). Anayasa Mahkemesinin bu ba\u011flamdaki g\u00f6revi uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131yan meselelere ili\u015fkin olarak mahkemelerin ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e ortaya koyup koymad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 incelemekten ibarettir (Halit Kabada\u011f, B. No: 2019\/3589, 23\/11\/2021, \u00a7 30).<\/p>\n
ii. \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/p>\n
42. Somut olaya bu y\u00f6nden bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda gerek \u0130\u015f Mahkemesinin gerekse Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n karar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun \u0131slah etti\u011fi alacak kalemlerinden y\u0131ll\u0131k izin, fazla mesai ve anla\u015fma alaca\u011f\u0131 kalemlerinin neden zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda bireysel ba\u015fvuruya konu yap\u0131lan, an\u0131lan alacaklar i\u00e7in zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin hangi tarihten itibaren ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve s\u00fcrenin ne zaman doldu\u011fu, i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin fesih tarihinin bu s\u00fcreye etkisinin bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n niteli\u011finin ve dava tarihi ile art\u0131r\u0131m dilek\u00e7esinin verildi\u011fi tarihin s\u00f6z konusu zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresine etkisinin olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususlar\u0131nda ba\u015fvuruya konu kararda herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirmeye, a\u00e7\u0131klamaya yer verilmemi\u015f veya bu hususlar\u0131n tart\u0131\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7tihadi bir karara at\u0131f yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00d6te yandan kararda dayan\u0131lan bilirki\u015fi raporunda da an\u0131lan hususlarda a\u00e7\u0131k bir de\u011ferlendirmede bulunulmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
43. Her ne kadar 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 32. maddesinde \u00fccret alacaklar\u0131nda zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin be\u015f y\u0131l oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015fse de somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan be\u015f y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcrenin ne zaman ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda kararda bir gerek\u00e7eye yer verilmemi\u015ftir. Islah dilek\u00e7esinin i\u015f akdinin feshinden itibaren be\u015f y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcre dolmadan verildi\u011fi, bu dilek\u00e7e \u00fczerine ilk derece mahkemesinin ba\u015fvurucuya harc\u0131 yat\u0131rmas\u0131 i\u00e7in bir haftal\u0131k s\u00fcre verdi\u011fi, ba\u015fvurucunun bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde \u0131slah harc\u0131n\u0131 yat\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde Mahkemenin art\u0131r\u0131m talebini s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddetmesinin gerek\u00e7esini ortaya koymad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Oysa bu husus, ba\u015fvurucunun zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ne \u015fekilde hesapland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bilmesi ve buna ili\u015fkin itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 \u00fcst kanun yolunda etkin bir \u015fekilde dile getirebilmesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan da \u00f6nemli olup olayda ilk derece mahkemesinin karar\u0131nda be\u015f y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin i\u015flemeye ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarih ve sonraki geli\u015fmelerin (\u0131slah dilek\u00e7esinin verilmesi, harc\u0131n yat\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gibi)zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na etkisine dair bir gerek\u00e7eye yer verilmedi\u011fi gibi ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirtildi\u011fi h\u00e2lde temyiz merciince de bu konuda a\u00e7\u0131k bir gerek\u00e7eye yer verilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
44. Sonu\u00e7 olarak ba\u015fvurucunun a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davada bilirki\u015fi raporunun hemen ard\u0131ndan art\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 alacak talebinin a\u00e7\u0131k ve yeterli bir dayanak g\u00f6sterilmeden zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckledi\u011fi, ba\u015fvurucunun katlanmak zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 k\u00fclfet hedeflenen me\u015fru ama\u00e7la kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda k\u00fclfetin 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
45. Bu durumda bir\u00e7ok defa bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131nan davada davaya konu s\u00f6z konusu alacak kalemlerinin ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan bilinebilir olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bir ba\u015fka deyi\u015fle tespit edilmesinin teknik de\u011ferlendirmeler dolay\u0131s\u0131yla belli bir uzmanl\u0131k gerektirip gerektirmedi\u011fi ve s\u00f6z konusu de\u011ferlendirmelere ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinin uzamas\u0131nda, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla alaca\u011f\u0131n bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011framas\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun kusuru olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6nlerinden de ayr\u0131 bir inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekli g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
46. 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
B. Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
47. Ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesinden \u015fik\u00e2yet etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
48. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olay ve olgular\u0131 somut ba\u015fvuru ile benzer nitelikte olan Veysi Ado ([GK], B. No: 2022\/100837, 27\/4\/2023) karar\u0131nda uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede Anayasa Mahkemesi 9\/1\/2013 tarihli ve 6384 say\u0131l\u0131 Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesine Yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Baz\u0131 Ba\u015fvurular\u0131n Tazminat \u00d6denmek Suretiyle \u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne Dair Kanun’un ge\u00e7ici 2. maddesinde 28\/3\/2023 tarihli ve 7445 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 40. maddesi ile yap\u0131lan de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fe g\u00f6re 9\/3\/2023 tarihi (bu tarih d\u00e2hil) itibar\u0131yla derdest olan, yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddialar\u0131yla yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurulara ili\u015fkin olarak Tazminat Komisyonuna ba\u015fvuru yolu t\u00fcketilmeden yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun incelenmesinin bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincil niteli\u011fi ile ba\u011fda\u015fmayaca\u011f\u0131 neticesine varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Somut ba\u015fvuruda da an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
49. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
C. Di\u011fer \u0130hlal \u0130ddialar\u0131<\/p>\n
50. Ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini de ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f ise de bu iddias\u0131n\u0131n Kemal Yeler ve Ali Arslan \u00c7elebi (B. No: 2012\/636, 15\/4\/2014, \u00a7\u00a7 36, 37) karar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda konu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetkisizlik nedeniyle, ayr\u0131ca ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z ve tarafs\u0131z mahkemede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f ise de bu iddias\u0131n\u0131 temyizde dile getirmedi\u011finden ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VI. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
51. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespitine ve 1.000.000 TL maddi, 1.000.000 TL manevi tazminata karar verilmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
52. 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
53. Yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesi mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yeterli giderim olu\u015fturdu\u011fundan ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VII. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
3. Di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilebilirlik kriterlerini kar\u015f\u0131lamamas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ 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 \u0130stanbul 5. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesine (E.2011\/76, K.2016\/22) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 364,60 TL har\u00e7 ve 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 19.164,60 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \u00d6demenin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 10\/7\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 10\/7\/2024 tarihli ve 2019\/22031 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 H\u00dcSEY\u0130N BERAT \u015eENG\u00dcL BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/22031) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 10\/7\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 3\/12\/2024-32741 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : Mehmet Sad\u0131k YAMLI Ba\u015fvurucu : H\u00fcseyin Berat \u015eENG\u00dcL Vekili : Av. Hatice TEM\u0130ZKAN \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru; i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131na ili\u015fkin davan\u0131n \u0131slah ile art\u0131r\u0131lan k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n herhangi bir dayanak g\u00f6sterilmeksizin zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 gerek\u00e7esi ile reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle de makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 24\/9\/2019 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. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. 5. B\u00f6l\u00fcm Ba\u015fkan\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin birlikte yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. 6. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 7. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir: 8. Ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015f akdi, i\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7ekilen 1\/10\/2010 tarihli ihtarname ile feshedilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 1\/2\/1999-7\/11\/2010 tarihleri aras\u0131nda kesintisiz \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek i\u015fvereni aleyhine …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,535],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18868","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n