T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
C\u00dcNEYT ER BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/65788)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 31\/10\/2024<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u015eahap KAYMAK<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
C\u00fcneyt ER<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Ferit ATASOY<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 <\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, ter\u00f6rle m\u00fccadele faaliyetleri esnas\u0131nda konutunun a\u011f\u0131r hasar al\u0131p sigortal\u0131 e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131lamaz h\u00e2le geldi\u011finden bahisle fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak kayd\u0131yla zarar\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fi 30\/5\/2016 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek avans faizi ile birlikte 40.000 TL maddi tazminat talebiyle Y\u00fcksekova 1. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (T\u00fcketici Mahkemesi s\u0131fat\u0131yla) (Mahkeme) sigorta poli\u00e7esinden kaynakl\u0131 alacak davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, k\u0131smen reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 neticesinde d\u00fczenlenen rapor h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bilirki\u015fi raporunda \u00f6zetle ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6rle m\u00fccadele operasyonlar\u0131 esnas\u0131nda hasara u\u011framas\u0131 nedeniyle y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilen ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131ndaki e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131n zayi oldu\u011fu, 40.000 TL olan poli\u00e7e teminat limitinin %5 ter\u00f6r muafiyeti d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fckten sonra ba\u015fvurucuya 38.000 TL tazminat \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Mahkemece, Hakkari Valili\u011fi Zarar ve Tespit Komisyonu taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucuya herhangi bir \u00f6deme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun konutunun bulundu\u011fu binan\u0131n tamamen hasarl\u0131 olup y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fi ve talep edilen tazminat\u0131n sigorta poli\u00e7esi kapsam\u0131nda oldu\u011fu tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 sigorta \u015firketinin temerr\u00fct tarihi olan 8\/7\/2016 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fletilecek yasal faizi ile birlikte 38.000 TL’yi ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6demesine h\u00fckmedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Daval\u0131n\u0131n istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 \u00fczerine Van B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 2. Hukuk Dairesi (B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi) Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; \u00f6ncelikle ba\u015fvurucunun t\u00fcketici s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131 haiz ve davan\u0131n basit yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fcne tabi oldu\u011fu tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Ard\u0131ndan taraflara \u00f6n inceleme duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fc ihtaratl\u0131 olarak tebli\u011f edilmesine ra\u011fmen 3\/12\/2018 tarihinde taraflarca davan\u0131n takip edilmemesi sebebiyle dosyan\u0131n i\u015flemden kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 dile getirilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun yenileme talebi \u00fczerine yeni duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fc belirlenip taraflar\u0131n duru\u015fmaya davetiye ile \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, ancak 12\/7\/2019 tarihli celsede ikinci defa dava taraflarca takip edilmedi\u011finden dolay\u0131 dosyan\u0131n i\u015flemden kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fine i\u015faret edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun yenileme talebi \u00fczerine tekrar duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fc verilerek 15\/12\/2020 tarihli celsede davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul edildi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Bu durumda 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 150. ve 320. maddesinin (4) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fince basit yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fcne tabi olan davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekirken yarg\u0131lamaya devam edilerek k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesinin hatal\u0131 oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 16\/10\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 10\/11\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, \u00f6n inceleme duru\u015fmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131 ka\u011f\u0131d\u0131nda duru\u015fmaya gelmemesi h\u00e2linde yoklu\u011funda yarg\u0131lamaya devam edilece\u011fi belirtilmesine ra\u011fmen davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilerek Mahkemenin kendisini yan\u0131ltt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca daval\u0131n\u0131n istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olarak herhangi bir iddiada bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde bu hususun resen incelenmesinin bariz takdir hatas\u0131 ya da a\u00e7\u0131k keyf\u00eelik i\u00e7erdi\u011fini belirterek mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetinin \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fcn Mahkemenin hatal\u0131 i\u015flemi nedeniyle davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvuru mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. 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 (\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
11. 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\u0131lmas\u0131n\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
12. Somut olayda sigorta poli\u00e7esinden kaynakl\u0131 alacak davas\u0131n\u0131n iki defa takipsiz b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesi nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir m\u00fcdahalede bulunuldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahale Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde belirtilen \u015fartlara uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin ihlalini te\u015fkil edecektir. Bu sebeple m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ve somut ba\u015fvuruya uygun d\u00fc\u015fen, kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme, me\u015fru bir sebebe dayanma, \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmama \u015fartlar\u0131na uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
13. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 150. ve 320. maddesinin (4) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131 esas alarak verdi\u011fi davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131 karar\u0131na g\u00f6re yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesindeki ama\u00e7 taraflar\u0131 davalar\u0131n\u0131 takip etmeye zorlamak ve bu suretle yarg\u0131laman\u0131n gereksiz yere s\u00fcr\u00fcncemede kalmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nlemektir. Davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin bu d\u00fczenlemenin yarg\u0131laman\u0131n makul s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde tamamlanmas\u0131n\u0131 temine y\u00f6nelik bir \u00e7are oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla somut olaydaki m\u00fcdahalenin me\u015fru bir amaca dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r (Halil G\u00fcler, B. No: 2015\/11002, 3\/7\/2018, \u00a7 37).<\/p>\n
14. 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
15. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde yer alan \u00f6l\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 amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli olmas\u0131n\u0131, gereklilik 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.2016\/16, K.2016\/37, 5\/5\/2016; Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 38; Emrah Yayla [GK], B. No: 2017\/38732, 6\/2\/2020, \u00a7 68).<\/p>\n
16. Eldeki ba\u015fvuruya konu olayda ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n iki defa takipsiz b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na h\u00fckmedilmesinin yarg\u0131laman\u0131n s\u00fcr\u00fcncemede b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi ve makul s\u00fcrede tamamlanmas\u0131 amac\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan elveri\u015fli ve gerekli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenemez. Ba\u015fvuruda as\u0131l tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken mesele m\u00fcdahalenin orant\u0131l\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. Orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k s\u0131n\u0131rlamayla ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 ile ba\u015fvurulan s\u0131n\u0131rlama tedbiri aras\u0131nda a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir dengesizlik bulunmamas\u0131na i\u015faret etmektedir. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k, ama\u00e7 ile ara\u00e7 aras\u0131nda adil bir denge kurulmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirmektedir. 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 (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte \u015eehmus Altu\u011frul, B. No: 2017\/38317, 13\/1\/2021, \u00a7 51).<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu formda, Mahkemenin \u00f6n inceleme duru\u015fmas\u0131na ait \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131 ka\u011f\u0131d\u0131nda yer alan ifade nedeniyle yaz\u0131l\u0131 yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fcne tabi davalarda ge\u00e7erli olan usul\u00fcn uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
19. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 150. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda usul\u00fcne uygun \u015fekilde davet edilmi\u015f olan taraflar\u0131n duru\u015fmaya gelmedikleri veya gelip de davay\u0131 takip etmeyeceklerini bildirdikleri takdirde dosyan\u0131n i\u015flemden kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilece\u011fi kurala ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayn\u0131 maddenin (4) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda dosyas\u0131 i\u015flemden kald\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan davan\u0131n, i\u015flemden kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihten ba\u015flayarak \u00fc\u00e7 ay i\u00e7inde taraflardan birinin dilek\u00e7e ile ba\u015fvurusu \u00fczerine yenilenebilece\u011fi, yenileme dilek\u00e7esinin duru\u015fma g\u00fcn, saat ve yeri ile birlikte taraflara tebli\u011f edilece\u011fi, dosyan\u0131n i\u015flemden kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihten ba\u015flayarak bir ay ge\u00e7tikten sonra yenileme talebinde bulunulursa yeniden har\u00e7 al\u0131naca\u011f\u0131, bu harc\u0131n yenileyen taraf\u00e7a \u00f6denece\u011fi ve kar\u015f\u0131 tarafa y\u00fcklenemeyece\u011fi, bu \u015fekilde har\u00e7 verilerek yenilenen davan\u0131n eski davan\u0131n devam\u0131 say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Yine ayn\u0131 maddenin (6) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda i\u015flemden kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015f ve sonradan yenilenmi\u015f olan davan\u0131n ilk yenilenmeden sonra bir defadan fazla takipsiz b\u0131rak\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131, aksi h\u00e2lde davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20. An\u0131lan Kanun’un 320. maddesinin (4) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda da basit yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fcne tabi davalarda, i\u015flemden kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015f olan dosyan\u0131n yenilenmesinden sonra takipsiz b\u0131rak\u0131l\u0131rsa davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. F\u0131kran\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde bu kural\u0131n basit yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fcne tabi davalar\u0131n k\u0131sa s\u00fcrede tamamlanmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamak ve davay\u0131 uzat\u0131c\u0131 i\u015flemler konusunda da daha titiz davran\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 temin etmek amac\u0131yla benimsendi\u011fi dile getirilmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re basit yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fcnde i\u015flemden kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015f olan dosya yenilenmesinden sonra takipsiz b\u0131rak\u0131l\u0131rsa dava a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lacakt\u0131r. B\u00f6ylece, en fazla bir defa dosyan\u0131n i\u015flemden kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f, tekrar\u0131 h\u00e2linde davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilece\u011fi kabul edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
21. Dava dilek\u00e7esinin tevzi \u00fczerine Mahkemece d\u00fczenlenen 6\/6\/2018 tarihli tensip tutana\u011f\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n 7\/11\/2013 tarihli ve 6502 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcketicinin Korunmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanundan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131, davan\u0131n 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un basit yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fc ile ilgili h\u00fck\u00fcmleri gere\u011fince y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclece\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Nitekim 6502 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 73. maddesinin (4) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda t\u00fcketici mahkemelerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclecek davalar\u0131n 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un basit yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fcne ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
22. Dilek\u00e7eler a\u015famas\u0131n\u0131n tamamlanmas\u0131ndan sonra Mahkemece 25\/10\/2018 tarihli \u00f6n inceleme duru\u015fmas\u0131na haz\u0131rl\u0131k tutana\u011f\u0131nda “… HMK 150\/2 maddesi uyar\u0131nca taraflardan biri duru\u015fmaya gelir di\u011feri mazeretsiz olarak gelmez ise gelen taraf\u0131n talebi \u00fczerine yarg\u0131lamaya gelmeyen taraf\u0131n yoklu\u011funda devam edilece\u011fi veya dosyan\u0131n i\u015flemden kald\u0131r\u0131laca\u011f\u0131” ihtarl\u0131 \u00f6n inceleme duru\u015fma davetiyesinin taraflara tebli\u011fine karar verilmi\u015f, \u00f6n inceleme duru\u015fma tarihi 3\/12\/2018 olarak belirlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
23. \u00d6n inceleme duru\u015fmas\u0131na taraflar mazeret bildirmeyerek kat\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan takip edilmeyen dosya 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 150. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fince yenileninceye kadar i\u015flemden kald\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu vekili taraf\u0131ndan Mahkemeye sunulan 16\/12\/2018 tarihli dilek\u00e7e ile 3\/12\/2018 tarihinde yap\u0131lan duru\u015fmaya elde olmayan sebeplerle kat\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, duru\u015fmaya kat\u0131lmak \u00fczere yola \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in mazeret dilek\u00e7esi sunmas\u0131n\u0131n fiilen m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla takipsizlik nedeniyle i\u015flemden kald\u0131r\u0131lan dosyan\u0131n yenilenmesi talep edilmi\u015ftir. Bunun \u00fczerine Mahkeme 24\/12\/2018 tarihli yenileme tensip tutana\u011f\u0131nda davan\u0131n kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 yerden devam\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
24. Mahkeme 12\/7\/2019 tarihli duru\u015fmaya taraflar\u0131n mazeret bildirmeksizin kat\u0131lmamalar\u0131 nedeniyle dosyay\u0131, yenileninceye kadar ikinci defa i\u015flemden kald\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu vekili taraf\u0131ndan Mahkemeye sunulan 21\/8\/2019 tarihli dilek\u00e7e ile tekrar davan\u0131n yenilenmesi talep edilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme 26\/8\/2019 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucuya muht\u0131ra g\u00f6ndermi\u015ftir. Muht\u0131ra ile dosyan\u0131n 12\/7\/2019 tarihinde i\u015flemden kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kald\u0131rma i\u015fleminin \u00fczerinden bir ay ge\u00e7tikten sonra 21\/8\/2019 tarihinde yenileme talebinde bulunuldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle verilen kesin s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde yenileme harc\u0131n\u0131n yat\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, aksi takdirde yenileme talebinden vazge\u00e7mi\u015f say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131na dair karar verilece\u011fini ba\u015fvurucuya ihtar etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 13\/9\/2019 tarihinde harc\u0131 yat\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme ayn\u0131 tarihli yenileme tensip tutana\u011f\u0131nda dosyan\u0131n 12\/7\/2019 tarihli celsede ba\u015fvuruya b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, taraflarca 16\/12\/2018 tarihli dilek\u00e7e ile yenilendi\u011finden davan\u0131n kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 yerden devam\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
25. Yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinin ba\u015f\u0131ndan itibaren vekili ile a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davay\u0131 takip etmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc olan ba\u015fvurucunun uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n basit yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fcne tabi oldu\u011fu bilgisi d\u00e2hilindedir. Ba\u015fvurucu takip edilmemesi durumunda dosyan\u0131n i\u015flemden kald\u0131r\u0131laca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve davan\u0131n ikinci defa takipsiz b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131na karar verilece\u011fini bilebilecek durumdad\u0131r. Ba\u015fka bir ifadeyle ba\u015fvurucu duru\u015fmalara kat\u0131lmamas\u0131 ya da usul\u00fcne uygun mazeret bildirmemesi h\u00e2linde usul hukuku h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re ne gibi sonu\u00e7lar ortaya \u00e7\u0131kabilece\u011fini \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilir. Kald\u0131 ki ba\u015fvurucunun 3\/12\/2018 tarihinde yap\u0131lan \u00f6n inceleme duru\u015fmas\u0131na kat\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmedi\u011fi gibi bu duru\u015fma ile 12\/7\/2019 tarihli duru\u015fmaya kat\u0131lamamas\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak da herhangi bir mazeret sunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
26. Di\u011fer yandan \u00f6n inceleme duru\u015fma davetiyesinde yer alan taraflardan biri duru\u015fmaya gelir di\u011feri mazeretsiz olarak gelmez ise gelen taraf\u0131n talebi \u00fczerine yarg\u0131lamaya gelmeyen taraf\u0131n yoklu\u011funda devam edilece\u011fi veya dosyan\u0131n i\u015flemden kald\u0131r\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 \u015feklindeki ibare, \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131 ka\u011f\u0131d\u0131nda yoklu\u011funda yarg\u0131lamaya devam edilerek h\u00fck\u00fcm verilece\u011fi olarak ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin genel kural niteli\u011finde olan 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 150. maddesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde s\u00f6z konusu duru\u015fma davetiyesinde yarg\u0131laman\u0131n taraflar\u0131ndan birinin \u00f6n inceleme duru\u015fmas\u0131na kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde yap\u0131lacak i\u015flem a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015f, yine taraflardan birinin duru\u015fmaya gelmemesi durumunda dosyan\u0131n i\u015flemden kald\u0131r\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ihtar edilmi\u015ftir. \u0130htara ra\u011fmen ba\u015fvurucu, \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131 ka\u011f\u0131d\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olarak itirazda bulunmam\u0131\u015f; bil\u00e2kis \u00f6n inceleme duru\u015fmas\u0131na kat\u0131lamama mazeretini bildiremedi\u011finden bahsederek Mahkemeye yenileme dilek\u00e7esi sunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
27. Bu ba\u011flamda Mahkemenin ba\u015fvurucuyu hatal\u0131 y\u00f6nlendirmek suretiyle davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verdi\u011finden bahsedilemez. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla duru\u015fma g\u00fcnlerinden ve davan\u0131n basit yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fc ile g\u00f6r\u00fclece\u011finden haberdar olan ba\u015fvurucunun \u00fczerine d\u00fc\u015fen sorumlulu\u011fu yerine getirmeyip takipsiz b\u0131rakarak davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na sebebiyet verdi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
28. Bununla birlikte Mahkemenin 13\/9\/2019 tarihli yenileme tensip tutana\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun 21\/8\/2019 tarihli yenileme dilek\u00e7esi yerine 16\/12\/2018 tarihli dilek\u00e7eye atfen davan\u0131n devam\u0131na karar verdi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmekle birlikte an\u0131lan maddi hatan\u0131n davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin karar\u0131n verilmesinde bir etkisinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
29. Yukar\u0131daki a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yorumun belirsiz ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemez nitelikte olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki bireysel yarar\u0131 ile davalar\u0131n s\u00fcr\u00fcncemede b\u0131rak\u0131lmamas\u0131 ve makul s\u00fcrede sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 hususundaki kamusal yarar aras\u0131nda adil dengenin bulundu\u011fu, ba\u015fvurucuya y\u00fcklenen k\u00fclfetin a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
30. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. 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 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde BIRAKILMASINA 31\/10\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 31\/10\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/65788 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u00a0 \u00a0 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 C\u00dcNEYT ER BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/65788) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 31\/10\/2024 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN \u00a0 \u00a0 Muhterem \u0130NCE \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : \u015eahap KAYMAK Ba\u015fvurucu : C\u00fcneyt ER Vekili : Av. Ferit ATASOY \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, ter\u00f6rle m\u00fccadele faaliyetleri esnas\u0131nda konutunun a\u011f\u0131r hasar al\u0131p sigortal\u0131 e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131lamaz h\u00e2le geldi\u011finden bahisle fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak kayd\u0131yla zarar\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fi 30\/5\/2016 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek avans faizi ile birlikte 40.000 TL maddi tazminat talebiyle Y\u00fcksekova 1. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (T\u00fcketici Mahkemesi s\u0131fat\u0131yla) (Mahkeme) sigorta poli\u00e7esinden kaynakl\u0131 alacak davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, k\u0131smen reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 neticesinde d\u00fczenlenen rapor h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bilirki\u015fi raporunda \u00f6zetle ba\u015fvurucunun ter\u00f6rle m\u00fccadele operasyonlar\u0131 esnas\u0131nda hasara u\u011framas\u0131 nedeniyle y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilen ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131ndaki e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131n zayi oldu\u011fu, 40.000 TL olan poli\u00e7e teminat limitinin %5 ter\u00f6r muafiyeti d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fckten sonra ba\u015fvurucuya 38.000 TL tazminat \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Mahkemece, Hakkari Valili\u011fi Zarar ve Tespit Komisyonu taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucuya herhangi bir …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25128","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n