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
AHMET SALDA BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/33943)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 28\/11\/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
Recai AKYEL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/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
Ahmet SALDA<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. K\u00fcr\u015fad \u015eAH\u0130N<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, i\u015fe iade davas\u0131nda hatal\u0131 bir \u015fekilde aleyhe yarg\u0131lama gideri ve vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedildi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik iddian\u0131n istinaf mahkemesince kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, \u00f6zel bir firmada g\u00fcvenlik personeli olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktayken i\u015f akdinin feshedilmesi \u00fczerine Karacabey 1. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (i\u015f mahkemesi s\u0131fat\u0131yla) (Mahkeme) i\u015f akdinin ge\u00e7erli bir neden olmaks\u0131z\u0131n feshi iddias\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak feshin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011finin tespiti ile i\u015fe iade davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Mahkeme davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; g\u00fcvenlik personeli olan ba\u015fvurucunun 25\/5\/2019 tarihinde g\u00f6rev yerini uzunca bir s\u00fcre terk etti\u011fi, g\u00f6rev yerinden ayr\u0131l\u0131rken bu durumu yetkili amirlerine bildirmeyerek g\u00f6rev yerine ba\u015fkas\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7mesini sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n sabit oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re daval\u0131 i\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin feshedilmesinin hakl\u0131 nedenlere dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca karar\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm f\u0131kras\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine 54,40 TL har\u00e7, 680 TL arabuluculuk \u00fccreti, 108,95 TL tan\u0131k \u00fccreti, posta gideri ve di\u011fer masraf ile 3.400 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama gideri kendi \u00fczerinde b\u0131rak\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurulmas\u0131 \u00fczerine Bursa B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 3. Hukuk Dairesi (B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi) istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun esastan reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 12\/4\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 29\/4\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. 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
7. Ba\u015fvurucu; Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan 12\/10\/2017 tarihli ve 7036 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015f Mahkemeleri Kanunu’nun 3. maddesinin (12) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fince yarg\u0131lama giderinin i\u015fverene y\u00fckletilmesi gerekirken s\u00f6z konusu kural uygulanmayarak aleyhine yarg\u0131lama giderine h\u00fckmedildi\u011fini, yine hatal\u0131 olarak i\u015fveren lehine vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucu B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin bu hususa y\u00f6nelik iddiay\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmeden karar verdi\u011fini belirterek gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. 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 gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
9. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 g\u00fcvencesini de kapsamaktad\u0131r (daha geni\u015f de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. Abdullah Top\u00e7u, B. No: 2014\/8868, 19\/4\/2017, \u00a7 75). Nitekim Anayasa’n\u0131n 141. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131nda “B\u00fct\u00fcn mahkemelerin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc kararlar\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli olarak yaz\u0131l\u0131r.” denilerek mahkemelere kararlar\u0131n\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli yazma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc y\u00fcklenmi\u015ftir. Mahkemelerin an\u0131lan y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, yarg\u0131lamada ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen her t\u00fcrl\u00fc iddia ve savunmaya karar gerek\u00e7esinde ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 yan\u0131t vermesi gerekti\u011fi \u015feklinde anla\u015f\u0131lamaz. Ancak mahkemeler, kendilerine sunulan t\u00fcm iddialara yan\u0131t vermek zorunda de\u011filse de (Yasemin Ek\u015fi, B. No: 2013\/5486, 4\/12\/2013, \u00a7 56) mahkemelerin davan\u0131n esas sorunlar\u0131n\u0131 inceledikleri gerek\u00e7eli karardan anla\u015f\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bir kararda tam olarak hangi unsurlar\u0131n bulunmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi davan\u0131n niteli\u011fine ve \u015fartlar\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. Muhakeme 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 (Sencer Ba\u015fat ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2013\/7800, 18\/6\/2014, \u00a7 35). 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, \u00a7 39).<\/p>\n
10. Anayasa Mahkemesinin gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131ndaki g\u00f6revi uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131yan meselelere ili\u015fkin olarak yarg\u0131 mercilerinin ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e ortaya koyup koymad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 incelemekten ibarettir. Anayasa Mahkemesinin mahkemelerin a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a keyf\u00ee olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya bariz bir takdir hatas\u0131 i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi s\u00fcrece gerek\u00e7elerini denetleme gibi bir g\u00f6revi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi mahkeme kararlar\u0131ndaki hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131 gidermek de Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi de\u011fildir (Halit Kabada\u011f, B. No: 2019\/3589, 23\/11\/2021, \u00a7 30).<\/p>\n
11. Eldeki olayda ba\u015fvurucu i\u015f akdinin haks\u0131z olarak feshedildi\u011fini belirterek i\u015fe iade davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda dava reddedilmi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine yarg\u0131lama gideri ve vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde, dava dilek\u00e7esinde de belirtti\u011fi \u00fczere i\u015fverenin arabuluculuk ilk toplant\u0131s\u0131na kat\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n son tutanak ile sabit oldu\u011funu, 7036 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 3. maddesinin (12) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca yarg\u0131lama giderinin i\u015fverene y\u00fckletilmesi gerekti\u011fini, ancak Mahkemenin s\u00f6z konusu kural \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmadan yarg\u0131lama gideri ve vek\u00e2let \u00fccretini kendi \u00fczerine y\u00fckledi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi ise karar\u0131nda istinaf sebepleri ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak inceleme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f, istinaf ba\u015fvurusunu esastan reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. 7036 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 3. maddesinin (12) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda taraflardan birinin ge\u00e7erli bir mazeret g\u00f6stermeksizin ilk toplant\u0131ya kat\u0131lmamas\u0131 sebebiyle arabuluculuk faaliyetinin sona ermesi durumunda toplant\u0131ya kat\u0131lmayan taraf\u0131n son tutanakta belirtilece\u011fi ve bu taraf\u0131n davada k\u0131smen veya tamamen hakl\u0131 \u00e7\u0131ksa bile yarg\u0131lama giderinin tamam\u0131ndan sorumlu tutulaca\u011f\u0131, ayr\u0131ca bu taraf lehine vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmeyece\u011fi, her iki taraf\u0131n da ilk toplant\u0131ya kat\u0131lmamas\u0131 sebebiyle sona eren arabuluculuk faaliyeti \u00fczerine a\u00e7\u0131lacak davalarda taraflar\u0131n yapt\u0131klar\u0131 yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin kendi \u00fczerlerinde b\u0131rak\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 kurala ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayn\u0131 maddenin (14) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda arabuluculuk faaliyeti sonunda taraflara ula\u015f\u0131lamamas\u0131, taraflar kat\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fme yap\u0131lamamas\u0131 veya iki saatten az s\u00fcren g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeler sonunda taraflar\u0131n anla\u015famamalar\u0131 h\u00e2llerinde, iki saatlik \u00fccret tutar\u0131n\u0131n Arabuluculuk Asgari \u00dccret Tarifesinin eki Arabuluculuk \u00dccret Tarifesinin (Tarife) Birinci K\u0131sm\u0131na g\u00f6re Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 b\u00fct\u00e7esinden \u00f6denece\u011fi, iki saatten fazla s\u00fcren g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeler sonunda taraflar\u0131n anla\u015famamalar\u0131 h\u00e2linde ise iki saati a\u015fan k\u0131sma ili\u015fkin \u00fccretin aksi kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131k\u00e7a taraflarca e\u015fit \u015fekilde Tarifenin Birinci K\u0131sm\u0131na g\u00f6re kar\u015f\u0131lanaca\u011f\u0131, Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 b\u00fct\u00e7esinden \u00f6denen ve taraflarca kar\u015f\u0131lanan arabuluculuk \u00fccretinin yarg\u0131lama giderlerinden say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
13. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k i\u00e7in arabulucu se\u00e7ildikten sonra arabuluculuk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeleri y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeler sonucunda ba\u015fvurucu vekili ile arabulucu aras\u0131nda imzalanan 9\/7\/2019 tarihli Hukuk Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131nda Dava \u015eart\u0131 Arabuluculuk Son Tutana\u011f\u0131nda (Son tutanak), arabuluculuk konusu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n i\u015f\u00e7i-i\u015fveren uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (i\u015fe iade talepli, maktu) oldu\u011fu, 26\/6\/2019 tarihinde arabuluculuk s\u00fcrecinin ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu s\u00fcrecin 9\/7\/2019 tarihinde bitti\u011fi, arabuluculu\u011fun g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fme yap\u0131lmadan anla\u015famama ile sonu\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Son tutanakta, taraflara usul\u00fcne uygun bir \u015fekilde ilk oturuma\/toplant\u0131ya davet bildirimi g\u00f6nderilerek tebligat yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, ancak i\u015fverenin ge\u00e7erli bir mazereti olmaks\u0131z\u0131n ilk oturuma kat\u0131lmamas\u0131 nedeniyle arabuluculuk faaliyetinin sona erdi\u011fi, i\u015fverenin ilk oturuma\/arabuluculuk m\u00fczakerelerine kat\u0131lmamas\u0131na dair mazeret de bildirmedi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. Bununla birlikte Anayasa Mahkemesince 7\/6\/2012 tarihli ve 6325 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131nda Arabuluculuk Kanunu’na 6\/12\/2018 tarihli ve 7155 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 23. maddesiyle eklenen 18\/A maddesinin (11) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n birinci c\u00fcmlesinin “…bu taraf davada k\u0131smen veya tamamen hakl\u0131 \u00e7\u0131ksa bile yarg\u0131lama giderinin tamam\u0131ndan sorumlu tutulur.” b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn ve ikinci c\u00fcmlesinin Anayasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 olduklar\u0131na ve iptallerine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Anayasa Mahkemesi s\u00f6z konusu karar\u0131nda, hakl\u0131l\u0131k durumu g\u00f6zetilerek uygulanabilecek istisnalar ya da belli bir \u00fcst s\u0131n\u0131r \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmeden, \u00f6zellikle yarg\u0131lamada tamamen hakl\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kan, di\u011fer bir ifadeyle asl\u0131nda b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle haks\u0131z bir s\u00fcrece maruz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 yarg\u0131laman\u0131n sonucunda anla\u015f\u0131lan taraf\u0131n \u00f6zel durumu da g\u00f6zetilmeden, mazeret g\u00f6stermeksizin ilk toplant\u0131ya kat\u0131lmayan taraf\u0131n yarg\u0131lama giderlerinden t\u00fcm\u00fcyle sorumlu tutulmas\u0131n\u0131n ve vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinin tamam\u0131ndan yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015filere a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckledi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan kararda bu durumun kamu yarar\u0131 ile m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ve mahkemeye eri\u015fim haklar\u0131 aras\u0131nda g\u00f6zetilmesi gereken adil dengeyi ki\u015fi aleyhine bozdu\u011fu ve bu itibarla orant\u0131s\u0131z bir s\u0131n\u0131rlamaya neden oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (AYM, E.2023\/160, K.2024\/77, 14\/3\/2024).<\/p>\n
15. H\u00e2l b\u00f6yleyken B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131nda, yarg\u0131lama lehine sonu\u00e7lanan i\u015fverenin son tutanakta herhangi bir mazeret bildirmeksizin arabuluculuk ilk toplant\u0131s\u0131na kat\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmesine ra\u011fmen 7036 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 3. maddesinin (12) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yarg\u0131lama giderinden hangi taraf\u0131n sorumlu tutulaca\u011f\u0131na ve taraflardan birinin lehine vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti h\u00fckmedilip h\u00fckmedilmeyece\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir gerek\u00e7eye yer verilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. Oysaki yarg\u0131lama gideri ve vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine y\u00f6nelik ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen iddian\u0131n B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekmektedir. Zira B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin an\u0131lan kural kapsam\u0131nda yapaca\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmenin ba\u015fvurucunun lehine sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmayaca\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenemez.<\/p>\n
17. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015fverenin mazeret belirtmeksizin kat\u0131lmamas\u0131 sebebiyle sona eren arabuluculuk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeleri \u00fczerine a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015fe iade davas\u0131nda aleyhine yarg\u0131lama gideri ve vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilemeyece\u011fi iddias\u0131yla ilgili olarak B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k bir gerek\u00e7eye yer verilmedi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. Di\u011fer yandan bu ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n davan\u0131n esas\u0131yla ilgili herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi vurgulanmal\u0131d\u0131r. Zira gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131, taraflara yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fckleri iddialar\u0131n\u0131n kurallara uygun bi\u00e7imde incelenip incelenmedi\u011fini bilmelerine imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayan bir hak olup yarg\u0131lama sonucuna y\u00f6nelik bir teminat sa\u011flamaz. Bu itibarla Anayasa Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtti\u011fi ihlal gerek\u00e7elerini g\u00f6zeterek ve s\u00f6z konusu iddiayla ilgili olarak yeniden bir de\u011ferlendirme yaparak gereken karar\u0131 vermek yine yarg\u0131lama mercilerinin takdirindedir.<\/p>\n
19. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
21. 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
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Gerek\u00e7eli karar 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 gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Bursa B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 3. Hukuk Dairesine (E.2020\/2902, K.2021\/782) iletilmek \u00fczere Karacabey 1. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesine (E.2019\/355, K.2020\/262) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. 487,60 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.487,60 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. \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
F. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 28\/11\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 28\/11\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/33943 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 AHMET SALDA BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/33943) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 28\/11\/2024 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL \u00a0 \u00a0 Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : \u015eahap KAYMAK Ba\u015fvurucu : Ahmet SALDA Vekili : Av. K\u00fcr\u015fad \u015eAH\u0130N \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, i\u015fe iade davas\u0131nda hatal\u0131 bir \u015fekilde aleyhe yarg\u0131lama gideri ve vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedildi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik iddian\u0131n istinaf mahkemesince kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, \u00f6zel bir firmada g\u00fcvenlik personeli olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktayken i\u015f akdinin feshedilmesi \u00fczerine Karacabey 1. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (i\u015f mahkemesi s\u0131fat\u0131yla) (Mahkeme) i\u015f akdinin ge\u00e7erli bir neden olmaks\u0131z\u0131n feshi iddias\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak feshin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011finin tespiti ile i\u015fe iade davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Mahkeme davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; g\u00fcvenlik personeli olan ba\u015fvurucunun 25\/5\/2019 tarihinde g\u00f6rev yerini uzunca bir s\u00fcre terk etti\u011fi, g\u00f6rev yerinden ayr\u0131l\u0131rken bu durumu yetkili amirlerine bildirmeyerek g\u00f6rev yerine ba\u015fkas\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7mesini sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n sabit oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re daval\u0131 i\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin feshedilmesinin hakl\u0131 nedenlere dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca karar\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm f\u0131kras\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine 54,40 TL har\u00e7, 680 TL arabuluculuk \u00fccreti, 108,95 TL tan\u0131k …<\/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-25668","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n