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
MEHMET G\u00dcNG\u00d6R BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/1719)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 24\/10\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 5\/2\/2025 – 32804<\/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
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/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
\u015eahap KAYMAK<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Mehmet G\u00dcNG\u00d6R<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Ali Fihil TERZ\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 <\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik talebin karara ba\u011flanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu 14\/7\/1965 tarihli ve 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Devlet Memurlar\u0131 Kanunu’nun 76. maddesi uyar\u0131nca Konya Ere\u011fli Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda m\u00fcnhal olan 1. dereceli yaz\u0131 i\u015fleri m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kadrosuna 18\/4\/2014 tarihinde asaleten atanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun bu g\u00f6rev uhdesinde kalmak kayd\u0131yla 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 68. maddesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde Ere\u011fli Belediye ba\u015fkan yard\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6revine 10\/8\/2015 tarihinde vek\u00e2leten atamas\u0131 yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Daha sonra ise ba\u015fvurucunun 18\/4\/2019 tarihinden itibaren ge\u00e7erli olmak \u00fczere 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 76. maddesi gere\u011fince ayn\u0131 yerde bulunan 1. dereceli uzman kadrosuna atanmas\u0131 uygun g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
3. Bunun \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu, 1. dereceli uzman kadrosuna atanma i\u015fleminin iptali ve bu i\u015flem nedeniyle yoksun kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc mali haklar\u0131n\u0131n sakl\u0131 tutulmas\u0131na karar verilmesi talebiyle Konya 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. Mahkeme davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; \u00fcst d\u00fczey kamu y\u00f6neticisi niteli\u011findeki belediye ba\u015fkan yard\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6revine atanma ve g\u00f6revden al\u0131nma hususunda idarenin geni\u015f bir takdir yetkisine sahip oldu\u011funu, bu g\u00f6reve atanma ilgililer y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hak te\u015fkil etmedi\u011fi gibi g\u00f6revden al\u0131nman\u0131n da hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ilkesini zedelemedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Ayn\u0131 zamanda s\u00f6z konusu g\u00f6revin devaml\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n atamaya yetkili amir olan belediye ba\u015fkan\u0131n\u0131n yeniden se\u00e7ilmesi \u015fart\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 oldu\u011funu ifade etmi\u015ftir. Atanan personelin ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131z olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde kar\u015f\u0131la\u015faca\u011f\u0131 m\u00fceyyideler ve yeniden se\u00e7ilememe durumunun belediye ba\u015fkan\u0131n\u0131n birlikte \u00e7al\u0131\u015faca\u011f\u0131 personeli se\u00e7me ve g\u00f6revden alma yetkisi bulundu\u011funun bir g\u00f6stergesi oldu\u011fu kabul edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Bu karara y\u00f6nelik ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 \u00fczerine Konya B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 1. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi (B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi) istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Nihai karara kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu, iptal talebinden farkl\u0131 bir konuda karar verildi\u011fini belirterek B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesine maddi hata dilek\u00e7esi sunmu\u015ftur. Dilek\u00e7ede, iptali talep edilen i\u015flemin 1. dereceli yaz\u0131 i\u015fleri m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kadrosundan 1. dereceli uzman kadrosuna atama i\u015flemi oldu\u011funu ancak Mahkemenin ve B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesinin bu i\u015flemi belediye ba\u015fkan yard\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6revinden al\u0131n\u0131p uzman kadrosuna atama i\u015flemi olarak de\u011ferlendirdi\u011fini, oysa belediye ba\u015fkan yard\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6revine tekrar atanma y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir talepte bulunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu’nun 30. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca yanl\u0131\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n d\u00fczeltilmesi talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar vermi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun reddine ili\u015fkin nihai karar\u0131n istem \u00f6zetinde yer alan “Konya ili, Ere\u011fli \u0130l\u00e7e Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fkan yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 olarak g\u00f6rev yapmakta olan davac\u0131n\u0131n 1. dereceli uzman kadrosuna atanmas\u0131na” \u015feklindeki ibare “Konya ili, Ere\u011fli \u0130l\u00e7e Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda 1. dereceli yaz\u0131 i\u015fleri m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc ve ba\u015fkan yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 olarak g\u00f6rev yapmakta olan davac\u0131n\u0131n” olarak d\u00fczeltilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 3\/12\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 31\/12\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
9. 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
10. Ba\u015fvurucu; iptal davas\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte belediye ba\u015fkan yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 olarak g\u00f6rev yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, Mahkemece iptal talebinden farkl\u0131 bir konuda karar verildi\u011fini belirterek karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. 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 karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
13. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda hi\u00e7bir mahkemenin g\u00f6rev ve yetkisi i\u00e7indeki davaya bakmaktan ka\u00e7\u0131namayaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu ba\u011flamda Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131, ki\u015filere davan\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc mahkemeden uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011fa ili\u015fkin bir karar verilmesini isteme g\u00fcvencesini de sa\u011flar. \u00d6te yandan Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’ni (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) yorumlayan Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi de S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n mahkeme hakk\u0131 \u015feklinde genel bir hakk\u0131 d\u00fczenledi\u011fini kabul etmekte ve bu hakk\u0131n karar hakk\u0131n\u0131 da i\u00e7erdi\u011fini ifade etmektedir (\u0130brahim Demiro\u011flu [GK], B. No: 2017\/15698, 26\/7\/2019, \u00a7 54).<\/p>\n
14. Demokratik bir toplumda vazge\u00e7ilmez bir hak niteli\u011findeki adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvencelerinden biri olan mahkeme hakk\u0131; uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n bir mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcne getirilebilmesini, dava konusu edilen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011fa ili\u015fkin esasl\u0131 iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n yarg\u0131 merciince incelenerek de\u011ferlendirilmesini ve bir karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131, ayr\u0131ca verilen karar\u0131n icra edilmesini gerektirir. Buna g\u00f6re mahkeme hakk\u0131; mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, karar hakk\u0131 ve karar\u0131n icras\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7erir. Karar hakk\u0131, genel itibar\u0131yla mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcne getirilen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 isteme hakk\u0131n\u0131 ifade eder. Zira dava hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanan bireyin as\u0131l amac\u0131 uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu etti\u011fi talebinin esas\u0131yla ilgili olarak davan\u0131n sonunda bir karar elde edebilmektir. Bir ba\u015fka ifadeyle dava sonucunda \u015fayet bir karar elde edilemiyorsa dava a\u00e7man\u0131n da bir anlam\u0131 kalmayacakt\u0131r. \u00d6te yandan karar hakk\u0131 bireylerin sadece yarg\u0131lama sonucunda \u015fekl\u00ee anlamda bir karar elde etmelerini g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na almaz. Bu hak ayn\u0131 zamanda dava konusu edilen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011fa ili\u015fkin esasl\u0131 taleplerin yarg\u0131 merciince bir sonuca ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 da gerektirir (baz\u0131 farkl\u0131l\u0131klarla birlikte bkz. \u0130brahim Demiro\u011flu, \u00a7 55).<\/p>\n
15. Ki\u015filer dava a\u00e7mak suretiyle mahkemelerden hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckleriyle ilgili olarak yarg\u0131sal koruma talep etmektedir. Bireylerin yarg\u0131sal koruma taleplerine cevap vermek, bu ba\u011flamda dava konusu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131 inceleyerek iddia ve savunmalar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirdikten sonra davay\u0131 karara ba\u011flamak yarg\u0131 mercilerinin anayasal y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcd\u00fcr. Ayr\u0131ca adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 davan\u0131n sonucuna y\u00f6nelik bir g\u00fcvence i\u00e7ermemektedir. An\u0131lan hak, yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinin adil olarak y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesini temin edecek birtak\u0131m usul g\u00fcvenceleri sunmaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla bireysel ba\u015fvuru incelemelerinde adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131l\u0131rken davan\u0131n sonucuna ili\u015fkin bir \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131m yap\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Bununla birlikte Anayasa Mahkemesinin taraflar\u0131n \u00f6ne s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve esasa etkili olan iddialar\u0131n -mahkeme hakk\u0131n\u0131n gere\u011fi olarak- yarg\u0131 mercilerince i\u015fin mahiyetinin gerektirdi\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde incelenip incelenmedi\u011fini denetleme g\u00f6revi bulunmaktad\u0131r (Emin Arda B\u00fcy\u00fck [GK], B. No: 2017\/28079, 2\/7\/2020, \u00a7\u00a7 52, 55).<\/p>\n
16. Ba\u015fvurucu, idare aleyhine a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 iptal davas\u0131n\u0131n sebebinin yaz\u0131 i\u015fleri m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kadrosundan uzman kadrosuna atanma oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Ayn\u0131 zamanda uzman kadrosuna atanmas\u0131na dair i\u015flemin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olarak herhangi bir karar verilmedi\u011finden \u015fik\u00e2yet etmi\u015ftir. Somut olayda tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken mesele ba\u015fvurucunun uzman kadrosuna atanma i\u015flemine ili\u015fkin olarak Mahkemece yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmenin kapsam\u0131 ile ilgilidir.<\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvurucu, dava dilek\u00e7esinde yaz\u0131 i\u015fleri m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kadrosundan uzman kadrosuna atama i\u015fleminin iptalini talep etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme ise gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131nda davan\u0131n konusunu belediye ba\u015fkan yard\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6revinden uzman kadrosuna atama i\u015flemi olarak belirtmi\u015f, belediye ba\u015fkan yard\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6revini y\u00fcr\u00fcten ba\u015fvurucunun bu g\u00f6revinden al\u0131nmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde tesis edilen i\u015flemde hukuka, kamu yarar\u0131na ve hizmet gereklerine ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu kabulden hareketle Mahkemenin olay kurgusunu tamamen belediye ba\u015fkan yard\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6revinden al\u0131nma temeline oturttu\u011fu, bu g\u00f6revden al\u0131nma bak\u0131m\u0131ndan de\u011ferlendirme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla davay\u0131 belediye ba\u015fkan yard\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6revine atanma ve s\u00f6z konusu g\u00f6revden al\u0131nma hususuna \u00f6zg\u00fcleyerek esas hakk\u0131nda karar verdi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucu; istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde de Mahkemece davan\u0131n konusunun hatal\u0131 de\u011ferlendirildi\u011fini, iptalini talep etti\u011fi hususun belediye ba\u015fkan yard\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6revinden al\u0131nma i\u015flemi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, as\u0131l talebinin yaz\u0131 i\u015fleri m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kadrosundan uzman kadrosuna atama i\u015fleminin iptali oldu\u011funu tekrarlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi ise ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf sebepleri ile ilgili bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmadan talebi reddetmi\u015ftir. Di\u011fer yandan ba\u015fvurucu, ayn\u0131 sebeplere dayal\u0131 olarak bu defa maddi hata dilek\u00e7esi vermi\u015ftir. Ancak B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi yine bir de\u011ferlendirmede bulunmadan sadece \u015fekl\u00ee olarak istem \u00f6zetine ili\u015fkin yanl\u0131\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n d\u00fczeltilmesi talebini kabul etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. T\u00fcm bu de\u011ferlendirmeler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Mahkemenin ba\u015fvurucunun dile getirdi\u011fi ve yarg\u0131laman\u0131n sonunda \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fclmesi gerekli bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k olarak ortaya koydu\u011fu yaz\u0131 i\u015fleri m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kadrosundan uzman kadrosuna atama i\u015flemi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden inceleme yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme esasen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n konusunu eksik tespit etmek suretiyle davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun talebi hakk\u0131nda Mahkemece de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmak suretiyle olumlu ya da olumsuz bir karar verilmemi\u015f ve talep sonuca ba\u011flanmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu itibarla ba\u015fvurucunun dava konusu etti\u011fi uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan karar hakk\u0131ndan yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
21. Ba\u015fvurucu, atand\u0131\u011f\u0131 uzman kadrosunun yaz\u0131 i\u015fleri m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kadrosuna e\u015fit veya daha \u00fcst bir kadro olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendi talebi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ve herhangi bir sebep g\u00f6sterilmeksizin uzman kadrosuna atand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 ile istinaf dilek\u00e7esindeki iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak a\u00e7\u0131k ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e ile cevap verme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn yerine getirilmedi\u011fini belirterek gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n da ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bununla birlikte karar hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7 g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde bu a\u015famada an\u0131lan iddialar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
22. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile 20.000 TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
23. 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
24. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 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 karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n \u0130NCELENMES\u0130NE GEREK OLMADI\u011eINA,<\/p>\n
D. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Konya 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2019\/756, K.2020\/49) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. 446,90 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.446,90 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. \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
H. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 24\/10\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 24\/10\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/1719 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 MEHMET G\u00dcNG\u00d6R BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/1719) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 24\/10\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 5\/2\/2025 – 32804 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : \u015eahap KAYMAK Ba\u015fvurucu : Mehmet G\u00dcNG\u00d6R Vekili : Av. Ali Fihil TERZ\u0130 \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik talebin karara ba\u011flanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu 14\/7\/1965 tarihli ve 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Devlet Memurlar\u0131 Kanunu’nun 76. maddesi uyar\u0131nca Konya Ere\u011fli Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda m\u00fcnhal olan 1. dereceli yaz\u0131 i\u015fleri m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kadrosuna 18\/4\/2014 tarihinde asaleten atanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun bu g\u00f6rev uhdesinde kalmak kayd\u0131yla 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 68. maddesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde Ere\u011fli Belediye ba\u015fkan yard\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6revine 10\/8\/2015 tarihinde vek\u00e2leten atamas\u0131 yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Daha sonra ise ba\u015fvurucunun 18\/4\/2019 tarihinden itibaren ge\u00e7erli olmak \u00fczere 657 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 76. maddesi gere\u011fince ayn\u0131 yerde bulunan 1. dereceli uzman kadrosuna atanmas\u0131 uygun g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. 3. Bunun \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu, 1. dereceli uzman kadrosuna atanma i\u015fleminin iptali ve bu i\u015flem nedeniyle yoksun kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc mali haklar\u0131n\u0131n sakl\u0131 tutulmas\u0131na karar verilmesi talebiyle Konya 2. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 4. Mahkeme davan\u0131n reddine …<\/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-30451","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n