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
YALNIZLAR TARIM \u00dcR\u00dcNLER\u0130 \u00c7IR\u00c7IR HAYVANCILIK SANAY\u0130 VE T\u0130CARET LTD. \u015eT\u0130. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/30620)<\/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
Mehmet ALTUND\u0130\u015e<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Yaln\u0131zlar Tar\u0131m \u00dcr\u00fcnleri \u00c7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r Hayvanc\u0131l\u0131k Sanayi ve<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti.<\/p>\n
Vekilleri<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Ak\u0131n \u015eENOL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Av. \u015e\u00fcheda AYHAN MOR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, pamuk \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r ve prese fabrikas\u0131 i\u015fletilmek \u00fczere verilen ikinci s\u0131n\u0131f gayris\u0131hhi i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptali nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru 16\/7\/2021 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. Komisyonca ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi, bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanlar\u0131n\u0131 iletmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR <\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle olaylar \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirkete Ayd\u0131n’\u0131n S\u00f6ke il\u00e7esi \u00d6zba\u015f\u0131 Mahallesi 2910 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde tar\u0131msal ama\u00e7l\u0131 depo ruhsat\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir. Akabinde m\u00fclga Ayd\u0131n \u0130l \u00d6zel \u0130daresince (\u0130dare) 27\/3\/2012 tarihli ve 499 say\u0131l\u0131 ikinci s\u0131n\u0131f gayris\u0131hhi i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f, an\u0131lan ruhsat 12\/11\/2012 tarihli ve 6360 say\u0131l\u0131 On D\u00f6rt \u0130lde B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediyesi ve Yirmi Yedi \u0130l\u00e7e Kurulmas\u0131 ile Baz\u0131 Kanun ve Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararnamelerde De\u011fi\u015fiklik Yap\u0131lmas\u0131na Dair Kanun’un y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girmesinden sonra S\u00f6ke Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nca (Belediye) 19\/2\/2015 tarihli ve 56 say\u0131l\u0131 ikinci s\u0131n\u0131f gayris\u0131hhi i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 olarak g\u00fcncellenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ayd\u0131n \u0130l, Tar\u0131m ve Hayvanc\u0131l\u0131k M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan Belediyeye 30\/6\/2014 tarihinde tar\u0131m d\u0131\u015f\u0131 kullan\u0131ma izin bulunmayan ta\u015f\u0131nmazda yer alan tesis i\u00e7in \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131 ruhsat\u0131 verildi\u011finin tespit edildi\u011fi, tar\u0131msal ama\u00e7l\u0131 depo kullan\u0131lmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik taahh\u00fctlere ayk\u0131r\u0131 \u015fekilde kurulan \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r tesisine ait depo, idari bina ve kantar\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n 3\/7\/2005 tarihli ve 5403 say\u0131l\u0131 Toprak Koruma ve Arazi Kullan\u0131m\u0131 Kanunu’nun 21. maddesi gere\u011fi durdurulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ve \u00fc\u00e7 ay i\u00e7inde i\u015fletmelerin izin verili\u015f amac\u0131na uygun h\u00e2le getirilmesi i\u00e7in yaz\u0131l\u0131 uyar\u0131 yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 bildirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Belediye 16\/7\/2014 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucudan faaliyetin durdurulmas\u0131n\u0131 ve i\u015fletmenin izin verilen amaca uygun h\u00e2le getirilmesini talep etmi\u015f, 19\/8\/2014 tarihinde ise tar\u0131msal ama\u00e7l\u0131 depo in\u015faatlar\u0131n\u0131n gerekli kurum g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri al\u0131narak tamamland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131 i\u00e7in ikinci s\u0131n\u0131f gayr\u0131s\u0131hhi i\u015fletme ruhsat\u0131 al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 ancak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n mutlak tar\u0131m arazisi olmas\u0131 sebebiyle 5403 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131nda kamu yarar\u0131 karar\u0131 ve bakanl\u0131k onay\u0131 al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden \u0130dareden g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. \u0130dare, 1\/10\/2014 tarihinde mevcutta tar\u0131msal depo olarak izinli tesislerin \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131na d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclmesi ve bu tesisler hakk\u0131nda izinlendirme s\u00fcreci ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00fcre\u00e7 sonu\u00e7lan\u0131ncaya kadar \u00fc\u00e7 ayl\u0131k s\u00fcrenin donduruldu\u011funa karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucunun i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fczenlenmesinden sonra Ayd\u0131n Valili\u011fi \u0130l Toprak Kurulunun 11\/11\/2014 tarihli ve 66 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile G\u0131da Tar\u0131m ve Hayvanc\u0131l\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Tar\u0131m Reformu Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 27\/11\/2014 tarihli ve 8649 say\u0131l\u0131 kararlar\u0131yla \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131n\u0131n kurulu bulundu\u011fu alan\u0131n tar\u0131m d\u0131\u015f\u0131 amaca tahsisine izin verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
A. Ayd\u0131n Valili\u011fi \u0130l Toprak Kurulunun 11\/11\/2014 tarihli Tar\u0131m D\u0131\u015f\u0131 Ama\u00e7l\u0131 Arazi Kullan\u0131m Karar\u0131 ile Bu Karar\u0131 Onaylayan G\u0131da, Tar\u0131m ve Hayvanc\u0131l\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 27\/11\/2014 tarihli Kararlar\u0131na Kar\u015f\u0131 A\u00e7\u0131lan \u0130ptal Davas\u0131<\/p>\n
13. Ayd\u0131n Valili\u011fi \u0130l Toprak Kurulu Kurulunun 11\/11\/2014 tarihinde kabul etti\u011fi tar\u0131m d\u0131\u015f\u0131 ama\u00e7l\u0131 arazi kullan\u0131m karar\u0131 ile bu karar\u0131 onaylayan G\u0131da, Tar\u0131m ve Hayvanc\u0131l\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 27\/11\/2014 tarihli kararlar\u0131n\u0131n Ayd\u0131n’\u0131n S\u00f6ke il\u00e7esi \u00d6zba\u015f\u0131 Mahallesi 2910 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz y\u00f6n\u00fcnden iptali i\u00e7in SS. S. Pamuk ve Ya\u011fl\u0131 Tohumlar Sat\u0131\u015f Kooperatifi (Kooperatif) taraf\u0131ndan Ayd\u0131n 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. Mahkeme 13\/7\/2017 tarihinde mahallinde ke\u015fif ve bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Ke\u015fif sonras\u0131 haz\u0131rlanan 27\/10\/2017 tarihli bilirki\u015fi raporunda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 5403 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a g\u00f6re mutlak tar\u0131m arazisi niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu, daha \u00f6nceden yasal olarak izinleri al\u0131narak yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan tar\u0131msal depolar\u0131n bulundu\u011fu alan\u0131n 6.520 m’lik alana beton d\u00f6k\u00fclerek geni\u015fletilmek suretiyle \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131na d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclmesinin planland\u0131\u011f\u0131, 6.520 m’lik arazide mevcut tesis ve\/veya beton kaplaman\u0131n 5403 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a uygun olarak tesis edilmedi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Rapora ba\u015fvurucu ve \u0130dare itiraz etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Belediyenin konuya ili\u015fkin haz\u0131rlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli rapora vurgu yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, S\u00f6ke’de faaliyet g\u00f6steren \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r tesislerinin mevcut durumlar\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131nda kamu yarar\u0131 bulundu\u011fu, pamu\u011fun i\u015flenmek i\u00e7in uzun kilometreler ta\u015f\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00fcretildi\u011fi yerde i\u015flenmesinin zorunlu oldu\u011funu beyan etmi\u015ftir. \u0130dare, kamu yarar\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011funu ve bilirki\u015filerce mevcut tesisler y\u00f6n\u00fcnden herhangi bir alternatif alan\u0131n \u00f6nerilmedi\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
15. Mahkemece 9\/10\/2018 tarihinde dava konusu i\u015flemlerin iptaline karar verilmi\u015ftir. Kararda; mahallinde yapt\u0131r\u0131lan ke\u015fif ve bilirki\u015fi incelemesi neticesinde haz\u0131rlanan bilirki\u015fi raporunda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sulu mutlak tar\u0131m arazisi niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu, bu nedenle tar\u0131msal ama\u00e7l\u0131 kullan\u0131m i\u00e7in ayr\u0131lm\u0131\u015f alan olarak de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi, arazide mevcut tesis ve\/veya beton kaplaman\u0131n 5403 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a uygun olarak tesis edilmedi\u011fi, 5403 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 21. maddesine g\u00f6re tar\u0131m d\u0131\u015f\u0131 arazi kullan\u0131m\u0131na izin al\u0131nmaks\u0131z\u0131n ba\u015flan\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle i\u015flem tesis edilmesi gerekirken dava konusu alan\u0131n tar\u0131m d\u0131\u015f\u0131 kullan\u0131ma uygun oldu\u011fundan hareketle i\u015flem yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu t\u00fcr tesislerin Ayd\u0131n, Mu\u011fla, Denizli Planlama B\u00f6lgesi 1\/100.000 \u00f6l\u00e7ekli \u00e7evre d\u00fczeni plan\u0131na g\u00f6re S\u00f6ke il\u00e7esinde yer alan konut d\u0131\u015f\u0131 kentsel \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma alan\u0131, k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck sanayi sitesi, sanayi alan\u0131, organize sanayi b\u00f6lgesi alanlar\u0131nda yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n uygun olaca\u011f\u0131, \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7evreye verece\u011fi toz, at\u0131k gibi zararlar\u0131n\u0131n kontrol edilebilmesi i\u00e7in sanayi b\u00f6lgesinde bulunmas\u0131n\u0131n uygun olaca\u011f\u0131, ayr\u0131ca b\u00f6lgede tesisin kurulabilece\u011fi davaya konu araziye nazaran verimlilik a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan daha d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck de\u011feri olan arazilerin mevcut oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. Bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 \u0130dare ve ba\u015fvurucu istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. \u0130zmir B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 7. \u0130dari Dava Dairesi (B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi) 14\/3\/2019 tarihinde istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
17. Bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 \u0130dare ve ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan temyize ba\u015fvurulmu\u015ftur. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Onuncu Dairesince 28\/1\/2020 tarihli karar\u0131yla B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Bozma ilam\u0131nda, alternatif alan bak\u0131m\u0131ndan uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k incelendi\u011finde dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazla ilgili olarak haz\u0131rlanan 29\/9\/2014 tarihli et\u00fct raporunda; ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n etraf\u0131nda daha az verimli arazi tespit edilemedi\u011fi, h\u00e2lihaz\u0131rda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde tar\u0131msal depolar\u0131n bulundu\u011fu ve alternatif alan olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, S\u00f6ke Organize Sanayi B\u00f6lgesi M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 9\/3\/2011 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r tesisi i\u00e7in organize sanayi b\u00f6lgesi i\u00e7inde yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirtildi\u011fi, Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan yapt\u0131r\u0131lan ke\u015fif ve bilirki\u015fi incelemesi sonucu haz\u0131rlanan 22\/3\/2018 tarihli ek bilirki\u015fi raporunda, dava konusu yerin alternatifinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespitine yer verildi\u011fi, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n kamu yarar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmesine gelince davaya konu tesisin de i\u00e7inde bulundu\u011fu tesisler hakk\u0131nda yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmede s\u00f6z konusu tar\u0131msal depo izinli tesislerin \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r tesislerine d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclmesinde ki\u015filer ve toplum yarar\u0131 birlikte g\u00f6zetilerek insan, toplum ve \u00e7evre ili\u015fkilerinde dengenin bozulmayaca\u011f\u0131, ekonomik, ekolojik ve toplumsal kay\u0131plar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan toplum aleyhine sonu\u00e7lar do\u011furmayaca\u011f\u0131, tesis b\u00fcy\u00fckl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn %10-15’ini \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131rlama faaliyetinin olu\u015fturdu\u011fu, geri kalan k\u0131s\u0131mda pamuk depoland\u0131\u011f\u0131, pamu\u011fun hasattan sonra bekletilmeden \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131rlanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011finden \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r tesislerinin pamuk ekim alanlar\u0131na yak\u0131n olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilerek dava konusu alanda \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131 kurulmas\u0131nda 5403 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a g\u00f6re kamu yarar\u0131 oldu\u011funun ifade edildi\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. Bozma sonras\u0131nda B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 9\/7\/2020 tarihinde ilk karar\u0131nda \u0131srar etmi\u015ftir. Israr karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 temyize ba\u015fvurulmu\u015ftur. Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u0130dari Dava Daireleri Kurulu 3\/2\/2021 tarihinde \u0131srar karar\u0131n\u0131n onanmas\u0131na kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B. Ba\u015fvuru Konusu \u0130\u015fyeri A\u00e7ma ve \u00c7al\u0131\u015fma Ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n \u0130ptali Davas\u0131<\/p>\n
19. Kooperatif taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucu ad\u0131na d\u00fczenlenen 27\/3\/2012 tarihli ikinci s\u0131n\u0131f gayris\u0131hhi i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptali i\u00e7in Ayd\u0131n 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) iptal davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 28\/11\/2018 tarihli karar\u0131yla i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir. Kararda; \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131n\u0131n yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n mutlak tar\u0131m arazisi niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu, s\u00f6z konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazda tar\u0131msal depolar ile idari binan\u0131n bulundu\u011fu, tesislerin \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131 olarak i\u015fletilmesine ili\u015fkin ikinci s\u0131n\u0131f gayris\u0131hhi i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n 27\/3\/2012 tarihinde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f bulunmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 27\/11\/2014 tarihli kararla tar\u0131m d\u0131\u015f\u0131 amaca tahsis edildi\u011fi, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n bulundu\u011fu alan\u0131n tar\u0131m d\u0131\u015f\u0131 amaca tahsis edilmesinden \u00f6nce d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi, \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131n\u0131n kurulu bulundu\u011fu alan\u0131n tar\u0131m d\u0131\u015f\u0131 amaca tahsisine izin verilmesine ili\u015fkin kararlar\u0131n \u0130dare Mahkemesinin 9\/10\/2018 tarihli karar\u0131yla iptal edildi\u011fi ve usul\u00fcne uygun bi\u00e7imde tar\u0131m d\u0131\u015f\u0131 amaca tahsis edilmi\u015f bulunmayan ta\u015f\u0131nmazda \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131 i\u015fletilmesine ili\u015fkin i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131nda hukuka uygunluk olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. Bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 Belediye ve ba\u015fvurucu istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 14\/3\/2019 tarihinde istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
22. Bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 Belediye ve ba\u015fvurucu temyize ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Onuncu Dairesi (Daire) 12\/5\/2020 tarihinde B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n bozulmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Daire, bozma karar\u0131nda Organize sanayi b\u00f6lgelerinde \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131 kurulmas\u0131na olanak bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 dolay\u0131s\u0131yla dava konusu \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131 i\u00e7in b\u00f6lgede alternatif alan olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde h\u00e2lihaz\u0131rda in\u015fa edilen tesis bulunmas\u0131, kurulu tesislerin zaten tar\u0131m arazisini i\u015fgal etmesi, s\u00f6z konusu fabrikan\u0131n pamuk bitkisinin hasat zaman\u0131ndan sonra yaln\u0131zca \u00fc\u00e7 ay d\u00f6nemsel olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususu da dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda dava konusu i\u015flemde hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca bozma karar\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131n\u0131n kurulu bulundu\u011fu alan\u0131n tar\u0131m d\u0131\u015f\u0131 amaca tahsisine izin verilmesi karar\u0131n\u0131n iptaline ili\u015fkin istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun reddine dair B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n 28\/1\/2020 tarihli kararla bozuldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
23. Bozma karar\u0131 sonras\u0131nda B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 7\/10\/2020 tarihinde \u0131srar karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Israr karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 temyize ba\u015fvurulmu\u015ftur. Temyiz incelemesi sonucunda Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u0130dari Dava Daireleri Kurulu 5\/4\/2021 tarihinde \u0131srar karar\u0131n\u0131n onanmas\u0131na kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
A. Ulusal Hukuk<\/p>\n
24. 3\/7\/2005 tarihli ve 5393 say\u0131l\u0131 Belediye Kanunu\u2019nun “Belediyenin yetkileri ve imtiyazlar\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 15. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“…<\/p>\n
l) Gayris\u0131hh\u00ee m\u00fcesseseler ile umuma a\u00e7\u0131k istirahat ve e\u011flence yerlerini ruhsatland\u0131rmak ve denetlemek.<\/p>\n
…”<\/p>\n
25. 14\/6\/1989 tarihli ve 3572 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015fyeri A\u00e7ma ve \u00c7al\u0131\u015fma Ruhsatlar\u0131na Dair Kanun H\u00fckm\u00fcnde Kararnamenin De\u011fi\u015ftirilerek Kabul\u00fcne Dair Kanun’un 3. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
” \u0130\u015fyeri A\u00e7ma ve \u00c7al\u0131\u015fma Ruhsat\u0131n\u0131 vermeye a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki merciler yetkilidir:<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
\u00a0b) Belediye hudutlar\u0131 ile m\u00fccavir alan i\u00e7inde kalan t\u00fcm i\u015fyerleri ve i\u015fletmelere belediyeler,<\/p>\n
26. 3572 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 4. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“3 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddede belirtilen merciler, iznin verilmesi i\u00e7in yap\u0131lacak beyan ve incelemelerde a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen genel kriterlere g\u00f6re d\u00fczenlenecek y\u00f6netmeli\u011fi esas al\u0131rlar.<\/p>\n
a) \u0130nsan sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131na zarar vermemek,<\/p>\n
b) \u00c7evre kirlili\u011fine yol a\u00e7mamak,<\/p>\n
c) Yang\u0131n, patlama, genel g\u00fcvenlik, i\u015f g\u00fcvenli\u011fi, i\u015f\u00e7i sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131, trafik ve karayollar\u0131, imar, kat m\u00fclkiyeti ve do\u011fan\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ile ilgili d\u00fczenlemelere ayk\u0131r\u0131 davranmamak.”<\/p>\n
27. 5403 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “Tar\u0131m arazilerinin ama\u00e7 d\u0131\u015f\u0131 kullan\u0131m\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 13. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
” Mutlak tar\u0131m arazileri, \u00f6zel \u00fcr\u00fcn arazileri, dikili tar\u0131m arazileri ile sulu tar\u0131m arazileri tar\u0131msal \u00fcretim amac\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kullan\u0131lamaz. Ancak, alternatif alan bulunmamas\u0131 ve Kurulun uygun g\u00f6rmesi \u015fart\u0131yla;<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
Mutlak tar\u0131m arazileri, \u00f6zel \u00fcr\u00fcn arazileri, dikili tar\u0131m arazileri ile sulu tar\u0131m arazileri d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan tar\u0131m arazileri; toprak koruma projelerine uyulmas\u0131 kayd\u0131 ile valilikler taraf\u0131ndan tar\u0131m d\u0131\u015f\u0131 kullan\u0131mlara tahsis edilebilir.<\/p>\n
Tar\u0131msal ama\u00e7l\u0131 yap\u0131lar i\u00e7in, projesine uyulmas\u0131 \u015fart\u0131yla ihtiya\u00e7 duyulan miktarda her s\u0131n\u0131f ve \u00f6zellikteki tar\u0131m arazisi valilik izni ile kullan\u0131l\u0131r.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
Bu madde kapsam\u0131nda valiliklerce verilen kararlara yap\u0131lan itirazlar, Bakanl\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan de\u011ferlendirilerek karara ba\u011flan\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Tar\u0131m arazilerinin korunmas\u0131 ve ama\u00e7 d\u0131\u015f\u0131 kullan\u0131m\u0131na dair uygulamalar\u0131n us\u00fbl ve esaslar\u0131 y\u00f6netmelikle d\u00fczenlenir.”<\/p>\n
B. Uluslararas\u0131 Hukuk<\/p>\n
28. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’ne (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) ek 1 No.lu Protokol’\u00fcn “M\u00fclkiyetin korunmas\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 1. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
“Her ger\u00e7ek ve t\u00fczel ki\u015finin mal ve m\u00fclk dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131na sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterilmesini isteme hakk\u0131 vard\u0131r. Bir kimse, ancak kamu yarar\u0131 sebebiyle ve yasada \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ko\u015fullara ve uluslararas\u0131 hukukun genel ilkelerine uygun olarak mal ve m\u00fclk\u00fcnden yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131labilir.<\/p>\n
Yukar\u0131daki h\u00fck\u00fcmler, devletlerin, m\u00fclkiyetin kamu yarar\u0131na uygun olarak kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fczenlemek veya vergilerin ya da ba\u015fka katk\u0131lar\u0131n veya para cezalar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesini sa\u011flamak i\u00e7in gerekli g\u00f6rd\u00fckleri yasalar\u0131 uygulama konusunda sahip olduklar\u0131 hakka halel getirmez.”<\/p>\n
29. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi (A\u0130HM) i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131nda, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kapsam\u0131 konusunda mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden ve mahkemelerin bunlara ili\u015fkin yorumundan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olarak \u00f6zerk bir yorum esas al\u0131nmaktad\u0131r (Depalle\/Fransa [BD], B. No: 34044\/02, 29\/3\/2010, \u00a7 62; Anheuser-Busch Inc.\/Portekiz [BD], B. No: 73049\/01, 11\/1\/2007, \u00a7 63; \u00d6nery\u0131ld\u0131z\/T\u00fcrkiye [BD], B. No: 48939\/99, 30\/11\/2004, \u00a7 124; Broniowski\/Polonya [BD], B. No: 31443\/96, 22\/6\/2004, \u00a7 129).<\/p>\n
30. Bir i\u015fin y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesi i\u00e7in verilen i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsatlar\u0131, Anayasa ve S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin ortak koruma alan\u0131nda yer alan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n konusunu olu\u015fturur. A\u0130HM’e g\u00f6re verilen ruhsat ve izinlerin sona erdirilmesi, ilgili \u015firketin veya i\u015fyerlerinin ticari itibar\u0131na ve de\u011ferine olumsuz etkide bulundu\u011fundan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale niteli\u011findedir. Bununla birlikte A\u0130HM ruhsat veya izinlerin sona erdirilmesini, S\u00f6zle\u015fme’ye ek 1 No.lu Protokol’\u00fcn 1. maddesinin birinci paragraf\u0131n\u0131n ikinci c\u00fcmlesi anlam\u0131nda m\u00fclkiyetten yoksun b\u0131rakma kapsam\u0131nda de\u011fil an\u0131lan maddenin ikinci paragraf\u0131 anlam\u0131nda m\u00fclkiyetin kontrol\u00fc kapsam\u0131nda bir m\u00fcdahale olarak incelemektedir (Tre Trakt\u00f6rer Aktiebolag\/\u0130sve\u00e7, B. No: 10873\/84, 7\/7\/1989, \u00a7\u00a7 53, 55; Rosenzweig And Bonded Warehouses Ltd.\/Polonya, B. No: 51728\/99, 28\/7\/2005, \u00a7 49; Capital Bank AD\/Bulgaristan, B. No: 49429\/99, 24\/11\/2005, \u00a7\u00a7 130, 131; Bimer S.A.\/Moldova, B. No: 15084\/03, 10\/7\/2007, \u00a7\u00a7 49-51; Megadat.com SRL\/Moldova, B. No: 21151\/04, 8\/4\/2008, \u00a7\u00a7 62, 63, 65).<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
31. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 24\/10\/2024 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130ddialar\u0131 ve Bakanl\u0131k G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/p>\n
32. Ba\u015fvurucu; 2012 y\u0131l\u0131ndan beri yetkili kurum ve kurulu\u015flardan gerekli izinler al\u0131narak pamuk \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r ve prese fabrikas\u0131 i\u015fletilmek \u00fczere i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131rma ruhsat\u0131 ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ayn\u0131 tar\u0131m arazisi \u00fczerinde birden fazla \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011funu, ruhsatland\u0131rma s\u00fcrecinde idarenin usul\u00fcne uygun kararlar ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendilerinin ger\u00e7ek d\u0131\u015f\u0131 beyan\u0131 ya da hilesinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, uzun y\u0131llar ticaret yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve m\u00fc\u015fteri \u00e7evresi edindi\u011fini, ruhsat iptali sonras\u0131nda ticari faaliyette bulunma imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015f; \u015eirkete ait on iki ayl\u0131k hesap d\u00f6nemine ili\u015fkin kurumlar vergisi beyannamesi incelendi\u011finde 2019 y\u0131l\u0131 d\u00f6nem net k\u00e2r\u0131n\u0131n 234.192 TL oldu\u011funu, bu sebeple 250.000 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n \u00f6denmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
33. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde, \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131n\u0131n kurulu bulundu\u011fu alan\u0131n tar\u0131m d\u0131\u015f\u0131 amaca tahsisine izin verilmesine ili\u015fkin i\u015flem ile i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131rma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptaline karar verildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131\u011fa g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun durumuna uyan aksi y\u00f6nde verilmi\u015f ve s\u00fcreklilik kazanm\u0131\u015f herhangi bir yarg\u0131 i\u00e7tihad\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 \u00f6nceki beyanlar\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
34. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n “M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 35. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201cHerkes, m\u00fclkiyet ve miras haklar\u0131na sahiptir.<\/p>\n
Bu haklar, ancak kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131yla, kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir.<\/p>\n
M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 toplum yarar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamaz.\u201d<\/p>\n
35. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olaylar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucular taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan hukuki nitelendirmesi ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olmay\u0131p olay ve olgular\u0131n hukuki tavsifini kendisi takdir eder. Ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirket, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n, e\u015fitlik ilkelerinin ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ancak somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirketin as\u0131l \u015fik\u00e2yetinin i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptaline y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirketin \u015fik\u00e2yetleri m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlali iddias\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
1. Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
36. 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 m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
2. Esas Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
a. M\u00fclk\u00fcn Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
i. Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
37. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011finden \u015fik\u00e2yet eden bir kimse, \u00f6nce b\u00f6yle bir hakk\u0131n\u0131n var oldu\u011funu kan\u0131tlamak zorundad\u0131r (Mustafa Ate\u015fo\u011flu ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/1178, 5\/11\/2015, \u00a7\u00a7 49-54). Bu nedenle \u00f6ncelikle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesi uyar\u0131nca korunmay\u0131 gerektiren m\u00fclkiyete ili\u015fkin bir menfaatinin olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131ndaki hukuki durumunun de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir (Cemile \u00dcnl\u00fc, B. No: 2013\/382, 16\/4\/2013, \u00a7 26; \u0130hsan Vurucuo\u011flu, B. No: 2013\/539, 16\/5\/2013, \u00a7 31).<\/p>\n
38. Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesiyle g\u00fcvenceye ba\u011flanan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131, ekonomik de\u011fer ifade eden ve parayla de\u011ferlendirilebilen her t\u00fcrl\u00fc mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131 kapsamaktad\u0131r (AYM, E.2015\/39, K.2015\/62, 1\/7\/2015, \u00a7 20). Bu ba\u011flamda m\u00fclk olarak de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011finde ku\u015fku bulunmayan menkul ve gayrimenkul mallar ile bunlar\u0131n \u00fczerinde tesis edilen s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 ayni haklar ve fikr\u00ee haklar\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra icras\u0131 kabil olan her t\u00fcrl\u00fc alacak da m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kapsam\u0131na d\u00e2hildir (Mahmut Duran ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2014\/11441, 1\/2\/2017, \u00a7 60).<\/p>\n
39. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131, \u00f6zel hukukta veya idari yarg\u0131da kabul edilen m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kavramlar\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 bir anlam ve kapsama sahip olup bu alanlarda kabul edilen m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131, yasal d\u00fczenlemeler ile yarg\u0131 i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olarak \u00f6zerk bir yorum ile ele al\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r (H\u00fcseyin Remzi Polge, B. No: 2013\/2166, 25\/6\/2015, \u00a7 31; Mustafa Ate\u015fo\u011flu ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 51).<\/p>\n
ii. \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/p>\n
40. Ba\u015fvurucunun pamuk \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131n\u0131n kurulu oldu\u011fu arazinin tar\u0131m d\u0131\u015f\u0131 amaca tahsisine izin verilmesine ili\u015fkin karar ile i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 iptal edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
41. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirket ad\u0131na pamuk \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r ve prese fabrikas\u0131 i\u015fletilmek \u00fczere verilen ikinci s\u0131n\u0131f gayris\u0131hhi i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n i\u015fletme sahibi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ekonomik bir de\u011fer ifade etti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirket kendisine verilen i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda bir y\u0131ldan fazla bir s\u00fcre ticari faaliyette bulunmu\u015ftur. Bu durumda m\u00fc\u015fteri \u00e7evresi ve ticari itibar sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k olan i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirket y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ekonomik bir de\u011feri oldu\u011fu ve bu ekonomik de\u011ferin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi hususunda teredd\u00fct bulunmamaktad\u0131r (Ak Demirta\u015f Madencilik Nakliyat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2014\/1989, 15\/6\/2016, \u00a7 35).<\/p>\n
b. M\u00fcdahalenin Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve T\u00fcr\u00fc<\/p>\n
42. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde bir temel hak olarak g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ki\u015fiye -ba\u015fkas\u0131n\u0131n hakk\u0131na zarar vermemek ve kanunlar\u0131n koydu\u011fu s\u0131n\u0131rlamalara uymak ko\u015fuluyla- sahibi oldu\u011fu \u015feyi diledi\u011fi gibi kullanma ve \u00fczerinde tasarruf etme, onun \u00fcr\u00fcnlerinden yararlanma imk\u00e2n\u0131 verir (Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 32). Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla malikin m\u00fclk\u00fcn\u00fc kullanma, m\u00fclk\u00fcn semerelerinden yararlanma ve m\u00fclk\u00fc \u00fczerinde tasarruf etme yetkilerinden herhangi birinin s\u0131n\u0131rlanmas\u0131 m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil eder (Recep Tarhan ve Afife Tarhan, B. No: 2014\/1546, 2\/2\/2017, \u00a7 53).<\/p>\n
43. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesi ile m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na temas eden di\u011fer h\u00fck\u00fcmleri birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde Anayasa’n\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahaleyle ilgili \u00fc\u00e7 kural ihtiva etti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Buna g\u00f6re Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, herkesin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmek suretiyle m\u00fclkten bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l yararlanma hakk\u0131na yer verilmi\u015f; ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda da m\u00fclkten bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l yararlanma hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalenin \u00e7er\u00e7evesi belirlenmi\u015ftir. Maddenin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda genel olarak m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n hangi ko\u015fullarda s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilece\u011fi belirlenerek ayn\u0131 zamanda m\u00fclkten yoksun b\u0131rakman\u0131n \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n genel \u00e7er\u00e7evesi \u00e7izilmi\u015ftir. Maddenin son f\u0131kras\u0131nda ise m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n toplum yarar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamayaca\u011f\u0131 kurala ba\u011flanmak suretiyle devletin m\u00fclkiyetin kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 kontrol etmesine ve d\u00fczenlemesine imk\u00e2n sa\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n di\u011fer baz\u0131 maddelerinde de devlet taraf\u0131ndan m\u00fclkiyetin kontrol\u00fcne imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan \u00f6zel h\u00fck\u00fcmlere yer verilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca belirtmek gerekir ki m\u00fclkten yoksun b\u0131rakma ve m\u00fclkiyetin d\u00fczenlenmesi, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6zel bi\u00e7imleridir (Recep Tarhan ve Afife Tarhan, \u00a7\u00a7 55-58).<\/p>\n
44. Ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilen pamuk \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r ve prese fabrikas\u0131 i\u015fletilmek \u00fczere verilen ikinci s\u0131n\u0131f gayris\u0131hhi i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptal edilmesinin -ticari itibar\u0131 ve faaliyeti ile bu kapsamda m\u00fc\u015fteri \u00e7evresi ve gelirleri \u00fczerinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015febilecek olumsuz etkileri g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde- m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
45. A\u0130HM’e g\u00f6re verilen ruhsat ve izinlerin sona erdirilmesi, ilgili \u015eirketin veya i\u015fyerlerinin ticari itibar\u0131na ve de\u011ferine olumsuz etkide bulunmakta olup m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale niteli\u011findedir. Bununla birlikte A\u0130HM ruhsat veya izinlerin sona erdirilmesini, S\u00f6zle\u015fme’ye ek 1 No.lu Protokol’\u00fcn 1. maddesinin birinci paragraf\u0131n\u0131n ikinci c\u00fcmlesi anlam\u0131nda m\u00fclkiyetten yoksun b\u0131rakma kapsam\u0131nda de\u011fil an\u0131lan maddenin ikinci paragraf\u0131 anlam\u0131nda m\u00fclkiyetin kontrol\u00fc kapsam\u0131nda bir m\u00fcdahale olarak incelemektedir (Tre Trakt\u00f6rer Aktiebolag\/\u0130sve\u00e7, B. No: 10873\/84, 7\/7\/1989, \u00a7\u00a7 53, 55; Rosenzweig And Bonded Warehouses Ltd.\/Polonya, B. No: 51728\/99, 28\/7\/2005, \u00a7 49).<\/p>\n
46. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda pamuk \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r ve prese fabrikas\u0131 i\u015fletilmek \u00fczere ikinci s\u0131n\u0131f gayris\u0131hhi i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 verilmesi, denetimler sonucunda ruhsatlar\u0131n mahkeme karar\u0131yla iptalinin kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n kontrol ve d\u00fczenleme yetkisi kapsam\u0131nda oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu sebeple ba\u015fvurunun m\u00fclkiyetin kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fczenleme ve kontrole ili\u015fkin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc kural \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
c. M\u00fcdahalenin \u0130hlal Olu\u015fturup Olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/p>\n
47. 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
48. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rs\u0131z bir hak olarak d\u00fczenlenmemi\u015f, bu hakk\u0131n kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131yla ve kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131labilece\u011fi \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahalede bulunulurken Anayasa’n\u0131n temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin genel ilkeleri d\u00fczenleyen 13. maddesi de g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmal\u0131d\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’ya uygun olabilmesi i\u00e7in m\u00fcdahale kanuna dayanmal\u0131, kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mal\u0131 ve ayr\u0131ca \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi g\u00f6zetilerek yap\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r(Recep Tarhan ve Afife Tarhan, \u00a7 62).<\/p>\n
i. Kanunilik <\/p>\n
49. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalelerde ilk incelenmesi gereken, kanuna dayal\u0131 olma \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcd\u00fcr. Bu \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edildi\u011finde di\u011fer \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctler bak\u0131m\u0131ndan inceleme yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lacakt\u0131r. M\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131, i\u00e7 hukukta m\u00fcdahaleye ili\u015fkin yeterince ula\u015f\u0131labilir, belirli ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir kurallar\u0131n bulunmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirmektedir (T\u00fcrkiye \u0130\u015f Bankas\u0131 A.\u015e. [GK], B. No: 2014\/6192, 12\/11\/2014, \u00a7 44; Ford Motor Company, B. No: 2014\/13518, 26\/10\/2017, \u00a7 49; Necmiye \u00c7ift\u00e7i ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/1301, 30\/12\/2014, \u00a7 55).<\/p>\n
50. Somut olayda 3572 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 4. maddesi ve 5403 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 13. maddesi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
ii. Me\u015fru Ama\u00e7<\/p>\n
51. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. ve 35. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ancak kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131yla s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131labilmektedir. Kamu yarar\u0131 kavram\u0131, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kamu yarar\u0131n\u0131n gerektirdi\u011fi durumlarda s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n vermekte ve bir s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rma amac\u0131 olmas\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda s\u0131n\u0131rlanamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6rerek ve bu anlamda bir s\u0131n\u0131rlama limiti olu\u015fturarak m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 etkin \u015fekilde korumaktad\u0131r. Kamu yarar\u0131 kavram\u0131, devlet organlar\u0131n\u0131n takdir yetkisini de beraberinde getiren bir kavram olup objektif bir tan\u0131ma elveri\u015fli olmayan bu \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn her somut olay temelinde ayr\u0131ca de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir (benzer y\u00f6ndeki kararlar i\u00e7in bkz. Nusrat K\u00fclah,B. No: 2013\/6151, 21\/4\/2016, \u00a7\u00a7 53, 56; Yunis A\u011flar, B. No: 2013\/1239, 20\/3\/2014, \u00a7\u00a7 28, 29).<\/p>\n
52. Tar\u0131msal arazilerin korunmas\u0131 ve geli\u015ftirme s\u00fcrecinde ama\u00e7 d\u0131\u015f\u0131 ve yanl\u0131\u015f kullan\u0131mlar\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi, bu arazileri korumay\u0131 sa\u011flayacak y\u00f6ntemlerin olu\u015fturulmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla denetim ve kontrol i\u015flemleri y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesi bu kapsamda baz\u0131 y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclerek bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklere uyulmamas\u0131n\u0131n yapt\u0131r\u0131ma tabi tutulmas\u0131nda kamu yarar\u0131 oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca bu yapt\u0131r\u0131mlar\u0131n kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131 benzeri fiillerin tekrar i\u015flenmesinin \u00f6n\u00fcne ge\u00e7ilmesi ba\u011flam\u0131nda cayd\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 bir y\u00f6n\u00fc de bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu sebeplerle i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptali \u015feklinde tezah\u00fcr eden m\u00fcdahalenin kamu yarar\u0131na dayal\u0131 me\u015fru bir amac\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu ku\u015fkusuzdur.<\/p>\n
iii. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck<\/p>\n
\u00a0(1) Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
53. Son olarak kamu makamlar\u0131nca ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirketin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyle ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmek istenen ama\u00e7 ile bu amac\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi i\u00e7in kullan\u0131lan ara\u00e7 aras\u0131nda makul bir \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ili\u015fkisinin olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmelidir.<\/p>\n
54. \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.2014\/176, K.2015\/53, 27\/5\/2015; E.2016\/13, K.2016\/127, 22\/6\/2016, \u00a7 18; Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
55. Buna g\u00f6re m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’ya uygun olabilmesi i\u00e7in amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli olmas\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131nda gerekli olmas\u0131 da gerekir. Gereklilik yukar\u0131da da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere hakka m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil eden birden fazla ara\u00e7 aras\u0131ndan hakk\u0131 en az zedeleyen arac\u0131n se\u00e7ilmesini ifade eder. Hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc s\u0131n\u0131rlayan tedbirlerden hangisi di\u011ferlerine nazaran hakk\u0131n norm alan\u0131na daha az m\u00fcdahale edilmesi sonucunu do\u011furuyorsa o tedbir tercih edilmelidir. Bununla birlikte hakka m\u00fcdahale olu\u015fturacak arac\u0131n se\u00e7iminde kamu otoritelerinin belli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde takdir pay\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu da kabul edilmelidir. Zira yetkili kamu makamlar\u0131, \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen amaca ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan hangi arac\u0131n etkili ve verimli sonu\u00e7lar do\u011furaca\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak isabetli karar verme noktas\u0131nda daha iyi bir konumdad\u0131r. \u00d6zellikle alternatif arac\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya mevcut alternatiflerin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen me\u015fru amaca ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan etkili olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ya da daha az etkili oldu\u011fu durumlarda kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n ara\u00e7 se\u00e7imi hususundaki tercih yetkisinin gereklilik kriterini sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6ylenebilmesi i\u00e7in \u00e7ok g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc nedenlerin bulunmas\u0131 gerekir (D.C., B. No: 2018\/13863, 16\/6\/2021, \u00a7 48).<\/p>\n
56. \u00d6te yandan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahaleler orant\u0131l\u0131 olmal\u0131d\u0131r. 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 olmamas\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 gerektirir. Buna g\u00f6re m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na getirilen s\u0131n\u0131rlamayla ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen me\u015fru ama\u00e7 ve ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131ndan yararlanmas\u0131ndaki bireysel yarar aras\u0131nda makul bir orant\u0131 kurulmal\u0131d\u0131r(D.C., \u00a7 49).<\/p>\n
57. Usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencelerin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k de\u011ferlendirmesinde \u00f6nemli bir rol oynayabilir. Bu bak\u0131mdan ki\u015finin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k iddialar\u0131n\u0131n bir mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan etkili bir bi\u00e7imde incelenmesi m\u00fcdahalenin orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ehemmiyet arz eder (D.C., \u00a7 52). Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesi usule ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131k bir g\u00fcvenceden s\u00f6z etmemektedir. Bununla birlikte m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ek anlamda korunabilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan bu madde, Anayasa Mahkemesinin \u00e7e\u015fitli kararlar\u0131nda da ifade edildi\u011fi \u00fczere m\u00fclk sahibine m\u00fcdahalenin kanun d\u0131\u015f\u0131 veya keyf\u00ee ya da makul olmayan \u015fekilde uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin savunma ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 sorumlu makamlar \u00f6n\u00fcnde etkin bir bi\u00e7imde ortaya koyabilme imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131 g\u00fcvencesini kapsamaktad\u0131r. Bu de\u011ferlendirme ise uygulanan s\u00fcrecin b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcne bak\u0131larak yap\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r (Z\u00fcliye \u00d6zt\u00fcrk, B. No: 2014\/1734, 14\/9\/2017, \u00a7 36; Bekir Yaz\u0131c\u0131 [GK], B. No: 2013\/3044, 17\/12\/2015, \u00a7 71).<\/p>\n
58. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvenceleri hem \u00f6zel ki\u015filer aras\u0131ndaki m\u00fclkiyet uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131nda hem de taraflardan birinin kamu g\u00fcc\u00fc oldu\u011fu durumlarda ge\u00e7erlidir. Bu ba\u011flamda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011fu durumlarda usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencelerin somut olayda yerine getirildi\u011finden s\u00f6z edilebilmesi i\u00e7in yarg\u0131 mercilerinin kararlar\u0131nda konu ile ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7e bulunmal\u0131d\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca belirtmek gerekir ki bu zorunluluk davac\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn iddialar\u0131na cevap verilmesi anlam\u0131na gelmemekle birlikte m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 ilgilendiren davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili esasa ili\u015fkin temel iddia ve itirazlar yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131nca \u00f6zenli \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirilerek kar\u015f\u0131lanmal\u0131d\u0131r (Kamil Darbaz ve Gmo Yap\u0131 Grup End. San. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2015\/12563, 24\/5\/2018, \u00a7 53).<\/p>\n
\u00a0(2) \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/p>\n
59. Tar\u0131msal arazilerin korunmas\u0131 ve geli\u015ftirme s\u00fcrecinde ama\u00e7 d\u0131\u015f\u0131 ve yanl\u0131\u015f kullan\u0131mlar\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi, bu arazileri korumay\u0131 sa\u011flayacak y\u00f6ntemlerin olu\u015fturulmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla denetim ve kontrol i\u015flemleri y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesi noktas\u0131nda hangi tedbirlerin gerekli oldu\u011funun de\u011ferlendirilmesi \u00f6ncelikli olarak ilgili kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n yetkisindedir. Bu alanda ne gibi tedbirlerin al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi hakk\u0131nda sorumlu ve yetkili otoriteler daha isabetli karar verebilecek konumdad\u0131r. Bu nedenle hangi tedbirin uygulanaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi hususunda idarelerin belli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde takdir yetkisi vard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
60. Somut olayda mutlak tar\u0131m arazisi oldu\u011fu Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan tespit edilen ta\u015f\u0131nmazda 5403 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a ayk\u0131r\u0131 \u015fekilde \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131 in\u015fa edildi\u011fi belirlenmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, mutlak tar\u0131m arazilerinde yap\u0131la\u015fma kurallar\u0131na uymad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilen \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131na ili\u015fkin i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131 iptal etmi\u015ftir. Tar\u0131msal arazilerin ama\u00e7 d\u0131\u015f\u0131 ve yanl\u0131\u015f kullan\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan bu m\u00fcdahalenin kamu yarar\u0131n\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli oldu\u011funda \u015f\u00fcphe yoktur. Yine mutlak tar\u0131m arazilerinin mevcut niteli\u011finin korunmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131 ve tesisleri i\u00e7in verilen i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptal edilmesinin gerekli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da s\u00f6ylenemez. Somut olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131 alt\u0131nda m\u00fcdahalenin gereklili\u011fi hususunda kamu makamlar\u0131nca yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmenin aksine bir sonuca ula\u015fmay\u0131 gerektirecek bir neden bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
61. Orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lacak de\u011ferlendirmede ise \u00f6ncelikle ba\u015fvurucuya gerek tar\u0131m d\u0131\u015f\u0131 ama\u00e7l\u0131 arazi kullan\u0131m karar\u0131n\u0131n gerekse i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptaline y\u00f6nelik yarg\u0131sal s\u00fcre\u00e7te iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 etkin bir bi\u00e7imde ortaya koyabilme olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131n\u0131p tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmelidir. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun, i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptaline y\u00f6nelik yarg\u0131sal s\u00fcre\u00e7te bilgi ve deliller ile iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n\u0131 yarg\u0131 mercilerine sunma f\u0131rsat\u0131 elde etti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr (bkz. \u00a7 14).<\/p>\n
62. Ba\u015fvurucu, Belediye taraf\u0131ndan kendisine i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131 verildi\u011fi ve bir y\u0131l s\u00fcreyle \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131na m\u00fcsaade edildi\u011fi h\u00e2lde sonradan ruhsat\u0131n mahkeme karar\u0131yla iptal edildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucuya g\u00f6re ruhsat\u0131n iptal edilmesinde kusuru yoktur. Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00f6ncelikle ba\u015fvurucunun ilk s\u00fcre\u00e7te tar\u0131msal ama\u00e7l\u0131 depo ruhsat\u0131na sahip oldu\u011funu, sonradan bu yerin \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r fabrikas\u0131na d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6zlemlemi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun tar\u0131msal ama\u00e7l\u0131 depo izni sonras\u0131nda arazide mevcut tesis ve\/veya beton kaplamalar\u0131n 5403 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a uygun olarak tesis edilmedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re 5403 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a uygun olmayan bu eylemlerin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilir durumdad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
63. Ba\u015fvurucunun ayr\u0131ca mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n yeterli gerek\u00e7e i\u00e7ermedi\u011finden yak\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvurucuya g\u00f6re Mahkeme, karar gerek\u00e7esinde Belediyenin konuya ili\u015fkin raporlar\u0131n\u0131 dikkate almam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme kararlar\u0131 incelenmesi neticesinde uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in Ayd\u0131n Menderes \u00dcniversitesi Ziraat Fak\u00fcltesi’nden bilirki\u015fi raporu istendi\u011fi, taraflar\u0131n rapora y\u00f6nelik itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrme f\u0131rsat\u0131 buldu\u011fu ve Mahkemece rapora y\u00f6nelik de\u011ferlendirmeler yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkeme, ruhsat iptaline y\u00f6nelik gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131nda bilirki\u015fi raporuna y\u00f6nelik tespit ve de\u011ferlendirmelere yer vermi\u015f; tar\u0131m d\u0131\u015f\u0131 ama\u00e7l\u0131 arazi kullan\u0131m karar\u0131n\u0131n mahkeme karar\u0131yla iptal edildi\u011fini vurgulayarak an\u0131lan i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir(bkz. \u00a7 20). Bu durumda mahkeme karar\u0131nda konu ile ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7enin ortaya konuldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
64. M\u00fcdahalenin sebep oldu\u011fu sonu\u00e7lar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucu, Belediyenin verdi\u011fi i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptali nedeniyle \u015eirketin kapand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve b\u00fcy\u00fck maddi zarara u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. \u00d6ncelikle ba\u015fvurucunun Belediyenin verdi\u011fi ruhsat nedeniyle yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 harcamalar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar\u0131n tazminine y\u00f6nelik dava a\u00e7\u0131p a\u00e7mad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda bireysel ba\u015fvuru formunda herhangi bir a\u00e7\u0131klama yapmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu sebeple an\u0131lan durum y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ayr\u0131ca bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
65. Sonu\u00e7 olarak mutlak tar\u0131m arazilerinin korunmas\u0131, ama\u00e7 d\u0131\u015f\u0131 ve yanl\u0131\u015f kullan\u0131mlar\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesinin \u00f6nem arz etti\u011fi ku\u015fkusuzdur. Bunun yan\u0131nda devletin topra\u011f\u0131n korunmas\u0131, geli\u015ftirilmesi, tar\u0131msal arazilerin \u00e7evre \u00f6ncelikli s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclebilir kalk\u0131nma ilkesine uygun olarak planl\u0131 kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayacak usul ve esaslar\u0131 belirlenme noktas\u0131nda geni\u015f bir takdir yetkisinin oldu\u011fu da dikkate al\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
66. Bu durumda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin -takip etti\u011fi kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 ile kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda- ba\u015fvurucuya \u015fahsi olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 ve ola\u011fan d\u0131\u015f\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklemedi\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 ile kamu yarar\u0131 aras\u0131nda olmas\u0131 gereken adil dengenin bozulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
67. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilmedi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
VI. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LMED\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde BIRAKILMASINA,<\/p>\n
D. 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\/30620 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 YALNIZLAR TARIM \u00dcR\u00dcNLER\u0130 \u00c7IR\u00c7IR HAYVANCILIK SANAY\u0130 VE T\u0130CARET LTD. \u015eT\u0130. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/30620) \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 : Mehmet ALTUND\u0130\u015e Ba\u015fvurucu : Yaln\u0131zlar Tar\u0131m \u00dcr\u00fcnleri \u00c7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r Hayvanc\u0131l\u0131k Sanayi ve \u00a0 \u00a0 Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti. Vekilleri : Av. Ak\u0131n \u015eENOL \u00a0 \u00a0 Av. \u015e\u00fcheda AYHAN MOR \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru, pamuk \u00e7\u0131r\u00e7\u0131r ve prese fabrikas\u0131 i\u015fletilmek \u00fczere verilen ikinci s\u0131n\u0131f gayris\u0131hhi i\u015fyeri a\u00e7ma ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptali nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 16\/7\/2021 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. Komisyonca ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. 5. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi, bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir. 6. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanlar\u0131n\u0131 iletmi\u015ftir. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 7. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle olaylar \u015f\u00f6yledir: 8. Ba\u015fvurucu \u015eirkete Ayd\u0131n’\u0131n S\u00f6ke il\u00e7esi \u00d6zba\u015f\u0131 Mahallesi 2910 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz …<\/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-30452","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n