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
MERYEM AYAZ VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/5149)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 27\/11\/2024<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/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\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
1. Meryem AYAZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
2. Bedia AYAZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
3. G\u00fcl AYAZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
4. Bostan AYAZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
5. Fatma AYAZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
6. Ay\u015fe AYAZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
7. Cuma AYAZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
8. Zeynep AYAZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
9. Ahmet AYAZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
10. Emine AYAZ<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Tahsin KO\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 <\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131 nedeniyle u\u011fran\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen manevi zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Hatay’\u0131n Reyhanl\u0131 il\u00e7esinde 11\/5\/2013 tarihinde belediye binas\u0131 \u00f6n\u00fcnde ve postane binas\u0131n\u0131n yak\u0131nlar\u0131nda olmak \u00fczere bomba y\u00fckl\u00fc iki arac\u0131n infilak ettirilmesi suretiyle ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir. Sald\u0131r\u0131 sonucu 51 ki\u015fi ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131 yitirmi\u015f, 222 ki\u015fi yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n yak\u0131n\u0131 M.A. da s\u00f6z konusu sald\u0131r\u0131da hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybetmi\u015ftir. M.A.n\u0131n e\u015fi E.A. taraf\u0131ndan 22\/5\/2013 tarihinde Hatay Valili\u011fi Zarar Tespit Komisyonuna yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerine 21\/6\/2013 tarihinde sulhname imzalanm\u0131\u015f, 17\/7\/2004 tarihli ve 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Ter\u00f6r ve Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadeleden Do\u011fan Zararlar\u0131n Kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun uyar\u0131nca 25.842,95 TL tutar\u0131nda maddi tazminat e\u015f E.A. ile o\u011flu M.A.ya \u00f6denmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. S\u00f6z konusu ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131yla ilgili olarak \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 M\u00fclkiye M\u00fcfetti\u015fli\u011fi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen 2\/4\/2014 tarihli \u00f6n inceleme raporunda \u00f6zetle Hatay Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne olay \u00f6ncesi konuyla ilgili \u00e7ok say\u0131da ihbar geldi\u011fi, istihbarat birimleri taraf\u0131ndan -ara\u00e7 plakas\u0131, \u015fah\u0131s isimleri gibi bilgilerin de belirtilmesi suretiyle- Hatay Emniyetine bilgi sunuldu\u011fu, patlaman\u0131n meydana gelmesinde \u00f6nlem almayan emniyet birimlerinin hizmet kusuru oldu\u011fu, ilgililer hakk\u0131nda soru\u015fturma izni verilmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. \u0130lgili emniyet g\u00f6revlileri ile m\u00fclki idare amirleri hakk\u0131nda Hatay Valili\u011fi taraf\u0131ndan soru\u015fturma izni verilmesi \u00fczerine Hatay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nca 30\/12\/2014 tarihinde g\u00f6revi k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullanma su\u00e7undan iddianame d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f ve iddianamenin kabul\u00fc ile Hatay 7. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi nezdinde 19\/1\/2015 tarihinde kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucular 18\/11\/2015 tarihinde \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na sunduklar\u0131 dilek\u00e7e ile yak\u0131nlar\u0131 M.A.n\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc nedeniyle u\u011frad\u0131klar\u0131 maddi ve manevi zararlar\u0131n \u00f6denmesi i\u00e7in talepte bulunmu\u015ftur. Bu talebin 25\/11\/2015 tarihli i\u015flemle reddedilmesi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucular 25\/1\/2016 tarihinde manevi zararlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesi talebiyle Hatay \u0130dare Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dava dilek\u00e7esinde patlaman\u0131n ve \u00f6l\u00fcmlerin ya\u015fanmas\u0131nda idarenin kusuru oldu\u011fu, istihbarat bilgisi bulunmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen \u00f6nlem al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f; dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131klama yap\u0131larak 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’dan ayr\u0131 olarak kusur sorumlulu\u011fu temelinde dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. Mahkeme 26\/2\/2016 tarihli karar\u0131yla davay\u0131 s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu uyar\u0131nca olay tarihinden itibaren bir y\u0131l i\u00e7inde en ge\u00e7 12\/5\/2014 tarihine kadar idari ba\u015fvuru yap\u0131larak tesis edilecek i\u015flemin sonucuna g\u00f6re altm\u0131\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu ba\u011flamda olay\u0131n \u00fczerinden uzun s\u00fcre ge\u00e7mesinin ard\u0131ndan dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresini canland\u0131rma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulunmayan 18\/11\/2015 tarihli idari ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerine verilen ret cevab\u0131n\u0131n ard\u0131ndan 25\/1\/2016 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan davada s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 bulundu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n temyiz kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 \u00fczerine Dan\u0131\u015ftay 10. Dairesi (Daire) 28\/3\/2018 tarihli karar\u0131yla s\u00fcre ret karar\u0131n\u0131 bozmu\u015ftur. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da tam yarg\u0131 davalar\u0131 i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen bir ve be\u015f y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcrelerin eylemin idarili\u011finin ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 andan itibaren hesaplanmas\u0131n\u0131n \u015fart oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Somut olayda ise ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n eylemin idarili\u011fini 19\/1\/2015 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan ceza davas\u0131 ile \u00f6\u011frendi\u011finin kabul\u00fc gerekti\u011fi, bu nedenle de ceza davas\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131ndan itibaren bir y\u0131l i\u00e7inde 18\/11\/2015 tarihinde yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan idari ba\u015fvurunun reddedilmesi \u00fczerine 25\/1\/2016 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde oldu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu bozma karar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olarak daval\u0131 idarenin karar d\u00fczeltme talebi \u00fczerine Daire, bozma karar\u0131n\u0131 kald\u0131rarak Mahkemenin s\u00fcre ret karar\u0131n\u0131 kesin olarak onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucular nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 2\/2\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 12\/2\/2021 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
10. Ba\u015fvurunun incelenmesi s\u00fcrecinde ba\u015fvurucu Meryem AYAZ’\u0131n 2\/4\/2023 tarihinde vefat etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Vefat eden ba\u015fvurucunun miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131na 2\/8\/2024 tarihli yap\u0131lan bildirime ra\u011fmen miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 s\u00fcresinde ba\u015fvuruyu devam ettirmek istedikleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015flard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucu Meryem AYAZ Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
11. Anayasa Mahkemesi olay ve olgular\u0131 somut ba\u015fvuru ile benzer nitelikte olan Melle Malgir (B. No: 2014\/11355, 15\/2\/2017) karar\u0131nda uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede somut olayda bireysel ba\u015fvuru tarihinden sonra ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcreci devam ederken 2\/4\/2023 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131 yitirdi\u011fi, ancak ba\u015fvurucunun miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131na yap\u0131lan tebligata ra\u011fmen miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n ba\u015fvuruyu devam ettirmek istediklerine ili\u015fkin taleplerini Anayasa Mahkemesine iletmediklerinden ve ba\u015fvurunun incelenmesini devam ettirmeyi gerekli k\u0131lan ve Anayasa Mahkemesi \u0130\u00e7t\u00fcz\u00fc\u011f\u00fc’n\u00fcn 80. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen nedenlerden birinin de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurunun d\u00fc\u015fmesine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Di\u011fer Ba\u015fvurucular Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucular; eylemin idarili\u011finin ceza davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131yla birlikte \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fini, s\u00fcre ret karar\u0131ndaki yorumun kat\u0131 ve \u015fekilci oldu\u011funu belirterek mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u0131n ayn\u0131 konuda farkl\u0131 kararlar vermesinin hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ve hukuki belirlilik ilkelerine, 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 54. maddesinde yer almayan bir sebeple karar d\u00fczeltme talebinin kabul edilmesinin kanunilik ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fundan \u015fik\u00e2yet etmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca devletin pozitif ve negatif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 davranmak suretiyle ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011finden yak\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
13. 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. Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f yaz\u0131s\u0131nda; \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan temin edilen g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f ve ilgili belgelerin ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n iddialar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olarak yap\u0131lacak incelemede de\u011ferlendirilmek \u00fczere g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi bildirilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi konusunda inceleme yap\u0131l\u0131rken Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ile Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihad\u0131 ve somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde ise 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da d\u00fczenlenen dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcreleri ile 5233 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da d\u00fczenlenen idari ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcresinin hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu ve ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n bu hususa ili\u015fkin mevzuat\u0131 bilmemelerinin mazeret say\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru formundaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yinelemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
15. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n en temel unsurlar\u0131ndan biri olan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcne ta\u015f\u0131yabilmek ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n etkili bir \u015fekilde karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilmek anlam\u0131na gelir. Ki\u015finin mahkemeye ba\u015fvurmas\u0131n\u0131 engelleyen veya mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 anlams\u0131z h\u00e2le getiren, bir ba\u015fka ifadeyle mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde etkisizle\u015ftiren s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilir (\u00d6zkan \u015een, B. No: 2012\/791, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
16. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, mahkemeye ba\u015fvuru konusunda etkili bir sistemin var olmas\u0131n\u0131 ve dava a\u00e7mak isteyen ki\u015filerin mahkemeye ula\u015fmada a\u00e7\u0131k, pratik ve yeterli f\u0131rsatlara sahip olmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir. \u00d6zellikle hukuki ya da uygulamadaki belirsizlikler ki\u015filerin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilir (Aktif Elektrik M\u00fch. \u0130n\u015f. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2012\/855, 26\/6\/2014, \u00a7 34). Bu nedenle mahkemelerin usul kurallar\u0131n\u0131 uygularken yarg\u0131laman\u0131n hakkaniyetine zarar getirecek \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kat\u0131 \u015fekilcilikten ka\u00e7\u0131nmalar\u0131 gerekti\u011fi gibi kanunla \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f usul \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kalkmas\u0131na neden olacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 esneklikten de ka\u00e7\u0131nmalar\u0131 gerekir (Kamil Ko\u00e7, B. No: 2012\/660, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 65). Bu kapsamda mevzuatta \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine ili\u015fkin kurallar\u0131n hukuka a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak yanl\u0131\u015f uygulanmas\u0131 veya bu s\u00fcrelerin hatal\u0131 hesaplanmas\u0131 nedenleriyle ki\u015filerin dava a\u00e7ma ya da kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvuru haklar\u0131n\u0131 kullanmas\u0131na engel olunmas\u0131 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilir (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2014\/13156, 20\/4\/2017, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
17. Vurgulamak gerekir ki dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin hangi tarihte ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirlemek ve mevzuat\u0131 bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle yorumlamak g\u00f6revi esasen yarg\u0131 mercilerine aittir. Bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincillik ilkesi gere\u011fi, dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flat\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 tarihin belirlenmesi noktas\u0131nda Anayasa Mahkemesinin bir g\u00f6revi bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesinin bu hususta \u00fcstlenece\u011fi rol, dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin hangi tarihten itibaren ba\u015flat\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fiyle ilgili yarg\u0131 mercilerinin yorumlar\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na etkisini somut olay\u0131n \u015fartlar\u0131 \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda incelemektir (Ahmet Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m, B. No: 2014\/18135, 20\/9\/2017, \u00a7 46).<\/p>\n
18. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle Mahkemece reddedilmesinin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu sebeple m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ve somut ba\u015fvuruya uygun d\u00fc\u015fen, kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme, hakl\u0131 bir sebebe dayanma, \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmama \u015fartlar\u0131na uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
19. Somut olayda mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na davan\u0131n s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddi suretiyle yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011fa sahip oldu\u011fu ve s\u0131n\u0131rlaman\u0131n me\u015fru amac\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu (idari i\u015flem ya da eylemlere kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lacak davalarda s\u00fcre \u015fart\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin en genel ifadeyle idari istikrar\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 \u015feklinde bir me\u015fru amaca hizmet etti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. Ay\u015fe Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m, B. No: 2014\/5, 25\/10\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 54,55; Fatma Altuner, B. No: 2014\/17714, 26\/10\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 48,49; \u00c7\u00f6lbeyi Lojistik Nakliyat G\u00fcmr\u00fckleme Denizcilik \u0130n\u015faat Turizm Sanayii ve Ticaret Limited \u015eirketi, B. No: 2014\/12354, 9\/11\/2017, \u00a7 52) anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
20. Kanunilik ve me\u015fru ama\u00e7 \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahale, \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan da de\u011ferlendirilmelidir. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi elveri\u015flilik, gereklilik ve orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k olmak \u00fczere \u00fc\u00e7 alt ilkeden olu\u015fmaktad\u0131r. Elveri\u015flilik \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen m\u00fcdahalenin ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli olmas\u0131n\u0131, gereklilik ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan m\u00fcdahalenin zorunlu olmas\u0131n\u0131 yani ayn\u0131 amaca daha hafif bir m\u00fcdahale ile ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmamas\u0131n\u0131, orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k ise bireyin hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale ile ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 aras\u0131nda makul bir dengenin g\u00f6zetilmesi gereklili\u011fini ifade etmektedir (AYM, E.2011\/111, K.2012\/56, 11\/4\/2012; E.2013\/66, K.2014\/19, 29\/1\/2014; E.2016\/16, K.2016\/37, 5\/5\/2016; Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
21. Hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ba\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 usul kurallar\u0131na uyulmamas\u0131 nedeniyle uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n esas\u0131 hakk\u0131nda karar verilmemesi suretiyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin idari istikrar\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 amac\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan elveri\u015fli ve gerekli oldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenebilir. Somut olaydaki m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn de\u011ferlendirilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan as\u0131l \u00fczerinde durulmas\u0131 gereken husus ise m\u00fcdahalenin orant\u0131l\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
22. Eldeki ba\u015fvuruya konu yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde Mahkeme, meydana gelen \u00f6l\u00fcmler ile buna neden olan eylemin patlaman\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi 11\/5\/2013 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi ve bu tarihten itibaren mevzuatta belirtilen s\u00fcreler a\u015f\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra yap\u0131lan idari ba\u015fvurunun reddi \u00fczerine a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esine yer vererek davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular, idarenin kusurlu oldu\u011funu ve emniyet birimlerinin olayda ihmali bulundu\u011funu ceza davas\u0131 ile \u00f6\u011frendiklerini belirterek idari ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihi olarak ceza davas\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihin esas al\u0131nmamas\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
23. Anayasa Mahkemesince daha \u00f6nce benzer nitelikte ba\u015fvurularda da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere idari eylem nedeniyle u\u011fran\u0131lan zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131nda idarenin tazminle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc tutulabilmesi i\u00e7in ortada idari eylem ve zarar olmal\u0131, ayr\u0131ca zararla idari eylem aras\u0131nda illiyet ba\u011f\u0131 bulunmal\u0131d\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu eylemlerin idarili\u011fi ve do\u011furdu\u011fu zarar bazen eylemin yap\u0131lmas\u0131yla birlikte ortaya \u00e7\u0131karken bazen de \u00e7ok sonra de\u011fi\u015fik ara\u015ft\u0131rma, inceleme ve hatta ceza yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131 sonucu ortaya \u00e7\u0131kabilmektedir (\u015eeyma Kayao\u011flu, B. No: 2014\/5491, 5\/7\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 55,56).<\/p>\n
24. \u0130darili\u011fin veya meydana gelen zarar\u0131n ya da aralar\u0131ndaki illiyet ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131n eylemden sonra anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya ortaya konulabildi\u011fi durumlarda dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin hak sahibinin hen\u00fcz dava hakk\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fdu\u011fundan haberdar olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve somut \u015fartlar \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde haberdar oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fcn\u00fc hakl\u0131 k\u0131lan nedenlerin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir d\u00f6nemde i\u015flemeye ba\u015flamas\u0131 dava hakk\u0131n\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 anlams\u0131z k\u0131l\u0131p \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesini zedeleyebilir (Ya\u015far \u00c7oban [GK], B. No: 2014\/6673, 25\/7\/2017, \u00a7 66). Bu nedenle eylemin idarili\u011finin veya yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar\u0131n ya da illiyet ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131n eylemden sonra anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya ortaya konulabildi\u011fi durumlarda dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin bu tarihlerden sonra ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131 kabul edilmektedir (\u015eeyma Kayao\u011flu, \u00a7 55).<\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvuruya konu olayda \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn 11\/5\/2013 tarihinde meydana gelen ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi konusunda teredd\u00fct bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Ancak olayda idarenin kusuru olmas\u0131 durumunun \u0130\u00e7i\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan inceleme, akabinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen soru\u015fturma izni verilmesi i\u015flemleri ve olayda ihmali\/kusuru oldu\u011fu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclen emniyet g\u00f6revlileri hakk\u0131nda 19\/1\/2015 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan ceza davas\u0131 ile a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n an\u0131lan s\u00fcre\u00e7ten \u00f6nce \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131na sebebiyet veren olguya dair ihmale, eylemsizli\u011fe ve eylemin idarili\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir bilgiye, veriye sahip olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n, yak\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcne neden olan ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131nda idarenin kusur do\u011furabilecek eylemsizli\u011fini (\u00f6nlem almama h\u00e2li) ve zararla idari eylemsizlik aras\u0131nda illiyet ba\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011funu \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131yla derh\u00e2l \u00f6\u011frendi\u011finden s\u00f6z edilemez (benzer y\u00f6ndeki Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi de\u011ferlendirmesi i\u00e7in bkz. Kur\u015fun\/T\u00fcrkiye, B. No: 22677\/10, 30\/10\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 101-106).<\/p>\n
26. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n olay\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi 11\/5\/2013 tarihi esas al\u0131narak u\u011frad\u0131klar\u0131 zararla ilgili idari ba\u015fvuru yapmak suretiyle dava a\u00e7mas\u0131n\u0131n beklenmesi ba\u015fvuruculara orant\u0131s\u0131z bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklemektedir.<\/p>\n
27. T\u00fcm bu de\u011ferlendirmeler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde Mahkemenin dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihine ili\u015fkin yorumunun ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik kat\u0131 bir yorum oldu\u011fu ve bu yorumun ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 derecede g\u00fc\u00e7le\u015ftirerek neredeyse imk\u00e2ns\u0131z h\u00e2le getirdi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu nedenle davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesi suretiyle ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
28. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
29. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ya\u015fam hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc g\u00f6r\u00fclmekle birlikte mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7 g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde bu a\u015famada an\u0131lan ihlal iddias\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
30. Ba\u015fvurucular; ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile toplam 1.000.000 TL tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
31. 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
32. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucu Meryem AYAZ y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurunun ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc nedeniyle D\u00dc\u015eMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
B. Di\u011fer ba\u015fvurucular y\u00f6n\u00fcnden mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
C. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Di\u011fer ihlal iddias\u0131n\u0131n \u0130NCELENMES\u0130NE GEREK OLMADI\u011eINA,<\/p>\n
E. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Hatay \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2016\/116, K.2016\/240) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. 487,60 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.487,60 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin Meryem Ayaz d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki ba\u015fvuruculara M\u00dc\u015eTEREKEN \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE, Meryem Ayaz taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin an\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde BIRAKILMASINA,<\/p>\n
H. \u00d6demelerin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucu Meryem AYAZ d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n 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
\u0130. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 27\/11\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 27\/11\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/5149 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 MERYEM AYAZ VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/5149) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 27\/11\/2024 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 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\u015fvurucular : 1. Meryem AYAZ \u00a0 \u00a0 2. Bedia AYAZ \u00a0 \u00a0 3. G\u00fcl AYAZ \u00a0 \u00a0 4. Bostan AYAZ \u00a0 \u00a0 5. Fatma AYAZ \u00a0 \u00a0 6. Ay\u015fe AYAZ \u00a0 \u00a0 7. Cuma AYAZ \u00a0 \u00a0 8. Zeynep AYAZ \u00a0 \u00a0 9. Ahmet AYAZ \u00a0 \u00a0 10. Emine AYAZ Vekili : Av. Tahsin KO\u00c7 \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 sonucu meydana gelen \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131 nedeniyle u\u011fran\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen manevi zarar\u0131n tazmini talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Hatay’\u0131n Reyhanl\u0131 il\u00e7esinde 11\/5\/2013 tarihinde belediye binas\u0131 \u00f6n\u00fcnde ve postane binas\u0131n\u0131n yak\u0131nlar\u0131nda olmak \u00fczere bomba y\u00fckl\u00fc iki arac\u0131n infilak ettirilmesi suretiyle ter\u00f6r sald\u0131r\u0131s\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir. Sald\u0131r\u0131 sonucu 51 ki\u015fi ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131 yitirmi\u015f, 222 ki\u015fi yaralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n yak\u0131n\u0131 M.A. da s\u00f6z konusu sald\u0131r\u0131da hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybetmi\u015ftir. M.A.n\u0131n e\u015fi E.A. taraf\u0131ndan 22\/5\/2013 tarihinde Hatay Valili\u011fi Zarar Tespit Komisyonuna yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvuru \u00fczerine …<\/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-30460","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n