T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
A. NESL\u0130HAN KUYUCU BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/7159)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 18\/12\/2024<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Recai AKYEL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Kamber Ozan TUTAL<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
A. Neslihan KUYUCU<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; y\u00f6netim kurulu \u00fcyesinin kamu alaca\u011f\u0131ndan sorumlu tutulmas\u0131 nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle de makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucunun 28\/4\/2008 tarihinde \u00d6. Yemek \u00dcretim Servis Turizm G\u0131da Sanayi ve Ticaret A.\u015e.nin (\u015eirket) y\u00f6netim kurulu \u00fcyeli\u011finden ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin karar 9\/5\/2008 tarihinde tescil edilerek 14\/5\/2008 tarihli Ticaret Sicili Gazetesi’nde yay\u0131mlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu 2\/6\/2008 tarihinde ise \u015eirketteki t\u00fcm hisselerini devretmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Boz\u00fcy\u00fck Vergi Dairesi 11\/10\/2012 tarihinde iflas halinde \u015eirketten tahsil edilemeyen 2004 ile 2008 y\u0131llar\u0131na ait \u00e7e\u015fitli vergi bor\u00e7lar\u0131ndan do\u011fan kamu alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kanuni temsilci s\u0131fat\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucudan tahsili amac\u0131yla d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi otuz d\u00f6rt adet \u00f6deme emrini ba\u015fvurucuya tebli\u011f etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucu 16\/11\/2012 tarihinde \u00f6deme emirlerinin iptali i\u00e7in dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dava dilek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucu, kamu alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ncelikle \u015eirketten tahsil edilmesi gerekti\u011fini ve \u00f6deme emirlerinin d\u00fczenlenmesi \u00f6ncesinde herhangi bir bildirimde bulunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan yasal haklar\u0131n\u0131 kullanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f; ayr\u0131ca \u015eirkete ait olan \u00f6deme emirlerine konu bor\u00e7tan dolay\u0131 sorumlulu\u011fu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, y\u00f6netim kurulu \u00fcyeli\u011fi ile ortakl\u0131ktan ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan kanuni temsilci olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nemde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan bor\u00e7la ilgisi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve baz\u0131 bor\u00e7lar\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011fram\u0131\u015f olabilece\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
5. Eski\u015fehir 1. Vergi Mahkemesi 4\/4\/2013 tarihinde davan\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile \u00f6deme emirlerinin iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir. Kararda; iflas halinde olan ve iflas\u0131n hen\u00fcz kapanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015eirketin kamu alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tahsiline imk\u00e2n veren mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 bulundu\u011fundan \u015eirketten tahsil edilemeyen alacaklar\u0131n tahsili amac\u0131yla kanuni temsilci s\u0131fat\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucu ad\u0131na \u00f6deme emirleri d\u00fczenlenmesinde kanuna uygunluk olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. Daval\u0131 idare karara kar\u015f\u0131 temyiz kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Dan\u0131\u015ftay D\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc Dairesi 21\/7\/1953 tarihli ve 6183 say\u0131l\u0131 Amme Alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n Tahsili Usul\u00fc Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 35. maddesi uyar\u0131nca bir \u015firket borcundan dolay\u0131 kanuni temsilcinin takip edilebilmesi i\u00e7in borcun t\u00fczel ki\u015finin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan al\u0131namad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ortaya konmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Bu ba\u011flamda Daire, \u015eirketin mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kamu alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131layacak nitelikte olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dikkat \u00e7ekerek yeni bir karar verilmek \u00fczere h\u00fckm\u00fc bozmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, vergi borcundan sorumlulu\u011fu bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki iddia ve itirazlar\u0131 mahkemelerce incelenmeksizin tek bir olguya dayan\u0131larak karar verildi\u011fini belirtip karar\u0131n d\u00fczeltilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Dan\u0131\u015ftay D\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc Dairesi karar d\u00fczeltme nedeni bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klayarak talebi reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Eski\u015fehir 1. Vergi Mahkemesi 6\/9\/2018 tarihinde davan\u0131n yetkili olan Sakarya Vergi Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Sakarya Vergi Mahkemesi 2\/10\/2018 tarihinde mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 itibar\u0131yla \u015eirketten tahsil imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulunmayan kamu alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tahsili i\u00e7in d\u00fczenlenen \u00f6deme emirlerinde hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu, vergi borcundan sorumlulu\u011fu bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik iddialar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmedi\u011fini belirterek karar\u0131 temyiz etmi\u015ftir. Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc Dairesi, bozma karar\u0131ndaki esaslar do\u011frultusunda karar verildi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle h\u00fckm\u00fc onam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayn\u0131 Daire 27\/12\/2019 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun benzer iddialara dayal\u0131 karar d\u00fczeltme talebini de reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 23\/1\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 17\/2\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
12. 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
A. M\u00fclkiyet Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucu; kanuni temsilci olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6neme ait vergi bor\u00e7lar\u0131ndan sorumlu tutulamayaca\u011f\u0131, kanuni temsilci yetkisinin \u00f6tesinde sorumluluk y\u00fcklendi\u011fi, vergi bor\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131nda kusuru bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00f6deme emirlerine kar\u015f\u0131 itiraz imk\u00e2n\u0131 sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda kamu alaca\u011f\u0131ndan sorumlu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n mahkemelerce incelenmemesinden yak\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvuru, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka neden 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
16. Somut olayda kamu alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucudan tahsil edilmesi amac\u0131yla \u00f6deme emirleri d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda azalmaya yol a\u00e7acak \u00f6deme emirlerine konu paran\u0131n m\u00fclk te\u015fkil etti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. \u015eirketten tahsil edilemeyen vergi bor\u00e7lar\u0131 i\u00e7in kanuni temsilci s\u0131fat\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucu ad\u0131na \u00f6deme emri d\u00fczenlenmesi m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etmektedir. S\u00f6z konusu m\u00fcdahale kamu alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tahsilinin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 amac\u0131na y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011fundan m\u00fcdahalenin m\u00fclkiyetin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n kontrol\u00fc veya d\u00fczenlenmesine ili\u015fkin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc kural kapsam\u0131nda incelenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
17. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa\u2019ya uygun d\u00fc\u015febilmesi i\u00e7in m\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayanmas\u0131, kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131 ve ayr\u0131ca \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi g\u00f6zetilerek yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekir (Recep Tarhan ve Afife Tarhan, B. No: 2014\/1546, 2\/2\/2017, \u00a7 62). Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale 6183 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 35. maddesiyle \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Kamu alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tahsil edilmesi amac\u0131yla \u015eirketin kanuni temsilcisi olan ba\u015fvurucunun sorumlulu\u011funa gidilmesinde kamu yarar\u0131na dayal\u0131 me\u015fru bir ama\u00e7 vard\u0131r (Erol Kesgin [GK], B. No: 2015\/11192, 30\/5\/2019, \u00a7 50).<\/p>\n
18. Son olarak kamu makamlar\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyle ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmek istenen ama\u00e7 ve bu amac\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi i\u00e7in kullan\u0131lan ara\u00e7lar aras\u0131nda makul bir \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ili\u015fkisi olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmelidir. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi elveri\u015flilik, gereklilik ve orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k olmak \u00fczere \u00fc\u00e7 alt ilkeden olu\u015fur. 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\u00fcdahaleyle ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 aras\u0131nda makul bir dengenin g\u00f6zetilmesi gereklili\u011fini ifade eder (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, B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvuruculara m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleye etkin bi\u00e7imde itiraz edebilme, savunma ve iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yetkili makamlar \u00f6n\u00fcnde ortaya koyabilme olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131n\u0131p tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 incelenmelidir. Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesi usule ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131k bir g\u00fcvenceden s\u00f6z etmez. 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 bi\u00e7imde ortaya koyabilme olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131 g\u00fcvencesini kapsar. Bu de\u011ferlendirme 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
20. 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 derece mahkemelerinin kararlar\u0131nda konuyla 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\u0131n yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131nca \u00f6zenli \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirilerek kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 gerekir (Kamil Darbaz ve GMO Yap\u0131 Grup End. San. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2014\/12563, 24\/5\/2018, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
21. Somut olayda vergi borcunun \u00f6denmesi amac\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucu ad\u0131na \u00f6deme emirleri d\u00fczenlenmesinin takip edilen me\u015fru amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.Verginin tahsil edilmesi amac\u0131yla kullan\u0131lacak y\u00f6ntemlerin belirlenmesinde kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n sahip oldu\u011fu geni\u015f takdir yetkisi de dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u015eirketten tahsil imk\u00e2n\u0131 kalmayan vergi borcunun kanuni temsilcisi s\u0131fat\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucudan talep edilmesinin gerekli oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
22. Ba\u015fvuruya konu olayda nihai olarak orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k incelemesi yap\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6deme emirlerine konu vergi borcundan sorumlu tutulamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 iptal davas\u0131nda ilgili mahkeme, \u015eirkete ait mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kamu alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tahsili i\u00e7in yeterli oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle davay\u0131 kabul etmi\u015ftir. Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k Dan\u0131\u015ftay D\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc Dairesi, \u015eirkete ait de\u011ferlerin \u00f6deme emirlerine konu alaca\u011f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131layacak nitelikte olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kaydetmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcreci sonunda ba\u015fvurucunun a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 dava Dan\u0131\u015ftay D\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc Dairesinin bozma karar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda reddedilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, kamu alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ncelikle \u015eirketten tahsil edilmesi gerekti\u011fine y\u00f6nelik iddias\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda \u00f6deme emirlerine konu bor\u00e7tan sorumlu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc di\u011fer iddia ve itirazlar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bir inceleme yap\u0131lmamas\u0131ndan \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7idir.<\/p>\n
23. Anayasa Mahkemesi Erol Kesgin karar\u0131nda, y\u00f6netim kurulu \u00fcyesi s\u0131fat\u0131yla \u015firketin kanuni temsilcisi bulundu\u011fu d\u00f6nemde \u015firkete ait sosyal sigorta prim bor\u00e7lar\u0131 ile gecikme zamlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmemi\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle do\u011fan kamu alaca\u011f\u0131ndan sorumlu tutulmas\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 ve orant\u0131s\u0131z bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklemedi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Erol Kesgin, \u00a7\u00a7 51-66). Bu ba\u011flamda somut olayda da \u015eirkete ait mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 bulunsa dahi y\u00f6netim kurulu \u00fcyesi olmas\u0131 nedeniyle ba\u015fvurucunun \u015eirkete ait vergi bor\u00e7lar\u0131ndan sorumlu tutulmas\u0131 tek ba\u015f\u0131na adil dengeyi bozmamaktad\u0131r. Bununla birlikte ba\u015fvurucunun di\u011fer iddialar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131nda usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencelerin sa\u011flan\u0131p sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmelidir.<\/p>\n
24. Ba\u015fvurucu, \u00f6deme emirlerinin iptali i\u00e7in ba\u015flatt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde borcun \u00f6ncelikle \u015eirketten tahsil edilmesi gerekti\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu bunun yan\u0131nda ayr\u0131ca kanuni temsilci olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6neme dair vergi borcu \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, idarenin daha \u00f6ncesinde bildirimde bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan \u00f6deme emirlerine itiraz edemedi\u011fini ve kamu alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 do\u011furan eylemde herhangi bir sorumlulu\u011fu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
25. Kanuni temsilciye tan\u0131nan yetki ve y\u00fcklenen \u00f6devler g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde \u00f6denmeyen kamu bor\u00e7lar\u0131ndan m\u00fcteselsilen sorumlu tutulmas\u0131 kural olarak kanuni temsilciye a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 ve ola\u011fan\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklemeyecektir. Bununla birlikte kanuni temsilciye bu s\u0131fat\u0131n tan\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 kudret ve imk\u00e2nlar\u0131n \u00f6tesinde bir sorumluluk y\u00fcklenmemelidir. Kanuni temsilcinin kanunda tan\u0131nan yetkiler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde m\u00fcdahale etme ve engelleme imk\u00e2n\u0131na sahip olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00f6zellikle \u015firketin faaliyetleri \u00fczerinde h\u00e2kimiyet kurmas\u0131na olanak bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir d\u00f6nemde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen birtak\u0131m fiil ve i\u015flemlerden do\u011fan kamu alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesinden sorumlu tutulmas\u0131, -somut olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde- kanuni temsilciye orant\u0131s\u0131z bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklenmesi sonucunu do\u011furabilir (Ahmet U\u011fur Balkaner [GK], B. No: 2014\/15237, 25\/7\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 58-59).<\/p>\n
26. Ba\u015fvurucunun yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc iddia ve itirazlar ile Anayasa Mahkemesinin Ahmet U\u011fur Balkaner karar\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131klad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ilkeler g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde ba\u015fvurucunun kanuni temsilci olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nemden sorumlu tutuldu\u011funa, vergi bor\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131nda sorumlulu\u011fu bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve \u00f6deme emirlerine itiraz edemedi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili, esasa ili\u015fkin temel iddialar oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k mahkemelerin kararlar\u0131 incelendi\u011finde, gerek\u00e7enin \u015eirketin mevcut mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n vergi bor\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131layabilecek nitelikte olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirmesiyle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 kald\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fvurucunun davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili, esasa ili\u015fkin temel iddialar\u0131n\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131layacak bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
27. Sonu\u00e7 olarak mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili olabilecek mahiyetteki iddia ve itirazlara cevap verecek nitelikte ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Bu sebeple m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131nda usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencelerin somut olayda yerine getirilmedi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fcdahalenin ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 me\u015fru amac\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 kamu yarar\u0131 ile ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 aras\u0131nda olmas\u0131 gereken adil denge ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine bozulmu\u015f olup m\u00fcdahale \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
28. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
29. Ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
30. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olay ve olgular\u0131 somut ba\u015fvurular ile benzer nitelikte olan Veysi Ado ([GK] B. No: 2022\/100837, 27\/4\/2023) karar\u0131nda an\u0131lan \u015fik\u00e2yetle ilgili olarak uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede Anayasa Mahkemesi 9\/1\/2013 tarihli ve 6384 say\u0131l\u0131 Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesine Yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Baz\u0131 Ba\u015fvurular\u0131n Tazminat \u00d6denmek Suretiyle \u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne Dair Kanun’un ge\u00e7ici 2. maddesinde 28\/3\/2023 tarihli ve 7445 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 40. maddesi ile yap\u0131lan de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fe g\u00f6re 9\/3\/2023 tarihi (bu tarih d\u00e2hil) itibar\u0131yla derdest olan, yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddialar\u0131yla yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurulara ili\u015fkin olarak Tazminat Komisyonuna ba\u015fvuru yolu t\u00fcketilmeden yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun incelenmesinin bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincil niteli\u011fi ile ba\u011fda\u015fmayaca\u011f\u0131 neticesine varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
31. Somut ba\u015fvuruda an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum yoktur. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddia y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer kabul edilebilirlik kriterleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmeksizin ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
32. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama ile tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
33. 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 vard\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 (30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen bireysel ba\u015fvuruya \u00f6zg\u00fc yeniden yarg\u0131lama kurumunun \u00f6zelliklerine ili\u015fkin kapsaml\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamalar i\u00e7in bkz. 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
34. \u00d6te yandan ihlalin niteli\u011fine g\u00f6re yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
2. Makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Sakarya Vergi Mahkemesine (E.2018\/431, K.2018\/494) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. 446,90 TL har\u00e7tan olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. \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
G. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 18\/12\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 18\/12\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/7159 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u00a0 \u00a0 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 A. NESL\u0130HAN KUYUCU BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/7159) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 18\/12\/2024 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL \u00a0 \u00a0 Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Kamber Ozan TUTAL Ba\u015fvurucu : A. Neslihan KUYUCU \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru; y\u00f6netim kurulu \u00fcyesinin kamu alaca\u011f\u0131ndan sorumlu tutulmas\u0131 nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle de makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucunun 28\/4\/2008 tarihinde \u00d6. Yemek \u00dcretim Servis Turizm G\u0131da Sanayi ve Ticaret A.\u015e.nin (\u015eirket) y\u00f6netim kurulu \u00fcyeli\u011finden ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin karar 9\/5\/2008 tarihinde tescil edilerek 14\/5\/2008 tarihli Ticaret Sicili Gazetesi’nde yay\u0131mlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu 2\/6\/2008 tarihinde ise \u015eirketteki t\u00fcm hisselerini devretmi\u015ftir. 3. Boz\u00fcy\u00fck Vergi Dairesi 11\/10\/2012 tarihinde iflas halinde \u015eirketten tahsil edilemeyen 2004 ile 2008 y\u0131llar\u0131na ait \u00e7e\u015fitli vergi bor\u00e7lar\u0131ndan do\u011fan kamu alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kanuni temsilci s\u0131fat\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucudan tahsili amac\u0131yla d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi otuz d\u00f6rt adet \u00f6deme emrini ba\u015fvurucuya tebli\u011f etmi\u015ftir. 4. Ba\u015fvurucu 16\/11\/2012 tarihinde \u00f6deme emirlerinin iptali i\u00e7in dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dava dilek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucu, kamu alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ncelikle \u015eirketten tahsil edilmesi gerekti\u011fini ve \u00f6deme emirlerinin d\u00fczenlenmesi \u00f6ncesinde herhangi bir bildirimde bulunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan yasal haklar\u0131n\u0131 kullanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f; ayr\u0131ca \u015eirkete …<\/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-33680","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n