T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay<\/p>\n
9. Hukuk Dairesi <\/p>\n
2018\/4159 E., 2020\/19615 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
B\u00d6LGE ADL\u0130YE MAHKEMES\u0130 : …Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen dava sonucunda verilen karar\u0131n, temyizen incelenmesi davac\u0131-kar\u015f\u0131 daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istenilmekle, temyiz talebinin s\u00fcresinde oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131. Dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in Tetkik Hakimi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten sonra dosya incelendi, gere\u011fi konu\u015fulup d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
Y A R G I T A Y K A R A R I<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131-Kar\u015f\u0131 Daval\u0131 \u0130steminin \u00d6zeti:
\nDavac\u0131-kar\u015f\u0131 daval\u0131 vekili; daval\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkiline ait \u015firkette son derece gizli ve teknik projelerde sistem m\u00fchendisi olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, istifa ederek ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ihbar s\u00fcresinin sadece bir haftas\u0131na uydu\u011funu belirterek be\u015f haftal\u0131k ihbar s\u00fcresi i\u00e7in ihbar tazminat\u0131 borcu bulundu\u011funu, ayr\u0131ca davac\u0131n\u0131n ayr\u0131lmadan \u00f6nce elli civar\u0131nda gizli belgeyi harici bir cihaza kopyalad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli oldu\u011funu, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin bilgi g\u00fcvenli\u011fi politikas\u0131 ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 5. maddesine ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil etti\u011fini, bu nedenle cezai \u015fart alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tahsilini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131-Kar\u015f\u0131 Davac\u0131 Cevab\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti:
\nDaval\u0131-kar\u015f\u0131 davac\u0131 vekili; davac\u0131 \u015firketin daval\u0131n\u0131n istifas\u0131ndan hemen sonra dava a\u00e7mam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 ve \u015fikayetten sonra huzurdaki davay\u0131 ikame etmi\u015f oldu\u011funu, davan\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ihbar tazminat\u0131 talebinin ve cezai \u015fart talebinin yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kar\u015f\u0131 dava olarak A\u011fustos 2014 ay\u0131 \u00fccreti ile y\u0131ll\u0131k izin alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 daval\u0131dan tahsilini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti:
\n\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince, davac\u0131-kar\u015f\u0131 daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n cezai \u015fart alaca\u011f\u0131 talebinin reddine, ihbar tazminat\u0131 talebinin kabul\u00fcne, daval\u0131-kar\u015f\u0131 davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00fccret ve y\u0131ll\u0131k \u00fccretli izin alaca\u011f\u0131 taleplerinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u0130stinaf Ba\u015fvurusu:
\n\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 taraf vekilleri istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti:
\nB\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince, davac\u0131 \u015firket taraf\u0131ndan daval\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7inin \u015firkete ait teknik data ve verileri s\u0131r saklama y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak kopyalad\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131 ile cezai \u015fart talep edildi\u011fi, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin 5\/3, 11, 13. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca i\u015f\u00e7inin s\u0131r saklama y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011fe ait s\u00fcrelerin d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f oldu\u011fu, ancak i\u015f bu cezai \u015fart h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin yaln\u0131zca i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine vazedildi\u011fi, 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 Bor\u00e7lar Kanunun 420\/1. Maddesi uyar\u0131nca yaln\u0131zca i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine olan cezai \u015fart\u0131n ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu d\u00fczenlemesi kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, ilk derece mahkemesince \u015firketin cezai \u015fart talebinin reddine karar verilmesinde bir isabetsizli\u011fin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u015firketin ihbar tazminat\u0131 alaca\u011f\u0131 talebi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden, daval\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7inin gerek duru\u015fmadaki imzas\u0131 ile al\u0131nan yaz\u0131l\u0131 beyan\u0131, gerekse tan\u0131k beyan\u0131 ile de sabit oldu\u011fu \u00fczere ba\u015fka bir \u015firkette i\u015f bulup yaz\u0131l\u0131 ihbar \u00f6neline uymadan i\u015ften ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle ilk derece mahkemesince \u015firket lehine 5 haftal\u0131k ihbar tazminat\u0131 alaca\u011f\u0131na h\u00fckmedilmesinde de bir isabetsizlik bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, i\u015f\u00e7inin i\u015fveren \u015firkete kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu kar\u015f\u0131 dava y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise; \u00fccret alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n eksiksiz olarak \u00f6dendi\u011fi hususu ile y\u0131ll\u0131k izinlerin eksiksiz olarak kulland\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu hususunu ispat y\u00fck\u00fc i\u015fverende olup i\u015fverenin \u00fczerine d\u00fc\u015fen ispat k\u00fclfetini yerine getiremedi\u011fi, dosyaya herhangi bir yaz\u0131l\u0131 belge veya makbuz ibraz edilmedi\u011fi, sunulan maa\u015f bordrolar\u0131n\u0131n imzas\u0131z oldu\u011fu, dosya i\u00e7erisinde mevcut ibranamenin ise Bor\u00e7lar Kanunun 420\/2. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda ibra edilen rakam\u0131n yaz\u0131l\u0131 olmamas\u0131, \u00f6demenin banka kanal\u0131 ile yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 nazara al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu, ilk derece mahkemesince i\u015f\u00e7i lehine bu alacak kalemleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden verilen karar\u0131n isabetli oldu\u011fu, davac\u0131-kar\u015f\u0131 daval\u0131 vekilinin bu y\u00f6ndeki istinaf sebebinin de yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle taraf vekillerinin istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Temyiz Ba\u015fvurusu:
\nB\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi\u2019nin karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 davac\u0131-kar\u015f\u0131 daval\u0131 vekili temyiz ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Gerek\u00e7e:
\nDavac\u0131 i\u015fveren, daval\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7inin i\u015fyerinden ayr\u0131lmas\u0131ndan k\u0131sa bir s\u00fcre \u00f6nce kendisine ait cep telefonuna elli civar\u0131nda gizli belgeyi indirmek suretiyle \u015firketin bilgi g\u00fcvenli\u011fi politikas\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 davrand\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin 11. maddesine g\u00f6re s\u0131r saklama y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ihlal etti\u011fi, gerek\u00e7esiyle s\u00f6zle\u015fmede \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen cezai \u015fart\u0131n tahsili talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Daval\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7i, \u015firkete ait belgeleri cep telefonuna indirerek kaydetti\u011fini kabul etmi\u015f ancak bunu \u015firkete ait s\u0131navlara girebilmek i\u00e7in kaydetti\u011fini i\u015fyerinden ayr\u0131lmadan \u00f6nce sildi\u011fini belirterek davan\u0131n reddini savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece cezai \u015fart\u0131n sadece i\u015f\u00e7i aleyhine oldu\u011fu T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanun\u2019unun 420. maddesine g\u00f6re ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle bu y\u00f6ndeki talebin reddine dair h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131 \u015firket teknoloji firmas\u0131 olup daval\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7i ile imzalanan i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin 11. maddesinde bentler halinde gizlilik ve bilgi g\u00fcvenli\u011fine ili\u015fkin kurallara yer verilmi\u015f, i\u015f\u00e7inin bilgi g\u00fcvenli\u011fi kurallar\u0131na uymas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015f, gizlilik ve bilgi g\u00fcvenli\u011fi kurallar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k halinde i\u015fverene 150.000 TL cezai \u015fart \u00f6denece\u011fi kurala ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. S\u00f6z\u00fc edilen i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi h\u00fckm\u00fc gizlilik ve bilgi g\u00fcvenli\u011fi y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerinin ihlaline ba\u011fl\u0131 cezai \u015fart \u00f6ng\u00f6rmekte olup bu durumda cezai \u015fart\u0131n iki tarafl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle ge\u00e7ersizli\u011finden s\u00f6zedilemez. Zira cezai \u015fart\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7inin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklere ayk\u0131r\u0131 davranmas\u0131 olup Mahkemece salt TBK\u2019nun 420. maddesine dayal\u0131 olarak davan\u0131n reddi hatal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Dosya i\u00e7inde bulunan ve daval\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7iye imzalat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan bilgi sistemi g\u00fcvenlik kurallar\u0131n\u0131n 5.3.2 maddesinde;\u201d…\u2019den yaz\u0131l\u0131 izin almaks\u0131z\u0131n kullan\u0131c\u0131 …\u2019in a\u011flar\u0131n\u0131 kullanarak \u015firketin d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki ki\u015fisel mail kutular\u0131na(\u015firket d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki kendi ki\u015fisel mail kutusu dahil) veya di\u011fer mail adreslerine …\u2019in ticari ve ticari olmayan faaliyetleri ile ilgili bilgiler dahil olmak \u00fczere …\u2019in gizli bilgilerini g\u00f6nderemez.\u201d ile 5.3.3. maddesinde; \u201c…\u2019den yaz\u0131l\u0131 izin almaks\u0131z\u0131n kullan\u0131c\u0131 usb, k\u0131z\u0131l\u00f6tesi, bluetooth vb. Ba\u011flant\u0131lar\u0131 kullanarak …\u2019in bilgisayardan \u00f6zel kay\u0131t cihazlar\u0131na veya bilgisayarlar\u0131na …\u2019in ticari ve ticari olmayan faaliyetleri ile ilgili bilgiler dahil olmak \u00fczere veri aktaramaz.\u201d \u015feklinde kurallara yer verilmi\u015f olup davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015fverene ait 51 adet bilgileri kendi cep telefonuna indirdi\u011fi tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131z durumdad\u0131r. Mahkemece bu konuda bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olup kopyalar\u0131n data niteli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve \u00e7oklu\u011fu dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ders \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmak i\u00e7in indirimin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclemeyece\u011fi, daval\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7inin s\u0131r saklama y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ayk\u0131r\u0131 davrand\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta, daval\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7inin s\u0131r saklama y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, gizlilik ile bilgi g\u00fcvenli\u011fi kurallar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k davrand\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmakta olup i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin 11. maddesindeki cezai \u015fart\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131 olu\u015fmu\u015ftur. Mahkemece TBK\u2019nun 182\/son maddesi de\u011ferlendirilerek indirim y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bir karar verilerek istekle ilgili h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 gerekirken reddi hatal\u0131 olup bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Sonu\u00e7:<\/p>\n
Temyiz olunan \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n ve bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf ba\u015fvurusunu esastan reddeden B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n, yukar\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 sebepten dolay\u0131 BOZULARAK ORTADAN KALDIRILMASINA, dosyan\u0131n karar\u0131 veren \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesine, karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin ise B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz karar harc\u0131n\u0131n istek halinde ilgiliye iadesine, 22.12.2020 g\u00fcn\u00fcnde oybirli\u011fi ile karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bYarg\u0131tay 9. Hukuk Dairesi’nin 22.10.2020 tarihli, 2018\/4159 E. 2020\/19615 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. Yarg\u0131tay 9. Hukuk Dairesi 2018\/4159 E., 2020\/19615 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” B\u00d6LGE ADL\u0130YE MAHKEMES\u0130 : …Hukuk Dairesi Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen dava sonucunda verilen karar\u0131n, temyizen incelenmesi davac\u0131-kar\u015f\u0131 daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istenilmekle, temyiz talebinin s\u00fcresinde oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131. Dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in Tetkik Hakimi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten sonra dosya incelendi, gere\u011fi konu\u015fulup d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc: Y A R G I T A Y K A R A R I Davac\u0131-Kar\u015f\u0131 Daval\u0131 \u0130steminin \u00d6zeti: Davac\u0131-kar\u015f\u0131 daval\u0131 vekili; daval\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkiline ait \u015firkette son derece gizli ve teknik projelerde sistem m\u00fchendisi olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, istifa ederek ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ihbar s\u00fcresinin sadece bir haftas\u0131na uydu\u011funu belirterek be\u015f haftal\u0131k ihbar s\u00fcresi i\u00e7in ihbar tazminat\u0131 borcu bulundu\u011funu, ayr\u0131ca davac\u0131n\u0131n ayr\u0131lmadan \u00f6nce elli civar\u0131nda gizli belgeyi harici bir cihaza kopyalad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli oldu\u011funu, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin bilgi g\u00fcvenli\u011fi politikas\u0131 ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 5. maddesine ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil etti\u011fini, bu nedenle cezai \u015fart alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tahsilini talep etmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131-Kar\u015f\u0131 Davac\u0131 Cevab\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti: Daval\u0131-kar\u015f\u0131 davac\u0131 vekili; davac\u0131 \u015firketin daval\u0131n\u0131n istifas\u0131ndan hemen sonra dava a\u00e7mam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 ve \u015fikayetten sonra huzurdaki davay\u0131 ikame etmi\u015f oldu\u011funu, davan\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ihbar tazminat\u0131 talebinin ve cezai \u015fart talebinin yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kar\u015f\u0131 dava olarak A\u011fustos 2014 ay\u0131 \u00fccreti ile y\u0131ll\u0131k izin alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 daval\u0131dan tahsilini talep etmi\u015ftir. \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti: …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-78403","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n