Esas No:2021\/2372<\/strong> 9. Hukuk Dairesi 2021\/2372 E. , 2021\/6295 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAHKEMES\u0130<\/strong> : \u0130zmir 9. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n\n\n\n Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen dava sonucunda verilen karar\u0131n, temyizen incelenmesi 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\n\n\n Y A R G I T A Y K A R A R I<\/p>\n\n\n\n Davac\u0131 \u0130steminin \u00d6zeti: T.C.Yarg\u0131tay9. Hukuk Dairesi Esas No:2021\/2372Karar No:2021\/6295K. Tarihi: 9. Hukuk Dairesi 2021\/2372 E. , 2021\/6295 K. MAHKEMES\u0130 : \u0130zmir 9. Hukuk Dairesi Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen dava sonucunda verilen karar\u0131n, temyizen incelenmesi 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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":10362,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[63],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10712"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10712"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10712\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10713,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10712\/revisions\/10713"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10362"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10712"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10712"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10712"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Karar No:2021\/6295<\/strong>
K. Tarihi:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Davac\u0131 vekili, m\u00fcvekkilinin 21.11.1995 <\/strong>tarihinden ihtarname ile i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi feshedilene kadar ayn\u0131 yerde ayn\u0131 i\u015fte \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015f yerinin … otomobil firmas\u0131n\u0131n yetkili servisi oldu\u011funu, bu serviste kaporta formeni olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ilk i\u015fe girdi\u011fi tarihte … Motorlu Ara\u00e7lar Ltd. \u015eti. b\u00fcnyesinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daha sonra yetkili servisin … Otomotiv San. Tic. A.\u015e. olarak devam etti\u011fini, daval\u0131 m\u00fcvekkilinin son i\u015fvereni oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131ndan itibaren olan t\u00fcm k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 alacaklar\u0131ndan yasa gere\u011fince sorumlu oldu\u011funu, i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin daval\u0131 i\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan haks\u0131z ve yersiz olarak feshedildi\u011fini ve feshin \u0130zmir 27. Noterli\u011fi’nin 06.05.2016 <\/strong>g\u00fcnl\u00fc ihtarnamesi ile 10.05.2016 <\/strong>tarihinde m\u00fcvekkiline tebli\u011f edildi\u011fini, daval\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6nderdi\u011fi ihtarnamedeki hususlar\u0131 kabul etmediklerini, daval\u0131n\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetle, haks\u0131z ve yersiz bir \u015fekilde hareket ederek i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini feshetti\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkilinin 2013 y\u0131l\u0131ndan beri bahsedilen sahip oldu\u011fu ara\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 amirlerinin bilgisi dahilinde servise getirdi\u011fini, burada ka\u00e7ak ve gizli bir i\u015f olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, servise giren her ara\u00e7 ile ilgili olarak bahsettikleri gibi kay\u0131t alt\u0131na al\u0131narak i\u015f emirlerinin yetkili ki\u015filerce a\u00e7\u0131larak gerekli hizmetin ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bununla ilgili \u015firketin haberinin olmamas\u0131 diye bir \u015feyin olamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, her \u015feyin kay\u0131t ve denetim alt\u0131nda oldu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkilinin bu konuda hi\u00e7bir yetkisinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek, k\u0131dem ve ihbar tazminatlar\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131dan tahsilini istemi\u015ftir.
Daval\u0131 Cevab\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti:
Daval\u0131 vekili, davac\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkili \u015firkette 04.02.2009-<\/strong>06.05.2016 <\/strong>tarihleri aras\u0131nda \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n her ne kadar m\u00fcvekkili \u015firkette 21.11.1995 <\/strong>tarihinden bu yana \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmi\u015fse de bu beyanlar\u0131n hukuki dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n ekte sunulan belirsiz s\u00fcreli i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ve Sosyal G\u00fcvenlik Kurumu kay\u0131tlar\u0131nda da g\u00f6r\u00fclece\u011fi \u00fczere 04.02.2009 <\/strong>tarihinden i\u015f akdinin feshedildi\u011fi 06.05.2016 <\/strong>tarihine kadar \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n ilk i\u015fe girdi\u011fi 21.11.1995 <\/strong>tarihinde … Motorlu Ara\u00e7lar Ltd. \u015eti. b\u00fcnyesinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015f ise de m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 … Motorlu Ara\u00e7lar Ltd. \u015eti. ile bir ilgisinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n … Otomotiv Bili\u015fim \u0130n\u015faat San. Ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. ile olan i\u015f ili\u015fkisini anla\u015farak sona erdirdi\u011fini ve k\u0131dem ve ihbar tazminat\u0131 ile y\u0131ll\u0131k izin \u00fccreti dahil t\u00fcm alacaklar\u0131n\u0131 … Otomotiv’den ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015f akdinin m\u00fcvekkili \u015firket taraf\u0131ndan 06.05.2016 <\/strong>tarihinde \u0130\u015f Kanunu’nun 25\/II<\/strong>-e maddesi uyar\u0131nca do\u011fruluk ve ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131\u011fa uymayan davran\u0131\u015flarda bulunmas\u0131 nedeni ile feshedildi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin kendi ara\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n tamir, onar\u0131m ve bak\u0131m\u0131 i\u00e7in dahili fatura kesildi\u011fini, yani \u015firket kendi ara\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n bak\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in as\u0131l fatura tutar\u0131n\u0131n % 1’e yak\u0131n bir tutar\u0131n\u0131n kesilmekte oldu\u011funu ancak bu durumun yaln\u0131zca \u015firket i\u00e7i ara\u00e7lar i\u00e7in ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n haks\u0131z ve usuls\u00fcz olarak kendi \u015fahsi ara\u00e7lar\u0131 i\u00e7in de bu uygulamay\u0131 yaparak usuls\u00fcz i\u015flem yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketi zarara u\u011fratt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savunarak, davan\u0131n reddini istemi\u015ftir.
\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti:
\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince, toplanan deliller ve bilirki\u015fi raporuna dayan\u0131larak, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan feshin hakl\u0131 nedene dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esi ile davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.
\u0130stinaf Ba\u015fvurusu:
\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131, daval\u0131 vekili istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur.
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti:
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince, davac\u0131n\u0131n daha \u00f6nceki d\u00f6nemlerde de ara\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n bak\u0131m ve servislerini i\u015fverene ait i\u015f yerinde yapt\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bu bak\u0131mlar\u0131n i\u015fveren a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan herhangi bir sorun te\u015fkil etmedi\u011fi, ayr\u0131ca \u015firket \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131na da servisin a\u00e7\u0131k oldu\u011fu gibi \u015firket \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131na iskonto uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131, tan\u0131k anlat\u0131mlar\u0131ndan da davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015f emri a\u00e7ma kapama yetkisinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi yap\u0131lan i\u015flemlerden \u015firket yetkililerinin bilgisi oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmakla daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan feshin hakl\u0131 nedene dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n usul ve esas y\u00f6n\u00fcnden hukuka uygun oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle, daval\u0131 vekilinin istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 353\/1-b.1 maddesi gere\u011fince esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.
Temyiz Ba\u015fvurusu:
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 daval\u0131 vekili temyiz ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur.
Gerek\u00e7e:
\u0130\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin, i\u015f\u00e7inin do\u011fruluk ve ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131\u011fa ayk\u0131r\u0131 davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131 sebebiyle i\u015fverence hakl\u0131 olarak feshedilip feshedilmedi\u011fi noktas\u0131nda taraflar aras\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k s\u00f6z konusudur.
4857 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015f Kanununun 25. maddesinin (II<\/strong>) numaral\u0131 bendinde, ahl\u00e2k ve iyi niyet kurallar\u0131na uymayan haller s\u0131ralanm\u0131\u015f ve belirtilen durumlar ile benzerlerinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 halinde, i\u015fverenin i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini hakl\u0131 … imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yine de\u011finilen bendin (e) alt bendinde, i\u015fverenin g\u00fcvenini k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullanmak, h\u0131rs\u0131zl\u0131k yapmak, i\u015fverenin meslek s\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131 ortaya atmak gibi do\u011fruluk ve ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131\u011fa uymayan i\u015f\u00e7i davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n da i\u015fverene hakl\u0131 … imk\u00e2n\u0131 verdi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. G\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fczere yasadaki haller s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 say\u0131da olmay\u0131p, genel olarak i\u015f\u00e7inin sadakat borcuna ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olu\u015fturan s\u00f6z ve davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131 i\u015fverene … imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131maktad\u0131r.
Somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta, davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi \u015firket servisinde tamir ve bak\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131 yapt\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fahs\u0131na ait ara\u00e7lara ait bir k\u0131s\u0131m i\u015f emirlerini \u015firket uygulamalar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda sildirdi\u011fi, s\u00f6z konusu bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131mlarda %99’a varan indirimler yapt\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u015firkete dahili fatura kestirmek suretiyle \u015firketi zarara u\u011fratt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bu i\u015flemlerle ki\u015fisel yarar sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu hususlar\u0131 \u015firket y\u00f6netiminden gizledi\u011fi, s\u00f6z konusu eylemlerin do\u011fruluk ve ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131\u011fa uymayan davran\u0131\u015flar oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle \u0130\u015f Kanununun 25\/II<\/strong>-e bendi uyar\u0131nca feshedilmi\u015ftir.
Dosya i\u00e7eri\u011findeki bilgi ve belgelere g\u00f6re; Volkswagen yetkili servisi olarak faaliyet g\u00f6steren daval\u0131 i\u015fyerinde i\u015fverene yap\u0131lan bir ihbar ile i\u015fyeri \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131ndan baz\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n kendi \u015fahsi ara\u00e7lar\u0131na yap\u0131lan bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m i\u015flerinin daval\u0131 i\u015fverene ait bir araca yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f gibi g\u00f6sterilerek sadece bu ara\u00e7lara uygulanan iskontonun \u015fahsi ara\u00e7lar\u0131na da uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flad\u0131klar\u0131 ve bu \u015fekilde i\u015fyerinin zarara u\u011frat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 duyumunu alan i\u015fverence yap\u0131lan ara\u015ft\u0131rma neticesinde, i\u015fyeri \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131ndan davac\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7inin \u015fahs\u0131na ait ara\u00e7lar\u0131n bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m\u0131 sonras\u0131nda faturaland\u0131rma a\u015famas\u0131nda ‘dahili fatura’ olarak tabir edilen usulle s\u00f6z konusu ara\u00e7lar\u0131n daval\u0131 i\u015fveren \u015firkete ait gibi g\u00f6sterilerek ola\u011fan d\u0131\u015f\u0131 indirim uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu ba\u011flamda 05.04.2016 tarihli faturada 15.743,78 TL’lik faturan\u0131n 13.513,53 TL iskontoya tabi tutulup 2.447,78 TL olarak tahsil edildi\u011fi, keza 03.09.2015 tarihli faturan\u0131n da 9.145,40 TL olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen 8.816,39 TL’lik iskonto ile 388,18 TL olarak tahsil edildi\u011fi, bu y\u00f6ntemle daval\u0131 i\u015fverenin zarara u\u011frat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu i\u015flemlerin servis m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7i …’in bilgisi dahilinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011fi tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Bu tespit sonras\u0131nda daval\u0131 i\u015fveren, usuls\u00fcz i\u015flemlerle kendisini zarara u\u011fratan davac\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7i ile dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 servis m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini ayn\u0131 sebeplerle feshetmi\u015ftir.
Her ne kadar \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi ve B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131nda, i\u015fyerinde yap\u0131lan i\u015flemlerin i\u015fveren yetkililerinin bilgisi dahilinde oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in hakl\u0131 nedenle feshe konu edilemeyece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015f ise de, usuls\u00fcz i\u015flemden bilgisi olan ve buna onay veren i\u015fveren yetkilisi servis m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc olup bu i\u015f\u00e7inin de i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ayn\u0131 sebeplerle feshedilmi\u015ftir. Davac\u0131 ile servis m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn birlikte yapt\u0131klar\u0131 usuls\u00fcz i\u015flemle daval\u0131 i\u015fvereni zarara u\u011fratt\u0131klar\u0131 sabit oldu\u011funa g\u00f6re bu i\u015flemi yapanlardan birisinin ayn\u0131 nedenle i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lan servis m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc olmas\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131 i\u015fverenin yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 hakl\u0131 feshe olumsuz bir etkisinin olmayaca\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Aksi durumun kabul\u00fc usuls\u00fczl\u00fc\u011fe i\u015fyerinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan y\u00f6neticilerin de kat\u0131lmas\u0131 durumunda i\u015fverence hakl\u0131 … yap\u0131lamamas\u0131 gibi hukuken savunulamayacak bir sonuca sebep olur ki, b\u00f6yle bir sonu\u00e7 kabul edilemez.
… konusu yap\u0131lan eylemin usuls\u00fcz olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve %99’a varan i\u015f\u00e7ilik indiriminin i\u015fyeri uygulamalar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususlar\u0131na gelince; davac\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7iye ait ara\u00e7lar\u0131n bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m sonras\u0131nda faturaland\u0131rma a\u015famas\u0131nda dahili fatura y\u00f6ntemi ile daval\u0131 i\u015fveren arac\u0131 gibi g\u00f6sterilmesi dahi zikredilen orandaki indirim hakk\u0131n\u0131n sadece i\u015fyerine ait ara\u00e7lar i\u00e7in ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011funu g\u00f6stermesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan tek ba\u015f\u0131na ispata yeterlidir.
Yukar\u0131da izah edildi\u011fi \u00fczere davac\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7i, ayn\u0131 sebeple i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi feshedilen servis m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc ile i\u015fbirli\u011fi i\u00e7erisinde hareket ederek daval\u0131 i\u015fverenin bilgisi ve onay\u0131 olmadan kendi ara\u00e7lar\u0131na ili\u015fkin bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m i\u015flemlerini daval\u0131 i\u015fverene ait bir araca yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f gibi faturaland\u0131r\u0131p \u00e7ok y\u00fcksek oranda iskonto uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayarak usuls\u00fcz i\u015flemle i\u015fyerini zarara u\u011fratm\u0131\u015f, do\u011fruluk ve ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131kla ba\u011fda\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k olan bu eylemin ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131 \u00fczerine de i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi daval\u0131 i\u015fverence feshedilmi\u015ftir. \u0130\u015fverence yap\u0131lan feshin 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015f Kanunu’nun 25\/II<\/strong>-e bendi uyar\u0131nca hakl\u0131 nedene dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan k\u0131dem ve ihbar tazminat\u0131 taleplerinin reddi gerekirken, yerinde olmayan yaz\u0131l\u0131 gerek\u00e7e ile kabul\u00fc hatal\u0131 olup bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir.
Sonu\u00e7:
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<\/strong>ORTADAN<\/strong>KALDIRILMASINA<\/strong>, dosyan\u0131n karar\u0131 veren \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesine, bozma karar\u0131n\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin ise karar\u0131 veren B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz karar harc\u0131n\u0131n istek halinde ilgiliye iadesine, 16.03.2021 <\/strong>tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"