Esas No:2020\/4727<\/strong> 9. Hukuk Dairesi 2020\/4727 E. , 2021\/5258 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAHKEMES\u0130<\/strong> : Ankara 8. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n\n\n\n Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen dava sonucunda verilen karar\u0131n, temyizen incelenmesi taraf vekillerince istenilmekle, temyiz taleplerinin 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:2020\/4727Karar No:2021\/5258K. Tarihi: 9. Hukuk Dairesi 2020\/4727 E. , 2021\/5258 K. MAHKEMES\u0130 : Ankara 8. Hukuk Dairesi Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen dava sonucunda verilen karar\u0131n, temyizen incelenmesi taraf vekillerince istenilmekle, temyiz taleplerinin 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…<\/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\/10738"}],"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=10738"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10738\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10739,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10738\/revisions\/10739"}],"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=10738"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10738"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10738"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Karar No:2021\/5258<\/strong>
K. Tarihi:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Davac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle, davac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131 nezdinde … Televizyonu Ankara Haber Merkezinde 15.09.1997-<\/strong>02.06.2014 <\/strong>tarihleri aras\u0131nda haber kameraman\u0131 olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, … isimli \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanla tart\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle i\u015f akdinin feshedildi\u011fini, ancak feshin hakl\u0131 nedene dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, zaten daha sonra i\u015fverene ke\u015fide edilen ihtarname \u00fczerine i\u015fverence tazminata mahsuben k\u0131smi \u00f6deme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n fazla mesai ve U**** *** ve Genel Tati \u00fccretlerinin \u00f6denmedi\u011fini, y\u0131ll\u0131k izinlerinin eksik kulland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n haftan\u0131n 6 g\u00fcn\u00fc 08:00-21:00 aras\u0131nda \u00e7al\u0131\u015farak ve g\u00fcnl\u00fck 8 saatlik \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma s\u00fcresinin \u00e7ok \u00fczerinde bir \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma sergileyerek fazla mesai \u00fccretine hak kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma s\u00fcrelerinin davac\u0131n\u0131n rutin mesai saatleri oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131n\u0131n bunlara ilaveten haftan\u0131n en az 3 g\u00fcn\u00fc gece yar\u0131lar\u0131na kadar s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, davac\u0131n\u0131n dini bayramlar d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki U**** *** ve Genel Tati g\u00fcnlerinin tamam\u0131nda ve dini bayramlar\u0131n yar\u0131s\u0131nda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131na devam etti\u011fini, ancak davac\u0131n\u0131n fazla mesai ve U**** *** ve Genel Tati \u00fccretlerinin \u00f6denmedi\u011fini, kulland\u0131r\u0131lmayan y\u0131ll\u0131k izinler nedeniyle 2 kat \u00fccret \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015f, fazlaya dair haklar\u0131n\u0131 sakl\u0131 tutarak 100 TL<\/strong> k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 bakiyesinin, 100.00 TL<\/strong> ihbar tazminat\u0131n\u0131n, 3.000.00 TL<\/strong> fazla mesai \u00fccretinin 15.000,00 TL<\/strong> fazla mesai \u00fccreti %5 fazlal\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, 2.000.00 TL<\/strong> U**** *** ve Genel Tati \u00fccretinin, 5.000.00 TL<\/strong> U**** *** ve Genel Tati \u00fccreti alaca\u011f\u0131 %5 fazlal\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, 100.00 TL<\/strong> bakiye y\u0131ll\u0131k izin \u00fccreti (iki kat\u0131) alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, olmak \u00fczere toplam 25.300,00 TL<\/strong>‘nin temerr\u00fct tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile birlikte daval\u0131 i\u015fverenden tahsilini talep etmi\u015ftir.
Daval\u0131 Cevab\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti:
Daval\u0131 vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; alacaklar\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131 nezdinde 15.09.1997-<\/strong>02.06.2014 <\/strong>tarihleri aras\u0131nda Ankara Haber Kamera \u015eefi olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, i\u015f akdinin hakl\u0131 nedenle feshedildi\u011fini, davac\u0131ya yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan \u00f6demenin k\u0131dem veya ihbar tazminatlar\u0131na mahsuben yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bakiye izin \u00fccreti ve di\u011fer i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131na mahsuben yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n 5 g\u00fcn s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, U**** *** ve Genel Tatil g\u00fcnlerinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle davac\u0131n\u0131n fazla mesai ve U**** *** ve Genel Tati \u00fccreti alacaklar\u0131na hak kazanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek davan\u0131n reddini talep etmi\u015ftir.
\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti:
Mahkemece davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.
\u0130stinaf Ba\u015fvurusu :
\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunulmu\u015ftur.
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti :
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan, davac\u0131n\u0131n 15.09.1997-<\/strong>02.06.2014 <\/strong>tarihleri aras\u0131nda daval\u0131 i\u015fyerinde kameraman olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131, i\u015f akdinin daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan feshedildi\u011finin anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131 feshin hakl\u0131 sebebe dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrmekte ise de fesihten sonra daval\u0131n\u0131n ”tazmin” a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131yla davac\u0131ya \u00f6deme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, her ne kadar daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan \u00f6demenin y\u0131ll\u0131k izin \u00fccreti oldu\u011fu hataen tazmin yaz\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddia edilmekte ise de fesihten sonra davac\u0131ya imzalat\u0131lmak istenen ibraname ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 belgede y\u0131ll\u0131k izin alaca\u011f\u0131 kaleminin de bulundu\u011fu, hem y\u0131ll\u0131k izin alaca\u011f\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle ibraname imzalat\u0131lmak istenip hem de sonradan y\u0131ll\u0131k izin \u00fccreti \u00f6dedi\u011finin ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmesi \u00e7eli\u015fkili olup hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmakla mahkemece yap\u0131lan \u00f6demenin k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131na ili\u015fkin oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn isabetli oldu\u011fu,davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015f akdinin tazminat\u0131 \u00f6denerek sona erdirildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmekle feshin ge\u00e7erli sebeple yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc gerekti\u011fi, davac\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131ll\u0131k izin alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan dosyaya sunulan y\u0131ll\u0131k izin belgeleri esas al\u0131narak hesaplanm\u0131\u015f olup izin miktar\u0131n\u0131n usul ve yasaya uygun olarak hesapland\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n fazla mesai alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131yla ispatlanm\u0131\u015f olup tan\u0131klar\u0131n sadece bir tanesinin daval\u0131 i\u015fyerinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 fakat kameraman olup ayn\u0131 sekt\u00f6rde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 itibariyle davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131 bilebilecek durumda oldu\u011fu , Mahkemece h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nan k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131na temerr\u00fct tarihinden di\u011fer alacak kalemlerine ise temerr\u00fct ve \u0131slah tarihinden itibaren faiz ba\u015flat\u0131lmas\u0131na ve en y\u00fcksek banka mevduat faizi uygulanmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fi,davac\u0131n\u0131n 13.06.2014 <\/strong>tarihinde g\u00f6nderdi\u011fi ihtarname ile alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n tebli\u011fden itibaren \u00fc\u00e7 g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde \u00f6denmesini aksi halde daval\u0131n\u0131n temerr\u00fcde d\u00fc\u015fece\u011fini bildirdi\u011fi, ihtarnamenin daval\u0131ya 17.06.2014 <\/strong>tarihinde usul\u00fcne uygun olarak tebli\u011f edildi\u011fi davac\u0131n\u0131n 20.06.2014 <\/strong>tarihinde temerr\u00fcde d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131,bu durumda faiz ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131 olarak temerr\u00fct tarihi yerine \u0131slah edilen k\u0131s\u0131mlar i\u00e7in \u0131slah tarihinin esas al\u0131nmas\u0131 hatal\u0131 oldu\u011fu,ayr\u0131ca davac\u0131 vekili dava ve \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esinde talep edilen t\u00fcm alacaklar i\u00e7in yasal faiz i\u015fletilmesini istedi\u011fi halde talebin a\u015f\u0131larak alacaklara en y\u00fcksek banka mevduat faizi i\u015fletilmesi de do\u011fru bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131,daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan davac\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131ll\u0131k izin kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nemlere ili\u015fkin belgeler ibraz edildi\u011fi, h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan 29.06.2016 <\/strong>tarihli ikinci bilirki\u015fi raporunda davac\u0131n\u0131n 06.08.2012-<\/strong>17.08.2012 <\/strong>ve 27.08.2012-<\/strong>06.09.2012 <\/strong>d\u00f6nemleri aras\u0131nda y\u0131ll\u0131k izin kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6zden ka\u00e7\u0131r\u0131larak fazla mesai alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n hesapland\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu rapordaki fazla mesai alaca\u011f\u0131 hesap tablosundaki 01.08.2012-<\/strong>01.09.2012 <\/strong>d\u00f6nemine ili\u015fkin1780,97 TL<\/strong> ve bu alaca\u011f\u0131n %5 fazlas\u0131na isabet eden 42200,20 TL<\/strong> den izinde olunan d\u00f6neme isabet eden 890,48 TL<\/strong> ve %5 fazlas\u0131 olan 21100,10 TL<\/strong> nin mahsubu ile 890,48 TL<\/strong> ve %5 fazlas\u0131 olan 21100,10 TL<\/strong> bakiye kalaca\u011f\u0131, bu miktar\u0131n toplam fazla mesai alaca\u011f\u0131 olan 60506,10 TL<\/strong> ve %5 fazlas\u0131 olan 2509038,91 TL<\/strong> den mahsubu ile 59615,62 TL<\/strong> ve %5 fazlas\u0131 olan 2487938,81 TL<\/strong> fazla mesai alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunaca\u011f\u0131, y\u0131ll\u0131k izin s\u00fcreleri ile genel tatil alaca\u011f\u0131 hesab\u0131nda bir hata olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu nedenlerle davac\u0131 vekilinin istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun kabul\u00fcne, daval\u0131 vekilinin sair istinaf nedenlerinin reddine, istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun faiz t\u00fcr\u00fc, y\u0131ll\u0131k izin s\u00fcrelerinin fazla mesai alaca\u011f\u0131ndan mahsup edilmemesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kabul\u00fc ile Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 353-(1)b)2 maddesi uyar\u0131nca mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
Temyiz Ba\u015fvurusu:
Karar\u0131 taraf vekillerince temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.
Gerek\u00e7e:
1-Dosyadaki yaz\u0131lara, toplanan delillerle karar\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanuni gerektirici sebeplere g\u00f6re davac\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcm, daval\u0131n\u0131n a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki bendin kapsam\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan temyiz itirazlar\u0131 yerinde de\u011fildir.
2-Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin 13.06.1952 <\/strong>tarihli ve 5953 say\u0131l\u0131 Bas\u0131n Mesle\u011finde \u00c7al\u0131\u015fanlarla \u00c7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lanlar Aras\u0131ndaki M\u00fcnasebetlerin Tanzimi Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 04.01.1961 <\/strong>tarihli ve 212 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 1. maddesiyle de\u011fi\u015fik ek 1 inci maddesinin 8 inci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n 2 nci c\u00fcmlesinin iptaline dair 19.11.2019 <\/strong>g\u00fcn ve 30953 say\u0131l\u0131 Resmi Gazete’de yay\u0131nlanan 19.09.2019 <\/strong>tarihli ve 2019\/48 E., 2019\/74 K. say\u0131l\u0131 “\u0130PTAL<\/strong>” karar\u0131n\u0131n eldeki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011fa etkisinin a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131\u011fa kavu\u015fturulmas\u0131 gereklidir.
Anayasa Mahkemesi s\u00f6z konusu norm denetimini, g\u00f6r\u00fclmekte olan bir davada Mahkemenin ba\u015fvurusu \u00fczerine, bir ba\u015fka ifadeyle itiraz (somut norm denetimi) yoluyla ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmi\u015ftir. Anayasa Mahkemesince, ilk incelemede, itiraz yoluna ba\u015fvuran Mahkemenin bakmakta oldu\u011fu davan\u0131n konusunun, 5953 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’a tabi bir bas\u0131n mensubu olan davac\u0131n\u0131n, \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nemde mesai saatleri d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda kendisine \u00f6denmesi gereken fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccretinin g\u00fcnl\u00fck y\u00fczde be\u015f fazlas\u0131yla tahsiline karar verilmesi talebi oldu\u011fu, bu talebin dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 da Kanun’un “\u00c7al\u0131\u015fma M\u00fcddeti ve fazla mesai” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 ek 1. maddesinin sekizinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ikinci c\u00fcmlesinin olu\u015fturdu\u011fu, burada 14 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddede d\u00fczenlenen ayl\u0131k \u00fccretin \u00f6denmedi\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir iddia veya bu y\u00f6nde bir talep de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla 5953 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 4\/1\/1961 tarihli ve 212 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 1 inci maddesiyle de\u011fi\u015fik 14 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n itiraz ba\u015fvurusunda bulunan Mahkemenin bakmakta oldu\u011fu davada uygulama imk\u00e2n\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle bu f\u0131kraya ili\u015fkin ba\u015fvurunun yetkisizlik nedeniyle reddine karar verilmi\u015f, esas incelemesini de 5953 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 04.01.1961 <\/strong>tarihli ve 212 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 1 inci maddesiyle de\u011fi\u015fik ek 1 inci maddesinin 8 inci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n 2 nci c\u00fcmlesine hasren yaparak bu norm ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 bir iptal karar\u0131 tesis edilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla h\u00e2lihaz\u0131rda 5953 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 14 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen \u00fccret alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n %5 fazlas\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesince iptal edilmemi\u015ftir.
5953 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ek 1 inci maddesinde, g\u00fcnl\u00fck i\u015f s\u00fcresinin gece ve g\u00fcnd\u00fcz devrelerinde sekiz saat oldu\u011fu kural alt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131ktan sonra takip eden f\u0131krada g\u00fcnl\u00fck sekiz saati a\u015fan \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalarla, hafta tatili, ulusal bayram ve genel tatillerde yap\u0131lan \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n ‘fazla saatlerde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma’ oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
Anayasa Mahkemesinin iptaline konu olan 5953 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ek 1 inci maddesinin 8 inci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n 2 nci c\u00fcmlesinde ise ‘Fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccretlerinin g\u00fcn\u00fcnde verilmemesi halinde, her ge\u00e7en g\u00fcn i\u00e7in %5 fazlas\u0131yla \u00f6denir.’ h\u00fckm\u00fc mevcut idi. An\u0131lan ek 1 inci maddede, g\u00fcnl\u00fck sekiz saati a\u015fan \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalarla, hafta tatili, ulusal bayram ve genel tatil \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n %5 fazlal\u0131klar\u0131 ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 d\u00fczenlenmemi\u015f, fazla saatlerde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar ayn\u0131 kurala tabi k\u0131l\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
An\u0131lan Kanun maddesinin d\u00fczenleni\u015f \u015fekline g\u00f6re Anayasa Mahkemesinin iptaline konu olan h\u00fck\u00fcm, ek 1 inci maddenin kapsam\u0131nda yer alan g\u00fcnl\u00fck sekiz saatlik i\u015f m\u00fcddetini a\u015fan fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar, ulusal bayram ve genel tatiller ile hafta tatili \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n tamam\u0131 i\u00e7in sonu\u00e7 do\u011furan bir d\u00fczenleme olup, bu ba\u011flamda Anayasa Mahkemesince verilen iptal karar\u0131 bu alacaklar\u0131n t\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn %5 fazlal\u0131klar\u0131na uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 gerekli k\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.
\u0130ptal karar\u0131n\u0131n kapsam\u0131 bu \u015fekilde belirlendikten sonra, bu iptal karar\u0131n\u0131n ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile hangi uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan hukuk\u00ee sonu\u00e7 do\u011furaca\u011f\u0131 sorunu ele al\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r.
T.C. Anayasas\u0131’n\u0131n ‘Anayasa Mahkemesinin kararlar\u0131’ ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 153 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin 6 nc\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131na g\u00f6re ‘Anayasa Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazetede hemen yay\u0131mlan\u0131r ve yasama, y\u00fcr\u00fctme ve yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131n\u0131, idare makamlar\u0131n\u0131, ger\u00e7ek ve t\u00fczelki\u015fileri ba\u011flar.’ Ayn\u0131 maddenin be\u015finci f\u0131kras\u0131na g\u00f6re ise ‘\u0130ptal kararlar\u0131 geriye y\u00fcr\u00fcmez.’
\u0130ptal kararlar\u0131n\u0131n geriye y\u00fcr\u00fcmezli\u011fi ilkesi, Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin 12\/12\/1989 <\/strong>tarih, 1989\/11-48 E.K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda ‘T\u00fcrk Anayasal sisteminde, “Devlete g\u00fcven” ilkesini sarsmamak ve ayr\u0131ca devlet ya\u015fam\u0131nda bir karma\u015faya neden olmamak i\u00e7in iptal kararlar\u0131n\u0131n geriye y\u00fcr\u00fcmezli\u011fi kural\u0131 kabul edilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6ylece hukuksal ve nesnel alanda etkilerini g\u00f6stermi\u015f, sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 do\u011furmu\u015f bulunan durumlar\u0131n, iptal kararlar\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girece\u011fi g\u00fcne kadarki d\u00f6nem i\u00e7in ge\u00e7erli say\u0131lmas\u0131 sa\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.’ \u015feklinde ifade edilmi\u015ftir.
Anayasadaki bu d\u00fczenlemeden g\u00fcd\u00fclen ama\u00e7, iptal edilen kanuna dayan\u0131larak, daha \u00f6nce yap\u0131lan i\u015flemlerin ge\u00e7erliliklerini koruyaca\u011f\u0131d\u0131r. Ancak iptal karar\u0131n\u0131n geriye y\u00fcr\u00fcmeyece\u011fini mutlak olarak anlamak ya da kabul etmek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Bir kere iptal kararlar\u0131 geriye y\u00fcr\u00fcmeyecekse, dava mahkemelerinin davalar\u0131 durdurarak sorunu Anayasa Mahkemesine havale etmesinin bir anlam\u0131 olmayacakt\u0131r (…:<\/strong> Anayasa Hukuku, \u0130stanbul, 2003, s.214).
Nitekim bu m\u00fcl\u00e2hazalarla somut norm denetimi sonucunda Anayasa Mahkemesince iptal karar\u0131 verilmesi durumunda, bu karar\u0131n geriye y\u00fcr\u00fcmesi gerekti\u011fi kabul edilmi\u015ftir. T.C. Anayasas\u0131’n\u0131n ‘Anayasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n di\u011fer mahkemelerde ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmesi’ ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 152 nci maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131na g\u00f6re ‘Anayasa Mahkemesi, i\u015fin kendisine geli\u015finden ba\u015flamak \u00fczere be\u015f ay i\u00e7inde karar\u0131n\u0131 verir ve a\u00e7\u0131klar. Bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde karar verilmezse mahkeme davay\u0131 y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckteki kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131r. Ancak, Anayasa Mahkemesinin karar\u0131, esas hakk\u0131ndaki karar kesinle\u015finceye kadar gelirse, mahkeme buna uymak zorundad\u0131r.’
Anayasa’da yer alan a\u00e7\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcm gere\u011fince, somut norm denetimi yoluyla Anayasa Mahkemesi’nce iptal karar\u0131 verilmesi durumunda, iptal karar\u0131, itiraz yoluna ba\u015fvuran mahkeme bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131d\u0131r ve geriye y\u00fcr\u00fcr. Bununla birlikte, bu karar\u0131n hen\u00fcz kesinle\u015fmemi\u015f ve g\u00f6r\u00fclmekte olan benzer nitelikteki di\u011fer davalara etkisi ayr\u0131ca de\u011ferlendirmeye muhta\u00e7t\u0131r.
\u0130ptal karar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fclmekte olan benzer nitelikteki di\u011fer davalar\u0131 etkilemeyece\u011fi kabul edilirse, iptal edilen kanuni d\u00fczenlemenin Anayasa’ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu sabit duruma geldi\u011finden, T.C. Anayasas\u0131’n\u0131n 152 nci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fince benzer nitelikteki davalara bakmakta olan b\u00fct\u00fcn mahkemelerce Anayasa Mahkemesi’ne m\u00fcracaat edilmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131l\u0131r ki, bu ihtimalde de g\u00f6r\u00fclmekte olan di\u011fer davalar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan nihai olarak iptal karar\u0131n\u0131n geriye y\u00fcr\u00fcmesi neticesi ortaya \u00e7\u0131kacakt\u0131r.
Belirtmek gerekir ki, T.C. Anayasas\u0131’n\u0131n ‘Anayasan\u0131n ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc’ ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 11 inci maddesine g\u00f6re ‘Anayasa h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, yasama, y\u00fcr\u00fctme ve yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131n\u0131, idare makamlar\u0131n\u0131 ve di\u011fer kurulu\u015f ve ki\u015fileri ba\u011flayan temel hukuk kurallar\u0131d\u0131r. Kanunlar Anayasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamaz.’ 138 inci maddeye g\u00f6re de h\u00e2kimler \u00f6ncelikle Anayasa’ya uygun olarak h\u00fck\u00fcm verirler.
B\u00fct\u00fcn bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, somut norm denetimi yoluyla Anayasa Mahkemesince verilecek iptal karar\u0131n\u0131n, kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm halini alm\u0131\u015f yarg\u0131 kararlar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak \u015fart\u0131yla, geriye y\u00fcr\u00fcd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc kabul etmek zorunludur. Esasen geriye y\u00fcr\u00fcmezlik ilkesi hukuk g\u00fcvenli\u011fi amac\u0131yla tercih edildi\u011fine g\u00f6re, bu ilkenin yaln\u0131z kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm halini alm\u0131\u015f kararlar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan kabul edildi\u011fini s\u00f6ylemek onun amac\u0131na daha uygun d\u00fc\u015fer (…, …:<\/strong> Anayasa Yarg\u0131s\u0131nda Somut Norm Denetimi, Ankara, 1966, s. 180; Kuzu, Burhan: Anayasa Mahkemesinin \u0130ptal Kararlar\u0131n\u0131n Geriye Y\u00fcr\u00fcmezli\u011fi Sorunu, \u0130\u00dcHFM<\/strong>, 1988, C:2, s.214; …zi\u00e7, …: Anayasa Hukuku, \u0130stanbul, 2003, s.214; …: Anayasa Yarg\u0131s\u0131 ve T\u00fcrk Anayasa Mahkemesi, Ankara, 1996, s.305; …, …: T\u00fcrk Anayasa Yarg\u0131s\u0131nda \u0130tiraz Yolu, Erzincan, 1992, s.72-73).
Nitekim Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu’nun 15\/06\/2011 <\/strong>tarih ve 2011\/20-231, 2011\/425 esas karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda da ‘Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin iptal kararlar\u0131n\u0131n bu gibi kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm halini almam\u0131\u015f derdest dosyalar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131n zorunlulu\u011fu ortadad\u0131r. Zira, Anayasa Mahkemesinin iptal kararlar\u0131 usul\u00fc kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hakk\u0131n da istisnas\u0131n\u0131 te\u015fkil ederler’ hususlar\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.
Ayr\u0131ca Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin 12\/12\/1989 <\/strong>tarih, 1989\/11-48 esas karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda da ‘Anayasa’n\u0131n 152. maddesine g\u00f6re, itiraz yoluna ba\u015fvuran mahkemeler, Anayasa Mahkemesi’nce verilecek kararlara uymak zorundad\u0131rlar. Bu durumda, itiraz eden mahkeme, elinde bulunan ve Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin iptal karar\u0131ndan \u00f6nce a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan bir davay\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesi karar\u0131na g\u00f6re \u00e7\u00f6zecek ve do\u011frudan iptal karar\u0131n\u0131n etkisini \u00f6nceye uygulayacakt\u0131r. Ayn\u0131 durum, itiraz yoluna ba\u015fvurmayan mahkemeler y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de ge\u00e7erlidir. \u0130ptal davas\u0131 veya itiraz \u00fczerine bir kural\u0131n iptali sonucu, Mahkemeler bakmakta olduklar\u0131 davalar\u0131 bu karara g\u00f6re \u00e7\u00f6zmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcrler. Bu sonu\u00e7 Anayasa’n\u0131n, “Anayasa Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazetede hemen yay\u0131mlan\u0131r ve yasama, y\u00fcr\u00fctme ve yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131n\u0131, idare makamlar\u0131n\u0131, ger\u00e7ek ve t\u00fczelki\u015fileri ba\u011flar.” yolundaki 153. maddesinin alt\u0131nc\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda yer alan kural\u0131n sonucudur…’ hususlar\u0131 ortaya konulmu\u015ftur.
A\u00e7\u0131klanan bu hukuki olgular \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekmektedir.
Mahkemece, fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti ile ulusal bayram ve genel tatil \u00fccreti alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n %5 fazlal\u0131klar\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f ise de, 19\/11\/2019 <\/strong>tarih ve 30953 say\u0131l\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin iptal karar\u0131 ile belirtilen alacaklar\u0131n %5 fazlal\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n dayana\u011f\u0131 olan norm iptal edilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 olarak a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere, bu iptal karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fmemi\u015f davalara da tatbiki gerekti\u011finden, Mahkemece fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti ile ulusal bayram ve genel tatil \u00fccreti alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n %5 fazlal\u0131klar\u0131 talebi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekmektedir.
Di\u011fer taraftan, fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti ile ulusal bayram ve genel tatil \u00fccreti alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n %5 fazlal\u0131klar\u0131 talebi, dava tarihinden sonra Anayasa Mahkemesi’nce verilen iptal karar\u0131n\u0131n gere\u011fi olarak reddedilece\u011finden, Dairemizce bu ret nedeniyle olu\u015fan miktar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan daval\u0131 yarar\u0131na vekalet \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesinin hakkaniyetli olmayaca\u011f\u0131 ve adaletsizli\u011fe yol a\u00e7aca\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, bu husus da Mahkemece g\u00f6zetilmelidir.
3-Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki bir di\u011fer uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k davac\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131ll\u0131k izin alaca\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.
Somut olayda,davac\u0131n\u0131n hak kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u0131ll\u0131k izin s\u00fcresi 15.09.2005-<\/strong>14.09.2006 <\/strong>\u00e7al\u0131\u015fma d\u00f6nemi i\u00e7in 42 g\u00fcn olarak belirlenmi\u015fse de 5953 say\u0131l\u0131 Bas\u0131n Mesle\u011finde \u00c7al\u0131\u015fanlarla \u00c7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lanlar Aras\u0131ndaki M\u00fcnasebetlerin Tanzimi Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un y\u0131ll\u0131k \u00fccretli izin ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 21.maddesine g\u00f6re gazetecilik mesle\u011findeki hizmeti on y\u0131ldan yukar\u0131 olan bir gazeteciye alt\u0131 hafta \u00fccretli izin verilece\u011fi d\u00fczenlemi\u015f olup davac\u0131 gazetecilik mesle\u011finde onuncu y\u0131l\u0131n\u0131 01.06.2006 <\/strong>y\u0131l\u0131nda doldurmakla 15.09.2005 <\/strong>– 14.09.2006 <\/strong>tarih aral\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7inde 28 g\u00fcn \u00fccretli izne hak kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6zetilmemesi de hatal\u0131 olup di\u011fer bir bozma nedenidir.
Sonu\u00e7:
Temyiz olunan B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n, yukar\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 sebepten dolay\u0131 BOZULMASINA<\/strong>, dosyan\u0131n karar\u0131 veren B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesine g\u00f6ne, karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi’ne g\u00f6nderilmesine, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz karar harc\u0131n\u0131n istek halinde ilgililere iadesine, 01.03.2021 <\/strong>tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"