{"id":11357,"date":"2026-06-17T09:59:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-17T09:59:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/2026\/06\/17\/gemiye-konulan-haczi-ve-seferden-men-kararini-kaldirmak-icin-icra-dosyasina-odeme-yapan-gemi-isletmecisi-odedigi-bu-bedelin-iadesi-icin-istirdat-davasi-acamaz\/"},"modified":"2026-06-17T09:59:00","modified_gmt":"2026-06-17T09:59:00","slug":"gemiye-konulan-haczi-ve-seferden-men-kararini-kaldirmak-icin-icra-dosyasina-odeme-yapan-gemi-isletmecisi-odedigi-bu-bedelin-iadesi-icin-istirdat-davasi-acamaz","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/2026\/06\/17\/gemiye-konulan-haczi-ve-seferden-men-kararini-kaldirmak-icin-icra-dosyasina-odeme-yapan-gemi-isletmecisi-odedigi-bu-bedelin-iadesi-icin-istirdat-davasi-acamaz\/","title":{"rendered":"GEM\u0130YE KONULAN HACZ\u0130 VE SEFERDEN MEN KARARINI KALDIRMAK \u0130\u00c7\u0130N \u0130CRA DOSYASINA \u00d6DEME YAPAN GEM\u0130 \u0130\u015eLETMEC\u0130S\u0130, \u00d6DED\u0130\u011e\u0130 BU BEDEL\u0130N \u0130ADES\u0130 \u0130\u00c7\u0130N \u0130ST\u0130RDAT DAVASI A\u00c7AMAZ"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>T.C.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>\u0130STANBUL B\u00d6LGE ADL\u0130YE MAHKEMES\u0130<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>15. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Esas Numaras\u0131: 2022\/3022<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Karar Numaras\u0131: 2026\/537<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Karar Tarihi: 27.04.2026<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>\u0130ST\u0130RDAT ALACA\u011eI<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>GEM\u0130YE KONULAN HAC\u0130Z VE SEFERDEN MEN KARARININ KALDIRILMASI<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>DONATAN<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>\u0130\u015eLETMEC\u0130<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>AKT\u0130F HUSUMET YOKLU\u011eU<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>\u0130ST\u0130RDAT ALACA\u011eI \u00dcZER\u0130NDE MADD\u0130 HUKUK BAKIMINDAN HAK SAH\u0130PL\u0130\u011e\u0130<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>\u00d6zeti:<\/strong> Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k eser s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden kaynaklanmaktad\u0131r. Davac\u0131 i\u015f sahibi, daval\u0131 ise y\u00fcklenicidir. Dosya kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re davac\u0131 &#8230; ve &#8230; Ltd \u015eti nin gemi y\u00f6netim s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri uyar\u0131nca geminin i\u015fletmecisi oldu\u011fu ve donatan ad\u0131na hareket etti\u011fi, icra takibinde bor\u00e7lu s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 halde \u00f6deme yapan taraf oldu\u011fu, eldeki davada ise bor\u00e7lu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir borcu cebri icra tehdidi alt\u0131nda \u00f6dedi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcren \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi s\u0131fat\u0131yla istirdat talebinde bulunan taraf konumunda oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Davac\u0131 Ltd. \u015eti.&#8217;nin, malik olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve yaln\u0131zca donatan ad\u0131na hareket eden i\u015fletmeci s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 sabit oldu\u011fundan, dava konusu istirdat alaca\u011f\u0131 \u00fczerinde maddi hukuk bak\u0131m\u0131ndan hak sahibi (aktif husumete haiz) olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu nedenle davan\u0131n aktif husumet yoklu\u011fu sebebiyle reddine karar verilmesi gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n<p>Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen davan\u0131n yerel mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonucunda verilen h\u00fckme kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf yoluna ba\u015fvurulmu\u015f olup, duru\u015fmas\u0131z olarak dosya \u00fczerinde yap\u0131lan inceleme ve istinaf talepleriyle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 olarak yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirme sonunda;<\/p>\n<p><strong>GERE\u011e\u0130 G\u00d6R\u00dc\u015e\u00dcL\u00dcP D\u00dc\u015e\u00dcN\u00dcLD\u00dc :<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Dava; davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a icra tehdidi ile \u00f6dendi\u011fi iddia olunan icra takibine konu edilen mebla\u011f\u0131n istirdat\u0131 talebine ili\u015fkin olup, mahkemece davan\u0131n reddine dair verilen karara kar\u015f\u0131 davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istinaf talebinde bulunulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n<p>Davac\u0131 vekili; &#8230; Ltd. \u015eti. donatan\u0131n\u0131n &#8230; Ltd oldu\u011funu, eski ad\u0131 &#8230; yeni ad\u0131 &#8230; gemisinin 2007 tarihinden beri i\u015fletmecisi oldu\u011fu ve donatan\u0131 m\u00fclkiyetinin &#8230; Ltd \u015eti ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 iken 27\/11\/2015 tarihinde &#8230; Ltd&#8217;ye devir ve intikal etti\u011fini, \u00f6nceki malik &#8230; Ltd. \u015eti ad\u0131na &#8230; gemisinin i\u015fletmecili\u011fini yapmakta iken bu kere de\u011fi\u015fen ad\u0131yla &#8230; gemisinin i\u015fletmecili\u011fini yapmas\u0131 hususunda yeni malik &#8230; Ltd ile anla\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, geminin eski donatan &#8230; Ltd&#8217;ye izafeten &#8230; &#8230; Ltd \u015eti aleyhine daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan \u0130stanbul Anadolu 5. \u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc&#8217;n\u00fcn, &#8230; E. sayd\u0131 dosyas\u0131yla, 04.12.2015 tarihindi 56.396,18 TL bedelli alacak takibiyle ilams\u0131z icra takibi ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00f6deme emrinin kendilerine hi\u00e7 ula\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, fakat her nas\u0131lsa tan\u0131nm\u0131yor ibaresiyle iade olundu\u011funu, bunun \u00fczerine, 20.11.2015 tarihinde Tebligat Kanunu nun 35. Maddesine g\u00f6re yap\u0131lan tebligat\u0131n kom\u015fuya haber verilmek suretiyle ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011fi ve b\u00f6ylece takibin kesinle\u015ftirildi\u011fini, alacakl\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan takibin kesinle\u015fmesini m\u00fcteakip 01.12.2015 tarihinde geminin haczedilerek seferden men&#8217;i talep edildi\u011fini, bunun \u00fczerine icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce Tuzla Liman Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131&#8217; na m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131larak bor\u00e7lu \u015firket ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 ise &#8230; isimli geminin haczine, seferden menine dair karar verildi\u011fini, T\u00fcrk Limanlar\u0131nda yabanc\u0131 bayrakl\u0131 gemilerin sicil kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n tutulmas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, haciz ve seferden men karar\u0131n\u0131n verildi\u011fi 01\/12\/2015 tarihinde geminin bor\u00e7lu ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 olmamas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, karar\u0131n tatbik edildi\u011fini ve geminin haczedilmek suretiyle seferden men edildi\u011fini, i\u015fbu seferden men hadisesi ile takibe muttali olan &#8230;&#8217;in derhal durumu yeni malike bildirdi\u011fini, geminin o tarihte yap\u0131lan gemi kiralama s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi gere\u011fince \u0130skenderun seferini yapmak zorunda oldu\u011fundan yeni malik taraf\u0131ndan derhal borcun \u00f6denip haczin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ve geminin sefere \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131 talimat\u0131 verildi\u011fini, bunun \u00fczerine, &#8230; ve &#8230; Ltd. \u015eti&#8217; nin, yeni malik nam ve hesab\u0131na borcu icra dosyas\u0131na \u00f6deyerek, haciz ve seferden men karar\u0131n\u0131 kald\u0131rtt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ancak icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce d\u00fczenlenen tahsilat makbuzunda sadece dosya bor\u00e7lusunun ad\u0131n\u0131n zikredildi\u011fini, \u00f6demenin do\u011frudan &#8230; ve &#8230; Ltd \u015eti taraf\u0131ndan yeni malik Lidya&#8217;n\u0131n talimat\u0131 ile yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, geminin sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 m\u00fcteakiben m\u00fclkiyetinin devir ve tesliminden sonra eski bor\u00e7lunun, geminin sal\u0131verilmesi i\u00e7in para \u00f6demesinin hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na ayk\u0131 oldu\u011funu, &#8230; \u015eirketi&#8217;nin ad\u0131na hareket etti\u011fi &#8230; Ltd&#8217;nin dava konusu bu paray\u0131 alacakl\u0131ya hi\u00e7bir \u015fekilde bor\u00e7lu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 halde cebri icra tehdidi alt\u0131nda \u00f6demek zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek m\u00fcvekklinin \u00f6demi\u015f oldu\u011fu miktar\u0131n daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a m\u00fcvekkiline \u00f6denmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>Daval\u0131 Vekili Cevap Dilek\u00e7esinde, Davac\u0131 \u015firketin Malta merkezli oldu\u011funu iddia etti\u011fini, T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de herhangi bir \u015fubesi mevcut olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yabanc\u0131 uyruklu bir \u015firketle olan i\u015fbu ihtilaf\u0131n yabanc\u0131l\u0131k unsuru ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 5718 say\u0131l\u0131 M\u00d6HUK\u2019un 48. Maddesi ile yabanc\u0131 ki\u015filerin T\u00fcrk Mahkemelerinde dava a\u00e7mas\u0131 halinde yabanc\u0131 ki\u015filerin mahkemenin belirleyece\u011fi teminat\u0131 yat\u0131rmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini d\u00fczenledi\u011fini, T\u00fcrkiye ile Malta aras\u0131nda kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 bir muafiyet anla\u015fmas\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi Malta&#8217;n\u0131n 1954 tarihli Hukuk Usul\u00fcne Dair Lahey S\u00f6zle\u015fmesine taraf olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davac\u0131 \u015firketin teminat yat\u0131rmas\u0131n\u0131n yasal bir zorunluluk oldu\u011funu, teminat yat\u0131r\u0131lmadan i\u015fbu dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davan\u0131n usulden reddine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fini, davan\u0131n taraflar aras\u0131ndaki eser s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayanarak \u00f6denen paran\u0131n istirdat\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olup 6102 say\u0131l\u0131 T.T.K.\u2019nun 5\/2. maddesi gere\u011fince &#8230; Mahkemelerinin g\u00f6revli oldu\u011funu, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki deniz ticaretine ve deniz sigorta uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131na ili\u015fkin davalar\u0131n ancak deniz ihtisas mahkemesi s\u0131fat\u0131yla g\u00f6r\u00fclece\u011fini, di\u011fer davalar\u0131n ise &#8230; mahkemelerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclece\u011fini, dava konusu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ise dava konusu gemiye verilen tamir bak\u0131m hizmetine ili\u015fkin olup bir eser s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi niteli\u011finde oldu\u011funu, Yarg\u0131tay\u2019\u0131n yerle\u015fmi\u015f i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 gere\u011fince bu t\u00fcr davalara bakmakla g\u00f6revli mahkemelerin &#8230; mahkemeleri oldu\u011funu, g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 verilmesi gerekti\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin faaliyet adresi Tuzla oldu\u011fundan davaya bakmakla yetkili mahkemelerin \u0130stanbul Anadolu &#8230; Mahkemeleri oldu\u011funu, mahkemenin ayn\u0131 zamanda yetkisiz oldu\u011fu ve yetki itiraz\u0131nda bulunduklar\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131 \u015firket taraf\u0131ndan dava dilek\u00e7esinde a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a bahsedildi\u011fi gibi &#8230;. \u015eti. &#8216; nin davac\u0131 yabanc\u0131 \u015firketin acentesi olmay\u0131p geminin i\u015fleticisi oldu\u011funu, TTK h\u00fck\u00fcmleri gere\u011fince acentenin yabanc\u0131 \u015firketi davada temsil yetkisi (bu konuda yetki verilmesi h\u00e2linde) olup gemi i\u015fleticisinin b\u00f6yle bir yetkisi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, tebli\u011f edilen evrak incelendi\u011finde &#8230; \u015eirketinin acente de\u011fil i\u015fletici oldu\u011funu, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla davan\u0131n aktif husumet ehliyeti yoklu\u011fundan reddinin gerekti\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca dosyaya sunulan gemi i\u015fletme s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde taraflara ait hi\u00e7bir ka\u015fe ve imza bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yaln\u0131zca terc\u00fcme b\u00fcrosuna ili\u015fkin imzan\u0131n yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, imzas\u0131z gemi i\u015fletme s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri ile &#8230;. \u015eti &#8216;nin oldu\u011fu dahi ispat edilemedi\u011fini, geminin hem yeni donatan\u0131 hem de eski donatan\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan geminin i\u015fletme hakk\u0131n\u0131n &#8230; \u015eirketine verildi\u011fi sabit olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan husumet itiraz\u0131nda bulunuldu\u011funu, daval\u0131n\u0131n Tuzla B\u00f6lgesinde gemilere y\u00f6nelik tamir bak\u0131m hizmeti veren bir \u015firket oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131n\u0131n 2008 y\u0131l\u0131nda dava konusu geminin tamir ve bak\u0131m i\u015flerini Tuzla&#8217;da bulunan &#8230; A\u015f Tersanesinde yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, verilen hizmete ili\u015fkin 06.09. 2008 tarihli &#8230; sen notu 172.711,87-USD bedelli, 5430-USD bedelli faturalar\u0131 d\u00fczenleyerek davac\u0131 \u015firkete teslim etti\u011fini, davac\u0131 \u015firketin de s\u00f6z konusu fatura bor\u00e7lar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k \u00e7e\u015fitli tarihlerde k\u0131smi \u00f6demeler yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak borcun 13.910,87-USD&#8217;lik k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmedi\u011fini, aradan yakla\u015f\u0131k 8 y\u0131l ge\u00e7mesine ra\u011fmen borcun bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmemesi \u00fczerine daval\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131 \u015firket aleyhinde icra takibi ba\u015flatt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, takibin kesinle\u015fti\u011fini ve borcun bizzat bor\u00e7lu &#8230; Ltd. taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6dendi\u011fini, dosya borcunun davac\u0131 &#8230; Ltd taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6denmedi\u011fini, dosya borcunun bor\u00e7lu dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 &#8230; Ltd. taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6dendi\u011finden davac\u0131 &#8230; Ltd. taraf\u0131ndan i\u015fbu davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki menfaati bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi taraf ehliyeti de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bu a\u00e7\u0131dan da husumet itiraz\u0131nda bulunuldu\u011funu, dava konusu gemiye ili\u015fkin hizmetlerin m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin Tuzla&#8217; da bulunan &#8230; Tersanesinde verildi\u011fini, Kald\u0131 ki, &#8230;. \u015eti. yetkilisi &#8230;&#8217;un &#8230;@&#8230;.com adresinden 19.10.2009 tarihinde m\u00fcvekkili \u015firkete g\u00f6ndermi\u015f oldu\u011fu mail ile borcunu a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ikrar etti\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca &#8230;. \u015eti. yetkilisi &#8230;&#8217;un piyasadan \u00f6\u011frendikleri kadar\u0131yla ayn\u0131 zamanda hem &#8230; Ltd. hem de &#8230; Ltd. \u015firketinin yetkilisi yani \u015firket sahibi oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131 \u015firketin tek amac\u0131n\u0131n bor\u00e7tan kurtulmak ve haks\u0131z kazan\u00e7 elde etmek oldu\u011funu belirterek davan\u0131n reddini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>\u0130stanbul 17. Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesince (Denizcilik \u0130htisas Mahkemesi S\u0131fat\u0131yla), her ne kadar daval\u0131 vekili s\u00fcresinde verdi\u011fi dilek\u00e7esi ile mahkemenin yetki ve g\u00f6revine itiraz ederek g\u00f6revli ve yetkili mahkemenin \u0130stanbul Anadolu Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015f ise de davaya konu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 TTK 5. kitab\u0131nda yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve mahkemenin de \u0130stanbul M\u00fclki hudutlar\u0131 dahilinde Deniz ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131na ili\u015fkin davalara m\u00fcnhas\u0131ran g\u00f6revlendirilen tek mahkeme oldu\u011fu, t\u00fcm \u0130stanbul s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131nda yetkili olmas\u0131 nedeni ile g\u00f6rev ve yetki itiraz\u0131n\u0131n reddine, mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama ve toplanan t\u00fcm delillerden, a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n istirdat davas\u0131 oldu\u011fu, davac\u0131 vekilinin ad\u0131na hareket etti\u011fi &#8230; ad\u0131na cebri icra tehdidi alt\u0131nda icra dosyas\u0131na \u00f6denen paran\u0131n istirdad\u0131n\u0131 talep etti\u011fi olayda, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan eski ad\u0131 &#8230; yeni ad\u0131 &#8230; isimli gemiye bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m hizmeti verildi\u011fi hususunun Tuzla Liman Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 yaz\u0131 cevab\u0131 ve dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 &#8230;. \u015eirketi yaz\u0131 cevab\u0131 ile sabit oldu\u011fu, dava konusu olayda hukuki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n davac\u0131n\u0131n geminin bak\u0131m onar\u0131m masraf\u0131ndan bakiye bor\u00e7tan sorumlu olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda topland\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131 asile izafeten &#8230;&#8217; in aktif husumet ehliyeti bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmede, dosyada yer alan gemi y\u00f6netim s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin tarihlerinin 27\/11\/2015 ve 3\/4\/2014 oldu\u011fu, 03\/04\/2014 tarihli Gemi Y\u00f6netim S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin taraflar\u0131n\u0131n &#8230; ve &#8230; \u015firketleri oldu\u011fu, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede &#8230;&#8217; in gemi maliki, &#8230;&#8217; in ise gemi y\u00f6neticisi olarak g\u00f6z\u00fckt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, 27\/11\/2015 tarihli Gemi Y\u00f6netim S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin taraflar\u0131n\u0131n ise, &#8230; ile &#8230; oldu\u011fu, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede &#8230;&#8217; in gemi maliki, &#8230;&#8217; in ise gemi y\u00f6neticisi olarak g\u00f6z\u00fckt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, &#8230; \u015eirketinin eski ad\u0131 &#8230; yeni ad\u0131 &#8230; isimli geminin y\u00f6neticisi oldu\u011fu, yerine getirdi\u011fi hukuki i\u015flemleri gemi donatan\u0131 ad\u0131 ve hesab\u0131na ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirdi\u011fi, gemi donatan\u0131na izafeten dava a\u00e7mas\u0131n\u0131n hukuken m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fu kanaatine var\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ise de, yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda daval\u0131 vekilince davac\u0131 \u015firkete izafeten &#8230;&#8217; in tasfiye haline girdi\u011fini belirtilmesi \u00fczerine \u0130stanbul &#8230; Sicil M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc&#8217;ne yaz\u0131 yaz\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u0130stanbul &#8230; Sicil M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc&#8217;nce yaz\u0131lan yaz\u0131ya davac\u0131 \u015firketin iflas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fi ve iflas i\u015flemlerinin \u0130stanbul Anadolu 3. \u0130cra ve \u0130flas M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc&#8217; n\u00fcn &#8230; iflas say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden bahisle yan\u0131t verilmesi \u00fczerine davac\u0131 asil ad\u0131na vekaletname sunulmas\u0131 \u00fczerine dosyada davac\u0131 asil a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan da taraf te\u015fkili sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine var\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, dosyada mevcut Liberya Cumhuriyeti taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan sicil sertifikas\u0131, 27.11.2015 tarihli devir teslim tutana\u011f\u0131, 03.12.2015 tarihli &#8230; antetli ka\u011f\u0131d\u0131na bas\u0131l\u0131 belge, gemi sat\u0131\u015f senedi birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde, &#8230; isimli geminin gemi bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m\u0131 zaman\u0131nda &#8230;&#8217;e ait oldu\u011fu, geminin seferden men edildi\u011fi 1\/12\/2015 tarihinde ise m\u00fclkiyetinin el de\u011fi\u015ftirmi\u015f oldu\u011fu, ad\u0131n\u0131n &#8230; olarak de\u011fi\u015ftirildi\u011fi ve malikinin &#8230; \u015firketi oldu\u011funun anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, talep konusu gemi bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n TTK m. 1320 anlam\u0131nda sahibine gemi alacakl\u0131s\u0131 hakk\u0131 veren bir istem olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, yeni malike kar\u015f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclemeyece\u011fi, istemin bor\u00e7lusunun &#8230; oldu\u011fu, nitekim davac\u0131 vekilince de takibin isabetli bir \u015fekilde M\/V &#8230; donatan\u0131 &#8230;&#8217;e kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, icra dosyas\u0131na ise ticari hayat\u0131n devam\u0131 gere\u011fi \u00f6demenin &#8230; taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu noktada davac\u0131 &#8230;&#8217; in dava hakk\u0131n\u0131n &#8230;&#8217;e kar\u015f\u0131 do\u011fdu\u011funun kabul\u00fc gerekti\u011fi, nitekim daval\u0131 (alacakl\u0131) vekilince takibin ve hukuki yollar\u0131n borcun do\u011fumundaki malike kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmakla davac\u0131n\u0131n davas\u0131n\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>Karar\u0131n davac\u0131 vekilince istinaf\u0131 \u00fczerine, Dairemizce, Yarg\u0131tay 15. Hukuk Dairesi&#8217;nin 18.05.2017 tarih ve 2016\/2840 esas, 2017\/2126 karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda; &#8220;Denizcilik \u0130htisas Mahkemeleri&#8217;nin davaya bakabilmesi i\u00e7in davan\u0131n deniz ticaretinden kaynaklanmas\u0131 gerekli ve zorunlu olup, somut olayda ihtil\u00e2f daval\u0131ya ait geminin boyanmas\u0131 ve verniklenmesi nedeniyle \u00f6denmeyen i\u015f bedeline ili\u015fkin oldu\u011funu, bu haliyle taraflar aras\u0131ndaki ihtil\u00e2f\u0131n T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu&#8217;nun 470. ve devam\u0131 maddelerinde d\u00fczenlenen eser s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131,6102 say\u0131l\u0131 TTK&#8217;n\u0131n 4 (1) maddesinde ticari davalar\u0131n tan\u0131mland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve say\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu maddeye g\u00f6re \u201cher iki taraf\u0131n da ticari i\u015fletmesiyle ilgili hususlardan do\u011fan hukuk davalar\u0131\u201d ve \u201cticari nitelikteki \u00e7eki\u015fmesiz yarg\u0131 i\u015fleri\u201d ile \u201ctaraflar\u0131n tacir olup olmad\u0131klar\u0131na bak\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n ayn\u0131 maddenin (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) ve (f) bentlerinde say\u0131lan davalar ticari dava say\u0131l\u0131r. Bu maddeye g\u00f6re bir davan\u0131n ticari dava say\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in ya taraflar\u0131n her ikisinin tacir olmas\u0131 ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n her iki taraf\u0131n ticari i\u015fletmesiyle ilgili hususlardan do\u011fmas\u0131 (nispi ticari dava), ya ticari nitelikte \u00e7eki\u015fmesiz yarg\u0131 i\u015fi olmas\u0131, ya da ayn\u0131 maddede 6 bent halinde say\u0131lan ticari davalardan (mutlak ticari dava) olmas\u0131 gerekir. Taraflardan biri &#8220;tacir&#8221; de\u011filse veya tacir olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n &#8220;ticari i\u015fletme&#8221; ile ilgisi yoksa ticari davan\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00f6z edilemez.&#8221; denildi\u011fini, somut olayda, taraflar\u0131n her ikisinin de tacir olup, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k da ticari i\u015fletmeleri ile ilgili hususlardan do\u011fdu\u011fundan davaya bakmakla g\u00f6revli mahkemenin asliye &#8230; mahkemesi oldu\u011funu, ancak, dava deniz ticaretinden kaynaklanmay\u0131p, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki geminin bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m\u0131na ili\u015fkin eser s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, davaya bakma g\u00f6revinin denizcilik ihtisas mahkemesi s\u0131fat\u0131yla g\u00f6revlendirilmi\u015f asliye &#8230; mahkemesine ait olmay\u0131p, genel mahkeme olarak g\u00f6revli asliye &#8230; mahkemelerine ait oldu\u011funu, bu nedenle, yerel mahkemece g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 verilerek dosyan\u0131n genel g\u00f6revli asliye &#8230; mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesi ve genel g\u00f6revli mahkemece inceleme yap\u0131l\u0131p bir karar verilmesi gerekirken, bu husus g\u00f6zden ka\u00e7\u0131r\u0131larak i\u015fin esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenerek yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde karar verilmesi hatal\u0131 oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle yerel mahkemece verilen karar\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>Dairemizin kald\u0131rma karar\u0131 sonras\u0131nda mahkemece, Mahkemenin g\u00f6revinin HMK&#8217;nun 114.maddesi gere\u011fince kamu d\u00fczeni ile ilgili bir dava \u015fart\u0131 oldu\u011fu, HMK&#8217;nun 115.maddesine g\u00f6re yarg\u0131laman\u0131n her a\u015famas\u0131nda resen g\u00f6zetilmesi gerekti\u011fi, 6102 say\u0131l\u0131 TTK nun 4 ve 5.maddeleri gere\u011fince mahkemenin g\u00f6revinin tayini i\u00e7in \u00f6ncelikle davan\u0131n 6102 say\u0131l\u0131 TTK dan veya di\u011fer kanunlardan do\u011fan deniz ticaretine veya deniz sigortas\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir dava olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n saptanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, mahkemenin g\u00f6revinin HMK &#8216;nun 114.maddesi gere\u011fince kamu d\u00fczeni ile ilgili bir dava \u015fart\u0131 oldu\u011fu, HMK&#8217;nun 115.maddesine g\u00f6re yarg\u0131laman\u0131n her a\u015famas\u0131nda resen g\u00f6zetilmesi gerekti\u011fi, TTK&#8217;nun 5.maddesinde de ticari dava ve ticari nitelikte \u00e7eki\u015fmesiz yarg\u0131 i\u015fi kurumundan hareket ederek asliye &#8230; mahkemelerinin g\u00f6revli oldu\u011fu dava ve i\u015flerin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi, TTK nun 5. maddesine g\u00f6re; asliye &#8230; mahkemelerinin t\u00fcm ticari davalar ile ticari nitelikteki \u00e7eki\u015fmesiz yarg\u0131 i\u015flerine bakmakla g\u00f6revli oldu\u011fu, yine \u00f6zel kanunlardan do\u011fan \u00f6zel h\u00fck\u00fcmler uyar\u0131nca &#8230; mahkemesinde g\u00f6r\u00fclecek di\u011fer dava ve i\u015flere asliye &#8230; mahkemesinin bakmakla g\u00f6revli oldu\u011fu, dava konusunun gemi bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m i\u015flerini kapsayan eser s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden kaynaklanmas\u0131 ve kesin mahiyetteki \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 15. Hukuk Dairesinin 03\/02\/2021 tarih, 2021\/186 esas, 2021\/229 karar say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131 uyar\u0131nca i\u015f bu dava y\u00f6n\u00fcnden mahkemenin g\u00f6revsizli\u011fine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>\u0130stanbul 17. Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesince (Denizcilik \u0130htisas Mahkemesi S\u0131fat\u0131yla) verilen g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 \u00fczerine dosya g\u00f6revli \u0130stanbul 4. Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>\u0130stanbul 4. Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesince, davac\u0131 \u015firketin ve daval\u0131 \u015firketin adreslerinin Tuzla\/\u0130STANBUL oldu\u011fu; Eser s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi mahalin Tuzla oldu\u011fu, 6100 Say\u0131l\u0131 HMK.n\u0131n;<strong> Madde 6-<\/strong> (1);&#8221; Genel yetkili mahkeme, daval\u0131 ger\u00e7ek veya t\u00fczel ki\u015finin davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihteki yerle\u015fim yeri mahkemesidir,&#8221;h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi, yetki itiraz\u0131nda bulunmak i\u00e7in HMK&#8217;nun 19\/2.maddesi gere\u011fince &#8220;Yetkinin kesin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 davalarda, yetki itiraz\u0131n\u0131n, cevap dilek\u00e7esinde ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmesi gerekir. Yetki itiraz\u0131nda bulunan taraf, yetkili mahkemeyi, birden fazla yetkili mahkeme varsa se\u00e7ti\u011fi mahkemeyi bildirir. Aksi takdirde yetki itiraz\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nmaz,&#8221;h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi, davac\u0131 \u015firketin ve daval\u0131 \u015firketin &#8230; sicil gazetesine g\u00f6re adresinin Tuzla oldu\u011fu, Tuzla il\u00e7esinin yetki s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n \u0130stanbul Anadolu Adliyesi yetki s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7inde kald\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n yetki itiraz\u0131n\u0131n hen\u00fcz incelenmedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi s\u0131fat\u0131yla bak\u0131lmakta olan i\u015fbu davada yetkili Mahkemelerin \u0130stanbul Anadolu Mahkemeleri oldu\u011fu, bu nedenle dosyan\u0131n N\u00f6bet\u00e7i \u0130stanbul Anadolu Ticaret Mahkemelerine g\u00f6nderilmesine, Mahkemenin yetkisiz oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmakla, dava dilek\u00e7esinin 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 HMK.&#8217;n\u0131n 114 ve 115\/2 maddeleri uyar\u0131nca yetki y\u00f6n\u00fcnden usulden reddine ve Mahkemenin yetkisizli\u011fine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>\u0130stanbul 4. Asliye &#8230; Mahkemesince verilen yetkisizlik karar\u0131 \u00fczerine dosya yetkili \u0130stanbul Anadolu 8. Asliye TicaretMahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.\u0130stanbul Anadolu 8. Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesince, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan eski ad\u0131 &#8230; yeni ad\u0131 &#8230; isimli gemiye bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m hizmeti verildi\u011fi hususunun Tuzla Liman Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 yaz\u0131 cevab\u0131 ve dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 &#8230;. \u015eirketi yaz\u0131 cevab\u0131 ile sabit oldu\u011fu, dava konusu olayda hukuki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n davac\u0131n\u0131n geminin bak\u0131m onar\u0131m masraf\u0131ndan bakiye bor\u00e7tan sorumlu olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda topland\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131 asile izafeten &#8230;&#8217; in aktif husumet ehliyeti bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmede, dosyada yer alan gemi y\u00f6netim s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin tarihlerinin 27\/11\/2015 ve 3\/4\/2014 oldu\u011fu, 03\/04\/2014 tarihli Gemi Y\u00f6netim S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin taraflar\u0131n\u0131n &#8230; ve &#8230; \u015firketleri oldu\u011fu, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede &#8230;&#8217; in gemi maliki, &#8230;&#8217; in ise gemi y\u00f6neticisi olarak g\u00f6z\u00fckt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, 27\/11\/2015 tarihli Gemi Y\u00f6netim S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin taraflar\u0131n\u0131n ise, &#8230; ile &#8230; oldu\u011fu, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede &#8230;&#8217; in gemi maliki, &#8230;&#8217; in ise gemi y\u00f6neticisi olarak g\u00f6z\u00fckt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, &#8230; \u015eirketinin eski ad\u0131 &#8230; yeni ad\u0131 &#8230; isimli geminin y\u00f6neticisi oldu\u011fu, yerine getirdi\u011fi hukuki i\u015flemleri gemi donatan\u0131 ad\u0131 ve hesab\u0131na ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirdi\u011fi, gemi donatan\u0131na izafeten dava a\u00e7mas\u0131n\u0131n hukuken m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olsa da, yarg\u0131lama devam ederken daval\u0131 vekilince davac\u0131 \u015firkete izafeten &#8230;&#8217; in tasfiye haline girdi\u011fini belirtilmesi \u00fczerine mahkemece \u0130stanbul &#8230; Sicil M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc&#8217;ne yaz\u0131 yaz\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u0130stanbul &#8230; Sicil M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc&#8217;nce yaz\u0131lan yaz\u0131ya davac\u0131 \u015firketin iflas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fi ve iflas i\u015flemlerinin \u0130stanbul Anadolu 3. \u0130cra ve \u0130flas M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc&#8217; n\u00fcn &#8230; iflas say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden bahisle yan\u0131t verilmesi \u00fczerine davac\u0131 asil ad\u0131na vekaletname sunulmas\u0131 \u00fczerine dosyada davac\u0131 asil a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan da taraf te\u015fkili sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131, dosyada mevcut Liberya Cumhuriyeti taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan sicil sertifikas\u0131, 27.11.2015 tarihli devir teslim tutana\u011f\u0131, 03.12.2015 tarihli &#8230; antetli ka\u011f\u0131d\u0131na bas\u0131l\u0131 belge, gemi sat\u0131\u015f senedi birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde, &#8230; isimli geminin gemi bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m\u0131 zaman\u0131nda &#8230;&#8217;e ait oldu\u011fu, geminin seferden men edildi\u011fi 1\/12\/2015 tarihinde ise m\u00fclkiyetinin el de\u011fi\u015ftirmi\u015f oldu\u011fu, ad\u0131n\u0131n &#8230; olarak de\u011fi\u015ftirildi\u011fi ve malikinin &#8230; \u015firketi oldu\u011funun anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, talep konusu gemi bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n TTK m. 1320 anlam\u0131nda sahibine gemi alacakl\u0131s\u0131 hakk\u0131 veren bir istem olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, yeni malike kar\u015f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclemeyece\u011fi, istemin bor\u00e7lusunun &#8230; oldu\u011fu, nitekim davac\u0131 vekilince de takibin M\/V &#8230; donatan\u0131 &#8230;&#8217;e kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, icra dosyas\u0131na ise \u00f6demenin takipte bor\u00e7lu olarak yer almayan &#8230; taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, istirdat talebinin haciz bask\u0131s\u0131 alt\u0131nda olan ve \u00f6demeyi yapan bor\u00e7lu taraf\u00e7a ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclebilece\u011fi, halbuki \u00f6demeyi yapan\u0131n takipte bor\u00e7lu olarak yer almayan &#8230; olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda daval\u0131ya kar\u015f\u0131 istirdat talebinde bulunamayaca\u011f\u0131 ancak davac\u0131 &#8230;&#8217; in dava hakk\u0131n\u0131n &#8230;&#8217;e kar\u015f\u0131 olabilece\u011fi nitekim daval\u0131 (alacakl\u0131) vekilince takibin ve hukuki yollar\u0131n borcun do\u011fumundaki malike kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmakla davac\u0131n\u0131n davas\u0131n\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>Davac\u0131 vekili istinaf dilek\u00e7esi ile, m\u00fcvekkilinin haks\u0131z bir \u015fekilde z\u0131mnen bor\u00e7lu s\u0131fat\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu icra takibinde, \u00f6deme emrinin m\u00fcvekkili taraf\u0131na tebli\u011f edilmedi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkilinin yasal hakk\u0131 olan itiraz hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi s\u00f6z konusu bor\u00e7tan da haciz konulmadan \u00f6nce haberdar olamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, gemisi sefere \u00e7\u0131kacak olan, seferde gecikme olmas\u0131 halinde cezai sorumlulu\u011fu do\u011facak olan m\u00fcvekkilinin, seferden hemen \u00f6nce gemisi \u00fczerine konulan haczi ve gemi hakk\u0131nda verilen seferden men karar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6\u011frenmesi \u00fczerine g\u00f6revli ve yetkili mahkemede dava a\u00e7mas\u0131n\u0131n beklenmesi veya durumu geminin eski malikine bildirerek borcu \u00f6demesini beklenmesinin hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, kald\u0131 ki m\u00fcvekkilinin de durumu anlamak ve \u00e7\u00f6zmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmak \u00fczere harcayacak bir zaman\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan kendisine ait olmayan ancak z\u0131mnen ve haks\u0131z bir \u015fekilde kendisine bor\u00e7lu s\u0131fat\u0131 y\u00fcklenmi\u015f olan bir borcu, icra tehtidi alt\u0131nda \u00f6demek zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin karar\u0131nda belirtmi\u015f oldu\u011fu \u00fczere m\u00fcvekkili, s\u00f6z konusu icra dosyas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan herhangi bir s\u0131fata sahip de\u011filse, hangi hukuki gerek\u00e7e ile ve neden m\u00fcvekkilin gemisi \u00fczerine haciz konuldu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkilinin maliki bulundu\u011fu gemi \u00fczerine haciz konulmasayd\u0131 m\u00fcvekkilin bu borcu \u00f6demek zorunda kalmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n a\u015fikar oldu\u011fu, davaya konu olan icra dosyas\u0131nda, icra takibi &#8230; Ltd&#8217;ye izafeten ba\u015flat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olsa da, &#8230; Ltd&#8217;nin herhangi bir icra tehtidi alt\u0131nda kalmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, herhangi ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131r veya ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131na veya banka hesab\u0131na haciz konulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bunlar\u0131n aksine, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin icra tehtidi alt\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkiline ait gemi haczedilerek gemi hakk\u0131nda seferden men karar\u0131 al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yani m\u00fcvekkilinin hukuki yapt\u0131r\u0131ma maruz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu hususlar dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, m\u00fcvekkilinin s\u00f6z konusu icra dosyas\u0131nda herhangi bir icra tehtidi alt\u0131nda olmadan \u00f6deme yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu hususunun kabul edilemez oldu\u011funu netice olarak &#8230; isimli geminin, bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n zaman\u0131nda &#8230;&#8217;e ait oldu\u011funu, geminin seferden men edildi\u011fi tarih olan 01\/12\/2015 tarihinde ise m\u00fclkiyetin el de\u011fi\u015ftirdi\u011fini, geminin ad\u0131n\u0131n ad\u0131 &#8230; olarak de\u011fi\u015ftirildi\u011fini ve malikinin m\u00fcvekkili \u015firket oldu\u011funu, yani m\u00fcvekkiline ait olmayan bir bor\u00e7 sebebiyle m\u00fcvekkilinin gemisine haks\u0131z olarak haciz konuldu\u011funu ve gemi hakk\u0131nda seferden men karar\u0131 al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, gemisi sefere \u00e7\u0131kacak olan m\u00fcvekkilinin, icra tehtidi alt\u0131nda kalm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011funu, seferde gecikme olmas\u0131 halinde cezai sorumlulu\u011fu do\u011faca\u011f\u0131 hususu dikkate al\u0131narak hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na uygun bir \u015fekilde kendisine ait olmayan bir borcu \u00f6demek zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, e\u011fer m\u00fcvekkilinin gemisine haks\u0131z bir \u015fekilde haciz konulmasayd\u0131 ve yine haks\u0131z bir \u015fekilde m\u00fcvekkilinin gemisi hakk\u0131nda seferden men karar\u0131 al\u0131nmasayd\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin s\u00f6z konusu borcu \u00f6demeyece\u011finin a\u015fikar oldu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkili haks\u0131z olarak gemisine konulan haciz ve gemisinin seferden men karar\u0131 ile ma\u011fdur olmu\u015fken, m\u00fcvekkilinin icra tehtidi alt\u0131nda borcu \u00f6demesi sebebiyle sorumlu tutularak aleyhine h\u00fck\u00fcm kuruldu\u011funu, \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan s\u00f6z konusu bedelin &#8230; Ltd.&#8217;den talep edilmesi gerekti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde verilen hukuka ve hakkaniyete ayk\u0131r\u0131 karar\u0131n kabul edilebilmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin daval\u0131ya bor\u00e7lu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan da h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu do\u011frultuda, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firket taraf\u0131ndan icra tehdidi alt\u0131nda \u00f6denen bedelin daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan iadesine karar verilmesi gerekirken, reddedilmesinin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fun belirterek mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k TBK 470 ve devam\u0131 maddelerinde d\u00fczenlenen eser s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden kaynaklanmaktad\u0131r. Davac\u0131 i\u015f sahibi, daval\u0131 ise y\u00fcklenicidir.<\/p>\n<p>Davac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde, &#8230; ve &#8230; Ltd \u015eti nin donatan\u0131n\u0131n &#8230; Ltd oldu\u011fu, eski ad\u0131 &#8230; yeni ad\u0131 &#8230; olan geminin 2007 y\u0131l\u0131ndan beri i\u015fletmecisi oldu\u011fu, geminin m\u00fclkiyetinin &#8230; Ltd \u015eti ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 iken 27 11 2015 tarihinde &#8230; Ltd ye devredildi\u011fi, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan \u0130stanbul Anadolu 5 \u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn &#8230; E say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131 ile ba\u015flat\u0131lan takip sonucu geminin haczedilerek seferden men edildi\u011fi, m\u00fcvekkilinin bor\u00e7lu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 halde cebri icra tehdidi alt\u0131nda \u00f6deme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00f6denen bedelin istirdad\u0131n\u0131 talep etti\u011fi, daval\u0131 vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde davan\u0131n reddini savunarak gemiye bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m hizmeti verildi\u011fini, borcun \u00f6denmedi\u011fini, takibin hakl\u0131 oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131n\u0131n aktif husumet ehliyeti bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda dosyada yer alan belgeler ve bilirki\u015fi raporuna g\u00f6re gemiye bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m hizmeti verildi\u011fi, geminin bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m d\u00f6neminde malikinin &#8230; oldu\u011fu, seferden men edildi\u011fi tarihte malikinin &#8230; oldu\u011fu, \u00f6demenin &#8230; taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, talep konusu alaca\u011f\u0131n TTK 1320 kapsam\u0131nda gemi alacakl\u0131s\u0131 hakk\u0131 vermedi\u011fi, bu nedenle yeni malike kar\u015f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclemeyece\u011fi, borcun &#8230; e ait oldu\u011fu ve davac\u0131n\u0131n istirdat talebinde bulunamayaca\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n<p>Davada davac\u0131 &#8230; &#8230; numaral\u0131 Libya bayrakl\u0131 M V &#8230; eski ad\u0131 &#8230; gemisi donatan\u0131 &#8230; Ltd ye izafeten &#8230; Ltd \u015eti&#8217;dir.<\/p>\n<p>Bilirki\u015fi raporunda, davac\u0131 &#8230; Ltd \u015eti nin gemi y\u00f6netim s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri kapsam\u0131nda geminin i\u015fletmecisi oldu\u011fu ve i\u015flemleri donatan ad\u0131na y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, dava konusu gemiye ili\u015fkin bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m hizmetlerinin daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan verildi\u011fi, bu hizmetlerin verildi\u011fi d\u00f6nemde geminin malikinin &#8230; Ltd oldu\u011fu, geminin 27 11 2015 tarihinde &#8230; Ltd ye devredildi\u011fi ve 01 12 2015 tarihinde seferden men edildi\u011fi tarihte malikinin &#8230; Ltd oldu\u011fu, gemi y\u00f6netim s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin davac\u0131ya donatan ad\u0131na i\u015flem yapma yetkisi verdi\u011fi, Tuzla Liman Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 yaz\u0131s\u0131 ve di\u011fer belgeler kapsam\u0131nda geminin 2007 ve 2008 y\u0131llar\u0131nda tersanelerde i\u015flem g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn tespit edildi\u011fi, icra dosyas\u0131na 04 12 2015 tarihinde 68 362,53 TL tutar\u0131nda \u00f6demenin davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlendi\u011fi, bak\u0131m ve onar\u0131m alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bor\u00e7lusunun &#8230; Ltd oldu\u011fu, bu alaca\u011f\u0131n gemi alacakl\u0131s\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yeni malike kar\u015f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclebilecek nitelikte bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, &#8230; Ltd ile &#8230; Ltd aras\u0131nda organik ba\u011f\u0131n ispat edilemedi\u011fi ve davac\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu alacaktan sorumlu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n<p>Dosya kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re davac\u0131 &#8230; ve &#8230; Ltd \u015eti nin gemi y\u00f6netim s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri uyar\u0131nca geminin i\u015fletmecisi oldu\u011fu ve donatan ad\u0131na hareket etti\u011fi, icra takibinde bor\u00e7lu s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 halde \u00f6deme yapan taraf oldu\u011fu, eldeki davada ise bor\u00e7lu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir borcu cebri icra tehdidi alt\u0131nda \u00f6dedi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcren \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi s\u0131fat\u0131yla istirdat talebinde bulunan taraf konumunda oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n<p>Dosya kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re davac\u0131 &#8230; ve &#8230; Ltd \u015eti nin, icra takibinde bor\u00e7lu olan &#8230; Ltd nin borcunu \u0130stanbul Anadolu 5 \u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn &#8230; esas say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131na 68 362,53 TL \u00f6deme yapmak suretiyle, gemi \u00fczerindeki haczin kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve geminin seferden men halinin sona ermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>6102 say\u0131l\u0131 TTK&#8217;n\u0131n 1061. maddesi uyar\u0131nca donatan, gemisini menfaat sa\u011flamak amac\u0131yla suda kullanan maliktir. \u0130\u015fletmeci ise gemiyi donatan ad\u0131na sevk ve idare eden ki\u015fidir. Davac\u0131 i\u015fletmeci, s\u00f6zle\u015fme ili\u015fkilerinde ve icra i\u015flemlerinde do\u011frudan hak sahibi veya bor\u00e7lu de\u011fil, donatan\u0131n temsilcisi konumundad\u0131r.<\/p>\n<p>Eser s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayal\u0131 haks\u0131z bir takipten ve geminin seferden men edilmesinden do\u011fan ma\u011fduriyet ile bu bask\u0131 alt\u0131nda \u00f6denen paran\u0131n m\u00fclkiyeti kural olarak temsil edilene (donatan\/malik olan &#8230;&#8217;e) aittir. Davac\u0131 i\u015fletmeci, icra dosyas\u0131na \u00f6demeyi fiilen yapm\u0131\u015f olsa dahi, bu i\u015flemi &#8220;donatan ad\u0131na&#8221; yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n<p>\u0130\u0130K m. 72 uyar\u0131nca istirdat davas\u0131 a\u00e7ma hakk\u0131, malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan haks\u0131z yere de\u011fer eksilmesi olan as\u0131l hak sahibine (malike\/donatana) aittir. Davac\u0131 i\u015fletmecinin, donatan &#8230;&#8217;den al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131k bir &#8220;alaca\u011f\u0131n temliki&#8221; s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi veya bu davay\u0131 kendi ad\u0131na a\u00e7abilece\u011fine dair \u00f6zel bir yetkisi dosyada bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n<p>Davac\u0131 &#8230; Ltd. \u015eti.&#8217;nin, malik olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve yaln\u0131zca donatan ad\u0131na hareket eden i\u015fletmeci s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 sabit oldu\u011fundan, dava konusu istirdat alaca\u011f\u0131 \u00fczerinde maddi hukuk bak\u0131m\u0131ndan hak sahibi (aktif husumete haiz) olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu nedenle yerel mahkemenin davan\u0131n aktif husumet yoklu\u011fu sebebiyle reddine karar verilmesi yerine, davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 hatal\u0131 olmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n<p>A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle, davac\u0131 vekilinin istinaf talebinin usulden kabul\u00fc ile, yerel mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n HMK&#8217;n\u0131n 353\/1-b-2. bendi gere\u011fince kald\u0131r\u0131larak davan\u0131n aktif husumet yoklu\u011fundan reddine dair yeniden esas hakk\u0131nda karar verilmesi gerekmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p><strong>H\u00dcK\u00dcM:<\/strong> Gerek\u00e7esi yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere;<\/p>\n<p><strong>A)<\/strong>1-Davac\u0131 vekilinin istinaf talebinin USULDEN KABUL\u00dcNE<\/p>\n<p>2-\u0130STANBUL ANADOLU 8. ASL\u0130YE T\u0130CARET MAHKEMES\u0130&#8217;nin 24\/05\/2022 tarih ve 2022\/69 Esas, 2022\/406 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n KALDIRILMASINA,<\/p>\n<p>3- Davan\u0131n aktif husumet yoklu\u011fundan REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n<p><strong>B) \u0130LK DERECE YARGILAMASI Y\u00d6N\u00dcNDEN<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1-Al\u0131nmas\u0131 gereken 732,00 TL maktu karar ve ilam harc\u0131n\u0131n pe\u015fin al\u0131nan 1.167,47 TL har\u00e7tan mahsubu ile fazla yat\u0131r\u0131lan 435,47 TL harc\u0131n karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesini takiben ve istek halinde davac\u0131 tarafa \u0130ADES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n<p>2-Davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin \u00fczerinde BIRAKILMASINA,<\/p>\n<p>3-Daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan 45.000,00 TL posta masraf\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131dan al\u0131narak daval\u0131ya VER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n<div data-channel=\"121\" data-advert=\"temedya\" data-rotation=\"120\" class=\"mb-3 text-center\"><\/div>\n<div data-channel=\"121\" data-advert=\"temedya\" data-rotation=\"120\" class=\"mb-3 text-center\"><\/div>\n<p><strong>C) \u0130ST\u0130NAF \u0130NCELEMES\u0130 Y\u00d6N\u00dcNDEN<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1-Davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yat\u0131r\u0131lan istinaf karar harc\u0131n\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm kesinle\u015fti\u011finde ve talep halinde davac\u0131 tarafa \u0130ADES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n<p>2-Yap\u0131lan istinaf yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin davac\u0131 \u00fczerinde BIRAKILMASINA,<\/p>\n<p>3-\u0130stinaf incelemesi s\u0131ras\u0131nda duru\u015fma a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti takdirine YER OLMADI\u011eINA,<\/p>\n<p>4-Gerek ilk derece gerekse istinaf a\u015famas\u0131nda yat\u0131r\u0131lan gider avanslar\u0131ndan kullan\u0131lmayan k\u0131s\u0131mlar\u0131n karar kesinle\u015fti\u011finde ve talep halinde yat\u0131ran tarafa \u0130ADES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n<p>Dosya \u00fczerinden yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda, 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 HMK&#8217;n\u0131n 362\/1-a bendi gere\u011fince KES\u0130N olmak \u00fczere 27\/04\/2026 tarihinde oybirli\u011fi ile karar verildi.<\/p>\n\n<p><span>legalbank.net<\/span><\/p>\n<div class=\"article-source py-3 small \">\n    <\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>T.C. \u0130STANBUL B\u00d6LGE ADL\u0130YE MAHKEMES\u0130 15. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130 Esas Numaras\u0131: 2022\/3022 Karar Numaras\u0131: 2026\/537 Karar Tarihi: 27.04.2026 \u0130ST\u0130RDAT ALACA\u011eI GEM\u0130YE KONULAN HAC\u0130Z VE SEFERDEN MEN KARARININ KALDIRILMASI DONATAN \u0130\u015eLETMEC\u0130 AKT\u0130F HUSUMET YOKLU\u011eU \u0130ST\u0130RDAT ALACA\u011eI \u00dcZER\u0130NDE MADD\u0130 HUKUK BAKIMINDAN HAK SAH\u0130PL\u0130\u011e\u0130 \u00d6zeti: Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k eser s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden kaynaklanmaktad\u0131r. Davac\u0131 i\u015f sahibi, daval\u0131 ise y\u00fcklenicidir. Dosya kapsam\u0131na&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":11358,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11357","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-diger"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11357","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"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=11357"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11357\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11358"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11357"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11357"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11357"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}