{"id":11462,"date":"2026-06-26T09:40:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-26T09:40:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/2026\/06\/26\/aymnin-2021-44582-basvuru-numarali-karari\/"},"modified":"2026-06-26T09:40:00","modified_gmt":"2026-06-26T09:40:00","slug":"aymnin-2021-44582-basvuru-numarali-karari","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/2026\/06\/26\/aymnin-2021-44582-basvuru-numarali-karari\/","title":{"rendered":"AYM’nin 2021\/44582 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

<\/strong>T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<\/strong>ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

<\/strong>\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130<\/strong> B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

<\/strong>KARAR<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

<\/strong>\u0130BRAH\u0130M<\/strong> HAL\u0130L<\/strong> BEYHAN<\/strong> BA\u015eVURUSU (2) <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/44582)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Karar Tarihi: 10\/2\/2026<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

<\/strong>\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130<\/strong> B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

<\/strong>KARAR<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n <\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Ba\u015fkan<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

:<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\u00dcyeler<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

:<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n

Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n

\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n

Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Raport\u00f6r<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

:<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Saliha AKSOY<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Ba\u015fvurucu<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

:<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u0130brahim Halil BEYHAN<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Vekili<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

:<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Av. \u0130pek KAD\u0130RHAN PEKER<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\u200b<\/p>\n

I. <\/strong>BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU <\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Ba\u015fvuru, tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n

II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 <\/strong><\/p>\n

2. Ba\u015fvuru 30\/9\/2021 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyon, ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

3. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

III. OLAY VE OLGULAR <\/strong><\/p>\n

4. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ve Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla eri\u015filen belgelere g\u00f6re ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n

5. Ba\u015fvurucunun o\u011flu V.B. 2\/12\/2006 tarihinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen trafik kazas\u0131nda hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

6. Ba\u015fvurucunun da aralar\u0131nda oldu\u011fu be\u015f ki\u015fi, \u00e7ocuklar\u0131\/karde\u015fleri olan V.B.nin 2\/12\/2006 tarihinde hayat\u0131n\u0131 kaybetmesine neden olan trafik kazas\u0131n\u0131n meydana gelmesinde \u0130stanbul B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediyesinin hizmet kusuru bulundu\u011fundan bahisle 23\/6\/2017 tarihinde adli yarg\u0131da tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n

7. \u0130stanbul 9. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) 15\/10\/2020 tarihinde davaya bakmakla idari yarg\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6revli oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n g\u00f6rev y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm f\u0131kras\u0131nda “<\/i>Karar kesinle\u015fti\u011finde ve talep halinde dosyan\u0131n g\u00f6revli \u0130stanbul \u0130dare Mahkemesi’ne g\u00f6nderilmesine, (…) HMK 20. maddesi gere\u011fince karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fti\u011fi tarihten itibaren iki haftal\u0131k yasal s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde taraflarca herhangi bir ba\u015fvuruda bulunulmamas\u0131 halinde davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilece\u011finin ve taraflarca talep edilmesi halinde dosya ele al\u0131narak davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131 karar\u0131 ile birlikte yarg\u0131lama giderleri har\u00e7 ve vekalet \u00fccreti hususunda ayr\u0131ca karar verilece\u011finin taraflara ihtar\u0131na”<\/i> karar verildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

8. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu vekiline 19\/1\/2021 tarihinde elektronik tebligatla tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu vekili 22\/1\/2021 tarihli dilek\u00e7eyle dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6revli \u0130stanbul \u0130dare Mahkemesi Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmesini talep etmi\u015f ve ayn\u0131 tarihli dilek\u00e7eyle istinaf kanun yolundan feragat etti\u011fini beyan etmi\u015ftir. Taraflar\u0131n karara kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmamas\u0131 \u00fczerine Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi karar\u0131 8\/2\/2021 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

9. Ba\u015fvurucu bunun \u00fczerine 26\/6\/2021 tarihinde idare mahkemesi nezdinde tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dava dilek\u00e7esinde; Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesince verilen g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 uyar\u0131nca dosyan\u0131n g\u00f6revli \u0130stanbul \u0130dare Mahkemesi Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmesi i\u00e7in iki ayr\u0131 dilek\u00e7e ile talepte bulundu\u011funu ancak dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131n aradan ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde g\u00f6revli idare mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmedi\u011fini vurgulam\u0131\u015f, bu nedenle Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesine s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde verdi\u011fi g\u00f6nderme talebine ili\u015fkin 22\/1\/2021 tarihli dilek\u00e7enin idari yarg\u0131 yerine ba\u015fvuru tarihi olarak kabul\u00fc gerekti\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

10. \u0130stanbul 10. \u0130dare Mahkemesi (\u0130dare Mahkemesi) 2\/7\/2021 tarihli karar\u0131yla davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n

“… <\/i><\/p>\n

2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun 13. maddesi ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca idareye ba\u015fvurularak bir \u00f6n karar al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekmiyor ise de dosya i\u00e7erisindeki bilgi ve belgelerin incelenmesinden 02\/12\/2006 tarihinde meydana gelen trafik kazas\u0131nda s\u00f6z konusu idari eylemi ayn\u0131 tarihte \u00f6\u011frenen davac\u0131lar\u0131n bu tarihten itibaren 1 y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcre ge\u00e7irildikten sonra 23\/06\/2017 tarihinde \u0130stanbul 9. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde E:2017\/277 say\u0131l\u0131 dava dosyas\u0131 ile daval\u0131 idare aleyhine de tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131, \u0130stanbul<\/i> 9. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin E:2017\/277 say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131ndan daval\u0131 idare y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tefrik edilerek \u0130stanbul 9. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin 2020\/228 esas\u0131na kaydedildi\u011fi ve Mahkemenin 15\/10\/2020 tarih ve K:2020\/281 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131yla g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 verildi\u011fi ve bu karar\u0131n da 08\/02\/2021 tarihinde kesinle\u015fti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden, bu tarihten itibaren <\/i>otuz g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde g\u00f6revli mahkemede dava a\u00e7mayan davac\u0131lar\u0131n bu s\u00fcre <\/i> ge\u00e7irildikten sonra 26\/06\/2021 tarihinde a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131 i\u015fbu davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. <\/i><\/p>\n

\u00d6te yandan, davac\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan, asliye hukuk mahkemesinden dosyan\u0131n idare mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine y\u00f6nelik talepte bulunmalar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n asliye hukuk mahkemesinin dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131 idare mahkemesine g\u00f6ndermedi\u011fi, bu nedenle, asliye hukuk mahkemesine verilen dilek\u00e7e tarihinde idare mahkemesinde dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilmesi gerekti\u011finin ileri s\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, adli yarg\u0131da g\u00f6r\u00fclen bir davan\u0131n, idari yarg\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6revli olmas\u0131 nedeniyle g\u00f6rev noktas\u0131ndan reddi halinde dosyan\u0131n re’sen yahut talep \u00fczerine idari yarg\u0131ya g\u00f6nderilmesine y\u00f6nelik bir usul \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi, bu durumda, 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun 9. maddesinin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca, 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanuna uygun olarak idare mahkemesine hitaben d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f dava dilek\u00e7esiyle dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n zorunlu oldu\u011fu g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde davac\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan asliye hukuk mahkemesine verilen dilek\u00e7enin, idare mahkemesinde dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 yolunda sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmas\u0131na hukuken imk\u00e2n bulunmamas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda bu iddiaya itibar edilmemi\u015ftir. <\/i><\/p>\n

…”<\/i><\/p>\n

11. Karar hakk\u0131nda istinaf talebinde bulunulmas\u0131 \u00fczerine \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 9. \u0130dari Dava Dairesinin 7\/9\/2021 tarihli karar\u0131yla istinaf talebinin reddine kesin olarak karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

12. Nihai karar ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan 15\/9\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frenilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK <\/strong><\/p>\n

A. Ulusal Hukuk <\/strong><\/p>\n

1. \u0130lgili Mevzuat <\/strong><\/p>\n

13. 6\/1\/1982 tarihli ve 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu’nun “\u0130dari davalar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131”<\/i> ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 3. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n

“1. (De\u011fi\u015fik: 10\/6\/1994-4001\/2 md.) \u0130dari davalar, Dan\u0131\u015ftay, idare mahkemesi ve vergi mahkemesi ba\u015fkanl\u0131klar\u0131na hitaben yaz\u0131lm\u0131\u015f imzal\u0131 dilek\u00e7elerle a\u00e7\u0131l\u0131r.” <\/i><\/p>\n

14. 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un “G\u00f6revli olmayan yerlere ba\u015fvurma” <\/i>ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 9. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n

“1. (De\u011fi\u015fik: 5\/4\/1990-3622\/2 md.) \u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmesi Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u0131n, idare ve vergi mahkemelerinin g\u00f6revlerine girdi\u011fi halde, adli (\u2026) yarg\u0131 yerlerine a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bulunan davalar\u0131n g\u00f6rev noktas\u0131ndan reddi halinde, bu husustaki kararlar\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesini izleyen g\u00fcnden itibaren otuz g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde g\u00f6revli mahkemede dava a\u00e7\u0131labilir. G\u00f6revsiz yarg\u0131 merciine ba\u015fvurma tarihi, Dan\u0131\u015ftaya, idare ve vergi mahkemelerine ba\u015fvurma tarihi olarak kabul edilir. <\/i><\/p>\n

2. Adli (\u2026) yarg\u0131 yerlerine a\u00e7\u0131lan ve g\u00f6revsizlik sebebiyle reddedilen davalarda, g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesinden sonra birinci f\u0131krada yaz\u0131l\u0131 otuz g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcre ge\u00e7irilmi\u015f olsa dahi, idari dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen s\u00fcre hen\u00fcz dolmam\u0131\u015f ise bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde idari dava a\u00e7\u0131labilir.” <\/i><\/p>\n

15. 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un olay tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte olan h\u00e2liyle “Do\u011frudan do\u011fruya tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131”<\/i> ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 13. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n

“1. \u0130dari eylemlerden haklar\u0131 ihlal edilmi\u015f olanlar\u0131n idari dava a\u00e7madan \u00f6nce, bu eylemleri yaz\u0131l\u0131 bildirim \u00fczerine veya ba\u015fka s\u00fcretle \u00f6\u011frendikleri tarihten itibaren bir y\u0131l ve her halde eylem tarihinden itibaren be\u015f y\u0131l i\u00e7inde ilgili idareye ba\u015fvurarak haklar\u0131n\u0131n yerine getirilmesini istemeleri gereklidir. Bu isteklerin k\u0131smen veya tamamen reddi halinde, bu konudaki i\u015flemin tebli\u011fini izleyen g\u00fcnden itibaren veya istek hakk\u0131nda altm\u0131\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde cevap verilmedi\u011fi takdirde bu s\u00fcrenin bitti\u011fi tarihten itibaren, dava s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde dava a\u00e7\u0131labilir. <\/i><\/p>\n

2. G\u00f6revli olmayan adli ve askeri yarg\u0131 mercilerine a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6rev y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddi halinde sonradan idari yarg\u0131 mercilerine a\u00e7\u0131lacak davalarda, birinci f\u0131krada \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen idareye ba\u015fvurma \u015fart\u0131 aranmaz.”<\/i><\/p>\n

16. 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun “G\u00f6revsizlik veya yetkisizlik karar\u0131 \u00fczerine yap\u0131lacak i\u015flemler”<\/i> ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 20. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n

“(1) G\u00f6revsizlik veya yetkisizlik karar\u0131 verilmesi h\u00e2linde, taraflardan birinin, bu karar verildi\u011fi anda kesin ise tebli\u011f tarihinden, (…) s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurulmayarak kesinle\u015fmi\u015f ise karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fti\u011fi tarihten; kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurulmu\u015fsa bu ba\u015fvurunun reddi karar\u0131n\u0131n tebli\u011f tarihinden itibaren iki hafta i\u00e7inde karar\u0131 veren mahkemeye ba\u015fvurarak, dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6revli ya da yetkili mahkemeye g\u00f6nderilmesini talep etmesi gerekir. Aksi takdirde dava a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r ve g\u00f6revsizlik veya yetkisizlik karar\u0131 veren mahkemece bu konuda resen karar verilir.” <\/i><\/p>\n

2. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Kararlar\u0131 <\/strong><\/p>\n

17. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Sekizinci Dairesinin 10\/9\/2025 tarihli ve E.2023\/5760, K.2025\/6661 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n

“… <\/i>ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda eylemin idarili\u011finin \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi tarihten itibaren idari dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi i\u00e7erisinde adli yarg\u0131da dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcm ve \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn idari yarg\u0131 mercilerine ait oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle verdi\u011fi g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131n\u0131n onanmas\u0131na dair karar\u0131n tebli\u011fi \u00fczerine davac\u0131lar vekili taraf\u0131ndan, dosyan\u0131n g\u00f6revli \u0130dare Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesi talebini i\u00e7eren dilek\u00e7enin otuz g\u00fcnl\u00fck dava s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde an\u0131lan Mahkemeye verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6revli \u0130dare Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesi i\u00e7in davac\u0131n\u0131n Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesine yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru tarihinin \u0130dare Mahkemesine ba\u015fvurma tarihi olarak kabul\u00fc gerekti\u011fi, bu nedenle, davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddine ili\u015fkin kararda hukuki isabet bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonu\u00e7 ve kanaatine var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r…” <\/i><\/p>\n

18. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Sekizinci Dairesinin 19\/12\/2024 tarihli ve E.2021\/2836, K.2024\/7211 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n

“…Dosyan\u0131n incelenmesinden, <\/i>davac\u0131 \u015firket taraf\u0131ndan dava konusu olan,<\/i> 3213 say\u0131l\u0131 Maden Kanununun ilgili maddeleri gere\u011fince toplamda 209.656,83 TL para cezas\u0131 verilmesine y\u00f6nelik Maden ve Petrol \u0130\u015fleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc’n\u00fcn 31\/01\/2019 tarih ve E.405950 say\u0131l\u0131 i\u015fleminin tesis edildi\u011fi,<\/i> davac\u0131 \u015firket taraf\u0131ndan dava konusu para cezas\u0131 i\u015flemine kar\u015f\u0131 ilk olarak 14\/02\/2019 tarihinde Lice Sulh Ceza Hakimli\u011fi 2019\/627 D.\u0130\u015f say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, s\u00f6z konusu davada “davan\u0131n idari yarg\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6rev alan\u0131na girdi\u011finden bahisle g\u00f6revsizli\u011fine ve dosyan\u0131n resen Diyarbak\u0131r N\u00f6bet\u00e7i \u0130dare Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine” karar verilerek, bu karar\u0131n 19\/08\/2019 tarihinde tebli\u011f edildi\u011fi, verilen bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 itiraz edilmemesi \u00fczerine 09\/09\/2019 tarihinde kesinle\u015fti\u011fi, daha sonra Lice Sulh Ceza Hakimli\u011fi’nin 2019\/627 D.\u0130\u015f say\u0131l\u0131 ve 17\/07\/2020 tarihli i\u015flemiyle, Lice Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi’nin 2019\/627 D.\u0130\u015f say\u0131l\u0131 dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131n Diyarbak\u0131r 3. \u0130dare Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilerek 2020\/943 say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda kay\u0131t ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 <\/i> anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. <\/i><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta; dava konusu i\u015fleme kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvurulan adli yarg\u0131 hakimli\u011fince ba\u015fvurulacak mercinin neresi oldu\u011fu ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcresinin de belirtilmedi\u011fi gibi resen g\u00f6revli Diyarbak\u0131r N\u00f6bet\u00e7i \u0130dare Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir. <\/i><\/p>\n

Bu durumda, dava konusu i\u015flemin tesisini m\u00fcteakiben davan\u0131n s\u00fcresi i\u00e7erisinde a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, dava Lice Sulh Ceza Hakimli\u011finde g\u00f6r\u00fclmekte iken de\u011fi\u015fen yasa maddesi uyar\u0131nca an\u0131lan hakimlik\u00e7e g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 verildi\u011fi ve kararda davac\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 gereken g\u00f6revli ve yetkili mercin belirtilmedi\u011fi, Lice Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi’nin 2019\/627 D.\u0130\u015f say\u0131l\u0131 dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131n Diyarbak\u0131r 3. \u0130dare Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilerek 2020\/943 say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131na kaydedildi\u011fi tespit edildi\u011finden, <\/i>Anayasan\u0131n 40. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda yer alan, “Devlet, i\u015flemlerinde, ilgili ki\u015filerin hangi kanun yollar\u0131 ve mercilere ba\u015fvuraca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve s\u00fcrelerini belirtmek zorundad\u0131r.” amir h\u00fckm\u00fcne ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak, verilen karar sonras\u0131nda davac\u0131 hakk\u0131nda, 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 9. maddesinde yer alan s\u00fcreye ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin de uygulanamayaca\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k olup, davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddine karar verilmesi<\/i> y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki Diyarbak\u0131r 3.<\/i> \u0130dare<\/i> Mahkemesi<\/i> karar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik istinaf isteminin reddine ili\u015fkin temyize konu B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131nda hukuki isabet bulunmamaktad\u0131r…” <\/i><\/p>\n

19. Dan\u0131\u015ftay On\u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc Dairesinin 1\/3\/2024 tarihli ve E.2020\/2424, K.2024\/1074 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n

“…<\/i>Somut olayda, davac\u0131n\u0131n adli yarg\u0131 merciinin dosyay\u0131 \u0130dare Mahkemesi’ne g\u00f6ndermesi \u00fczerine davan\u0131n \u0130dare Mahkemesi \u00f6n\u00fcnde g\u00f6r\u00fclmesi iradesi g\u00f6sterir bir \u015fekilde eksik oldu\u011fu kendisine tebli\u011f edilen har\u00e7lar\u0131 tamamlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususu ve mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131sal i\u00e7tihatlar g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulunduruldu\u011funda, adli yarg\u0131 mercine verilmi\u015f dava dilek\u00e7esinin reddine karar verilmesi yerine dosyan\u0131n esas kayd\u0131 kapat\u0131larak dosyan\u0131n adli yarg\u0131 mercine iade edilmesine ili\u015fkin Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n \u0130dare Mahkemesi’nde dava a\u00e7ma iradesini ortaya koyan davac\u0131n\u0131n hak kayb\u0131na yol a\u00e7mas\u0131na neden olabilecek \u015fekilde usul kurallar\u0131n\u0131n a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 kat\u0131 ve \u015fekilci uygulanmas\u0131 niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. <\/i><\/p>\n

Bu itibarla, usul h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 kat\u0131 ve \u015fekilci yorumlanmas\u0131na sebep olunmaks\u0131z\u0131n dava dilek\u00e7esinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekirken dosya esas kayd\u0131n\u0131n kapat\u0131lmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik istinaf isteminin reddine ili\u015fkin temyize konu B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi karar\u0131nda hukuki isabet bulunmamaktad\u0131r…” <\/i><\/p>\n

20. Dan\u0131\u015ftay Sekizinci Dairesinin 30\/3\/2022 tarihli ve E.2021\/257, K.2022\/2192 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n

“…<\/i>Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta; Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y 10. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi’nin 17\/07\/2019 tarihli ve E:2018\/281, K:2019\/375 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm f\u0131kras\u0131nda, “Mahkememiz g\u00f6revsiz oldu\u011fundan g\u00f6revli idare mahkemesi oldu\u011fundan dilek\u00e7enin usulden reddine, davac\u0131 vekiline idare mahkemesinde dava a\u00e7makta muhtariyetine” ifadelerine yer verilmi\u015f olup; karar\u0131n tebli\u011f tarihinden itibaren ka\u00e7 g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde idare mahkemesine ba\u015fvurulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmemi\u015ftir. <\/i><\/p>\n

Bu itibarla; her ne kadar 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun “G\u00f6revli olmayan yerlere ba\u015fvurma ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131” 9. maddesinde; “\u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmesi Dan\u0131\u015ftay’\u0131n idare ve vergi mahkemelerinin g\u00f6revlerine girdi\u011fi halde, adli ve askeri yarg\u0131 yerlerine a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bulunan davalar\u0131n g\u00f6rev noktas\u0131ndan reddi halinde, bu husustaki kararlar\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesini izleyen g\u00fcnden itibaren otuz g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde g\u00f6revli mahkemede dava a\u00e7\u0131labilir.” kural\u0131 yer almakta ise de; bu s\u00fcrenin Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y 10. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi’nin 17\/07\/2019 tarihli ve E:2018\/281, K:2019\/375 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131nda g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle Kanun’un 9. maddesi uyar\u0131nca 30 g\u00fcnl\u00fck \u00f6zel s\u00fcrenin de\u011fil, 60 g\u00fcnl\u00fck genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin<\/i> uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lmakla, i\u015f bu davada adli yarg\u0131 yerlerine a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bulunan davan\u0131n g\u00f6rev noktas\u0131ndan reddi \u00fczerine, bu husustaki kararlar\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesini (\u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 24. Hukuk Dairesi’nin 25\/09\/2019 tarihli ve E:2019\/2821, K:2019\/2672 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n 30\/10\/2019 tarihli tebli\u011fini) izleyen g\u00fcnden itibaren 60 g\u00fcnl\u00fck genel dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi<\/i> esas al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r…”<\/i><\/p>\n

21. Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u0130dari Dava Daireleri Kurulunun 22\/12\/2011 tarihli ve E.2007\/321, K.2011\/1643 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n

“…<\/i>2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Yasa’n\u0131n an\u0131lan 9\/1. maddesinde, adli veya askeri yarg\u0131 yerlerine a\u00e7\u0131lan ancak bu yarg\u0131 yerlerince idari yarg\u0131 yerlerinin g\u00f6revli oldu\u011fundan bahisle g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 verilmesi ve bu karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesi \u00fczerine ilgililerin otuz g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde g\u00f6revli idari yarg\u0131 yerlerine dava a\u00e7malar\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131n\u0131 veren adli veya askeri yarg\u0131 yerlerince taraflar\u0131n talebi \u00fczerine veya mahkemelerce kendili\u011finden dosyan\u0131n g\u00f6revli idari yarg\u0131 yerine g\u00f6nderilece\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir usul h\u00fckm\u00fcne yer verilmemi\u015ftir. Ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde olay tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanununda da bu y\u00f6nde bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmamaktad\u0131r. <\/i><\/p>\n

Buna ra\u011fmen, g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 veren adliye mahkemelerince taraflar\u0131n talebi \u00fczerine veya kendili\u011finden dosyan\u0131n g\u00f6revli idari yarg\u0131 merciine g\u00f6nderildi\u011fine uygulamada rastlan\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. <\/i><\/p>\n

Bu t\u00fcr uygulamalarla s\u0131k\u00e7a kar\u015f\u0131la\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 ve bu uygulamalar\u0131n hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne engel olu\u015fturarak adil yarg\u0131lanma ilkesini zedelemesi nedeniyle bu sorun, usul kurallar\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde yarg\u0131 kararlar\u0131 ile \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme kavu\u015fturulmu\u015ftur. <\/i><\/p>\n

Nitekim, Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u0130dari Dava Daireleri Kurulunun 31.5.2007 g\u00fcnl\u00fc, E:2006\/4773, K:2007\/1302 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131yla; adli yarg\u0131 yerinde a\u00e7\u0131lan bir davan\u0131n g\u00f6rev y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddi halinde idari yarg\u0131daki dava t\u00fcrlerinin de niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun 3. maddesine uygun olarak haz\u0131rlanm\u0131\u015f dilek\u00e7elerle g\u00f6revli ve yetkili idari yarg\u0131 yerinde yeniden dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, ilgililerin s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde adli yarg\u0131 yerine verdikleri dosyan\u0131n idari yarg\u0131 merciine g\u00f6nderilmesi istemini i\u00e7eren dilek\u00e7elerin “dilek\u00e7enin reddi” karar\u0131 verilerek dava dilek\u00e7esi getirilmek suretiyle i\u015fin esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesinin hukuken olanakl\u0131 oldu\u011funa; di\u011fer taraftan, g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131n\u0131 veren yarg\u0131 yerinin kendili\u011finden dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131 idari yarg\u0131 yerine g\u00f6ndermesi halinde dosyan\u0131n mahkemenin esas\u0131na kaydedilmeyerek, dosya sehven esasa kaydedilmi\u015f ise dosya kayd\u0131n\u0131n kapat\u0131larak mahkemesine iadesi gerekti\u011fine karar verilmi\u015ftir. <\/i><\/p>\n

\u0130ncelenen olayda; … Davac\u0131n\u0131n Eceabat Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesine i\u015flemin tebli\u011fi \u00fczerine idari dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde dava a\u00e7mas\u0131, an\u0131lan Mahkemenin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcm ve \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn idari yarg\u0131 mercilerine ait oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle verdi\u011fi g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 \u00fczerine davac\u0131n\u0131n dosyan\u0131n g\u00f6revli \u0130dare Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesi talebini i\u00e7eren dilek\u00e7eyi otuz g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde Mahkemesine vermesi, dosyan\u0131n \u0130dare Mahkemesine intikali \u00fczerine Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u0130dari Dava Daireleri Kurulunun benzer nitelikteki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klarda verdi\u011fi kararlara uygun olarak \u0130dare Mahkemesince dilek\u00e7enin reddine karar verilmesini takiben, s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde usulune uygun olarak d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f dilek\u00e7e ile dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, bak\u0131lan davan\u0131n s\u00fcresinde oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, \u0130dare Mahkemesince dosyan\u0131n tekemm\u00fcl ettirilerek i\u015fin esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesi suretiyle bir karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. <\/i><\/p>\n

Bu itibarla; davan\u0131n s\u00fcrea\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddine ili\u015fkin \u0130dare Mahkemesi \u0131srar karar\u0131nda hukuki isabet g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/i>…”<\/i><\/p>\n

22. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 28\/6\/2022 tarihli ve E.2021\/4-902, K.2022\/1049 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n

“…B\u00f6ylece, g\u00f6revsizli\u011fe ili\u015fkin bir karar\u0131n, i\u015f b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc esas\u0131na g\u00f6re veya yarg\u0131 yolu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n, yarg\u0131 kollar\u0131na g\u00f6re farkl\u0131 sonu\u00e7lar do\u011furmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6n\u00fcne ge\u00e7ilerek, anayasal nitelikteki hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc zedelenmemi\u015f olacakt\u0131r…” <\/i><\/p>\n

B. Uluslararas\u0131 Hukuk <\/strong><\/p>\n

23. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’nin (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) 6. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n

“Herkes …, medeni hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri ile ilgili uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar … konusunda karar verecek olan,… bir mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan davas\u0131n\u0131n … g\u00f6r\u00fclmesini isteme hakk\u0131na sahiptir…”<\/i><\/p>\n

24. Dava a\u00e7ma hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanmak yasal birtak\u0131m \u015fartlara ba\u011flansa da mahkemelerin usul kurallar\u0131n\u0131 uygularken hem yarg\u0131laman\u0131n adil olmas\u0131na halel getirecek a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 \u015fekilcilikten hem de yasalar taraf\u0131ndan konulan usul kurallar\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131rma sonucunu do\u011furacak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 esneklikten ka\u00e7\u0131nmalar\u0131 gerekir (Walchli\/Fransa<\/i>, B. No: 35787\/03, 26\/7\/2007, \u00a7 29). Yap\u0131lan d\u00fczenlemelerin hukuk g\u00fcvenli\u011fi ilkesi ve adaletin iyi bir \u015fekilde tecelli etmesi ama\u00e7lar\u0131na hizmet etmedi\u011fi, dava a\u00e7mak isteyen ki\u015finin \u00f6n\u00fcnde davas\u0131n\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131 yetkili ve g\u00f6revli mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcnde inceletmek bak\u0131m\u0131ndan bir engel olu\u015fturdu\u011fu durumlarda mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 ihlal edilmi\u015f olur (Efstathiou ve di\u011ferleri\/Yunanistan<\/i>, B. No: 36998\/02, 27\/7\/2006, \u00a7 24).<\/p>\n

25. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi (A\u0130HM), dava hakk\u0131n\u0131 s\u00fcre s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131na ba\u011flayan i\u00e7 hukuk h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin yorumlanmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ncelikli olarak kamu otoritelerinin ve \u00f6zellikle mahkemelerin g\u00f6revi oldu\u011funu belirtmekte, rol\u00fcn\u00fcn bu yorumun etkilerinin S\u00f6zle\u015fme’yle uyumlu olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespitiyle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 oldu\u011funu ifade etmektedir. S\u00fcre s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 getiren kurallar\u0131n uygun adalet y\u00f6netiminin g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 amac\u0131na dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131na i\u015faret eden A\u0130HM, bu kurallar\u0131n veya bunlar\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131n ilgililerin ula\u015f\u0131labilir ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131na m\u00fcracaatlar\u0131n\u0131 engelleyecek mahiyette olmamas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini de\u011ferlendirmektedir. A\u0130HM, bu ba\u011flamda her bir olay\u0131n somut ba\u015fvuru yolunun \u00f6zellikleri \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ve S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin 6. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ama\u00e7 ve hedefleri \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011finin alt\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7izmektedir (E\u015fim\/T\u00fcrkiye<\/i>, B. No: 59601\/09, 17\/9\/2013, \u00a7 20).<\/p>\n

26. S\u00fcre ko\u015fulu gibi dava a\u00e7maya ili\u015fkin usul ko\u015fullar\u0131 birden fazla yoruma neden olabilecek nitelikte ise mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda o yorumlardan birinin davay\u0131 a\u00e7mak isteyen ki\u015fileri engelleyecek \u015fekilde kat\u0131 bir \u015fekilde kullan\u0131lmamas\u0131 veya s\u00f6z konusu ko\u015fullar\u0131n kat\u0131 bir uygulamaya tabi olmamas\u0131 gerekir (B\u011ble\u0161<\/i> ve di\u011ferleri\/\u00c7ek Cumhuriyeti<\/i>, B. No: 47273\/99, 12\/11\/2002, \u00a7 51).<\/p>\n

27. A\u0130HM, Mesuto\u011flu\/T\u00fcrkiye<\/i> (B. No: 36533\/04, 14\/10\/2008) ba\u015fvurusunda, asliye hukuk mahkemesinde a\u00e7\u0131lan davada verilen g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 sonucu idari yarg\u0131ya ta\u015f\u0131nan davada verilen usulden ret karar\u0131n\u0131 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelemi\u015ftir. A\u0130HM, an\u0131lan uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta davan\u0131n idare mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan g\u00f6r\u00fclmesine karar verenin asliye hukuk mahkemesi oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015f; dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 veren asliye hukuk mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan idare mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesi ile 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 9. maddesi ile \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ayr\u0131nt\u0131 ve usullere s\u0131k\u0131 s\u0131k\u0131ya ba\u011fl\u0131 kalarak ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n idare mahkemesine ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 aras\u0131nda al\u0131nacak sonu\u00e7 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan hi\u00e7bir fark bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, hangi y\u00f6ntem arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile olursa olsun, mevcut davada ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen amac\u0131n davan\u0131n yetkili bir mahkemede g\u00f6r\u00fclmesi oldu\u011funu belirterek mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Mesuto\u011flu\/T\u00fcrkiye<\/i>, \u00a7\u00a7 23, 24).<\/p>\n

V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E <\/strong><\/p>\n

28. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 10\/2\/2026 tarihinde yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n

A. <\/strong>Adli Yard\u0131m Talebi <\/strong><\/p>\n

29. Ba\u015fvurucu, adli yard\u0131m talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n

30. Anayasa Mahkemesinin Mehmet \u015eerif Ay <\/i>([2. B.], B. No: 2012\/1181, 17\/9\/2013) karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkeler dikkate al\u0131narak ge\u00e7imini \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde g\u00fc\u00e7le\u015ftirmeksizin yarg\u0131lama giderlerini \u00f6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucunun a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmayan adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n

B. Mahkemeye Eri\u015fim Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130ddialar\u0131<\/strong><\/p>\n

31. Ba\u015fvurucu; o\u011flunun \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcyle sonu\u00e7lanan kazan\u0131n olay yerindeki derenin \u0131slah \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda meydana geldi\u011fini, daval\u0131 idarenin b\u00f6lgedeki denetimsiz ve usuls\u00fcz i\u015flemleri nedeniyle olayda hizmet kusuru oldu\u011funu, \u00f6l\u00fcm olay\u0131nda idarenin sorumlulu\u011funu ve zarar\u0131n nedenlerini y\u0131llar sonra \u00f6\u011frenebildi\u011fini vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Di\u011fer yandan Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davada verilen g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 \u00fczerine s\u00fcresinde g\u00f6nderme talebiyle dilek\u00e7e verdi\u011fini, buna kar\u015f\u0131n mahkemece dosyan\u0131n g\u00f6nderilmemesi sebebiyle idari yarg\u0131da dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek \u0130dare Mahkemesince davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n

2. De\u011ferlendirme <\/strong><\/p>\n

32. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n

“Herkes, me\u015fru vas\u0131ta ve yollardan faydalanmak suretiyle yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddia ve savunma ile adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131na sahiptir.” <\/i><\/p>\n

33. Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131sm\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n

“Anayasa ile tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f hak ve h\u00fcrriyetleri ihlal edilen herkes, yetkili makama geciktirilmeden ba\u015fvurma imkan\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 isteme hakk\u0131na sahiptir. <\/i><\/p>\n

Devlet, i\u015flemlerinde, ilgili ki\u015filerin hangi kanun yollar\u0131 ve mercilere ba\u015fvuraca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve s\u00fcrelerini belirtmek zorundad\u0131r. <\/i><\/p>\n

…” <\/i><\/p>\n

34. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yeti, \u0130dare Mahkemesinin dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresine dair hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131 kat\u0131 bir yorumla hatal\u0131 de\u011ferlendirdi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fundan ba\u015fvuru mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

a. <\/strong>Kabul Edilebilirlik Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden<\/strong><\/p>\n

35. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n

b. Esas Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden <\/strong><\/p>\n

i. Hakk\u0131n Kapsam\u0131 ve M\u00fcdahalenin Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 <\/strong><\/p>\n

36. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda herkesin yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddiada bulunma ve savunma hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bir unsurudur. Di\u011fer yandan Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesine “…ile adil yarg\u0131lanma”<\/i> ibaresinin eklenmesine ili\u015fkin gerek\u00e7ede, T\u00fcrkiye’nin taraf oldu\u011fu uluslararas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerce de g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n madde metnine d\u00e2hil edildi\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. S\u00f6zle\u015fme’yi yorumlayan A\u0130HM, S\u00f6zle\u015fme’nin 6. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011fini belirtmektedir (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti.<\/i> [2. B.], B. No: 2014\/13156, 20\/4\/2017, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n

37. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcne ta\u015f\u0131yabilmek ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n etkili bir \u015fekilde karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilmek anlam\u0131na gelmektedir (\u00d6zkan \u015een<\/i> [2. B.], B. No: 2012\/791, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n

38. Ba\u015fvurucu taraf\u0131ndan idarenin hizmet kusuru nedeniyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131nda, s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddedilmesi suretiyle davan\u0131n esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmemesinin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na bir m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n

ii<\/strong>. <\/strong>M\u00fcdahalenin \u0130hlal Olu\u015fturup Olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 <\/strong><\/p>\n

39. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n

“Temel hak ve h\u00fcrriyetler, \u00f6zlerine dokunulmaks\u0131z\u0131n yaln\u0131zca Anayasan\u0131n ilgili maddelerinde belirtilen sebeplere ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak ve ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rlanabilir. Bu s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar, Anayasan\u0131n s\u00f6z\u00fcne ve ruhuna, demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin ve l\u00e2ik Cumhuriyetin gereklerine ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamaz.”<\/i><\/p>\n

40. Yukar\u0131da an\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale, Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde belirtilen ko\u015fullar\u0131 yerine getirmedi\u011fi m\u00fcddet\u00e7e Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin ihlalini te\u015fkil edecektir. Bu sebeple m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ve somut ba\u015fvuruya uygun d\u00fc\u015fen, kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme, hakl\u0131 bir sebebe dayanma ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmama ko\u015fullar\u0131na uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n

(1) <\/strong>Kanunilik <\/strong><\/p>\n

41. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda ba\u015fvurucunun tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 9. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen s\u00fcrede a\u00e7mad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddedildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re \u0130dare Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan verilen s\u00fcreden ret karar\u0131 ile yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanun taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclme \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n

(2) <\/strong>Me\u015fru Ama\u00e7 <\/strong><\/p>\n

42. Kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvuru i\u00e7in belli s\u00fcrelerin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin me\u015fru amac\u0131n\u0131n ne oldu\u011fu hususu benzer nitelikteki ba\u015fvurularda Anayasa Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan incelenmi\u015ftir. Anayasa Mahkemesi, bu incelemelerinde s\u00fcre ko\u015fulu \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin en genel ifadesiyle hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ve istikrar\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 \u015feklinde bir me\u015fru amac\u0131 bulundu\u011funa i\u015faret etmi\u015ftir (daha ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. (Ertu\u011frul Dalba\u015f<\/i> [1. B.], B. No: 2014\/7805, 25\/10\/2017, \u00a7 59; S.K.<\/i> [2. B.], B. No: 2015\/2438, 19\/4\/2018, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n

(3) \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck <\/strong><\/p>\n

(a) Genel \u0130lkeler <\/strong><\/p>\n

43. Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. maddesi uyar\u0131nca, hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131nda dikkate al\u0131nacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctlerden biri olan \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck hukuk devleti ilkesinden do\u011fmaktad\u0131r. Hukuk devletinde hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 istisnai bir yetki oldu\u011fundan bu yetki ancak durumun gerektirdi\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 ko\u015fuluyla hakl\u0131 bir temele oturabilir. Bireylerin hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerinin somut ko\u015fullar\u0131n gerektirdi\u011finden daha fazla s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 kamu otoritelerine tan\u0131nan yetkinin a\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelece\u011finden hukuk devletiyle ba\u011fda\u015fmaz (AYM, E.2013\/95, K.2014\/176, 13\/11\/2014).<\/p>\n

44. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkesi elveri\u015flilik<\/i>, gereklilik<\/i> ve orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k<\/i> olmak \u00fczere \u00fc\u00e7 alt ilkeden olu\u015fmaktad\u0131r. Elveri\u015flilik<\/i> \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen m\u00fcdahalenin ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen amac\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye elveri\u015fli olmas\u0131n\u0131, gereklilik<\/i> ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan m\u00fcdahalenin zorunlu olmas\u0131n\u0131 yani ayn\u0131 amaca daha hafif bir m\u00fcdahale ile ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmamas\u0131n\u0131, orant\u0131l\u0131l\u0131k<\/i> ise bireyin hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahale ile ula\u015f\u0131lmak istenen ama\u00e7 aras\u0131nda makul bir dengenin g\u00f6zetilmesi gereklili\u011fini ifade etmektedir (AYM, E.2011\/111, K.2012\/56, 11\/4\/2012; E.2013\/66, K.2014\/19, 29\/1\/2014; E.2016\/16, K.2016\/37, 5\/5\/2016; Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri<\/i> [1. B.], B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n

45. Somut olayda elveri\u015flilik ve gereklilik ilkeleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektirecek bir y\u00f6n bulunmamaktad\u0131r. As\u0131l \u00fczerinde durulmas\u0131 gereken, m\u00fcdahalenin orant\u0131l\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n

46. Dava a\u00e7ma ya da kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvuru i\u00e7in belli s\u00fcrelerin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesi, bu s\u00fcreler dava a\u00e7may\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131zla\u015ft\u0131rmad\u0131k\u00e7a -hukuki belirlilik ilkesinin gere\u011fi olarak- mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olu\u015fturmaz. Ancak mevzuatta \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen s\u00fcre kurallar\u0131n\u0131n hukuka a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak yanl\u0131\u015f uygulanmas\u0131 veya bu s\u00fcrelerin hatal\u0131 hesaplanmas\u0131 nedenleriyle ki\u015filerin dava a\u00e7ma ya da kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvuru haklar\u0131n\u0131 kullanmas\u0131na engel olunmas\u0131 mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edebilir (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti.<\/i>, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n

47. Hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ve hukuki belirlilik ilkeleri hukuk devletinin \u00f6n ko\u015fullar\u0131ndand\u0131r. Ki\u015filerin hukuki g\u00fcvenli\u011fini sa\u011flamay\u0131 ama\u00e7layan hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ilkesi hukuk normlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir olmas\u0131n\u0131, bireylerin t\u00fcm eylem ve i\u015flemlerinde devlete g\u00fcven duyabilmesini, devletin de yasal d\u00fczenlemelerinde bu g\u00fcven duygusunu zedeleyici y\u00f6ntemlerden ka\u00e7\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 gerekli k\u0131lar (AYM, E.2013\/39, K.2013\/65, 22\/5\/2013; E.2014\/183, K.2015\/122, 30\/12\/2015, \u00a7 5). Belirlilik ilkesi ise yasal d\u00fczenlemelerin hem ki\u015filer hem de idare y\u00f6n\u00fcnden herhangi bir duraksamaya ve ku\u015fkuya yer vermeyecek \u015fekilde a\u00e7\u0131k, net, anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r ve uygulanabilir olmas\u0131n\u0131, ayr\u0131ca kamu otoritelerinin keyf\u00ee uygulamalar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 koruyucu \u00f6nlem i\u00e7ermesini ifade etmektedir (AYM, E.2013\/39, K.2013\/65, 22\/5\/2013; E.2010\/80, K.2011\/178, 29\/12\/2011).<\/p>\n

48. Hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n ne \u015fekilde yorumlanaca\u011f\u0131 veya birden fazla yorumunun m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fu durumlarda bu yorumlardan hangisinin benimsenece\u011fi yarg\u0131 makamlar\u0131n\u0131n yetkisinde olan bir husustur. Anayasa Mahkemesinin bireysel ba\u015fvuruda yarg\u0131 makamlar\u0131nca benimsenen yorumlardan birine \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fck tan\u0131mas\u0131 veya yarg\u0131 makamlar\u0131n\u0131n yerine ge\u00e7erek hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131 yorumlamas\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvurunun amac\u0131yla ba\u011fda\u015fmaz (Mehmet Arif Madenci <\/i>[2. B.], B. No: 2014\/13916, 12\/1\/2017, \u00a7 81).<\/p>\n

49. Vurgulamak gerekir ki dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin hangi tarihte ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirleme ve mevzuat\u0131 bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle yorumlama g\u00f6revi esasen yarg\u0131lama mercilerine aittir. Bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincillik ilkesi gere\u011fi, dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flat\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 tarihin belirlenmesi noktas\u0131nda Anayasa Mahkemesinin bir g\u00f6revi bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Anayasa Mahkemesinin bu hususta \u00fcstlenece\u011fi rol, dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin hangi tarihten itibaren ba\u015flat\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fiyle ilgili yarg\u0131 mercilerinin yorumlar\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na etkisini somut olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131 \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda incelemektir (Ahmet Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m <\/i>[1. B.], B. No: 2014\/18135, 20\/9\/2017, \u00a7 46).<\/p>\n

(b) \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/strong><\/p>\n

50. Anayasa’n\u0131n 40. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda devletin i\u015flemlerinde ilgili ki\u015filerin hangi kanun yollar\u0131na ve mercilere ba\u015fvuraca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve s\u00fcrelerini belirtmek zorunda oldu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Kanun koyucu, devlet organlar\u0131n\u0131n tesis etti\u011fi i\u015flemlere kar\u015f\u0131 kanun yollar\u0131 ve hangi mercilere ba\u015fvuraca\u011f\u0131 ve ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcresi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan taraflar\u0131n do\u011fru bilgi sahibi olmalar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayarak da\u011f\u0131n\u0131k mevzuat kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda hangi yola m\u00fcracaat edece\u011fini bilmeyen yahut teredd\u00fct eden bireylerin hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc etkin ve sa\u011fl\u0131kl\u0131 \u015fekilde kullanmalar\u0131n\u0131 ama\u00e7lam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Kommersan Kombassan Mermer Maden \u0130\u015fletmeleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.\u015e. ve di\u011ferleri <\/i>[1. B.], B. No: 2013\/7114, 20\/1\/2016, \u00a7 50).<\/p>\n

51. Olayda ba\u015fvurucu, o\u011flunun \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc ile sonu\u00e7lanan kazada idarenin hizmet kusuru bulundu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek adli yarg\u0131da tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi davaya bakmakla idari yarg\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6revli oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Ancak mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm f\u0131kras\u0131nda karar kesinle\u015fti\u011finde ve talep h\u00e2linde dosyan\u0131n g\u00f6revli idare mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilece\u011fi ve karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fti\u011fi tarihten itibaren iki haftal\u0131k yasal s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde taraflarca herhangi bir ba\u015fvuruda bulunulmamas\u0131 h\u00e2linde davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilece\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (bkz. \u00a7 7). Ba\u015fvurucu an\u0131lan karar\u0131n kendisine tebli\u011f edilmesi \u00fczerine kararda belirtildi\u011fi \u015fekilde iki hafta i\u00e7inde Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesine verdi\u011fi dilek\u00e7e ile dosyan\u0131n \u0130stanbul \u0130dare Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesini talep etmi\u015f ancak Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesince dosya idare mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmemi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu bunun \u00fczerine 26\/6\/2021 tarihli dilek\u00e7eyle idare mahkemesi nezdinde tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130dare Mahkemesi, Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesince verilen g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131n\u0131n 8\/2\/2021 tarihinde kesinle\u015fti\u011fini belirterek 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 9. maddesi uyar\u0131nca g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fti\u011fi tarihten itibaren otuz g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde g\u00f6revli idare mahkemesinde dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015f ve bu s\u00fcre ge\u00e7tikten sonra 26\/6\/2021 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddine karar vermi\u015ftir (bkz. \u00a7 10).<\/p>\n

52. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olay ve olgular\u0131 somut ba\u015fvuru ile benzer nitelikte olan \u00d6zkan \u015een<\/i>, Cemile Aky\u0131ld\u0131z <\/i>([2. B.], B. No: 2014\/1382, 22\/9\/2016), Hasan \u0130\u015ften <\/i>([2. B.], B. No: 2015\/1950, 22\/2\/2018), S.K.<\/i>, Nihal Uslukol <\/i>([2. B.], B. No: 2016\/73086, 25\/9\/2019) ve \u0130<\/i>nta<\/i> M<\/i>\u00fchendislik Mimarl\u0131k \u0130n\u015f. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti.<\/i> ([2. B.], B. No: 2017\/34763, 11\/2\/2021) kararlar\u0131nda uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede Anayasa Mahkemesi; h\u00e2kimin kanun yolunu ve s\u00fcresini taraflara do\u011fru g\u00f6sterme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc alt\u0131nda oldu\u011funu, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkeme karar\u0131nda belirtilen s\u00fcreye g\u00fcvenerek hareket etti\u011fini, kararda belirtilen s\u00fcrenin ba\u015fvurucular\u0131 yan\u0131ltt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve hukuki belirsizlik yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, mahkemenin yan\u0131ltmas\u0131 sonucu ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan belirsizli\u011fe ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n katlanmak zorunda b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

53. Kanun yoluna ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131nda yarg\u0131sal sistem a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan olaya bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin karar\u0131nda kendisine tan\u0131nan iki haftal\u0131k s\u00fcreye g\u00fcvenerek hareket etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r (bkz. \u00a7 9). Di\u011fer yandan an\u0131lan mahkemece verilen g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131nda 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 9. maddesi uyar\u0131nca ba\u015fvurulacak mercin idare mahkemesi oldu\u011fu ve karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesinden itibaren 30 g\u00fcnl\u00fck ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcresinin bulundu\u011fu hususlar\u0131na yer verilmemi\u015ftir. Bunun yerine talep h\u00e2linde dosyan\u0131n g\u00f6revli idare mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilece\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun da bu kapsamda kararda belirtilen s\u00fcrede dosyan\u0131n g\u00f6revli mahkemeye g\u00f6nderilmesi talebinde bulundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n

54. Yarg\u0131 kararlar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 d\u00fczenlemelerde yer almas\u0131, ba\u015fvuru s\u00fcresinin k\u0131sa olmas\u0131 veya ola\u011fan ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131na istisna getirilmesi h\u00e2linde ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n yarg\u0131 organlar\u0131nca kararlarda belirtilmesi hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ilkesinin gere\u011fidir. \u0130ncelenen olayda Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesince 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 20. maddesi uyar\u0131nca verilen g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun talebi h\u00e2linde dosyan\u0131n g\u00f6revli idare mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015f, di\u011fer yandan 2577 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da ise g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 \u00fczerine uygulanacak farkl\u0131 usul h\u00fck\u00fcmleri d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Bu kapsamda Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesince verilen g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131nda idari yarg\u0131 yoluna ba\u015fvurma s\u00fcresinin g\u00f6sterilmemesi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucunun kararda belirtilen usul do\u011frultusunda talepte bulundu\u011fu ve bu talepten sonu\u00e7 alamamas\u0131 nedeniyle \u0130dare Mahkemesinde a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davan\u0131n s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddedildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u0130dare Mahkemesince bu do\u011frultuda bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihin belirlenmesine ili\u015fkin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir olmayan yorumunun mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik kat\u0131 bir yorum oldu\u011fu, bu yorumun ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde a\u011f\u0131r bir k\u00fclfete sebebiyet verdi\u011fi, bu suretle ba\u015fvurucunun katlanmak zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 k\u00fclfetin hedeflenen me\u015fru ama\u00e7larla kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda orant\u0131s\u0131z oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

55. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n

VI<\/strong>. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/strong><\/p>\n

56. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti, yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile 25.000 TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n

57. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen anayasal hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar ve zorunluluk bulunmaktad\u0131r. Anayasa’n\u0131n 148. ve 153. maddeleri ile 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 50. ve 66. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerinin yapmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flat\u0131p Anayasa Mahkemesinin ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere ve gerek\u00e7elere uygun bi\u00e7imde y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclecek yarg\u0131lama sonunda hak ihlalinin nedenlerini gidererek yeni bir karar vermektir (yeniden yarg\u0131lama konusunda bkz. Mehmet Do\u011fan<\/i> [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2)<\/i> [1. B.], B. No: 2016\/12506, 7\/11\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 53-60, 66; Kadri Enis Berbero\u011flu (3)<\/i> [GK], B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n

58. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n

VII. H\u00dcK\u00dcM <\/strong><\/p>\n

A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n

A. Adli yard\u0131m talebinin KABUL\u00dcNE,<\/p>\n

B. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n

C. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n

D. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere \u0130stanbul 10. \u0130dare Mahkemesine (E.2021\/1085, K.2021\/984) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n

E. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n

F. 40.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n

G. \u00d6demenin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n

H. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 10\/2\/2026 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n

\n <\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR \u0130BRAH\u0130M HAL\u0130L BEYHAN BA\u015eVURUSU (2) (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/44582) Karar Tarihi: 10\/2\/2026 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR \u200b Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Saliha AKSOY Ba\u015fvurucu : \u0130brahim Halil BEYHAN Vekili : Av. \u0130pek KAD\u0130RHAN PEKER \u200b I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":11463,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11462","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\/11462","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=11462"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11462\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11463"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11462"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11462"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11462"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}