[vc_row][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
(Anayasa Mahkemesi, Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2018\/22162, Karar Tarihi: 15\/6\/2021)<\/strong><\/p>\n Ba\u015fvuru, davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili iddialar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden istinaf incelemesinin yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n Anayasa Mahkemesi, yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmeler sonucunda mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa, Anayasa\u2019n\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, ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat taleplerinin ise reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n 1. Ba\u015fvuru Konusu Olay<\/strong><\/p>\n \u2756 \u00c7al\u0131\u015fan, \u015fehit yak\u0131n\u0131 olup Sa\u011fl\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y Dr. Sadi Konuk E\u011fitim ve Ara\u015ft\u0131rma Hastanesinde ta\u015feron firmalara ba\u011fl\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7i olarak 1\/7\/2004 tarihinde i\u015fe ba\u015flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yakla\u015f\u0131k 11 y\u0131l sonra ba\u015fvurucu, \u015fehit yak\u0131n\u0131 kontenjan\u0131ndan memur olarak atanmaya hak kazanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00c7al\u0131\u015fan i\u015ften ayr\u0131l\u0131rken hizmet s\u00fcresi 15 y\u0131ldan ve prim \u00f6deme s\u00fcresi 3600 g\u00fcnden fazlad\u0131r ve bunu i\u015ften ayr\u0131l\u0131rken verdi\u011fi dilek\u00e7eye de eklemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n \u2756 Ba\u015fvurucu 15.10.2015 tarihinde, 11 y\u0131ll\u0131k hizmeti kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi istemiyle ta\u015feron firma ile \u0130dare aleyhine \u0130\u015f Mahkemesinde dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u2756 Daval\u0131 \u0130dare, savunmas\u0131nda k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131ndan ta\u015feron firman\u0131n sorumlu oldu\u011funu savunmu\u015ftur. Firma ise \u00f6zetle ba\u015fvurucunun memur olarak atand\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini kendi iradesiyle sonland\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle k\u0131dem ve ihbar tazminat\u0131na hak kazanamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. \u2756 Mahkemenin Duru\u015fmada Tutana\u011f\u0131nda, ba\u015fvurucunun hizmet s\u00fcresinin 15 y\u0131ldan, prim \u00f6deme g\u00fcn say\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n ise 3.600 g\u00fcnden fazla oldu\u011funu belirten Ba\u011fc\u0131lar Sosyal G\u00fcvenlik Merkezinden al\u0131nan yaz\u0131n\u0131n dosyaya sunuldu\u011fu ve daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n bu yaz\u0131ya cevap vermek i\u00e7in s\u00fcre istedi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n \u2756 Mahkeme 4\/5\/2017 tarihinde davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. Kararda, taraflar aras\u0131nda k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131na hak kazan\u0131l\u0131p kazan\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda ihtilaf bulundu\u011fu ifade edilerek ba\u015fvurucunun memur olmak i\u00e7in i\u015ften ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve i\u015f akdini hakl\u0131 nedene dayanmadan eylemli olarak feshetti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n \u2756 Ba\u015fvurucu istinaf yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur. Dilek\u00e7esinde, Mahkemenin emsal olarak g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi Yarg\u0131tay 9. Hukuk Dairesi karar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcncelli\u011fini yitirdi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Davas\u0131na emsal olabilecek Yarg\u0131tay 9. Hukuk Dairesinin karar\u0131 ile Yarg\u0131tay 22. Hukuk Dairesinin karar\u0131ndan bahsettikten sonra 1475 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015f Kanunu’nun 14. maddesinin (5) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca sigortal\u0131l\u0131k s\u00fcresini ve prim \u00f6deme g\u00fcn say\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 tamamlayarak i\u015ften ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan kendisine k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, dilek\u00e7esine hem Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131n\u0131 hem de Ba\u011fc\u0131lar SGM taraf\u0131ndan verilen yaz\u0131y\u0131 da eklemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n \u2756 \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 10\/5\/2018 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf talebini kesin olarak reddetmi\u015ftir. Kararda 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 357. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca ilk derece mahkemesinde ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmeyen iddian\u0131n dikkate al\u0131namayaca\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Gerek\u00e7ede, ba\u015fvurucunun ilk derecedeki yarg\u0131lama boyunca 15 y\u0131ll\u0131k sigortal\u0131l\u0131k s\u00fcresini doldurdu\u011funa ve prim \u00f6deme g\u00fcn say\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n 3.600 g\u00fcn\u00fc ge\u00e7ti\u011fine dair bir beyanda bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n \u2756 Nihai karar, ba\u015fvurucuya 21\/6\/2018 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 19\/7\/2018 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n 2. Anayasa Mahkemesinin De\u011ferlendirmeleri<\/strong><\/p>\n \u2756 Bireysel ba\u015fvurunun konusu, ba\u015fvurucunun k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131na hak kazan\u0131p kazanmayaca\u011f\u0131 meselesi de\u011fildir. Sonu\u00e7tan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olarak bu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc s\u0131ras\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvencelerinden etkili \u015fekilde yararlan\u0131p yararland\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususu bireysel ba\u015fvurunun konusunu olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n \u2756 Ba\u015fvurucu, ilk derece mahkemesindeki Duru\u015fma Tutana\u011f\u0131’n\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvurusuna ekleyerek B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn dayanaks\u0131z oldu\u011funu iddia etmekte ve adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrmektedir. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf talebi kabul edilmedi\u011finden iddialar\u0131n adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvencelerinden olan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n \u2756 Mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131n hukuka uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmek \u00fczere bir yarg\u0131 makam\u0131 \u00f6n\u00fcne ta\u015f\u0131nmas\u0131 kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurma olarak nitelendirilmektedir. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, bir temel hak olman\u0131n yan\u0131nda di\u011fer temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerden gereken \u015fekilde yararlanmay\u0131 ve bunlar\u0131n korunmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan en etkili g\u00fcvencelerden biridir. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 bir mahkeme karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 \u00fcst yarg\u0131 yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvurabilmeyi g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na almamakla birlikte gerek su\u00e7 isnad\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 yarg\u0131lamalarda gerekse medeni hak ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklere ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lamalarda istinaf veya temyiz gibi kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvurma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f ise bu kanun yollar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki g\u00fcvencelerin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 gerekir. Somut olayda istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun esas\u0131 incelenmeden reddedilmesinin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na bir m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n \u2756 Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda, yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 yapan mahkemeler \u00f6n\u00fcndeki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcnde ba\u015fvurucunun prim \u00f6deme g\u00fcn say\u0131s\u0131 ko\u015fulu ile hizmet s\u00fcresi ko\u015fulunu sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair Ba\u011fc\u0131lar SGM’ den al\u0131nan belgenin olduk\u00e7a \u00f6nemli oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi de bu hususa vurgu yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi gerek\u00e7esinde, ba\u015fvurucunun ilk derecedeki yarg\u0131lama boyunca 15 y\u0131ll\u0131k sigortal\u0131l\u0131k s\u00fcresi ve 3.600 g\u00fcnl\u00fck prim \u00f6deme ko\u015fulunu sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair bir beyanda bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n \u2756 \u0130lk derecedeki yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda 16\/12\/2016 tarihli Duru\u015fma Tutana\u011f\u0131nda; ba\u015fvurucunun hizmet s\u00fcresinin 15 y\u0131ldan, prim g\u00fcn say\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n ise 3.600 g\u00fcnden fazla oldu\u011funu belirten Ba\u011fc\u0131lar SGM’ den al\u0131nan yaz\u0131n\u0131n dosyaya konuldu\u011fu ve daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n buna cevap vermek i\u00e7in s\u00fcre istedi\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirtilmi\u015ftir. Duru\u015fma Tutana\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a -B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn aksine- ba\u015fvurucunun s\u00f6z konusu ko\u015fullar\u0131 sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair ilk derece a\u015famas\u0131nda beyanda bulundu\u011funu ve delil sundu\u011funu g\u00f6stermektedir.<\/p>\n \u2756 Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 357. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc yerine getirdi\u011fi h\u00e2lde B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun sorumlulu\u011funu yerine getirmedi\u011fine dair kabul\u00fc, ba\u015fvurucuyu istinaf kanun yolundan mahrum b\u0131rakm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu incelemenin yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 nedeniyle uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in esasl\u0131 nitelikteki iddia ve itiraz da derece mahkemelerince tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f, b\u00f6ylece ba\u015fvurucu kusuru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde orant\u0131s\u0131z bir y\u00fcke katlanmak zorunda kalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n \u2756 Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcnde etkili olan maddi vak\u0131alar\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi, yorumlanmas\u0131 ve nitelendirilmesi derece mahkemelerinin takdirindedir. Bu ba\u011flamda somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131ndan yararlan\u0131p yararlanamayaca\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta maddi vak\u0131alar\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi, yorumlanmas\u0131 ve nitelendirilmesi ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131na hak kazan\u0131p kazanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 yarg\u0131 mercilerince de\u011ferlendirilecektir. Bireysel ba\u015fvuruda incelenmi\u015f olan husus ba\u015fvurucuya kanunun tan\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 istinaf incelemesinin B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmamas\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya orant\u0131s\u0131z bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fckleyip y\u00fcklemedi\u011fidir.<\/p>\n \u2756 A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa\u2019n\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 \u2756 Ba\u015fvurucu ihlalin tespitine, yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131na ve 10.000 TL maddi tazminat ile 100.000 TL manevi tazminata karar verilmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n \u2756 \u0130ncelenen ba\u015fvuruda istinaf incelemesinin yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ihlalin B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131ndan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n \u2756 Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmaktad\u0131r. Yap\u0131lacak yeniden yarg\u0131lama ise bireysel ba\u015fvuruya \u00f6zg\u00fc d\u00fczenleme i\u00e7eren 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 50. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131na g\u00f6re ihlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na y\u00f6neliktir. Bu kapsamda yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f yeniden yarg\u0131lama karar\u0131 verilerek Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gideren, ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun yeni bir karar verilmesinden ibarettir. Bu sebeple karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin dosyan\u0131n \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 25. Hukuk Dairesine g\u00f6nderilmesini sa\u011flamak \u00fczere mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n