{"id":4446,"date":"2020-02-04T12:32:15","date_gmt":"2020-02-04T09:32:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/?p=4446"},"modified":"2020-09-15T12:21:28","modified_gmt":"2020-09-15T09:21:28","slug":"550-yillik-bir-vakfiye-86-yillik-bir-idari-islem-ve-siyasetin-golgesinde-bir-karar-danistayin-ayasofya-kararinin-hukuki-incelemesi-14-9-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/?p=4446","title":{"rendered":"550 Y\u0131ll\u0131k Bir Vakfiye, 86 Y\u0131ll\u0131k Bir \u0130dari \u0130\u015flem ve Siyasetin G\u00f6lgesinde Bir Karar: Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n Ayasofya Karar\u0131n\u0131n Hukuki \u0130ncelemesi (14.9.2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Einstein\u2019e atfedilen \u201cBen olmayan her \u015fey, \u00e7evredir\u201d s\u00f6z\u00fc, \u00e7evre kavram\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 geni\u015f ve belirsiz bir tan\u0131m\u0131 oldu\u011fu gibi, ayn\u0131 zamanda \u00e7evrenin insan merkeze al\u0131narak yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bir tarifidir. Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n Ayasofya hakk\u0131nda vermi\u015f oldu\u011fu[1]<\/a>, stat\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fc camiden m\u00fczeye \u00e7eviren 86 y\u0131ll\u0131k Bakanlar Kurulu Karar\u0131\u2019n\u0131n iptali karar\u0131 ile Einstein\u2019a atfedilen bu s\u00f6z aras\u0131nda benzerlik kurmak ilgin\u00e7 olmayacakt\u0131r. Zira Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu karar\u0131n\u0131n \u201cmetni hari\u00e7 her \u015feyin siyaset\u201d oldu\u011funu s\u00f6ylemek m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n

Dan\u0131\u015ftay karar\u0131n\u0131n siyasi olarak do\u011fru mu yoksa yanl\u0131\u015f m\u0131 oldu\u011fu ya da siyasi etkileri elbette bu yaz\u0131n\u0131n konusu de\u011fildir. Ancak karar\u0131n metninin, siyasetin g\u00f6lgesinde kald\u0131\u011f\u0131, karara do\u011fru veya yanl\u0131\u015f diyen bir\u00e7ok ki\u015finin alm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu siyasi pozisyona g\u00f6re bu nitelemelerde bulundu\u011fu[2]<\/a>, k\u0131sacas\u0131 karar\u0131n kendisi hari\u00e7 her \u015feyin, siyasi g\u00fcd\u00fclerle, konu\u015fuldu\u011fu iddias\u0131n\u0131 temellendirmek i\u00e7in karar\u0131n al\u0131nma s\u00fcrecinde bas\u0131na yans\u0131yan haberler hat\u0131rlat\u0131lmakla yetinilecek, ard\u0131ndan siyasetten geriye kalan tek \u015fey olan karar\u0131n metni hukuki olarak incelenecektir.<\/p>\n

Daha \u00f6nce \u00e7ok kez bu tart\u0131\u015fmalarla g\u00fcndeme gelen Ayasofya\u2019n\u0131n cami olarak a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6n\u00fcn\u00fc a\u00e7an s\u00fcre\u00e7 2020 y\u0131l\u0131 \u0130stanbul\u2019un Fetih Kutlamalar\u0131 ile ba\u015flad\u0131. 29 May\u0131s\u2019ta Ayasofya\u2019da Fetih Suresi\u2019nin okunmas\u0131[3]<\/a>, Ayasofya\u2019n\u0131n stat\u00fcs\u00fc tart\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131 bir kez daha g\u00fcndeme getirdi.[4]<\/a> Bu tart\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n ard\u0131ndan Cumhurba\u015fkan\u0131\u2019n\u0131n \u201cAyasofya\u2019da namaz da k\u0131l\u0131n\u0131r, Fetih Suresi de okunur. Buna ancak ve ancak aziz milletimiz karar verir<\/em>\u201d a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131 ve Ayasofya\u2019n\u0131n m\u00fczeden camiye \u00e7evrilmesi i\u00e7in talimat verdi\u011fi haberi bas\u0131nda yer ald\u0131.[5]<\/a> Siyasetin ba\u015flatt\u0131\u011f\u0131 tart\u0131\u015fma, yine siyasi olarak tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmaktayken[6]<\/a> bir anda 2016 y\u0131l\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan bir dava kamuoyunun g\u00fcndemine getirildi ve Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n bu konuda verece\u011fi karara i\u015faret edilmeye ba\u015fland\u0131.[7]<\/a> Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fcne dek sosyal medya ve televizyonlarda s\u00fcrekli bu konu konu\u015fuldu. Duru\u015fmadan[8]<\/a> sonra on be\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde karar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131klanaca\u011f\u0131 haberlere yans\u0131d\u0131 ki \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu\u2019nun 19. maddesi uyar\u0131nca da b\u00f6yle olmal\u0131yd\u0131. Ger\u00e7ekten de kanuna uyularak, uygulamada pek b\u00f6yle olmasa da, duru\u015fman\u0131n yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00fcn verilen karar 10 Temmuz\u2019da duyuruldu.[9]<\/a> Ayn\u0131 g\u00fcn m\u00fckerrer Resmi Gazete\u2019de yay\u0131mlanan Cumhurba\u015fkan\u0131 Karar\u0131[10]<\/a> ile yarg\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in, ki tarihin en h\u0131zl\u0131 uygulanan yarg\u0131 karar\u0131 olabilir, Ayasofya\u2019n\u0131n ibadete a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi. \u00d6zetle Ayasofya karar\u0131, ba\u015f\u0131ndan sonuna siyasetin ba\u015flatt\u0131\u011f\u0131, siyasetin tart\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir konu olmas\u0131 ve Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n daha \u00f6nce ayn\u0131 konuya ili\u015fkin verdi\u011fi kararlardan[11]<\/a> ayr\u0131lmas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131nda siyasetin g\u00f6lgesinde kalan bir karar olmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n

Her ne kadar etraf\u0131n\u0131 siyasetin \u00e7evreledi\u011fi, \u00fczerini siyasetin \u00f6rtt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bir karar olsa da Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n karar\u0131 belirli usul ve esas sorunlar\u0131 ele al\u0131narak, do\u011fru veya yanl\u0131\u015f, verilmi\u015f bir mahkeme karar\u0131 oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in bu usul ve esas sorunlar\u0131na getirdi\u011fi \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmler de hukuki olarak de\u011ferlendirilmelidir.<\/p>\n

Mahkeme, daha \u00f6nceki kararlar\u0131nda da \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclen dava konusu Bakanlar Kurulu Karar\u0131nda yer alan imzalar\u0131n ger\u00e7e\u011fi yans\u0131tmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, Kararda imzalar\u0131 bulunan baz\u0131 bakanlar\u0131n karar tarihinde Ankara d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda olduklar\u0131n\u0131n Meclis tutanaklar\u0131 ile sabit olmas\u0131 nedeniyle imzalar\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu ve grafolojik y\u00f6nden incelenmesi gerekti\u011fi iddialar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden, dosyada konu ile ilgili inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirecek yeterli emare bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00f6z konusu imzalar\u0131n ger\u00e7ekli\u011fiyle ilgili inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek g\u00f6rmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

Bu iddialar\u0131 inceleme yapmaks\u0131z\u0131n ge\u00e7en Mahkeme, ikisi usule ili\u015fkin biri de esasa ili\u015fkin \u00fc\u00e7 temel sorunu ele alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu sorunlar; s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131, kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm sorunu ve vakfiyenin hukuki niteli\u011fi\/etkisidir.<\/p>\n

A. Usule \u0130li\u015fkin Sorunlar<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n davan\u0131n esas\u0131na ge\u00e7meden \u00f6nce Ayasofya\u2019ya ili\u015fkin daha \u00f6nceki davalarda da g\u00fcndeme gelen s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 iddias\u0131 ve daha \u00f6nce vermi\u015f oldu\u011fu kararlar nedeniyle olu\u015fan kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm problemini incelemesi ve bir \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm getirmesi gerekmi\u015ftir. Y\u00fcksek Mahkeme her ikisi tart\u0131\u015fmal\u0131 konuda da sorun g\u00f6rmeyerek esas incelemesine ge\u00e7mi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. S\u00fcre A\u015f\u0131m\u0131<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    1934 tarihli Bakanlar Kurulu Karar\u0131\u2019n\u0131n (BK Karar\u0131) iptali konulu bir davada ilk akla gelen sorun, seksen alt\u0131 y\u0131l sonra bir idari i\u015flemin nas\u0131l denetlenebilece\u011fi olmal\u0131d\u0131r. Zira \u0130dari Yarg\u0131lama Usul\u00fc Kanunu\u2019nun (\u0130YUK) 7. maddesinde dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcreleri d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. 86 y\u0131ll\u0131k bir s\u00fcreyi a\u015fmak i\u00e7in tek form\u00fcl[12]<\/a> \u0130YUK\u2019un 7. maddesinin 4. f\u0131kras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen durumdur. Bu form\u00fcl\u00fcn kullan\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in 1934 y\u0131l\u0131ndaki BK Karar\u0131\u2019n\u0131n d\u00fczenleyici i\u015flem olmas\u0131 gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n

    Dan\u0131\u015ftay da 1934 tarihli BK Karar\u0131\u2019n\u0131 d\u00fczenleyici i\u015flem kabul ederek \u0130YUK m. 7\/4\u2019\u00fc uygulad\u0131 ve davada s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verdi. Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019a g\u00f6re \u201cdavac\u0131, hakk\u0131nda idari davaya konu olabilecek bireysel i\u015flemin tesis edilmesi \u00fczerine hem bu i\u015flem, hem de dayanak i\u015fleme veya bunlardan herhangi birine kar\u015f\u0131 dava a\u00e7abilecek olup, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta da, bireysel ret i\u015fleminin dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturan Bakanlar Kurulu Karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00f6z konusu i\u015flemin tebli\u011fi \u00fczerine yasal s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.\u201d<\/p>\n

    S\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 iddias\u0131 Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n Ayasofya\u2019ya dair verdi\u011fi ba\u015fka bir karar\u0131nda[13]<\/a> az\u0131nl\u0131kta kalan baz\u0131 \u00fcyeler 1934 tarihli BK Karar\u0131\u2019n\u0131n d\u00fczenleyici i\u015flem olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n talebinin reddinin ise s\u00f6z konusu BK Karar\u0131\u2019n\u0131n uygulama i\u015flemi olamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etmi\u015flerdir. Ancak \u00e7o\u011funluk, bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f, g\u00fcncel Ayasofya karar\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 bir form\u00fcl ile idari i\u015flemi incelemi\u015ftir. \u00c7o\u011funlu\u011fa g\u00f6re bir idari i\u015flemin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinin reddi incelenirken kald\u0131rma talebine konu olan idari i\u015flemin hukuksal denetimi de yap\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Belirtmek gerekir ki 1934 tarihli BK Karar\u0131\u2019n\u0131n hukuki denetimi, red i\u015fleminin dayana\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in yap\u0131labilse de ilgili i\u015flem d\u00fczenleyici i\u015flem kabul edilmedi\u011fi s\u00fcrece iptal edilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir.[14]<\/a><\/p>\n

    Oysa 1934 tarihli BK Karar\u0131, soyut, objektif, kural koyan bir d\u00fczenleyici i\u015flem de\u011fil[15]<\/a> bir yap\u0131y\u0131 bir stat\u00fcden (cami) ba\u015fka bir stat\u00fcye (m\u00fcze) sokan klasik bir bireysel idari i\u015flemdir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla bu davada 1934 tarihli BK Karar\u0131\u2019n\u0131n d\u00fczenleyici i\u015flem oldu\u011fu varsay\u0131m\u0131 ile \u0130YUK m. 7\/4\u2019\u00fcn uygulanmas\u0131 hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r. Bu nedenle her ne kadar red i\u015fleminin sebep unsuru olarak hukuki denetimi yap\u0131labilse de d\u00fczenleyici i\u015flem olmayan 1934 tarihli BK Karar\u0131\u2019n\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle iptal edilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn g\u00f6r\u00fcnmemektedir.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Kesin H\u00fck\u00fcm Problemi<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n 1934 tarihli BK Karar\u0131\u2019n\u0131 konu alan daha \u00f6nce vermi\u015f oldu\u011fu kararlar\u0131n\u0131n bu davada kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm te\u015fkil edip etmeyece\u011fi de kararda tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019a g\u00f6re daha \u00f6nce verilen kararlarda \u201cAyasofya\u2019n\u0131n m\u00fclkiyeti, vak\u0131f niteli\u011fi ve tapusunda yer alan vasf\u0131 itibar\u0131yla vak\u0131f senedinde tahsis edildi\u011fi ama\u00e7 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin iddialar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden esasa ili\u015fkin herhangi bir inceleme ve de\u011ferlendirme bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, buna dair herhangi bir gerek\u00e7e ve h\u00fck\u00fcm de yer almam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.\u201d Bu nedenle daha \u00f6nce verilmi\u015f olan kararlar g\u00fcncel kararda kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm te\u015fkil etmemelidir.<\/p>\n

      Tart\u0131\u015fmal\u0131 olan bu problem hakk\u0131nda bir g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f, g\u00fcncel kararda kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm problemi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, iptal davalar\u0131nda verilen red kararlar\u0131n\u0131n kural olarak kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm te\u015fkil etmeyece\u011fini savunmu\u015ftur.[16]<\/a> Ba\u015fka bir g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f ise red kararlar\u0131nda mutlak anlamda de\u011fil, nispi anlamda kesinlik oldu\u011funu, bunun ise \u201ctaraflar\u0131 ve konusu ayn\u0131 olan bir davan\u0131n daha \u00f6nce reddedilmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n, bu davan\u0131n, farkl\u0131 bir sebebe dayan\u0131lmas\u0131 ve s\u00fcre ko\u015fuluna uyulmas\u0131 suretiyle, yeniden a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131na engel olmayaca\u011f\u0131 anlam\u0131na\u201d geldi\u011fini \u00f6ne s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.[17]<\/a> Bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe g\u00f6re Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n g\u00fcncel karar\u0131nda ele al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm problemi g\u00f6rmedi\u011fi vak\u0131f niteli\u011fi, vak\u0131f senedi ile ilgili tart\u0131\u015fmalar, daha \u00f6nceki davalarda da \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f ve dava konusu BK Karar\u0131\u2019n\u0131 sakatlayamayacaklar\u0131 s\u00f6ylenmek suretiyle kar\u015f\u0131lanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bununla birlikte \u00f6nceki kararda vakfiye ve vak\u0131f niteli\u011fi tart\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n BK Karar\u0131\u2019n\u0131 sakatlamamas\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinin karara yaz\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 davac\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 ihlal etse de bu ihlalin yapt\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 davac\u0131n\u0131n daha \u00f6nce \u00f6ne s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc iddialara dayanarak yeniden dava a\u00e7abilmesi de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n

      B. Esasa \u0130li\u015fkin Sorun<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      Dan\u0131\u015ftay karar\u0131nda en geni\u015f incelenen konu vakfiye\/vak\u0131f senedinin hukuki niteli\u011fi ve etkisidir. Mahkeme, konuya ili\u015fkin m\u00fclga ve halen y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte olan mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmlerini ve y\u00fcksek mahkeme i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmesinin ard\u0131ndan Ayasofya vakfiyesini de ilgilendiren 743 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Kanunu Medenisi’nin y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girdi\u011fi 04\/10\/1926 tarihinden \u00f6nce kurulmu\u015f olan vak\u0131flarla ilgili olarak \u015fu tespitlerde bulunmu\u015ftur:<\/p>\n

      \u201c(i)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Vakfiye ya da vak\u0131f senedinin, vakf\u0131n kurucu belgesi oldu\u011fu, bu belgelerin, vakf\u0131n konusuna, amac\u0131na ve organlar\u0131na dair vakfedenin iradesini yans\u0131tan d\u00fczenlemeler i\u00e7erdi\u011fi,<\/p>\n

      (ii)\u00a0\u00a0 Vakfiye ya da vak\u0131f senedi h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin, hukuk kural\u0131 etki, de\u011fer ve g\u00fcc\u00fcnde oldu\u011fu; vak\u0131f kurma i\u015flemi tamamland\u0131ktan sonra bu kurallar\u0131n, \u201cvakfedeni\u201d, \u201cvakf\u0131 idare edenleri\u201d, \u201cvak\u0131ftan faydalanacaklar\u0131\u201d ve \u201c\u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fileri\u201d ba\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi \u201cDevleti\u201d de ba\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu nedenle, kurucu iradeyi yans\u0131tan vakfiye ya da vak\u0131f senetlerini hi\u00e7 kimsenin de\u011fi\u015ftiremeyece\u011fi,<\/p>\n

      (iii)\u00a0 Vak\u0131f varl\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n, vakfedenin iradesine uygun olarak kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n zorunlu oldu\u011fu, sonucuna var\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.\u201d<\/p>\n

      \u0130lk olarak belirtilmelidir ki vakfiyenin hukuki niteli\u011fine ve etkisine ili\u015fkin de\u011ferlendirmeler bir y\u00fcksek mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan ilk kez yap\u0131lmamaktad\u0131r.<\/strong> Konunun siyasi boyutunun etkisi ile olsa gerek, vakfiyelere ili\u015fkin Anayasa Mahkemesi ve Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131, y\u00fczeysel de olsa ortaya koyulmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Her ne kadar vakfedenin bir Padi\u015fah olmas\u0131ndan kaynakl\u0131 olarak ortada bir kamu hukuku i\u015flemi veya padi\u015fah ferman\u0131 oldu\u011fu iddia edilse de esas tart\u0131\u015fmal\u0131 olan nokta, vakfedenin kimli\u011finden[18]<\/a> ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olarak vakfiyenin\/vak\u0131f senedinin hukuki niteli\u011fi ve etkisidir.<\/p>\n

      Ayasofya, mazbut vak\u0131f niteli\u011findeki Fatih Sultan Mehmet Han Vakf\u0131’n\u0131n m\u00fclkiyetinde bulunmaktad\u0131r. Mazbut vak\u0131flar, \u201cfiili ve hukuki sebeplerle Devletin el koydu\u011fu, idaresi bir makama ya da vakfedenlerin fer’\u00eelerinden ba\u015fkalar\u0131na b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, fiilen hayr\u00ee bir hizmeti kalmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in Vak\u0131flar Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc’n\u00fcn vesayeti alt\u0131na al\u0131nan, \u00f6zel hukuk h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine tabi t\u00fczel ki\u015filer olduklar\u0131ndan, bu vak\u0131flar\u0131n y\u00f6netim ve temsilleri, hukuki stat\u00fclerinin korunarak ya\u015fat\u0131lmalar\u0131 amac\u0131yla Vak\u0131flar Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc’ne b\u0131rak\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc bu vesayet ili\u015fkisi, mazbut vak\u0131flar\u0131n hukuki stat\u00fclerinde bir de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fe sebebiyet vermedi\u011fi gibi, vak\u0131f malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kamu mal\u0131 h\u00e2line d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fmesi sonucunu da do\u011furmamaktad\u0131r<\/strong>.\u201d[19]<\/a> Bununla birlikte Dan\u0131\u015ftay, yak\u0131n tarihli bir karar\u0131nda mazbut vak\u0131flar\u0131n mallar\u0131na ba\u015fka bir idarenin ihtiya\u00e7 duymas\u0131 halinde Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma Kanunu\u2019nun 30. maddesi uyar\u0131nca i\u015flem yap\u0131labilece\u011fini karar vermi\u015ftir.[20]<\/a><\/strong> Kararda yer verilen kar\u015f\u0131 oyda ise mazbut vak\u0131flar\u0131n kamu t\u00fczel ki\u015fisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/strong>, bu nedenle mazbut vak\u0131flar\u0131n mallar\u0131na bir idarenin y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc hizmet nedeniyle ihtiya\u00e7 duyulmas\u0131 halinde Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma Kanunu\u2019nun 30. maddesi uyar\u0131nca de\u011fil ayn\u0131 Kanunda d\u00fczenlenen \u00f6zel hukuk t\u00fczel ki\u015filerinin tabi oldu\u011fu kamula\u015ft\u0131rma prosed\u00fcr\u00fcne tabi olmalar\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

      Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019ne g\u00f6re \u201cMazbut vak\u0131flar\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz varl\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 koruyucu nitelikteki s\u00f6z konusu d\u00fczenlemeler, mazbut vak\u0131flar\u0131n vakfedenlerin fer\u00eelerinin m\u00fctevellili\u011finde de\u011fil de bir kamu idaresinin y\u00f6netimi alt\u0131nda bulunmas\u0131 nedeniyle bu vak\u0131flar\u0131n kanun koyucu taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6zel olarak korunmas\u0131, bu suretle mazbut vak\u0131flar\u0131n ya\u015fat\u0131lmas\u0131 ve vak\u0131f ama\u00e7lar\u0131na ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 amac\u0131n\u0131 g\u00fctmektedir. Kanun koyucu, ger\u00e7ek ki\u015filerce y\u00f6netilmeyen mazbut vak\u0131flara bir anlamda sahip \u00e7\u0131kmakta \u00f6zel bir koruma sa\u011flamaktad\u0131r.<\/strong>\u201d[21]<\/a><\/p>\n

      Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin vakfiyelere ili\u015fkin de\u011ferlendirmelerde bulundu\u011fu kararlarda rastlanan ilgin\u00e7 bir nokta ise, Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n Ayasofya karar\u0131nda vakfiyelere ili\u015fkin ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nde iptal davas\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7an ana muhalefet partileri taraf\u0131ndan savunulmas\u0131d\u0131r. \u201cVakfiye ya da vak\u0131f senedinin vakf\u0131n kurucu belgesi oldu\u011fu, bu belgenin vakf\u0131n konusuna, amac\u0131na ve organlar\u0131na ili\u015fkin vakfedenin t\u00fcm istek ve istencini yans\u0131tan d\u00fczenlemeleri i\u00e7erdi\u011fi, vakfiye ya da vak\u0131f senedi d\u00fczenlemelerinin hukuk kural\u0131n\u0131n etki, de\u011fer ve g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc haiz oldu\u011fu, vak\u0131f kurma i\u015flemi tamamland\u0131ktan sonra bu kurallar\u0131n vakfedeni, vakf\u0131 y\u00f6netenleri, vak\u0131ftan yararlanacaklar\u0131, \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fileri ve Devleti ba\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131, kurucu istenci yans\u0131tan vakfiye ya da vak\u0131f senetlerini Devlet organlar\u0131 d\u00e2hil kimsenin de\u011fi\u015ftiremeyece\u011fi<\/strong>\u201d gibi Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin vermi\u015f oldu\u011fu kararlarda[22]<\/a> ana muhalefet partisi taraf\u0131ndan savunulan arg\u00fcmanlar ile Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n Ayasofya karar\u0131nda ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n ayn\u0131 oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.[23]<\/a> Bu ba\u011flant\u0131 da Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n karar\u0131nda ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 bulgular\u0131n bu kararda ilk kez \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclen, bu karara \u00f6zg\u00fc de\u011ferlendirmeler olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6stermektedir.<\/p>\n

      Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n Ayasofya karar\u0131ndan \u00f6nce vermi\u015f oldu\u011fu kararlarda da vak\u0131flar\u0131n vakfiyelerde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ama\u00e7larla kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6zetti\u011fi\/\u00f6nceledi\u011fi, bu bak\u0131mdan da Ayasofya karar\u0131n\u0131n esas bak\u0131m\u0131ndan b\u00fcy\u00fck bir yenilik ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenebilir. \u00d6rne\u011fin, vak\u0131f senedinde vak\u0131f amac\u0131n\u0131n insanlar\u0131n ibadet etmesi olarak belirlendi\u011fi, bu ama\u00e7 do\u011frultusunda ta\u015f\u0131nmazda bir cami ve me\u015frutahane yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, daha sonra ise, bu amaca ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sa\u011fl\u0131k oca\u011f\u0131 olarak kullan\u0131lmas\u0131na olanak sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta, \u201cVak\u0131flarda, vakf\u0131n ama\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n belirtilmesi ve ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n bu do\u011frultuda de\u011ferlendirilerek bu amaca ayk\u0131r\u0131 i\u015flemlerden ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi[nin] ku\u015fkusuz\u201d oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015f ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n vak\u0131f senedindeki amac\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak sa\u011fl\u0131k oca\u011f\u0131 yap\u0131m\u0131na olanak sa\u011flayan dava konusu koruma kurulu karar\u0131 ve yap\u0131 ruhsat\u0131nda isabet g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.[24]<\/a> Yine bir vak\u0131f i\u015fhan\u0131n\u0131n, hizmet binas\u0131 olarak kullan\u0131lmak \u00fczere tahsis edilmesine ili\u015fkin i\u015flem, \u201cvak\u0131f mal\u0131n\u0131n ekonomik \u015fekilde i\u015fletilmesi ilkesine ve vakfedenin vakfiyedeki iradesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 <\/strong>[oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in]\u201d hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulunmu\u015ftur.[25]<\/a><\/p>\n

      Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n imar d\u00fczenlemelerinde vak\u0131f senedinde belirlenen amac\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra fiili kullan\u0131m\u0131 da dikkate ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve yaln\u0131zca vak\u0131f senedindeki amac\u0131 mutlak bir \u015fekilde korumad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019a g\u00f6re \u201cimar d\u00fczenlemelerinde, mazbut vak\u0131f ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n\u0131n akar niteli\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilirken ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n vak\u0131f senedindeki \u00f6zg\u00fclenme amac\u0131ndan yola \u00e7\u0131karak ve fiili kullan\u0131m durumu dikkate al\u0131narak inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131<\/strong> gerekmektedir.\u201d Y\u00fcksek Mahkeme, bu hususlar dikkate al\u0131nmadan verilen derece mahkemesinin karar\u0131n\u0131 bozmu\u015ftur.[26]<\/a> Bir vakfa ait bah\u00e7eli ah\u015fap ev vas\u0131fl\u0131 bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n, k\u0131smen yol olarak ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n yoldan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131larak konut alan\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 ve bu suretle ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n akar niteli\u011finin korunmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi iddias\u0131yla a\u00e7\u0131lan benzer bir davada \u201cta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n fiili kullan\u0131m durumuna dair bilgi ve belgelerin de\u011ferlendirilmesi neticesinde ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n otopark olarak kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131[n\u0131n tespit edildi\u011fi], bu haliyle (\u2026) gelir getirici nitelikte olmayan fonksiyonlara ayr\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00f6z edile[meyece\u011fine]\u201d karar verilerek, i\u015flem hukuka uygun bulunmu\u015ftur.[27]<\/a><\/p>\n

      <\/a><\/p>\n

      Sonu\u00e7<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      <\/a><\/p>\n

      \u00d6zetle, Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n Ayasofya karar\u0131n\u0131n;<\/p>\n

      <\/a><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. 1934 tarihli BK Karar\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu,<\/li>\n
      2. Kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm bak\u0131m\u0131ndan tart\u0131\u015fmal\u0131 oldu\u011fu,<\/li>\n
      3. Karar\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmeleri aras\u0131nda \u00fczerinde yeteri kadar\u0131 durulmayan vak\u0131f senedinin hukuki niteli\u011fi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan; Ayasofya karar\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa Mahkemesi ve Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n daha \u00f6nce benzer konularda verilen kararlar\u0131ndan ayr\u0131ks\u0131, farkl\u0131 bir nokta i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi, \u00f6zellikle Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vak\u0131f \u00dcniversitesi\u2019nin kurulu\u015f kanununun iptali istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n Ayasofya karar\u0131nda ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n ana muhalefet partisi taraf\u0131ndan ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Han Vakf\u0131\u2019n\u0131n vakfiyesini \u00fcst\u00fcn k\u0131lacak \u015fekilde savunuldu\u011fu dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda bu karardaki vak\u0131f senedine ili\u015fkin tespitleri Padi\u015fah ferman\u0131 veya Osmanl\u0131 hukukunun Cumhuriyet hukukuna \u00fcst\u00fcn tutuldu\u011fu \u015feklinde de\u011ferlendirmenin do\u011fru olmayaca\u011f\u0131 ve bu kararda vak\u0131f senedine ili\u015fkin ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n bir i\u00e7tihat farkl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmektedir.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

         <\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        [1]<\/a> D. 10. D., E. 2016\/16015, K. 2020\/2595, T. 02.07.2020. Karar\u0131n tam metni i\u00e7in bkz. (link<\/a>)<\/p>\n

        [2]<\/a> T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de hukuk e\u011fitimi alm\u0131\u015f ki\u015filer dahi hukuki yorumlarda bulunurken kendi d\u00fcnya g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerinin etkisiyle hareket ediyorlar. Oysa Ayasofya karar\u0131n\u0131 hukuken hatal\u0131 bulup camiye d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fmesinden \u015fahsi olarak memnun olmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fu gibi, karar\u0131 hukuka uygun bulup m\u00fcze olmas\u0131n\u0131n daha do\u011fru oldu\u011fu savunmak da m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Hukuk\u00e7ular\u0131n bile d\u00fcnya g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri ile hukuku ay\u0131ramad\u0131klar\u0131 bir zeminde hukukla siyasetin i\u00e7 i\u00e7e ge\u00e7memesi gerekti\u011fi talebi naif bir beklentiye d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcyor.<\/p>\n

        [3]<\/a> https:\/\/www.medyajans.com\/fetih-coskusunun-kalbi-bu-yil-ayasofyada-atacak.html<\/a>, E.T. 24.07.2020.<\/p>\n

        [4]<\/a> Ali D. Ulusoy, \u201cAyasofya\u2019n\u0131n Hukuksal Stat\u00fcs\u00fc\u201d, https:\/\/t24.com.tr\/yazarlar\/ali-d-ulusoy\/ayasofya-nin-hukuksal-statusu,26871<\/a>, E.T. 24.07.2020.<\/p>\n

        [5]<\/a> https:\/\/www.sondakika.com\/haber\/haber-erdogan-ayasofya-icin-talimat-verdi-milletimiz-13292325\/<\/a>, E.T. 24.07.2020.<\/p>\n

        [6]<\/a> https:\/\/www.posta.com.tr\/bahceliden-ayasofya-destegi-can-sesi-degil-ezan-sesi-yukselecek-2260087<\/a>, E. T. 24.07.2020.<\/p>\n

        [7]<\/a> https:\/\/www.sabah.com.tr\/gundem\/2020\/06\/08\/baskan-erdogan-karar-milletimin-demisti-ayasofya-icin-flas-basvuru<\/a>, E.T. 24.07.2020; https:\/\/www.superhaber.tv\/erdogan-ayasofya-konusunda-danistayin-kararini-bekliyoruz-haber-280849<\/a>, E.T. 24.07.2020.<\/p>\n

        [8]<\/a> https:\/\/www.haberler.com\/ayasofya-icin-beklenen-gun-geldi-gozler-hukukun-13380496-haberi\/<\/a>, E.T. 24.07.2020.<\/p>\n

        [9]<\/a> Karar her ne kadar 10 Temmuz\u2019da duyurulsa da bu tarihten \u00f6nce de mahkemenin karar\u0131n\u0131 bas\u0131na a\u00e7\u0131klayanlar oldu. Bkz. https:\/\/tr.sputniknews.com\/turkiye\/202007081042411913-ayasofyanin-muzeye-cevrilmesi-karari-danistay-tarafindan-iptal-edildi-iddiasi\/<\/a>, E.T. 24.07.2020. Karar\u0131 \u00f6nceden duyuranlar oldu\u011fu gibi karardan \u00f6nce Ayasofya i\u00e7in hal\u0131 sipari\u015finin verildi\u011fini de ifade edenler oldu. Bkz. https:\/\/www.yenisafak.com\/gundem\/ayasofya-icin-flas-iddia-cami-halisi-siparisi-verildi-3543730<\/a>, E.T. 24.07.2020.<\/p>\n

        [10]<\/a> Cumhurba\u015fkan\u0131 Karar\u0131, Karar No: 2729, R.G. T. 10.07.2020, S. 31181 (M\u00fckerrer)<\/p>\n

        [11]<\/a> D. \u0130DDK, E. 2013\/3803 K. 2015\/1193 T. 6.4.2015; D. 10. D. E. 2012\/8034 K. 2017\/1359 T. 9.3.2017<\/p>\n

        [12]<\/a> Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n baz\u0131 istisnai hallerde i\u00e7tihatla benimsedi\u011fi bir olas\u0131l\u0131\u011fa g\u00f6re temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere y\u00f6nelik s\u00fcregelen etkiye sahibi bir idari i\u015flem, \u0130YUK m. 10 kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lacak bir ba\u015fvuru sonucu olu\u015fan red i\u015flemi birlikte dava konusu edilebilir. Bkz. Ali D. Ulusoy, \u201cDan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n Karar\u0131 Hukuken Hatal\u0131 M\u0131?\u201d, https:\/\/t24.com.tr\/yazarlar\/ali-d-ulusoy\/danistay-in-ayasofya-karari-hukuken-hatali-mi,27379<\/a>, E.T. 24.07.2020.<\/p>\n

        [13]<\/a> D. \u0130DDK, E. 2013\/3803 K. 2015\/1193 T. 6.4.2015. Bkz. Lexpera \u0130\u00e7tihat ve Bilgi Bankas\u0131.<\/p>\n

        [14]<\/a> Y\u0131ld\u0131zhan Yayla\/Erdo\u011fan B\u00fclb\u00fcl: \u201cKarar \u0130ncelemesi: \u0130stanbul 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesi\u2019nin 22.5.1997 G\u00fcn ve E. 1996\/1406, K. 1997\/561 Say\u0131l\u0131 Karar\u0131 \u00dczerine D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceler\u201d, \u0130H\u0130D, C. 13, Say\u0131 1, Y\u0131l 2000, s. 433.<\/p>\n

        [15]<\/a> Ali D. Ulusoy, \u201cDan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n Karar\u0131 Hukuken Hatal\u0131 M\u0131?\u201d.<\/p>\n

        [16]<\/a> Ali D. Ulusoy, \u201cDan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n Karar\u0131 Hukuken Hatal\u0131 M\u0131?\u201d.<\/p>\n

        [17]<\/a> Turgut Candan, \u201cAyasofya Karar\u0131nda Kesin H\u00fck\u00fcm Sorunu\u201d, https:\/\/turgutcandan.com\/2020\/07\/17\/ayasofya-kararinda-kesin-hukum-sorunu\/<\/a>, E.T. 24.07.2020.<\/p>\n

        [18]<\/a> Vakfedenin Padi\u015fah olmas\u0131 nedeniyle vakfetme i\u015fleminin hukuki niteli\u011finin de\u011fi\u015febilece\u011fi \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclebilir. Zira Padi\u015fahlar\u0131n m\u00fclk edinme y\u00f6ntemleri, Ayasofya \u00f6rne\u011finde g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc gibi normal bir vatanda\u015ftan farkl\u0131d\u0131r. Bu nedenle Padi\u015fahlar\u0131n edindikleri m\u00fclklerde \u00f6zel hukuk ili\u015fkilerinden \u00e7ok k\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 hakk\u0131 gibi kamu g\u00fcc\u00fcne dayanan i\u015flemler\/y\u00f6ntemler belirleyicidir. M\u00fclk edinme y\u00f6ntemlerinin ve dayanaklar\u0131n\u0131n kamu hukukuna yak\u0131n olmas\u0131 nedeniyle Padi\u015fah\u0131n vakf\u0131 ile normal bir vatanda\u015f\u0131n vakf\u0131 farkl\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilebilir. Ancak bu yoruma destek olabilecek bir yasal d\u00fczenleme ya da karara rastlanmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n

        [19]<\/a> AYM, E. 2013\/70, K. 2013\/166, T. 26.12.2013, R.G. T. 09.05.2014, S. 28995.<\/p>\n

        [20]<\/a> D. 1. D., E. 2018\/1032, K. 2018\/871, T. 29.05.2018. Bkz. D.D., S. 149, s. 88-95.<\/p>\n

        [21]<\/a> AYM, Emine G\u00f6rg\u00fcl\u00fc Ba\u015fvurusu, Ba\u015fvuru No: 2014\/5871, K. T. 06.07. 2017, R.G. T. 08.09.2017, S. 30174.<\/p>\n

        [22]<\/a> AYM, E. 2008\/22, K. 2010\/82, T. 17.06.2010, R.G. T. 11.01.2011, S. 27812; AYM, E. 2010\/57, K. 2012\/14, T. 26.01.2012, R.G. T. 26.06.2012, S. 28335<\/p>\n

        [23]<\/a> Ayasofya\u2019n\u0131n ait oldu\u011fu Fatih Sultan Mehmet Han vakf\u0131n\u0131n da aralar\u0131nda bulundu\u011fu baz\u0131 vak\u0131flar ad\u0131na Vak\u0131flar Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan kurulan Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vak\u0131f \u00dcniversitesi\u2019nin kurulu\u015funa ili\u015fkin kanunun iptali talebi ile a\u00e7\u0131lan davada, davay\u0131 a\u00e7an ana muhalefet partisi taraf\u0131ndan \u201cVak\u0131flar Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan bir k\u0131s\u0131m mazbut vak\u0131flar ad\u0131na Bezm-i \u00c2lem ve Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vak\u0131f \u00dcniversiteleri’nin kurulmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, kurucu mazbut vak\u0131flar\u0131n esasen yoksullara ve d\u00fc\u015fk\u00fcnlere yard\u0131m gibi sosyal ama\u00e7larla kuruldu\u011fu, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla an\u0131lan vak\u0131flar\u0131n vakfiyelerindeki hay\u0131r \u015fartlar\u0131 aras\u0131nda \u00fcniversite kurma amac\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi hay\u0131r \u015fartlar\u0131 fiilen ve hukuken imk\u00e2ns\u0131z h\u00e2le gelmeden de\u011fi\u015ftirildi\u011fi<\/strong>\u201d iddia edilmi\u015f ancak Anayasa Mahkemesi kanunu hukuka uygun bularak iptal istemini reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

        [24]<\/a> D. 6. D., E. 2010\/10154, K. 2014\/1052, T. 17.2.2014. Bkz. Lexpera \u0130\u00e7tihat ve Bilgi Bankas\u0131.<\/p>\n

        [25]<\/a> D. 10. D., E. 2000\/5237, K. 2003\/317, T. 30.1.2003. Bkz. Lexpera \u0130\u00e7tihat ve Bilgi Bankas\u0131.<\/p>\n

        [26]<\/a> D. 6. D., E. 2013\/1621, K. 2018\/3892, T. 26.4.2018. Bkz. Lexpera \u0130\u00e7tihat ve Bilgi Bankas\u0131.<\/p>\n

        [27]<\/a> D. 6. D., E. 2016\/3875, K. 2018\/2596, T. 26.3.2018. Bkz. Lexpera \u0130\u00e7tihat ve Bilgi Bankas\u0131.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        Einstein\u2019e atfedilen \u201cBen olmayan her \u015fey, \u00e7evredir\u201d s\u00f6z\u00fc, \u00e7evre kavram\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 geni\u015f ve belirsiz bir tan\u0131m\u0131 oldu\u011fu gibi, ayn\u0131 zamanda \u00e7evrenin insan merkeze al\u0131narak yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bir tarifidir. Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n Ayasofya hakk\u0131nda vermi\u015f oldu\u011fu[1], stat\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fc camiden m\u00fczeye \u00e7eviren 86 y\u0131ll\u0131k Bakanlar Kurulu Karar\u0131\u2019n\u0131n iptali karar\u0131 ile Einstein\u2019a atfedilen bu s\u00f6z aras\u0131nda benzerlik kurmak ilgin\u00e7 olmayacakt\u0131r. Zira Dan\u0131\u015ftay\u2019\u0131n […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":174,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[227],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4446","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-guncel"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4446","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/174"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4446"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4446\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4446"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4446"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hukukdefterleri.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}