{"id":3728,"date":"2026-09-09T14:00:24","date_gmt":"2026-09-09T11:00:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/erkanpartners.com\/?p=3728"},"modified":"2026-09-09T14:02:12","modified_gmt":"2026-09-09T11:02:12","slug":"yabanci-mahkeme-ve-hakem-kararlarinda-yer-alan-cezalandirici-tazminat-hukmunun-tenfizi-bakimindan-kamu-duzenine-aykirilik-menfi-kosulunun-incelenmesi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/erkanpartners.com\/?p=3728","title":{"rendered":"Yabanc\u0131 Mahkeme ve Hakem Kararlar\u0131nda Yer Alan Cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 Tazminat H\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn Tenfizi Bak\u0131m\u0131ndan Kamu D\u00fczenine Ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k Menfi Ko\u015fulunun \u0130ncelenmesi"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
I. Giri\u015f<\/strong><\/h6>\n\n\n\n

K\u0131ta Avrupas\u0131 hukuk sisteminde yer alan T\u00fcrk hukukuna g\u00f6re, h\u00fckmedilen tazminat\u0131n cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 mahiyette olmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Nitekim tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesinin yeg\u00e2ne amac\u0131, kural olarak zarar\u0131n giderilmesinden ibarettir[1]<\/strong><\/a> ve bu amac\u0131n\u0131 a\u015fan d\u00fczeyde verilen tazminat kararlar\u0131n\u0131n sebepsiz zenginle\u015fmeye yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilmektedir. \u00d6te yandan; \u00f6zellikle Anglo-Amerikan k\u00f6kenli \u00fclke hukuklar\u0131nda, T\u00fcrk hukukunda mevcut olan bu yap\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n zarar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7ok \u00f6tesine ula\u015fan tazminat miktarlar\u0131na h\u00fckmedilebildi\u011fi ve hatta astronomik d\u00fczeylere varabildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. T\u00fcrk hukuk doktrininde bu t\u00fcr tazminatlar, cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131\/cezai tazminat (Amerikan hukukunda zikredildi\u011fi \u00fczere punitive damages<\/em>) \u015feklinde isimlendirilmektedir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminat\u0131n kuramsal olarak ilk kez tan\u0131mland\u0131\u011f\u0131 Rookes v. Barnard davas\u0131nda Lord Devlin\u2019in s\u00f6yledikleri \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminat\u0131n cezaland\u0131rma ile \u00f6zel ve genel \u00f6nleme i\u015flevlerine sahip oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmakta olup bu t\u00fcr tazminatlara y\u00f6nelik ele\u015ftiriler ise; i) haks\u0131z fiil hukuku ile ceza hukukunu birbirine kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131, ii) belirsizlik yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131, iii) cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminata konu eylemlerin sigortalanmas\u0131 durumunda cezan\u0131n kamuya yans\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131, iv) \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz cezalar\u0131n sosyal bar\u0131\u015f\u0131 olumsuz etkiledi\u011fi, noktalar\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r[2]<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yabanc\u0131 devlet mahkemelerinde ve hakem kararlar\u0131nda h\u00fckmedilen bu t\u00fcr tazminat kararlar\u0131n\u0131n T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de tenfizinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan, h\u00fck\u00fcm f\u0131kras\u0131nda yer alan karar\u0131n tenfiz edilmesiyle ortaya \u00e7\u0131kacak sonucun T\u00fcrk hukuku a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan do\u011furaca\u011f\u0131 etkiye bakmak gereklidir[3]<\/strong><\/a>. Nitekim yabanc\u0131 mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131n tenfizi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan aranan ko\u015fullar aras\u0131nda, verilen karar\u0131n T\u00fcrk hukukuna uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fart\u0131 yer almamakta olup tenfiz davas\u0131na bakan T\u00fcrk mahkemesinin, revizyon yasa\u011f\u0131<\/em> kapsam\u0131nda, tenfiz talebine konu yabanc\u0131 mahkeme\/hakem karar\u0131na konu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k bak\u0131m\u0131ndan esasa ili\u015fkin inceleme yapma yetkisinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 izahtan varestedir. Bu ba\u011flamda, yabanc\u0131 mahkeme\/hakem taraf\u0131ndan verilen cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminat kararlar\u0131n\u0131n tenfiz edilebilirli\u011fi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan, kanunda yer alan sair ko\u015fullar\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi imkan\u0131na halel gelmeksizin, yabanc\u0131 mahkeme kararlar\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan 5718 say\u0131l\u0131 Milletleraras\u0131 \u00d6zel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakk\u0131nda Kanun (\u201cM\u00d6HUK\u201d) m.54\/1(c) ve yabanc\u0131 hakem kararlar\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan M\u00d6HUK m.62\/1(b) uyar\u0131nca bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

II. \u201cKamu D\u00fczenine Ayk\u0131r\u0131 Bulunmama\u201d<\/em> Tenfiz \u015eart\u0131n\u0131n A\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

5718 say\u0131l\u0131 Milletleraras\u0131 \u00d6zel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakk\u0131nda Kanun (\u201cM\u00d6HUK\u201d) m.54\/1(c)\u2019ye g\u00f6re;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYetkili mahkeme tenfiz karar\u0131n\u0131 a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki \u015fartlar d\u00e2hilinde verir:<\/em> (\u2026)<\/em> c) H\u00fckm\u00fcn kamu d\u00fczenine a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulunmamas\u0131.\u201d<\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

M\u00d6HUK m.62\/1(b)\u2019ye g\u00f6re;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMahkeme,<\/em> (\u2026)<\/em> b) Hakem karar\u0131 genel ahl\u00e2ka veya kamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131 ise,<\/em> (\u2026)<\/em> yabanc\u0131 hakem karar\u0131n\u0131n tenfizi istemini reddeder\u201d.<\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u0130lk olarak belirtilmelidir ki; tenfiz mahkemesinin, tenfiz talebine konu yabanc\u0131 mahkeme\/hakem karar\u0131n\u0131 esastan inceleme imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r. M\u00d6HUK m.55\/2 lafz\u0131ndan anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere revizyon yasa\u011f\u0131<\/em> do\u011frultusunda hareket etmek durumunda olan tenfiz mahkemesi, yaln\u0131zca M\u00d6HUK m.50 ile m.60\u2019ta d\u00fczenlenen \u00f6n ko\u015fullar, M\u00d6HUKm.54 ve m.62\u2019de d\u00fczenlenen esas ko\u015fularla s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 olarak bir incele yapmakla yetinir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla, yabanc\u0131 mahkeme kararlar\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u201ch\u00fckm\u00fcn kamu d\u00fczenine a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulunmamas\u0131\u201d<\/em> \u015feklinde ve yabanc\u0131 hakem kararlar\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u201ckamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131 ise\u201d<\/em> \u015feklinde a\u00e7\u0131klanan kamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k menfiko\u015fulunun hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 \u015fekilde geni\u015f yorumlanmak suretiyle tatbik edilmesi halinde, tenfiz m\u00fcessesinin amac\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n do\u011fmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. \u0130\u015fbu ko\u015ful, olduk\u00e7a dar yorumlanmal\u0131d\u0131r; M\u00d6HUK m.54\u2019te ilgili ko\u015fulu d\u00fczenleyen bendde yer alan \u201ca\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a\u201d<\/em> ibaresi de bu dar yorum prensibine i\u015faret etmektedir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0130\u015fbu ko\u015fulun dar yorumlanmas\u0131 gereklili\u011fi ile ilgili olarak, Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme B\u00fcy\u00fck Genel Kurulu\u2019nun 10.02.2012 tarihli ve 2010\/1 E., 2012\/1 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131<\/a>n\u0131n incelenmesinde fayda bulunmaktad\u0131r. Konu ile ilgili olarak \u201ckamu d\u00fczeni\u201d<\/em> kavram\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7izen ve bu kavram\u0131n tenfiz menfi ko\u015fulu olarak ne \u015fekilde ele al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ortaya koyan ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 niteli\u011fe sahip bu karar\u0131n, incelenen konu ba\u011flam\u0131nda \u00f6zel bir \u00f6nemi bulunmaktad\u0131r:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme B\u00fcy\u00fck Genel Kurulu\u2019nun 10.02.2012 tarihli ve 2010\/1 E., 2012\/1 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131<\/strong><\/a>na g\u00f6re;<\/strong> \u201cT\u00fcrk kamu d\u00fczeninin ihlalini gerektirecek haller \u00e7o\u011funlukla emredici bir h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131kca ihlali halinde d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclecektir. Fakat her emredici h\u00fckm\u00fcn ihlali halinde veya her emredici h\u00fckm\u00fc ihlal eden bir yabanc\u0131 karar\u0131n T\u00fcrk kamu d\u00fczenine aykr\u0131 bulundu\u011funu s\u00f6ylemek olanakl\u0131 de\u011fildir.<\/em> O halde, i\u00e7 hukuktaki kamu d\u00fczeninin \u00e7er\u00e7evesi, T\u00fcrk hukukunun temel de\u011ferlerine, T\u00fcrk genel adap ve ahlak anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131na, T\u00fcrk kanunlar\u0131n\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 temel adalet anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131na, T\u00fcrk kanunlar\u0131n\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 genel siyasete, Anayasada yer alan temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere, milletleraras\u0131 alanda ge\u00e7erli ortak prensip ve \u00f6zel hukuka ait iyiniyet prensibine dayanan kurallara, medeni topluluklar\u0131n m\u00fc\u015ftereken benimsedikleri ahlak ilkeleri ve adalet anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n ifadesi olan hukuk prensiplerine, toplumun medeniyet seviyesine, siyasi ve ekonomik rejimine, insan hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerine ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k \u015feklinde \u00e7izilebilir.<\/em> (\u2026)<\/em> Buna g\u00f6re, yabanc\u0131 mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n verilmesinde uygulanan hukuk ve bunun hangi kriterlere g\u00f6re uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011fil, yabanc\u0131 karar\u0131n T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de icra edilmesi halinde meydana gelecek sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n T\u00fcrk kamu d\u00fczenini ihlal edip etmeyece\u011finin ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekir.<\/em> An\u0131lan maddede yer alan, \u201cH\u00fckm\u00fcn kamu d\u00fczenine a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulunmamas\u0131\u201d ifadesinden, yabanc\u0131 mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n esas\u0131na uygulanan hukukun T\u00fcrk kamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n incelenemeyece\u011fi, sadece h\u00fckm\u00fcn tenfizi neticesinde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan hukuki sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n kamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmas\u0131 halinde yabanc\u0131 mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n tenfizinin reddedilece\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/em> Esasa uygulanan hukukun T\u00fcrk Hukukunda farkl\u0131 olmas\u0131 ya da T\u00fcrk Hukukunun emredici kurallar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmas\u0131 gibi nedenlerle yabanc\u0131 karar\u0131n tenfizi reddedilemez. Burada esas al\u0131nmas\u0131 gereken k\u0131stas, yabanc\u0131 ilam\u0131n T\u00fcrk Hukukunda bir veya birden \u00e7ok kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulunmas\u0131ndan \u00e7ok, T\u00fcrk Hukukunun temel de\u011ferlerine, T\u00fcrk genel adap ve ahlak anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131na T\u00fcrk kanunlar\u0131n\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 temel adalet anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131na ve hukuk siyasetine, Anayasa \u2018da yer alan temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere milletleraras\u0131 alanda ge\u00e7erli ortak ve kabul g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015f hukuk prensiplerine, ikili anla\u015fmalara, geli\u015fmi\u015f toplumlar\u0131n ortak benimsedikleri ahlak ve adalet anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131na, medeniyet seviyesine siyasi ve ekonomik rejimine bakmak olmal\u0131d\u0131r\u201d.<\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

            \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 birle\u015ftirme karar\u0131nda vurguland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere, T\u00fcrk hukukunun emredici kurallar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmas\u0131 sebebiyle yabanc\u0131 karar\u0131n tenfizi talebinin reddedilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Yabanc\u0131 ilam\u0131n tenfizi sonucunda olu\u015facak durumun T\u00fcrk hukukunun temel de\u011ferleri, adalet anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 ve Anayasa\u2019da yer alan temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckler gibi en temel de\u011ferlere ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00f6z edilebilmesi halinde M\u00d6HUK m.54\/1(c) ko\u015fulunu sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle tenfiz davas\u0131n\u0131n reddedilmesi hukuka uygun d\u00fc\u015febilecektir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

III. Cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 Tazminat\u0131n Tenfizi Bak\u0131m\u0131ndan Doktrin G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri<\/strong><\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Doktrinde, \u00f6zel hukuk karakterli cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminatlar\u0131n kamu ad\u0131na cayd\u0131rma, korkutma ve iyile\u015ftirme amac\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131 sebebiyle tenfiz edilemeyece\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc bask\u0131nd\u0131r[4]<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bu noktada, yabanc\u0131 hukukun uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumda h\u00fckmedilecek tazminata ili\u015fkin \u00f6zel bir s\u0131n\u0131rlama te\u015fkil eden kanun maddesi dikkat \u00e7ekicidir:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

M\u00d6HUK m.38\/2\u2019e g\u00f6re;<\/strong> \u201cT\u00fcrkiye\u2019de rekabetin engellenmesine yabanc\u0131 hukuk uygulanan h\u00e2llerde, T\u00fcrk hukuku uygulansayd\u0131 verilecek tazminattan daha fazla tazminata h\u00fckmedilemez\u201d.<\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u0130\u015fbu kanuni d\u00fczenleme, Milletleraras\u0131 \u00d6zel Hukuku ve Usul Hukuku Hakk\u0131nda Kanun\u2019un \u201cKanunlar \u0130htilaf\u0131 Kurallar\u0131\u201d<\/em> b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnde yer almakta olup do\u011frudan tenfiz davas\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r ancak fahi\u015f tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131 konu alan \u00f6zel bir d\u00fczenleme olmas\u0131 sebebiyle konumuza tesir eden bir boyutu olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n irdelenmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Doktrinde, i\u015fbu madde ile, fahi\u015f nitelikteki cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminat miktarlar\u0131na h\u00fckmedilebilen hukuklar\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131 sonucunda yabanc\u0131 mahkemelerce verilen ve T\u00fcrk hukukuna g\u00f6re fahi\u015f say\u0131labilecek miktarlardaki tazminat h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin tenfizinin engellenmesinin ama\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmektedir[5]<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ancak, ilgili d\u00fczenlemenin, yabanc\u0131l\u0131k unsuru bulunan uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k hakk\u0131nda karar verme noktas\u0131nda yetkili T\u00fcrk mahkemesinin yabanc\u0131 hukuku uygulad\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumlarda dikkate alaca\u011f\u0131 \u00f6zel bir d\u00fczenleme te\u015fkil ediyor olu\u015fu ve tenfiz \u015fartlar\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 hareket kabiliyetine sahip tenfiz mahkemesinin ayn\u0131 prensip do\u011frultusunda karar verme imkan\u0131n\u0131n bulunmamas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilerek i\u015fbu d\u00fczenlemenin tenfiz davalar\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan bir etkisinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ifade edilmesi de pek\u00e2l\u00e2 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminat\u0131n T\u00fcrk kamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki bask\u0131n doktrin g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcn aksi y\u00f6nde, T\u00fcrk hukukunda da cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminata benzer mahiyette hukuki m\u00fcesseselerin yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla, cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminat h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn, her hal\u00fck\u00e2rda dar yorumlanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine \u015f\u00fcphe olmayan \u201ckamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmama\u201d<\/em> ko\u015fulunu sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015feklinde bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131 arg\u00fcman\u0131 da ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclebilecektir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

T\u00fcrk bor\u00e7lar hukukunda, bedensel b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn ve ki\u015filik haklar\u0131n\u0131n zedelenmesi hallerine ili\u015fkin manevi tazminat d\u00fczenlemesinin (TBK m.56 ve m.58) cezaland\u0131rma i\u015flevine sahip oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bulunmakta olup bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn temel dayana\u011f\u0131, manevi tazminata h\u00fckmedilebilmesi i\u00e7in kural olarak zarar verenin kusurunun aranmas\u0131d\u0131r[6]<\/strong><\/a>. Buna g\u00f6re, kusuru sebebiyle manevi tazminat \u00f6demeye mahk\u00fbm edilen zarar verenin, \u00f6zel hukuk h\u00fck\u00fcmleri uyar\u0131nca \u201ccezaland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131\u201d<\/em> \u015feklinde bir yorumda bulunulabilecektir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Yine, tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n zarar ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 esas\u0131ndan uzakla\u015f\u0131lan hukuki m\u00fcesseselere \u00f6rnek olarak; i\u015f hukukundan do\u011fan k\u00f6t\u00fc niyet tazminat\u0131, sendikal tazminat ve ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k tazminat\u0131, icra ink\u00e2r ve k\u00f6t\u00fc niyet tazminat\u0131, ticaret hukukundan do\u011fan \u00e7ek tazminat\u0131, bor\u00e7lar hukukundan do\u011fan yeniden kiralama yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131n verilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr[7]<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buna g\u00f6re, T\u00fcrk hukukunda da benzer mahiyette hukuki m\u00fcesseseler yer al\u0131rken, her hal\u00fck\u00e2rda dar yorumlanmas\u0131 gereken bir tenfiz ko\u015fuluna dayanarak zarar vereni cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminata mahk\u00fbm eden yabanc\u0131 ilam\u0131n\/hakem karar\u0131n\u0131n T\u00fcrk hukukunda tahamm\u00fcl edilemez bir etki yarataca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrmenin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilebilecektir. Doktrinde yer alan bu y\u00f6ndeki g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc de\u011ferlendirmekte fayda bulunmaktad\u0131r[8]<\/strong><\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cGer\u00e7ek zarar\u0131n \u00fc\u00e7 kat\u0131 tazminat \u00f6denmesinde oldu\u011fu gibi RICO damages veya punitive damages kararlar\u0131n\u0131n bir k\u0131sm\u0131, misli tazminat niteli\u011findedir. T\u00fcrk hukukunda, Rekabetin Korunmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun ve \u0130\u015f Kanunu \u00f6rneklerinde oldu\u011fu gibi misli tazminata yer verilmi\u015ftir. O halde, misli tazminat, T\u00fcrk hukukunda da d\u00fczenlenen bir m\u00fcessese oldu\u011fundan yabanc\u0131 hakem karar\u0131yla h\u00fckmedilen misli tazminat kararlar\u0131n\u0131n, s\u0131rf misli niteliklerinden dolay\u0131 T\u00fcrk kamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olduklar\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemek isabetli de\u011fildir. Hatta misli tazminata, T\u00fcrk hukukunda hi\u00e7 yer verilmemi\u015f olsayd\u0131 bile, hakemlerce verilen misli tazminat karar\u0131n\u0131n T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de tenfizine, kamu d\u00fczeni vas\u0131tas\u0131yla engel olmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmayacakt\u0131. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc sistem farkl\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131 kural olarak, kamu d\u00fczenini ihl\u00e2l etmez. Kamu d\u00fczeni a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6nemli olan, yabanc\u0131 hakem karar\u0131n\u0131n, T\u00fcrk hukukunda mevcut olmayan esaslara dayan\u0131p dayanmamas\u0131 de\u011fil, tahamm\u00fcl edilemez bir sonu\u00e7 yarat\u0131p yaratmad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r. T\u00fcrk hukukunda punitive tazminat\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ne s\u00fcrmek de m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. T\u0131pk\u0131 Amerika\u2019n\u0131n baz\u0131 eyaletlerinde punitive tazminatlarda limit belirlenmesinde oldu\u011fu gibi, \u0130\u0130K\u2019da bir limit belirlenerek icra ink\u00e2r tazminat\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesi kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130\u0130K\u2019da yer alan icra ink\u00e2r tazminat\u0131, hi\u00e7 \u015f\u00fcphesiz punitive yani cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 ve cayd\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 niteliktedir. Yabanc\u0131 hakem karar\u0131nda h\u00fckmedilen punitive tazminat, s\u0131rf ad\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 kamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmayacakt\u0131r. Ancak yabanc\u0131 hakem karar\u0131nda h\u00fckmedilen cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 ve cayd\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminat\u0131n mak\u00fbl d\u00fczeyde olmamas\u0131; somut olay\u0131n \u00f6zeliklerine g\u00f6re fahi\u015f ve aleyhine tazminat karar\u0131 verilen taraf\u0131n ekonomik y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131na sebep olmas\u0131 ya da A\u0130HS\u2019e ek 1 numaral\u0131 Protokol\u00fcn 1. maddesi ile g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etmesi halinde, cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 ve cayd\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminata ili\u015fkin yabanc\u0131 hakem karar\u0131, T\u00fcrk kamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil edebilir\u201d.<\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Yazar, cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminat\u0131n s\u0131rf varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 dolay\u0131s\u0131yla do\u011frudan T\u00fcrk kamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funun kabul edilemeyece\u011fini ifade etmi\u015f; \u00f6te yandan, h\u00fckmedilen cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminat\u0131n makul d\u00fczeyde olmamas\u0131, somut olay\u0131n \u00f6zeliklerine g\u00f6re fahi\u015f ve aleyhine tazminat karar\u0131 verilen taraf\u0131n ekonomik y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131na sebep olmas\u0131 veya A\u0130HS\u2019e ek 1 numaral\u0131 Protokol\u00fcn 1. maddesi ile g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etmesi halinde, yabanc\u0131 hakem karar\u0131n\u0131n T\u00fcrk kamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil edebilece\u011fini de vurgulam\u0131\u015f durumdad\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IV. Cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 Tazminat\u0131n Tenfizi Bak\u0131m\u0131ndan Yarg\u0131 Kararlar\u0131<\/strong><\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Konuya ili\u015fkin olarak g\u00fcncel tarihli bir Yarg\u0131tay karar\u0131na de\u011finmekte fayda bulunmaktad\u0131r:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yarg\u0131tay 6. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 31.05.2022 tarihli, 2021\/1358 E., 2022\/2968 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131na g\u00f6re;<\/strong> \u201c\u0130lk derece mahkemesince, kararlar\u0131n taraflar aras\u0131ndaki alacak davas\u0131yla ilgili olduklar\u0131, \u0130ngiltere ile T\u00fcrkiye aras\u0131nda fiili bir kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesinin her iki \u00fclke y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi, di\u011fer tan\u0131ma ve tenfiz ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n da mevcut oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne dair verilen karar daval\u0131 vekilinin istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 \u00fczerine \u0130zmir B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 17.Hukuk Dairesince tenfize konu karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7eli olmamas\u0131n\u0131n sonuca etkili olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, Manchester il\u00e7e mahkemesinin karar\u0131nda, davac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131 olarak g\u00f6sterildi\u011fi, daval\u0131n\u0131n ise 3. ki\u015fi olarak s\u0131fatland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, duru\u015fma yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm kuruldu\u011fu, h\u00fckm\u00fcn taraflara tebli\u011f edilip edilmedi\u011finin anla\u015f\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, taraflar\u0131n h\u00fckm\u00fc de\u011fi\u015ftirmek ve ge\u00e7ersiz k\u0131lmak hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011funun ilamda bildirildi\u011fi, daval\u0131n\u0131n zarar ve masraf\u0131 28 g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde 3. taraf\u00e7a \u00f6denmesine dair h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmu\u015f ise de, daval\u0131 olan somut olayda davac\u0131n\u0131n zarar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lay\u0131p kar\u015f\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00f6deme yap\u0131p yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n dosya kapsam\u0131ndan anla\u015f\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, davan\u0131n daval\u0131 otelinde kalan dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 konu\u011funun yaralanmas\u0131 sebebi ile a\u00e7\u0131lan tazminat istemine ili\u015fkin olup kanun koyucunun, haks\u0131z fiille ba\u015fkas\u0131na zarar veren ki\u015fiyi medeni olarak cezaland\u0131rmay\u0131 veya zarar g\u00f6reni zenginle\u015ftirmeyi ama\u00e7lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, tazminat\u0131n duruma ve kusura g\u00f6re belirlenece\u011fi, cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 bir y\u00f6n\u00fc de olan tazminata ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 yabanc\u0131 mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131n tenfiz edilemeyece\u011fi, verilen karar\u0131n 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu md. 49 ve devam\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen h\u00fck\u00fcmlerle ba\u011fda\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131,<\/u> haks\u0131z fiile dayal\u0131 tazminat davalar\u0131n\u0131n haks\u0131z fiilin vuku buldu\u011fu yerde a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ve karar\u0131n icra edilebilir olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi daval\u0131 olan ve tenfize konu kararda 3. ki\u015fi olarak g\u00f6sterilen taraf\u0131n karara kar\u015f\u0131 yasal yollara ba\u015fvuru hakk\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6sterilmedi\u011fi ve savunma hakk\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n kad\u0131r\u0131larak davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/em> Karar\u0131, davac\u0131 vekili temyiz etmi\u015ftir.<\/em> \u0130zmir B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince dosya kapsam\u0131ndan tan\u0131ma ve tenfizi istenen Manchester il\u00e7e mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n taraflara tebli\u011f edilip edilemedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan daval\u0131n\u0131n savunma hakk\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131s\u0131tlanm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekirken kararda di\u011fer gerek\u00e7elere de yer verilmesi do\u011fru olmam\u0131\u015f ise de<\/u>, sonucu itibariyle do\u011fru olan karar\u0131n HMK’nun 370\/4 maddesi uyar\u0131nca gerek\u00e7esi d\u00fczeltilerek onanmas\u0131 uygun bulunmu\u015ftur\u201d.<\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

(Yaln\u0131zca vurgu eklenmi\u015ftir.)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yukar\u0131da yer verilen Yarg\u0131tay 6. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 2022 tarihli karar\u0131nda, cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminat kararlar\u0131n\u0131n tenfiz edilemeyece\u011fine y\u00f6nelik istinaf mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Daire taraf\u0131ndan hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulunan hususun, cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminat\u0131n s\u0131rf T\u00fcrk hukukuna ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmas\u0131 sebebiyle tenfiz edilemeyece\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki yakla\u015f\u0131m oldu\u011fu kanaatindeyiz. Nitekim istinaf mahkemesi, yabanc\u0131 mahkeme karar\u0131nda h\u00fckmedilen cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminat\u0131n tenfizi sonucunda olu\u015facak durumun T\u00fcrk kamu d\u00fczeni ile ba\u011fda\u015f\u0131p ba\u011fda\u015fmayaca\u011f\u0131 ile ilgili bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmam\u0131\u015f ve cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminat\u0131n kategorik olarak tenfizinin kabil olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir yakla\u015f\u0131m sergilemi\u015ftir. O halde, Yarg\u0131tay 6. Hukuk Dairesi karar\u0131n\u0131n; tenfize ili\u015fkin kanuni d\u00fczenlemelerin lafz\u0131 ile ruhu ve g\u00fcncel hukuki yakla\u015f\u0131mlarla paralel oldu\u011funun ifade edilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ayn\u0131 y\u00f6nde;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 44. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 25.09.2025 tarihli, 2025\/687 E., 2025\/1174 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131na g\u00f6re;<\/strong> \u201cDaval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan s\u00fcresinde istinaf yoluna ba\u015fvurulmu\u015f olup, istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; (\u2026) tenfizi istenen karar\u0131n cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 nitelikte olup T\u00fcrk kamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu, Paris Mahkemesi\u2019nce h\u00fckmedilen toplam 93.000 EUR\u2019nun zarar\u0131 telafi de\u011fil cezaland\u0131rma amac\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131, dispenser yasa\u011f\u0131 ve mallar\u0131 geri \u00e7a\u011f\u0131rma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ihlali nedeniyle verilen para cezalar\u0131n\u0131n tekrar\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi ve cezaland\u0131rmaya y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011fu, 6769 say\u0131l\u0131 SMK\u2019n\u0131n yaln\u0131z zarar\u0131n telafisini esas ald\u0131\u011f\u0131, ceza mant\u0131\u011f\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131yan bu yapt\u0131r\u0131m\u0131n M\u00d6HUK m.50\/2 kapsam\u0131nda tenfiz engeli olu\u015fturdu\u011fu, (\u2026) ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclerek istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun kabul\u00fc ile ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 talep edilmi\u015ftir.<\/em> (\u2026) bu nedenle ilam\u0131n konusunun ticari nitelikte hukuki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k oldu\u011fu , T\u00fcrk Mahkemelerinin m\u00fcnhas\u0131nran yetkisine girmedi\u011fi ve h\u00fckm\u00fcn kamu d\u00fczenine a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir y\u00f6n\u00fcn\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 , M\u00d6HUK 54. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda tenfiz \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n eldeki dava y\u00f6n\u00fcnden mevcut oldu\u011fu, yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere tenfiz hakiminin karar\u0131n esas\u0131 ve yerinde olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile ilgili denetleme yapma yetkisinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu nedenle daval\u0131 vekilinin savunma ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131kl\u0131 bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturan beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n tenfiz hakimince de\u011ferlendirilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn itirazlar olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ilam\u0131n kesinle\u015fti\u011fi tarih itibariyle zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Sonu\u00e7 olarak , M\u00d6HUK’un 5. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda kamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir y\u00f6n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, M\u00d6HUK’un 54\/1-a, b, c, \u00e7 bendleri kapsam\u0131nda tenfiz \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n eldeki dava y\u00f6n\u00fcnden mevcut oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esi ile davan\u0131n kabul\u00fc karar\u0131nda bir isabetsizlik bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u201d.<\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
IV. Sonu\u00e7<\/strong><\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Sonu\u00e7 olarak; K\u0131ta Avrupas\u0131 hukuk sisteminde yer alan T\u00fcrk hukukuna g\u00f6re kural olarak tazminat karar\u0131n\u0131n ancak zarar\u0131n giderilmesi amac\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olarak verilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcnken \u00f6zellikle Anglo-Amerikan k\u00f6kenli \u00fclke hukuklar\u0131nda h\u00fckmedilen cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminat\u0131n (punitive damages<\/em>) T\u00fcrk mahkemelerinde tenfiz edilebilirli\u011fi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 hukuki yakla\u015f\u0131mlar\u0131n bulundu\u011fu, ancak T\u00fcrk hukukunda da cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 mahiyete sahip oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilebilecek birtak\u0131m tazminat t\u00fcrlerinin mevcudiyeti ve kamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k menfi ko\u015fulunun dar yorumlanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine ili\u015fkin yerle\u015fik prensip gere\u011fince, cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminat\u0131n kategorik olarak T\u00fcrk kamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funun kabul edilmesinin hukuka uygun bir yakla\u015f\u0131m olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00f6te yandan somut olay \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmak suretiyle, yabanc\u0131 ilama\/hakem karar\u0131na konu cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminat\u0131n T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de icra edilmesinin temel de\u011ferler bak\u0131m\u0131ndan tahamm\u00fcl edilemez sonu\u00e7lara yol a\u00e7aca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespiti halinde aksi y\u00f6nde kabulde bulunulmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fu ifade edilmelidir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Av. Sevgi AKSOY<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> Bkz: 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu (\u201cTBK\u201d) m.49.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> M. Tar\u0131k G\u00fclery\u00fcz & Ay\u00e7a Zorluo\u011flu Y\u0131lmaz. (2019). Bir Anglo-Amerikan hukuku m\u00fcessesesi olarak cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 tazminat\u0131n [Punitive Damages] baz\u0131 T\u00fcrk hukuku m\u00fcesseseleri ile mukayesesi. T\u00fcrkiye Barolar Birli\u011fi Dergisi<\/em>, (141), 325\u2013362, s.13.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> Sibel \u00d6zel, Mustafa Erkan, Hatice Selin P\u00fcrselim, H\u00fcseyin Akif Karaca; Milletleraras\u0131 \u00d6zel Hukuk,<\/strong> On \u0130ki Levha, 2. Bas\u0131, \u0130stanbul 2024, s.741.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> Ergin Nomer, Devletler Hususi Hukuku,<\/strong> \u0130stanbul 2021, s.514; Cemal \u015eanl\u0131, Emre Esen, \u0130nci Ataman-Figanme\u015fe, Milletleraras\u0131 \u00d6zel Hukuk,<\/strong> \u0130stanbul 2023, s.660.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> Aysel \u00c7elikel, B. Bahad\u0131r Erdem; Milletleraras\u0131 \u00d6zel Hukuk,<\/strong> Beta, \u0130stanbul 2021, s.776.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> M. Tar\u0131k G\u00fclery\u00fcz & Ay\u00e7a Zorluo\u011flu Y\u0131lmaz, a.g.e.,<\/strong> s.344\u2019ten naklen Ya\u015far Karayal\u00e7\u0131n, \u201cT\u00fcrk Hukukunda \u015eeref ve Haysiyetin Korunmas\u0131\u201d, A\u00dcHFD, ,<\/em> Ankara 1962, C. 19, S.1, s. 251- 275, s. 273 vd; \u00c7elik Ahmet \u00c7elik, Cana Gelen Za\u00adrarlarda Tazminat\u0131n \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fc ve Kazan\u00e7 Kavram\u0131, \u0130stanbul 2006, s. 53 dn. 6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> M. Tar\u0131k G\u00fclery\u00fcz & Ay\u00e7a Zorluo\u011flu Y\u0131lmaz, a.g.e.,<\/strong> s.343 vd.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> Nuray Ek\u015fi, \u201cYarg\u0131tay Kararlar\u0131 I\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Yabanc\u0131 Hakem Kararlar\u0131n\u0131n Tenfizinde Kamu D\u00fczeni.\u201d Public and Private International Law Bulletin<\/em> 40.1 (2020): 143-201.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I. Giri\u015f K\u0131ta Avrupas\u0131 hukuk sisteminde yer alan T\u00fcrk hukukuna g\u00f6re, h\u00fckmedilen tazminat\u0131n cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 mahiyette olmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Nitekim tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesinin yeg\u00e2ne amac\u0131, kural olarak zarar\u0131n giderilmesinden ibarettir[1] ve bu amac\u0131n\u0131 a\u015fan d\u00fczeyde verilen tazminat kararlar\u0131n\u0131n sebepsiz zenginle\u015fmeye yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilmektedir. \u00d6te yandan; \u00f6zellikle Anglo-Amerikan k\u00f6kenli \u00fclke hukuklar\u0131nda, T\u00fcrk hukukunda mevcut olan bu yap\u0131n\u0131n …<\/p>\n

Yabanc\u0131 Mahkeme ve Hakem Kararlar\u0131nda Yer Alan Cezaland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 Tazminat H\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn Tenfizi Bak\u0131m\u0131ndan Kamu D\u00fczenine Ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k Menfi Ko\u015fulunun \u0130ncelenmesi<\/span> Devam\u0131 »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3728","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/erkanpartners.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3728","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/erkanpartners.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/erkanpartners.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/erkanpartners.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/erkanpartners.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3728"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/erkanpartners.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3728\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3734,"href":"https:\/\/erkanpartners.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3728\/revisions\/3734"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/erkanpartners.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3728"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/erkanpartners.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3728"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/erkanpartners.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3728"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}