<\/p>\n
Anayasa Mahkemesi (AYM), bir GSM \u015firketinin, kendi \u015firketlerine tahsis edilen numaralar\u0131n y\u00f6netmelikle ba\u015fka operat\u00f6rlere ta\u015f\u0131nmas\u0131na imkan tan\u0131nmas\u0131na yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 itirazda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine h\u00fckmetti.<\/p>\n
Resmi Gazete’nin bug\u00fcnk\u00fc say\u0131s\u0131nda yay\u0131mlanan karara g\u00f6re, Ula\u015ft\u0131rma Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile 1998’de 25 y\u0131ll\u0131\u011f\u0131na ge\u00e7erli olacak \u015fekilde imtiyaz s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi imzalayan bir GSM \u015firketine, ulusal numaraland\u0131rma plan\u0131nda yer alan 530 ile 539 aras\u0131ndaki alan kodlar\u0131 tahsis edildi.<\/p>\n
\u015eirket faaliyetlerine devam ederken 2007’de Resmi Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan y\u00f6netmelikle, cep telefonu kullan\u0131c\u0131lar\u0131na numaralar\u0131n\u0131 de\u011fi\u015ftirmeden hizmet ald\u0131klar\u0131 i\u015fletmeciyi de\u011fi\u015ftirme imkan\u0131 sa\u011fland\u0131.<\/p>\n
Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fin, kendilerine tahsis edilen s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 say\u0131daki numaralar\u0131 kullanma hakk\u0131n\u0131 k\u0131s\u0131tlad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, durumun haks\u0131z rekabet do\u011furdu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcren GSM \u015firketi, y\u00fcr\u00fctmenin durdurulmas\u0131 i\u00e7in Dan\u0131\u015ftay’a dava a\u00e7t\u0131. Dan\u0131\u015ftay 13. Dairesi ise davan\u0131n reddine karar verdi.<\/p>\n
Daire karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesinin ard\u0131ndan \u015firket, hak ihlali iddias\u0131yla Anayasa Mahkemesine bireysel ba\u015fvuru yapt\u0131.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvuruyu inceleyen Y\u00fcksek Mahkeme, Anayasa’n\u0131n 35’inci maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ve ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ad\u0131na yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere karar\u0131n Dan\u0131\u015ftay’a g\u00f6nderilmesine h\u00fckmetti.<\/p>\n
Anayasa Mahkemesinin karar\u0131nda, ba\u015fvurucu \u015firkete tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f 530 ile 539 aras\u0131ndaki alan kodlar\u0131n\u0131 25 y\u0131ll\u0131\u011f\u0131na tekel bi\u00e7iminde kullanma imtiyaz\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fclk kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi, numara ta\u015f\u0131ma imkan\u0131 tan\u0131nmas\u0131yla \u015firketin mali riskle kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya kalabilece\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ifade edildi.<\/p>\n
Hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckleri s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131ran h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin kamu makamlar\u0131nca geni\u015f yorumlanmas\u0131n\u0131n bireyler a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclemez sonu\u00e7lar do\u011furabilece\u011fine i\u015faret edilen kararda, T\u00fcrk anayasal sisteminde hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckleri k\u0131s\u0131tlay\u0131c\u0131 d\u00fczenleme yapma yetkisinin yasama organ\u0131na ait oldu\u011fu an\u0131msat\u0131ld\u0131.<\/p>\n
“Demokrasilerde hangi hakk\u0131n ne \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde s\u0131n\u0131rlanaca\u011f\u0131na b\u00fcrokrasi veya yarg\u0131 de\u011fil yasama organlar\u0131 karar verir.” de\u011ferlendirmesine yer verilen kararda, mahkemelerinin de hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckleri s\u0131n\u0131rlay\u0131c\u0131 kurallar\u0131n kapsam\u0131n\u0131n geni\u015f yorumlanmas\u0131 hususunda olduk\u00e7a ihtiyatl\u0131 davranmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi vurguland\u0131.<\/p>\n
Numara ta\u015f\u0131ma konusundaki y\u00f6netmeli\u011fin, imtiyaz s\u00f6zle\u015fmesiyle tan\u0131nan ekonomik haklar\u0131 k\u0131s\u0131tlayaca\u011f\u0131 nitelikte oldu\u011fu, idarece \u015fekli anlamda bir kanuna de\u011fil y\u00f6netmelik d\u00fczenlemesine dayan\u0131larak uygulamaya ge\u00e7irildi\u011fi tespitine yer verilen kararda, bunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale anlam\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtildi.<\/p>\n
Y\u00fcksek Mahkemenin karar\u0131nda, \u015fu ifadeler yer ald\u0131:<\/p>\n
“Sonu\u00e7 olarak 2008 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan de\u011fi\u015fiklik \u00f6ncesine ili\u015fkin olarak idarenin do\u011frudan numara ta\u015f\u0131nabilirli\u011fine ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131k bir kanuni d\u00fczenleme ihdas etmeden y\u00f6netmelikle mezkur m\u00fcesseseye uygulan\u0131rl\u0131k kazand\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir olmayan geni\u015fletici yorumuna dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. ve 35. maddelerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak kanuni bir dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n mevcut olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. M\u00fcdahalenin kanunilik \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edildi\u011finden Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. ve 35. maddelerinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen di\u011fer unsurlar olan me\u015fru ama\u00e7 ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck kriterlerine riayet edilip edilmedi\u011finin ayr\u0131ca de\u011ferlendirilmesine gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.”<\/p>\n