{"id":389,"date":"2024-06-23T17:13:05","date_gmt":"2024-06-23T17:13:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rodopluhukuk.com\/?p=389"},"modified":"2024-07-01T12:03:41","modified_gmt":"2024-07-01T12:03:41","slug":"is-sozlesmesinin-ikale-yoluyla-sona-erdirilmesi-ile-makul-yarar-kavrami","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rodopluhukuk.com\/en\/is-sozlesmesinin-ikale-yoluyla-sona-erdirilmesi-ile-makul-yarar-kavrami\/","title":{"rendered":"\u0130\u015f S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin \u0130kale Yoluyla Sona Erdirilmesi ile Makul Yarar Kavram\u0131"},"content":{"rendered":"

Giri\u015f ve Tan\u0131m<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Genel tan\u0131m\u0131 itibariyle ikale, taraflar\u0131n \u00f6nceden yapm\u0131\u015f olduklar\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi, kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131p bozarak ortadan kald\u0131rmalar\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmektedir. Nitekim Yarg\u0131tay 9. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin, 21.04.2008 tarihli ve E. 2007\/31287, K. 2008\/9600 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden \u015fu \u015fekilde bahsetmektedir:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 Bozma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi (ikale) yasalar\u0131m\u0131zda d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f de\u011fildir. Yarg\u0131tay’\u0131n bir karar\u0131nda, s\u00f6zle\u015fme \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden bir sonucu olarak daha \u00f6nce kabul edilen bir hukuki ili\u015fkinin sona erdirilmesinin de m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fu, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin do\u011fal yoldan sona ermesi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda taraflar\u0131n akdi ili\u015fkiyi sona erdirebilecekleri a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015f ve bu i\u015flemin ad\u0131 ikale olarak belirtilmi\u015ftir. \u2026<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u0130kale S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin Kurulmas\u0131<\/strong><\/h2>\n

\u0130kale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin (bozma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi) kurulmas\u0131na ve kapsam\u0131na ili\u015fkin herhangi bir \u00f6zel h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bu sebeple s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin kurulmas\u0131nda uygulanacak genel h\u00fck\u00fcmler burada da ge\u00e7erli olacakt\u0131r. Ancak i\u015f hukukunda s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin sona ermesine ba\u011fl\u0131 sonu\u00e7lar \u00f6nem arz etti\u011fi i\u00e7in bu noktada i\u015f\u00e7i yarar\u0131na yorum ilkesi g\u00f6z ard\u0131 edilmemelidir. Ger\u00e7ekten Yarg\u0131tay 9. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 21.04.2008 tarihli ve E. 2007\/31287, K. 2008\/9600\u00a0say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda bu durum \u015fu \u015fekilde \u00f6zetlenmi\u015ftir:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin bozma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yoluyla sona erdirilmesi, i\u015f hukukunu yak\u0131ndan ilgilendirdi\u011fi i\u00e7in\u00a0ikalenin yorumunda i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin yorumunda oldu\u011fu gibi, genel h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra i\u015f hukukundaki “i\u015f\u00e7i yarar\u0131na yorum” ilkesi de g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulacakt\u0131r. \u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u0130kale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131 de\u011fildir. \u0130kalenin ispat\u0131 da yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekle tabi de\u011fildir. \u0130kale her t\u00fcrl\u00fc delille ispat edilebilmektedir. Bu duruma ili\u015fkin Yarg\u0131tay 22. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 12.07.2012 tarihli ve E. 2012\/2235, K. 2012\/16652 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131:\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 \u0130\u015f\u00a0s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ikale yoluyla sonland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik iddialar\u0131n, ba\u015fka bir anlat\u0131mla ikalenin (s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin feshi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin) ispat\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131 de\u011fildir.\u00a0Her t\u00fcrl\u00fc delille ispat edilebilir. \u2026\u201d<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Her ne kadar ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131 de\u011fil ise de ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ispat g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn \u00f6n\u00fcne ge\u00e7mek maksad\u0131yla s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin yaz\u0131l\u0131 olmas\u0131 b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131r. Nitekim Yarg\u0131tay 22. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 28.02.2012 tarihli ve E. 2011\/9885, K. 2012\/2965 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 bir karar\u0131nda bu husus \u015fu \u015fekilde a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 Davac\u0131 daval\u0131 i\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan fesih bildiriminin ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f, daval\u0131 ise kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 anla\u015fmayla i\u015f akdinin sona erdi\u011fini savunmu\u015ftur. 31\/12\/2009 tarihli daval\u0131 \u015firket taraf\u0131ndan\u00a0ikale\u00a0amac\u0131yla yap\u0131lan yaz\u0131l\u0131 icap \u00fczerine taraflar aras\u0131nda\u00a0ikale\u00a0protokol\u00fc d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Davac\u0131 sat\u0131\u015f temsilcisi olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015f e\u011fitimli bir ki\u015fidir. Yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 belgenin anlam\u0131n\u0131 kavrayabilecek vas\u0131flara sahiptir. Ayr\u0131ca iradesinin sakatland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 da yaz\u0131l\u0131 kan\u0131t ya da tan\u0131k beyan\u0131 ile ispatlayamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. …\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

\u0130kale S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin Ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi ve Makul Yarar Kavram\u0131<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Vurgulanacak bir di\u011fer husus ise ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fi halidir. \u0130kale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin olu\u015fumunda bir irade sakatl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu ispat edilirse s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fi g\u00fcndeme gelecektir. Nitekim i\u015f\u00e7iye bask\u0131 uygulayarak ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi imzalatma fiili d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kurallar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil edecektir. Bu \u015fekilde ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile feshe kar\u015f\u0131 koruyucu h\u00fck\u00fcmler bertaraf edilmektedir.\u00a0 Kimi durumlarda i\u015fveren i\u015f\u00e7iyi tek tarafl\u0131 olarak i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131karmak istemekte ancak sonras\u0131nda ikale ile i\u015f ili\u015fkisi sona erdirilmektedir. Bu olas\u0131l\u0131kta i\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan asl\u0131nda ikale teklifi sunulmakta ancak ikale teklifinin i\u015f\u00e7iden geldi\u011fi izlenimi yarat\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bu tip durumlarda i\u015f\u00e7inin ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011funu ve iradesi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda imzalamak zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispatlamas\u0131 gerekecektir. Nitekim Yarg\u0131tay 7. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 24.12.2015 tarih, 2015\/39581 Esas ve 2015\/26608 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile irade fesad\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispatlayamayan i\u015f\u00e7inin davas\u0131 reddedilmi\u015f, i\u015fveren hakl\u0131 bulunmu\u015ftur:<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u201c\u2026Davac\u0131 ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini imzalarken irade fesad\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair iddias\u0131n\u0131 ispatlayamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Sonu\u00e7 olarak ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini ge\u00e7erli kabul edip davan\u0131n reddine karar vermek gerekirken kabul karar\u0131 verilmesi hatal\u0131d\u0131r. \u2026\u201d<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

\u0130kale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin olu\u015fumunda bir irade sakatl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu ispat edilebilirse, mevcut ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fi s\u00f6z konusu olaca\u011f\u0131ndan, i\u015fe iade h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden yararlanmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn hale gelebilecektir.<\/p>\n

\u0130kale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin akdedilmesinin bir sonucu olarak i\u015f\u00e7i feshe kar\u015f\u0131 koruma h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden faydalanma hakk\u0131n\u0131 kaybedecektir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla s\u00f6zle\u015fme taraflar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 menfaatlerin dengelenmesi ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla irade sakatl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n da ortaya koyulmas\u0131 gerekmektedir. Bu dengenin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilirken makul yarar \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fc kullan\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Makul yarar\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan ge\u00e7ersiz say\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Nitekim Yarg\u0131tay 9. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 21.04.2008 tarihli ve E. 2007\/31287, K. 2008\/9600 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 bir karar\u0131nda:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 \u0130\u015f ili\u015fkisi taraflardan her birinin bozucu yenilik do\u011furan bir beyanla sona erdirmeleri m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fu halde, bu yola gitmeyerek kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 anla\u015fma yoluyla sona erdirmelerinin nedenleri \u00fczerinde de durmak gerekir. Her \u015feyden \u00f6nce bozma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yapma konusunda icapta bulunan\u0131n makul bir yarar\u0131n\u0131n olmas\u0131 gerekir. \u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Makul yarar\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilirken, ilk olarak ikale teklifinin i\u015fverenden mi yoksa i\u015f\u00e7iden mi geldi\u011fine bak\u0131l\u0131r. Nitekim ikale teklifinin i\u015f\u00e7iden geldi\u011fi durumlarda i\u015f\u00e7iye \u00f6denmi\u015f olan k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 makul yarar olarak kabul edilebilirken, teklifin i\u015fverenden geldi\u011fi durumda k\u0131dem ve ihbar tazminat\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131nda i\u015f\u00e7iye ek bir menfaatin \u00f6denmesi gereklili\u011fi aranmaktad\u0131r. Bu ek menfaat belirlenirken i\u015f\u00e7inin pazarl\u0131k g\u00fcc\u00fc dikkate al\u0131n\u0131r. Ek menfaat telafi amac\u0131 g\u00fcder, olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131na g\u00f6re i\u015f\u00e7i y\u00f6n\u00fcnden menfaat dengesinin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 ad\u0131na kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131l\u0131r. \u0130\u015f\u00e7inin i\u015finden vazge\u00e7meyi tercih etmesi ile ya\u015fayabilece\u011fi olumsuzluklar\u0131n telafisini ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeyi hedefler. \u00dccret bir i\u015f\u00e7inin tek ge\u00e7im kayna\u011f\u0131 olup ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi imzalayarak i\u015fsiz kalan bir i\u015f\u00e7inin zarara u\u011frayaca\u011f\u0131 tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131zd\u0131r. \u0130\u015f\u00e7inin ikale sonucunda ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen fesih nedeniyle i\u015fsizlik sigortas\u0131ndan ve feshin koruyucu h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden faydalanam\u0131yor olmas\u0131 makul yarar \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn somutla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131nda dikkate al\u0131nabilir. Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131nda g\u00f6zlemlenen \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fctler ise genel olarak; i\u015f\u00e7inin k\u0131demi, ikalenin arka plan\u0131nda olan sona erme nedeni ile hakl\u0131 bir nedenin bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, i\u015f\u00e7inin ya\u015f\u0131 ve i\u015f yerindeki pozisyonu olarak belirlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Teklifin i\u015fverenden geldi\u011fi durumda ek menfaatin yakla\u015f\u0131k ne kadar s\u00fcrelik bir \u00fccrete tekab\u00fcl edece\u011fi konusunda her ne kadar belirli kriterler esas al\u0131nmakta ise de, Yarg\u0131tay\u2019\u0131n \u00e7e\u015fitli kararlar\u0131nda en az\u0131ndan bo\u015fta ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre \u00fccreti olarak belirlenen d\u00f6rt ayl\u0131k s\u00fcreye denk gelen bir \u00fccretin ek menfaat olarak verilmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Nitekim Yarg\u0131tay 22. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 12.09.2018 tarihli ve E. 2018\/10044, K. 2018\/18478 say\u0131l\u0131 bir karar\u0131nda:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 Somut olayda, davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fubenin kapand\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7i taraf\u0131ndan kendi el yaz\u0131s\u0131 ile daval\u0131ya hitaben yaz\u0131lan dilek\u00e7e ile … akdinin kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 sona erdirilmesine ili\u015fkin\u00a0ikale\u00a0teklifi yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ancak i\u015f\u00e7inin teklifinde kendisine i\u015f\u00e7ilik haklar\u0131 yan\u0131nda\u00a0ek menfaat\u00a0\u00f6demesi yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 da istedi\u011fi, bunun \u00fczerine imzalanan bozma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile davac\u0131ya t\u00fcm alacaklar\u0131na ili\u015fkin br\u00fct 17.998,97 TL \u00f6deme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, k\u0131demi ve son \u00fccretine g\u00f6re davac\u0131ya k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131, ihbar tazminat\u0131 ve yakla\u015f\u0131k \u00fc\u00e7 ayl\u0131k \u00fccreti kadar\u00a0ek menfaat\u00a0sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olup taraflar aras\u0131nda imzalanan ge\u00e7erli bozma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi uyar\u0131nca davan\u0131n reddine karar vermek gerekirken kabul karar\u0131 verilmesi hatal\u0131d\u0131r. \u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u015feklinde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmu\u015f ve teklifin i\u015f\u00e7iden geldi\u011fi bir durumda \u00fc\u00e7 ayl\u0131k \u00fccretin yeterli bir ek menfaat oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde karar verilmi\u015ftir. Ancak Yarg\u0131tay 22. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 25.02.2013 tarihli ve E. 2013\/3340, K. 2013\/3675 say\u0131l\u0131 bir karar\u0131nda:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 Davac\u0131dan istifa dilek\u00e7esinin al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte d\u00fczenlenen ibranamede \u00fc\u00e7 ayl\u0131k \u00fccreti tutar\u0131nda\u00a0ek menfaat\u00a0sa\u011flanm\u0131\u015f ise de davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015fyerinde ge\u00e7en hizmet s\u00fcresi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda\u00a0ikalenin di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin taraflar\u0131n anla\u015fmas\u0131 suretiyle sona erdirilmesine ili\u015fkin s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden gerekli olan makul yarar ko\u015fulu ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmemi\u015ftir. \u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00fc\u00e7 ayl\u0131k \u00fccret tutar\u0131nda ek menfaatin makul yarar ko\u015fulunu sa\u011flamayaca\u011f\u0131na h\u00fckmedilmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tay 22. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 25.02.2013 tarihli ve E. 2013\/3340, K. 2013\/3675 say\u0131l\u0131 bir karar\u0131nda ise:<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u201c\u2026 Dairemizin uygulamas\u0131na g\u00f6re, ikale icab\u0131n\u0131n i\u015fverenden geldi\u011fi durumda i\u015f\u00e7iye en az 4 ayl\u0131k \u00fccreti tutar\u0131nda menfaat\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 halinde s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ikale ile sona erdi\u011fi kabul edilmektedir. Somut olayda, davac\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7iye 2 ayl\u0131k \u00fccret tutar\u0131 kadar ek menfeat sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ikale ile de\u011fil, daval\u0131 i\u015fverenin feshi ile sona erdi\u011finin kabul\u00fc gerekir. \u2026\u201d<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

\u015feklinde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmu\u015f, 2 ayl\u0131k \u00fccret tutar\u0131 kadar ek menfaat yeterli g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f ve Dairenin uygulamas\u0131na g\u00f6re en az 4 ayl\u0131k \u00fccret tutar\u0131nda menfaatin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 halinde s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ikale ile sona erece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Yine ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde Yarg\u0131tay 9. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 26.03.2018 tarihli ve E. 2017\/21980, K. 2018\/6265 say\u0131l\u0131 bir karar\u0131nda:<\/p>\n

\u201c…En az\u0131ndan i\u015fe ba\u015flatmama tazminat\u0131n\u0131n alt s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 olan 4 ayl\u0131k \u00fccret tutar\u0131nda ilave bir ek \u00f6demenin yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekir. Zira feshin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fi istemi ile dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, feshin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fine karar verildi\u011finde alt s\u0131n\u0131r 4 ayd\u0131r ve bu alt\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015f Kanunu\u2019nun 21\/son maddesi uyar\u0131nca alt\u0131na inilemez…”<\/em><\/p>\n

\u015feklinde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmu\u015f, yine i\u015f\u00e7iye en az\u0131ndan i\u015fe ba\u015flatmama tazminat\u0131n\u0131n alt s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 olan 4 ayl\u0131k \u00fccret tutar\u0131nda ek bir \u00f6demenin yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131tay 22. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 24.03.2016 tarihli ve E. 2015\/27608, K. 2016\/7212 say\u0131l\u0131 bir ba\u015fka karar\u0131nda ise:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 Davac\u0131ya k\u0131dem ve ihbar tazminatlar\u0131 ile y\u0131ll\u0131k izin \u00fccreti d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ek \u00f6deme olarak daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan sunulan hesaplama tablosuna g\u00f6re net 1.5 ayl\u0131k \u00fccreti olmak \u00fczere 2.782,50 TL \u00f6deme yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Davac\u0131n\u0131n ikale yaparak i\u015ften ayr\u0131lmak istedi\u011fine dair bir dilek\u00e7esinin bulunmamas\u0131 ve davac\u0131ya yap\u0131lan ek \u00f6deme dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda makul yarar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu nedenle ikalenin i\u015fveren feshinden fark\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, davan\u0131n kabul\u00fc yerine yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde reddine karar verilmesi bozma nedenidir\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u015feklinde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmu\u015f olup bir bu\u00e7uk ayl\u0131k \u00fccretin makul yarar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lamaya yeterli olmayaca\u011f\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. K\u0131saca makul yarar kapsam\u0131nda i\u015f\u00e7iye sa\u011flanacak tutar belirlenirken somut olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcm y\u00f6n\u00fcyle de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekmektedir. \u00a0Ancak teklifin i\u015fverenden geldi\u011fi durumlarda, \u00e7o\u011funlukla yasal ihbar ve k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra en az 4 ayl\u0131k \u00fccrete tekab\u00fcl eden\u00a0ek menfaat\u00a0yeterli bulunmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u0130kale S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin \u0130\u00e7eri\u011fi<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Makul yarar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine i\u015f\u00e7inin do\u011fmu\u015f ama hen\u00fcz ifa edilmemi\u015f alacaklar\u0131na ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmler de koyulabilir. Ne var ki ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde taraflar sadece makul yarar kapsam\u0131nda bir \u00f6deme kararla\u015ft\u0131rm\u0131\u015flarsa ikale yap\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n da sona erdi\u011fi anlam\u0131na gelmez. Yarg\u0131tay 7. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 25.06.2014 tarihli ve E. 2014\/6965, K. 2012\/14379 say\u0131l\u0131 bir karar\u0131:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026Ancak ek menfaatin sa\u011flanm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 davac\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n da \u00f6dendi\u011fi anlam\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mamaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131 ile davac\u0131n\u0131n fazla mesai, hafta tatili, ulusal bayram genel tatil alaca\u011f\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda herhangi bir ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n eksik inceleme ile yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde karar verilmesi hatal\u0131 olup bozma nedenidir\u2026\u201d<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

\u015feklinde olup g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fczere i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131na ili\u015fkin ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine h\u00fck\u00fcm koyulamayaca\u011f\u0131na dair d\u00fczenleme bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bununla birlikte ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi do\u011frultusunda makul yarara y\u00f6nelik bir \u00f6deme yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6dendi\u011fini g\u00f6stermez. Nitekim k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131, y\u0131ll\u0131k izin \u00fccreti vb. i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131 ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin i\u00e7eri\u011finde, ancak makul yarar olarak belirlenecek tutardan ayr\u0131 bir kalem alacak olarak yer alabilir. Yine \u00f6nemle belirtmek gerekir ki; k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131n\u0131 tam kar\u015f\u0131lamayan ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ge\u00e7ersizdir. Nitekim Yarg\u0131tay 22. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 10.03.2020 tarihli ve E. 2016\/33187, K. 2020\/4662 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda bu husus vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 Davac\u0131ya \u00f6denen k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131n\u0131n, taraflar aras\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu olmayan \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma s\u00fcresi ve daval\u0131n\u0131n kabul etti\u011fi \u00e7\u0131plak br\u00fct \u00fccret \u00fczerinden \u00f6denmesi gereken k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131n\u0131 dahi kar\u015f\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, davac\u0131n\u0131n bilirki\u015fi raporu ile hesaplanan bakiye k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131n\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekir. Zira k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131n\u0131 tam kar\u015f\u0131lamayan ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ge\u00e7ersizdir. …\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

K\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 ve di\u011fer i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 olarak ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ihbar tazminat\u0131na ili\u015fkin \u00e7e\u015fitli tart\u0131\u015fmalar bulunmaktad\u0131r. Nitekim ihbar tazminat\u0131 usuls\u00fcz yap\u0131lan bir feshin yapt\u0131r\u0131m\u0131d\u0131r. \u0130\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin bildirimli fesih d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bir nedenle sona ermesi durumunda ihbar tazminat\u0131 yapt\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Yarg\u0131tay 9. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 21.02.1994 tarihli ve E. 1994\/2473, K. 1994\/2638 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda bu husus:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 Dosyadaki bilgi ve belgelerle, toplanan delillere g\u00f6re; daval\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7i, i\u015f aktini hakl\u0131 nedenle sona erdirdi\u011fini kan\u0131tlayamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ancak, y\u00f6netimde meydana gelen de\u011fi\u015fiklik \u00fczerine daval\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7i, \u00f6nceden bir tarih belirlemek suretiyle i\u015ften ayr\u0131lmak istedi\u011fini i\u015fverene bildirmi\u015f ve i\u015fveren de bunu uygun bulmak suretiyle kabul etmi\u015ftir. Hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, taraflar\u0131n anla\u015fmalar\u0131 ile bildirim \u00f6nelinin ge\u00e7mesi beklenmeksizin her zaman sona erdirilebilir. Hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini sona erdiren anla\u015fma a\u00e7\u0131k olabilece\u011fi gibi z\u0131mni de olabilir. Somut olayda, toplanan deliller ve dinlenen tan\u0131k ifadeleri ile daval\u0131n\u0131n i\u015fverene verdi\u011fi ve i\u015fverence de kabul edilen dilek\u00e7e ve olaylar\u0131n ak\u0131\u015f\u0131 birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde, hizmet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin taraflar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 r\u0131za ile sona erdi\u011finin kabul\u00fc gerekir. B\u00f6yle olunca da \u0130\u015f Kanununun 13. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn uygulanmas\u0131na imkan yoktur. Bu maddi ve hukuki olgular kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, davan\u0131n reddine karar vermek gerekirken, kabul\u00fc isabetsiz olup, bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u015feklinde belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ne var ki uygulamada taraflar\u0131n ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde ile ihbar tazminat\u0131 \u00f6denmesine y\u00f6nelik h\u00fck\u00fcmlere yer verdi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Bu durumda s\u00f6z konusu tutar ikale kapsam\u0131nda \u00f6denecek makul yarar kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilebilir.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sonu\u00e7<\/strong><\/h2>\n

\u0130kale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yap\u0131lmas\u0131yla birlikte taraflar aras\u0131ndaki i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ba\u015fka bir i\u015fleme gerek kalmadan sona erecektir. \u0130kale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi bir fesih olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi imzalanmas\u0131yla do\u011fumu feshe ba\u011fl\u0131 haklar da do\u011fmamaktad\u0131r. \u0130kale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi i\u00e7in herhangi bir \u015fekil \u015fart\u0131 bulunmamakla birlikte ispat bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin a\u00e7\u0131k ve yaz\u0131l\u0131 olarak yap\u0131lmas\u0131 \u00f6nem arz eder. \u0130kale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile i\u015f\u00e7inin haklar\u0131ndan mahrum kalaca\u011f\u0131 ve bu nedenle s\u00f6zle\u015fmede dengenin sa\u011flanm\u0131\u015f olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespiti ad\u0131na aranan unsur \u201cmakul yarar\u201dd\u0131r. Makul yarar somut olay\u0131n \u00f6zellikleri ile ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi teklifinin kimden geldi\u011fine g\u00f6re belirlenmektedir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla makul yarar kimi durumlarda sadece k\u0131dem ve ihbar tazminatlar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilirken kimi durumlarda bu \u00f6demelere ilave olarak ek menfaati de bar\u0131nd\u0131rmas\u0131 gerekir. Bu nedenlerle makul yarar\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi noktas\u0131nda \u00f6zellikle somut olay\u0131n \u00f6zellikleri dikkate al\u0131narak de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 daha uygun olacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n

T\u00fcm bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar neticesinde i\u015f\u00e7i ve i\u015fveren aras\u0131nda ortak bir irade mevcutsa hem i\u015fverenin hem de i\u015f\u00e7inin menfaatleri g\u00f6zetilerek i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesiyle sona erdirilmesi faydal\u0131 olacakt\u0131r. \u0130\u015fverenin s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi feshetmekte bir nedeninin bulunmas\u0131 halinde, dava y\u00fck\u00fcnden kurtulmak i\u00e7in i\u015f\u00e7iyle anla\u015fma yoluna gitmesi ve i\u015f\u00e7inin de ek menfaat sa\u011flamas\u0131 noktas\u0131nda iki taraf i\u00e7in de olumlu sonu\u00e7lar sa\u011flanacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Giri\u015f ve Tan\u0131m Genel tan\u0131m\u0131 itibariyle ikale, taraflar\u0131n \u00f6nceden yapm\u0131\u015f olduklar\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi, kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131p bozarak ortadan kald\u0131rmalar\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmektedir. Nitekim Yarg\u0131tay 9. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin, 21.04.2008 tarihli ve E. 2007\/31287, K. 2008\/9600 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda ikale s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden \u015fu \u015fekilde bahsetmektedir: \u201c\u2026 Bozma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi (ikale) yasalar\u0131m\u0131zda d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f de\u011fildir. Yarg\u0131tay’\u0131n bir karar\u0131nda, s\u00f6zle\u015fme \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden bir sonucu olarak daha \u00f6nce […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-389","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sozlesme-hukuku"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rodopluhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rodopluhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rodopluhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rodopluhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rodopluhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=389"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.rodopluhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":591,"href":"https:\/\/www.rodopluhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389\/revisions\/591"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rodopluhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=389"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rodopluhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=389"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rodopluhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=389"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}