<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n\tResmi Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan karara g\u00f6re, 15 Mart 2021’de bir bankada yat\u0131r\u0131m uzman\u0131 olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya ba\u015flayan G\u00fcl\u015fah K., 13 Eyl\u00fcl 2021’de “performans yetersizli\u011fi” gerek\u00e7esiyle i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131.<\/p>\n
\n\tCOVID-19 nedeniyle 5-18 Eyl\u00fcl 2021 aras\u0131nda raporlu olan G\u00fcl\u015fah K.’ye fesih ihbarnamesi 18 Eyl\u00fcl 2021’de tebli\u011f edildi.<\/p>\n
\n\tBunun \u00fczerine \u0130stanbul 11. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesine “i\u015fe iade” talebiyle dava a\u00e7an G\u00fcl\u015fah K., fesih bildiriminin tebli\u011f tarihi itibar\u0131yla 6 ayl\u0131k k\u0131dem ko\u015fulunu sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etti.<\/p>\n
\n\tDaval\u0131 banka ise cevap dilek\u00e7esinde, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131n i\u015f akdinin 13 Eyl\u00fcl 2021’de hakl\u0131 nedenle sona erdirildi\u011fini, i\u015fe iadenin \u015fartlar\u0131ndan biri olan 6 ayl\u0131k k\u0131dem ko\u015fulunun ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fini savundu.<\/p>\n
\n\tG\u00fcl\u015fah K.’nin i\u015fe iadesine karar veren yerel mahkeme, i\u015fverence i\u015fe ba\u015flat\u0131lmamas\u0131 halinde davac\u0131ya 43 bin 666 lira tazminat \u00f6denmesine h\u00fckmetti.<\/p>\n
\n\tDavac\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131deminin 6 ay olmas\u0131na 2 g\u00fcn kala i\u015f akdinin feshedildi\u011fi hat\u0131rlat\u0131lan kararda, raporlu olmas\u0131 nedeniyle ihbarnamenin 18 Eyl\u00fcl 2021’de tebli\u011f edildi\u011fi, bu nedenle i\u015f g\u00fcvencesi h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden yararland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtildi.<\/p>\n
\n\tKararda ayr\u0131ca, fesih \u00f6ncesinde davac\u0131n\u0131n savunmas\u0131 al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan \u015fekil ve \u015fartlar\u0131na uygun yap\u0131lmayan feshin ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011funa i\u015faret edildi.<\/p>\n
\n\tKarara itiraz edilmesi \u00fczerine dosyaya bakan \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 31. Hukuk Dairesi ise daval\u0131 bankay\u0131 hakl\u0131 buldu.<\/p>\n
\n\tG\u00fcl\u015fah K.’nin i\u015f yerindeki k\u0131demini 5 ay 28 g\u00fcn olarak kabul eden daire, davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015f g\u00fcvencesi h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinden faydalanamayaca\u011f\u0131 sonucuna vararak davan\u0131n reddine kesin olarak karar verdi.<\/p>\n
\n\tKarar \u00fczerine G\u00fcl\u015fah K, AYM’ye bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulundu.<\/p>\n
\n\tAnayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar veren Y\u00fcksek Mahkeme, ihlal sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere karar\u0131n \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 31. Hukuk Dairesine g\u00f6nderilmesine h\u00fckmetti.<\/p>\n
\n\tAYM’nin karar\u0131nda, 6 ayl\u0131k k\u0131dem ko\u015fulunun, sa\u011fl\u0131k raporu ve fesih bildiriminin ba\u015fvurucuya ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihi esas alarak ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fini kabul eden yerel mahkemenin, karar\u0131nda bunu gerek\u00e7esiyle anlatt\u0131\u011f\u0131na i\u015faret edildi.<\/p>\n
\n\tKararda, istinaf mahkemesinin ise davay\u0131 neden reddetti\u011fine dair yeterli gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6stermedi\u011fi belirtildi.<\/p>\n