T\u00fcketici kredisi \u00e7eken vatanda\u015ftan 560 lira ‘dosya ve zorunlu masraf’ ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda kesinti yapan kamu bankas\u0131, paran\u0131n t\u00fcketiciye \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fine h\u00fckmeden t\u00fcketici hakem heyeti karar\u0131n\u0131n iptaline ili\u015fkin karar\u0131 mahkemeden d\u00f6nd\u00fc.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Taraflar\u0131n dilek\u00e7elerini de\u011ferlendiren mahkeme, bilirki\u015fi raporuna ihtiya\u00e7 duymadan, 6100 Say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu h\u00fck\u00fcmleri gere\u011fince duru\u015fma yapmadan ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 kararla, bankay\u0131 haks\u0131z bulup, hakem heyeti karar\u0131n\u0131 onad\u0131.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Kavakdere’nin Avukat\u0131 Yunus Emre Yavuz ise “Taraflar aras\u0131nda imzalanan s\u00f6zle\u015fme h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin 4077 say\u0131l\u0131 Yasa’n\u0131n 6. Maddesine g\u00f6re haks\u0131z \u015fartlar i\u00e7erdi\u011fini, kesilen masraflar\u0131n hangi sebeplerle kesildi\u011finin a\u00e7\u0131k ve somut olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fcyoruz. Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131nda da vurguland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere kredinin kulland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131nda zorunlu masraflar\u0131n neler oldu\u011fu konusunda ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn davac\u0131 bankaya ait oldu\u011funu kabul etmek gerekir. Davan\u0131n reddedilmesi gerekir.” diyerek mahkemeye savunma dilek\u00e7esini verdi.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ankara 2. T\u00fcketici Mahkemesi de olayda, bankan\u0131n kredi a\u00e7\u0131l\u0131rken veya yeniden yap\u0131land\u0131r\u0131l\u0131rken yap\u0131lmas\u0131 zorunlu mutad ve zorunlu olan masraflar\u0131 isteyebilece\u011fi, kredi verilmesi veya yeniden yap\u0131land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in gereken zorunlu masraflar\u0131n neler oldu\u011fu konusunda ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn bankaya d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne dikkat \u00e7ekti. Dosya \u00fczerinden karar veren mahkeme karar\u0131nda \u015fu ifadelere yer verdi: “Bunun d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda sebebi ve dayana\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klanmayan, i\u00e7eri\u011fi somutla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmayan s\u00f6zle\u015fmede ‘\u00fccret ve masraflar’ ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 alt\u0131nda maktuen belirlenen bir miktar\u0131n t\u00fcketiciden al\u0131naca\u011f\u0131na dair h\u00fckm\u00fcn 4077 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcketicinin Korunmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131ndaki Kanunun’un 6. Maddesi ile Haks\u0131z \u015eartlar Hakk\u0131ndaki Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fi’nin 7. Maddesi gere\u011fince haks\u0131z \u015fart niteli\u011finde bulundu\u011fu ve bu h\u00fckm\u00fcn bat\u0131l oldu\u011fu, bankan\u0131n dava konusu giderin kredinin verilmesinde ya da yeniden yap\u0131land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131nda zorunlu masraf niteli\u011finde bulundu\u011fu hususunu kan\u0131tlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 HMK’da ‘Mahkeme, m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olan hallerde taraflar\u0131 duru\u015fmaya davet etmeden dosya \u00fczerinden karar verir’ h\u00fckm\u00fc mevcuttur. Bu gerek\u00e7elerle cevap dilek\u00e7elerinin sunulmas\u0131 sonras\u0131nda dosyada yer alan kan\u0131tlar ile mahkememizdeki emsal dosyalar sebebiyle al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131 itibariyle olay yeterince ayd\u0131nland\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan HMK’n\u0131n 30. amir h\u00fck\u00fcm gere\u011fince bilirki\u015fi incelemesine de gerek duyulmam\u0131\u015f, duru\u015fma a\u00e7\u0131larak taraflar\u0131n dinlenmesine gerek duyulmadan dosya \u00fczerinden davan\u0131n reddine, karar verildi.”<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mustafa Kavakderesi, “Allah, yasay\u0131 \u00e7\u0131karanlardan ve mahkemeye savunma yapan avukat\u0131mdan raz\u0131 olsun. Bu bir adaletsizlikti, mahkeme buna k\u0131sa s\u00fcrede ‘dur’ dedi. Ocak ay\u0131nda hakem heyetine ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftum, k\u0131sa s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde dava tamamen bitti.” dedi.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" T\u00fcketici kredisi \u00e7eken vatanda\u015ftan 560 lira ‘dosya ve zorunlu masraf’ ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda kesinti yapan kamu bankas\u0131, paran\u0131n t\u00fcketiciye \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fine h\u00fckmeden t\u00fcketici hakem heyeti karar\u0131n\u0131n iptaline ili\u015fkin karar\u0131 mahkemeden d\u00f6nd\u00fc. Taraflar\u0131n dilek\u00e7elerini de\u011ferlendiren mahkeme, bilirki\u015fi raporuna ihtiya\u00e7 duymadan, 6100 Say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu h\u00fck\u00fcmleri gere\u011fince duru\u015fma yapmadan ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 kararla, bankay\u0131 haks\u0131z bulup, hakem heyeti […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":41426,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,20],"tags":[4409,1013,7024],"class_list":["post-41425","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ekonomi","category-turkiye","tag-kredi","tag-mujde","tag-tuketici"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41425","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=41425"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41425\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/41426"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=41425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=41425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.erzhaber.com.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=41425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nMustafa Kavakderesi, Ankara’da bir kamu bankas\u0131ndan t\u00fcketici kredisi \u00e7ekti. Banka, ‘zorunlu ve dosya masraf\u0131’ ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda Kavakderesi’nden 560 TL’lik kesinti yapt\u0131. Kavakderesi, Alt\u0131nda\u011f Kaymakaml\u0131\u011f\u0131 T\u00fcketici Sorunlar\u0131 Hakem Heyeti Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131’na m\u00fcracaat ederek dosya masraf\u0131n\u0131n iadesini istedi. Heyet, talebi yerinde bularak, paran\u0131n Kavakderesi’ne iadesine h\u00fckmetti. Kamu bankas\u0131 bu kez, mahkemeye m\u00fcracaat ederek karar\u0131n iptalini istedi. Banka avukat\u0131, hakem heyeti karar\u0131n\u0131n icras\u0131n\u0131n dava sonu\u00e7lan\u0131ncaya kadar tedbiren durdurulmas\u0131na karar verilmesini ve karar\u0131n iptalini talep etti.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n