{"id":40,"date":"2010-11-30T06:49:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-30T03:49:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cankattaskin.av.tr\/?p=40"},"modified":"2024-09-10T12:29:50","modified_gmt":"2024-09-10T09:29:50","slug":"yargitay-karariinternet-bankaciliginda-bankanin-hukuki-sorumlulugu","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cankattaskin.av.tr\/?p=40","title":{"rendered":"Yarg\u0131tay Karar\u0131:\u0130nternet Bankac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Bankan\u0131n Hukuki Sorumlulu\u011fu"},"content":{"rendered":"

Bili\u015fim hukuku alan\u0131nda bir karar\u0131 payla\u015f\u0131yorum.<\/p>\n

Kaynak: Kazanc\u0131 Bili\u015fim \u0130\u00e7tihat Bilgi Bankas\u0131<\/span><\/h4>\n

<\/a><\/h4>\n

T.C.<\/h4>\n

YARGITAY<\/h4>\n

11. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130<\/h4>\n

E. 2003\/8280<\/h4>\n

K. 2003\/7705<\/h4>\n

T. 12.9.2003<\/h4>\n

? TAZM\u0130NAT DAVASI ( Yap\u0131lan \u0130nternet Bankac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/span><\/span> S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde \u0130nternet Yoluyla \u00d6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmeyen Havale \u0130\u015fleminin Banka Taraf\u0131ndan Yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 Sonucu Olu\u015fan Zarar Nedeniyle )<\/h4>\n

? \u0130NTERNET BANKACILI\u011eI ( Banka Taraf\u0131ndan Verilen \u015eifrenin \u00d6zenle Saklanmas\u0131n\u0131n Gerekmesi-\u015eifrenin Ele Ge\u00e7irilmesi Sonucu Do\u011facak Zarardan Bankan\u0131n Sorumlu Tutulamamas\u0131 )<\/h4>\n

? \u0130NTERNET ARACILI\u011eI \u0130LE HAVALE ( Banka Taraf\u0131ndan Verilen \u015eifrenin Ba\u015fkas\u0131 Taraf\u0131ndan Ele Ge\u00e7irilmesi ile Yap\u0131lan Havale Nedeniyle Do\u011fan Zarardan Bankan\u0131n Sorumlu Olmamas\u0131 )<\/h4>\n

818\/m.41<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/h4>\n
\u00d6ZET : <\/strong>\u0130nternet bankac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/span><\/span> s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde, sonradan bankaca eklenecek internet<\/span><\/span> hizmetlerinden de davac\u0131n\u0131n yararlanaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Banka taraf\u0131ndan verilen internet<\/span><\/span> \u015fifresinin \u00f6zenle saklanma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc davac\u0131 banka m\u00fc\u015fterisine ait oldu\u011fundan, \u015fifrenin ba\u015fkas\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131larak hesaptan para havale edilmesi sonucu ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan zarardan banka sorumlu tutulamaz. <\/span><\/div>\n
DAVA : <\/strong>Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen davada \u0130stanbul Asliye 6.Ticaret Mahkemesi’nce verilen 29.01.2002 g\u00fcn ve 1999\/770 – 2002\/31 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 onayan Dairenin 10.12.2002 g\u00fcn ve 2002\/7999 – 11485 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 aleyhinde davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan karar d\u00fczeltilmesi iste\u011finde bulunulmu\u015f ve karar d\u00fczeltme dilek\u00e7esinin s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde verildi\u011fi de anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmakla, dosya i\u00e7in d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlenildikten ve yine dosya i\u00e7erisindeki dilek\u00e7e, layihalar, duru\u015fma tutanaklar\u0131 ve t\u00fcm belgeler okunup, incelendikten sonra gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcl\u00fcp d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc: <\/span><\/div>\n
KARAR : <\/strong>Davac\u0131 vekili, taraflar aras\u0131nda imzalanan “\u0130nternet Bankac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/span><\/span> S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde internet<\/span><\/span> yoluyla havale yapma hizmeti verilmesi \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi halde m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin eski m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc \u0130smail Emin Karc\u0131’n\u0131n verilen \u015fifreyi kullanarak \u015firket hesab\u0131ndan internet<\/span><\/span> yoluyla virman talimat\u0131 vererek kendi hesab\u0131na toplam 511.787 Amerikan Dolar\u0131 aktard\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131 bankan\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fmede belirtilmeyen y\u00f6ntemi kulland\u0131rmas\u0131 nedeniyle davac\u0131n\u0131n u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarardan m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen sorumlu bulundu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek, bu miktar\u0131n daval\u0131dan tahsiline karar verilmesinin talep etmi\u015ftir. <\/span><\/div>\n
Daval\u0131 vekili, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 3\/2 maddesinde sonradan bankaca eklenecek internet<\/span><\/span> hizmetlerinden de davac\u0131n\u0131n yararlanaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, davac\u0131n\u0131n da bu hizmetten yararlanarak havale i\u015flemi yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 4. maddesinde \u015fifrenin \u00f6zenle saklanmas\u0131 ve bu nedenle do\u011facak zararlardan davac\u0131n\u0131n sorumlu olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek, davan\u0131n reddini savunmu\u015ftur. <\/span><\/div>\n
Mahkemenin, davan\u0131n reddine dair verdi\u011fi karar\u0131n Dairemizce onanmas\u0131 \u00fczerine davac\u0131 vekili, bu kez karar d\u00fczeltme isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur. <\/span><\/div>\n
Dosyadaki yaz\u0131lara, mahkeme karar\u0131nda belirtilip Yarg\u0131tay ilam\u0131nda benimsenen gerektirici sebeplere g\u00f6re, davac\u0131 vekilinin HUMK.nun 440. maddesinde say\u0131lan hallerden hi\u00e7birisini ihtiva etmeyen karar d\u00fczeltme iste\u011finin reddi gerekir. <\/span><\/div>\n
SONU\u00c7 : <\/strong>Yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerden dolay\u0131, davac\u0131 vekilinin karar d\u00fczeltme iste\u011finin HUMK.nun 442. maddesi gere\u011fince REDD\u0130NE, al\u0131nmas\u0131 gereken 16.090.000.- lira karar d\u00fczeltme harc\u0131 pe\u015fin \u00f6denmi\u015f oldu\u011fundan yeniden al\u0131nmas\u0131na yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na, 3506 say\u0131l\u0131 yasa ile de\u011fi\u015ftirilen HUMK.nun 442\/3. madde h\u00fckm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca, takdiren 86.700.000.-lira para cezas\u0131n\u0131n karar d\u00fczeltilmesini isteyenden al\u0131narak Hazine’ye gelir kaydedilmesine, 12.09.2003 tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Avukat Dr. \u015eaban Cankat TA\u015eKIN-Bursa Barosu<\/div>\n