<\/p>\n\n\n\n “G\u00f6rsel ve yaz\u0131l\u0131 bas\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferli temsilcileri. Bug\u00fcn sizlere, “\u0130stanbul’un ba\u011fr\u0131na saplanm\u0131\u015f han\u00e7erler” diye de\u011ferlendirdi\u011fimiz g\u00f6kdelenlerden birisi olan Dolmabah\u00e7e’deki S\u00fczer binas\u0131 ile ilgili olarak bir m\u00fcjde vermek istiyorum. B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediye Meclisimiz, Taksim Turizm ve Ticaret Merkezi ile ilgili bir karar alm\u0131\u015f ve tek imza ile 134 metreye \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan seviyeyi 24.50 metreye d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Belediye Meclisimizin bu karar\u0131, Bay\u0131nd\u0131rl\u0131k \u0130skan Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve Turizm Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131’nca da onaylanarak, kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir\u2026”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0130stanbul B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediye Ba\u015fkan\u0131 Nurettin S\u00f6zen<\/strong>, 26 Kas\u0131m 1992<\/em>‘de d\u00fczenledi\u011fi bas\u0131n toplant\u0131s\u0131ndaki konu\u015fma metninde kamuoyuna bu “m\u00fcjdeyi”<\/em> verirken, \u0130stanbul 3. Asliye, Hukuk Mahkemesi’nde de ilgin\u00e7 bir dava ba\u015fl\u0131yordu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1980 \u00f6ncesindeki planlarda kentin en \u00f6nemli ye\u015fil alanlar\u0131ndan biri olarak ayr\u0131lan Dolmabah\u00e7e yama\u00e7lar\u0131na 44 katl\u0131 bir g\u00f6kdelen dikmeye ba\u015flayan S\u00fczer, Cumhuriyet <\/strong>gazetesi ve Mimarlar Odas\u0131<\/strong> aleyhine 2 milyarl\u0131k tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f, gerek\u00e7esini ise \u015fu savlara dayand\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1-<\/strong>“G\u00f6kkafes” adl\u0131 bina, Bakanlar Kurulu karar\u0131 ile “Turizm Merkezi” olarak ilan edilen parselinde, Turizm Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile Belediye’nin onaylad\u0131\u011f\u0131 imar plan\u0131 ve projelere g\u00f6re in\u015fa edilen, ayr\u0131ca “\u00e7a\u011f\u0131n gere\u011fi” olarak da y\u00fcksek tutulan bir binayd\u0131. Mimarlar odas\u0131 bu “yasal” ve “\u00e7a\u011fda\u015f” binaya “beton canavar, kentsel cinayet” vb. gibi “\u00e7irkin ve yak\u0131\u015f\u0131ks\u0131z” su\u00e7lamalarda bulunarak, mal sahibi \u015firketi “kamuoyunda a\u015fa\u011f\u0131lamak, k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrmek gayesi” g\u00fctm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc. Cumhuriyet gazetesi de Oda’n\u0131n bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerini kamuoyuna yans\u0131tarak, “haks\u0131z fiil” niteli\u011finde yay\u0131n yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131. O nedenle, her iki kurum da “ticari itibarlar\u0131n\u0131 zedeledikleri” S\u00fczer \u015firketine 1 milyar lira “manevi tazminat” \u00f6demeliydiler\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2-<\/strong> Yine, gerek Mimar Odas\u0131’nca G\u00f6kkafes’e kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclen kampanya nedeniyle, gerekse Cumhuriyet gazetesinde binay\u0131 ele\u015ftiren yay\u0131mlan\u0131n s\u00fcrmesi sonucu, g\u00f6kdelenin 44 kat\u0131ndan 3 tanesini sat\u0131n almak isteyen bir firma, daha sonra “vazge\u00e7mi\u015f”; b\u00f6ylece S\u00fczer, bu al\u0131\u015fveri\u015fin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmemesi y\u00fcz\u00fcnden b\u00fcy\u00fck zarara girmi\u015fti. O nedenle de her iki kurum, “S\u00fczer’in kazanc\u0131na engel olduklar\u0131 i\u00e7in ayr\u0131ca 1 milyar lira “maddi tazminat” \u00f6demeliydiler\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0130\u015fte bu savlarla 28 Ekim 1992<\/strong> tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan ve hukuk tarihinde belki de ilk kez, bir kentin de\u011ferlerini korumak i\u00e7in \u00e7aba g\u00f6sterenlerin tazminat tehdidi” ile kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131klar\u0131 dava, taraflar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 su\u00e7lama ve savunmalar\u0131yla ba\u015flam\u0131\u015f oldu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ve yine belki de ilk kez, bir kente ve o kent halk\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a su\u00e7 i\u015fleyerek, bir ye\u015fil alan \u00fczerinde “ayr\u0131cal\u0131kl\u0131 imar hakk\u0131yla” g\u00f6kdelen in\u015fa edenler “davac\u0131”; buna kar\u015f\u0131n b\u00f6ylesi bir \u00e7evre cinayetinin durdurulmas\u0131 i\u00e7in \u00e7aba g\u00f6steren ve “ilgilileri uyaranlar” ise “daval\u0131” oluyorlard\u0131\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cumhuriyet Genel Yay\u0131n Y\u00f6netmeni \u00d6zgen Acar, “Tazminat Ter\u00f6r\u00fc”<\/strong> ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 yaz\u0131s\u0131nda, gazetenin bu davayla ilgili g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc okurlara \u015f\u00f6yle aktarm\u0131\u015ft\u0131:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Yasad\u0131\u015f\u0131l\u0131k \u00e7izgisinde bulunan ya da bireysel \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131n\u0131 toplumsal de\u011ferlerin \u00f6n\u00fcne koymak isteyen baz\u0131 ki\u015fi ya da kurumlar\u0131n, bas\u0131n aleyhinde tazminat davalar\u0131 a\u00e7malar\u0131 son g\u00fcnlerin modas\u0131\u2026 Dolmabah\u00e7e s\u0131rtlar\u0131nda y\u00fckselen bir cam kafes bina olay\u0131n\u0131 belgelere dayanarak okurlara duyurdunuz mu yand\u0131n\u0131z\u2026 Cumhuriyet hakk\u0131nda, Mimarlar Odas\u0131 ile birlikte tazminat davalar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Hem de iki milyar lira gibi rekor bir istemle\u2026 Ama\u00e7, gazetelere g\u00f6zda\u011f\u0131 vermektir\u2026 “Tazminat Ter\u00f6r\u00fc” yaratarak bas\u0131n\u0131 susturmakt\u0131r\u2026” (16 Kas\u0131m 1992)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Di\u011fer “daval\u0131” Mimarlar Odas\u0131 da mahkemeye sundu\u011fu “savunma” dilek\u00e7esinde, \u015fehircilik bilimine, kamu yarar\u0131na ve \u0130stanbul kentsel de\u011ferlerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclen bir yap\u0131y\u0131 ele\u015ftirmenin ve in\u015fas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nlemek i\u00e7in giri\u015fimlerde bulunman\u0131n “mesleki ve kurumsal g\u00f6revi” oldu\u011funu ayr\u0131nt\u0131lar\u0131yla a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015f: davaya konu olan belgeler aras\u0131ndaki, d\u00f6nemin Ba\u015fbakan\u0131 S\u00fcleyman Demirel ve t\u00fcm bakanlara g\u00f6nderdi\u011fi yaz\u0131da ise \u015funlar\u0131 vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Tarihsel kentimizde ikinci bir Park Otel facias\u0131na yol a\u00e7aca\u011f\u0131 t\u00fcm uzman kurulu\u015flarca ve Oda’m\u0131zca da dile getirilmi\u015f olan bu proje, \u0130stanbul’un Dolmabah\u00e7e b\u00f6lgesindeki tarihsel ve do\u011fal peyzaj\u0131m yok edece\u011fi gibi, y\u00f6redeki teknik ve sosyal altyap\u0131ya da \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc olmayan bir t\u0131kan\u0131kl\u0131k getirecektir\u2026 Bu nedenlerle, b\u00f6yle bir g\u00f6kdelene olanak sa\u011flayan 13\/8\/1984 g\u00fcnl\u00fc Bakanlar Kurulu Karar\u0131yla “turizm merkezi” ilan edilen S\u00fczer’in G\u00f6kkafes adl\u0131 binas\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lmak istendi\u011fi alan\u0131n, yeni bir Bakanlar kurulu Karar\u0131yla turizm merkezi olmaktan \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lmas\u0131 ve b\u00f6ylece, yak\u0131n ge\u00e7mi\u015fte \u0130stanbul’a y\u00f6nelik i\u015flenen kentsel su\u00e7lardan \u00e7ok \u00f6nemli birine h\u00fck\u00fcmetinizce “dur” denilmesini arzu ediyoruz\u2026”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n S\u00fczer’in a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 dava, hen\u00fcz “haz\u0131rl\u0131k soru\u015fturmas\u0131” a\u015famas\u0131ndayken, Cumhuriyet gazetesi ile Mimarlar Odas\u0131’n\u0131n ilgili ve sorumlu ki\u015fileri, 1992 y\u0131l\u0131 Aral\u0131k ay\u0131nda “san\u0131k” olarak savc\u0131l\u0131\u011fa ifade vermeye \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131ld\u0131lar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “San\u0131klar” \u0130stanbul Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 Bas\u0131n B\u00fcrosu’nda savc\u0131n\u0131n huzuruna \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131klar\u0131nda, S\u00fczer’in sadece “tazminat ter\u00f6r\u00fc” ile yetinmedi\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca G\u00f6kkafes’e “beton canavar” denildi\u011fi i\u00e7in “kendisine hakaret” edildi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle de “\u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7i oldu\u011funu” anlad\u0131lar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bu \u015fikayet \u00fczerine, “5680 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun 30. maddesine muhalefetten”, yani ki\u015fiye hakaret su\u00e7undan san\u0131k olan gazete ve Oda yetkilileri, tazminat davas\u0131ndaki “savunmalar\u0131n\u0131” Cumhuriyet Savc\u0131s\u0131’na da verdiler. Savc\u0131n\u0131n “kamu ad\u0131na” y\u00f6neltti\u011fi sorular\u0131, yine “kamu yarar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6zeterek ve kamu g\u00f6revi bilinci i\u00e7inde” davrand\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 anlatarak yan\u0131tlad\u0131lar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n B\u00f6ylece, hemen ayn\u0131 g\u00fcnlerde, bir yandan S\u00fczer\u2019in g\u00f6kdelen in\u015faat\u0131n\u0131n sesleri Dolmabah\u00e7e s\u0131rtlar\u0131nda “\u00f6zg\u00fcrce” yank\u0131lan\u0131rken, \u00f6b\u00fcr yandan Adliye’deki soru\u015fturma odas\u0131ndan da ifadelerin yaz\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 daktilo sesleri duyuluyordu. Sonunda, savc\u0131n\u0131n kanaati de G\u00f6kkafes\u2019i ele\u015ftirmek ve ele\u015ftirileri kamuoyuna duyurmakla “hakaret su\u00e7unun te\u015fekk\u00fcl etmedi\u011fi” y\u00f6n\u00fcnde olmu\u015f soru\u015fturma sonucunda verilen 31.12.1992 g\u00fcnl\u00fc “takipsizlik karar\u0131” \u015f\u00f6yle noktalanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Zikredilen sebeplerle Cumhuriyet gazetesinin yaz\u0131 i\u015fleri m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc F\u00fcsun \u00d6zbilgen<\/strong>, ayn\u0131 gazetenin muhabiri Remzi G\u00f6kda\u011f<\/strong> ve san\u0131k Oktay Ekinci <\/strong>hakk\u0131nda amme ad\u0131na takibata mahal olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na\u2026 CMUK’nun 164. ve 165. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca karar verildi.”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n “San\u0131klar” b\u00f6ylece savc\u0131l\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan aklan\u0131rken “daval\u0131” olarak yarg\u0131land\u0131klar\u0131 tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n ilk duru\u015fmas\u0131 ise 18 Aral\u0131k 1992 g\u00fcn\u00fc yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f. “sosyal ve ekonomik durumlar\u0131n\u0131n ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in, ikinci duru\u015fma 20 g\u00fcn sonraya ertelenmi\u015fti.<\/p>\n\n\n\n B\u00f6ylece ba\u015flayan ve bir y\u0131la yak\u0131n s\u00fcren yarg\u0131laman\u0131n ard\u0131ndan, \u0130stanbul 3. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi 30 Eyl\u00fcl 1993 tarihinde, “yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmeyen ve sabit olmayan davan\u0131n reddine” karar\u0131n\u0131 verdi. Mahkeme, 1993\/351 no.lu karan\u0131n\u0131 uzun ve ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 bir gerek\u00e7eyle a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131yor, karar metninde \u015fu ifadelere yer veriyordu:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Sehirci H. Prost’un haz\u0131rlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0130stanbul Plan\u0131’nda \u00fc\u00e7 b\u00fcy\u00fck parktan biri olarak g\u00f6sterilen Ma\u00e7ka-G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fsuyu Dolmabah\u00e7e \u00fc\u00e7genindeki vadinin, sonraki \u015fehir planlar\u0131nda da ye\u015fil alan olarak korunmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131\u2026”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n “Mimarlar Odas\u0131’n\u0131n, bu ta\u015f\u0131nmazda yap\u0131lmas\u0131 tasarlanan yap\u0131n\u0131n bittikten sonra alaca\u011f\u0131 bi\u00e7imi g\u00f6zeterek, bu yap\u0131n\u0131n \u015fehircilik bilimi ve sanat\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u0130stanbul\u2019a zarar verece\u011fi, kentsel \u00e7evre a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan k\u00f6t\u00fc bir \u00f6rnek olaca\u011f\u0131m\u0131 savundu\u011fu ve bu nedenlerle bu yap\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 i\u00e7in gerekli g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc idari ba\u015fvurular\u0131 ve a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve yapmaya devam edece\u011fi\u2026” \u0130stanbul 3. No.lu Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi’nin 30.09.1993 g\u00fcn ve 1993\/351 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131, \u00e7\u0131karc\u0131 kesimlerin, kente ve \u00e7evreye sahip \u00e7\u0131kanlar\u0131n \u00fczerinde kurmak istedikleri bask\u0131lara kar\u015f\u0131 “hukuksal g\u00fcvencenin” \u00f6nemli bir belgesi olma niteli\u011fini ta\u015f\u0131yor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n G\u00f6kkafes’ten \u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fc koskoca bir tarihsel kent a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a zarar g\u00f6r\u00fcrken; ve bu zarar, in\u015faat\u0131n her y\u00fckselen kat\u0131yla daha da katmerle\u015firken, binaya kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131ndan \u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fc “ki\u015fisel zarara” u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve bu nedenle tazminat isteme hakk\u0131n\u0131 kendinde g\u00f6rebilen bireyci anlay\u0131\u015flara, hukukun verdi\u011fi anlaml\u0131 bir yan\u0131t oluyor. S\u00fczer’in tazminat davas\u0131, “temyiz hakk\u0131” ile birlikte \u015fimdilik b\u00f6yle sonu\u00e7lan\u0131rken, bu davayla birlikte a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kan baz\u0131 konular\u0131n da art\u0131k “gecikilmeden soru\u015fturulmas\u0131 gerekiyor. Bunlar\u0131, ilgili ve yetkili t\u00fcm “adli” ve “idari” kurumlar\u0131n bir kez daha bilgilerine sunal\u0131m:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1) <\/strong>Binan\u0131n kat adedi, Belediye ve Bakanl\u0131k\u00e7a onayl\u0131 planlarda 8 kata inmi\u015fken ve bu nedenle in\u015faat, “8 katl\u0131 yeni bir projeyle ruhsat al\u0131n\u0131ncaya dek” m\u00fch\u00fcrlenmi\u015fken, herkesin g\u00f6z\u00fc \u00f6n\u00fcnde bu in\u015faat nas\u0131l h\u00e2l\u00e2 “ka\u00e7ak olarak” devam edebiliyor? Acaba, “san\u0131k” kimler?<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2)<\/strong> Bakanlar Kurulu bu arsay\u0131, “otel yap\u0131ls\u0131n ve \u00fclkeye d\u00f6viz gelsin” diyerek turizm merkezi yapm\u0131\u015f. Oysa dikilmek istenen g\u00f6kdelenin sadece % 18’i turizme ayr\u0131lm\u0131\u015f: gerisi ise “i\u015f merkezi”. Yani, asl\u0131nda kocaman bir “i\u015fhan\u0131”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bu proje, bu niteli\u011fiyle, devleti “turizm” diye kand\u0131r\u0131p, o nedenle \u00f6zel ve ayr\u0131cal\u0131kl\u0131 imar iznini kopanp, ard\u0131ndan i\u015f merkezi kurarak, bir t\u00fcr “suiistimal” i\u00e7ermiyor mu? Bu kand\u0131rmacada da acaba “san\u0131k” kimler?<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3) <\/strong>S\u00fczer, “binan\u0131n 3 kat\u0131n\u0131 satamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan” \u015fikayet\u00e7i ve bu nedenle tazminat istedi. Bir otelin \u00fc\u00e7 kat\u0131 sat\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6re, “turizm merkezi” hakk\u0131yla in\u015fa etti\u011fi binada “yap-sat\u00e7\u0131l\u0131k” yaparak, “kamu yarar\u0131” ad\u0131na elde etti\u011fi bir tart\u0131\u015fmal\u0131 imar iznini do\u011frudan “ki\u015fisel \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131” i\u00e7in kullanm\u0131\u015f olmuyor mu? Bakanlar Kurulu, i\u015f merkezi in\u015fa edip katlar\u0131n\u0131 satmak isteyen her m\u00fcteahhide, b\u00f6ylesi bir y\u00fcksek imar hakk\u0131 tan\u0131yabilir mi? Bu uygulaman\u0131n ad\u0131, “turizmi te\u015fvik” olabilir mi? Acaba, bu al\u0131\u015fveri\u015fte de “san\u0131k” kimler?..<\/p>\n\n\n\n G\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcyor ki G\u00f6kkafes, sadece g\u00f6rsel a\u00e7\u0131dan de\u011fil, kente ve topluma kar\u015f\u0131 sorumluluklar a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan da bir “\u00e7irkinlik abidesi” olarak y\u00fckseliyor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Zaten, kent ya\u011fmas\u0131 ne zaman g\u00fczellik yaratabilmi\u015f ki?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bu da davan\u0131n reddedildi\u011fine dair 19 Ekim 1993’te Cumhuriyet’te \u00e7\u0131kan haber.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n G\u00f6kkafes’in sahibinin a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 dava reddedildi<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n Mustafa S\u00fczer’in Mimarlar Odas\u0131 ile Cumhuriyet gazetesi aleyhine a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 2 milyar liral\u0131k tazminat davas\u0131nda mahkeme, ‘ret’ karar\u0131 verdi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0130stanbul Haber Servisi-<\/strong> Beton canavar “G\u00f6kkafes”in sahibi Mustafa S\u00fczer’in Mimarlar Odas\u0131 ile Cumhuriyet gazetesi aleyhine a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 2 milyar liral\u0131k tazminat davas\u0131nda mahkeme, ret” karar\u0131 verdi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0130stanbul 3. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi’nin karar\u0131nda, \u0130stanbul’un do\u011fal ve k\u00fclt\u00fcrel zenginli\u011fini tehdit eden Dolmabah\u00e7e’deki “G\u00f6kkafes” in\u015faatina kar\u015f\u0131 Mimarlar Odas\u0131’n\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kampanyan\u0131n “kamu yarar\u0131na” oldu\u011fu ve odan\u0131n “yasal g\u00f6revleri” i\u00e7erisinde bulundu\u011fu vurguland\u0131.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ayn\u0131 kararda, s\u00f6z konusu in\u015faata kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclen kambanyay\u0131 kamuoyuna duyuran Cumhuriyet gazetesinin de, anayasa ve yasalardan kaynaky\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc yerine getirdi\u011fi, G\u00f6kkafes’e y\u00f6nelik ele\u015ftirileri i\u00e7eren haberlerin di\u011fer yay\u0131n organlar\u0131nda da yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131, nitekim bu kampanya ve yay\u0131nlara ko\u015fut olarak yetkili mercilerce binan\u0131n y\u00fcksekli\u011finin sekiz kata indirildi\u011fi ve t\u00fcm bu eylemlerin “mesleki ve yasal” g\u00f6rev olarak yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtidi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mimarlar Odas\u0131 \u0130stanbul \u015eubesi, mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 “\u00e7\u0131karc\u0131 kesimlerin, kente ve \u00e7evreye sahip \u00e7\u0131kanlar\u0131n \u00fczerinde kurmak istedikleri bask\u0131lara kar\u015f\u0131 hukuksal g\u00fcvencenin anlaml\u0131 bir belgesi” olarak niteledi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dolmabah\u00e7e Turizm A\u015e, “beton canavar, kentsel cinayet, y\u00fckseklik korkusu” gibi haberlerle kendilerini a\u015fa\u011f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve aleyhte kamuoyu yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle gazetemize ve “ticari itibarlar\u0131n\u0131 karalamaya y\u00f6nelik” tebli\u011f ve yay\u0131nlar yapt\u0131klar\u0131 iddias\u0131yla da Mimarlar Odas\u0131’ na kar\u015f\u0131, 2 milyar liral\u0131k maddi ve manevi tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Ancak Mimarlar Odas\u0131 \u0130stanbul \u015eubesi ile gazetemizin imtiyaz sahibi Berin Nadi, Yaz\u0131i\u015fleri M\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc F\u00fcsun \u00d6zbilgen ve haberleri yapan muhabir Remzi G\u00f6kda\u011f aleyhinde a\u00e7\u0131lan 2 milyar liral\u0131k tazminat davas\u0131 mahkemece reddedildi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0130stanbul 3. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi, in\u015faat\u0131 ba\u015flatan \u015firketin 1 milyar lira maddi, I milyar lira da manevi tazminat talebini \u015fu gerek\u00e7elerle reddetti:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “S\u00f6z konusu in\u015faat, \u0130stanbul G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fsuyu’nda \u0130T\u00dc ile \u0130n\u00f6n\u00fc Stadyumu aras\u0131nda sade daval\u0131 gazete (Cumhuriyet) de\u011fil, di\u011fer bas\u0131n organlar\u0131nda da yay\u0131mlanan t\u00fcm \u0130stanbullular\u0131n bildi\u011fi ve kamuyu ilgilendiren y\u00fcksek irtifal\u0131 olaca\u011f\u0131, \u00e7evreyi, g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcy\u00fc bozaca\u011f\u0131 hususunda yayg\u0131n s\u00f6ylenti olan bir in\u015faatt\u0131r. T\u00fcrkiye’nin tarihi, co\u011frafi, turistik \u00f6neme haiz do\u011fal ve fiziksel g\u00fczellikleri kapsayan ve d\u00fcnyada da b\u00fcy\u00fck ve g\u00fczel \u015fehirlerin ilk s\u0131ralar\u0131nda gelen \u0130stanbul’un do\u011fal ve fiziki yap\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n ve g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn daha fazla bozulmamas\u0131, ye\u015fil alanlar\u0131n azalmamas\u0131, yeterince s\u0131k\u0131nt\u0131 yaratan altyap\u0131 hizmetlerinin daha da k\u00f6t\u00fcye gitmemesi gayesi ile daval\u0131 Mimarlar Odas\u0131’n\u0131n bu bina nedeni ile yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma bas\u0131na ve ilgili resmi mercilere ba\u015fvuru ve beyanatlar\u0131 yasadan kaynaklanan hakk\u0131n, kamu yarar\u0131 nedeni ile icras\u0131nda ibaret g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcp kas\u0131t ve haks\u0131z fiil unsuru g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011finden, ayr\u0131ca daval\u0131lar\u0131n sahip ve mensubu olduklar\u0131 gazetedeki ne\u015friyat\u0131nda anayasa ve yasalardan kaynaklanan g\u00fcncel ve kamuyu yak\u0131ndan ilgilendiren bir haber mahiyetinde olup manevi tazminat\u0131n yasal unsurlar\u0131ndan hi\u00e7biri ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fi gibi, davac\u0131 tan\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n yeterli g\u00f6r\u00fclmeyen ifadelerinden ba\u015fka maddi zarar olu\u015ftu\u011fu ispatlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, bir an i\u00e7in bu ne\u015friyat nedeni ile in\u015faat\u0131n yava\u015flamas\u0131 ya da durmas\u0131 hatta y\u00fcksekli\u011finin resmi mercilerce azalt\u0131lmas\u0131 hususlar\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclse bile, bu eylemlerin kasten davac\u0131ya zarar vermek gayesi ile de\u011fil, mesleki ve yasal g\u00f6rev icab\u0131 kamu yarar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda dava yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.”<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n “\u00d6zel Turizm B\u00f6lgesi” ilan edilmesinden sonra, \u0130n\u00f6n\u00fc Stadyumu’nun hemen yan\u0131nda yap\u0131m\u0131na ba\u015flanan G\u00f6kkafes, Turizm Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131’ndan 44 kat i\u00e7in izin alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Ancak daha sonra \u0130stanbul B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediye Meclisi, yap\u0131n\u0131n \u0130stanbul’a verece\u011fi zararlan g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne alarak imar plan\u0131nda kat s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131 8 kata indirince, Turizm ve Bay\u0131nd\u0131rl\u0131k bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 da in\u015faat\u0131 sekiz katla s\u0131n\u0131rlad\u0131. Bunun \u00fczerine in\u015faata ba\u015flayan Dolmabah\u00e7e Turizm \u015firketi, gazetemiz ve Mimarlar Odas\u0131 aleyhine s\u00f6z konusu davay\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yayg\u0131n bilinen ad\u0131yla \u201cG\u00f6kkafes\u201d sahiplerinin verdi\u011fi isimle S\u00fczer Plaza\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0130stanbul\u2019un sil\u00fceti parsel baz\u0131nda yap\u0131lan imar de\u011fi\u015fiklikleri ile de\u011fi\u015fti. Bu de\u011fi\u015fimin \u00f6nc\u00fcs\u00fc bug\u00fcn S\u00fczer Plaza olarak da bilinen G\u00f6kkafes’ti.<\/p>\n\n\n\n D\u00f6nemin belediye ba\u015fkan\u0131n\u0131n dikey olmas\u0131n\u0131 istedi\u011fi \u201cG\u00f6kkafes\u201d di\u011fer binalar\u0131n \u201c\u00f6nc\u00fcs\u00fc\u201d oldu. \u0130stanbul 2000\u2019li y\u0131llarda Sultanahmet Camii\u2019nin minarelerinin arkas\u0131ndaki kuleler ile tan\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Tarihi \u0130stanbul kadar eski olan \u0130stanbul sil\u00fcetini neden koruyamad\u0131k? Korumak isteyenleri, kim nas\u0131l engelledi?<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0130\u015fte yan\u0131t\u0131\u2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0130stanbul\u2019a tepeden bakan Dolmabah\u00e7e\u2019deki bu binan\u0131n yap\u0131l\u0131\u015f \u00f6yk\u00fcs\u00fc, T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de imar anlam\u0131nda \u201colmaz\u0131n\u201d nas\u0131l olabildi\u011finin de g\u00f6steren \u00f6rneklereden biridir. 18 y\u0131l boyunca \u201cisteyenler\u201d ve \u201cistemeyenler\u201din tart\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131na konu olan 134 metrelik, 34 katl\u0131 \u201cG\u00f6kkafes\u201din \u00f6yk\u00fcs\u00fc 1983 y\u0131l\u0131nda ba\u015flad\u0131 ve 2001 y\u0131l\u0131na kadar devam etti.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1983 y\u0131l\u0131nda S\u00fczer Grup, \u201cG\u00f6kkafes\u201din in\u015fa edildi\u011fi araziyi 159 milyon liraya sat\u0131n ald\u0131. Arazi, sat\u0131n al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte imar plan\u0131nda ye\u015fil alan olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcyordu. Sat\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131ndan tam 17 g\u00fcn sonra 12 Eyl\u00fcl askeri darbesi ard\u0131ndan kurulan B\u00fclent Ulusu H\u00fck\u00fcmeti \u201cG\u00f6kkafes\u201de yol verdi. 22 Temmuz 1983\u2019te, Devlet Planlama Te\u015fkilat\u0131\u2019ndan (DPT) ayn\u0131 araziye otel yapma izni \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131. Belli ki, sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n \u00e7ok \u00f6ncesinden Ankara koridorlar\u0131nda proje i\u00e7in giri\u015fimler ba\u015flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131. DPT\u2019nin verdi\u011fi in\u015faat izni 8 kat veya 24 metre y\u00fckseklikle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131yd\u0131. 8 kat izinli otelin 34 kata \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131n\u0131n yoluysa yakla\u015f\u0131k bir y\u0131l sonra Ankara\u2019dan gelen kararla a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 13 Haziran 1984\u2019de Bakanlar Kurulu s\u00f6z konusu araziyi turizm alan\u0131 ilan etti. Ayn\u0131 y\u0131l Anavatan Partisi\u2019nden \u0130stanbul Anakent Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 koltu\u011funa oturan Bedrettin Dalan d\u00f6neminde Belediye Meclis\u2019ine getirilmeden tek bir imza ile yap\u0131lan de\u011fi\u015fiklikle \u201cG\u00f6kkafes\u201din y\u00fcksekli\u011fi 134 metreye, i\u015fyeri yo\u011funlu\u011fu ise y\u00fczde 80\u2019e \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1987 y\u0131l\u0131nda belediyeden al\u0131nan ruhsatla in\u015faat\u0131n temeli at\u0131ld\u0131. 1989 y\u0131l\u0131nda B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediye Ba\u015fkan\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fti. \u0130stanbul B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 koltu\u011funa oturan Nurettin S\u00f6zen \u201cG\u00f6kkafes\u201di durdurmak istedi, in\u015faat\u0131 m\u00fch\u00fcrledi, \u201ctarihi silueti bozdu\u011fu\u201d iddias\u0131yla hukuk m\u00fccadelesi ba\u015flatt\u0131. M\u00fch\u00fcrleme i\u015fleminin Beyo\u011flu Belediyesi taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011finden, S\u00fczer Grup, a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davay\u0131 kazanarak m\u00fchr\u00fcn kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flad\u0131. Ayn\u0131 y\u0131l Beyo\u011flu Belediyesi de plan tadilat\u0131 yaparak, in\u015faat iznini 24.5 metre y\u00fcksekli\u011fine indirdi. Ekim 1992\u2019de Bay\u0131nd\u0131rl\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131\u2019n\u0131n in\u015faat\u0131n 24.4 metreyi ge\u00e7meyece\u011fi karar\u0131, \u0130stanbul B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediyesi\u2019ne ula\u015ft\u0131. Karar 4 Kas\u0131m 1992\u2019de Turizm Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131\u2019nca onayland\u0131. \u201cG\u00f6kkafes\u201din art\u0131k y\u00fckselmeyece\u011fi \u00fcmitleri belirmi\u015fken Dan\u0131\u015ftay 6. Dairesi de m\u00fch\u00fcrleme davas\u0131nda in\u015faat sahipleri lehine karar verince in\u015faat yeniden y\u00fckselmeye ba\u015flad\u0131. \u201cG\u00f6kkafes\u201din y\u00fckselmemesi i\u00e7in u\u011fra\u015fan \u0130stanbul\u2019un eski B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediye Ba\u015fkanlar\u0131ndan Nurettin S\u00f6zen, \u201cG\u00f6kkafes\u201din arkas\u0131nda siyasi koruma oldu\u011funu s\u00f6yl\u00fcyordu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1994\u2019te \u0130stanbul B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6revine gelen Recep Tayyip Erdo\u011fan \u201cG\u00f6kkafes\u201din y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131 i\u00e7in \u00e7aba harcad\u0131. B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediyesi b\u00f6lgenin S\u0130T alan\u0131 ilan edilmesi i\u00e7in harekete ge\u00e7ti ve 26 Haziran 1997\u2019de \u201cG\u00f6kkafes\u201di bir kez daha m\u00fch\u00fcrledi. Beyo\u011flu Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 hukuk\u00e7ular\u0131, 1997\u2019de s\u00f6z konusu araziye bina yap\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131na dair Abd\u00fclhamit \u015ferhinin tapuya konulmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden mahkemeye ba\u015fvurdu. \u0130n\u015faat alan\u0131n\u0131n ba\u011fl\u0131 oldu\u011fu Beyo\u011flu Belediyesi\u2019nin a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 dava in\u015faat\u0131 zora sokuyordu. Bu zorlu\u011fu a\u015facak form\u00fcl de bulundu. D\u00f6nemin h\u00fck\u00fcmetinin iktidar ortaklar\u0131ndan ANAP\u2019\u0131n giri\u015fimiyle \u0130stanbul Valili\u011fi s\u00f6z konusu b\u00f6lgedeki il\u00e7e belediyesi s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131 de\u011fi\u015ftirdi. \u201cG\u00f6kkafes\u201d in\u015faat\u0131n\u0131n ba\u011fl\u0131 oldu\u011fu alan bir g\u00fcnde Beyo\u011flu Belediyesi s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131, \u015ei\u015fli Belediyesi s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131na dahil edildi. ANAP\u2019l\u0131 \u015ei\u015fli Belediye Ba\u015fkan\u0131 C\u00fcneyt Akg\u00fcn\u2019\u00fcn \u201cG\u00f6kkafes\u201de kar\u015f\u0131 bir giri\u015fimi olmad\u0131.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 10 Eyl\u00fcl 1998\u2019de Turizm Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131\u2019n\u0131n resen onaylad\u0131\u011f\u0131 imar plan\u0131 \u201cG\u00f6kkafes\u201din rahat\u00e7a y\u00fckselmesi i\u00e7in \u00f6n\u00fcndeki engelleri kald\u0131rd\u0131. Mesut Y\u0131lmaz Ba\u015fbakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131\u2019ndaki ANAP-DSP-DTP H\u00fck\u00fcmeti\u2019nin Turizm Bakan\u0131 \u0130brahim G\u00fcrdal d\u00f6neminde \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan bu imar plan\u0131 da yarg\u0131ya ta\u015f\u0131nd\u0131. Dan\u0131\u015ftay 6. Dairesi 2\u2019ye kar\u015f\u0131 3 \u00fcyenin oyuyla s\u00f6z konusu Uygulama imar Plan\u0131\u2019n\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fctmesinin durdurulmas\u0131n\u0131 kararla\u015ft\u0131rd\u0131. Davac\u0131 \u0130stanbul B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediyesi\u2019nin itiraz\u0131n\u0131 Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u0130dari Dava Daireleri Genel Kurulu de\u011ferlendirdi ve 12\u2019ye kar\u015f\u0131 15 \u00fcyenin oyuyla karar\u0131 bozdu yani Turizm Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131\u2019n\u0131n plan\u0131na onay verdi. Bu karar art\u0131k \u201cG\u00f6kkafes\u201din \u00f6n\u00fcn\u00fcn yarg\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan da a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na i\u015faret ediyordu. 28 Nisan 2001 tarihli bu karardan \u00e7ok k\u0131sa bir s\u00fcre sonra da \u201cG\u00f6kkafes\u201d a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Dolmabah\u00e7e’nin ye\u015fil yama\u00e7lar\u0131nda y\u00fckselen G\u00f6kkafes, “turizmi te\u015fvik” ad\u0131na g\u00f6kdelen hakk\u0131n\u0131 koparan, buna kar\u015f\u0131 y\u00fczde 82’si “ticaret merkezi” olan ayr\u0131cal\u0131kl\u0131 bir i\u015fhan\u0131 projesi niteli\u011finde.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":65027,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1320],"tags":[1306,1309,1308,1307],"class_list":["post-65023","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-remzi-gokdag-cumhuriyet-haber-arsivi-1993","tag-gokkafes","tag-imar-affi","tag-imar-plani","tag-suzer-plaza"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.remgo.com\/11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65023","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.remgo.com\/11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.remgo.com\/11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.remgo.com\/11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.remgo.com\/11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65023"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.remgo.com\/11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65023\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.remgo.com\/11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/65027"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.remgo.com\/11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65023"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.remgo.com\/11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65023"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.remgo.com\/11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65023"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.remgo.com\/11\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/93.10.31_p14_cumdergi.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
\u0130lk soru\u015fturma “hakaret” \u00fczerine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Ve tazminat davas\u0131nda da “ret” karar\u0131<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
“Cumhuriyet gazetesindeki yaz\u0131lar\u0131m g\u00fcncel ve ger\u00e7ek birer haber olarak kamuoyunu ayd\u0131nlatmak ve kamu yaran gayesi ile ne\u015fredildi\u011fi, kas\u0131t unsuru bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131\u2026”
“T\u00fcrkiyenin tarihi, co\u011frafi, turistik \u00f6neme haiz do\u011fal ve fiziksel g\u00fczelliklerini kapsayan ve d\u00fcnyada da b\u00fcy\u00fck ve g\u00fczel \u015fehirlerin ilk s\u0131ralarinda gelen \u0130stanbul’un do\u011fal ve fiziki yap\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 ve g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn daha fazla bozulmamas\u0131, ye\u015fil alanlar\u0131 azalmamas\u0131, yeterince s\u0131k\u0131nt\u0131 yaratan altyap\u0131 hizmetlerinin daha da k\u00f6t\u00fcye gitmemesi gayesi ile daval\u0131 Oda’n\u0131n bu bina nedeniyle yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 yasadan kaynaklanan hakk\u0131n, kamu yarar\u0131 nedeni ile icras\u0131ndan ibaret g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcp kas\u0131t ve haks\u0131z fil unsuru g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011finden ayr\u0131ca daval\u0131lar\u0131n sahip ve mensubu olduklar\u0131 gazetedeki ne\u015friyat\u0131n da Anayasa ve yasalardan kaynaklanan, mesleki ve yasal g\u00f6rev icab\u0131 kamu yarar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda dava yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir\u2026”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\u015eimdi “san\u0131k” kimler?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
KAYNAK: CUMHUR\u0130YET DERGI 31 EKIM 1993 SAYI 397<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Cumhuriyet’e tazminat davas\u0131<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.remgo.com\/11\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/93.10.19_p3.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nG\u00f6kkafes’in Hikayesi<\/h2>\n\n\n\n