Dan\u0131\u015ftay, Yeni\u015fehir Kirazl\u0131yayla k\u00f6y\u00fcnde, Meyra Madencilik i\u00e7in \u00c7evre Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131’nca verilen \u00c7ED olumlu raporuna itirazlar\u0131 reddeden Bursa 1\u2019inci \u0130dare Mahkemesi’nin karar\u0131n\u0131 bozdu.<\/p>\n
\u00c7ED \u0130PTAL\u0130 DAVASININ REDD\u0130NE KARAR VERM\u0130\u015eT\u0130<\/strong><\/p>\n Kirazl\u0131yayla k\u00f6y\u00fcnde \u00c7inko-Bak\u0131r-Kur\u015fun Zenginle\u015ftirme Tesisi ve at\u0131k baraj\u0131 kurmak isteyen Meyra Madencilik \u015firketine kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan \u2018\u00c7ED olumlu raporunun iptali\u2019 davas\u0131nda Bursa 1\u2019inci \u0130dare Mahkemesi\u2019nin davan\u0131n reddine karar vermesi \u00fczerine k\u00f6yl\u00fcler k\u00f6y meydan\u0131nda eylem yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131.<\/p>\n Kirazl\u0131yayla Yard\u0131mla\u015fma ve Dayan\u0131\u015fma Derne\u011fi, 23 vatanda\u015f\u0131n \u00c7evre, \u015eehircilik ve \u0130klim De\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131’na kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davaya, davac\u0131lar yan\u0131nda Bursa Barosu Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 da m\u00fcdahil olarak yer ald\u0131, baroyu \u00c7evre ve Kent Hukuku Komisyonu Ba\u015fkan\u0131 Av. Eralp Atabek temsil etti.<\/p>\n DANI\u015eTAY, GEREK\u00c7EL\u0130 KARARINI A\u00c7IKLADI\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Bursa 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesi’nin, \u00c7evre, \u015eehircilik ve \u0130klim De\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131’nca s\u00f6z konusu tesis i\u00e7in verilen \u201c\u00c7evresel Etki De\u011ferlendirmesi (\u00c7ED) olumlu\u201d karar\u0131n\u0131n iptali istemini reddetmesi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurulan Dan\u0131\u015ftay 6. Dairesi’nin karar\u0131nda \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yle denildi:<\/p>\n \u201c\u00d6ncelikle, \u00c7ED kararlar\u0131n\u0131n yarg\u0131sal denetiminin, \u00e7evresel etki de\u011ferlendirmesi s\u00fcrecinde verilen kurum g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerinin de hukuka uygunluk denetimini i\u00e7erdi\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu itibarla, DS\u0130 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcn ya da bilirki\u015filerce eksiklik olarak saptanan bir hususun, DS\u0130 ile yap\u0131lan bir protokole dayanmas\u0131n\u0131n, tek ba\u015f\u0131na, s\u00f6z konusu hususun teknik ve bilimsel a\u00e7\u0131dan hukuka uygun olarak kabul edilmesi sonucunu do\u011furmayaca\u011f\u0131 tabiidir.<\/p>\n Mahkemece h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan ek bilirki\u015fi raporunda ise, projenin su kaynaklar\u0131na ve floraya etkileri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden, k\u00f6k bilirki\u015fi raporunda var\u0131lan kanaatin aksine, dava konusu i\u015flemin hukuka uygun oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde kanaat bildirilmesinin tek sebebi, proje kapsam\u0131nda end\u00fcstriyel ama\u00e7l\u0131 kullan\u0131lacak olan suyun \u0130znik G\u00f6l\u00fcnden temin edilmesinin, DS\u0130 1. B\u00f6lge M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcyle yap\u0131lan protokole dayanmas\u0131 olarak g\u00f6sterilmi\u015ftir.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cEK RAPORUN KEND\u0130 \u0130\u00c7\u0130NDE \u00c7EL\u0130\u015eK\u0130L\u0130 OLDU\u011eUNU G\u00d6STERD\u0130\u011e\u0130 \u015eEKL\u0130NDEK\u0130 \u0130DD\u0130ALARA YER VER\u0130LM\u0130\u015eT\u0130R\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Davac\u0131 ve davac\u0131 yan\u0131nda m\u00fcdahiller taraf\u0131ndan sunulan temyiz dilek\u00e7elerinde, mevcut bilirki\u015filerin g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f de\u011fi\u015ftirmesinin makul gerek\u00e7elere dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildiren Dan\u0131\u015ftay, devam\u0131nda \u015fu ifadelere yer verdi;<\/p>\n \u201cEk raporda eksiklik ve sorun olarak belirtilen hususlar\u0131n tek ba\u015flar\u0131na dahi i\u015flemin iptalini gerektirdi\u011fi, bu itibarla, s\u00f6z konusu eksikliklere ra\u011fmen, ilk rapordan farkl\u0131 sonuca var\u0131larak dava konusu i\u015flemin hukuka uygun oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde kanaat bildirilmesinin, ek raporun kendi i\u00e7inde \u00e7eli\u015fkili oldu\u011funu g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi \u015feklindeki iddialara yer verilmi\u015ftir.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cMAHKEME KARARINDA HUKUK\u0130 \u0130SABET BULUNMAMAKTADIR\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cBu durumda, \u0130dare Mahkemesince, taraflar\u0131n iddia ve savunmalar\u0131, Nihai \u00c7ED Raporunu haz\u0131rlayanlar\u0131n uzmanl\u0131k alanlar\u0131, b\u00f6lgenin ve projenin \u00f6zellikleri de dikkate al\u0131narak, dava konusu projenin \u00e7evresel etkilerinin ve bu etkilerin en aza indirilmesi i\u00e7in al\u0131nmas\u0131 gereken \u00f6nlemlerin \u00c7ED Raporunda yeterli \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirilip de\u011ferlendirilmedi\u011finin, bu do\u011frultuda verilen taahh\u00fctlerin ve al\u0131nan \u00f6nlemlerin teknik ve bilimsel a\u00e7\u0131dan yeterli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmesi amac\u0131yla, biri \u00e7evre m\u00fchendisi olmak \u00fczere, \u00fcniversitelerin ilgili b\u00f6l\u00fcmlerinden se\u00e7ilecek yeni bir bilirki\u015fi heyetiyle mahallinde yeniden ke\u015fif ve bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ve bunun sonucunda d\u00fczenlenecek raporun incelenmesi suretiyle yeniden karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Bu itibarla, davan\u0131n reddine ili\u015fkin Mahkeme karar\u0131nda hukuki isabet bulunmamaktad\u0131r.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Dan\u0131\u015ftay 6. Dairesi, Meyra M\u00fchendislik Proje ve Madencilik Ltd. \u015eti.\u2019nin Bursa\u2019n\u0131n Yeni\u015fehir \u0130l\u00e7esi Kirazl\u0131yayla Mahallesi\u2019nde ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7inko-bak\u0131r zenginle\u015ftirme tesisin \u00e7evreye ve insan sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131na zarar verece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada Bursa 1. \u0130dare Mahkemesi\u2019nce verilen ret karar\u0131n\u0131 bozdu.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":63805,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[247,775,580,505,9896],"class_list":["post-63804","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-gundem","tag-cevre","tag-dava","tag-karar","tag-mahkeme","tag-raporun"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63804","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=63804"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63804\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":63806,"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63804\/revisions\/63806"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/63805"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=63804"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=63804"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/haberulus.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=63804"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}