In Terms of The Right to Request Review of Judgement, Rejection of More Than One Judges in Administrative Courts and Regional Administrative Courts

Muhammed Göçgün

Makale detayları

In Terms of The Right to Request Review of Judgement, Rejection of More Than One Judges in Administrative Courts and Regional Administrative Courts

Yazarlar:

Muhammed Göçgün

Yayıncı:

Anadolu University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 1, pp.163-184

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

2/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001341311

pISSN:

2687-394X

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Although the independence of the courts, which is one of the requirements of the right to a fair trial and thus of the rule of law, is explicitly regulated in the Constitution, there is no direct constitutional regulation on the impartiality of judges. The impartiality of judges was sought to be ensured through the institution of prohibition and recusal of judges in the procedural laws. Articles 56 and 57 of the Code of Administrative Procedure No. 2577 also provide rules on the rejection of judges serving in administrative judicial authorities. In addition, it is stated in Article 31 of the Law that in cases where there is no regulation in Law No. 2577, the relevant rules of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 will be applied. One aspect of the right to recourse to legal remedies granted to the parties to a legal dispute in order to exercise the freedom to seek justice and the right to a fair trial in accordance with the principle of the rule of law is the right to request review of the judgment. This right serves to ensure that judicial decisions are taken before a different court of law to be reviewed once again and to correct any possible errors in the decision. According to Article 57, paragraph 4 of the Law No. 2577, in the event that the administrative and regional administrative courts decide to rejection of more than one president and members, the case will be legally resolved by the regional administrative court and the Council of State, which decide on the rejection requests. As a result of this regulation, the regional administrative court, which is normally required to carry out an appeal review in the process of resolving the dispute with a final judgement, becomes the court of first stage, and the Council of State, which is responsible for carry out an appellate review, becomes the second stage judicial authority. This situation leads to an indirect limitation of the right of relevants to request a review of the judgement. In this study, the illegality of this restriction is determined within the framework of the judgments of the Constitutional Court and suggestions are made for the solution of the current legal problem.

 Although the independence of the courts, which is one of the requirements of the right to a fair trial and thus of the rule of law, is explicitly regulated in the Constitution, there is no direct constitutional regulation on the impartiality of judges. The impartiality of judges was sought to be ensured through the institution of prohibition and recusal of judges in the procedural laws. Articles 56 and 57 of the Code of Administrative Procedure No. 2577 also provide rules on the rejection of judges serving in administrative judicial authorities. In addition, it is stated in Article 31 of the Law that in cases where there is no regulation in Law No. 2577, the relevant rules of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 will be applied. One aspect of the right to recourse to legal remedies granted to the parties to a legal dispute in order to exercise the freedom to seek justice and the right to a fair trial in accordance with the principle of the rule of law is the right to request review of the judgment. This right serves to ensure that judicial decisions are taken before a different court of law to be reviewed once again and to correct any possible errors in the decision. According to Article 57, paragraph 4 of the Law No. 2577, in the event that the administrative and regional administrative courts decide to rejection of more than one president and members, the case will be legally resolved by the regional administrative court and the Council of State, which decide on the rejection requests. As a result of this regulation, the regional administrative court, which is normally required to carry out an appeal review in the process of resolving the dispute with a final judgement, becomes the court of first stage, and the Council of State, which is responsible for carry out an appellate review, becomes the second stage judicial authority. This situation leads to an indirect limitation of the right of relevants to request a review of the judgement. In this study, the illegality of this restriction is determined within the framework of the judgments of the Constitutional Court and suggestions are made for the solution of the current legal problem.

 Although the independence of the courts, which is one of the requirements of the right to a fair trial and thus of the rule of law, is explicitly regulated in the Constitution, there is no direct constitutional regulation on the impartiality of judges. The impartiality of judges was sought to be ensured through the institution of prohibition and recusal of judges in the procedural laws. Articles 56 and 57 of the Code of Administrative Procedure No. 2577 also provide rules on the rejection of judges serving in administrative judicial authorities. In addition, it is stated in Article 31 of the Law that in cases where there is no regulation in Law No. 2577, the relevant rules of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 will be applied. One aspect of the right to recourse to legal remedies granted to the parties to a legal dispute in order to exercise the freedom to seek justice and the right to a fair trial in accordance with the principle of the rule of law is the right to request review of the judgment. This right serves to ensure that judicial decisions are taken before a different court of law to be reviewed once again and to correct any possible errors in the decision. According to Article 57, paragraph 4 of the Law No. 2577, in the event that the administrative and regional administrative courts decide to rejection of more than one president and members, the case will be legally resolved by the regional administrative court and the Council of State, which decide on the rejection requests. As a result of this regulation, the regional administrative court, which is normally required to carry out an appeal review in the process of resolving the dispute with a final judgement, becomes the court of first stage, and the Council of State, which is responsible for carry out an appellate review, becomes the second stage judicial authority. This situation leads to an indirect limitation of the right of relevants to request a review of the judgement. In this study, the illegality of this restriction is determined within the framework of the judgments of the Constitutional Court and suggestions are made for the solution of the current legal problem.

 Adil yargılanma hakkının ve dolayısıyla hukuk devletinin gereklerinden biri olan mahkemelerin bağımsızlığı Anayasada açıkça düzenlenmiş olmasına rağmen hakimlerin tarafsızlığına ilişkin doğrudan bir anayasal düzenleme bulunmamaktadır. Hakimlerin tarafsızlığı, daha ziyade, usul kanunlarında yer alan hakimin yasaklılığı ve reddi müessesesiyle sağlanmak istenmiştir. 2577 sayılı İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanununun 56. ve 57. maddelerinde de idari yargı mercilerinde görev yapan hakimlerin çekinmesi ve reddine ilişkin kurallar getirilmiştir. Buna ilaveten, Kanunun 31. maddesine göre hakimin davaya bakmaktan yasaklılığı ve reddi hususunda 2577 sayılı Kanunda hüküm bulunmayan hallerde 6100 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanununun ilgili hükümleri uygulanacaktır. Hak arama özgürlüğü ve adil yargılanma hakkının hukuk devleti ilkesine uygun şekilde kullanılabilmesi için hukuki uyuşmazlığın taraflarına tanınan kanun yoluna başvurma hakkının bir tezahürü de hükmün denetlenmesini talep etme hakkıdır. Bu hak, hüküm niteliği taşıyan yargı kararlarının farklı bir yargı merci önüne götürülerek bir kez daha incelenmesini ve karardaki olası hataların giderilmesini temin etme işlevini görmektedir. 2577 sayılı Kanunun 57. maddesinin 4. fıkrası uyarınca idare ve bölge idare mahkemelerinde birden çok üye ve başkanın reddine karar verilmesi durumunda işin esası hakkında, ret istemlerini karara bağlayan bölge idare mahkemesi ve Danıştay tarafından karar verilecektir. Bu düzenleme sonucu idari yargıda uygulanmakta olan kanun yolu sistemi uyarınca uyuşmazlığın kesin bir hükümle çözümlenme sürecinde istinaf incelemesi yapması gereken bölge idare mahkemesi, ilk derece mahkemesi; temyiz incelemesi yapmakla görevli Danıştay ise ikinci derece yargı merci konumuna gelebilecektir. Bu durum ilgililerin hükmün denetlenmesini talep etme hakkının dolaylı şekilde sınırlandırılmasına yol açabilecektir. Çalışmada Anayasa Mahkemesi kararları doğrultusunda bu sınırlamanın hukuka aykırılığı tespit edilmiş; ortaya çıkabilecek hukuki sorunların giderilmesine yönelik teklifler sunulmuştur. Hak arama özgürlüğü ve adil yargılanma hakkının hukuk devleti ilkesine uygun şekilde kullanılması için hukuki bir uyuşmazlığın taraflarına tanınan kanun yoluna başvurma hakkının bir tezahürü de hükmün denetlenmesini talep etme hakkıdır. Bu hak, hüküm niteliği taşıyan yargı kararlarının farklı bir yargı merci önüne götürülerek bir kez daha incelenmesini ve karardaki olası hataların giderilmesini temin etme işlevini görmektedir. 2577 sayılı Kanunun 57. maddesinin 4. fıkrası uyarınca idare ve bölge idare mahkemelerinde birden çok üye ve başkanın reddine karar verilmesi durumunda işin esası hakkında, ret istemlerini karara bağlayan bölge idare mahkemesi ve Danıştay tarafından karar verilecektir. Bu düzenleme sonucu normal şartlarda uyuşmazlığın kesin bir hükümle çözümlenme sürecinde istinaf incelemesi yapması gereken bölge idare mahkemesi ilk derece mahkemesi; temyiz incelemesi yapmakla görevli olan Danıştay da ikinci derece yargı merci konumuna gelmektedir. Bu durum ise ilgililerin hükmün denetlenmesini talep etme hakkının dolaylı şekilde sınırlandırılmasına yol açmaktadır. Çalışmada Anayasa Mahkemesi kararları doğrultusunda bu sınırlamanın hukuka aykırılığı tespit edilmiş; ortaya çıkan hukuki sorunun giderilmesine yönelik teklifler sunulmuştur.

Makale detayları

In Terms of The Right to Request Review of Judgement, Rejection of More Than One Judges in Administrative Courts and Regional Administrative Courts

Yazarlar:

Muhammed Göçgün

Yayıncı:

Anadolu University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 1, pp.163-184

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

2/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001341311

pISSN:

2687-394X

Rejection of the Judge

Right to Legal Remedy

Right to Request Review of the Judgment

Fair Trial

ProportionalityHakimin Reddi

Kanun Yoluna Başvurma Hakkı

Hükmün Denetlenmesini Talep Etme Hakkı

Adil Yargılanma

Ölçülülük

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Muhammed Göçgün

Yayıncı: Anadolu University

Ana Başlıklar: Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi: Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 1, pp.163-184

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 2/2025

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001341311

pISSN: 2687-394X

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Muhammed Göçgün

Yayıncı:

Anadolu University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 1, pp.163-184

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

2/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001341311

pISSN:

2687-394X