ABANDONED “RENT CRIME” IN TURKISH LAW UNABANDONED JUDICIAL PRACTICE

Huriye Reyhan Demircioğlu

Makale detayları

ABANDONED “RENT CRIME” IN TURKISH LAW UNABANDONED JUDICIAL PRACTICE

Yazarlar:

Huriye Reyhan Demircioğlu

Yayıncı:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.28 Issue 4, pp.3-50

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001330737

pISSN:

2651-4141

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Residential and roofed workplace rents are contracts that have vital importance in terms of a persons accommodation and professionalcommercial activities. For this reason, even though these lease agreements are within the scope of private law, there is intense state intervention on these agreements. The strictest aspect of this intervention is the application of criminal sanctions to the violation of mandatory legal rules regulating rental relations, going beyond private law sanctions. The history of these regulations, which can be described as rent crimes, in Turkish law dates back to the National Protection Law No. 3780 dated January 18, 1940. Rental crimes, which existed when the Law on Real Estate Rentals No. 6570 came into force, remained only a violation of the re-rental ban after the Constitutional Court annulled the regulations regarding the rental fee. Finally, with the removal of the prohibition of re-rental from being subject to criminal sanctions in the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, lease offenses have been completely eliminated in Turkish law. However, the new compensation regulation in the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 in case of violation of the prohibition of re-rental is applied by the Court of Cassation with a narrowing interpretation regarding the penal regulation in Law No. 6570. Thus, even though rent crimes have been abandoned in Turkish law today, the remaining conditions of application of rent crimes are de facto continued by the judiciary, even in terms of the sanction of compensation. This study criticizes the fact that the nature of the sanction for breach of the prohibition of re-rental has changed, but the expectation that its application should have changed has not yet been realized, and the issue is subjected to a thorough evaluation, pointing out the negative consequences of this situation. However, these evaluations are not based on an explanation of the prohibition of re-rental, but rather on an independent concept of the crime of renting, which constitutes the historical background of even this prohibition. Thus, beyond merely criticizing the practice, the study presents the regulation of residential and roofed workplace leases in Turkish law, together with the transformation in the understanding of sanctions, in a historical perspective, to the attention of the doctrine and practice.

 Residential and roofed workplace rents are contracts that have vital importance in terms of a persons accommodation and professionalcommercial activities. For this reason, even though these lease agreements are within the scope of private law, there is intense state intervention on these agreements. The strictest aspect of this intervention is the application of criminal sanctions to the violation of mandatory legal rules regulating rental relations, going beyond private law sanctions. The history of these regulations, which can be described as rent crimes, in Turkish law dates back to the National Protection Law No. 3780 dated January 18, 1940. Rental crimes, which existed when the Law on Real Estate Rentals No. 6570 came into force, remained only a violation of the re-rental ban after the Constitutional Court annulled the regulations regarding the rental fee. Finally, with the removal of the prohibition of re-rental from being subject to criminal sanctions in the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, lease offenses have been completely eliminated in Turkish law. However, the new compensation regulation in the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 in case of violation of the prohibition of re-rental is applied by the Court of Cassation with a narrowing interpretation regarding the penal regulation in Law No. 6570. Thus, even though rent crimes have been abandoned in Turkish law today, the remaining conditions of application of rent crimes are de facto continued by the judiciary, even in terms of the sanction of compensation. This study criticizes the fact that the nature of the sanction for breach of the prohibition of re-rental has changed, but the expectation that its application should have changed has not yet been realized, and the issue is subjected to a thorough evaluation, pointing out the negative consequences of this situation. However, these evaluations are not based on an explanation of the prohibition of re-rental, but rather on an independent concept of the crime of renting, which constitutes the historical background of even this prohibition. Thus, beyond merely criticizing the practice, the study presents the regulation of residential and roofed workplace leases in Turkish law, together with the transformation in the understanding of sanctions, in a historical perspective, to the attention of the doctrine and practice.

 Residential and roofed workplace rents are contracts that have vital importance in terms of a persons accommodation and professionalcommercial activities. For this reason, even though these lease agreements are within the scope of private law, there is intense state intervention on these agreements. The strictest aspect of this intervention is the application of criminal sanctions to the violation of mandatory legal rules regulating rental relations, going beyond private law sanctions. The history of these regulations, which can be described as rent crimes, in Turkish law dates back to the National Protection Law No. 3780 dated January 18, 1940. Rental crimes, which existed when the Law on Real Estate Rentals No. 6570 came into force, remained only a violation of the re-rental ban after the Constitutional Court annulled the regulations regarding the rental fee. Finally, with the removal of the prohibition of re-rental from being subject to criminal sanctions in the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, lease offenses have been completely eliminated in Turkish law. However, the new compensation regulation in the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 in case of violation of the prohibition of re-rental is applied by the Court of Cassation with a narrowing interpretation regarding the penal regulation in Law No. 6570. Thus, even though rent crimes have been abandoned in Turkish law today, the remaining conditions of application of rent crimes are de facto continued by the judiciary, even in terms of the sanction of compensation. This study criticizes the fact that the nature of the sanction for breach of the prohibition of re-rental has changed, but the expectation that its application should have changed has not yet been realized, and the issue is subjected to a thorough evaluation, pointing out the negative consequences of this situation. However, these evaluations are not based on an explanation of the prohibition of re-rental, but rather on an independent concept of the crime of renting, which constitutes the historical background of even this prohibition. Thus, beyond merely criticizing the practice, the study presents the regulation of residential and roofed workplace leases in Turkish law, together with the transformation in the understanding of sanctions, in a historical perspective, to the attention of the doctrine and practice.

 Konut ve çatılı işyeri kiraları kişilerin barınma ve meslekiticari faaliyetlerde bulunmaları bakımından yaşamsal önemi bulunan sözleşmelerdir. Bu sebeple sözkonusu kira sözleşmeleri, her ne kadar özel hukukun kapsamında olsalar da, bu sözleşmeler üzerinde devletin müdahalesi bulunur. Bu müdahalenin en katı görünümü, kira ilişkilerini düzenleyen bazı emredici hukuk kurallarının ihlaline, özel hukuk karakterli yaptırımların ötesine geçilerek cezai nitelikte yaptırımlar uygulanmasıdır. Kira suçları olarak nitelendirilmesi mümkün bu tür düzenlemelerin Türk hukukundaki geçmişi 18 Ocak 1940 tarih ve 3780 sayılı Milli Korunma Kanununa kadar uzanmaktadır. 6570 sayılı Gayrimenkul Kiraları Hakkında Kanun yürürlüğe girdiğinde de mevcut olan kira suçları, ilerleyen zamanda Anayasa Mahkemesinin kira bedeline ilişkin düzenlemeleri iptalinin ardından, sadece yeniden kiralama yasağının ihlalinden ibaret kalmıştır. Nihayetinde 6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanununda yeniden kiralama yasağının da cezai yaptırıma bağlı olmaktan çıkartılmasıyla, Türk hukukunda kira suçları tamamen ortadan kalkmış bulunmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, 6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanununda yeniden kiralama yasağının ihlaline bağlanan yeni tazminat düzenlemesi, Yargıtay tarafından 6570 sayılı Kanundaki cezai düzenlemenin bağlandığı daraltıcı bir yorumla uygulanmaktadır. Böylece kira suçları, Türk hukukunda bugün terkedilmiş olsa da ondan geriye kalan uygulanma koşulları, tazminat yaptırımı bakımından dahi, yargı eliyle adeta devam ettirilmektedir. Bu çalışmada, yeniden kiralama yasağının ihlaline bağlanan yaptırımın niteliği değişmiş olmakla uygulamasının da değişmesi gerektiğine dair beklentinin halen gerçekleşmemiş olması eleştirilmiş ve bu durumun olumsuz sonuçlarına da işaretle, mesele, etraflı bir değerlendirmeye tabi tutulmuştur. Fakat bu değerlendirmeler, yeniden kiralama yasağının izahı üzerinden değil, bu yasağın dahi tarihsel geçmişini oluşturan kira suçunun bağımsız bir kavram olarak ele alınması suretiyle yapılmıştır. Böylece çalışma, salt uygulamaya yönelik bir eleştiri içermenin ötesinde, Türk hukukunda konut ve çatılı işyeri kiralarının düzenlenişini, yaptırım anlayışındaki dönüşümle birlikte tarihsel bir perspektifle, doktrin ve uygulamanın dikkatine sunmaktadır.

Makale detayları

ABANDONED “RENT CRIME” IN TURKISH LAW UNABANDONED JUDICIAL PRACTICE

Yazarlar:

Huriye Reyhan Demircioğlu

Yayıncı:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.28 Issue 4, pp.3-50

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001330737

pISSN:

2651-4141

rent crime

prohibition of re-rental

civil punishment

compensation

Turkish Code of Obligations art. 355/IIIkira suçu

yeniden kiralama yasağı

medeni ceza

tazminat

TBK m. 355/III

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Huriye Reyhan Demircioğlu

Yayıncı: Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Ana Başlıklar: Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi: Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.28 Issue 4, pp.3-50

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 10/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001330737

pISSN: 2651-4141

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Huriye Reyhan Demircioğlu

Yayıncı:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.28 Issue 4, pp.3-50

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001330737

pISSN:

2651-4141