As a Reason Eliminating the Responsibility of the Administration: The Theory of Jurisprudential Error

Ahmet Bağrıaçık

Makale detayları

As a Reason Eliminating the Responsibility of the Administration: The Theory of Jurisprudential Error

Yazarlar:

Ahmet Bağrıaçık

Yayıncı:

Sakarya University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Sakarya Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.12 Issue 2, pp.899-916

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001330635

pISSN:

2147-768X

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 In accordance with the last paragraph of Article 125 of the Constitution, the administration is obliged to pay for the damage caused to individuals. In fact, modern society is not satisfied with this and has gone one step beyond the fault-based liability of the administration and included non-fault-based liability within its scope. Despite this, the Council of State, again under the influence of French law, has defined an exceptional area in which the administration can act culpably but not compensate for the damage. The theory of jurisprudential error, which is the manifestation of the idea that the damage caused by some serious or insignificant illegalities that any administration can commit should not be compensated, still maintains its current status today, as it was when it emerged. Before examining this theory, which is contrary to the above-mentioned provisions of the Constitution and has a subjective nature, within the scope of judicial decisions, it is necessary to explain the different situations that are similar to the theory of jurisprudential error and therefore confused with the theory of jurisprudential error. Next, it should be emphasized that the issue of compensation for damage, which forms the basis for the adoption of the principle of administrative responsibility, is ignored within the scope of this theory. Finally, the theory of jurisprudential error is evaluated and criticized within the scope of the decisions made by the judicial authorities.

 In accordance with the last paragraph of Article 125 of the Constitution, the administration is obliged to pay for the damage caused to individuals. In fact, modern society is not satisfied with this and has gone one step beyond the fault-based liability of the administration and included non-fault-based liability within its scope. Despite this, the Council of State, again under the influence of French law, has defined an exceptional area in which the administration can act culpably but not compensate for the damage. The theory of jurisprudential error, which is the manifestation of the idea that the damage caused by some serious or insignificant illegalities that any administration can commit should not be compensated, still maintains its current status today, as it was when it emerged. Before examining this theory, which is contrary to the above-mentioned provisions of the Constitution and has a subjective nature, within the scope of judicial decisions, it is necessary to explain the different situations that are similar to the theory of jurisprudential error and therefore confused with the theory of jurisprudential error. Next, it should be emphasized that the issue of compensation for damage, which forms the basis for the adoption of the principle of administrative responsibility, is ignored within the scope of this theory. Finally, the theory of jurisprudential error is evaluated and criticized within the scope of the decisions made by the judicial authorities.

 In accordance with the last paragraph of Article 125 of the Constitution, the administration is obliged to pay for the damage caused to individuals. In fact, modern society is not satisfied with this and has gone one step beyond the fault-based liability of the administration and included non-fault-based liability within its scope. Despite this, the Council of State, again under the influence of French law, has defined an exceptional area in which the administration can act culpably but not compensate for the damage. The theory of jurisprudential error, which is the manifestation of the idea that the damage caused by some serious or insignificant illegalities that any administration can commit should not be compensated, still maintains its current status today, as it was when it emerged. Before examining this theory, which is contrary to the above-mentioned provisions of the Constitution and has a subjective nature, within the scope of judicial decisions, it is necessary to explain the different situations that are similar to the theory of jurisprudential error and therefore confused with the theory of jurisprudential error. Next, it should be emphasized that the issue of compensation for damage, which forms the basis for the adoption of the principle of administrative responsibility, is ignored within the scope of this theory. Finally, the theory of jurisprudential error is evaluated and criticized within the scope of the decisions made by the judicial authorities.

 Anayasanın 2nci maddesi ve 125inci maddesinin son fıkrası uyarınca idare kişilere vermiş olduğu zararı ödemekle yükümlüdür. Bu husus aynı zamanda hukuk devleti olmanın da yükümlülüklerindendir. İdarenin sorumluluğuna ilişkin temel prensipler, içtihatlar ışığında anayasanın amir hükümleri çerçevesinde Fransız idare hukukunun da etkisiyle gelişme göstermiştir. Hatta modern toplum bununla da yetinmemiş ve idarenin kusura dayanan sorumluluğunun da bir adım ötesine geçerek kusura dayanmayan sorumluluğunu da kapsama dâhil etmiştir. Buna rağmen Danıştay, yine Fransız hukukunun etkisiyle, idareye kusurlu hareket edebileceği buna karşın zararı tazmin etmeyeceği bir ayrıksı alan tanımlamıştır. Her idarenin işleyebileceği türden ciddi ve önemli olmayan bir takım hukuka aykırılıkların yarattığı zararın karşılanmaması gerektiği düşüncesinin tezahürü olan içtihadi hata teorisi, ortaya çıktığı dönemde olduğu gibi günümüzde de hala güncelliğini korumaktadır. Anayasanın yukarıda bahsedilen hükümlerine aykırı olan ve aynı zamanda sübjektif niteliği haiz bu teorinin yargı kararları kapsamında incelenmesine geçmeden önce, içtihadi hata teorisiyle benzeşen, bu sebeple içtihadi hata teorisiyle karıştırılan farklı durumları açıklamak gerekmektedir. Bu çerçevede, işlemin yetki veya şekil unsurlarına aykırı olması halinde işlemin yetkili makam tarafından veya aynı makam tarafından şekle uygun olarak yeniden yapılabilmesinin içtihadi hata teorisiyle bağlantısı ve içtihatlarda sıklıkla yer verilen ağır  basit kusur ayrımının içtihadi hata teorisiyle karıştırılması ve bunun yarattığı problemlerin ele alınması zaruridir. Diğer taraftan, idarenin sorumluluğu ilkesinin benimsenmesine esas oluşturan zararın tazmini hususu, bu teori kapsamında göz ardı edilmektedir. Bu çerçevede içtihadi hata teorisi, yargı mercilerinin vermiş olduğu kararlar kapsamında değerlendirilmekte ve eleştirilmektedir.

Makale detayları

As a Reason Eliminating the Responsibility of the Administration: The Theory of Jurisprudential Error

Yazarlar:

Ahmet Bağrıaçık

Yayıncı:

Sakarya University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Sakarya Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.12 Issue 2, pp.899-916

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001330635

pISSN:

2147-768X

Rule of Law

Liability of the Administration

Service Defect

Jurisprudential Error Theory

Compensation for DamageHukuk Devleti

İdarenin Sorumluluğu

Hizmet Kusuru

İçtihadi Hata Teorisi

Zararın Tazmini

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Ahmet Bağrıaçık

Yayıncı: Sakarya University

Ana Başlıklar: Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi: Sakarya Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.12 Issue 2, pp.899-916

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 12/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001330635

pISSN: 2147-768X

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Ahmet Bağrıaçık

Yayıncı:

Sakarya University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Sakarya Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.12 Issue 2, pp.899-916

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001330635

pISSN:

2147-768X