YÜKSEK YARGI ORGANLARININ KARARLARINA UYGULANAN KISMİ ERİŞİM ENGELİNİN İDARE HUKUKU PERSPEKTİFİNDEN DEĞERLENDİRİLMES
Yükleniyor...
Tarih
2020
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Türk hukuk sisteminde, Yargıtay adli yargının, Danıştay ise idari yargının en üst düzey yargı organı olup her iki mahkeme de kural olarak içtihat mahkemesi olarak görev yapmaktadır. Her iki yüksek yargı organı da gerek içtihadı birleştirme kararları gerekse somut olaylarla ilgili içtihatların verildiği mahkemeler olarak kendi alanlarındaki içtihatların belirlenmesinde en önemli role sahiptir. Bu yüksek mahkemelerin her somut dava ile ilgili önlerine gelen konu-larda verdiği kararların herkesin erişimine açılması ve ulaşılabilir kılın-ması hem bilgi edinme hakkı hem de adil yargılanma hakkı açısından son derece önemlidir. Ancak uygulamada bu organların kararlarının hepsi değil, emsal değerindeki bazı kararlarının herkesin erişimine açılması söz konusu olup, önemli ve ilkesel bazı kararların ise herke-sin erişimine açık olmadığı, bu tür kararlara ancak bu mahkemelerin muvazzaf veya emekli üyeleri yahut tetkik hâkimleri tarafından bas-tırılan yayınlardan ya da ücretle üyelik yapılan özel hukuk veri taban-larından ücreti mukabilinde erişilebildiği görülmektedir. İşte yüksek mahkeme kararlarının tamamına herkes tarafından erişilememesi, kısmi erişim engeli niteliğinde bir idari işlem olup, bu işlemin unsurla-rı bakımından incelenmesi, yüksek yargı organları tarafından devam ettirilen bu uygulamanın hukuka uygunluğu boyutuyla incelenmeye muhtaç bir husustur.
In the Turkish legal system, there is a stark division in matters relating to civil law and administrative law, in which while the Court of Cassation is designated as the highest court of appeal in civil litigation, the Council of State remains the highest court of ap-peal in administrative matters. In principle, both Courts function at the highest level with a power of setting legal precedent. This signi-fies an important judicial role in the law-making process with either their decision of precedence tended to be binding, in a point of law, on another court in deciding a similar case or other decisions with a persuasive power, in certain circumstances or facts, on another court on deciding a similar case, to the effect that case law is built up out of precedents as such. No doubt, it becomes vitally crucial for fair trial and transparency to allow the public to have open access to case reports in the judicial process to enable them to exercise the right to fair trial and freedom of information. However, in practice, not all but only limited number of the Courts’ important decisions of binding precedent are fully reported. Some other decisions of persuasive precedent remain in vastly unreported cases, access to which is solely available for the public by way of commercial me-ans in the form of either publications by current or former judges of the Court and clerks to the Court or alternatively privately-run legal databases, and so is payable. We consider the Courts’ practice of unreported cases ‘a partial restriction on the public right to access to justice’ and therefore, it constitutes an administrative act in legal nature. Thus, we believe that such an act as this must be subject to scrutiny in terms of its legal elements and that the Courts’ current (un)reporting practice calls for a critical examination into its legality in administrative law.
In the Turkish legal system, there is a stark division in matters relating to civil law and administrative law, in which while the Court of Cassation is designated as the highest court of appeal in civil litigation, the Council of State remains the highest court of ap-peal in administrative matters. In principle, both Courts function at the highest level with a power of setting legal precedent. This signi-fies an important judicial role in the law-making process with either their decision of precedence tended to be binding, in a point of law, on another court in deciding a similar case or other decisions with a persuasive power, in certain circumstances or facts, on another court on deciding a similar case, to the effect that case law is built up out of precedents as such. No doubt, it becomes vitally crucial for fair trial and transparency to allow the public to have open access to case reports in the judicial process to enable them to exercise the right to fair trial and freedom of information. However, in practice, not all but only limited number of the Courts’ important decisions of binding precedent are fully reported. Some other decisions of persuasive precedent remain in vastly unreported cases, access to which is solely available for the public by way of commercial me-ans in the form of either publications by current or former judges of the Court and clerks to the Court or alternatively privately-run legal databases, and so is payable. We consider the Courts’ practice of unreported cases ‘a partial restriction on the public right to access to justice’ and therefore, it constitutes an administrative act in legal nature. Thus, we believe that such an act as this must be subject to scrutiny in terms of its legal elements and that the Courts’ current (un)reporting practice calls for a critical examination into its legality in administrative law.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynak
Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
Sayı
151
Künye
TAHTALI M (2020). YÜKSEK YARGI ORGANLARININ KARARLARINA UYGULANAN KISMİ ERİŞİM ENGELİNİN İDARE HUKUKU PERSPEKTİFİNDEN DEĞERLENDİRİLMES. Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, 2020(151), 139 - 174.
