Publication: Kanun yolu yargılamasında hukuka aykırılık denetimi
Abstract
Çağdaş hukuk devletlerinde mahkeme kararlarının kapsamlı bir denetimi fikri benimsenmekle birlikte, bu denetimin etkinliğinin sağlanması önem arz eder. Bu bağlamda yapılan denetimin içeriği ve kapsamı bakımından kanun yolu mahkemeleri, farklı şekillerde yapılandırılır. İstinaf kanun yolu mahkemeleri, hem bizzat vakıa tespiti yapan hem de hukuk uygulamasını denetleyen bir vakıa mahkemesi olarak yapılandırılmış̧ iken, temyiz kanun yolu mahkemesi, kural olarak, vakıa tespiti yapmayan ancak hem vakıa tespitlerinin hem de hukuk uygulamasının hukuka uygun olup olmadığını denetleyen bir kontrol/denetim mahkemesi olarak yapılandırılmıştır. Hem istinaf hem de temyiz bakımından ortak kanun yolu sebebi hukuka aykırılıktır. Hukuka aykırılık, hukuk ve bu hukukunun ihlali olmak üzere iki unsurdan meydana gelir. Bu bağlamda ihlal/aykırılık, uygulanması gereken bir hukuk kuralının hiç uygulanmaması veya yanlış uygulanmasıdır.
In contemporary legal states, the idea of comprehensive scrutiny of court decisions is embraced; however, ensuring the effectiveness of this scrutiny is important. In this context, in terms of the content and scope of the scrutiny, courts of appeal are structured in different ways. Appellate courts are configured as a fact-finding court that both determines the facts and reviews legal application, while the court of cassation, as a rule, does not make determinations regarding the facts but rather functions as a supervisory/audit court that examines both factual determinations and the legality of legal applications. The common ground for both appeal and cassation is unlawfulness. Unlawfulness consists of two elements: violation of law and violation of this law. In this context, violation/violation is the non-application or misapplication of a rule of law that should be applied.
In contemporary legal states, the idea of comprehensive scrutiny of court decisions is embraced; however, ensuring the effectiveness of this scrutiny is important. In this context, in terms of the content and scope of the scrutiny, courts of appeal are structured in different ways. Appellate courts are configured as a fact-finding court that both determines the facts and reviews legal application, while the court of cassation, as a rule, does not make determinations regarding the facts but rather functions as a supervisory/audit court that examines both factual determinations and the legality of legal applications. The common ground for both appeal and cassation is unlawfulness. Unlawfulness consists of two elements: violation of law and violation of this law. In this context, violation/violation is the non-application or misapplication of a rule of law that should be applied.
Description
Keywords
Kanun yolu, hukuka aykırılık, istinaf, temyiz Right to appeal, unlawfulness, appeal, cassation