Publication: Anglo-amerikan hukuku ışığında medeni yargılama hukukunda dava yönetimi
Abstract
Mukayeseli hukukta giderek hakimin yargılamayı sevkinde geniş yetkiler ile donatılması ve yargılamada hakimin aktif bir rol üstlenmesi ihtiyacının arttığı dile getirilmektedir. Özellikle, Ortak Hukuk’un uygulandığı İngiltere’de hakimin yetkilerinin Kıta Avrupası’ndaki benzer şekilde genişletilmesi ilgi çekici olmuştur. Taraf egemenliğinin ağırlıkta olduğu ve yargılamada hakimin aktif olmaması anlayışının kabul edildiği Anglo-Amerikan hukukunda bugün yargılamanın hızlandırılması adına hakimin aktif bir rol üstlenmesi gerektiği ifade edilmektedir. Yargılamanın ağır yürümesi ve adalete erişimin sağlanması önündeki engeller birçok hukuk sisteminin ortak sorunudur. Mukayeseli hukukta, bu sorunların giderilmesi için bazı yeni düzenlemelere gidilmiştir; dava yönetimi de, bu düzenlemeler içerisinde ihdas edilmiş yeni bir usul kurumudur. Yeni İngiliz Yargılama Kurallarında hakime “dava yönetimi yetkileri” adı altında bir dizi yetkiler verilmiş ve hakimin yargılamadaki etkinliği kuvvetlendirilmiştir. İngiliz hukukuna benzer şekilde diğer bazı Ortak Hukuk ülkelerinde de (Amerika, Avustralya gibi) dava yönetimi kuralları uygulanmaktadır. Dava yönetimi, hakimin taraflar ile davanın planını çıkarttığı ve yargılamanın bundan sonraki seyrinin belirlendiği davanın ilk başlangıç safhasıdır. Hakim, bu safhada zaman çizelgeleri ile davanın planını çıkartacak ve dava yönetimi oturumları ile davanın esas duruşmaya hazır hale gelmesini sağlayacaktır. İngiliz hukukunda, ilkesel nitelikte hakimin ve tarafların uymakla yükümlü bulunduğu kurallar “Temel Esas” şeklinde belirlenmiştir. Hakim, bütün uyuşmazlıklarda Temel Esasın yerine gelmesine özen gösterecek ve yargılamadaki bütün usuli işlemler de bu amaca göre yapılacaktır. Buna göre, bir usuli işlemin yerine getirilmesi Temel Esasa aykırı ise, hakim o işlemi yapmamakla veya yapılmasına izin vermemekle yükümlüdür. Bu sayede, yargılamada orantılılık ve kaynakların adil dağımı hakim tarafından denetlenmektedir. Bu bakımından, denilebilir ki, açıklayıcı nitelikteki bir kısım ilkeler, hakim tarafından somut olaya uygulanmak ve kararın gerekçesinde yer verilmek suretiyle normatif hale getirilmiştir.
In comparative law, it has been gradually expressed the need for more active judge and that the judge should have been administered with wide powers. In particular, it has been a highlight in England, a common law state, where the judge has been empowered with judicial authorities as similar to Continental Europe. Today, in Anglo-American law, which the party control and the concept of passive judge is more in place, it has been accepted that the judge should take an active role in the judgment for the purpose of accelerating the speed of the justice. Barriers to access to justice and the slow process of the litigation are common hurdle of diverse legal systems. In comparative law, new legislation has been introduced to overcome these obstacles where the case management has become a part of them as a new procedural concept. New English Civil Procedure Rules have empowered the judge with some authorities under the case management powers and the activity of the judge has been strengthened. Similar to English law, some of the common law states such as US and Australia do also apply case management rules. Case management is the beginning phase of the case in which the judge prepares the plan of the trial and determines the future course of the action together with the parties. Judge, in this phase, would prepare the plan of the trial with time schedules and ensure that the action becomes ready for the trial. In English law, rules which the parties and the judge have to apply principally have been stated as “Overriding Objective”. Judge should ensure the application of Overriding Objective with duty of care in all cases and all procedural actions should be made in accordance with this objective. If a fulfillment of an action is against the Overriding Objective, then Judge is obliged not to perform or give permission to the performance of such action. Consequently, judge is able to control the proportionality and fair allocation of sources in the judgment. Within this framework, it may be argued that some of the explanatory principles have become normative when the judge applies those principles to a concrete case and provide them within the reasoning of the decision.
In comparative law, it has been gradually expressed the need for more active judge and that the judge should have been administered with wide powers. In particular, it has been a highlight in England, a common law state, where the judge has been empowered with judicial authorities as similar to Continental Europe. Today, in Anglo-American law, which the party control and the concept of passive judge is more in place, it has been accepted that the judge should take an active role in the judgment for the purpose of accelerating the speed of the justice. Barriers to access to justice and the slow process of the litigation are common hurdle of diverse legal systems. In comparative law, new legislation has been introduced to overcome these obstacles where the case management has become a part of them as a new procedural concept. New English Civil Procedure Rules have empowered the judge with some authorities under the case management powers and the activity of the judge has been strengthened. Similar to English law, some of the common law states such as US and Australia do also apply case management rules. Case management is the beginning phase of the case in which the judge prepares the plan of the trial and determines the future course of the action together with the parties. Judge, in this phase, would prepare the plan of the trial with time schedules and ensure that the action becomes ready for the trial. In English law, rules which the parties and the judge have to apply principally have been stated as “Overriding Objective”. Judge should ensure the application of Overriding Objective with duty of care in all cases and all procedural actions should be made in accordance with this objective. If a fulfillment of an action is against the Overriding Objective, then Judge is obliged not to perform or give permission to the performance of such action. Consequently, judge is able to control the proportionality and fair allocation of sources in the judgment. Within this framework, it may be argued that some of the explanatory principles have become normative when the judge applies those principles to a concrete case and provide them within the reasoning of the decision.