Publication: 6306 Sayılı Kanun uyarınca kentsel dönüşüm uygulamalarının resen yapılması (Madde 6/ A kapsamında)
Abstract
Kentsel dönüşüm uygulamalarının altında birçok sebep bulunmakla birlikte, ülkemizde gerçekleşen yıkıcı depremler ile meydana gelen zararlar neticesinde, afet riski doğrultusunda kentsel dönüşüm uygulamalarına yönelik kapsayıcı ve özel bir kanuna ihtiyaç duyulmuş ve böylece özellikle afet riski altındaki alanlara yönelik uygulamaları kapsayacak olan 2012 tarihli 6306 Sayılı Afet Riski Altındaki Alanların Dönüştürülmesi Hakkında Kanun yürürlüğe girerek kentsel dönüşüm uygulamalarına ilişkin temel mevzuat kabul edilmiştir. Kanun’un uygulama alanını, afet riski taşıyan alan ve yapılar ile rezerv yapı alanları oluşturmaktadır. Kentsel dönüşüm uygulamalarının yürütülmesi, esasen ilgililerin (arsa maliklerinin) öngörülen çoğunluğu sağlamaları ve istekli olmalarına dayanmaktadır. Ancak 6306 Sayılı Kanun’a 04.07.2019 tarihinde eklenen 6/ A maddesi ile, ilgililerin muvafakati aranmaksızın, dönüşüm uygulamalarının resen yapılabileceği veya yaptırılabileceği hüküm altına alınarak kentsel dönüşüm uygulamalarının resen yapılması ayrı bir madde başlığı altında ele alınmıştır. Kaleme alınacak bu başlıktaki tez ile, işbu istisnai ve birçok yönüyle hukuk tekniği ve temel hak ve özgürlüklere getirdiği keskin sınırlamaları açısından eleştirilere maruz kalmış amir kanun hükmünün (6306 sayılı Kanunun 6/ A maddesinin); maddi gerçeklik karşısındaki önemi, gerekliliği, yeterliliği yahut yetersizliği, getirilen eleştiriler nazara alınarak ve farklı mevzuat kapsamında resen yapılan diğer uygulamalara da yer verilerek nitel yöntemler ışığında ele alınmıştır. Bununla birlikte, tez konusu teşkil edecek kanun hükmünün görece yakın bir zamanda yürürlüğe girdiği, yürürlüğe girdiği tarihten bu yana birçok değişiklik veya eklemeye maruz kaldığı ve halen gelişmeye muhtaç olduğu nazara alındığında, çalışmanın konusu özelinde en güncel ve kapsam bakımından belirgin bir çalışma olacağı, özgün değer anlamında önem taşımaktadır.
Although there are numerous reasons underlying urban transformation practices, in Turkey, the devastating earthquakes and the consequent damages have led to the need for a comprehensive and specific legal framework addressing urban transformation in the context of disaster risk. Accordingly, Law No. 6306 on the Transformation of Areas Under Disaster Risk, enacted in 2012, was introduced to serve as the primary legal basis for such urban transformation initiatives, particularly those targeting disaster-prone areas. The scope of application of this Law includes areas and buildings that are at risk of disasters, as well as designated reserve building areas. The implementation of urban transformation projects essentially relies on the willingness of stakeholders (i.e., landowners) and their ability to reach the legally required majority consensus. However, with the addition of Article 6/ A to Law No. 6306 on July 4, 2019, it was stipulated that urban transformation projects can be carried out or commissioned ex officio without the consent of the stakeholders, and the implementation of urban transformation ex officio has been addressed under a separate article heading.. This thesis examines the aforementioned imperative provision (Article 6/ A of Law No. 6306) which has been subject to criticism due to its exceptional nature and the strict limitations it imposes from the perspective of legal technique and fundamental rights and freedoms. The provision will be analyzed through qualitative methods in terms of its necessity, adequacy, or inadequacy in light of material realities, while also referring to other ex officio practices under different legal frameworks. Furthermore, considering that the legal provision which constitutes the subject of this thesis has come into force relatively recently, has undergone numerous amendments and additions since its enactment, and is still in need of development, this study will be the most up-to-date and comprehensive work specifically on this subject, and will carry significance in terms of its originality.
Although there are numerous reasons underlying urban transformation practices, in Turkey, the devastating earthquakes and the consequent damages have led to the need for a comprehensive and specific legal framework addressing urban transformation in the context of disaster risk. Accordingly, Law No. 6306 on the Transformation of Areas Under Disaster Risk, enacted in 2012, was introduced to serve as the primary legal basis for such urban transformation initiatives, particularly those targeting disaster-prone areas. The scope of application of this Law includes areas and buildings that are at risk of disasters, as well as designated reserve building areas. The implementation of urban transformation projects essentially relies on the willingness of stakeholders (i.e., landowners) and their ability to reach the legally required majority consensus. However, with the addition of Article 6/ A to Law No. 6306 on July 4, 2019, it was stipulated that urban transformation projects can be carried out or commissioned ex officio without the consent of the stakeholders, and the implementation of urban transformation ex officio has been addressed under a separate article heading.. This thesis examines the aforementioned imperative provision (Article 6/ A of Law No. 6306) which has been subject to criticism due to its exceptional nature and the strict limitations it imposes from the perspective of legal technique and fundamental rights and freedoms. The provision will be analyzed through qualitative methods in terms of its necessity, adequacy, or inadequacy in light of material realities, while also referring to other ex officio practices under different legal frameworks. Furthermore, considering that the legal provision which constitutes the subject of this thesis has come into force relatively recently, has undergone numerous amendments and additions since its enactment, and is still in need of development, this study will be the most up-to-date and comprehensive work specifically on this subject, and will carry significance in terms of its originality.
Description
Keywords
Afet Riski, Building laws, Ex Officio, Finance, Finans, Housing, İmar hukuku, İnşaat hukuku, Kentsel Dönüşüm, Konut, Law and legislation, Limitation of the Fundamental Rights, Mülkiyet Hakkı, Property Rights, Resen, Risk of Disaster, Risk Structure, Riskli Yapı, Temel Hakların Sınırlandırılması, Turkey, Türkiye, Urban Transformation, Yasa ve yasama, Zoning law
