Publication: Bölge adliye (istinaf) mahkemelerinin kuruluşu ve çalışma usulleri
Abstract
TEZ ÖZETİ Maddi hakikati arayan ceza muhakemesinde, maddi konunun en iyi biçimde kontrol edilebilmesi şarttır. Yapılacak sistem değişikliğinde, ülkemiz ceza muhakemesi hukuku kolluktan başlayarak yargılamanın çeşitli evreleri açısından somut olayda maddi hakikatin en iyi ve çabuk bir biçimde araştırılması için dengeli işleyen bir sistem halinde yeniden düzenlenmelidir. Sadece kanun yolunda yapılacak değişikliğin tek başına hiçbir başarı şansı yoktur. Maddi konudaki hatanın giderilmesi gerekir, çünkü maddi konudaki hata, hukuki konuyu ve dolayısıyla son kararı hatalı hale düşürmektedir. Maddi konuyu inceleyecek bir ikinci derece mahkemesi bulunmaması nedeniyle, Yargıtay zorunlu olarak maddi konuyu da incelemektedir. Maddi konuların en iyi bir biçimde tekrar gözden geçirilmesini ve kontrol edilmesini sağlayacak ve ayrıca ilk derece mahkemelerine mümkün olduğu kadar yakın yerlerde kurulacak istinaf mahkemelerinin kabulü, amaca en uygun olanıdır. İstinaf mahkemelerinin yargılamayı uzatacağı düşüncesi ile derece teminatından vazgeçilemez. Davaların uzamasının önlenmesi için, istinaf edilebilen konularda yargılama basitleştirilmeli, istinaf dar anlamda alınarak bütün tespitler tekrar yapılmamalıdır. Sadece ihtilaflı olan kısımlar tekrarlanmalıdır. 5271 sayılı CMK’nun 278/ 1. maddesinde, bölge adliye mahkemesi cumhuriyet başsavcılığınca düzenlenen tebliğnamenin ilgililere tebliğ edileceğinin düzenlenmesine rağmen ilgililerin cevap verme hakkı ve süresinden bahsedilmediği, bu hususun davasız yargılama olmaz ilkesinin zedelenmesine yol açacağı ve bölge adliye mahkemesi tebliğnameyi aldıktan sonra yeni bir yargılama yaparak ilk derece mahkemesi son kararını değiştirebileceği ve ilgililer aleyhine ağırlaştırabileceği de düşünülerek, tebliğnamenin tebliği için uygun bir süre öngörülerek ilgililerin cevap verme haklarının sağlanması gerekir. Ayrıca ilk derece mahkemesinde yapılan maddi tespitlere herhangi bir itirazı olmayan kişinin hukuki tespiti inceletebilmek için doğrudan doğruya Yargıtay’a başvurabilmelidir. Böylece kabul edilecek sıçrama temyizi yolu ile istinaf mahkemelerinin iş yükünün gereksiz yere artması önlenmiş olunacaktır.
OF DISSERTATION İt is obligatory to be able to control the subject of fact in a best way in punishment judgement looking for truth. In the system changc to bc carricd out, the punishment judgemnt law of our country should be rearranged in the way of a system functioning moderately to be inspected the truth in a real event as fast and well possible in view of several stages of judgement beginning from the police. There is no possibility of success of change to be done on the way of law alone. It is necessary that the mistake in the subject of fact be removed, because the mistake in the subject of fact makes the legal subject and; thus, the last judgement faulty. As a result of that there is no second degree law court to inspect the subject of fact, Supreme Court of Appeal inspects the subject of fact inevatibly. The accept of Courts of Appeal which will be founded in places as near as possible to the first degree law courts and provide the subjects of fact with having a look again in a best way and controlling is the best one for the aim. It is impossible to give up from the guaratee of degree and the thought of that Courts of Appeal prolong the judgement. To prevent the trials from prolonging, judgement should be made easy in subjects which may be appealed, all the fixings should be re-done in the way of narrowing the appeal down.Only parts in conflict should be repeated. In the Article 278/ 1 of Law of Punishment Judgement, nr. 5271, although it is prepared that the notification issued by Reigon Court, Attorney Generalship of Republic will be notified to the concerned, by thinking that the right and period of giving answer are not mentioned and this matter may give harm to the principle that it is impossible to judge without a trial and first degree court may change the the last decision after Region Law Court takes the notification, and the decision may be made harder for the concerned and by determining an appropriate period for to notify the notification, it is necessary that the concerned be provided with the right of giving answer. Morever, a person who has no objection to fixings of fact made by the first degree court should be able to counsel directly to the Supreme Court of Appeal to make the legal fixing be inspected. Therefore, the increase in vein in labour burdcn of the Courts os Appcal will bc prevented by the way of discerment of transition.
OF DISSERTATION İt is obligatory to be able to control the subject of fact in a best way in punishment judgement looking for truth. In the system changc to bc carricd out, the punishment judgemnt law of our country should be rearranged in the way of a system functioning moderately to be inspected the truth in a real event as fast and well possible in view of several stages of judgement beginning from the police. There is no possibility of success of change to be done on the way of law alone. It is necessary that the mistake in the subject of fact be removed, because the mistake in the subject of fact makes the legal subject and; thus, the last judgement faulty. As a result of that there is no second degree law court to inspect the subject of fact, Supreme Court of Appeal inspects the subject of fact inevatibly. The accept of Courts of Appeal which will be founded in places as near as possible to the first degree law courts and provide the subjects of fact with having a look again in a best way and controlling is the best one for the aim. It is impossible to give up from the guaratee of degree and the thought of that Courts of Appeal prolong the judgement. To prevent the trials from prolonging, judgement should be made easy in subjects which may be appealed, all the fixings should be re-done in the way of narrowing the appeal down.Only parts in conflict should be repeated. In the Article 278/ 1 of Law of Punishment Judgement, nr. 5271, although it is prepared that the notification issued by Reigon Court, Attorney Generalship of Republic will be notified to the concerned, by thinking that the right and period of giving answer are not mentioned and this matter may give harm to the principle that it is impossible to judge without a trial and first degree court may change the the last decision after Region Law Court takes the notification, and the decision may be made harder for the concerned and by determining an appropriate period for to notify the notification, it is necessary that the concerned be provided with the right of giving answer. Morever, a person who has no objection to fixings of fact made by the first degree court should be able to counsel directly to the Supreme Court of Appeal to make the legal fixing be inspected. Therefore, the increase in vein in labour burdcn of the Courts os Appcal will bc prevented by the way of discerment of transition.