Publication: Olağanüstü Hâl Dönemi Kanun Hükmünde Kararnamelerinin Yargısal Denetimi Üzerine
Abstract
Türkiye'de 2016 yılının ikinci yarısında ülke çapında olağanüstü hâl ilân edilmesinin ardından yürürlüğe konulan kanun hükmünde kararnameler, geniş düzenleme alanları ve kalıcı nitelikteki hükümleri sebebiyle tartışılmaktadır. Bu kanun hükmünde kararnamelerin bazı hükümlerinin anayasaya aykırı olduğu iddiası ile muhalefet partisi tarafından Anayasa Mahkemesi'ne iptal talebi ile başvurulmuş ise de bu talep, yetkisizlik nedeniyle reddolunmuştur. Olağanüstü hâl kanun hükmünde kararnamelerinin bir yandan kanun gücünde norm ihdas ederken diğer yandan anayasallık denetiminden muaf tutulması, başta hukuk devleti ve erkler ayrılığı olmak üzere çok sayıda anayasal ilke ile çatışma hâlindedir. Benzeri bir çatışmayı uluslararası hukuk bakımından gözlemlemek mümkündür. Anayasa'nın, olağanüstü hâl kanun hükmünde kararnamelerinin Anayasa'ya aykırılığı iddiası ile Anayasa Mahkemesi'nde dava açılamayacağını ifade eden 148. Maddesinin okunmasında 121. maddenin ikinci ve üçüncü fıkralarının birlikte değerlendirilmesi ve anayasal normlar arasındaki hiyerarşinin hem yatay hem düşey anlamda yeniden düşünülmesi, sorun çözümünde pratik ve yenilikçi sonuçlara ulaşılması bakımından faydalı olacaktır.
Following the announcement of a countrywide state of emergency in Turkey in the second half of 2016, the statutory decrees have come under discussion due to their wide range of regulations and permanently influential provisions. The opposition party appealed to the Constitutional Court requesting a cancellation of the statutory decrees, claiming that some of their provisions are contrary to the Constitution, however this request has been rejected due to lack of jurisdiction. Statutory decrees under state of emergency can produce norms that are as powerful as law on one hand, yet are excluded from constitutional supervision on the other. Therefore these decrees conflict with a large number of constitutional principles, in particular the rule of law and the separation of powers. A similar conflict also exists in terms of international law. However, a solution to the conflict exists that would allow constitutional supervision of the statutory decrees is found through a consideration of Article 148 and the second and third paragraphs of Article 121, combined with a reconsideration of the hierarchy between constitutional norms, both horizontally and vertically.
Following the announcement of a countrywide state of emergency in Turkey in the second half of 2016, the statutory decrees have come under discussion due to their wide range of regulations and permanently influential provisions. The opposition party appealed to the Constitutional Court requesting a cancellation of the statutory decrees, claiming that some of their provisions are contrary to the Constitution, however this request has been rejected due to lack of jurisdiction. Statutory decrees under state of emergency can produce norms that are as powerful as law on one hand, yet are excluded from constitutional supervision on the other. Therefore these decrees conflict with a large number of constitutional principles, in particular the rule of law and the separation of powers. A similar conflict also exists in terms of international law. However, a solution to the conflict exists that would allow constitutional supervision of the statutory decrees is found through a consideration of Article 148 and the second and third paragraphs of Article 121, combined with a reconsideration of the hierarchy between constitutional norms, both horizontally and vertically.