Publication: Medeni usul hukukunda basit yargılama usulü
Abstract
Basit yargılama usulü, maddi hukuka ilişkin talebin basit, ucuz ve çabuk bir şekilde hukuki himaye altına alınmasını sağlayan özel bir yargılama şeklidir. Basit yargılama usulü HUMK.'nun 507-511. maddelerinde düzenlenmiştir. Ne var ki, Kanunun bu maddeleri oldukça yetersiz ve eksiktir. Tezde basit yargılama usulünde geçerli olan yargılama kuralları, HUMK.'nun 507-511. maddeleri ışığı altında etraflı bir şekilde incelenmiş; bu yargılama kurallarına işlerlik kazandırılması halinde, hukuki uyuşmazlığın hızla sonuçlandırılmasının mümkün olacağı sonucuna varılmıştır. Basit yargılama usulü, tipik ve atipik basit yargılama usulü olmak üzere ikiye ayrılır. Tipik basit yargılama usulünde, uyuşmazlıkla ilgili bütün vakıaların kapsamlı bir şekilde incelenmesine gerek yoktur; iddia ve müdafaa sebepleri ile delilleri sınırlandırılmış olup, ispat ölçüsü düşürülmüştür. Tipik basit yargılama usulünde verilen kararlar, esas hak yönünden maddi anlamda kesin hüküm teşkil etmez. İhtiyati tedbir talepleri, ilamsız icrada itirazın kaldırılması talebi tipik basit yargılama usulüne tabi uyuşmazlıklardandır. Atipik basit yargılama usulünde ise, iddia ve müdafaa sebepleri ve delil ikamesi kısmen sınırlandırılmış olmasına rağmen, talebin haklı gösterilmesi için maddi hukuk tarafından tespit edilen bütün vakıaların tam ispatı gerekir. Dolayısıyla, uyuşmazlık kesin bir hükümle karara bağlanır. Örneğin, kira sözleşmesine dayanan tahliye davaları, taksim ve izalei şuyu davaları atipik basit yargılama usulüne tabidir. Basit yargılama usulüne tabi dava ve işlerde açık bir şekilde neticei talebin dilekçede gösterilmesi zorunluluğu yoktur; hukuki himaye amacının belirtilmesi yeterlidir. Davayı genişletme yasağı, ilk oturum gününden sonra ileri sürülen vakıa ve deliller için geçerlidir. Hakim dilekçenin kabulünden hemen sonra bir duruşma günü tayin eder ve tarafları meşruhatlı davetiye (HUMK. m. 509) ile oturuma çağırır. Karşı taraf bütün müdafaa sebepleri ile delillerini ilk oturum gününe kadar ve engeç ilk oturumda esasa girilmeden önce yazılı veya sözlü olarak ileri sürebilir. Delillerin ilk oturum gününde derhal ikame edilmesi zorunludur. Meşruhatlı davetiyeye rağmen her iki taraf da oturuma gelmezse, hakim uyuşmazlığın yeterince aydınlandığı kanaatinde ise dosya üzerinde inceleme yaparak karar verebilir.
Simple jurisdictional procedure is a special kind of a procedure that maintains protection of the demand that is relative to material law in a cheap and quick method. Simple jurisdictional procedure is regulated in between Articles 507-511 of the Civil Procedural Code. However the Articles of the above mentioned code is highly, insufficient and incomplete in respect of corresponding the problems that are occurred during the court procudure. In this work, the procedural rules that are applicable in accordance with the simple jurisdictional procedure, are examined in details under the light of the Articles 507-511 of the Civil Procedural Code. We have reached a conclusion that if we apply these rules in an effective way; a resolution to the disputes could be reached more easily. Simple jurisdictional procedure is divided into two parts such as typical and non-typical simple jurisdictional procedure. In typical simple juricdictional procedure, there is no need to examine all of the cases related to the dispute in depth; evidence of the claim and defence reasons are being limited and the degree of the proof measure is decreased. The judgment that are reached in the typical simple jurisdictional procedure do not constitute definite resolution in the material sense in the frame of the main right. Demands of cautinary judgement; upholdung of objection in enforcement proceeding are examples of disputes that are applied according to typical simple jurisdictional procedure. In the non-typical simple jurisdictional procedure, athough the reasons of claim and defence and the substitution of evidence is partly limited; in order to justify the demand; all the cases that are presented by material law has to be proved as a whole. Accordingly, the dispute will be resolved by a definite and final court order. The release cases resulting from rental contracts, suit of partition, division of individed property are examples of disputes that are applied according to non-typical simple jurisdictional procedure. There is no need to state the prayer of the Petition in a clear manner in the simple jurisdictional procedural cases. It is sufficient to state the aim of legal protection. The prohibition of extending the scope of the suit, is valid for the cases and evidences that come out after the first trial date. The judge decides on a trial date after the acceptance of the petition and invites the parties to the trial with annotation (Code of Civil Procedures Article 509). The other party may submmit his answers to the claim latest by the first trial before investigating the principles. The evidence must be stated at the first trial date. If the two parties do not come to the trial although there is invitation with annotation, and the judge reaches to the conclusion that the dispute is sufficiently enlighted; he decides in accondance with the documents submmitted to the file.
Simple jurisdictional procedure is a special kind of a procedure that maintains protection of the demand that is relative to material law in a cheap and quick method. Simple jurisdictional procedure is regulated in between Articles 507-511 of the Civil Procedural Code. However the Articles of the above mentioned code is highly, insufficient and incomplete in respect of corresponding the problems that are occurred during the court procudure. In this work, the procedural rules that are applicable in accordance with the simple jurisdictional procedure, are examined in details under the light of the Articles 507-511 of the Civil Procedural Code. We have reached a conclusion that if we apply these rules in an effective way; a resolution to the disputes could be reached more easily. Simple jurisdictional procedure is divided into two parts such as typical and non-typical simple jurisdictional procedure. In typical simple juricdictional procedure, there is no need to examine all of the cases related to the dispute in depth; evidence of the claim and defence reasons are being limited and the degree of the proof measure is decreased. The judgment that are reached in the typical simple jurisdictional procedure do not constitute definite resolution in the material sense in the frame of the main right. Demands of cautinary judgement; upholdung of objection in enforcement proceeding are examples of disputes that are applied according to typical simple jurisdictional procedure. In the non-typical simple jurisdictional procedure, athough the reasons of claim and defence and the substitution of evidence is partly limited; in order to justify the demand; all the cases that are presented by material law has to be proved as a whole. Accordingly, the dispute will be resolved by a definite and final court order. The release cases resulting from rental contracts, suit of partition, division of individed property are examples of disputes that are applied according to non-typical simple jurisdictional procedure. There is no need to state the prayer of the Petition in a clear manner in the simple jurisdictional procedural cases. It is sufficient to state the aim of legal protection. The prohibition of extending the scope of the suit, is valid for the cases and evidences that come out after the first trial date. The judge decides on a trial date after the acceptance of the petition and invites the parties to the trial with annotation (Code of Civil Procedures Article 509). The other party may submmit his answers to the claim latest by the first trial before investigating the principles. The evidence must be stated at the first trial date. If the two parties do not come to the trial although there is invitation with annotation, and the judge reaches to the conclusion that the dispute is sufficiently enlighted; he decides in accondance with the documents submmitted to the file.