Anayasa yargısında şekil denetimi
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2015
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Kırıkkale Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Kanunlar ve diğer normlar yapılış sürecinde bazı şekil kurallarına tabi olan hukuksal düzenlemelerdir. Bu nedenle Anayasamızın 148. maddesine göre Anayasa Mahkemesi; Anayasa değişikliklerinin, kanunların, kanun hükmünde kararnamelerin ve Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi İçtüzüğü'nün Anayasa'ya şekil bakımlarından uygunluğunu denetlemektedir. 1961 Anayasası, kanunların Anayasa'ya uygunluğunu esas ve şekil yönünden olmak üzere ikiye ayırmamıştır. Anayasa'nın ayrıca "şekil denetimi"nden bahsetmemesi bir kısım kuşkulara yol açmış olsa da Anayasa Mahkemesi, uygulamada şekil yönünden iptal yoluna oldukça sık başvurmuştur. Bazen kendisine çizilen yetki sınırlarını zorlayarak denetlememesi gereken alanlarda da denetleme yapmıştır. Örneğin, 1976 yılında verdiği bir kararında şekil denetimi yapıyorum diyerek esasa ilişkin kararlar vermiştir. Hatta öğretide, bunun bir anlamda yasama yetkisinin devri anlamına geldiği ve buradan alınan cesaretle bu dönemde bazen TBMM'nin toplanması ve karar almasının engellenmeye çalışıldığı iddia edilmiştir. 1982 Anayasası, bütün bunlara tepki olarak şekil denetiminin alan ve kapsamını net bir şekilde belirlemeye çalışmış ve bu denetimin kapsamını oldukça sınırlandırmıştır. Böylece 1982 Anayasası döneminde, Anayasa Mahkemesi'nin yetkisini aşıp, "esasın şekil yönünden incelenmesi" diye bir gerekçe oluşturup esasa ilişkin konuları şekle ilişkin hüküm kabul ederek incelemesi önlenmek istenmiştir. 1982 Anayasası'nın tüm bu ayrıntılı kısıtlayıcı düzenlemeleri nedeniyle daha önce yaşanan yoğun tartışmaların son bulacağı düşünülmüştür, ancak bu dönemde de Anayasa Mahkemesi özellikle anayasa değişiklikleri ile ilgili incelemelerinde "esası şekil yönünden" incelediği kararları ile yoğun bir şekilde eleştirilmektedir. Tezimizin amacı, Anayasa Yargısı'nda şekil denetiminin kavramsal çerçevesini çizmek, bu konuda Anayasa Mahkemesi'nin verdiği kararların yol açtığı sorunları ve çözüm yollarını ortaya koymaktır. Tezimizin birinci bölümünde, Anayasa Yargısı genel hatlarıyla ele alınmış, Anayasa'ya uygunluk denetiminin konusu ve kapsamı incelenmiştir. Ayrıca, iptal davası, itiraz yolu, esas ve şekil denetiminin genel bir kavramsal çerçevesi çizilmiştir. İkinci bölümde, 1961 Anayasası döneminde şekil denetimi Anayasa Mahkemesi kararları ışığında incelenmiş ve bu konuda ortaya çıkan sorunlar ele alınmıştır. Üçüncü bölümde ise, 1982 Anayasası döneminde şekil denetimi Anayasa Mahkemesi kararları ışığında incelenmiş ve bu konuda ortaya çıkan sorunlar ve çözüm yolları değerlendirilmiştir.
Laws and other norms are legal regulations subjected to formalities and procedural rules in the process of enactment. Article 148 of the Constitution stipulates that the Constitutional Court examines the constitutional amendments on account of form, and the constitutionality, in respect of both form and substance, of laws, decrees having the force of law and the Rules of Procedure of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. The 1961 Constitution did not envisage a distinction between review on formality and substance. Although lack of clear indication of "formal review" in the 1961 Constitution raised questions in this period, the Constitutional Court resorted often to annulment of statutory laws on procedural grounds. In some cases, Constitutional Court overstepped its boundaries and exercised its review power on issues over which it had no jurisdiction. Even a judgment of 1976 gives a clear indication that Constitutional Court, in the pretext of carrying out formal review, examined laws on their substance which were beyond its constitutional review powers. In the same period some scholars argued that by abusing its power, the Constitutional Court tried to hinder or bloc legislative process and this practice was tantamount to transfer of legislative power. As a reaction to this application, the 1982 Constitution tried to establish and define boundaries of formal review power as clear as possible and limit the scope of constitutional review in respect of formal review. By doing this, the 1982 Constitution intended to prevent abuse of constitutional review on the substance by the Constitutional Court under the pretext of examining the formal procedure. Authors of 1982 Constitution thought that this measure would end discussions and abuse of power but the Constitutional Court has still been criticized for the similar applications, examining substance using the rhetoric of formal review power. Purpose of this thesis is to establish conceptual limits of the formal review, identify problems created by Constitutional Court judgments and offer solutions. First Part of this thesis elaborates constitutional review, subject matter of constitutional jurisdiction and its scope as a general issue. Additionally conceptual frame of annulment action, contention of unconstitutionality, formal and substance review are explained. Second Part deals with formal review applications in the period of the 1961 Constitution in the light of Constitutional Court judgments and problems appeared during this period. Third Part examines formal review in the period of the 1982 Constitution in the light of Constitutional Court judgments, fundamental questions and possible solutions.
Laws and other norms are legal regulations subjected to formalities and procedural rules in the process of enactment. Article 148 of the Constitution stipulates that the Constitutional Court examines the constitutional amendments on account of form, and the constitutionality, in respect of both form and substance, of laws, decrees having the force of law and the Rules of Procedure of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. The 1961 Constitution did not envisage a distinction between review on formality and substance. Although lack of clear indication of "formal review" in the 1961 Constitution raised questions in this period, the Constitutional Court resorted often to annulment of statutory laws on procedural grounds. In some cases, Constitutional Court overstepped its boundaries and exercised its review power on issues over which it had no jurisdiction. Even a judgment of 1976 gives a clear indication that Constitutional Court, in the pretext of carrying out formal review, examined laws on their substance which were beyond its constitutional review powers. In the same period some scholars argued that by abusing its power, the Constitutional Court tried to hinder or bloc legislative process and this practice was tantamount to transfer of legislative power. As a reaction to this application, the 1982 Constitution tried to establish and define boundaries of formal review power as clear as possible and limit the scope of constitutional review in respect of formal review. By doing this, the 1982 Constitution intended to prevent abuse of constitutional review on the substance by the Constitutional Court under the pretext of examining the formal procedure. Authors of 1982 Constitution thought that this measure would end discussions and abuse of power but the Constitutional Court has still been criticized for the similar applications, examining substance using the rhetoric of formal review power. Purpose of this thesis is to establish conceptual limits of the formal review, identify problems created by Constitutional Court judgments and offer solutions. First Part of this thesis elaborates constitutional review, subject matter of constitutional jurisdiction and its scope as a general issue. Additionally conceptual frame of annulment action, contention of unconstitutionality, formal and substance review are explained. Second Part deals with formal review applications in the period of the 1961 Constitution in the light of Constitutional Court judgments and problems appeared during this period. Third Part examines formal review in the period of the 1982 Constitution in the light of Constitutional Court judgments, fundamental questions and possible solutions.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Hukuk, Law, , , , , , ,
